The Instigator
muzebreak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
medic0506
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
medic0506
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,591 times Debate No: 25937
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

muzebreak

Pro

I will be attempting to show that the statement, "Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647...
"...one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures."", contained in medic0506's forum signature is factually incorrect. As he has refused to admit to this in the forums. Well either he can refuse this debate, admiting that he keeps that there knowing it is not the truth, or he can debate me on it.

Well medic? I'v been on this site for a couple weeks now, after spending a bit of time in the forum I'v seen alot of people say you won't defend most of what you say. Is it true or will you defend your claims?
medic0506

Con

I don't see what the big issue is with my sig but apparently it's been bothering him alot, for the past couple weeks, so I'll accept UnitedAndy's challenge.

For the record I would ask that Pro refrain from making any other personal comments, such as implying that I won't defend my claims, and that others think that too.
Debate Round No. 1
muzebreak

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, and I would like to start by offering this explanation for why I challenged him to a debate.

I, above all else, value truth. I believe that truth is the greatest possible power in this universe.Truth can topple an empire and create a new one in it's place, truth can make a person great and make then them depressed to the point of contemplating suicide. In my opinion truth is the most dangerous and most beautiful thing in the universe. And truth is what you spit on every time you lie. My opponent has made a claim that the line "one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures." is found the in first US public school curriculum. I attempted to showed him that this claim is wrong yet he still purports it as true.

If my opponent were a truthful person he would have simply changed his signature, and if he were a lazy person he would have done nothing. He did neither, what he did do was change his signature to include a request to vote on one of his recent debates after I informed him off the inaccuracy. In my opinion those are the actions of a liar, a type of people who I hate more then almost any other. And so, since I was interested in having one anyways, I challenged him to a debate on the topic. Since he has accepted I assume he still somehow thinks the statement is true. And I seek to prove this contention incorrect. If after this debate I win and he does not change his signature, then his character is all the more obvious to the outside observer.

My opponent has asked that I make no personal claims, I'll agree with the side note that the above paragraphs do not count as they are not part of the actual debate. They are just my reply to his confusion on why I challenged him. And I would like to point out that I did not say that he would not defend his claims, I merely said that other people have given the opinion that he does not defend his claims on a regular basis.
I would also like to know why he called me unitedandy.

Now onto the debate.

My first piece of evidence against my opponent is a Massachusetts school law, namely the one titled The Old Deluder Law, this law states that any village with 50 or more families in the British colony of Massachusetts is obligated to have one teacher and that any village with 100 or more families is obligated to have a grammar school fit to educate people to go to university. If villages in the colony did not abide by the law then they were fined 5 pound. Now most of you have probably noticed the similarity between the name of this law and the quote in question, that would be because this law is named after the first line in it "It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures".

The line that my opponent purports is from a school curriculum is actually from a law of a British colony.

Now my second piece of evidence against my opponent is that the U.S didn't even exist at the time.
In 1647 America was owned by several countries. And if he had said America this debate could only be about semantics. But instead he said U.S, as in the United States of America. Now the United states were not even fully united until a few decades ago so one could argue that the U.S didn't technically exist before then. But the constitution wasn't even enacted till over a century after this law was passed so no one could contend that this is a U.S law or even that it has anything to do with the United States.

My third and finally piece of evidence. The one that shows, regardless of whether you believe the two arguments above, that the statement is false. Is that the first school in America came into being in 1635, 10 years before he say's this was in a school curriculum. The first school in america was a British one in Boston, New England. So it wasn't even under jurisdiction of the Massachusetts law when it did come about. The first school was a school to teach the languages Latin and Greek, It was called The Boston Latin School. Now either my opponent can contend that the school went without a curriculum for 10 years, or he can concede defeat.

Thank you dear viewers for reading my words, and please vote for the truth.

Sources:

My Brain

https://www.bls.org...

http://www.constitution.org...

http://www.historyofnations.net...
medic0506

Con

First off, apologies for calling Pro UnitedAndy. Andy and I were discussing this same issue in the forums when this challenge popped up so I assumed it was him, not paying attention to who it actually was. Secondly, I'd just like to say that I find Pro's pattern of personal remarks, now in both rounds, totally unnecessary in a debate setting. How about we just stick to the facts, and let them speak for themselves, rather than trying to poison the well with personal comments and namecalling. Calling someone a liar and asking the voters to ignore that paragraph since it isn't in the actual argument is unreasonable. Pro has placed that in his rounds, thus it is part of the debate, just as it would be if we were debating orally. I would ask the voters to consider it when voting for conduct.

