The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Religious Schools Should Be Banned

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jonbonbon has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,631 times Debate No: 102957
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I am making the argument that Religious Schools Should be Banned. By this I mean that all religious institutions that provide an alternative for public schooling should be illegal. This does not apply to countries where public schooling is not a thing. This is also not an attack on private schools altogether, only on religious schools.

Rounds of Debate

1) Present Your Position and Make Points (DO NOT CONTRADICT HERE)
2) Primary Argument (May us some or all of points presented in Round 1)
3) Elaborate on Arguments and Contradict Opponent
4) Final Arguments (Reply to Conradictions Here)


1) Ad hom is fun, so it's not banned, but first, realize if you choose to employ it, it will be returned and I expect the same. Second, be certain that it is not the crux of your argument.

2) Do not bring up Public Schools or Secular Private Schools unless you can prove how Religious schools are better/worse.

3) I prefer sources in the argument itself. However, if you are close to running out of your 10,000 characters, you may post sources in comments provided you make denote so in your argument.

4) Since Con is posting Round 1 after I do, DO NOT start trying to contradict my argument there. Do so in Round 3.

5) Arguments themselves cannot be posted in comments. Only sources under circumstances listed above.


Religious Schools, which often present themselves as somehow superior to alternatives, are in fact the worse possible choice for a place where children can receive an education. There are six reasons, which are listed below.

1 At least an entire period of class is wasted discussing sollipsisms. This is time that could be better spent studying important subjects instead of religion. Religion should be kept to churches and parents, not wasting a child's time in school.

2 Religion tends to permeate to other subjects. This is not meant to be strawman, because I am sure that many Christian schools present the theory of evolution, but still the curriculum is designed not to contradict the religious dogma, even when that dogma is wrong.

3 Money Talks. At religious schools, those families with ability to donate or otherwise provide services to the school can gain special favor with the school, thus placing their child in a better position. I am not implying that they are buying grades, but students who do average work can be recommended for higher classes in the next grade and conduct infractions can be overlooked.

4 The Religion gives the school something to fall back on when they are found wanting in academic rigor. Instead of a superior education being the focus, a more devout student is what is used to promote the school.

5 Lower quality education. Because most religious schools are already hurting for money, they are unable to pay teachers and other employees the wages possible are public or secular private schools. This means they will be unable to attract superior educators, instead hiring the mediocre at best.

6 It is said it takes a village to raise a child. Often religious schools help overprotective parents to shelter a child, and keep them from points of view which are socially acceptable. The State can have no control over what exactly is taught, so all sorts of strange ideas can be taught without any interference from the general population. For example, Christian schools tend to instill more homophobic (I hate that word) views in students just as Madrassas tend to teach misogynistic ideologies to kids. This produces both dogmatic thinkers who are unable to cope with different kinds of people and people who are (without good reason) convinced of their moral superiority.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
this looks to be a great debate.

All schools are a religion by basic principle and legal precedent.

They hold no impartial common defense to the general welfare of the public. They promise a form of payment as money for violating forms of basic understanding. School is in essence a test of free time meaning children who have time that holds no self-value will always prosper first. This in spite, or in contradiction of abilities to learn.

You nor schools hold a constitutional separation of church and State. Schools operate as a judicial panel only, meaning that they are subject to criminal charges of bribery as a public school competing for money/funding in the form of taxation dollars. Directly effecting the ability of the only known separation of church and state to receive impartial funding, as the judicial courts do hold a process of separation of church and state. the unalienable right is that if all taxation does not go to the support of basic judicial impartial separation, it appears as the educational institutions are in fact incriminate themselves into bribery when they direct witness understanding.

The common defense for school funding at all is under the admittance and confession it is a religious organization, and the taxation used is a donation that is sponsored politically, which is held impartial by test of the Judicial Court and not the law itself.
Conclusion schools have no way of their own making to prevent the education of a criminal. Meaning they can instruct a person how to kill without obvious weapons, take ownership of objects they have not purchased, or learn how to lie with complex wording making them high cost danger to society.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 2 years ago
Though I am against segregating schools based on faith, faith-based schools are usually better than state schools because they are able to maintain consistent donations from parents, introduce strict morals and discipline into the school environment, and stick to the academic curriculum given to them by state. Your points assume all faith-schools alike and assume that they are some sort of monastery; this is far from being the case. In my experience, they are usually full of either sickeningly moralistic or rebellious teens working under a traditional and strict environment.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.