# data[].attributes.body
The socratic seminar was fun. It gave me a chance to exchange (possibly conflicting) ideas in a semi-debate style.

In terms of the process, the time given to prepare for the socratic seminar is adequate, but I felt that I didn’t find sources that presented a wide variety of view and supporting ideas for/against the question. I didn't end up with a lot of points to talk about, and occasionally found it hard to follow up with the conversation.

One student that I think did really well was Talia. As one of the few who argued against having no consequences, she came very prepared and knew what to say to counter our points. Her sources included facts and examples from different nations during WWI which offered multiple examples to advance her point. The only thing I didn't remember she do was inviting those who hadn't spoke much into the conversation. I would  give her a 6.

For me I don't think I did particularly well. My sources were focused on one or two points and I found myself unable to add on to the conversation during the first half of the socratic seminar. I also felt that I didn't speak up enough. When I was talking, I was a bit nervous, stuttered, and rushed through my words while missing some key points. I would give myself somewhere between a 5 and a 6.

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/JAoDHFoBm8U

# data[].attributes.body
I'd say that this time I did a better job. I arrived more prepared in general and just had more to say during the socratic seminar. However, I did overlook the example of Eichmann during the research. I focused on simply the definitions of banality of evil but forgot to use Eichmann as an example and compare with Anwar Congo, which made up the first 20~ minutes of the socratic seminar. On top of that, the quotes about Congo's responses on the film after screening it, which made up a large portion of my research, wasn't actually used.

I'd give a complement to Frasier for today's socratic seminar. He named prepared with a variety of sources to use as evidence. He spoke up often, presented new ideas.

Out of all the prompts, I would say that I'm most comfortable writing prompts 1 and 3. Prompt 1 has an easy answer and most of its evidence in the movie. While prompt 3 is harder, I feel that it has more weight and value than prompt 1.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall speaking, I had an easy time searching for the sources. For the primary sources, I was lucky to find a database which had roughly over a hundred documents made during the interwar period.

To diversify my sources, and more accurately reflecting the Paper 1, I decided to include an image and a secondary source.

For the Image, I tried to look for maps/photographs, which didn't yield useful results. Instead, I looked for political cartoons.

When searching for a secondary source, I looked for trustworthy online encyclopedias, which were easy to find.

# data[].attributes.body
My time management was absolutely terrible. I took around 10 minutes to answer question 1a, and then everything just snowballed. In the end, I didn't even had time to finish question 3.

# data[].attributes.body
History has been pretty fun so far. I was (kinda) warned by the seniors about the amount of workload of history HL, so I was (kinda) prepared.

For me, history is the kind of subject that's special. Unlike math or sciences, knowledge in history can't simply be taught by a teacher in front of the whiteboard, but instead requires active participation from the student (kinda). I must history is probably my most "workloaded" subject in all of IB, but at the same time I enjoy what I read and learn, so I guess I'm chill.