SteveHawkins (PRO)Firstly, in a pluralist liberal democracy, giving special rights to a religion is nonsensical, arbitrary, and anathema to common sense and liberty. We grant rights like the right to the veil, to wear a crucifix, and even the kirpan[1] because these rights are ones we give to every citizen. We have the right to wear a crucifix, a form of jewelry, because we are allowed to wear jewelry, not because of any special allowance for religion. Similarly, France has banned the veil[2]. They ban the veil, a cover of the face, because they are not allowed to cover the face, not because of any special allowance for religion. I disagree with France's policy. I think banning objects which cover the face is an impractical restraint on liberty. However, this is nothing to do with religion - because we ought not make special allowances for one religion, because it necessarily means discriminating against another, or against the irreligious. In a pluralist, liberal democracy, giving special rights to one group is unjust.
This of course is a reasoned argument, and we should look at the evidence to see what the effect of special allowances has meant for religion. One of the biggest Christian faith school programmes is ACE, or the Accelerated Christian Education system. It is "being used in thousands of schools and many thousands of home schools in over 100 different countries worldwide"[5]. So it is indeed a popular faith school course. So what is their teaching method? ACE accredited pastors are being allowed to be teachers who can make small children break down in tears as part of education for years[3]. ACE, far from condemning these people, published a step-by-step guide of how to beat children[4]. Education-wise, they teach children that Nessie disproves evolution, and that solar fusion is a myth[6]. One of their questions for 15-year olds, in a final level exam, is to ask whether Mendel, Darwin, or Hitler made the theory of evolution[7].
I wish ACE was the exception to the rule. Yet we see Jewish schools colluding with Ofqual to ban evolution-based questions in their exams[8]. We see religious schools banning songs like Imagine by John Lennon among others from being sung[9], being deemed 'irreligious'. One quarter of free school applications in the UK were by faith schools, with 16 of these 132 by Plymouth Brethren[10]. The Brethren teach society is evil, integrating with society is sin, and technology is Satanic. One person's experience: "We had to cut off any contact with our cousins ... they were dead to us. There was no cinema, no joining in with prayers at regular schools, no going round to friends' houses."[11]. Giving these schools special allowances threatens the very fabric of society.
To conclude, granting special allowances to religion is anathema to our modern pluralistic democracies. Moreover, experience tells us that granting these allowances harm the education system, time and time again. As such, I urge a vote for this motion.
1 - http://tinyurl.com/pw3l6ra
2 - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/dont-ban-veil-in-uk
3 - http://www.godofevolution.com/leaving-fundamentalism-guest-post-take-a-lesson-from-the-kids/
4 - http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/a-step-by-step-guide-to-beating-children-by-ace/
5 - http://www.kingofkingsschool.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42&Itemid=150
6 -http://tinyurl.com/nz3bdtr
7 - http://tinyurl.com/ov5xdml
8 - http://tinyurl.com/ppqe6sx
9 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2006/07/19/imagine_banned_feature.shtml
10...
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-10 02:04:28
| Speak Round
admin (CON)Thanks to pro for opening his case.
School is an incredibly important part of the lives of many people. Most human beings in the world today spend the better part of their formative years in schools. School attendance is intrinsically linked to better education and breaking cycles of poverty. School is also important for socialization - it's where many kids make their first friends. The most important thing in this debate ought to be encouraging kids through school.
The most important way to do that is to encourage the kids directly. Better learning happens when kids are more satisfied with school. It's also important to encourage teachers, parents, caregivers and other stakeholders. Research shows that these support sources have a huge impact on a child's school participation. If parents are not happy, the kids won't be either.
The goal to make kids enjoy learning, and remove things that make them hate learning, will inevitably have to be balanced against concerns that learning is hard and people prefer playing to working. But for religion there need be no such compromise. My position in this debate will be that public schools should make allowances for the free exercise of any religion at the school, provided that it is not a major distraction to learning. For example, Muslim children should be allowed to pray briefly at the specified times for prayer.
The idea that people are happy when they can practice their religion, and unhappy when they cannot, is pretty well established. Results are pretty clear that kids who are able to go to church more often - regardless of which church or their background - do better on standardized tests. This effect has been replicated numerous times. Religious children are healthier and more highly skilled socially. It's an issue of the ability to access these things. It's also an issue of free expression, and the right to an identity. Religion has a powerful impact on identity in youth, and the denial of a young person's identity is the rejection of that student from school. It's also an issue of culture, which is inherent to religion. Removing the right to culture from school negatively impacts performance.
Kids will not become irreligious as a result of this model. They will sooner turn their back on school than religion. This is the greatest harm of all.
Some quick rebuttals to finish. Schools are not a pluralistic liberal democracy. Not all rights are universal. For example, senior students sometimes get special privileges that younger students. But the right to practice a religion is universal anyway. Giving Christians the right to wear a crucifix does not discriminate against Jainism or any other religion.
