Instigator / Pro
0
1493
rating
23
debates
60.87%
won
Topic
#4974

Parents should not be able to banish books at school libraries

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1589
rating
18
debates
69.44%
won
Description

I ask to have round 1 dedicated to one's own position and invite con to establish a position.

We can highlight issues or prefferences as well. I dont know wat else to say here so yeah. Let's go!

Round 1
Pro
#1
thank you to the audience for reading this debate. And to the contestant.

Parents should be able to ban school library books. Preventing books from being read in a school library by all. 

Round 1 contents
1. The debate
A.  Definitions
B what it means to ban a book
2. Position
 A. Audience driven content
  B. Parents are inherent influencers
3. Historical precedent 
4. Conclusion

1. Definitions & debate: 
1a.  Definitions
School- an organization that provides instruction. 

I will say a school may contain any age starting at 3 years old to 90 years old. Maybe even older. however, we know that the ages at any given school is not the same and may not contain all 3 to 90 year olds. 

Ban - to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of
OR
 - censure or condemnation especially through social pressure

Library - a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (such as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use but not for sale


We are referring to schools in u.s., public, charter, and private. Preschool, daycare, kindergarten, elementaries, middle schools, high schools, colleges, universities, amd trade schools . 

 Unless otherwise mentioned, we may assume we are talking about all these schools.  If this is an issue please advise.  

A school library is any library on school property or controlled by a school.

People directly involved at/with any given school would include students, non-teacher staff, teachers, parents/guardians of students. 

I will use the words parents & guardians interchangeably for convenience and ease in reading. Therefore, here within, guardians and parents are included under the umbrella term "parents." 

1b There is a process to banning books. 
When we talk about banning a book from any library, we are talking about  identifying content/book as a group and initiating a process to have content/book investigated and then removed from said library.  This prevents intended or accidental observing of that content/book.  Having a process to do ban a book prevents abuse or unnecessary bans. 

Although we are specific in talking about books, we understand content to include other medias as well as books. Ex: tapes, videos, music, text books, lectures, etc.

The process to remove a book from a library can differ from school to school. On average the process includes a review of content. In sone cases, books are not removed from a school library after a complaint is reviewed. 
 
Our process to identify and ban potential content via parent complaint extends beyond the library, but for now let's consider the main reason to why a book may be banned. 

2. My position 

2a.  Audience driven content

On average, the main reason for removing a book (or any content) from a school library is because that content is not relative to the audience. We add books to a school library because the books are relevant to the school library. 

In some cases, the content in question is viewed as obscene or harmful.  Our audience is the student body. 

The demographics for a specific school may differ from  school to school.  parent involvement in student may change according to the students' age and developmenthttps://www.healthline.com/health/childrens-health/stages-of-child-development#3-5-years 

A 4 year old is on average learning to read. They do not need novels or text books. A 10 year old on average will be able to read what the 4 year old can not, but is still limited in capabilities. Likewise, a 10 year old, on average, does not benefit from reading books intended for 6 month olds or 4 year olds. The books we expect these ages to read would not benefit the average college student. 

We see these separations at our public libraries and book stores. There is always an adult, teen, and kid section. The kid section is sometimes divided further to help separate books according to reading level. However, unlike public libraries and book stores, the school library caters to a smaller demographic. 

A school library for younger ages would not/should not have texts intended for older kids. A university library caters to a more diverse public, but would not/should not hold texts ideal for ages bellow 15.  

There is also a concern for content that follows an institution's image. For lack of a better word, an institution's image  presents to a public what that institution is about. A private school will, on average, cater to different standards than public schools. A school of business will have a different purpose then a state university. 

Our private school may follow specific standards where content that contradict these standards could mean students fail to perform to said standard. For example, a school that prides itself on "no cheating" would not poses books about how to cheat. 

A public school that caters to minority demographics would ensure texts in library do not target their demographics. For example, many schools have dropped kid books made from 1950 and earlier because they contain content that is racist or has race centered prejudices. 

