CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If teachers are forbidden to recommend a book, I guess that can be debatable. Teachers must be capable of telling children to make good decisions, and it's possible that reading a certain book can be bad (like those "how to" books).
But a student should be able to read any book he wishes. First Amendment. No reason to limit knowledge (books enhance knowledge).
If a student is unable to check out a book at the school's library, what is going to stop him from checking the book out at a local public library? Then what, do we ban those books from public libraries so now that the general public has to suffer just to deter from one student checking out one book.
This is akin to saying, "Well, I'm 18 and in high school. My school should sell cigarettes out of a vending machine, because I could just buy them at the local store." The issue isn't the individual's possibility of getting access to potentially dangerous information, it's about preventing access to this information. Schools should not be in the business of disseminating destructive or harmful information the same way they shouldn't be in the business of selling cigarettes regardless if the student can't that info elsewhere.
This is akin to saying, "Well, I'm 18 and in high school. My school should sell cigarettes out of a vending machine, because I could just buy them at the local store."
That is inaccurate. A high school could not legally sell cigarettes via a vending machine because it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors.
The issue isn't the individual's possibility of getting access to potentially dangerous information, it's about preventing access to this information.
In psychology, we call it 'reactance theory', or 'Forbidden-Fruit effect'. It means that if it is banned, people will want it. Thus, if, say, It by Stephen King were to be banned, that would only cause people to want to read 'It'.
Schools should not be in the business of disseminating destructive or harmful information the same way they shouldn't be in the business of selling cigarettes regardless if the student can't that info elsewhere.
Another inaccuracy:
Tobacco, and thus cigarettes, cause damage to the user's body, and supposedly to those who inhale 'second-hand smoke'.
HOWEVER
Such books as those which are banned DO NOT cause damage.
That is inaccurate. A high school could not legally sell cigarettes via a vending machine because it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors.
That is actually an inaccurate statement. While I'm sure it would never get approved by a school board, a HS could technically sell cigarettes to students via a vending machine. However, they're leaving it up to the individual responsibility of the minors to decided whether they are willing to take the risk of breaking the law by purchasing them or not. That is my point. Just b/c the cigarettes can be purchased legally somewhere by some of the student doesn't mean the school should be able to sell them so they're accessible to ALL of the students. Just because some people can be trusted to handle dangerous information doesn't mean ALL people should have access to such information. I agree with freedom of information, however, there must be consideration for public safety.
In psychology, we call it 'reactance theory', or 'Forbidden-Fruit effect'. It means that if it is banned, people will want it. Thus, if, say, It by Stephen King were to be banned, that would only cause people to want to read 'It'.
Demand for a banned good or service does not in and itself justify that it should be supplied because people will want it anyway. There is demand in Iran for nuclear technology. There is a serious global security issue with providing it to them. Again, freedom of information vs. public safety test.
obacco, and thus cigarettes, cause damage to the user's body, and supposedly to those who inhale 'second-hand smoke'.
HOWEVER
Such books as those which are banned DO NOT cause damage.
I have no issue with unbanning books that were simply banned due to content discrimination. Example: Crazy Xtrian lady that thinks Harry Potter promotes witchcraft. The argument as phrased is that "UNDER NO CONDITION should a book be banned from public school." I disagree. Books on how to build pipe bombs shouldn't be accessible, books how to cook meth or cut crack shouldn't be accessible, books on how to make guns fully automatic shouldn't be accessible. Public safety concern with teenagers who aren't equipped to handle this material maturely outweigh their right to be facilitated with this information from their school.
Demand for a banned good or service does not in and itself justify that it should be supplied because people will want it anyway.
That is not what I said. I implied that it will remain unknown until it is banned. Once it is banned, it'll be sought after. People want to know what they are not allowed to know - which is the root of most 'teenage rebellions'.
However, they're leaving it up to the individual responsibility of the minors to decided whether they are willing to take the risk of breaking the law by purchasing them or not.
They would need somebody to supervise the vending machine. If your scenario were the truth, then stores wouldn't need ID before selling cigarettes - all would rely upon the honesty of the buyer.
Public safety concern with teenagers who aren't equipped to handle this material maturely outweigh their right to be facilitated with this information from their school.
80% of people - in Canada at least - have access to the internet. They can learn all that stuff there.
And, why can't those books be overlooked? They do not need to be expressly banned - as I said, banning causes a demand.
That is not what I said. I implied that it will remain unknown until it is banned. Once it is banned, it'll be sought after. People want to know what they are not allowed to know - which is the root of most 'teenage rebellions'.
