Instigator / Pro
14
1491
rating
10
debates
70.0%
won
Topic
#4785
(TRT) The teaching of religious studies is necessary in public schools as part of a well-rounded education.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
jamgiller
Judges
Greyparrot
4 debates /
20 votes
Voted
whiteflame
27 debates /
195 votes
Voted
Sir.Lancelot
182 debates /
79 votes
No vote
Mps1213
11 debates /
7 votes
No vote
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Judges
Contender / Con
8
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Description
This is an on-balance debate, so the burden of proof is shared.
Round 1
Thank you, Mall, for accepting the challenge to this debate, and Greyparrot, whiteflame, Sir.Lancelot, and Mps1213 for adjudicating.
Preamble
Interpretation of the resolution
As the resolution does not specify a particular context for public schools, I opt to argue the case for public schools in the United States. In this context, the term “well-rounded education” has both colloquial and legal definitions. The colloquial definitions that I will refer to when developing my interpretation of the resolution and my argument are from Collins Dictionary. I provide the relevant entries below, which I extracted from this page.
Well-rounded:
- well-planned for proper balance
- E.g., a well-rounded education
- desirably varied
- E.g., a well-rounded curriculum
With the passing of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a well-rounded education is legally defined in 20 USC § 7801(52) as:
“The term ‘well-rounded education’ means courses, activities, and programming in subjects such as English, reading or language arts, writing, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography, computer science, music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and any other subject, as determined by the State or local educational agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to an enriched curriculum and educational experience.”
Regarding the term “religious studies”, I cite the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction:
“Teaching about religion must be clearly distinguished from teaching religion, which amounts to religious indoctrination and practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A program intended to teach religion, disguised as teaching about religion, will be found unconstitutional.Religion may be presented as part of a public educational program, with the goal of teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, economic and social development of the United States and other nations, and instilling understanding, tolerance and respect. Religion must be discussed in a neutral, objective, balanced and factual manner.The curriculum's approach may not be devotional or doctrinal, nor have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion”
Based on the above, I interpret religious studies in public schools as a subject that
- Provides a means to learn about
- The concept of religion
- Various religious groups
- The role of religion in historical, cultural, economic, and social development
- One’s own behavior in the context of religious issues
- Is not devotional or doctrinal
- Does not have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion
- Is discussed in a neutral, objective, balanced, and factual manner.
My interpretation of the resolution is that public schools in the US need to teach religious studies in order to provide a well-rounded education. That is, religious education is necessary, but not sufficient, to provide educational experience that is desirably varied, enriched, and well-planned for proper balance. The teaching of other subjects may also be necessary, alongside religious studies, to achieve a well-rounded education, but such subjects are not the focus of this debate.
Outline of Pro’s case
Religion is a social institution of great importance and influence across the world. In the US, religion continues to have a powerful influence on political and social affairs, and it is inextricably linked to the history of the nation and its founding. To win this debate, I will convince the judges that the teaching of religious studies is necessary to meet the standards of a well-rounded education. I refer to the key characteristics of a well-rounded education, and summarize my position as follows:
- Desirably varied: It is desirable to include religious studies in public school curricula alongside other secular subjects. I will prove this point by arguing the benefits of teaching religious studies.
- Enriched: The teaching of religious studies enriches students’ understanding of other subjects, and helps students to develop in other aspects of life besides academics.
- Well-planned for proper balance: A curriculum without religious studies would be biased towards secularism such that students’ ability to understand and navigate life in the US would be harmed.
Burden of proof
As this is an on-balance debate, the burden of proof is shared.
Benefits of teaching religious studies
As I have limited time, I will establish my arguments in this round and expand on them in the next round. The teaching of religious studies provides important benefits that are not necessarily available from the teaching of other subjects, or can’t be fully realized by the teaching of other subjects in the absence of religious studies.
Understanding human behavior
According to the Pew Research Center, “Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group.” The behaviors of members of a religious group are to a greater or lesser extent guided by the beliefs and practices associated with the group, depending on one’s level of devotion, how strict the doctrine is, etc. Even irreligious people’s behaviors are often influenced by cultural norms that are based on some religion. Learning about religion, various religious groups, and the role of religion in historical, cultural, economic, and social development enables students to better understand human behavior. This in turn provides numerous benefits, such as improving social skills, reducing uncertainty about people’s actions and the associated negative psychological effects, enhancing one’s ability to contribute to and critique one’s culture, etc.