A school of business, usually a trade school, will carry books that provide their students the best ability to understand content for business. We will not see/should not see text on subjects that deter or take away from learning business. For example, a book on astrology, biology, medicine, etc. 

Therefore the contents at a library should mirror the developmental stage of its audience. 

Parents have long been involved with  education and content at schools (i.e. library books). Why? Parents are influencers.  

2b). Parents are school influencers

School influencers are students, parents, professional education community, & local community input.
Sometimes there is a board of directors or city council or school board. Amount of influence changes with each school. 

A pre-school student will have greater parent involvement and influence than a high school student or a college student.  A pre-school student will have greater dependency on parents'  moral, legal, educational, medical, and physical influence on their education.   
Parents are viewed by law and society to have final say in many maters in our kid's life, including education. This means the content our kids are exposed to. 

In doing so, it creates a natural system for checks and balances. 

3. Historical presence in parent influencers at schools.  

Historically, a student's education has been influenced by parents. 
parents need to give permission for some student activities. This includes field trips, movies, sex education, and more. Parents have filed law suits in response to types of content presented to students. Although each law suit has its own story (whether justified or not), their presence gives testimony to parents being influencers. 

We have parent teacher associations (PTA) across the nation.  Booster clubs help schools navigate sports and more. 
These further solidify parents as influencers. 

Conclusion: 
Therefore, parents (as school influencers) have the ability to question and criticize content presented in schools. This includes content in libraries. In which, parents should be able to ban school library books. 

Con
#2
Thank you to PRO for allowing me to accept this debate. I hope this debate will be a thought-provoking read on a rather societally important issue.

PRO has structured the debate such that Round 1 is for establishment of positions only, so I shall spend round 1 doing so.

My case against censorship of school library books shall take the following form:

  • A. Introduction
  • B. Children's book censorship as a primary tool of the Nazi Regine
  • C. Censorship as a primary tool of the COVID-19 policy acceptance
  • D. Conclusion
* * * *

A. INTRODUCTION:

Numerous authorities have decried the usage of book bans as a means of education. At the helm of the charge is the American Library Association [1] and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [2].

The American Library Association, one of the largest associations of libraries and librarians stated:

A commitment to intellectual freedom and social justice requires that libraries not only protect the truth from suppression, but also prevent its distortion. [1]

They explain this protection and what it means for society:

The American Library Association is committed to upholding our core values, which include equitable access to knowledge, social justice, and intellectual freedom. As members of a profession committed to free and equitable access to information and the pursuit of truth, we stand firm in opposing any effort to suppress knowledge, to label “controversial” views, or dictate what is orthodox in history, politics, or belief. [1]

As they state, to ban books is to effectively censor truth and propagate racism, hate, and ignorance in the general populace.

This concurs with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which claims unilaterally that censorship played a major role in the propagation of Nazi beliefs among the general German public.

They write:
[BLOCKQUOTE] Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. People in Nazi Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted.

Examples of censorship under the Nazis included:

- Closing down or taking over anti-Nazi newspapers;

- Controlling what news appeared in newspapers, on the radio, and in newsreels;
-
Banning and burning books that the Nazis categorized as un-German;

- Controlling what soldiers wrote home during World War II. [3]

It is apparent that, in order for the Nazi regime to survive, censorship was in order. But let's look under the hood to see just how vital censorship of books is toward creating an oppressive, racist regime.

* * * *

B. THE NAZIS NEEDED CENSORSHIP OF CHILDRENS BOOKS TO SURVIVE

Indeed, as any good genocidal leader knows, censorship of the books for the youth, in particular, us important for racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, and genocide to survive.

This is why Hitler and the Nazis worked in overdrive to censor what the youth could get their hands on.

As the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states:

The Nazi Party tried to extend its influence over all aspects of German society. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls were developed as Nazi Party youth groups to introduce children and juveniles to Nazi ideology and policy. These youth groups also prepared Germany’s young people for war. [4]

Indeed, without children, Hitler's regime would crumble. But how, exactly did Hitler reach these youth? Primarily through introducing a culture of censorship.

