The Instigator
Deferti
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The school must politically influence

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2019 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 119948
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

Deferti

Con

First wanted to explain how the debate will be 1st round premisses, 2nd round one makes 1 question pro 3rd round one answers the other's question, 4th round refute the other's answer, 5th round final considerations. My arguments are as follows: The school should not have political influence, Because the role of the School is to teach the curricular subjects, But not to educate politically.
Thoht

Pro

Happy to think with you today.

Schools necessarily politically influence people. Facts, Learning how to compile and interpret data, Et cetera lead one down certain political roads.

If one takes a statistics class and learns how to interpret statistics, What constitutes well put together data and what factors to look for when it comes to accuracy of data, One will immediately be able to throw out many of the statistics that people use that are inaccurate, Poorly interpreted, Et cetera. On certain issues, The stats people bring up are quite false. One immediately is less likely to side with people using poor statistics to 'prove' their side is 'correct. '

If one takes certain science classes, There will (should) be little room to doubt that climate change is occurring, Whether or not man has a significant impact on it. One is immediately less likely to be on the side of any political figure who denies this.

The vast majority of classes you may take may influence you politically. The simple act of becoming educated, Literate, Et cetera will have you in favor of certain political problems, Particularly the more educated one becomes, And the better your credentials become.

It's little wonder that the majority of college graduates tend to gravitate towards one party and not the other.

So before you continue, You need to tell me in what way you think schools politically influence kids that they should not.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
Deferti

Con

Deferti forfeited this round.
Thoht

Pro

Opponent forfeit
Debate Round No. 2
Deferti

Con

Deferti forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Deferti

Con

Deferti forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Deferti

Con

Deferti forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
There's not many ways to teach anything without somehow influencing a political opinion of some sort.
Posted by Chronosofwisdom 3 years ago
Chronosofwisdom
I think that schools shouldn't influence politics, Although sadly, Theres no other way to teach history. Someone will always have a bias.
Posted by js248 3 years ago
js248
Ok you missed the second part of that quote. But again most people don't disagree with the fact the climate is changing. The argumemt is more why the climate is changing and both sides have facts to support there claims. Also most political debates are based on philosophy that being saod schools should teach the general philosophies of of the prevelant political parties. One political debate on why the climate is changing does not make a person Democrat or Republican. So again schools should teach about politics bit leave opinions out of the equation. If people taught based only on their personal beliefs and only showed the facts supporting that belief. We could not have general studies in alot of academic studies because every teacher would be teaching a different curriculum. By the way forgive me for grammer and spelling typing on a phone. . .
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
"Part of the problem is you are assuming your opinions and ideological beliefs are true because you have seen the facts. "

Assuming truth based on the facts? What on earth do you do if not this?

I assume things are true based on facts until other facts say otherwise. It's called confidence intervals.

There's nothing scientifically wrong about being against free speech or the US constitution. Nothing supports denying that the climate is changing.
Posted by js248 3 years ago
js248
Ok you can link a video of republicans holding up snowballs and I will link a video of democrats against free speech and the U. S constitution. Part of the problem is you are assuming your opinions and ideological beliefs are true because you have seen the facts. This will be a shock both sides will bring out facts that benefit or support there ideas. The question is can we really assume one side is right or wrong. I mean seriously you just brought the debate to a small percentage of the republican party. Most republicans don't deny climate change but scientist estimations have consistently been wrong in terms of the progression. Also there are cycles throughout world history. But most people know humans have had huge effect on climate and the environment. Now I don't believe democrats are all against freedom of speech. The extremes are getting the press coverage. The left is starting to bring socialist ideas into the debate which have been proven to fail time and time again. Republicans fight for freedom of religion but at the same time are against gay marriage. Guess what neither side is anywhere near having all the answers. However the basis of the parties can be debated.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
It's impossible to even know what 'climate change' means without schooling of some sort.

Some 99% of people who make it through high school probably don't even know the difference between climate and weather.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Either way, There ARE right answers to many political questions. There are some we don't have 'right' answers to yet, But that doesn't change that some answers are right. In the end, Is it less politically influencing people if you get them 90% of the way to the right answers than if you get them 100%?
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
This isn't about politically influencing people to one party or another. It's about politically influencing in general. You aren't even disagreeing with me. In reality, The only way to be called a climate change denier is to deny climate change. And one party is absolutely largely denying science by saying the climate is not changing. Need I link a video of republicans holding up snowballs in the capitol?
Posted by js248 3 years ago
js248
You can learn history and draw your own conclusions, You can be taught science without a teacher saying liberals or conservatives are right or wrong. If you look at both sides of the argument say on climate change. Most "climate change deniers" don't actually say climate change isn't happening. They either argue the rate at which its progressing. Or how much of it is by humans. Furthermore both sides have facts and studies to prove there point. Also this is only one political debate. Can anyone actually go through history and say which political party is correct. No if you could we wouldn't need this website. We need to teach history, Along with political history but educators should not be attempting to favor one side or the other. That will lessen the chance of new ideas and we will be less likely to have any debates worth having. That is my point should we teach politics? Yes we should teach what different parties believe and why. But we should not have teachers favoring one side or another.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
You literally can't agree with my side of this debate and still hold the views you do.

Explain to me how one teaches history without politically influencing people.

How do you teach stats without politically influencing people?

How do you teach science without politically influencing people?

There aren't multiple versions of stats. Most of what you need to know for stats you can cover in 1 or 2 semesters in high school. It really isn't so difficult.

There aren't two branches of science. Currently we have 1 political party who denies the conclusion of 100% of climate scientists and downplays the consensus of 98% of climate scientists. How do you think you can teach a class on this and not politically influence people? The students inevitably see one side as bats*** crazy and the other as having an appropriate amount of concern over the issue.

You're going off on tangents with history, Free speech, Economic systems, Et cetera, But at the same time you're agreeing that these classes will politically influence, Which is the whole debate.

So until you can tell me how one teaches stats, Science, And history without politically influencing people you can't really disagree with my side of this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.