George Milton Case

During the Of Mice and Men debate, it considered the following case: George Milton’s decision to shoot Lennie Small was morally justified. Before the trial started, I voted for the motion because I agreed that it was right to kill Lennie. I chose to side with the proposition team because of several reasons. First of all, I placed myself in George’s feet, the killer of Lennie, and thought about what I would’ve done in his situation. I concluded that I would’ve done the same exact thing as he did. George was the only person who truly cared for Lennie and has always stick by his side through thick and thin. He wanted what was best for Lennie and chose the best idea available at the time, which was unfortunately to shoot Lennie in the back of the head. If he didn’t allow Lennie a peaceful death,

then Curly, the man who was set off to murder him, would’ve done the exact opposite. Besides a fast and quick death, Lennie would’ve been dead in the hands of someone who didn’t care about him and suffer something more awful. George saved him from sorrow by providing him a happy ending.
In relation to the trial, I was overall not very swayed by the opposition team. Instead, the proposition team strengthened my beliefs that Lennie’s death was justified because of their strong points and rebuttals. Sydney, the first speaker for the proposition team, introduced the main points of their argument which gave me a clear understanding. She explained Lennie’s mental illness which led to why this situation is different than others. If Lennie was somehow able to escape, then it was only going to be inevitable until he accidentally repeated another mistake. The next proposition member was John and he spoke about the possibility of Lennie escaping safely. As John stated, the authority would have most likely sent him to jail or even worse, a mental institution. The outcome of both situations would’ve only caused more trouble because Lennie would have been bullied for his condition or influenced by others. John’s words stayed with me because his tone was loud and clear for me to understand. The last two speakers for the proposition side were Christopher and Lynnie, who both strongly supported the justification with more practical evidence.
On the other hand, the first person to speak for the opposition team was Angela, and she did a poor job on that.

Her argument was confusing because she gave me the impression that she was arguing for the motion, instead of against. In my opinion, her tone was slow and made it seem like she was not confident about her argument. It was only at the end of her speech where I understood what her main point was; Lennie was slaughtered and murder isn’t allowed in the court. The next two speakers for the opposition side was Tyrique and Anthony, who I felt like both had ineffective arguments. For example, Tyrique addressed the fact that Lennie could have had a chance for surviving and there were other ways to handle the situation. However, all those points were already contradicted by the other team and Tyrique didn’t provide an adequate rebuttal. The strongest and last speaker on the opposition team was Kayla. Her tone was convincing and loud, which caught my attention. She clearly stated something that the others didn’t, which was that Lennie’s death was premeditated and vividly described how it was an inhumane death. However, the proposition team as a whole did not impact me

greatly.
At the end of the debate, I did not hesitate to cast the same vote I had in the beginning. As Lynnie stated, there is an exception for every law and this is certainly one of them. Overall, the proposition had a better organized and effective argument, while the opposition side had weaker points.