CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
6
Right-wing Definite Left-wing bias
Debate Score:11
Arguments:11
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Right-wing (5)
 
 Definite Left-wing bias (6)

Debate Creator

DS0330(267) pic



Is mainstream education in the U.S. generally right or left wing?

What do you think? Left-wing or Right-wing teachings?

Right-wing

Side Score: 5
VS.

Definite Left-wing bias

Side Score: 6
1 point

Neither, but since most of the early formative years are geared to making kids learn to play by the rules it's generally conservative until about high school. Then high school introduces some liberal ideas along with the conservative. And then in college, since college is often about expanding youths' minds, it tends to be liberal to blow up the conventional thinking they'd developed so far.

So you see, it's a blend, but if you're counting K-12 and then college there are far more years of sit down, shut up, do as you're told then there are liberal break the mold shake-up.

Side: Right-wing
1 point

Mainstream education is generally right-wing. Capitalism is mainstream. People who go to universities tend to be more on the right when they get out. Sure, economists tend to be democrat, but the democratic party is more right-wing in ideology(though arguably going farther left). Our current society in the U.S. is more of what a right-winger would want.

Side: Right-wing
1 point

Neither. The only bias education has is towards reality. It just so happens that liberalism is more in line reality, so it looks like bias.

Side: Definite Left-wing bias
DS0330(267) Disputed
1 point

Liberalism isn't left-wing. You heard of classical liberalism, right? The idea of limited government, personal freedom and a free market free of massive state intervention. That of course is much in line with reality, but it is right-wing. Also, education need not be towards reality, they have taught plenty of false things.

Side: Right-wing
Darkyear(345) Disputed
1 point

Liberalism isn't left-wing.

In America it definitely is.

You heard of classical liberalism, right?

Despite its name, "Classical Liberalism" grew out of Liberalism, not the other way around. Liberalism is the basis of the Democratic Party and Classical Liberalism is the basis for Libertarians, which aren't really fully liberal or conservative, but have generally been assimilated into right wing movements due to their economic positions.

The idea of limited government

Neither side is supportive of establishing a monarchy or dictatorship, so both sides believe in limited government, its just a matter of how limited. The less government you have, the less it is able to help its citizens. A rich white man may not need this help, but poor people, women and minorities often do. If this is truly the greatest country on Earth, the majority of our citizens should not be hampered by the circumstances of their birth.

personal freedom

Freedom is wonderful, but without responsibility, it can and often will infringe on the freedom of others.

free market free of massive state intervention.

A true free market is not sustainable in the long run.

That of course is much in line with reality, but it is right-wing.

Here's what reality shows. America is wealthy and powerful, but its not really "best in the world" on almost any other indicator. The countries who usually beat us, the Nordic Countries, various other European nations, and Canada, use some form of Democratic Socialism (which is not the same as Marxism or "Communism"). These countries fair better because everyone has equal opportunity to success and personal advancement is not limited. With the US though, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class diminishes and the economy is very likely to permanently shrink unless we do something about it.

Also, education need not be towards reality

If it is good education, it damn well will be.

they have taught plenty of false things.

Only

a) when politics get involved. In the current political landscape, this has happened primarily in school in Texas and the deep south, Republican controlled states.

b) New discoveries and insights have been made. If this happens, you admit you were wrong before and move on with teaching the new understandings. This is how society progresses.

Side: Definite Left-wing bias
0 points

This is more established in the Left wing.

And its design is antinationalism! Now redefining also complicates matters, which is actually a practice of cult following control. If something is redefined, communication of ideas are virtually eliminated by the indoctrinated, brainwashed cult member. Therefore reasoning and discussion are shut down before conversation can even start.

Free thinkers and atheism do not want religion to exist, founding fathers, most not all - Jefferson was notably unfavored because of his own religious predjudice.

Contrary to popular assumption that religious ferverency was the motivation of many to be considered puritans, the opposite is true. They were many man of incredible education, and understood the intolerance of Atheism and Catholocism and Islam.