The underlying problem here, in my opinion, is the view that many hold, that our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. My purpose for putting that in my sig was to show that from the time the settlers stepped foot in the new world, religion was a huge part of their lives. Religious beliefs have been reflected in our laws since the beginning, and was included in education, and for many that is still the case today.

Pro wanted me to change my sig, and made an argument against it in the forum, however, he didn't prove it to be factually incorrect, which is why I didn't change it. He has taken on a big task, and I ask the reader to keep in mind that in challenging me, Pro has accepted the BoP for showing that it "is factually incorrect". If he can do that, I'll change it.

Pro's Case

Pro presents three arguments.

1. The line that my opponent purports is from a school curriculum is actually from a law of a British colony.

True, this is from a law in the Massachusets Bay Colony, called "The Old Deluder Act", from 1647 [1]. Pro seems to think that this law wouldn't be used in the schoolhouses themselves, to justify to kids and to parents who may have wanted them home for chores, why they were suddenly required to spend all that time in school. I think it unreasonable to assume that teachers wouldn't use the very wording of the law to show kids why it's necessary for them to be educated. It only seems logical that one of the very first lessons would be to explain to them why they were there in the first place.

The second part of his statement points out that the territory was a British colony. That part will be dealt with in my comments, on his second peice of evidence, given below.

2 (a). ... the U.S didn't even exist at the time.

Here Pro is simply being nitpicky about me calling America, the US. Few people would argue that these people, and this land, wasn't part of our nation's history, or that compulsory education began with this law and continues today. So to make such an argument, and use this as a basis for calling someone a liar, while portraying himself as a crusader for "truth", is unreasonable. Using Pro's logic here, one can't point to something in history and call it a model for, or the beginnings of something, unless it matches up to the exact way we know it now.
That's an unreasonable position. This law established compulsory public education, and compulsory education still exists today, making this nothing more than a complaint about minutia.

Simply put, one can refer to the actual laws that led to formation of an institution if they existed, prior to the formation of a new nation in a land that would be part of that new nation, without having lied about it. This is not proof of my sig being factually incorrect

2. (b) ... no one could contend that this is a U.S law or even that it has anything to do with the United States.

Bottom line is that there were 3 laws passed in the colony in the 1640's, regarding education. The Old Deluder Act is the most well-known, and together those laws serve as the beginnings of compulsory education, in both that territory, and what would later become the US. As Judy Gelbrich, from the OSU School of Education states [2]...

"
The first compulsory education laws were passed in Massachusetts from 1642-1648. They were specifically oriented towards a segment of the population (non-Puritan) who was not providing their children with a proper education. Religious leaders were concerned about the rapid growth of the non-Puritan population and took these steps to maintain Puritan religious beliefs. The first act, called the Massachusetts Act of 1642 made education a state responsibility. While schools were not yet funded or required, education was and all children were supposed to learn how to read and write or parents would risk loss of custody of their children. The law was amended and strengthened in 1648.

The law requiring the establishment of schools was passed in 1647. All towns

of fifty or more households were required to form a school and pay a teacher
either out of private or public monies. In addition towns of one hundred or more
households had to establish a secondary or Latin grammar school to prepare
students to enter Harvard College."

As you can see, I'm not the only one who recognizes this law as being instrumental in the history of education. In what we now know as the US, educators are taught, and point to that law as the beginning of the public school system.

3. Is that the first school in America came into being in 1635, 10 years before he say's this was in a school curriculum.

I'm not sure why this is even relevant to the debate. If I had implied that it was a "first" school, or that it was in "all school's cirriculums", then it would be relevant, but I didn't so it isn't. Since the Deluder Act establishes public schools where no organized system previously existed, my statement obviously wouldn't pertain to this school, thus it's existence or what it's cirriculum was is irrelevant to this debate.

I look forward to the next round.

