The Instigator
Pem
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

Religious public schools in Canada

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/27/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,769 times Debate No: 13494
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Pem

Con

Publicly funded Religious schools only exist in a few provinces: Alberta, Ontario, parts of Saskatchewan and the Northwest territories. Having been educated in the Alberta version, I find such schools are no longer necessary in this day and age.

Separate School divisions are still allowed to discriminate based on faith when employing educators. Parents are compelled to send their children to these schools due to lower cost and higher quality of education. However, in doing so their children are indoctrinated into faith, whether it is the faith of the parents or not.

I say no to the public funding of religious schools in Canada. I am however, not opposed to private religious schools. Government should neither support nor inhibit religious activity and education.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

First I would like to point out Canada's charter of rights and freedoms...
Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion; -"I would like to point this part out because this will base my fundamental argument and back up Canadians legal rights".-

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

....Addressing the oppositions statements....

1."Publicly funded Religious schools only exist in a few provinces: Alberta, Ontario, parts of Saskatchewan and the Northwest territories. Having been educated in the Alberta version, I find such schools are no longer necessary in this day and age." 1.-Attack- Any schools are necessary, education and if any place provide this then it is legitimate and provides a place wear students in this area learn. To dismantle one of these schools would cost the government unnecessary debt, when they already have functioning schools already.

2.a- - "Separate School divisions are still allowed to discriminate based on faith when employing educators. 2.b - Parents are compelled to send their children to these schools due to lower cost and higher quality of education. However, in doing so their children are indoctrinated into faith, whether it is the faith of the parents or not."

2.a- Attack -The fact of discriminate based on faith my opponent addresses is a fact not supported by any evidence also that this is a opinion of what he believes these schools do, which is not always the case since schools are already having a decline in jobs and most likely can't hire people. but again he hasn't given any proof of discrimination.
2.b-Attack - Yes, however this is the parents choice, so if the parent chooses to then they choose to they don't have to.

3."I say no to the public funding of religious schools in Canada. I am however, not opposed to private religious schools. Government should neither support nor inhibit religious activity and education."
Attack- 3 - Who said the government supported the religious activity or education? All the goverment supports is education, all public schools need funding for their education programs and utensiles. Not funding these schools would not provide any utility nor help socitey. School that have religious veiws have the right to have their religous views according to the charter, plus the majority of the school could believe in this religion, are you really saying lets strip there freedom of religion. We shouldn't because this is their school, they should have the right to pray, or read the bible or etc in their school. This doesn't mean every person has to agree with their religion but accept it.

...My Case...
Religious public schools should have governmental funding for their education programs and in general provide education like every other school. As long as a school provides basic education for the students in should have govermental backing unless its a privite rich school who can provide this all on its own. So what does a relgious school harm? Nothing, nothing at all my opponent might say it infulences the kids into a religion but in the end that religion is there choice they don't have a gun to your head saying "JOIN US OR DIE!!!". So theres really no diverse effects of a religious school, now further more its the choice of the parents to which school does a kid go to and if they do not want there then they would not put them there. This is all about rights and choices , and if someone choses to go to a religous school they have the right to and it ought to be government funded for educational purposes. As well as they have the right to their religious beliefs and should have a religous school if they please.
Debate Round No. 1
Pem

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Now to dive into a rebuttal.

I too will argue using the charter of rights and freedoms. However, I assert that in order for everyone to have a freedom of conscience and religion, the government must not fund religious public schools. To do so violates the freedom of people who do not support a religious school. It allows the taxes they pay to fund a school whose religious message they do not agree with.

1.-Opponent- Any schools are necessary, education and if any place provide this then it is legitimate and provides a place wear students in this area learn. To dismantle one of these schools would cost the government unnecessary debt, when they already have functioning schools already.

I don't see your logic here. Why would the government, pending my proposal, decide to dismantle said schools. Wouldn't be a simpler job just to make them secular? Nothing would even need to be changed, should a school wish to keep and religious figures in place they could do so in keeping school tradition. Religious classes would simply be unable to be mandatory.

2.a- Opponent -The fact of discriminate based on faith my opponent addresses is a fact not supported by any evidence also that this is a opinion of what he believes these schools do, which is not always the case since schools are already having a decline in jobs and most likely can't hire people. but again he hasn't given any proof of discrimination.

My proof of this comes from the UN human rights committee, which states that Ontario has been selectively funding the Roman Catholic schools while denying funding to other faith based schools (http://www.cbc.ca...). My argument here is this.