Promoting a more tolerant society
The teaching of religious studies in public schools can help to promote a more tolerant society, which can in turn reduce harms experienced by religious minority groups, improve interpersonal relationships, etc. For example, in their article on Islamophobia and Education in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, Rahat Zaidi says that
“Education has tremendous power to challenge phobic perspectives and move beyond the traditional realm of what has historically been the norm in the classroom.”
Enriched educational experience
Complementing other subjects
Since religion has had such a significant influence on the historical, cultural, economic and social development of the United States, the teaching of religious studies enriches the educational experience of other subjects, including History, English, Civics, etc.
Expanding horizons
Religious studies provide unique insights into different parts of the world, communities, cultures, and worldviews that are not covered by other courses.
Well-balanced education
The subjects in a well-balanced education should provide students with the knowledge of and experience dealing with topics and issues that they will likely encounter in their daily lives outside of school. Because religion is such an important and influential social institution in the US, to not teach religious studies is to deny students knowledge and experience that will leave them underprepared to deal with numerous events and situations in their daily lives. It is not enough to provide students with skills for further education or the workplace, and to only teach about the secular aspects of American society.
***Please note this opening statement has been prepared prior to the opposing side's opening******
The teaching of religious studies is not necessary in public schools period. As for the part about a "well-rounded education", I don't even know what that means. I'm looking for the opposing side to break that down.
First of all unless the school is setup for certain things like an art school, vocational school or theology school, a public school houses the general studies. Anything else, the child learns at home where they're trained up in the way they should go according to the scriptures if it's that kind of a household.
I understand many are brought up in a church, learn what they learn in Sunday school, learn what they learn in elementary school.
Being that you never stop learning, there's no such thing as top level or sufficient education. Nobody will ever have enough as we know it to know everything. Once we observe an area that a person is unlearned in, how is that person "well rounded"?
So whatever is needed in public schools is what they are exactly setup for. You don't go beyond the purpose of a thing. If a purpose is being failed to be fulfilled in, absolutely give it what it necessitates.
The opposing side will have to demonstrate a public school's mission such as a grade school, pre-school, in order to fulfill it would necessitate religious studies. You know for the sake of teaching math, why religious studies are needed. For the sake of teaching science, why religious studies would be needed for that. For the sake of social studies, reading, chemistry, biology, geometry, trigonometry, what else, it's been a while for me. Let's see, gym class(physical education), computer science, why would any of this necessitate religious studies?
Oh to be "well rounded". Well I'm going to be a chemist, biologist, I need all I need to know about those subjects to excel in one or both of those fields. I guess you can call that well rounded. It depends on what you mean by that.
I'm not presenting my position in this debate that is for or against religion. I won't argue over pros and cons but just the basic principle in the purpose in something.
I'll respond to what appears to be the bottom line and summarization of the opposing side's position.
They're arguing that the teaching of religious studies is necessary in public schools as part of a well-rounded education.
I'll argue how it's not necessary simply based on the mission of any individual academic public school.
"Well-balanced education
The subjects in a well-balanced education should provide students with the knowledge of and experience dealing with topics and issues that they will likely encounter in their daily lives outside of school. Because religion is such an important and influential social institution in the US, to not teach religious studies is to deny students knowledge and experience that will leave them underprepared to deal with numerous events and situations in their daily lives. It is not enough to provide students with skills for further education or the workplace, and to only teach about the secular aspects of American society."
So far I'm getting well rounded is well planned for proper balance but of what for what?
Everything there is broad and maybe abstract. When you talk about"likely encounter ", that's not definitive nor based on anything is it? Is it based on something abstract?
What topics and issues might a person deal with, how do you know?
Let's do it this way. When we know what we're in for, let's prepare for it, not the other way around.
You don't know if a person will ever have anything to do with religion or attend a church, a congregation or religious conversation.
Nobody has to be denied what they wish to learn. Nobody has to have it imposed on them either.
There are many things not taught in schools that could be useful like entrepreneurship. But it's not an issue. I as an individual can still seek to learn what there is to know.
