The Instigator
Kefka
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Marxist methods of teaching and Marxist ideologies should be implemented in school curricula

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,145 times Debate No: 8290
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (11)

 

Kefka

Pro

High school curricula should be focused more than they are at present on utilizing the pedagogy espoused by Paulo Freire and on encouraging students to understand communism, by which I mean an economic theory espousing these three principles (lists your stated principles 1,2,3). I recognize that my assertion may be proven invalid if either (a) true communism is shown to be unachievable or (b) that education would not be improved by either (1) Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy approach or (2) students' better understanding of communist principles. My opponent's only limitation is that he cannot use real world examples of the consequences of the implementation of communist principles." - This is my extended topic as it could not fit into the confined space.

Recently, within the year, I was introduced to the Communist Manifesto by my English teacher. From reading the Manifesto, examining the core beliefs and speaking to a professor of philosophy who has given Marxist seminars, I have concluded that if more people were to be open-minded about the idea of communism (in it's true form) that education could be improved with teaching styles like those of Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed). First one must look at the belief system in it's simplest form and if it's achievable. To address the latter, yes, I do believe it is achievable. As to the former, my interpretation of Marx's and Engel's is as follows:
1. The distribution of wealth (monetary value) should be controlled, by the people, not the government (more on that in a second) for the reason that money in all societies has dictated who assumes positions of power and influence and those who were not so fortunate to be gifted with the ability to ascend others in intelligence or conveying of it (biological determinism, sort of) are inevitably doomed to be subservient the the people of the former. If society as one, could agree that one must contribute to society in the best way they could, that money would not need to be centralized on more 'important' jobs such as a lawyer, dentist, doctor, politician etc.
2. All man is equal in their state of being, no one person should rule over the other, or else tension will be emanated from a class struggle (ties closely to first core principal).
3. Government need not to exist. Once, from the observation and learning of history, man understands the negativity associated with a ruling entity of any kind, government will be abolished and will wither away because of people's ability to cooperate with one another without the need for someone to dictate how they should go about it. (i.e. Old Major's preached society within the farm. Animal Farm, George Orwell)
Lexicaholic

Con

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject and look forward to a fun discussion all around.