Either the government funds all faith schools that apply for funding or they fund none at all.

2.b-Opponent - Yes, however this is the parents choice, so if the parent chooses to then they choose to they don't have to.

Sometimes the financial situation of a parent does not allow choice. Parents want the best education for their children, therefore if a separate school is cheaper than a parent may have no fiscal choice but to send them there. Despite, it being a religion that they do not agree with. I myself am an example of this occurring.

Opponent- 3 - Who said the government supported the religious activity or education? All the goverment supports is education, all public schools need funding for their education programs and utensiles. Not funding these schools would not provide any utility nor help socitey. School that have religious veiws have the right to have their religous views according to the charter, plus the majority of the school could believe in this religion, are you really saying lets strip there freedom of religion. We shouldn't because this is their school, they should have the right to pray, or read the bible or etc in their school. This doesn't mean every person has to agree with their religion but accept it.

My opponent is creating a straw man. He is stating that if we did not allow a publicly funded religious school that we would be violating people's freedom of religion. Just because a person has to go to a secular public school does not mean that their religious freedom is violated. People do have a right to freedom of conscience and religion as per the charter. A secular funded school system allows this far more than a religious system.

...Opponents Case...
Religious public schools should have governmental funding for their education programs and in general provide education like every other school. As long as a school provides basic education for the students in should have govermental backing unless its a privite rich school who can provide this all on its own. So what does a relgious school harm? Nothing, nothing at all my opponent might say it infulences the kids into a religion but in the end that religion is there choice they don't have a gun to your head saying "JOIN US OR DIE!!!". So theres really no diverse effects of a religious school, now further more its the choice of the parents to which school does a kid go to and if they do not want there then they would not put them there. This is all about rights and choices , and if someone choses to go to a religous school they have the right to and it ought to be government funded for educational purposes. As well as they have the right to their religious beliefs and should have a religous school if they please.

My response...
I have no problem with private religious schools, if people want to fund a private school via private donations for a faith that they support than that is their right. Again, because of the freedom of religion. However, when public money goes to a school of a religion that they do not support, that in itself is a violation of freedom of religion. The problem with indoctrination in a closed system such as a school is that children want to fit in. In many cases a child will succumb to peer pressure in order to fit in with the image of the school. Peer pressure can be just as effective as a gun to the head, to a child at least.

As I mentioned above, parents in poor financial conditions often have little to no choice where they send their children. They often have to opt for the cheapest school. When this school is a religious school, they have to utilize it despite their own feelings and beliefs. Like you said above,

"...if someone choses to go to a religous school they have the right..."

I will argue that a person also should have the right to choose whether their taxes should go to a religious school division that they do not support. Religious freedom does not preclude the right to a publicly funded school for your specific faith.

I look forward to your response.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Pem

Con

Pem forfeited this round.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Pem

Con

My argument stands as is. I wish for voters to consider the content of the arguments as opposed to the tardiness of responses or absence thereof.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Pem

Con

My argument still stands as is. I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. Although, I am disappointed in responses.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

This might be late for a rebut but I am will try and if a most likely have a very slim chance of winning lol but heck i do this for fun so i am going to anyway,

1. too will argue using the charter of rights and freedoms. However, I assert that in order for everyone to have a freedom of conscience and religion, the government must not fund religious public schools. To do so violates the freedom of people who do not support a religious school. It allows the taxes they pay to fund a school whose religious message they do not agree with.

Ok look with this you say this goes against these peoples rights by having them, well let me ask simply Why is it that just because i school has a religion and its being funded by their taxes, they should have a say were their taxes go? No,
Social Contract the people gives up the some rights to be governed, this mean the government decides where they want your money to go and you don't have a say in the matter. But besides just the social contract I would like to mention that this money goes for the schools education which you never addressed in my case when i said that the taxes go to the education of students. As well a religious school is most likely more safe than a public school with gang related violence and bullying. Also i would like to agree that schools religious or not get taxes for education, usually from a point of view public schools are atheistic believeing in nothing, Why should these people who believe in a god or such have to go to a non- religion school where they pump evolution in your head. Further more that we all were born from at first gases that exploded and magically made they planets, which is known as the big bang thoery. No matter were you go you have these other beliefs pessuring you , to this point of changing your veiws and no school religious or not has this just because they school picks a particular religion this isn't not going to change these belief problems. Pretty much atheistic public schools, were if a kid complains that another kid was praying could get him suspeneded, with this whole bull that o look i believe in this and just accept it you have no reason to agree with it just accept these other religions and let people be. This whole offensive religious bull goes one enough in countries like the U.S and Canada, people abuse this freedom of religion enough to were everyone has to be imparcial to everything is a ridculas facade to try and say i dont like your belief so you can't have a government taxes funded religious school.
What are we as people, saying by letting this happen? we are allowing this big problem with our kids about accepting people, the same with segragation back in the US with black and whites. By segregation we are avoiding the problem no acceptance and this cannot be allowed, Why? because kids our kids of the future will not learn the value of acceptance which will cause these highly possible conflict possibly violent. These people abuse these freedoms like religion and use it as a way to , as i said get the people that don't believe the same way.