As the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum goes on to state:

The Nazi state wanted the Hitler Youth to be in charge of all German youth. They saw other youth movements as competition. In 1933, political youth groups were quickly incorporated or suppressed. However, apolitical and religious youth groups lasted well into the 1930s. The dissolution and incorporation of youth groups was part of a society-wide process called Gleichschaltung, or “coordination.” [4]

To prevent dissenting points of view from stopping the Nazis, Hitler sought to squash all competing narratives so he could brainwash the children.

This indeed expanded to book burnings and censorship at colleges, high schools, and universities.

The Weiner Holocaust Library explains:

All youth organisations under the Nazi Party were anti-intellectual. Whilst they did not replace school, they reduced the influence and importance of education to children. [5]

However, this anti-intellectualism continued in the schools and universities, as The Weiner Holocaust Library further explains:

The Nazis also adapted where the students learned from. They introduced new textbooks which were often racist, and promoted ideas such the need for Lebensraum . Any textbooks used to educate students had to be approved by the party. [5]

They also went so far as to orchistrate book burnings and blacklisted Jewish authors and authors who were critical of Nazi racism and white supremacy, as The Weiner Holocaust Library states:

As a primary source of education and enjoyment, literature was a key target for Nazi reform.

The Nazis initially blacklisted authors they did not like or approve of. Many of the authors targeted were Jewish, such as Max Brod, but the Nazis had a range of other opponents who were also targeted, from communists, such as Karl Marx, to socialists, to foreign influences.

This blacklisting led to a series of book burnings led by the National Socialist German Students Association, a group of university students who strongly supported the Nazis. [5]

Indeed, without censorship, the Nazi party would have never stood a chance. They relied on book burnings and censorship of access to, ESPECIALLY, youth literature and textbooks to cement future support for their party among the young.

However, the Nazis are not the only notable example of censorship leading to murder and hatred. A massive censorship arm was also used to force Americans to inject an experimental and highly dangerous vaccine and accept deadly lockdowns, which had horrific consequences for tens of thousands.

C. CENSORSHIP IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF TENS OF THOUSANDS DURING COVID-19

Many know of the policies put in place in the United States to mitigate COVID: lockdowns and compulsory vaccination. However, many do mor know that multiple leading scientists and scholars in their fields vehemently disagreed with the United States' official position.

One such dissenter is world-renowned epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya, who, as chair of Health Policy at Stanford University, one of the foremost universities in the world, who experienced censorship firsthand.

As Dr. Jay Bhattacharya explains:

The trouble began on Oct. 4, 2020, when my colleagues and I—Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford— published the Great Barrington Declaration. It called for an end to economic lockdowns, school shutdowns, and similar restrictive policies because they disproportionately harm the young and economically disadvantaged while conferring limited benefits...

Federal officials immediately targeted the Great Barrington Declaration for suppression. Four days after the declaration’s publication, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins emailed Fauci to organize a “devastating takedown” of the document. Almost immediately, social media companies such as Google/YouTube, Reddit, and Facebook censored mentions of the declaration.

In 2021, Twitter blacklisted me for posting a link to the Great Barrington Declaration. YouTube censored a video of a public policy roundtable of me with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for the “crime” of telling him the scientific evidence for masking children is weak. [6]

The Great Barrington Declaration was a document that challenged lockdowns in favor of "Focused Protection," which said that the most vulnerable should shelter in place while the rest of the population gets and recovers from COVID, this bringing about Herd Immunity. [7]

The Great Barrington Declaration was co-signed by:

  • MORE THAN 16,000 medical health scientists [8]
  • MORE THAN 47,000 medical doctors. [8]

Censorship of such a widely agreed-upon policy in the medical community caused the carnage that was the lockdowns.

