Should teachers intervene in what high school students post on their WeChat moments?”

The first session of the debate was the opening statements: Luke, the first debater from the pro side, and Tim, the first debater from the con side, took turns to speak. The pro side clearly stated that teachers should intervene in what students post on their WeChat moments. Luke justified his statement from such perspectives as teachers' responsibility and obligation, the time and form of intervention, the psychological traits of high school students and so on; unwilling to be outdone, the con side refuted the statement presented by the pro side by arguing that teachers should protect the students' sense of self-autonomy . Both sides stated their views and supported them with solid reasoning.

The second session of the competition was the rebuttal: Stephen and Louis, the second and third debaters from the pro side and Kevin and Olivia, their counterparts from the con side, stated their viewpoints respectively. Stephen and Louis from the pro side claimed that teachers are responsible for students’ mental health and students’ ethical or moral choices, and teenagers are not psychologically mature, and they further developed their own ideas, while Kevin and Olivia from the con side refuted what the pro side claimed by arguing that protecting students’ freedom of expression will do real good to them. Both sides brought the audience a heated debate by providing sound reasoning.

The third session was free debate, which pushed this debate to a new high. 8 debaters scrambled for the opportunity to speak. Hardly had the pro side suggested that teachers should intervene in a student’s suicidal message posted on WeChat moment when the con side explained that it could be a personal joke. No sooner had the pro side advocated that teachers should properly care about what the student are thinking about than the con side retorted that teachers should not infringe on students’ personal life too much. Sometimes, the audience nodded to the pro side, while at other times, they clapped for the con side. They seemed to be wavering between the two sides. It seemed as if the air would have been ignited by such a close competition.

The fourth session was brain trust inquiry. Daniel and Ken from the pro side confronted Amy, Shirley and Anderson from the con side. In order to help their own debaters, brain trust members from both sides racked their brains, trying their best to attack their opponents’ weaknesses.

The fifth session was audience inquiry. The audience put up their hands eagerly and raised interesting and critical questions for both sides. The debaters from both sides answered these questions.