Attacks on my case---

1:I don't see your logic here. Why would the government, pending my proposal, decide to dismantle said schools. Wouldn't be a simpler job just to make them secular? Nothing would even need to be changed, should a school wish to keep and religious figures in place they could do so in keeping school tradition. Religious classes would simply be unable to be mandatory.
Simply saying that religous classes are not mandatory now because of the Freedom of religion and simply tell the teacher or Etc that this is against there right and wouldn't have to take the class unless they want to stir a lawsuit or etc.

2:My proof of this comes from the UN human rights committee, which states that Ontario has been selectively funding the Roman Catholic schools while denying funding to other faith based schools (http://www.cbc.ca......). My argument here is this.

Ok this is base not in Canada, more over this is funding not the hiring of teachers. As well this is a single province in Canada not all provinces, Which yes this is wrong but not all provinces have done this plus according to the evidence they are being told to fund other schools.

3: Sometimes the financial situation of a parent does not allow choice. Parents want the best education for their children, therefore if a separate school is cheaper than a parent may have no fiscal choice but to send them there. Despite, it being a religion that they do not agree with. I myself am an example of this occurring.

Yes but is it really that much of a deal just accepting their belief, and just getting through school, public school still has discrimination. There really isn't much difference in the religious veiws expressing your own religion can get you in trouble in public school, and possible in religious schools but either school according to the charter shouldn't be able to do anything to you but eh thats where things get ify.

4: My opponent is creating a straw man. He is stating that if we did not allow a publicly funded religious school that we would be violating people's freedom of religion. Just because a person has to go to a secular public school does not mean that their religious freedom is violated. People do have a right to freedom of conscience and religion as per the charter. A secular funded school system allows this far more than a religious system.
Already addressed this people either school will have different views public schools or not.

5: I have no problem with private religious schools, if people want to fund a private school via private donations for a faith that they support than that is their right. Again, because of the freedom of religion. However, when public money goes to a school of a religion that they do not support, that in itself is a violation of freedom of religion. The problem with indoctrination in a closed system such as a school is that children want to fit in. In many cases a child will succumb to peer pressure in order to fit in with the image of the school. Peer pressure can be just as effective as a gun to the head, to a child at least.

Again peer pessure is in all schools not matter what you do you can avoid it, like lets say you go to a public school but the majority is of christainity and your not well same thing sir.

6:I will argue that a person also should have the right to choose whether their taxes should go to a religious school division that they do not support. Religious freedom does not preclude the right to a publicly funded school for your specific faith.
Again the government has the choice to where your taxes go not you, if they think your taxes should go to roads, or global warming, or freaking pinguine's they can do so. Yes that was ment to be funny
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Pem 6 years ago
Pem
That is fine, you have the right to vote how ever you want. I too have the right to vote however I want. I'm exercising that right.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
um no, everyone thinks they are right in a debate voting for yourself is immoral even as a politician.
I won't vote for myself because i have honor over winning id rather lose
Posted by Pem 6 years ago
Pem
As all politicians vote for themselves, so shall I. I welcome you to do the same thing, if I had felt I did not earn my own vote I would have voted tie, or abstained.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
wow nice job voting for your self
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
hey sorry for the forfeits i have been busy with my actual LD debates in schools and tournements.
Posted by Pem 6 years ago
Pem
Believe me I understand, I will forfeit my round as well. That way we stand on balanced ground. Plus, it gives me time to focus on my studies.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
sorry for forfeiting im still going to argue this so sorry been bust an all
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
PemjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
PemjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
PemjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by Pem 6 years ago
Pem
PemjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50