It is irrelevant if by virtue of being banned that in and of itself creates a demand. Regardless whether the demand exists, my point is that public safety requires certain information to be restricted even if it creates a demand. Your solution to roll the dice and "see what happens" is akin to playing russian roulette. I don't see why a school should be in the position of allowing the bullet to be put in the gun. From a public policy standpoint, this makes no sense.
They would need somebody to supervise the vending machine. If your scenario were the truth, then stores wouldn't need ID before selling cigarettes - all would rely upon the honesty of the buyer.
Librarians don't supervise a student if they find a book in the library and choose to read it there as opposed to trying to check it out. You're rolling the dice and hoping the student is mature and thoughtful enough not to make use of dangerous information. That is why my example is analogical.
80% of people - in Canada at least - have access to the internet. They can learn all that stuff there.
And, why can't those books be overlooked? They do not need to be expressly banned - as I said, banning causes a demand.
Then let them get that information there. Not from the school.
It is irrelevant if by virtue of being banned that in and of itself creates a demand. Regardless whether the demand exists, my point is that public safety requires certain information to be restricted even if it creates a demand.
However, the books are not wholly banned. The students at the school can get the books at the public library. But, if the books are not banned, they won't care to read them.
Librarians don't supervise a student if they find a book in the library and choose to read it there as opposed to trying to check it out.
Books do not endanger the reader's health. Cigarettes, alcohol do.
Then let them get that information there. Not from the school.
If the book is banned, they will want it. They most likely won't even know that it exists until they are told never to read it. Once they are told never to read it, they can (and most likely will) find it online or at a bookstore/public library.
However, the books are not wholly banned. The students at the school can get the books at the public library.
This doesn't address nor refute my point regarding the school should not be facilitating "the bullet."
But, if the books are not banned, they won't care to read them.
This is an assumption.
Books do not endanger the reader's health. Cigarettes, alcohol do.
Uh...yeah they can depending on their content and if they use of it either deviously or irresponsibly. Thus the whole premise of my argument.
If the book is banned, they will want it. They most likely won't even know that it exists until they are told never to read it. Once they are told never to read it, they can (and most likely will) find it online or at a bookstore/public library.
Again, see previous argument regarding irrelevancy of demand creation balanced against public safety.
No, your previous banned = demand statement was based on psychology. The follow up "assuming that if a book isn't banned, no one will be interested in reading it" is a false converse. So if Shakespeare isn't banned, no one will be interested in it? That is patently untrue and shows that the statements do not have a logical relationship.
The book can be found elsewhere. Or, if they really wish to commit the crime, they'll do so like most others - plan it out.
This doesn't change the fact that certain material shouldn't be available in schools. This point has been reiterated and defended ad nauseum.
So if Shakespeare isn't banned, no one will be interested in it?
Just how many youngsters these days are interested in Shakespeare? If Shakespeare were banned, psychology dictates that the number of people interested would go up.
Perhaps 'nobody' was too harsh a term. 'Few' would have been better.
Just how many youngsters these days are interested in Shakespeare? If Shakespeare were banned, psychology dictates that the number of people interested would go up.
Perhaps 'nobody' was too harsh a term. 'Few' would have been better.
Shakespeare, JD Salinger, Mark Twain or if you want to get cheesey, RL Stein and Christopher Pike could have been examples. The idea that unbanned books have little to no demand by simply being "unbanned" is preposterous. The point is that the statement whether using "no one" or "few" is not grounded in fact, is a logical fallacy, and does not add credence to the argument that all books regardless of content should be allowed in schools.
There is nothing wrong with knowing how to make a bomb or transmitting that knowledge. The problem becomes when someone uses that knowledge to harm another, and the more knowledge they have over another the more able they are to harm them. So lets say two people read "how to make a bomb"(lets say one reads it from the internet another from the school library) one plants it in the other's house and the other finds it and diffuses it, where if not reading it he would of at least lost his house. You can make knowledge less abundant, but all that does is make it more valuable to a particular person, making it more abundant makes it valuable to the entire community.
It also allows for exponential growth of knowledge. Perhaps the unique timing device in "how to make a bomb" would make a perfect stove/cooking timer, better then any other designs; stopping the reinvention of the wheel so to speak. Someone could then decide they have a better way of integrating the timer and stove etc. knowledge builds on knowledge, restrict any of it and you restrict all of it.
Well the book's not on how to dismantle a bomb, its how to build one. Although I agree with the knowledge aspect, the young mind is curious and wants to put his knowledge to the test. Sometimes knowledge of certain things can cause worse things than being sheltered from the topic.