The issue in this debate is whether or not the pedagogy espoused by Paulo Freire should be implemented to a greater extent in high school education and whether or not students in high school should be encouraged to understand communism. I will set out to show the disadvantages of both positions, though I will focus this first argument on communism.
As my opponent has stated, a greater appreciation of communism would not be beneficial if communism (defined as the espousal of the belief that (1) money should be controlled by and equally distributed amongst the people as a matter of fairly apportioning the benefits of society in accordance with each person's equal contribution to society to the best of each person's ability, (2) the rule of man by man must be abolished as this is the source of all conflict and (3) government must be eliminated in the spirit of a society wide desire to aid others without controlling them) is shown to be unachievable, as it makes little sense to direct a person to attempt an impossibility, or if it is unhelpful to education, as logically a hindrance to education could not be tolerated as an improvement. Additionally, my opponent concedes that his assertion will fail if I can show that Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy approach would not, in its greater implementation, improve schools.
Communism as defined by my opponent is unachievable because it requires the willing participation of each and every member of society to succeed. Each member of society must be willing to accept equality in societal rank and wealth, and each must also be unwilling to form any organized institution dedicated to the regulation of human behavior, which is, in essence, what government actually is. Marx's great mistake, and it was an understandable one, was to assume that underneath the veneer of authoritarian induced civility, man was a noble creature yearning for harmony. Man is not this, or at least, is not this in every case. First, one must recognize that equal respect for one's fellow members of society is necessary to accept equal status within the society. Unfortunately, part of any given population is bound to consist of psychopaths. Psychopaths "gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions." ( See http://en.wikipedia.org...) An estimated 1% of the population consists of psychopaths, and for the most part, they are not criminals. Instead, they are the financiers and corporate executives of our country, directing their antisocial impulses in the cutthroat world of business. (See http://www.fastcompany.com...) These individuals thrive on proving themselves superior to others. In short, they are bound in a personality that is inherently antithetical to communism. These individuals excel at putting on a veneer of respectability, work tirelessly for their own self-aggrandizement and have no compunctions about harming or even killing others to achieve success. Why then, do not psychopaths control our country?
Perhaps they do. However, even if they did, their damage is limited by our Constitution, a social contract that is responsible for keeping the government from abusing its power by holding government to a set standard. In a world without such a contract, no one would be inhibited from attempting to establish a regime as helpful to one's self as it is harmful to society. One might argue that a similar contract could be imposed on a communist society but, in fact, it could not, as the force of the contract is limited by those willing to enforce it, and once you have enforcers of any kind, you have government and someone at the head of government controlling it.
Of course, psychopaths aren't the only problem. Human populations also include sociopaths and schizophrenics. While it is true that these individuals could be labeled as mentally unstable and segregated from society, such segregation would form a kind of imposition upon others not unlike a limited government itself.
Which brings me to my second point: what is government? "Government is defined as the body within an organization that has authority and function to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules." (See http://en.wikipedia.org...) As humans are not linked to a single overmind, and, as I have shown, humans most certainly are not uniform in their desires/thought processes, how does a society work without a form of governance? The short answer-it doesn't. The implementation of communism would have to lead to anarchy or oligarchy of some form.
So we know that communism is unachievable as it is defined by my opponent. Can it be shown that a greater understanding of communism would not be beneficial to education? The answer is yes.
High school curricula are presently limited by a number of competing interests within our schools. High school educators are expected to adhere to state and federal guidelines in education, and must meet certain minimum standards in providing high school students with the skills they need to obtain employment outside school. (See http://www.ed.gov... ) While it is true that most students will be encouraged to pursue college, many need to begin working in our presently capitalist society right away. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Those students need fewer theoretical pursuits in high school, not more. Students so inclined to learn more about the world and its competing belief systems will likely conduct independent study into such pursuits. The rest of the students, who only care about creature comforts and affording them, will want to know the skills they need to get the money they need to afford the comforts they want. (See http://www.ncee.org... ) Valuable time that could be spent inculcating useful business skills in these students would instead be wasted proposing a theoretical model of society that I have already shown to be incompatible with the human animal. Consequently, the notion that education would be improved must be rejected, as students so educated would have less time devoted to acquire necessary competitive skills.
As I have shown that communism is unworkable and that increasing time spent studying communism in high school would not be beneficial to the students, and by extension the educational process by which they learn, my opponent's argument is refuted.
I will set aside construction of my argument against my opponent's proposed pedagogy for now, as this argument is rather long and I would like to review my opponent's claims and refutations before proceeding. I look forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 1
Kefka

Pro

I thank my opponent for his well thought out and articulate response and rebuttal.

To first address the situation of the argument, pertaining to the merits of Marxist methods of teaching in our school system. My intention is to implement teaching styles of Paulo Freire(http://www.marxists.org...) or any other Marxist-oriented teaching (meaning the de-centralization of education towards certain classes (Reference: Jean Anyon's article of the Hidden Agenda of Education, any who are reading this should read this article) ). The type of education that digresses from the typical "Banking Concept of Education" (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) and focuses more on the Problem Posing type of education in which the teacher and students are equal in that they both teach and learn equally. Mere memorization and regurgitation of thrown out, and instead the education brought in assumes this order of, 1. Teacher's stimuli to the 'student' in which they obtain information and process it. 2. The 'student' takes this information and analyzes it and compares it with their knowledge of the subject at the time and logically and assertively creates a new 'understanding' of the subject 3. The 'student' then converses and argues with the teacher of both of their understandings. 4. A possible new consensus or continuation of disagreement occurs. 5. The new understanding is applied to their lives and methods of understanding in any manner, by de-compartmentalizing (contrary to the regimented education where, and I know this personally, as I am still in school, students gain information and hinder it by compartmentalizing it into ONLY the specified subject and willfully ignoring any possibility of applying it to any other 'subject'.

This method would allow students to use the information they have attained to contribute to society in the best way that they can. And with their choice of occupation that would contribute to society, their choice would be based not off of what comforts they have dreamed of possessing but based on what they see as important and what they can excel in the most proficiently. Their choice will not determine the monetary and societal class manner they will live in; this should never be the case. The teachings of Capitalism only lead students to learn how to undermine others in our society through the 'dog eat dog' world people have created and still wish to sustain since they are the ones who have excelled in it and wish for no others to attain their level of prosperity, and if someone were too, that individual would just become another gear for the machine that is the continuation of the present condition that is Capitalism. No, I am not saying all 'wealthy' people are evil or any stereotype of that sort, I am simply making an observation and judgement.