I as an individual can still seek to learn what there is to know about the bible. Which according to it, if you are of the faith or desire to be, you'll find out it's not to be a school that teaches you anything on those writings.
When talking about sufficient education or what is enough, it depends on the individual goal.
So basically the dissention is public schools are what they are for the basics. A person can elect to go to college or anywhere to grow their knowledge for whatever specific reason there is to do so .
Our knowledge increases as we age anyway so it's not something to really make an issue over as some sort of necessity to apply to an academic public curriculum.
Round 2
In this round, I will expand on my arguments and address Con’s arguments from round 1.
Benefits of teaching religious studies
I have interpreted a well-rounded education to be desirably varied. Variation in an education can refer to the breadth of subjects, different teaching and learning styles, various methods of assessment, etc. I have chosen to focus on religious education’s contribution to the breadth of subjects taught in public schools in the US. The desirability of a varied set of subjects is based on the benefits conferred by the teaching of each subject. If the teaching of a subject provides little benefit, then even with content that is distinct from others, it could only increase the variation of the school’s curriculum, not the desirability. Religious studies are prima facie distinct from secular subjects, and so contribute to a varied curriculum. Here, I argue that teaching religious studies confers important benefits, and therefore leads to a desirably varied curriculum.
Understanding human behavior
In round 1, I claimed that the behaviors of members of a religious group are to a greater or lesser extent guided by the beliefs and practices associated with the group. This claim is supported by the scientific literature, according to a review of Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic Behavior in the United States.
“A large body of literature documents that religion has widespread effects on the economic and demographic behavior of individuals and families in the United States, including the choice of marital partner, entry into co-habitation and marriage, divorce, fertility, women’s work at home and in the labor market, education, wages, and wealth.”
That irreligious people’s behaviors are also often influenced by cultural norms that are based on some religion is apparent. Even so, I refer the judges to the extensive Wikipedia article on Christian Culture if there is interest in this topic.
Among the benefits of an improved understanding of human behavior through religious studies are improved social skills, reduced uncertainty about people’s actions and the associated negative psychological effects, and an enhanced ability to contribute to and critique one’s culture. One can improve one’s social skills by learning about the types of behavior and speech that are valued and denounced by practitioners of different religions, and performing or avoiding them as appropriate. Some behaviors that are motivated by a person’s religion are obscure to others outside of that religion, such as their choice of dress or how they interact with members of different genders, and observing such behaviors without context can generate fear, hostility, and other negative psychological effects. A better understanding of how and why people who follow different religions behave in certain ways, such as muslim women wearing clothes that hide their facial features, can reduce uncertainty about their actions and mitigate these negative effects. Finally, cultural contributions and critiques are more impactful if supported by a strong understanding of the culture, which, in the US, is heavily influenced by religion. For example, one can make a strong critique of consumerism and anti-welfare ideas in the US by referencing Jesus’ rejection of material wealth and support of migrants and the poor.
Promoting a more tolerant society
In addition to the evidence I provided in the last round, The American Academy of Religion specifies this as the primary reason to teach about religion in their Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K-12 Public Schools in the United States. They present and defend the following three premises:
- There exists a widespread illiteracy about religion in the United States.
- One of the most troubling and urgent consequences of religious illiteracy is that it often fuels prejudice and antagonism thereby hindering efforts aimed at promoting respect for diversity, peaceful coexistence, and cooperative endeavors in local, national, and global arenas.
- It is possible to diminish religious illiteracy by teaching about religion from a non-devotional perspective in primary, middle, and secondary schools.
Enriched educational experience
I have interpreted a well-rounded education to provide an enriched educational experience. According to Collins Dictionary, the relevant definition of enrich is “to give greater value, importance, effectiveness, etc. to” something. Besides the benefits of teaching religious studies previously discussed, teaching religious studies also gives greater value to a public school educational experience by enhancing the value and effectiveness of teaching other subjects. It also provides value in direct ways, such as expanding student’s horizons.