As a broader principle, the issue of tolerance should be taught ESPECIALLY in a pluralistic democracy. Democracy is all about differing and dissenting ideas and opinions, and respecting those that may not agree with yours. The harm of the alternative is driven to extremism and religious violence.
Faith based private schools go beyond making allowances for all religions to enforcing one religion to the exclusion of others. I agree there is harm in this and believe such schools would also be better off if they made special allowances for other religions.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-11 16:30:50
| Speak RoundSteveHawkins (PRO)Thank you to my opponent. I will begin by rebutting his argument, before strengthening my own.
Firstly, my opponent has set out what special allowances he would make for religion - calls to prayer for Muslims. Yet can my model accommodate calls to prayer? Prayer times are at dawn, noon, and just before sunset, which would be before school, during lunch break, and after school respectively. A common misunderstanding is that the prayers are at a very strict time - the noon prayer, for example, is "After the sun’s zenith until late afternoon", which is more than wide enough to have found the time to pray. I may be accused of not accommodating 'strict' Muslims. However, for strict Muslims, the prayers must be done at a Masjid, which cannot be accommodated so easily for my opponent. Moreover, even for strict Muslims, when at work or school they may combine Dhuhr and Asr (dawn and noon prayers) to accommodate school time. While my opponent claims his system does not distract from school learning, neither does mine, and it is not a point in his favour. He still must show why we must make special accommodations specifically for other religions at the expense of others.
Moreover, my opponent talks about the right to culture. Again, I do not deny that religion is important for children - it is a community essential for many's living. However, this is not the topic. My opponent must show that we must make special allowances for one religion over another, not just that religion makes someone happy. Of course it can! It doesn't mean, however, that we must make special allowances for a religion. Indeed, as I have stated in my previous arguments, such a concept is anathema to liberal democracies, and in practice leads to weaker education.
To move back to my case. My opponent states that schools are not democracies. True. However, they exist within our pluralist liberal democracies, and policies which are anathema to our society are unjust. This does not mean schools must be democracies. It does, however, mean they cannot arbitrarily privilege one person over another, instead of supporting a meritocratic system.
My opponent then goes on to say that not all rights are universal, and says that older students sometimes get advantages over younger students, as evidence of this. I'd like to ask my opponent what he refers to. If he means, say, the right to higher-level textbooks or a choice of subjects, I'd point out that these are not rights, but part of the education system. If he refers to the right to freedoms from torture or expression, then of course these are rights, but are clearly universal. I simply cannot fathom what rights my opponent is giving one student, but not another. I do not think my opponent's case, in fact, makes any special allowances for any religion, and fails to substantiate the motion.
Finally, against my evidential argument, my opponent agrees that these special allowances are wrong. He states the rule is, if it harms the education of one student over another, then it ought not to be done. So clearly, if special allowances are given to one religion over another, then special allowances for any religion ought not be allowed. Yet studies by Coleman show that "the differences [in education attainment] are not due to ... the degree of religious observance." Moreover, Darnell shows that affiliation (the community of the religion, as opposed to the observance of religion) within schools negatively impacts education. The evidence states that giving a religion special allowances harms the education of others in that classroom, and, though to a lesser degree, the practitioners themselves.
In conclusion, my opponent's case that religion is an important character trait and religion makes us happy does not touch on the topic. His special allowances can be accommodated by making rights universal. My case, both in principle and in fact, remains strong....
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-11 22:29:14
| Speak Roundadmin (CON)I thank pro for continuing his case.
The Motion
Just to reiterate: nothing about this motion, or my counter-model, has anything to do with choosing one religion over others.
My model was also not restricted to Muslims. If you refer back, you'll see I only gave that as one example of a much broader principle. Allowing Jews to wear those small hats they wear, allowing exemptions from specific classes on religious grounds, or allowing Christians to hide easter eggs for everybody else to find, would all be further examples of things that ought to be permitted at school. Schools need to be accepting and accommodating of all faiths. My case therefore makes special allowances for every religion.
Why Religion Is Good
Pro has still not proven why giving one group privileges hurts another group given different privileges, according to their own beliefs. I am not hurt by the fact a Buddhist may be living on my street, so why should I be hurt if a Buddhist has a little golden Buddha sitting on his desk in class?
Coleman found it wasn't observance but social capital that made the difference. By breaking the union of the school and religious communities you shatter that social capital in two for a young mind. Darnell only looked at one religion (protestant fundamentalism) and found adherents less likely to strive to succeed. That's their choice, and schools can't help that. But schools can help religious students who do want to succeed without losing their religion. I gave specific unrefuted evidence that religious students in general do better on all standardized tests in repeated studies. I further provided other unrefuted benefits to being religious that I take as conceded. Religion is good for students, as is school. I proved both claims last round. They should work in tandem.
The alternative is watching these religious kids drop out of school. If you really want to ruin these kids' chances of a good future, that's how to do it.
Rights
My opponent has merely asserted meritocracy is best without evidence. I dismiss it without evidence. Schools do exist as part of pluralistic democracies, but as I've shown, this only strengthens the need for religious tolerance.