1. http://www.constitution.org...;
2. http://oregonstate.edu...;
Debate Round No. 2
muzebreak

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reply.

Now onto the debate.

My opponent starts of by admonishing me for my personal remarks. As I said, the
paragraphs were a reply to your confusion. But, if you like, I'll just take a page
out of your book and tell you that if you don't like it don't read it. I didn't
say anything that I did not back up with a factual analyse of the situation.
Pro wants me to stick to the facts? I contend that I never did anything but.
I did not call him a liar, I merely said that his actions taken were those
of an unhonest man. If he wants to argue that those are the actions
of an honest man, or that he did not commit them, then he is welcome to.
He can go ahead and accuse me of poisoning the well, but I believe that the events
preceding this debate should also be included as they have a bearing on some arguments
either of us could provide.

Now, con says that, in his words, "The underlying problem here, in my opinion,
is the view that many hold, that our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian
principles.". This is a fact, affirmed in the treaty of Tripoli.

He then goes on to say "My purpose for putting that in my sig was to show that from the time
the settlers stepped foot in the new world, religion was a huge part of their lives".
Why he continues by saying this I don't know. there is no connection between the
first settlers certain parts of a country, most of which being British were monarchists,
and the anti-monarchist rebels that wanted America to secede from British rule. It
is also a little nonsensical, because at the beginning he puts that "from when the
settlers stepped foot in the new world, religion was a huge part of their lives"
This implies that it wasn't before hand, and it also ignores those that weren't
religious. Included in that lot, later on in history, were a portion of the founding
fathers.

Yes, religious beliefs are reflected in law, funny thing that con should mention that
as it is declared illegal for such to happen in the United States under constitutional
law.

Now, lets get into the good stuff.

First I'd like to make my strongest argument as I find it funny.

Now, con claims that my claim that his use of the word U.S is just nitpicking. I'm
willing to agree to an extent. Though, I do thank him for essentially conceding the
debate. Thank you con!

Now, some of you are probably a bit confused, but for those who know their
definitions, it is probably more obvious.

Nitpicking is defined as being overly critical or to criticize minor details.
And what is a detail defined as? A detail is a feature, fact, or item. Now
the detail I'm criticizing can't be considered an item, but it could be
considered a feature or fact. And seeing as a feature is a fact about an object,
that means that my opponent has admitted that my claim is based in fact.
This makes him factually incorrect.
This means he has conceded the debate.

Now instead of just stopping there I'll continue in case my opponent finds a hole
in that logic that I didn't.

So, con claims that "[he] think[s] it unreasonable to assume that teachers wouldn't
use the very wording of the law to show kids why it's necessary for them to be
educated" and I agree. I would also say that it is unreasonable to assume that it
was used. And until my opponent can provide a record of the specific curriculum
in which he claims this is found my hands are tied. I can no more say it wasn't
in any specific curriculum then he can say it was, so this point is moot. My only
option, considering the lack of information, is to contend that even if what he says
is true, that it was mentioned, this would not make it part of the curriculum.
And this point is made even more useless when you consider that the school
he claims the curriculum belonged to came before the law and so would not have anything,
and I'll repeat my self because con didn't get this point last time, anything
to do with this school, and so would not come up in the situation he mentioned.
Again, I can't say the it wasn't used until I see some records.
But I can say that the facts are against it.

Now in con's next paragraph he makes points that don't logically follow.
He also makes an argument Ad Populum, by saying that because most people wouldn't make these arguments they are unreasonable. And he does this right after conceding the debate.

So, how does my stance that because the U.S constitution wasn't created
until a century later mean that I'm saying historical models can only exist for things
in their current state and therefore previous history doesn't apply to them.

Even if he claimed that is an implication of my claim that one can argue the U.S
didn't exist until a few decades ago, it still doesn't follow. First of all
I just said that it could be argued, second of all I am applying this to the U.S
because as the name says it is the United states of America, not the divided colonies
of America as it was in the past, and not the partially dived states of America.
Just like there used to be two Germanies. Well, historically, the second world war
didn't end until the Germanies united in 1990 because the war started with Germany
and as such had to be ended by Germany, not east and west Germany. And Germany
didn't exist to end the war.
Now, another interesting bit as my opponent claims I'm complaining about minutia.