Complementing other subjects
In the last round, I provided some examples of subjects that are complemented by Religious Studies. Here, I will expand on these examples. The teaching of religious studies enhances the value and effectiveness of teaching History and English by providing the opportunity to apply historical and literary scholarship to religious figures and traditions. The American Academy of Religion describes three approaches to religion that are commonly taught in public schools and highlight such complementarity in part 3 of the Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K-12 Public Schools in the United States: the historical approach, literary approach, and traditions-based approach. Because religion is highly influential in US politics, being the subject of the establishment clause of the Constitution, motivating the policy positions of many politicians, and raising issues about the conflict between religious liberty and other rights and obligations of people in American society, the teaching of religious studies enhances the value of teaching Civics.
Expanding horizons
As with the study of arts and languages, religious studies enhance students’ understanding of the world and human experience. Unless one is a member of a specific religious group, one is unlikely to learn about the group’s culture, practices, etc. without taking a course in religious studies. Religion provides an alternative to, and has contributed to the development of philosophy, in dealing with the fundamental questions about life that all humans consider, such as the question of salvation, or how to live free of the fear of death. Even if one is irreligious, it is highly valuable to learn about the religious approach to these questions, as Professor Luc Ferry does in his book A Brief History of Thought: A Philosophical Guide to Living.
Well-balanced education
At this point, I must address Con’s following question:
“When you talk about ‘likely encounter’, that's not definitive nor based on anything is it? Is it based on something abstract?”
Some concrete examples of religious influence on daily life in the US include the following:
- The Pew Research Center estimates that
“Nearly half of Americans (46%) say they talk with their immediate families about religion at least once or twice a month. About a quarter (27%) say they talk about religion at least once a month with their extended families, and 33% say they discuss religion as often with people outside their families.”
Religious literacy is important to have productive and valuable conversations about religion, which are common in the US.
- An article by Good 360 explains how faith-based organizations play a critical role in philanthropy and volunteering in the US. An understanding of the different religious groups involved in philanthropic work can help students interested in contributing and volunteering appreciate the missions and objectives of these organizations, and pick the right ones.
- Some of the most controversial and important social and political issues of the past decade have been related to the religious beliefs of one side, such as the legality of abortion, or the right of a business owner to refuse service to certain customers based on their religious beliefs. To be able to properly engage with these issues, students require religious literacy.
Con’s case
“The opposing side will have to demonstrate a public school's mission such as a grade school, pre-school, in order to fulfill it would necessitate religious studies.”
The Every Student Succeeds Act requires public schools to prioritize a well-rounded education, in a departure from the previous regime of No Child Left Behind, which focused on a set of core subjects. By proving that religious studies is necessary for a well-rounded education, I am demonstrating that public schools' missions (to deliver a well-rounded education) necessitate religious studies. The resolution does not require Pro to prove that religious studies are required in the teaching of other subjects, as Con suggests. We judge Mathematics to be a necessary subject overall despite it not being needed to teach English or any other subject. I account for the complementarity between religious studies and other subjects in my arguments.
“Let's do it this way. When we know what we're in for, let's prepare for it, not the other way around.”
Public education is supposed to preemptively prepare all students with a socially conceived, shared knowledge and skill base to participate in society and lead a successful life, at least somewhat independent of each individual's specific circumstances. Public education also offers experiences with different academic disciplines and extracurricular activities for students to try as they develop their tastes. The curriculum can be developed with a general sense of the knowledge and skills students will find useful in their lives, and I try to reflect this in my arguments.
"There are many things not taught in schools that could be useful like entrepreneurship. But it's not an issue. I as an individual can still seek to learn what there is to know."
The resolution does not preclude other subjects from being necessary for a well-rounded education, but such subjects are not the focus of this debate. While there is a place for self-directed learning outside of school, public education in school is generally considered the proper venue for children's academic pursuits.
"I as an individual can still seek to learn what there is to know about the bible. Which according to it, if you are of the faith or desire to be, you'll find out it's not to be a school that teaches you anything on those writings"
Public school is the proper venue to receive a non-doctrinal, neutral, objective, balanced, and factual education about various religions and their sacred texts. As an individual or member of a church, for example, one can "learn religion", i.e., study the specific religion in a devotional way, instead of learning about religion.
"Our knowledge increases as we age anyway so it's not something to really make an issue over as some sort of necessity to apply to an academic public curriculum."