As the American Institute for Economic Research wrote:

Third, government-ordered lockdowns have been unimaginably destructive, as readers of AIER’s research know. The collateral damage spreads in every direction: Heart attack death rates spiked because patients were kept away from needed care. Tens of thousands of preventable cancer deaths and cancer diagnoses will be traced to delayed treatment and screening caused by lockdowns.

The isolation, job loss and depression triggered by lockdowns will lead to 75,000 deaths from drug abuse, alcoholism and suicide. And surely there’s a correlation between the lockdowns and the 30-percent surge in homicides in 2020—the largest single-year increase in 50 years. One study estimates “mortality, morbidity, mental health conditions and direct economic losses” in America to be a staggering $16.121 trillion— “more than twice the total monetary outlay for all the wars the U.S. has fought since September 11, 2001.” [9]

75,000 overdoses. Unknown numbers of cancer deaths, and a spike in deaths from heart attacks. And the U.S. government censored all dissenting opinion, directly causing these deaths in the process.

Additionally, the COVID-19 vaccine was also deadly. The European Medical Authority found that more than 11,000 people died as a result of the vaccine. [10] Similarly, the VAERS database in America reports more than 14,000 people died after COVID vaccination. [11]

By censoring this key information from the general public, tens of thousands of people died via both lockdowns and the vaccine itself.

D. CONCLUSION

Experts agree that censorship causes racism, hatred, and, ultimately, genocide. As the Nazi Regime demonstrated, among the youth, book banning leads to being brainwashed to support murderous, hateful, and authoritarian policies.

And as the COVID-19 pandemic showed, censorship caused the acceptance of policies that directly led to people dying.

There is no other way to look at it. Allowing any form of censorship propels authoritarian, murderous regimes to kill off those they don't like.

As Adolf Hitler himself stated:

"Only the continuous and steady application of the methods for suppressing a doctrine, etc., makes it possible for a plan to succeed." [12]

Right from the horse's mouth, the Nazi Regime would have failed without censorship.

SOURCES:

Round 2
Pro
#3
Hey Yo. 

Seems like censorship is a slippery slope here....

Round 2 contents
1. Definitions & debate
B. Process to banning
2. My position quotes
A. Audience driven content 
B.  Parents are influencers
5. Censorship. 
 A. Society has censorship. 
B. Limits to censorship.  
C. Parents banning books contains both censorship and limits to censorship. 
 

1b There is a process to banning books. 
Ex: 

 “no book ban has occurred in Walton County.”

Above article highlights mutual concerns for abusive approaches to banning any book from a school library.the article also demonstrates:
  • A.) there is a process to getting a book banned
  • B.) The primary abusers are not parents at a given school
  • C) the process helps navigate censorship
  • D) parents are well established influencers as the school tries to navigate input & feedback. 

Hey-yo:
The process to remove a book from a library can differ from school to school. On average the process includes a review of content. In some cases, books are not removed from a school library after a complaint is reviewed. 

2. My position 

2a.  Audience driven content

The contents at a library should mirror the developmental stage of its audience. 

5. Censorship
A. Censorship exists

Whether good or bad censorship exists. 



We can see from the above links that censorship is well in place for many years. We can consider it a precedent. Censorship exists. 

In some cases, we can see areas of criticism. Maybe we agree that some areas should not be censored. 

Per section 2a, and in support of 5a. some censorship is to navigate materials that cater to a library's demographics. 


B. There are limits to censorship. 
Especially for our schools. There is a review process, my point 1b, that limits censorship at our schools. 
Sometimes that review processes occurs when a complaint is made or prior to obtaining books for a library. 