Knowing how to make one is going to help disarm one. There are positive ways to handle any curiosity which might come about by reading a book on bomb making; like having the school's chemistry teacher drop some sodium in a lake or have the city/military bomb squad visit the school. Curiosity is more often a positive thing then negative. If "channeled" improperly curiosity can lead to issues, its a powerful and dangerous thing, but its something that should be encourage. Banning a book is only going to make kids more curious about it, and it'll attain a "forbidden fruit" appeal, and it will increase the likely hood a child will keep his interest secret and thus exercise his curiosity without supervision.
If you had written "library" instead of "school", I might have agreed with you, but a typical public school doesn't have too many adults for students (age 18+) and there are plenty of things that children should not be reading, like a book on sex positions, which could be argued as pornography. I mean, if I teen wants to read it at home, that's one thing, but books like that shouldn't be in schools.
Just because it oughtn't be in schools does not mean that it should explicitly be banned. No school in the world has every single book - couldn't they just overlook the inappropriate ones?
Yeah, books on how to fuck around with dynamite or make weapons fully automatic should totally be allowed in public school libraries. Because teenagers are not prone to being curious or experimenting with things like drugs or sex or anything remotely risky for that matter. Additionally, teenagers don't go around kiling their classmates with pipe bombs or rifles or anything of the sort. In fact, I think the US government should just declassify everything related to enriching plutonium and put that in public school libraries too. Because afterall, there aren't any science whizzes out there that are picked on and repressed who would make use of that information.
I think that, given how impressionable young children are, that all religious texts should be banned from schools until the child is above the age of consent.
A great number of children are taught religion at home. What good would it do to ban religious texts from schools? Religion is a fundamental aspect of most peoples' lives - both past and present.
Many religious texts are entertaining, or good educational material for references. Greek myths or the Bible, for example, are among the most oft-quoted works around. Understanding literary allusions is important to education.
Just keep them in the fiction section, and there's no problem.
What a ridiculous topic. How about a book about why pedophilia, drug use and murder is ok. Those would all be excellent ideas to put into the minds of impressionable children.
Sounds like a book that should be banned from public schools doesn't it...oh wait, that would be a bad thing.
Those would all be excellent ideas for a child to disagree with; kids are impressionable but not that way; their parents, society, and culture would all point them against those things. There is a reason why the bible is still popular...
In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas ("The One Un-American Act." Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 1953, p. 20):
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
There's such a thing as quality control, you know. Library volumes aren't infinite; some measure of culling has to be in place just to keep the mediocre books from spilling out into the hallways.
Plus, there has to be at least SOME discernment. I'm not talking book burning boards made up of fundamentalist housewives, just...some common sense. For example, I'm as against censorship as the next guy, but I'd be kind of upset if I saw "The Vagina Ass of Lucifer Niggerbastard" (yes, that's a real book) in a school library. So, you know, limits. Sometimes a good thing.
I looked that up real fast, it seems funny. Why it can't go in a comedy section, if a school library has a comedy section, is beyond me. Yea it has cuss words in it, etc. Why shelter our kids from that? Its not like their using them behind our backs already...[sarcasm]
The school could just say that it doesn't provide any educational benefit, except in rare cases, and thus resources should be spent on other books.
All religious material should be banned from public schools. It's not factual material it's all fantasy of a god that never was nor will it ever will be and anything in the religious rim of things should be done in the privet sector there they can poison these little minds on their own terms.
You have no proof that religious texts are not factual, and I could give you a shitload of links that prove otherwise.
So, before a book can be accepted into a school, it must be factual? That means we can't have any Shakespeare or Dickens or Verne or Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.
Even if religions are all mistaken, that does not mean that their texts include 'words to live by', so to speak. Religious quotations can be found the world over - a popular one included 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' So, should every book/article with that quotation be banned?
There is an old text, you most likely have never heard of it, known as 'The Constitution of the United States'. AMENDMENT NUMERO UNO GIVES FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
All public schools should ban religious materials because children's minds are too impressionable? Who says that their minds are impressionable? Give me your SOURCES!!!
Even teenagers oughtn't read religious texts? Are they still impressionable?
Nobody should ever read a science textbook then, either. Science gets changed, old theories revised, new studies conducted, which make the old stuff look like fiction. Read an old science textbook, and compare it with a new one.
More important than freedom of religion is freedom from religion. If children are going to read a book that justifies infanticide, misogyny, murder, incest, rape, slavery, racism and torture, it should happen as a result of poor parenting at home, not a lack of judgment in an institution of learning funded with tax dollars.
Because you are an atheist, freedom from religion is extremely important to you. If you were a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Daoist or an Animist or a Shamanist or a Pagan, freedom of religion would be important. Your desire for freedom from religion is irrelevant.