One's knowledge does not automatically increase with age, but only through applying effort to study and praxis. Public schools provide a publicly funded venue, with the teachers and resources to support quality education to every child. Without public schooling, many children would not be able to pursue the necessary self-directed study to further their development. This would only be possible for the privileged few. Would Con make the same claim about learning Mathematics, Science, Arts, etc.?
I'll start with this as much of your communication is not very clear to me unfortunately. If you could be more concise, that may help.
"One's knowledge does not automatically increase with age, but only through applying effort to study and praxis."
I didn't say anything about "automatic". I said knowledge increases with age. Instead of fabricating something to debate over we can just agree this is true .
Which I'm going to have to say this idea of "well rounded" falls short. Somethings just have to come with age. No matter how so called well rounded you are, there are many things you can learn from an elder that's been there , done that.
"Would Con make the same claim about learning Mathematics, Science, Arts, etc.?"
What is the mission of said school? Teaching arithmetic, biology, psychology, human anatomy, literature, is it those things?
Well so be it. If it doesn't include religious studies , so be it. You're position I believe is to impose it where it is not the agenda.
"Public school is the proper venue to receive a non-doctrinal, neutral, objective, balanced, and factual education about various religions and their sacred texts. As an individual or member of a church, for example, one can "learn religion", i.e., study the specific religion in a devotional way, instead of learning about religion."
If any given public school happens to have religious studies a part of their curriculum fine. Like a Christian or Catholic school, fine. It'd be their mission that they decided to make a statement on.
Public school Monday through Friday and Sunday school on Sunday. We already have this structure existing so it's still not necessary anything other than that.
"By proving that religious studies is necessary for a well-rounded education, I am demonstrating that public schools' missions (to deliver a well-rounded education) necessitate religious studies."
For instance I'm the dean of a school. The mission of my school is people that go to mine have a well rounded or sufficient knowledge of history back to the 17th century. Now that's it. I don't require religious studies in my school because my mission is complete. Do you follow?
Now students at my school wish to be successful as history professors. Nothing more, nothing less. They're not interested in anything else in the categories of what would be professional, vocational, occupational or even perhaps recreational when it comes to what's historical you see.
Now you can say "what about religious conversations that come up?"
How do the "well rounded" secular historians deal with it?
They can say "no comment" and keep it moving. Better yet to avoid controversy, avoid getting involved.
So when you talk about what's necessary for anything, it all depends on each individual's agenda, goal and mission. Trying to uniform this can just create more exhaustion, added layers and complications that can make someone's basic task of just focusing on one thing counter productive breaking up the concentration focusing on unneeded areas of study.
I've heard people complain about so many things in school that they've learned was not useful, are not useful now .
If anything, tighten up, trim down the excess material and fine tune the basics .
"Religious literacy is important to have productive and valuable conversations about religion, which are common in the US. "
This is subjective and imposing. Each mature person will have to evaluate what is important to them, productive and valuable to them.
So where rubber meets road, people that are interested and what to learn religious studies, go for it. It's an elective, not imperative unless a man desires an office of a bishop for example.
Whatever a person's goal is to succeed at it, do what it takes , religious or non religious. Straightforward, simple and concise.
Round 3
I will summarize the debate and show that Pro should win.
Interpretation of the resolution
In round 1, I provided a definition for “well-rounded education” based on entries in Collins Dictionary and the US federal code: an educational experience that is desirably varied, enriched, and well-planned for proper balance. Con explicitly stated that they defer to my definition.
“As for the part about a ‘well-rounded education’, I don't even know what that means. I'm looking for the opposing side to break that down.”
Even if Con seemed to abandon the definition I provided, they never directly refuted my definition or explained their own definition of “well-rounded education”, so I ask the judges to accept my definition.
Con’s case
Learning with age
Con argued that since people continue to learn throughout their lives, and there are some things that people only learn with age, it is not possible, or at least not important to achieve a well-rounded education in public schools.
“Being that you never stop learning, there's no such thing as top level or sufficient education. Nobody will ever have enough as we know it to know everything. Once we observe an area that a person is unlearned in, how is that person ‘well rounded’?”
“Our knowledge increases as we age anyway so it's not something to really make an issue over as some sort of necessity to apply to an academic public curriculum.”