Presenter Keira Parrott describes determining grade level as “more of an art then a science” and that SLJ does not use a checklist or rubric to assign grade level recommendations to titles. The factors SLJ uses to determine grade level include age of the protagonists, the plot, and the complexity of the text in addition to content. Parrott also notes that they do not use the publishers recommended grade levels in their reviews, since those grade levels are assigned by marketing teams to sell the title to the widest audience possible. She then goes on to explain that when providing information about mature content in titles, there is a difference between sexual content and character’s identities. The example she uses is that it may be worth mentioning that their are graphic depictions of sex in a title in a review so that collectors can make informed choices about what they’re buying and where it should go in their libraries, but if a character just happens to be LGBTQ that may or may not be relevance depending on the plot of the title. Another presenter Mahnaz Dar makes that point of the importance of being value neutral when mentioning mature content in reviews, stating that the goal is to inform readers about what takes place in the book and in what context not to tell them how to feel about it

 C. There is balance 

There is a natural balance between censorship to non-censorship in our society today. Forces push and pull. The more important part is having a method in managing what needs to be censored vs. material that does not need to be censored. 

Having parental input is a necessity, not a final say. As mentioned by Keira Parrott in above quote, we do not have an exact science to ensuring library content fits the intended audience.  Despite our best efforts, there will be errors and some times persons with contradictory ideals. 

For the parents whose ideals may present false or not informed rhetoric, the review process prevents abuse of an existing system that needs to exist: parents initiating a book review and ban. 
Example given above in 1b. 

We can see that a concern for censorship is satisfied and taken care of. We don't have to worry about the wave. (Novel reference)
Con
#4
INTRODUCTION:

PRO has spread numerous factual inaccuracies, segacious fallacies, and outright racist policy pandering in his Round 2 argument. This response shall illuminate the falsehoods and reveal the truth.

* * * *

FACT CHECK:

PRO states:

Above article highlights mutual concerns for abusive approaches to banning any book from a school library.

PRO has therefore admitted that censorship is abusive. This debate should be over as his position is already admitted dangerous by his own admission.

PRO falsely states:

The contents at a library should mirror the developmental stage of its audience.

The CATO Institute, one of the most respected and recognized Public Policy think tanks in America, thoroughly disagrees:

Indeed, Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek argued that the worst people tend to get to the top of government power structures. Hayek’s analysis focused on totalitarian governments in the run up to World War II, but similar dynamics are at work in contemporary democracies. [1] 

As the CATO Institute shows, by placing truth into the hands of school officials rather than into the hands of the youth, the corrupt officials will turn a blind eye to facts and truth in favor of their favorite lies and disinformation.

The truth is that censorship is actually the most powerful tool to spread disinformation and misinformation known to man.

This is made plain by scholars working for the reputable thinktank Foundation For Individual Rights And Expression:

while disinformation is a serious problem worthy of debate and countermeasures, censorship and repression is likely to be a cure worse than the disease. [2]

They explain:

As current debates illustrate, one person’s cherished truth is someone else’s despised or feared “fake news.” Speech that critics seek to suppress as disinformation almost never consists of objectively verifiable facts alone, but rather, also involves subjective matters of interpretation and analysis. [2]

By censoring information, you inevitably suppress truth. Truth which is appropriate for every developmental stage. Every developmental stage that is trying to navigate the landscape of life that needs all the factual information they can get.

PRO states the following:

We can see from the above links that censorship is well in place for many years. We can consider it a precedent. Censorship exists.

PRO also is likely aware that murder has been well in place for many years. PRO therefore argues we should allow murder.

Also, what about rapes? Ask any woman who was a victim of rape if they would be peachy with the notion of allowing rape to be unfettered in any capacity simply because rape "exists."

The illogic of PRO's position is self evident.

PRO says:

There is a review process, my point 1b, that limits censorship at our schools.
Sometimes that review processes occurs when a complaint is made or prior to obtaining books for a library.

As I meticulously documented in my round 1 opening statement (which PRO has completely left uncontested, meaning he agrees with it), the Nazis had a review process as well.

The Nazis reviewed books, newspaper articles, and education textbooks and censored the truth in favor of their thoroughly discredited racist lies.

And as I previously documented, the Nazis used complaints as the de facto system to accomplish this. They would have children (who were brainwashed by Nazi censorship) make complaints against their parents, friends, and community to censor books and newspapers.

PRO, once again, argues in favor of Nazi policies that only end up spreading disinformation and murderous, authoritarian regimes.

