Round of rights

This workshop/activity encourages young people to think about sensitive and controversial human rights issues, from multiple perspectives. At the same time, they learn the value of dialogue and the skill of argumentation while trying to understand different sides of the discussions.

We do this workshop/activity to teach participants to think multiperspectively, to develop the ability to respect other perspectives, and to create relevant arguments, understanding what attitudes that are different from theirs are based on.

The facilitator should have previous facilitation experience and the ability to direct the discussion, so that it does not get out of control.

Conduct the workshop with groups that know each other or that are familiar with the importance of dialogue, in order to avoid potential conflicts

1. Announcement of debates within groups and clarification of rules
2. Role division
3. Group discussion
4. Plenary discussion
 

As in most debates, the greatest risk is that participants refuse to advocate a particular position or that they get into conflict during the debate process.

In the central part, participants defend assigned statements from the rest of the group, regardless of whether they agree with them. Each discussion lasts up to 2 minutes until the group discusses all 8 statements.

Statements:
1. Climate change is nowadays the most important human rights issue.
2. Parents have the right to punish a child if he or she misbehaves.
3. Minorities should be positively discriminated.
4. LGBTIQ couples should have the right to adopt children, under the same conditions as heterosexual couples.
5. Young people from the age of 16 should be given the right to vote.
6. Young people should be provided with free education, including college.
7. After divorce, the child should belong to the mother.
8. Men should serve military service.

After the group discussion, the facilitator asks the following questions and leads the discussion:
1. Which rules were easy for you and which were difficult to advocate? Why?
2. Did you really listen to other members of your group?
3. Which arguments of the opposite party did you accept and which did you not?
4. Which rights would you personally fight for / which are endangered in our environment?