But what is minutia again?

Minutia is trivial details. And what are details again?

So, this would, in fact, make it not minutia as the details are in no way trivial.

My opponent claims a refutation of my point that the law doesn't even have anything
to do with the united states. I will concede to an extent, as I went a bit far.
It can be said to have something to do with the U.S in that it is apart of its history.
Regardless, this fact is irrelevant.

This last point is a reading error on my part, I read it as "first school's curriculum"
Instead of "First school curriculum". I apologise for the error.

Finally, I would like to address con's comment that I'm potraying my self as a crusader for truth.
I don't see my self as a crusader for anything especially not truth, and I apologize if it seemed as though I was trying to portray my self as such. But in my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.
I lie, I'm more then willing to admit it.
I'm also willing to admit I'm a hypocrite.
I'm not happy to admit those things, but I am willing.
What I am happy to admit is that I am slowly growing out of my lying as I come to understand the harm of lies,
and the wonder of truth. And as this understanding come's about, it angers me more and more when I lie and when others lie as well.
But lying is like a gun in that it can be used to commit a travesty, but it can also be used to prevent one. It all depends on intent. I lied yesterday and told my mother that her cooking was delicious to prevent hurting her feelings.
In my opinion, which I have shown to be backed by fact, you lied to try and back up the claim that the U.S is/was a christian nation.
They're both lies, but one is bad and has good intent. The other is bad and has bad intent.
Which is which, do you think?
medic0506

Con

I'm just going to skip over the first part of Pro's round because the conduct is in the hands of the voter.

"Nitpicking is defined as being overly critical or to criticize minor details.
This means he has conceded the debate."

First, since Pro is just making up his own definitions and didn't bother to source an ACTUAL definition, let's look at how nitpicking is actually defined in a dictionary...

[1] minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding
[2] minute and usually unjustified criticism

Not that I ever conceded anything, but there is nothing in any definitions that I found that resembles Pro's stated definitions. Pro was too busy patting himself on the back to realize that he can't just make up definitions for use in a debate. Since there was no source justifying the use of the word "detail", Pro's argument using that word has been successfully refuted.

In addition, even if he had provided an actual definition with that word in it, that still doesn't win him the debate. He would simply have shown poor word choice on my part, during that particular argument. It would have done nothing to help him meet his BoP.

Next, he continues his rebuttal with this statement...

"So, con claims that "[he] think[s] it unreasonable to assume that teachers wouldn't use the very wording of the law to show kids why it's necessary for them to be educated" and I agree."

Then he says...

"And until my opponent can provide a record of the specific curriculum
in which he claims this is found my hands are tied."

In the first statement, he agrees with me that it's unreasonable to assume that the teachers didn't use the wording of the Deluder Act. This can only be taken to mean one thing, that it is most reasonable to believe that they did use the wording of the law to teach kids.

In the second statement, he waits for me to show him the cirriculum. Remember, Pro stated that the wording in my sig was a law, not part of the cirriculum. If he hasn't even seen the cirriculum then how can he say that my statement is factually incorrect, and expect to win a debate where he challenges me, and accepts the BoP for showing me factually incorrect on that?? How can Pro accurately argue that it isn't part of the cirriculum if he admits that he hasn't even seen the cirriculum??

"And this point is made even more useless when you consider that the school
he claims the curriculum belonged to came before the law and so would not have anything, and I'll repeat my self because con didn't get this point last time, anything to do with this school, and so would not come up in the situation he mentioned."


This is Pro's claim, not mine. He is the one who mentioned that a school existed prior to the law. As I stated last round, my sig does not say that it is in "all schools", or that the schools established under that law were the only ones in existence, thus his entire point on this is irrelevant.

"First of all I just said that it could be argued, second of all I am applying this to the U.S because as the name says it is the United states of America, not the divided colonies of America as it was in the past, and not the partially dived states of America. Just like there used to be two Germanies."

I thought I explained it pretty well last round but apparently not so I'll try again using Pro's example of Germany. If compulsory education began in East Germany in 1988, and Germany was unified in 1990, one would not be "factually" incorrect in saying that compulsory education began in Germany in 1988, if it still existed at the time the person made the statement.

