The Instigator
Poe-vahkiin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
enternamehere
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things

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 2 votes the winner is...
enternamehere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 68586
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Poe-vahkiin

Pro

As of now, I am in the 10th grade. At my intelligence level, I have been told by many that I have sufficient knowledge to transfer into adulthood. However, they continue that I still require to finish the two grades I have yet to complete. So, instead of preparing me for the nearing brick wall in the road that is reality, say, teaching me how to file taxes, pay rent, or apply for a job, they've decided I need to know the structure of a Carbon atom. They've decided I need to know when Napoleon Bonaparte lost the Battle of Waterloo. Something is definitely wrong here.
enternamehere

Con

I accept.

Pro has full BoP. To fulfill it, he has to prove that all of the things that all schools teach children is wrong.

Since the key aspect of the debate was left undefined, I will define it.

"Thing": The information that the schools generally teach students.

"Wrong": "Not correct or true; incorrect [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]



Please start with your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Poe-vahkiin

Pro

Through an attempt to prove your intellectual superiority over myself, you have merely proven yourself a fool. Though I tend to keep off-topic discussion just that, this may help. The skill of debating not only lies in knowing the definitions of words, it is also being able to understand what the opposite party is saying, and being able to interpret the meaning of the word they are using. 'Wrong' can be used in many instances, whether you are describing information that is nonfactual, or in my case, not the desired outcome. If someone states that throwing a dog over a bridge is wrong, are you going to correct them? Now, as for the previous argument, I did not state that nothing taught in school is wrong, or not needed, I stated that they dwell too little on the things that matter, and too much on the things that don't. Though some schools have programs to learn these things, not al do. However, it is very hard not to find a school with World History, which, in the long run, is not needed.
enternamehere

Con

A few things to add:

Since you left a key part of the debate undefined ("wrong"), I defined it. Therefore, we debate under my pretense (per debating rules...)

By claiming "Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things", means that you take full burden of proof to prove that all schools, indeed teach us the wrong things. Therefore, by claming this, you have to prove that nothing all schools teach us is 'right'.

"Right": "true or correct as a fact" [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...].

If Pro wanted to debate under a different resolution, Pro shouldn't have left such an ambiguous aspect of the debate undefined. Pro could have made the resolution in a way that the burden of proof is shared, like, "do you think some information that schools teach students is wrong?" But since Pro didn't, Pro has to argue under my definitions.

For me (Con) to win the argument, I just have to successfuly refute Pro's arguments - no case is needed. For Pro to win, Pro has to fulfill the BoP.


Rebuttals:

"Through an attempt to prove your intellectual superiority over myself, you have merely proven yourself a fool."
An example of ad hominem (logical fallacy) - conduct goes to me...

"The skill of debating not only lies in knowing the definitions of words, it is also being able to understand what the opposite party is saying, and being able to interpret the meaning of the word they are using. 'Wrong' can be used in many instances, whether you are describing information that is nonfactual, or in my case, not the desired outcome."
Then you should have defined such an ambiguous part of the argument, as explained previously.

"If someone states that throwing a dog over a bridge is wrong, are you going to correct them?"
I did not "correct you", I simply defined an aspect that was left undefined.

"Now, as for the previous argument, I did not state that nothing taught in school is wrong, or not needed, I stated that they dwell too little on the things that matter, and too much on the things that don't. "
Not once did Pro claim this.

"Though some schools have programs to learn these things, not al do. However, it is very hard not to find a school with World History, which, in the long run, is not needed."
"Though some school programs to learn these things, not al do." Pro concedes that not all schools teach kids the wrong thing, thus making Pro's BoP impossible to fulfill... Pro claims that World History is not needed? I argue that if someone wants a job to do with History, a knowledge of history would be helpful... This is also an example of Pro's opinion.


So far:
1.Pro has not fulfilled the burden of proof
2.Pro has made Pro's burden of proof impossible to achieve
3.Pro uses no evidence to prove Pro's argument
4.Pro resorts to ad hominem
5.Pro supports his arguments with mere opinion


I checked your profile, you are new here. There are rules that you need to learn; as I did. But don't insult your opponent for disagreeing with your opinion.




