Instigator / Pro
14
1491
rating
10
debates
70.0%
won
Topic
#4535

Parents shouldn't be able to ban school library books

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
0
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

jamgiller
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
25,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Description

Resolution: It should not be possible to ban or remove books from school libraries based on parents' or guardians' objections to the content.

Happy to establish other conditions, rules, etc. in the comments. This is my first time creating a new debate.

Round 1
Pro
#1
I want to thank John00 for accepting my challenge. We are both new to this website, so I believe this will be a good, low-stakes learning experience for us.

I support the resolution that it should not be possible to ban or remove books from school libraries based on parents' or guardians' objections to the content. If parents believe that certain books are inappropriate for their children, they should personally regulate their children’s reading behaviors instead of petitioning to ban or remove the books from a school library, which would deprive other students of access to the books.

Laws against the distribution of obscene material can ensure that no such material is present in school libraries for parents to object to. In the United States, federal law places restrictions on obscene material, including prohibiting the distribution of obscene material to minors. Quoting the same US Department of Justice web page, the Miller test is used by judges and jurors to determine whether matter is obscene as follows:

  1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
  2. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
  3. Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Because a book that satisfies the above criteria would not be in the school library, a library book under objection from parents
  1. Has “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;” or
  2. Would not be found by “the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards” to be prurient or patently offensive.
By removing such a book from the school library, the students would be deprived of a valuable piece of literature, or the objector(s) would impose their personal standards on others, against the principles of liberty. As an example of objectors imposing their personal standards on others: according to a PEN America study, the plurality of books banned in US schools have LGBTQ+ themes, which only a relatively small group of conservative individuals—not “the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards—”would find to be offensive. Furthermore, the proliferation of library book challenges can result in soft censorship, such that school staff avoid putting some books on shelves for fear of challenges.

Parents have alternative means to regulate their childrens’ reading behaviors. A parent can teach their child(ren) how to identify appropriate literature, incentivize their child(ren) to read appropriate literature, answer their child(ren)’s questions about difficult topics such that they are less likely to pursue information from inappropriate sources, etc. Furthermore, even if a child is exposed to inappropriate material (from the parent’s perspective,) the parent can discuss the material with the child to create a positive lesson from the experience. These approaches are superior to attempting to ban books from school libraries because they
  1. Don’t negatively affect others’ children;
  2. Are consistent with both the principle of free speech and parental rights;
  3. Foster communication between parents and children;
  4. Don’t open the door to further attempted censorship in other contexts such as public libraries, bookstores, etc.; and
  5. Are less likely to create forbidden fruit.

Con
#2
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Con
#4
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
#5
It seems like Con unfortunately could not find time to post. Extend my first arguments. Vote Pro.
Con
#6
Forfeited