Now with that said, one could make an argument (not a good one) that the statement is "semantically incorrect", but that wasn't the BoP that Pro took on in this challenge. He challenged on the basis of it being "factually incorrect", but hasn't shown that anything is "factually" wrong.

"Minutia is trivial details. And what are details again?"

Minutiae- a small or trivial detail. [3]
Trivial- a) of little value or importance
b) concerned only with trifling or unimportant things [4]

Well, we don't know what details are because Pro neglected to provide a definition for his definitional argument. We do know though, that since the detail is "trivial", that it's of little value or importance, so he hasn't shown how this helps his case.

"So, this would, in fact, make it not minutia as the details are in no way trivial."

He hasn't shown how the details are important so my use of the word "minutia" is justified.

"I will concede to an extent, as I went a bit far. It can be said to have something to do with the U.S in that it is apart of its history. Regardless, this fact is irrelevant."

It's not at all irrelevant since my entire point was that it's part of our history, the history of the US, which Pro concedes to in his above statement.

"In my opinion, which I have shown to be backed by fact, you lied to try and back up the claim that the U.S is/was a christian nation."

First of all, Pro hasn't shown where I have ever said that the US is a Christian nation. I've never said that because I know it isn't true. I said that the country "was founded on Judeo-Christian principles". That is a far cry from saying that it's a Christian nation, so Pro is simply misrepresenting my statement. Secondly, Pro has not proven that I lied. Third, he has not shown "facts" to back up his opinion.

"They're both lies, but one is bad and has good intent. The other is bad and has bad intent. Which is which, do you think?"

This debate isn't about the voters deciding on who's lie is justified, nor have I been proven to have even told a lie. This debate is about whether my sig is factually incorrect, or not.

Summary

Pro challenged me to this debate, saying that people are saying that I won't defend my positions, hearsay. He also claims that I'm being dishonest about what I quoted in my sig. Further, he admits in the opening that he has BoP for showing my sig to be "factually incorrect".

He begins, and then closes out his argumentation, by going on about how important "truth" is, and how dangerous it can be to lie with bad intent. Then, in the middle of his closing speech about telling the truth, he himself makes a glaring misrepresentation of one of my earlier statements.

Pro came to the debate with three contentions, so let's look at how they turned out.

1. He says that the Old Deluder Act is a law and not part of the cirriculum. Then he later admits that he hasn't even SEEN the cirriculum. He provided nothing in the way of proof that shows that his objection to my sig is justified. In other words, he has failed to prove this part of my sig to be "factually incorrect".

2. He says that the US didn't exist at the time the law was passed. In response, I showed that the land would later become part of the US, and that the law is one of three laws that helped establish compulsory education in the land, which still exists to this day. I further showed that even our educators today are taught about the law as being instrumental to the history of education, as we now know it. It's legacy is evident in the US today, even if that land wasn't part of the US at that time, therefore it is not "factually incorrect". He partially conceded this point admitting it's part of our history.

3. Pro conceded his third point saying it was based on a reading error on his part.

He did try to make a tricky point using a made-up definition, and said that I had conceded, but provided no source for that definition. I refuted his argument using two sourced definitions from dictionaries.

It's plain to see that Pro did not meet his burden of proof. He provided no factual information to back up his claim. Therefore, I thank Pro and the readers, and ask for a vote for Con.

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tnkissfan 4 years ago
Tnkissfan
"I did not call him a liar, I merely said that his actions taken were those
of an unhonest man."

Yeaaaah, that's pretty much calling him a liar.

"No,I didn't call him a bigot,I merely said that his actions taken were those of a man that dislikes homosexuals."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
muzebreakmedic0506Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Round 3 was the deciding round. Pro pretty much tries to claim that if Con is unable to show that the statement was used in the curriculum, then it wasn't. Since Pro himself admitted to not knowing the curriculum, he was unable to affirm the resolution.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
muzebreakmedic0506Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, but said he couldn't prove his case. He assumes that the sentence in contention wasn't in the curriculum. You can't win a debate by assuming what you undertook to prove. Persuasion to Con. Conduct to Con for Pro's personal attack. Note: Con admits that he doesn't know whether the statement in his sig is true. He just assumes it is true. If that isn't lying, it is reckless disregard of the truth, the next thing to lying.