The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Religious education in Australian primary schools should educate children about all religions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,096 times Debate No: 20291
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




In my experience, in Australian primary schools, religious education usually consists of children being taught about Christianity and it's beliefs. RE should instead be teaching kids about not only Christianity but many other religions, like buddhism, Judaism, and even atheism, and the main ideas behind these religions and beliefs in an unbiased way. RE should also teach the kids about what religion is and the effect it has on the world.

I am "pro/for" this argument, but I am interested in hearing the opinions and arguments of others that share my view, as well as those that are "against", so please feel free to reply even if you are also "for".


I thank my opponent for his brief on his side of the topic..
Since my opponent failed to provide any definition, I am put in a position to do so in an effort to better organize as well as maximize clarification of the topic at hand.


Religious: "A person bound by monastic vows" {1}

Education: "The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, esp. at a school or university: "a new system of public education".{2}

Australian: "A native or national of Australia, or a person of Australian descent."{3}

School type: All primary/ elementary level private schools.

Should: " Used to express obligation or duty" {4}

Educate: "Give intellectual, moral, and social instruction to (someone, esp. a child)." {5}

Children: "refers to the age range from 1 to 5 years" {6}

All: "every: all kinds; all sorts." {7}


My position: I will be arguing that schools as defined in this round should not teach ALL religion simply because:
1. they are not obligated to
2. They do not have enough resource
3. They can not force a religion on a child
4. It would be detrimental to the child's learning process.

I await my opponents main case.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm not saying that schools should implement religious education, I'm saying that in schools that already have it, they should change the curriculum from being limited to forcing the beliefs of Christianity on kids, they should instead be educating them on what religion actually is, and about the beliefs of different religions. I agree that we shouldn't force religion on kids (I'm aitheist)


During his second round, my opponent clarified that he was not "not saying that schools should implement religious education, I'm saying that in schools that already have it..." {1} I completely agree with this stance. My opponent also stated that theses schools should not force the kids to abide by Christian believes but to teach them the definition of religion and its effect on society as a whole. While I agree with debating on this parameters to some extent, I would like to point out that this was not made clear in my opponents first round nor was it worded in the resolution; therefore, I will be arguing the following resolution: "Religious education in Australian primary schools should educate children about ALL religions." With this said.......

Contention one: They are not obligated to~~~

Australia being a free market country, allows its citizens as well as business men and women to exercise certain liberty in managing there business. {2} Following the definition's provided in the first round, we can clearly see that the combination of the words "should" and "school," makes this resolution itself flawed. The use of the word "should" completely conflicts with the idea of the liberty to control and manage there own business. We musty also look into the fact that the school of choice is not a public school, but a private school. Affirming this resolution will be equivalent to completely destroy the free market ideals in Australia as business men and women are unable to carry out what ever dream of vision they might have for there business.

Contention two: They do not have enough resources~~~

Ones again, we are forced to look at the definition provided within the round. by using the word "all," my opponent is essentially saying that all types of religion be thought in a primary school. Despite the fact that this is completely impossible, we must also take into account that there simply isn't enough resources to accomodate these changes. There are over 20 major religion in the world {3}, thousands if not millions of small religions residing in a certain area nad not to mention that there are over 30,000 Christian faith structures {4}. With this said it is literally impossible to teach all these religions in a primary school let alone find teachers qualified enough to teach these religions. By stating "all", my opponent is now implying, that if the school fails to teach all religion in the world, then it does not fit the standards of this debate. Due to the fact that it is literally impossible to teach every religion in the world, my opponent automatically looses this debate.

Contention three: They cannot force religion on a child/ detrimental to learning process

When looking into this contention, We must realize that these parents who send there children to religious institute, do it for the reason that they appreciate and want it for there Kids. There are several private schools with exceptional reputation who focus less on religion and more on academic progress. These schools create an option for parents who do not believe in religious or rather does not want there kids to attend religious schools. Saying that all religious schools should teach all religion is simply forcing several religion on students. We must also take in context that teaching these Kids multiple religion will be detrimental to the primary school student whose only capable of learning through a far smaller pace than high schoolers. The fact is that since this is based on kids ranging from 5-12, the best option is to allow for the schools to choose which religions to teach and how they can effectively teach without straining there already strained resources.

In conclusion, affirming this resolution is striping both business men and women, parents, as well as children of there rights to free choice. Not to mention that it is impossible to complete through to several denotation problems.

Debate Round No. 2


HiThere forfeited this round.


Since my opponent forfeited his last round, I have nothing to go on. My arguments still stands and I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided virtually no arguments, sources, and he forfeited the last round; thus, this is an obvious win for Con.