Implementing this method, if it were the desired method by a majority (conditioned by the type of 'government' we live in), could be attained by abolishing such administrations as the US Department of Education (which Ron Paul is wishing to do, and also destroy the Federal Reserve, but that deals more with the crippling of our fascist capitalistic form of monetary distribution, and this is another matter to be discussed, I apologize for the digression), and focus on private school, which could mean the abolishing of general, regimented, education system and more of a simple, open ended school system. This type of education is very similar to the form that could be found in Germany. In Germany though, parents are forced to intervene in their child's education, which I believe to be the most important factor, as they control a child's willingness to learn and ascend in levels of education; they are bound to do this by law, but I believe that through informing parents on how important their role is in their child's learning is, we can, together, improve this countries education to a level never seen before.

Now to address my opponents assertion that communism, as a societal ideology, is impossible. First, if there is any confusion, I do not expect any change of the magnitude to occur over night. But, over a long and education filled time period, I do believe it to happen, inevitably. Just look at how feudalism was overtaken by capitalism and a free market; which Marx believes will happen from Capitalism to Socialism, a lesser form of Communism where a government actually exist, but both socialism and communism are mis understood, but that's another matter. From Socialism comes the rise of the Vanguard of the Proletariat who assumes control to implemented Communism, this is a Dictatorship, but not the one that most people think (i.e. Stalin). If the Vanguard truly was a believer in the final step of Marx's ladder, they would relinquish control after everything has been 'arranged', which is a step all attempts at Communisms have stopped, simply because of the facade that was the ascension to Communism. After Communism, Marx believes another step will occur, but this is unable to be predicted. Most people think that Marx's predictions of Capitalistic societies has been wrong, but things change, they always do, history does always have to repeat itself is we can learn from mistakes.
Now, on my opponent's assertion that Communism requires 100% of the population to agree to the 'terms'. This is simply wrong; there is no need for 100% agreement, as this is close to impossible (but I do not eliminate the impossibility, because the 'impossible' has been rewritten all through history). Certain areas in the globe could contain contained but open Communistic societies that welcome any who wish to include themselves, and unless a world policing 'democracy' wishing to 'free' the 'enslaved' people, these small societies could exist.

Man is, by nature, a loving creature that does not contain the behavioral attributes many consider to be inherent. That is not to say in the least that man is perfect, but to think we by nature are greedy is, in my opinion, too pessimistic. Even if all of the hatred, greed, subservience,hostility, and lust is in our nature, anyone can through their own personal will control any of these emotions to contribute to the well being of our society.

I await my opponents response, and thank him for participating in this debate, as it is very exhilarating and educational to me, and I hope, him.
Lexicaholic

Con

I offer my thanks to my opponent for his timely response. I will now proceed to rebut my opponent's argument, proving my counter argument thus far, and provide an argument against my opponent's proposed pedagogy.

Rebuttal:

1. Contrary to my opponent's beliefs, pure communism does require "100% of the population to agree to the 'terms'."
Communism for the purposes of this debate is a state where "Government need not … exist" and where "no one person should rule over the other." My opponent posits that government "will wither away because of people's ability to cooperate with one another without the need for someone to dictate how they should go about it." My opponent believes that level of cooperation is attainable because "man is, by nature, a loving creature."

In my opening argument I proved that not every man is a "loving creature." Some men "have a profound lack of empathy" and "use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends." (http://www.fastcompany.com... See also http://www.psych.utoronto.ca... ). Without lawful repercussions for their actions, these individuals would not exercise their "personal will" to control their "hatred, greed, subservience, [and] hostility" because they would see no reason to do so. "Most animals, including humans, have an innate self-preservation instinct (fear of injury and death)." (http://en.wikipedia.org... ) In response to actions taken by such individuals in this state, I believe most humans would react in the interests of self preservation. That is to say, they would defend themselves and incarcerate or dispose of the threat, thereby acting as judge, jury and executioner over another individual's actions. Such vigilante actions would amount to one man choosing to rule over another, at least in this single instance.

