The Instigator
SolomonD
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Well-endowedWladimir
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Catcher in the Rye Should/Should not be taught in school and is Morally Wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 81214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

SolomonD

Con

I believe that Salinger's Catcher in the Rye is not a very well presented novel, and that it shouldn't be taught in schools. It uses extremely profane language, has no plot or plot development, and has no moral at all. It is about a teenager who is often kicked out of schools, and lives a depressed life, with no meaning or moral. The book has 800 curse words, which is an awful example for children going through school, and is simply not necessary for a novel. I don't believe in shielding a child, but this is just over the top. Throughout the book, even supporters of the book admit that Holden has no moral progression and doesn't actually become a better person. He simply disrespects women, hires prostitutes, does drugs, swears, and drops out of school. This is what many (not all, though) children today are doing. Holden shows no progression in his teenage life, and this book simply is depressing, and does not have any moral.
Well-endowedWladimir

Pro

You know you picked con you idiot. Therefore you believe the catcher in the rye is not morally wrong and should be taught in schools. Why and I debating a half-wit who can't even read. Vin povynen maty krykhitnyy chlen
Debate Round No. 1
SolomonD

Con

Haha. My fault. I'll repost this argument. I put it up in a hurry and made a bunch of mistakes. As for the gentleman who accepted this, thank you for so passionately and eloquently revealing my mistake. :) Thanks
Well-endowedWladimir

Pro

Well-endowedWladimir forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SolomonD

Con

SolomonD forfeited this round.
Well-endowedWladimir

Pro

Well-endowedWladimir forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
SolomonD there are several people who would like to take on this topic because it is one of the few that is original and worth debating. Resubmit with fewer rounds and with a clearer argument.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@SolomonD

Your position should be Pro, not Con.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Honestly, this is a good debate. It's not some generic debate about something that's been beaten to death, resurrected, then beaten to death again.

The instigator just needs to work on formatting logical arguments in his debate, and that's it.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Agreed, 5 rounds on this topic is a bit much. Two or three would be more appropriate. I'd be more than willing to take this on if this were the case.
Posted by Meropenem777 1 year ago
Meropenem777
The novel presents an accurate, but yes, extreme representation of a teenager's mind. Does that make it a bad novel that should not be taught in school? I believe not, because students can perceive Holden's actions as stupid and immature and so, they would recognize that he is heading for a downfall in society.

In order to know liberty, you must know oppression. In order to know civility, you must know anarchy. This way of thinking can be applied since student's begin to learn about the life of a troubled teenager and how he does desire to an extent to better himself.

I would have accepted this debate, but 5 rounds for this sort of topic does not seem to interest me.
Posted by Alderon_Thenord 1 year ago
Alderon_Thenord
If you are against shielding children, then why don't you want this in schools? Yes it doesn't hold a moral progression but why does that mean it shouldn't be in schools? Elementary and middle school I can understand why you don't want it there but there isn't a reason it shouldn't be allowed in high school. They learn about Romeo and Juliet which is about a couple that causes the death of people and isn't really a good love story. It is taught for the structure and learning about the author which is exactly why "The Catcher In the Rye" is taught. It's mostly taught to show the up's and down's of society and life. It was banned due to it's controversial topics, but now with the barrier of what is acceptable in today's society continually rising, there isn't a reason for it to be banned in high school. It's mostly taught to show the up's and down's of society and life
No votes have been placed for this debate.