These three were experienced by them, in their circles of understanding they understood the practicality of their influence. They saw it in front seat display. And they saw its deviant destructive progress. These comments were educated reviews, not religious views. The Millenials are indoctrinated by humumanism and atheism, they sold political agenda in universities and unleashed many beasts against the average citizen who was just living life in a free America.

So Religious freedom and a society for the good and comfort of all was established.

And was immediately infiltrated by destructive intolerance of the many faces of Atheism. Which many of these me deemed as the greatest destructive force of intolerance.

But the infiltration into higher education turned from neutral religious to anti religious.

The current platform we see of the Christian political involvement was necessitated by the force of Atheism.

If God is a generic term for multiculturalism, from Judaism to Islam or to any belief system, ten why is the push to make society neutral humanism with a closed door presence of religion? How far of a reach is it to disassociate this social order from a communism or anti religion establishment?

If faith is the substance that is unseen, yet clearly was a force of establishment of a fair government for many beliefs to display their exercise, then why is establishing an anti-faith social climate, of intolerance toward people of faith a freedom or a free thought consideration.

And look at its results. It's not brought goodness in the social climate, it's brought decay. Even worse it's brought change of government to a world order of fake social justice in order to eventually mimic the communism and totalitarian government, through means of education, and promotion of self interest groups supported as non-religious, that are in every way entirely religious.

I'm not expecting a real change in this, I think it's the end of the end. We are reaching the point were humanity evolved to gods, and the most powerful of the gods are the rulers of thought, removing reason from societies, creating violent decay, then ultimately blaming Christianity. Designed to control minds not free them!

I'm surprised its not clearly visible.

Senator Paul Hoagland of Nebraska: "The fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in."

The “Humanist Review” magazine observed, "Education is thus

a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

.

P. Blanchard, in The Humanist, 1983, continues: "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor.

Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition.

The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history."

.John J. Dunphy wrote in the Jan/Feb 1983 edition of The Humanist, "The battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new: the rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism."

.

I am as sure as I am of Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief and of antisocial nihilistic ethic, individual, social, and political, this sin-rent world has ever seen.

.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-common-core(A. A. Hodge, “Popular Lectures on Theological Themes,” p. 283, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1887.)

.

Side: Definite Left-wing bias
0 points

Following article with link to article:

What is called education is indoctrination of the worst kind, this is internal takeover of a country from undoing it from within, by taking away thought, and replacing it with control!

http://religion.rantrave.com/Rant/K-12-Warped-by-Ideology.aspx

Written by

BruceDPrice

Virginia Beach, VA

Americans are continually told that problems in our public schools are due to a shortage of money, parents aren't concerned, children are lazy, there are simply too many obstacles to overcome.

Some people say we don't know how to do it yet. We're supposed to believe that after all these centuries of educating children, there is still some secret gimmick we must discover.

Another group of people talk about the lack of infrastructure as if we don't have enough classrooms, books, and buildings. We have all of those things, probably more than enough.

Other people talk about testing as if it were inherently bad and destroys whatever children are learning. (Apparently there's a plot underway to turn people against testing by making it excessive and painful.)

In sum, it wasn't enough to dumb down the schools. The Education Establishment wanted to convince the public that the causes for this decline were socioeconomic in nature, and too vast and complex for us to understand or control.

All these phony excuses are like a deep fog over the landscape. Nobody can see anything clearly. Nobody can figure out how we escape from our educational morass. Let's bring in wind machines, blow away the fog, and start over.

I propose to you that these aforementioned causes are for the most part alibis and coverups, not explanations.

The real truth is that our public schools are not primarily interested in education anymore, as people traditionally understood that term, i.e., children learn reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history, science, etc. The Education Establishment, when they talk about education, think of indoctrination, social engineering, the new socialist child, and so on. They are motivated by philosophy and politics, by ideas and ideology.

QED: to understand K-12 in America, let's consider the horrific power of ideology. (Ideology might be defined as religion for atheists.)

No one should forget that the 20th Century was ravaged by ideology. A hundred million people were killed by ideology.

In the 1930s Stalin created a famine in the Ukraine that killed more than 5 million people, slowly and painfully. This famine was justified in the New York Times by a nasty little sophistry.