If they choose not to do so, they would suffer and possibly die, and assuming that the goal of any society is to protect and support its members, a reaction makes more sense. If one further assumes that no society would find rampant vigilante action desirable, the simplest solution would be for society to agree to set limits on personal conduct. Delimiting what another person can do in the interests of self preservation is the foundation of governance. Consequently, individuals in a communist society would very rapidly be forced to confront this reality: establish a system of laws to protect against psychopathic and sociopathic individuals, and enforce those laws, or suffer the depredations of those individuals. If the society establishes an organization for the enforcement of such laws, then that society has submitted to government control. If, on the other hand, the society does not establish an enforcement mechanism, then the laws act as a paper tiger, with no deterrent effect. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... )

In conclusion, a society ungoverned can not exist; without laws to the contrary society would be left to the caprice of madmen, and without an enforcement mechanism, i.e. government, such madmen would not be reigned in by the law.

2. Pocket Utopias are not feasible.
My opponent posits the claim that "certain areas in the globe could contain contained but open Communistic societies that welcome any who wish to include themselves, and unless a world policing 'democracy' wishing to 'free' the 'enslaved' people, these small societies could exist." I assume that this argument is meant to defuse consideration of sociopathic and psychopathic individuals in the society by method of exclusion. This argument fails to recognize that such individuals could still be born within the otherwise perfect self contained community, as there is presently no way to screen for personality disorders (although they can be predicted to some degree, See http://www.futurepundit.com... ). Furthermore, even though a homogenous society with a unified belief system may exist, history shows that without sufficient force to back claims to territory, such populations shall become prey for larger forces seeking to expand territorial control. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... )

In fact, the issue of territorial defense is a large one for a communist society, as a functional military requires a command structure of some form. As a command structure would need enforcement mechanisms of its own to ensure compliance, this would be yet another form of government. Assuming the military needs to have some protocols for interacting with the civilian populace, yet another aspect of society necessitates governmental regulation. Of course, a military force would not be necessary if the entire world was part of the same communist society, as there would then be no conflict for territory/resources. But if this was the case, the society could not use isolation as a means of protecting itself against antisocial behavior.

In conclusion, isolated pockets of communism would be no less incapable of avoiding the establishment of government than global communism would. Consequently, communism is not a working societal model and should not be taught to high school students, as time spent teaching them communist principles is time better spent teaching them something they can actually apply.

This concludes my rebuttal. I will now attempt to argue that the critical pedagogy espoused by Freire should not be implemented to a greater degree within American high school systems.

1. The goal of education is twofold: the impartation of knowledge to the student and the impartation of cultural mores to the student. Freire's approach does not do enough to assure the successful completion of the latter goal. Freire's model is designed to challenge societal conventions. Students entering high school have likely not even finished absorbing the significance of these conventions yet. In forcing students to recognize the negative aspects of conventions before they understand the purpose of those conventions, students taught under the Freire approach may dispense with conventions they never attempt to conform to. In avoiding conformity, students may not develop necessary restraint and consideration in their social interactions.

2. Open dialogue may lead into questions of faith, which a teacher may enter into a conversation about with a student. Matters of faith are properly the purview of parents as part of their child rearing responsibilities and not as a matter of education. Education in the United States is compulsory. People of faith must therefore send their children to school and many, for economic reasons, choose to send them to public school. Public schools are state organized and controlled institutions. State interference with religion goes against the principal of the separation of church and state. (http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Yet it would be inevitable under a system of open discourse. The ‘banking system,' on the other hand, provides educators the opportunity to prescreen dialogue and develop educational expressions that do not challenge the faith of their students. Consequently, it is consistent with the desire of our founders and the spirit of the First Amendment of our constitution to limit discourse to that necessary to impart relevant information and no further.

Conclusion: In conclusion, I believe I have shown that (a) true communism is … unachievable and (b) that education would not be improved by either (1) Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy approach or (2) students' better understanding of communist principles. I anxiously await the beginning of the final round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kefka

Pro

I thank my opponent for his well thought out and articulate response. Now for the rebuttal!