Debate Round No. 2
Poe-vahkiin

Pro

In most public schools in America, there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget. These can be easily considered crucial courses that can help you prepare for life outside of school. As with your point on History, though it can be useful for students looking to apply in that field of work, it should not be mandatory, and many of these unnecessary classes require school funding, which can instead be used for more purposeful needs. Though yes, opinion arises often in this debate, debate is a way to provide your and other people's opinions on a subject. Thus, adding opinions, most of which are consistent through the entire country, is almost required. Now, on with 'right'. Your failure to grasp the concept that many words are subject to many meanings is stunning. What I find humorous is in your link, the meaning you used to justify your case just so happened to be under this definition: Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable
This is the exact meaning I've been using, and that you fail to accept by providing faulty reasoning that I'm using the wrong word.
Though many things taught in school can be helpful to an extent, it can not be denied they tend to teach what we will not need in an average lifestyle, and not enough on what may help us in our future.
enternamehere

Con

I will start by refuting my opponents argument...

Rebuttals:


"In most public schools in America, there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget."
Pro says "In most public schools". Pro concedes under Pro's own resolution. For my opponent to fulfill the burden of proof, Pro has to prove that all schools teach us the wrong things. By saying "most", means that there are 'some' that do. Therefore, nullifying Pro's entire argument.



"economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget. These can be easily considered crucial courses that can help you prepare for life outside of school."
This still doesn't prove that all schools teach kids the wrong things.



"As with your point on History, though it can be useful for students looking to apply in that field of work, it should not be mandatory, and many of these unnecessary classes require school funding, which can instead be used for more purposeful needs."
Pro's logic is that because some might not want a job to do with history, it should not be mandatory. Previously, Pro says "there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget". Meaning that Pro believes that this should be mandatory. However, Pro's logic can be applied here to nullify his argument. Not 'all' people will benefit off the subjects that Pro suggested, therefore, it should not be mandatory. "which can instead be used for more purposeful needs." Some people might not find the subjects that you listed to have a purpose. Some people might think that a knowledge of history exceeds the importance of what you listed; rendering your point moot.



"Though yes, opinion arises often in this debate, debate is a way to provide your and other people's opinions on a subject."
However, you need more than just opinion to provide enough evidence to fulfill your BoP.


"Now, on with 'right'. Your failure to grasp the concept that many words are subject to many meanings is stunning."
Another example of ad hominem. Though, to avoid confusion and misconception of what an argument entails, it is necessary to define such aspects that have ambiguous meanings.


"What I find humorous is in your link, the meaning you used to justify your case just so happened to be under this
definition: Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable".
What's with the ad hominem? "Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable", you should have specified what meaning you wanted in round one, even still, your arguments have not proven that the information schools teach us is not "morally good", not justifiable, or not "acceptable."


"This is the exact meaning I've been using, and that you fail to accept by providing faulty reasoning that I'm using the wrong word."
Not once did Pro validate his arguments by stating it was under the definition: "Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable". I have argued thoroughly that Pro has to argue under the definition I stated, for I was the first party to define it.


"Though many things taught in school can be helpful to an extent, it can not be denied they tend to teach what we will not need in an average lifestyle, and not enough on what may help us in our future."
Let's take Maths for example... Without the information they teach us, there is no chance of us achieving a Maths qualification, needed for most jobs. Still, this doesn't provide enough evidence for Pro's burden of proof.


Why I won the argument:
1.Pro has not fulfilled the burden of proof
2.Pro has made Pro's burden of proof impossible to achieve
3.Pro uses no evidence to prove Pro's argument
4.Pro resorts to ad hominem (many times)
5.Pro supports his arguments with mere opinion
6.Con successfully refuted every argument Pro brought forward
7.In turn, Con negated Pro's argument


Thanks for the debate. Good luck :).


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Longline 2 years ago
Longline
You are indeed right at every level, when I graduated and enter university, my school did very little to prepared me. I don't know why the school board think that learning about some dead guys accomplishment is going to help me get a job and pay my rent.

everything I learn from high school have proven useless, the only useful thing was reading and writing, and learning how to do a good job interview, as well as writing a good resume. other then that. nothing is of value to me, and in my current life. I feel like I wasted my life time in school, when I could have taken all these course right from this so called university from the very beginning.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Austin1061 2 years ago
Austin1061
Poe-vahkiinenternamehereTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has no evidence to support his claims, and falsely accuses and unrightfully attacks the con concerning his interpretation of words. The Con is making an attempt to hold a scholarly debate, while the Pro is venting. Conduct points given to Con due to accusations and attack from the Pro. Argument points given to Con due to actually having an argument. Grammar/spelling points given to Con due to Pro having multiple grammar mistakes.
Vote Placed by browley14 2 years ago
browley14
Poe-vahkiinenternamehereTied
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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument and position just make more sense.