These very same Nazi policies allowed lies to infest the general public. The very same general public that went on to help the Nazis throw Jews in gas ovens and slaughter all the differently abled and infirm.

By PRO arguing in favor of a review process, he is stating he agrees with the censorship of the Nazi regime.

PRO falsely states:

There is a natural balance between censorship to non-censorship in our society today.

The American Library Association thoroughly disagrees:

A commitment to intellectual freedom and social justice requires that libraries not only protect the truth from suppression, but also prevent its distortion.[3]

The American Association of University Professors, the American Historical Association, the Association of American Colleges & Universities, and PEN America thoroughly disagree with PRO.

They write:

the ideal of informed citizenship necessitates an educated public. Educators must provide an accurate view of the past in order to better prepare students for community participation and robust civic engagement. Suppressing or watering down discussion of “divisive concepts” in educational institutions deprives students of opportunities to discuss and foster solutions to social division and injustice. [4]

Their statement was cosigned by 155 other education, media, and history organizations.

* * * *

CONCLUSION:

PRO has agreed that censorship is abusive. He also completely ignored my entire opening statement, showing his support of my case, and has advocated for the very same policies that Nazis used to brainwash the populace into racist beliefs.

He also stated outright falsehoods and, by extensiom of his own conclusions, says he supports rape and murder.

CON, on the other hand, supports freedom of speech, which would have toppled the Nazi regime, helps improve the education of the populace, and prevents authoritarian, oppressive regimes from taking power.

SOURCES:


Round 3
Pro
#5
Thanks for participating in a fascinating debate. 
Thanks  to those to join me in reading this debate.  
 
Con gives errors when they strawman my statements. Some parts  cater to ad hominem and a distract from the debate.  I will not give greater attention to them. The biggest mistakes occur when loosing context for round 2 and supporting evidence. 


Questions for everyone

Q1
...
Should a student in kindergarten have access to a text book that is not their reading level (their ability to read)? 

Yes or no? 

Right now Im gonna guess con's answer is yes. So I must point out that is not the current practice of public libraries ( who separate materials based on reading levels and age) or school libraries which limits and pre selects books based on reading levels and student ages. 

If no. Then I am surprised because that means the books would be reviewed to ensure if it is  appropriate (i.e. reading levels)   Which is a form of censorship. 

Q2
Can a book on Kamasutra (sex positions) be included among books at elementary school library in an attempt to apply zero censorship? 

A yes implies no censorship should be applied. We may have just committed a crime. 

A no implies some censorship should be applied in some way. Maybe limited

Q3 
If schools followed con's presented approach to censorship, which is all censorship is bad, does that mean any and all books would be available? 

If  any/all books would be available from a given library we need to consider how to store these books at the library and the cost. In considering such a thing we should come to the conclusion that it is impossible for all/every school library to include all possible books for their students. 

The cost alone would drive schools into bankruptcy while the amount of items accumulate beyond their usefulness.  A selection process is  necessary to identify which books could be read and which will not. Any selection process in this manner is a form of censorship - highlighted in round 2 point 5b. 

For anyone considering electronic means to fullfil the question, this too takes considerable time and money to provide everyone with necessary services. A selection process would still occur & the library would reach limits because of copyright laws. 

Response to round 2.  

Now. I can only respond to cons's post #2, piece by piece. This departs from my previous formatting, but this is best way I can articulate a response. 

Do I Concede debate?
No. 
Above article highlights mutual concerns for abusive approaches to banning any book from a school library.

I never said censorship is bad or abusive. I said abusive approaches to banning any book... this refers to how some persons may abuse censorship for personal gains, and there are measures in the existing system to prevent that abuse. 
Highlighted above in rounds 1&2 under section 1b. 
Also highlighted in section 5b

This means censorship acts like a tool. A person can use a tool to build and be constructive. Or they can be destructive.

There are many tools, like a hammer, that have been used in murders (and other crimes). We have hammers easily accessible at many stores. Hammers are still essential tool in good things used by all people. Censorship is the same way. 