My opponents assertion that communism requires 100% of the population to accept the ideal is an exaggeration proposed by many whom I have spoken to. He believes that he has dismembered my argument of "man being, by nature, a loving creature" and therefore refuted my argument of government withering away because of man's ability to cooperate with one another. My opponent came to this conclusion by thinking that he has proved man being a loving creature by nature wrong by using a reference to bosses being evil hearted men who "have a profound lack of empathy" and who "use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends" and attributed this to man in general. If my opponent understood the psychology of psychopaths and sociopaths he would understand that these 'maniacs' are not entirely 'born' but evolve into what they are because of one main reason: Lack of parenting. A lack of parenting will lead to 1. Lack of Empathy 2. Anti-social behavior that leads them to use others for their own personal gain. The former comes from the lack of the parent's involvement in the child's early development when they first encounter other children and might lash out at them with no regard for their feelings or health. The latter originates usually, from an uninvolved parent or a physically and/or mentally abusing parent. I know this from speaking to my Psychology teacher, whom I assume, has some merit in this discussion as he holds a degree in psychology.

My opponent also believes that humans inherently act in a manner that jeopardizes other's safety due to their fear of injury and death, but, we do not live in an age where we are scouring the globe for food and shelter. These can be provided, so the flight or fight response from fear will not be activated. Now of course if my opponent is addressing people's response to crimes, then of course a self-preservation attitude will emerge, but this isn't important in our discussion.

My opponent has come to the conclusion that 'laws' cannot exist in a communistic society, to an extent he is correct. Though, just because there is no controlling body in existence, does not mean that 'laws' cannot be established. Tacit codes may still exist, taught from society, usually encompassing the fundamental principles in most people's 'list of morals' that contain such principals as being kind,generous, selfless, etc. Yes, someone may choose not to abide by these non 'enforced' laws but if that were to happen, the society would operate as a single body and come to a decision on the matter. My opponent may see this as a newly formed government, but I disagree. In the time where this type of society can exist, I , from observation of the small changes that occur in our history, predict that people can make uniformed decisions without creating a 'government'.

My opponent's belief of what he calls 'Pocket Utopias' not being able to exist comes directly from his previous assumptions of man not being able to cooperate with one another and since I have refuted that, I have refuted this assumption as well.

A military, for the most part, would not be needed as this society would have no need to instigate foreign aggressions as they would be non interventionists and isolationists. If the need did arise though, adversity would play its role in having people step up to defend their homes; but they would not follow the typical movement many countries have excused as home protection, but were really invasions (i.e. America's current wars, another matter though).

Now to address my opponent's position on the education argument. His first goal of education is correct, how ever the latter is ever changing, as children do not need to adhere to every social 'acceptance', and being non conformists has always been the driving force in change in this world. Challenging current trends, is what makes sure these trends are positive and correct, and if they are not, they can be altered. It is true Freire's pedagogy challenges the current way of teaching though he is wrong in assuming that it teaches to completely disregard certain teachings; if my opponent had read and understand Freire's pedagogy, he would realize his mistake. Simply noticing negative aspects of topics does not have a negative effect on perception as long as the child is taught to learn balance of perception.

"Open dialogue may lead into questions of faith, which a teacher may enter into a conversation about with a student."
This can simply be addressed by the child ignoring the discussion. A student would not be penalized for straying from a religious debate. If the child did want to though, he/she could openly or discretely discuss this topic with fellow students, teachers, parents etc.

My opponent has chosen to ignore my argument of the negative aspects of the banking concept of education, committing a straw man, by focusing on one small part of my analysis of the banking concept. My opponent should look closely at Jean Anyon's article "The Hidden Agenda of Education". Even though this is from the 70's, its impact has lost none of its tenacity. From my perspective, the way in which education in classrooms are conducted, hasn't changed in even the past 100 years. They still operate in the same manner of Teacher > Student, and the teacher is the one who gives the information. I have mentioned in round two the type of education in which Freire proposes, and that is just the tip of the iceberg that is the effect and true merits of his pedagogy.

Further research by any who read this, would show that Freire's methods have actually been implemented and worked in various regions in South America. Here is an article detailing briefly Freire's methods and effects http://www.jstor.org....

