I agree with the statement that one's definition of courage can define the answer to the question: if you had the option to not go to war, would you take it? I agree because it changes the lens through which the situation is viewed. I disagree with the statement that O'Brian's decision to go to war was cowardly. The fact that he chose to risk his life, for whatever reason, indicates massive amounts of courage to stand against his beliefs and his enemy. On the topic of courage, I would have said: "I think we have to be very specific here. I believe that we can all agree that going to war, for any reason, is courageous, as it puts your life on the line. The debate should not be whether or not going to war is courageous when it goes against all your views, but which decision would be considered more courageous." This would be said to redefine the argument and to breath fresh life into the beaten horse.
Calm discussion worked best for the seminar. There was neither fighting nor displayed anger. This allowed a continuously smooth conversation that allowed the staggeringly slow generation of new concepts and ideas.
As it was the greatest success of the seminar, it was also the weakest. Calm discussion led to unpassionate debate and slow responses. Participants merely acted upon the statements of their peers instead of thinking over what was said and responding with true conviction. This lack of conviction led to drawn out discussions of the same topic due to unpersuasive argumentation that failed to convince their peers and constant repetition of the same rephrased thought. This repetition was most likely caused by the participants wish to receive a beneficial grade from the seminar, therefore they spoke as much as possible even though their words were meaninglessly cliche and unbeneficial.