“Which I'm going to have to say this idea of ‘well rounded’ falls short. Some things just have to come with age. No matter how so called well rounded you are, there are many things you can learn from an elder that's been there , done that.”
However, these arguments do not detract from my definition of a well-rounded education, which should be the accepted definition for this debate, as explained above. A public school education can still be desirably varied, enriched, and well-planned for proper balance even if one continues to learn throughout one’s life. Whether or not there are things that one can only learn with age also has no effect on a well-rounded public school education as defined.
Con did not prove that learning about religion at a later stage in life is any better than learning about religion in school. Since this is an on-balance debate, they share the burden of proof. I ask the judges to give less weight to Con’s arguments as they are assertions without evidence and not thoroughly explained.
Schools’ missions and students’ preferences
Con’s main argument is that the mission of some schools excludes religious studies as a necessary subject, and religious studies shouldn’t be considered necessary for students that have no interest in the subject.
“When talking about sufficient education or what is enough, it depends on the individual goal.So basically the dissention is public schools are what they are for the basics. A person can elect to go to college or anywhere to grow their knowledge for whatever specific reason there is to do so.”
“If any given public school happens to have religious studies a part of their curriculum fine. Like a Christian or Catholic school, fine. It'd be their mission that they decided to make a statement on.”
“For instance I'm the dean of a school. The mission of my school is people that go to mine have a well rounded or sufficient knowledge of history back to the 17th century. Now that's it. I don't require religious studies in my school because my mission is complete. Do you follow?Now students at my school wish to be successful as history professors. Nothing more, nothing less. They're not interested in anything else in the categories of what would be professional, vocational, occupational or even perhaps recreational when it comes to what's historical you see.”
While students' wishes are important, they are not the only consideration when constructing a curriculum. If students were to be taught only about history because that's what they want, they would be woefully unprepared for other aspects of life and what to do if their planned career as a history professor fails, or if they lose interest in that career.
What Con describes seems like an extreme version of a magnet school with a very narrow focus, or “mission”. In reality, as explained by the website Public School Review (emphasis mine):
"While [magnet] schools may have a general theme, students still study various subjects. Each subject is aligned to local, state, or national learning standards (i.e. Common Core), but each subject is taught within the school’s theme."
Con argues based on a type of school that does not exist, but they do not meet the burden of proof to show why such a narrowly focused school is a good thing. Schools are not, and should not be as narrowly focused as Con suggests, rather, a well-rounded education is important, as explained by the Center for American Progress.
Pro’s case
A well-rounded education is already prioritized for public schools in the US, and it has evident benefits for students’ development. I argued that the teaching of religious studies is necessary to meet the standards of a well-rounded education: desirably varied, enriched, and well-planned for proper balance.
Teaching religious studies provides the benefits of helping students to better understand human behavior, and promoting a more tolerant society. Religious studies can complement other subjects and expand students’ horizons. Finally, the public school curriculum would not be well-balanced without religious studies, since religion plays such an important role in American society, and the curriculum should reflect this.
Based on the strength of my arguments, which I supported with evidence, I ask the judges to vote Pro.
"Even if Con seemed to abandon the definition I provided, they never directly refuted my definition or explained their own definition of “well-rounded education”, so I ask the judges to accept my definition."
Abandon is inaccurate. As I've stated throughout this I've requested much for clarity. Also it's illogical to debate definitions. Definitions and words are tools and vehicles we use to communicate with one another. The essence is to get an understanding which mine was not very thorough of you. Nevertheless being that I don't use the term or phrase "well rounded" or " well rounded education", I wouldn't have a prepared definition for it.
Basically my position had to do with demonstrating and has demonstrated according to real life circumstances now, there really is no such thing as "well educated" like you're sufficient. I simply pointed out the fact you never stop learning,never stop seeking education for it is everywhere, any time where it's available to be used which is what intelligence is .
So we get more and more intelligent. I don't believe even you had a refutation for that.
"Con argued that since people continue to learn throughout their lives, and there are some things that people only learn with age, it is not possible, or at least not important to achieve a well-rounded education in public schools."
No you didn't get what I was saying at all. Just when you think something is clear enough.....well I guess that's why the worldviews are different and worlds apart . You've yet to see my perspective and lense.
