(TRT) The teaching of religious studies is necessary in public schools as part of a well-rounded education.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
This is an on-balance debate, so the burden of proof is shared.
- well-planned for proper balance
- E.g., a well-rounded education
- desirably varied
- E.g., a well-rounded curriculum
“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.”
“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”
- 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.
- 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.
“Education has tremendous power to challenge phobic perspectives and move beyond the traditional realm of what has historically been the norm in the classroom.”
“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.”
- 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.
“When you talk about ‘likely encounter’, that's not definitive nor based on anything is it? Is it based on something abstract?”
- The Pew Research Center estimates that
- 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.
“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.”
“Let's do it this way. When we know what we're in for, let's prepare for it, not the other way around.”
"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"
"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."
“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.”
“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.”
“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 [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."
Pro presents the meat of his argument in round one by saying teaching ABOUT religion is a necessary part of education in the framework of the teaching of liberal arts through understanding culture. Note: Pro makes the distinction between teaching religion and teaching ABOUT religion, as this is how he uses the present guidelines for education in a legal framework. For Con to win, he must prove this is not the case.
Con makes a mistake right away by assuming Pro is arguing for schools to "teach religion" with this:
"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."
Con does put the gauntlet down and claims that Pro needs to convince the reader that the instruction is necessary. Does Pro do this? Let us see!
Pro claims that instruction about religion is necessary for a well-rounded education.
Pro lays out the meat of this later on in the debate with this:
"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."
I think this is sufficient for proving his case, and Con did not do enough to counter this claim. Instead, Con in his final thoughts attacked a strawman argument of Pro, namely: promoting the teaching of religion instead of teaching ABOUT religion in a cultural framework.
Moreover, on a personal level, I can't stress how important Pro's position is for promoting a tolerant and understanding society. We currently live in times where this type of cultural education is sorely lacking, and people on both sides do not understand or tolerate each other because they have never been exposed to the different opposing cultures in America. Learning about different religious cultures can go a long way to help bridge the gap and offer compromise instead of both sides labeling each other as extremist whack jobs. While this is my sentiment, I think Pro did an adequate job outside of my own feelings about this issue; but please let me know if I may have unfairly assessed this debate.
Thank you.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Cl335wqe2lqnXWR8x4ePvEKfqTUBUUmgh4vluwFqBk/edit
Let me know if you have any questions.
I would accept this but unfortunately i'm already in another tournament debate.