I thank my opponent greatly for participating in this discussion as it has broadened my understanding of my own beliefs, since being able to articulate your beliefs shows that you truly understand them. I hope that voters will see that I have successfully refuted my opponent's argument, though he has the final response in the debate. Even if I do lose this debate, based on voter's response, I still believe that I have done what I set out to do; and that is challenge people's beliefs and help people learn. That is my main goal.
Lexicaholic

Con

I offer my thanks to my opponent for his timely response and a fantastic debate. I wish him well, although, obviously, I hope to overturn his final argument, and I shall now attempt to do so.

1. Contrary to my opponent's beliefs, my argument is not that man is inherently evil and therefore can not cooperate, but rather that some men are cruel and will act accordingly towards others. My opponent is incorrect when he states that I "…came to this conclusion by thinking that [I have] proved man being a loving creature by nature wrong by using a reference to bosses being evil-hearted men … and attributed this to man in general." This is not my argument. My argument is that in any population, some individuals will not conform, and these non-conformists will disrupt society. Society must then have a response, especially if the non-conforming behavior poses a threat to the society's members. To this extent "people's response to crimes" is not only important to our discussion, but central to it. My opponent argues that "… just because there is no controlling body in existence, does not mean that 'laws' cannot be established" and that "… someone may choose not to abide by these non 'enforced' laws but if that were to happen, the society would operate as a single body and come to a decision on the matter." It is empirically evident that people do not, in general, share the same decision making processes. People approach the world differently, and come to different conclusions. If they didn't, we would not be having this debate. By extension, one can infer that people come to different decisions regarding what activities need regulation, how they are to be regulated, and what the punishment must be for an infraction against such regulation. One can observe this phenomenon by analyzing the non-uniformity of laws dealing with criminal infractions in the various codes promulgated under State law within the United States, and the difference in the number of and nature of infractions amongst international laws. People were once hung for stealing horses. Some may feel that this is still an appropriate punishment for the crime. Does one favor that punishment, or one that would require the perpetrator of the crime to provide the offended party with free labor? Regardless of what decision is made, how can any member of society be sure that the punishment will be fair or just? Without a codification of laws and methods of enforcement, a society could choose to hang one person and wrist slap another for the same crime. Even if one argues that this is an acceptable price to pay for greater societal freedom, one has not eliminated government, but rather reduced it from a stable entity to one established ad hoc, with predictably unreliable results. My opponent's refutation is therefore in error and must be discarded.

2. My opponent attributes the development of psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies to "lack of parenting." This is fine, except that he does not provide an argument as to how a communist society could ensure against bad parenting without establishing laws against neglect. Without such rules, it would seem that psychopaths and sociopaths are more likely, rather than less, to develop in a communist society. My opponent's refutation is therefore incomplete and must be discarded.

3. My opponent claims that my belief regarding "…'Pocket Utopias' not being able to exist comes directly from [my] previous assumptions of man not being able to cooperate with one another and since [he has] refuted that, [he has] refuted this assumption as well." My opponent misstates the scope of my claim. I did not claim that pocket Utopias were unfeasible because people were unable to cooperate, but rather that if one were to establish such a community it would be in contravention to the existing order outside the community, which the community would still have to contend with. This is the reason a military would be necessary. While it may be that "… a military, for the most part, would not be needed as this society would have no need to instigate foreign aggressions as they would be non interventionists and isolationists" my argument for the establishment of a military is not for the purposes of aggression, but for defense of the community's territory. My opponent claims that "[i]f the need did arise … adversity would play its role in having people step up to defend their homes." This is a noble sentiment, but it is difficult to imagine a loosely organized militia succeeding in defending against a modern military power. My opponent has already stated that the nature of the community would be peaceful and non-aggressive. Imagine such individuals forced to quickly turn their ploughshares to swords in the face of an enemy that was the anathema of their society: warlike and territorial, with a military prepared for the purpose of territorial expansion. It would be a massacre akin to what one would expect if Taiwan declared independence from China, or if Tibet rebelled against China, or alike to that experienced by Georgians at the hands of the Russian government (and the Georgians are at least somewhat more aggressive about things). My opponent's refutation is therefore in error and must be discarded.

