Marxist methods of teaching and Marxist ideologies should be implemented in school curricula

I offer my thanks to my opponent for his timely response. I will now proceed to rebut my opponent's argument, proving my counter argument thus far, and provide an argument against my opponent's proposed pedagogy. Rebuttal: 1. Contrary to my opponent's beliefs, pure communism does require "100% of the population to agree to the 'terms'." Communism for the purposes of this debate is a state where "Government need not … exist" and where "no one person should rule over the other." My opponent posits that government "will wither away because of people's ability to cooperate with one another without the need for someone to dictate how they should go about it." My opponent believes that level of cooperation is attainable because "man is, by nature, a loving creature." In my opening argument I proved that not every man is a "loving creature." Some men "have a profound lack of empathy" and "use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends." (http://www.fastcompany.com... See also http://www.psych.utoronto.ca... ). Without lawful repercussions for their actions, these individuals would not exercise their "personal will" to control their "hatred, greed, subservience, [and] hostility" because they would see no reason to do so. "Most animals, including humans, have an innate self-preservation instinct (fear of injury and death)." (http://en.wikipedia.org... ) In response to actions taken by such individuals in this state, I believe most humans would react in the interests of self preservation. That is to say, they would defend themselves and incarcerate or dispose of the threat, thereby acting as judge, jury and executioner over another individual's actions. Such vigilante actions would amount to one man choosing to rule over another, at least in this single instance. If they choose not to do so, they would suffer and possibly die, and assuming that the goal of any society is to protect and support its members, a reaction makes more sense. If one further assumes that no society would find rampant vigilante action desirable, the simplest solution would be for society to agree to set limits on personal conduct. Delimiting what another person can do in the interests of self preservation is the foundation of governance. Consequently, individuals in a communist society would very rapidly be forced to confront this reality: establish a system of laws to protect against psychopathic and sociopathic individuals, and enforce those laws, or suffer the depredations of those individuals. If the society establishes an organization for the enforcement of such laws, then that society has submitted to government control. If, on the other hand, the society does not establish an enforcement mechanism, then the laws act as a paper tiger, with no deterrent effect. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... ) In conclusion, a society ungoverned can not exist; without laws to the contrary society would be left to the caprice of madmen, and without an enforcement mechanism, i.e. government, such madmen would not be reigned in by the law. 2. Pocket Utopias are not feasible. My opponent posits the claim that "certain areas in the globe could contain contained but open Communistic societies that welcome any who wish to include themselves, and unless a world policing 'democracy' wishing to 'free' the 'enslaved' people, these small societies could exist." I assume that this argument is meant to defuse consideration of sociopathic and psychopathic individuals in the society by method of exclusion. This argument fails to recognize that such individuals could still be born within the otherwise perfect self contained community, as there is presently no way to screen for personality disorders (although they can be predicted to some degree, See http://www.futurepundit.com... ). Furthermore, even though a homogenous society with a unified belief system may exist, history shows that without sufficient force to back claims to territory, such populations shall become prey for larger forces seeking to expand territorial control. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... ) In fact, the issue of territorial defense is a large one for a communist society, as a functional military requires a command structure of some form. As a command structure would need enforcement mechanisms of its own to ensure compliance, this would be yet another form of government. Assuming the military needs to have some protocols for interacting with the civilian populace, yet another aspect of society necessitates governmental regulation. Of course, a military force would not be necessary if the entire world was part of the same communist society, as there would then be no conflict for territory/resources. But if this was the case, the society could not use isolation as a means of protecting itself against antisocial behavior. In conclusion, isolated pockets of communism would be no less incapable of avoiding the establishment of government than global communism would. Consequently, communism is not a working societal model and should not be taught to high school students, as time spent teaching them communist principles is time better spent teaching them something they can actually apply. This concludes my rebuttal. I will now attempt to argue that the critical pedagogy espoused by Freire should not be implemented to a greater degree within American high school systems. 1. The goal of education is twofold: the impartation of knowledge to the student and the impartation of cultural mores to the student. Freire's approach does not do enough to assure the successful completion of the latter goal. Freire's model is designed to challenge societal conventions. Students entering high school have likely not even finished absorbing the significance of these conventions yet. In forcing students to recognize the negative aspects of conventions before they understand the purpose of those conventions, students taught under the Freire approach may dispense with conventions they never attempt to conform to. In avoiding conformity, students may not develop necessary restraint and consideration in their social interactions. 2. Open dialogue may lead into questions of faith, which a teacher may enter into a conversation about with a student. Matters of faith are properly the purview of parents as part of their child rearing responsibilities and not as a matter of education. Education in the United States is compulsory. People of faith must therefore send their children to school and many, for economic reasons, choose to send them to public school. Public schools are state organized and controlled institutions. State interference with religion goes against the principal of the separation of church and state. (http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Yet it would be inevitable under a system of open discourse. The ‘banking system,' on the other hand, provides educators the opportunity to prescreen dialogue and develop educational expressions that do not challenge the faith of their students. Consequently, it is consistent with the desire of our founders and the spirit of the First Amendment of our constitution to limit discourse to that necessary to impart relevant information and no further. Conclusion: In conclusion, I believe I have shown that (a) true communism is … unachievable and (b) that education would not be improved by either (1) Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy approach or (2) students' better understanding of communist principles. I anxiously await the beginning of the final round.