"If you want to make an omelette, you have to be willing to

break a few eggs." That's how ideologues think. Once they

have a blueprint in front of them, their consciences can sleep. Murder and suffering are said to be the price we must pay for

a better world.

The Nazis, in order to build a Third Reich, were willing to kill off entire cultures.

Mao Zedong, according to Wikipedia estimates, killed more than 40 million of his own people, all for ideology.

Pol Pot killed approximately 1,500,000 of his fellow Cambodians, from a total population close to 5,000,000. One ideologue terminated one-fourth of the Cambodians in the world.

You cannot understand K-12 in the USA unless you consider what the educational leaders have been trying to do. They want to create a new socialist child and build a brave new world. If necessary, they'll accomplish this goal one dumbed-down, brainwashed kid at a time.

Traditional education interfered with all these grandiose plans.

If people knew a lot about history and politics, they might find their own answers. If people were independent thinkers, they could fight the ideologues. The school system ended up in the evil position of having a vested interest in mediocrity. Weak

and ignorant students would be less likely to resist..

Over the decades, American schools had lower academic goals but more soft education, i.e., politically correct attitudes and opinions.

The 20th century was a violent century because so many groups embraced an ideology that justified every sort of extremism. Mass executions and mass starvations were excused or even celebrated. Reeducation camps were a constant feature.

In education, we had a modified, lightweight version of that, if you will. People weren't put in prison camps. They were confined to public schools where ideologues set the goals and made the rules.

According to Charlotte Iserbyt's book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America," our public school system is an elaborate conspiracy to create simple, know-nothing children. They can't read very well. They can't do arithmetic with confidence. They don't acquire very much knowledge. These undesirable outcomes are achieved deliberately. Our ideologues are proud of their good work.

What did the Khymer Rouge talk about at the end of the busy work day? "Another 1000 corpses, comrade! Congratulations!"

And what do the commissars in our Education Establishment talk about at the end of their busy days?

Perhaps something like "Kids still can't read, thanks to sight-words! Congratulations!"

It's interesting that both the Communists and Nazis recruited people by telling them that they would be in the vanguard of history. These recruits, many of them people with marginal skills and prospects, would shape the future and build a dazzling new world. What an exhilarating feeling. You become something of a god. You are a "change agent." You will be able to manipulate people, push them around, imprison them, and maybe even execute them. You will feel good about this because you have a plan, a vision. Ideology gives you wings!

So, as we look at the wasteland of K-12 education, try to imagine how the people at the top view their dirty work. My fear is that they are much too proud of themselves. They probably high-five a lot.

.

Side: Definite Left-wing bias
0 points

Indoctrination through education took root pretty early in American History. As it already established global prominence by elite educators like Dewey.

John Dewey and his socialist brotherhood, a hundred years ago, decided they would use the public schools to transform the entire society. They first had to seize control of what is taught in K-12 classrooms. Dewey and his successors settled on two major strategies for controlling what educators call "content."

First, they discarded as much of the traditional curriculum as possible – i.e., knowledge was thrown out the window by the boxload. Secondly, they invented many techniques for scrambling classroom instruction so that knowledge was no longer taught efficiently.

So we have here, across a wide front, a well organized war against knowledge and the transmission of knowledge. Dumbed down schools were created intentionally in order to create dumbed down students. That, my research suggests, is the horrible reality.

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/ 2016/03/killing knowledgein_k12.html#ixzz4KY5xI5A3

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Have you watched Patterns of Evidence-Exodus? I think it may currently be on Netflix.

There are many others documentaries as well. And David Rohn is a great resourse- videos on youtube.

I like the presentation of Patterns of Evidence because it discusses sequences in finding that are in order of the biblical History, and findings or coincidentally seen in a time line are in accurate sequence that match the biblical historic account.

It's denial is more a byproduct of militant atheism, and political control of education for social indoctrination, then for independent thought, and true free thought.

So if there is evidence of Joseph, which there is, and also evidence of the events recorded ie… a long term famine, and also followed by slavery, a massive migration, then conquests of places like Jericho, I'd be inclined to think the digs should be taken seriously, rather than leading education and thought by its denial of the findings and their appropriate applicaton.

Side: Definite Left-wing bias