I didn't say anything about "not important". If you really notice and not be defensive, you would of comprehended that I have nothing against religious studies in any given school public or not. IF that is the elective or mission of that school. If it's a private school, you definitely have no place to insist or impose.
This was my basic contention. Just don't impose.
"Whether or not there are things that one can only learn with age also has no effect on a well-rounded public school education as defined."
Yes I just don't have a handle on what you mean by "well rounded". Does it have to do with a knowledge or education that you can measure or quantify?
This was just unclear.
"Con did not prove that learning about religion at a later stage in life is any better than learning about religion in school. Since this is an on-balance debate, they share the burden of proof. I ask the judges to give less weight to Con’s arguments as they are assertions without evidence and not thoroughly explained."
First off I never argued about a "later stage ". I don't know where you're getting this from. It's already reality or proven that people may learn religion including religious writings very young and early in life. I'm one of them. But religious studies didn't have to be imposed on the school I attended for me to learn see. This is the point you should of gotten out of my presentation. I don't know. Somehow you missed it. But there it is pretty much once and for all.
"Con’s main argument is that the mission of some schools excludes religious studies as a necessary subject, and religious studies shouldn’t be considered necessary for students that have no interest in the subject."
I'll put it this way so the misrepresentation doesn't continue. The basis of what schools teach , particularly public grade that are directed by individual school districts don't take into account what the children may be interested in. Many children are interested in other things outside of the classroom.
So the school's curriculum is assessed by the agenda of that individual school's mission. Except for elective classes. But in preliminary and elementary grades, it's whatever the school's mission is. Now aside from that , the possibility of a child learning religion more so will come from their household and parental guidance which is common. I don't know if you're aware of this but there are many parents that bring their children to church, to a temple or whatever.
I brought up the point about Sunday school. I brought up that if one is interested, pursue what they're interested in.
See you're using terms like "not necessary" or " not important". Never argued any of that myself. I can't determine that for anybody. But the difference is I'm leaving that to the individual. You're the one steady trying to impose it on private grounds or places where you have no jurisdiction in a socialist type of order .
Just like the phrase "well rounded". Who are you to say what's enough or sufficient for a person to learn in what they may face to utilize what they've learned?
THAT INDIVIDUAL IS TO DETERMINE THAT. GET ME GET ME GET IT GET IT. They are the ones in that situation, in their lives with their individual goals and agendas for whatever they're trying to do or purpose to fulfill in .
Many public schools have the mission of teaching the basics. Being that is what they're there for, that's all they're their FOR. THAT'S IT.
"While students' wishes are important, they are not the only consideration when constructing a curriculum. If students were to be taught only about history because that's what they want, they would be woefully unprepared for other aspects of life and what to do if their planned career as a history professor fails, or if they lose interest in that career.
What Con describes seems like an extreme version of a magnet school with a very narrow focus, or “mission”. In reality, "
I pretty much addressed this in summary so it's like we're talking passed one another.
Debate is pretty much finished.
"Con argues based on a type of school that does not exist, but they do not meet the burden of proof to show why such a narrowly focused school is a good thing. "
I don't meet that burden because it's not a burden of mine. I'm not here to argue what's good or not.
You said the burden is shared. But the topic is about "necessary". Your position is to present necessity. Mine is and has shown no necessity because people such as myself can learn about religion wherever applicable.
"Schools are not, and should not be as narrowly focused as Con suggests, rather, a well-rounded education is important"
I don't argue this either. You really need a clearer understanding of my position which is education is unlimited, get all you're purposed to get regardless of any mission of any one school. So it makes no difference as it's not necessary to mandate all schools as people on their purpose that they've decided, not you or me but they that choose to go after the education they're looking for because it's there.
This is what it seems that you have not gotten. Education is there. One way or another, they'll get it so you don't have to worry about someone's private endeavors or ambitions. Worry about your own self.
Your position is coming off socialist.
Remember this , everyone who reads this. We have ministers, theologians, biblical scholars, etc., people learning religion. So it's not like we don't have people currently learning it. The opposing side never disputed this so this thing about proof, see and realize it for yourself. People before I was born were students of religion, ministers that were active in political, civil arenas, count them too.
You don't believe this, do you doubt the history books?
I'll leave it at that.
I would accept this but unfortunately i'm already in another tournament debate.