Censorship is a tool that has no inherent good or bad to it. Not everything is a tool, however. Even if suggested otherwise. In which case there would be no comparison to tools like censorship and hammers. 

Using con's macro approach to censorship.  We can use censorship in a good way to prevent obscene materials from being given to unwilling participants. 

 Bellow link provides examples of laws that use censorship in a good way. 
Most notable, the bellow listing helps prevent kids from being taken advantage of: 
18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children


Looking at the micro approach to censorship in schools, we can use censorship to minimize costs. Pre-select materials that will be used and cater to those who will be reading it. 

Ex: selecting books like "cars and trucks and things that go," over statistics books in elementary schools. 

The CATO Institute ... thoroughly disagrees:

When we read the article from CATO, it criticises political leaders' ability to collect data and then make decisions on that data to give information to a populus  - using covid 19 pandemic as an example for current govt. leader's inability to digest data and then give that data to others. This has nothing to do with library needs in pre-selecting content for a customer base (its audience).  A library has books to be used not health info to save lives (or damn them).   

On the contrary, the link provided from 5b gives us a look into libraries preselecting materials, using a form of censorship approved by libraries across the nation. Promoted by american libraries association. A direct link with the point I  made
The contents at a library should mirror the developmental stage of its audience

Con does not address the point made. 

A huge concern (among many) for parents is to ensure age appropriate content is delivered to our kids. Sex education being the most debated topic amongst the education system because the wrong message leads to misunderstanding and/or negative effects. 

Consider the following article:

Paragraph 18 
Different ages and stages will require different frameworks for approaching discussions about puberty, sexuality, identity, and consent. 

In this article, age appropriate approaches are given to parents to start important developmental needs. 

Although some content may be debatable, we can collectively appreciate and recognize that the way we talk and give information to a toddler vs teenager is not the same. We censor some content for the younger age and present to older kids in safe ways. The truth is given in a way for kids to understand.  

(This addresses the concerns for depressing truth. There is greater need to present content that is age appropriate. As explained bellow) 


A 4 year old is on average learning to read. They do not need novels or text books. A 10 year old on average will be able to read what the 4 year old can not, but is still limited in capabilities. Likewise, a 10 year old, on average, does not benefit from reading books intended for 6 month olds or 4 year olds. The books we expect these ages to read would not benefit the average college student. 
I said this round 1. To preselect or ban books based on capabilities of a library's audience's is logical.  

Regardless to any political opinion on sex education, there is always censorship used to separate & cater to an audience's age because that is logical.  

The way we do things and think at 5 is not the same at 15 or 25. Early childhood development caters to early childhood development, not to the ages beyond. 

An article from psychology today highlights negative effects for kids exposed to sexual content too early. 

 The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex, and use drugs or alcohol before sex.

 
We should recognize these effects and the importance in managing content for children. Our libraries use censorship to adhere to law and reason to ensure safety.   

Parents, as school influencers, play an important role in navigating content in libraries. As laid out in round 1.  

Parents' criticism in our children's education system helps maintain a balance to prevent officials from becoming corrupt and having the only say in what happens in our kid's education. This combats misinformation along with the school library's process to review content &  parent complaints. 

PRO also is likely aware that murder has been well in place for many years. PRO therefore argues we should allow murder.

more misinformation with a strawman.  I never said censorship should exist because it already exists. I said censorship exists. That's it. 

5a relates to 5b and then 5c - establishing that we have censorship, there is a limit to censorship so it does not do the same misdeeds (con lists) by the nazi regime.  there is a balance in our system because we limit censorship.  

This limit and balance is visible in libraries.

 I gave this link in round 2.  

There is a clear limit to censorship here. Limits exist in our society and libraries. Those of us who ensure there is a limit create a balance necessary in our society. The balance that exists. 

Although con counters this statement (there is a balance) with more misinformation,  I quoted The American Library Association in round 2, section 5b, depicting a means to review content. 