There are more religious people in American than non-religious.
Do religious books really condone all those things? Why don't you try reading one.
Because you are an atheist, freedom from religion is extremely important to you. If you were a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Daoist or an Animist or a Shamanist or a Pagan, freedom of religion would be important.
I will concede that I should have said freedom from religion is equally as important as freedom of religion, but when you consider what we're really dealing with here is freedom of ignorance vs freedom from ignorance, you should be able to forgive an obvious Freudian slip on my part.
Your desire for freedom from religion is irrelevant.
Thankfully for the both of us, we live in Canada, and not Iran, making your egregious statement incorrect.
There are more religious people in American than non-religious.
Democracy is a wonderful thing isn't it? In some shit-hole theocracy, that might mean something. Have you heard of separation of church and state?
Do religious books really condone all those things? Why don't you try reading one.
I realize that most Christians either have no idea what's written in the Bible or simply choose to ignore it and cling to the fairy tales they were indoctrinated with at Sunday school as a child, but you're not a child and with the advent of Google, you have no excuse.
I realize that most Christians either have no idea what's written in the Bible or simply choose to ignore it and cling to the fairy tales they were indoctrinated with at Sunday school as a child, but you're not a child and with the advent of Google, you have no excuse.
Oh, I've read the Bible. What most atheists don't realize is that the old testament pertains to the Jews, not the Christians. That is why you will find many a contradiction betwixt the Old and New Testaments.
Thankfully for the both of us, we live in Canada, and not Iran, making your egregious statement incorrect.
In a democracy, the majority rules. If you, one of say 20%, don't want religion, and the other 80% want religion... I'm sure you can guess who will win.
Have you heard of separation of church and state?
Separation of church and state does not mean that religion must be absent from all government-run institutions. Public schools have libraries - why can't religious texts be included in those libraries?
Oh, I've read the Bible. What most atheists don't realize is that the old testament pertains to the Jews, not the Christians. That is why you will find many a contradiction betwixt the Old and New Testaments.
So what you're saying is that your God is a murderous women-hating slave-trading baby-killing lunatic, but only when providing counsel to the Jews. I don't see how that should excuse him of anything, but even if somehow it would, I think your Bible is missing some pages. I hate to get all Biblical, but allow me to direct you to some choice parts of the new testament you don't seem to be aware of (remember that google thing I mentioned earlier?):
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)
7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18
8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
In a democracy, the majority rules. If you, one of say 20%, don't want religion, and the other 80% want religion... I'm sure you can guess who will win.
That's not how it works. In a true democracy, the rights of the minority are protected to prevent tyranny from the majority.
Public schools have libraries - why can't religious texts be included in those libraries?
In a civilized society, Children must be protected from obscenity, be it religious in nature or otherwise.
God is a murderous women-hating slave-trading baby-killing lunatic, but only when providing counsel to the Jews.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. From a modern context, there may be some sexism. However, one is to note that there were a number 'heroins' in the bible: Ruth, Naomi, Esther.
That's not how it works. In a true democracy, the rights of the minority are protected to prevent tyranny from the majority.
And do we actually live in a true democracy?
Indeed, I believe we live in a reverse-democracy. Sure, the most votes win, but political correctness means that you can't offend minorities, but you can offend majorities.
In a civilized society, Children must be protected from obscenity, be it religious in nature or otherwise.
Who is to say that religious texts are obscene? It is an atheistic opinion - the majority would disagree.
I don't even know why I am arguing this in the first place, this really has nothing to do with the original debate, so I will subtract a point so my view does not take away from the original argument. The awesome thing about the Christian belief is that at the end of the day the Old law of the Jews is in effect and should be followed, however Jesus did die for our sins therefore all the punishment of the old testament does not exist (as barbaric as it sounds God believed that the punishment is what a sinner deserved for his/her actions, and I don't feel that I can judge God's morals) . I feel that if the whole of the Bible cannot be written out or any other religious work, the parts of said text should be marked out with a message explaining why, but like any other theory, all religions should be presented as a viable option of why the earth is here today.
The Constitution to the US condones slavery. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution aka 3/5's Compromise. Per your logic, kids should just read amendments 13-15.
Part of education is also history. One aspect of history is religion. Religion has played a major part in the founding of our laws and the molding of various societies. In order to understand how religion has affected our society, we must learn why it does so. The only way to learn that is by reading religious texts. Tax dollars being used to make these texts accessible is a step towards completion of education - not retarding it. Whether it be the Torah, New Testament, Koran, Bahavagad-Gita, Buddhists texts, etc...
Making religious texts accessible to be read =/= Religious Fundamentalism