4. My opponent challenges my assertion that premature challenges to societal conventions are detrimental to student development by stating that I assume "that [the pedagogy] teaches to completely disregard certain teachings." This is not my argument. My argument is that children must live within the framework of convention until they understand the purpose of the convention, and that challenging the convention before the student has had a significant period to reflect upon the convention would make it difficult for the student to interact with those who never set the convention aside. The difference between my opponent's argument and my own is that my opponent argues the benefits of the pedagogy in a vacuum, where as I am looking at implementation difficulties in our present society. Because my opponent has not directly responded to my criticism, his refutation is in error and must be discarded.

5. My opponent argues that a child in a classroom deconstructing the child's religious beliefs should be able to ignore the discussion. This does not change the fact that the discussion takes place, and that the argument may turn into an irreconcilable refutation of the student's beliefs. This refutation would be an unconscionable imposition of secular rationalism on the student contrary to that student's beliefs. Consequently, my point remains untouched by my opponent. My opponent's refutation therefore is incomplete and must be discarded.

6. My opponent accuses me of committing a straw man argument by ignoring his criticisms of the banking system. This is not accurate, as I was only just stating my case against his proposed pedagogy. I had not yet had the opportunity to state the case for the present pedagogy. As I do not have the time or space to go into detail, I will state briefly my support for the current pedagogy: (a) we live in a capitalist society, (b) in this society one must work to obtain necessities and creature comforts, (c) one must possess a bare minimum number of skills to function at society's lowest tier jobs, (d) the current pedagogy provides those skills, (e) the proposed pedagogy does not, exchanging time spent learning skills for developing critical thinking, (f) students interested in developing critical thinking skills can develop such skills in college, (g) students uninterested in developing critical thinking skills may not go to college, and therefore must develop marketable skills to survive graduation, (h) therefore implementation of the opponent's pedagogy is inappropriate at the high school level.

This concludes my final argument and the round. As my opponent has been unable to refute my arguments, I urge you to vote Con. Thanks for the debate,
Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
I meant discuss hobbes, not showing his side as proof, but the whole nature vs nurture debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Alright. I shall be reading and reviewing as soon as possible. Thing is that I saw some reasons to vote for you on this debate initially, hence had to give it plenty of thought.
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
hmm.. that's cool..my other debate on this subject went better in my opinion.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
It's late, but to sum up who I thought won this debate, I've got to give it to CON if I am to vote on the basis of your own parameters set up in the first round. I vote CON I believe he managed to demonstrate that "true" communism was unachievable.

To me, the debate came down to debated idea that 100% of the communist population agree to the terms which communism posits. I accepted this idea as PRO's objection to this was that man was at heart a loving creature. CON countered this by pointing out that not every man was a loving creature. PRO essentially claimed that parenting would remove the exceptions which PRO is referring to. Unfortunately, this ended up being insufficient. PRO should have expounded on parenting being the solution to preventing people who serve themselves (sociopaths) from existing in a true communist society. Nothing PRO suggested indicated that this would be the case . Sure, PROgave the solution as being "parenting" (which, there is actually reason to believe that parenting could very well go about causing this behavior, but I won't get into that), but nothing to suggest how this could be encouraged. CON rightly capitalized on this by pointing out that you didn't show how a true communists society could encourage this without establishing neglect laws.

Anyway, that's what I actually ended up voting off of. In my opinion, I think this debate would have been better off if it were entirely devoted to whether or not true communism is achievable, but that's just me. :D

Also, please try to refrain from saying things like "I know this from speaking to my Psychology teacher, whom I assume, has some merit in this discussion as he holds a degree in psychology." If you wish to establish credibility, you should present something empirical or something which one cannot merely dictate on the spot.

Good debate. I shall try reading your other debates some time tomorrow, Kefka.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Sorry. I missed the opportunity on the previous night. I am reading RIGHT NOW though and shall post a review after I'm done. :)
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Considering that Hobbes was diametrically opposed to the institution of basic human rights, that might be a bad idea :) Plato could possibly be helpful in terms of his theories on child rearing, though.
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
I should have included Hobbes, and all that nature vs nurture fun stuff, next time...next time..
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
Alright cool, and check out the one still in progress too. Thanks =)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Gonna come back in read this debate tonight, Kefka. Been busy all day. :)
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
Ouch those voting records are not looking good haha. I guess I'll just learn from this =)
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pmpicard 8 years ago
pmpicard
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
KefkaLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05