The Instigator
anonymouse_student
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jarhyn
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 5 votes the winner is...
Jarhyn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 27757
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

anonymouse_student

Pro

Okay this is my first debate, but i'm just going to state my opinion:
I'm in 8th grade and I know a lot of people are going to write a list of reasons why we should go to school, but I don't mean we shouldn't go to school I just think our school system should change. I am hoping that I can actually start something and make this topic big enough to spark a debate in the school district. I am just going to go through my class schedule and give you my reasons why or why not for each of the subjects we have to take:

*Science: of course we have to take it

*Physical Education: helps us stay healthy and fit

Spanish/French/Foreign Language: At my school they make us take one foreign language. I do not understand why we need to learn how to speak different languages, I played on a baseball team where all 5 of my coaches only spoke Spanish, 3 of our star players only spoke Spanish, and 5 other players could only speak broken English. Me and my cousins were the only ones who spoke English, we were just fine using hand signals to understand what they meant, and our team went 14-0 winning the league championship and the division championship. We have new technology now a days like GOOGLE TRANSLATE and many other translating devices. As far as knowing the
Spanish culture just in case you go on a trip to a Spanish country, if I really wanted to learn the culture of country I would probably just read a short paragraph on there culture and any special events or holidays around the time I was going to be there.

*ELA: of course we need part of ELA but as far as stuff like rhetorical terms, logos ethos, pathos, etc. That is just unnecessary. There is a lot of stuff on the borderline between being needed or not but when are we ever going to need this?

*Math: obviously we need math

*Religion: I go to a catholic school so this is important

Art: some people say we need art to open up our minds and creativeness, but a teacher making us draw a specific thing, do some shading, or stay in between the lines isn't going to matter to me in 5,6, or 7 years. If they want us to open up our imagination they should create a new subject just for that.

Music: okay I could write so much here, I go to a Catholic school so I don't know if public schools have to take music, but it really is a waste of time. Do I really need to go into why we shouldn't have to take it.It's really just a waste of time.Point Blank

*Technology: some tech. classes are probably different all we really do is practice typing and he teaches us new soft-wares to use, (most of which us teens and preteens already know about).

SOCIAL STUDIES/ History: I have saved this for last for a reason. I could write a lot about this as well, but just to sum it up, IT IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME..... when In my life am I going to need to know when the battle of Bunker Hill was, or when the U.S. gained Alaska.....NEVER....Maybe we should forget about our past and focus on the future and on the 1st day of school my S.S. teacher said we take it so we can learn from our mistakes in the past... REALLY if I was going to become president or senator one day then yeah maybe I would take History In college while I'm going to Harvard or Yale but as of right now I don't care who Invented the light-bulb. Don't get me wrong a few interesting facts here or there can be interesting but taking a class about it everyday is torture.
Jarhyn

Con

First, I would like to establish that like my opponent, I do NOT see our educational system as being perfect or not in need of great and systemic change. However, I am thoroughly convinced by the evidence that rather than less education, we should rather have quite a bit more.

In an effort to clarify and assist PRO in his induction into debates, online and elsewhere, I would like to use this first round to attempt to give PRO an insight into my own views o the purpose of education; it may eat my character space, but it is no great loss if some understanding by one side or the other may be gained.

First, I'd like to address you, PRO, with the assurance that I DO understand where you are coming from. I remember all too clearly my youthful days where I myself was frustrated with what seemed like such a waste of time, a painful and incessant bother which served no apparent purpose and wasted a great deal of my time.

But in much the same way that when you realize the solution to a problem, and feel foolish for being ignorant before, and making decisions and declarations that only the ignorant would have made, when I remember such statements that I made, I feel as though I was such a fool in those days.

From observation, it appears that PRO's arguments are built atop the assumption that school is meant to prepare youthful individuals so that they are able to adequately perform functions they would be expected to do as "adults". And while this is A specific aim of school, it is not THE aim of school, especially when talking about compulsory education. THE aim of school is to expend all necessary effort to produce a human being, rather than something that is merely a human shaped animal... or at least an animal less dangerous if unleashed into the world. I can teach a monkey to sew shirts, or kick a ball down a field, to mix one substance with another. I cannot, however, teach a monkey how to recognize the existence of another monkey as a consciousness fundamentally the same as itself. I cannot give it a concept of mind. I can only, arguably, do hat with a person... and even a lot of people just end up like the monkey, solipsistic and nihilistic.

It is NOT about figuring out what is needed or what is not. If it were solely about what was needed in life, we would simply throw you into the world, and you'd lean from your peers those skills you would need. Monkeys do that; no school is necessary in that case.

Compulsory formative education (for PRO, this includes the education you are currently being forced to attend) is fundamentally reliant on the idea that the child is NOT yet an "adult"; that they are incapable of being afforded the freedom to be, as they are either ignorant or unable of the steps required in making informed, logical, and reasoned decisions. But also, there is the understanding that when a person is capable of making such decisions, once they are fully "human", they have an entitlement to be free of natural evil. The idea is that when someone is an adult, that they become an adult as free as society can possibly make them from natural evil; that they have as much "freedom to be" as we can give them.

And one of those Natural Evils is ignorance. Of history, of science, of philosophy, of both what is and what can be, as both your experience is quite limited, and as you have not had the time to carefully figure out the rules of the universe you live in.