Schools ought to run based on what's in the best interest of the student's education. Rights ought to be afforded on that basis alone. Young students need to be taught academic discipline, and therefore they frequently are afforded less flexibility and fewer rights in a number of contexts. I provided the basis for this reasoning in helping student's personal development and moving them out of poverty in the last round. This is why the concept of universal rights does not apply to schools.
Nevertheless, giving every student the right to practice their own religion is, in my view, a universal right. The right may not be exercised in the same way by everybody, but then a right to free speech doesn't mean everybody says the same things. It's still universal.
In conclusion, this debate so far has been at cross purposes. I hope we can move to the more substantive areas of clash around rights and whether religion is good or bad for students. Students deserve the best start in life, and religion is how they can achieve it.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-14 18:26:35
| Speak Roundadmin (CON)This debate has never been about anybody's religious beliefs and convictions. It's about whether schools have a responsibility to make special accommodations for students to exercise their religious beliefs regardless of what those beliefs might be. It's about getting the best educational outcomes for students to bring our society into a more positive future.
My opponent's claim that members of every religion should be treated the same in school has no basis. Each student should be treated according to how they can best attain a good education, which might vary from student to student. I'll admit the promotion of tolerance is important in schools, and I admit faith schools can be problematic. But these are symptoms of favoring one religion over others. Providing special allowances to each student to practice their own religion is fair. Sometimes to treat people fairly you have to treat them unequally.
In this debate I have advanced one substantive argument that my opponent has largely failed to refute. I presented overwhelming scientific evidence that students who can practice their religion do better in school. If you accept that the goal of education is to educate, then this motion must fall. We don't want any young person to fall through the cracks - no matter what their religion, and no matter what their background. That means making whatever allowances required to permit both spiritual growth and educational achievement.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-16 22:01:20
| Speak RoundSteveHawkins (PRO)My argument for this debate has been consistently that there is no need to make special allowances for any religion, and doing so is positively harmful. For my opponent to negate this resolution, he must show that there is good reason to allow special allowances, and that giving these special allowances is better than the harm we know it causes.
Secondly, I have attempted to show that it is unjust to give rights to one person - such as the right to skip lessons - that one would not give to someone else. My opponent says that to treat children fairly, we must "treat them unequally", yet I have argued the opposite: justice is fairness, and fairness is equal treatment, and applying the same rules to everyone in society.
Finally, I have attempted to show that, empirically, special privileges has harmed more than they have helped. I gave examples including ACE and faith schools which destroy the chance of good education for students. My opponent agreed that special privileges exercised here are unjust. My opponent in turn argued that denying religious exceptions harmed people's education attainment. I responded with multiple psychology studies showing the exact opposite: that religions, such as Protestantism, harmed education attainment. Darnell argued this was due to religion acting as an echo-chamber, cementing prejudices and weakening their education. Coleman concluded because of this, their parents "send their children to these schools denuded of social capital", ill-equipped for education.
My opponent did not state what special privileges he'd grant religion; my opponent's defence of inequality was lacking, and he did not refute the evidence that special privileges harmed education. Vote PRO. ...
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-17 07:42:13
| Speak Round
Judge: nzlockie
Judge: Pinkie
I mean - after clicking to submit your argument you will be taken to a page with a great big "review your argument" at the top where you can choose to go back if you do want to make some final changes. Is it already truncated on that page or not?Posted 2014-04-17 07:53:25
I'm not sure what you mean. It truncates at the end of each argument by a few characters. :vPosted 2014-04-17 07:50:36
Did it truncate in the same way on the review your argument screen?Posted 2014-04-11 22:45:14
Okay, I've submitted my argument, but I had the same problem again, with the argument not fitting the word limit. MS 2013 tells me I had used 3943 characters. I still got truncated when it was just the first sentence, as well, so I don't think it is over.Posted 2014-04-11 22:30:49
Firstly, I didn't know you could include in-line linking, no!
Secondly, the word-count within the text box stated firstly that it would fit. It originally actually let me keep the tenth source but truncated the eleventh, but when it was shorter, it would truncate the tenth as well :S I'll try and keep it shorter in future; I think the wordcount is slightly bugged then.Posted 2014-04-11 21:36:45
SteveHawkins, your entire text comes up as 4106 character for me including those two sources (checking with MS Word). I think my truncation mechanism was actually accurate this time but the character count thing must not have been. I'll keep investigating. For now, remember to check that "review your argument" page!
Next time could you notify me when they don't appear on the "review your argument" page? Makes catching bugs way easier.
Also, you do realize you can do inline linking on edeb8 right?
Oh, and good luck!
How come my two final sources didn't go through? :S It said they were within the word limit...
the two were:
10) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/creationist-sect-among-100plus-faith-applicants-for-free-schools-8501794.html
and 11) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1
583269/Inside-Britains-strictest-sect.ht
mlPosted 2014-04-10 02:05:45
This'll be fun.