ALA gave a seminar on how to pre-select books, Censorship, for their intended audience. This helps librarians know what section a book goes in, like kid section or young adult or adult. Separating books in this way is a form of censorship. 

An elementary school library is the kid section at a public library. Which means they will not have text from the adult section visible in a public library. 

When we do look at ALA policy on censorship and right to read, we see a dedication to limiting censorship. This is the balance I speak on in 5c.  

There is a natural balance between censorship to non-censorship in our society today. Forces push and pull. The more important part is having a method in managing what needs to be censored vs. material that does not need to be censored. 

Con's quote gives example to the push and pull, where a force like ALA push against the pull by legislation to censor materials. 

This balance only exists if there are more than one group influencing a given outcome. At school the balance exists because parents overview and criticize school policies. The school officials are kept in check by parents. 

In some areas, we vote for a school board who manages the education system. And school officials ensure parents do not over run the show. This is a balance. 

So, while disinformation is a serious problem worthy of debate and countermeasures, censorship and repression is likely to be a cure worse than the disease. 

We recognize this need to address misinformation in a positive way. Limit censorship. Censorship's use in libraries is limited and used, not to combat misinformation, [but] to ensure the contents at a library mirror the developmental stage of its audience and to align with existing laws. 

Ex: 1b in round 2. 

Parent's ability to influence library content and ban books is limited. 

All of which I explain in previous rounds and in above description for age appropriate sex education.


As I meticulously documented in my round 1 opening statement (which PRO has completely left uncontested, meaning he agrees with it), the Nazis had a review process as well.

Why argue against the idea that "nazi's had a review process?" Their use of reviews processes is the same as their use of cars or hammers. 
Mute. Because it does not show us that all cars, hammers, or review processes lead us to death, racism, etc. 

All con has done is tell us data and then tell us "therefore all is bad." That's it in a nut shell. If con disagrees with this statement then we can ask, "is censorship good?" Based on this debate their position should be no. So let's continue...

 Libraries have had review processes for several decades which did not cause racial tension, death, etc.  How do I prove this? Well ... how do i prove a negative? 

I am unable to articulate that if there is a way because I only can associate god debates to making negative claims. As others may know the main approach in those debates is to question the logic of the positive claim, "god exists."

Anyone keeping records on how censorship at a library has cause zero harm? I never saw that counter, like the one at a manufacturing plant - number of days without an accident.  That's not written in history books. 

Therefore, my approach in this debate is not to argue against data (especially data that would just distract us from the debate - more so than a macro approach on censorship) but argue against con's reasoning by showing us that the existing review process and censorship process at libraries is not one that oppresses opposing opinions or causes death or genocide because it is limited

I have presented links to show this. Con's link from aLA supports my statement that there is balance between those who want to censor to those who do not. 

Con, however. Has not shown us that today's systems have all lead us to or will all lead us to the same end results. Especially the censorship that may be granted by parents as they petition to get a book banned at our own kid's school. 

(For any who pause here and wonder about parents or any persons who may wish to ban a book at a school where their kid does not attend. Or even think of florida or another state where book banning is hot topic. I covered that in round 2 section 1b specificly). 

He also completely ignored my entire opening statement

Just no point in arguing the data because the data does not tell us that all censorship is bad. Nor do we come to conclusion that parents should not ban books. 

On the contrary.

We can see from my posts that censorship is a tool that is neutral, like a hammer. We can choose to do good things with it, like refraining from having obscene materials at schools, we can choose to do neutral actions like ensuring a school library has books that match its students reading capabilities, or we can do bad things, like create a totalitarian govt. (Which we do not live in nor do our schools mirror as one).

I invite readers to revisit my post 1 for another appeal to allow parents their obligation as influencers to criticize and move into motion, removing book(s) from school libraries.

 parents should be able to ban books at school libraries becaus it is a (neutral) tool to navigate and ensure our kid's positive education as  influencers (which we as parents are) at schools. 

Again. I explain it all above. 

Thank you. 

Con
#6
Forfeited