Further, none of the things you are taught are taught solely for your own good or your own use; we adults are not just in the business of equipping you for the future, we are in the process of blunting the edge of the ignorance you would wield if you were freely loosed into the world, and to prevent those both clever and wicked from wielding you yourself as a weapon in your ignorance.

We teach you "science" in high school. I use quotes because the compulsory "science" that you are taught isn't the meat and bones of it. Rather, we teach you the theories that science has produced, we teach you the best knowledge that we have sussed out, so that when you are confronted with the fruits of that knowledge, you accept the reality of it; it does nobody any good when some adult kills kids that we've put effort into because he was never sufficiently taught the germ theory of disease. Maybe if you take some of the more advanced science courses, you'll really get a feel for application of the scientific method, observe, hypothesize, test. Science is to keep you from being a reckless git when you get older.

We teach you PE because we don't want to share the world with fat people, or play games with people who don't even understand the rules, or be forced to bear the shared costs of people who are fat and unhealthy.

We teach you foreign language and culture because it's a pain in the butt living with/around people who don't understand that the person who speaks some specific language, the person in that culture, is exactly as human as the next guy. Not too long ago, it was thought that someone who spoke a different language was somehow stupid or inferior; really, they're just human, and language is something different groups of people just made up as they went along. And part of it is to respect how hard it is to learn a foreign language adequately. If you can understand that, then maybe you'll be less of an jerk to someone who has a heavy foreign accent and who has a hard time speaking your native tongue.

When it comes to rhetoric, logic, argument, speech, and debate, we teach you these things in the (possibly futile) hope that you will walk away with the ability to use deductive logic, and the idea that DOUBT is the source of knowledge. We teach you these things, specifically, with the hope that you will learn them, and thus have the tools (if not the initiative) to become more than a human shaped animal.

We teach you math, because it is necessary for ANY advanced understanding of the universe. But calling what they force down your throat in HS math is an insult to the term. Learn set theory, Calculus, Discrete Math, Trig, and Geometry. Any hominid can learn how to push a plow and work an assembly line. It takes a full fledged human with a strong sense of math to DESIGN a better assembly line.

Religion? You think that learning religion is important? Well, I suppose it's a back-up for keeping the human shaped animals from being particularly destructive... but catholicism? really? That's like suggesting throwing down oil to put out an electrical fire. Seriously, that particular idea lead to ignorant gits sacking cities and torturing people for engaging in secular philosophy...

Art/Music is taught BECAUSE it is a way of teaching you how to waste time. SPECIFICALLY. Once we solve the evils that plague us, all we will be left with is loads and loads of time, with nothing better to do than to be creative. It puts all of us ahead of the curve to be able to make stuff that isn't utter crap, when that time comes, or in the mean time when we seek to take a break from human effort, and do something for us. What is the rest of life, after all, if not to secure ways and opportunities with which to creatively waste time?

Technology is taught so that we have some guarantee that you're not going to waste society's time with calling tech support lines. Though largely I agree with PRO here; we don't do enough in tech; we should be forcing our kids to look inside the black box of the computer, and tinkering and programming, and making them say hello world on a command line.

In order to support the claim that "we do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to", PRO first needs to present a reason why we are forced to go to school, and then establish that certain substantial activities and classes do not in any way further that goal. I would see this as a shared burden of proof. I look forward to seeing PRO advance an argument that both states and supports his idea of the purpose of public educati
Debate Round No. 1
anonymouse_student

Pro

anonymouse_student forfeited this round.
Jarhyn

Con

Well, now that the challenge round is out of the way, I do believe it is my place to defend my particular assertion as to reason we force students to go to school, and therefore defend the nature of the education we force them to receive.

The authorization for education
First, I have previously argued that from an understanding that from first principles, the responsibilities of government are particularly to enforce and codify the responsibilities of all individuals to all other individuals. These responsibilities consist of "that which you are free to do, so is another" "that which another is not free to do, so too are you not allowed" "that which you would defend yoursef from, you are obligated to defend others from" "defense exclusively against that which is not freedom is itself within the bounds of freedom".

Further, it is part of the government's charter, the constitution article 1 section 8 that the government is authorized to seek the general welfare. This is in accordance with the above, as that each individual in society, and thus ALL of society, has a responsibility to defend that society against what can be understood as "natural evil".

Ignorance is one of those things which does harm to the freedom of people, either through the inability to make suitibly informed decisions, or through the actions of the ignorant, who are unaware that their actions do violence to the freedoms of others to be. In this manner, it is clear that an educated popualation is within the interest of socety, not just so that the people do their jobs more efficiently, but also so that they are less likely to harm one another in their ignorance.

Having forwarded these understandings, I would present the logic and premises to PRO to refute.



Debate Round No. 2
anonymouse_student

Pro

anonymouse_student forfeited this round.
Jarhyn

Con

In light of PRO's apparent forfeiture, I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by purple101 4 years ago
purple101
this debate is very slang and i dont like it
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
anonymouse_studentJarhynTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's forfeiting oses conduct and left Con arguments unanswered. I think that there is a problem with high I students losing interest in classes aimed at average students. that might be solved by more aggressive tracking to put students in classes where they are challenged. Spanish is needed to order fast food. Chinese will soon be needed to get a job in a prosperous country.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
anonymouse_studentJarhynTied
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: forfeit and better arguments
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
anonymouse_studentJarhynTied
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: forfizzle by prizzle
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
anonymouse_studentJarhynTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
anonymouse_studentJarhynTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit by PRO