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

I offer my thanks to my opponent for his timely response and a fantastic debate. I wish him well, although, obviously, I hope to overturn his final argument, and I shall now attempt to do so. 1. Contrary to my opponent's beliefs, my argument is not that man is inherently evil and therefore can not cooperate, but rather that some men are cruel and will act accordingly towards others. My opponent is incorrect when he states that I "…came to this conclusion by thinking that [I have] proved man being a loving creature by nature wrong by using a reference to bosses being evil-hearted men … and attributed this to man in general." This is not my argument. My argument is that in any population, some individuals will not conform, and these non-conformists will disrupt society. Society must then have a response, especially if the non-conforming behavior poses a threat to the society's members. To this extent "people's response to crimes" is not only important to our discussion, but central to it. My opponent argues that "… just because there is no controlling body in existence, does not mean that 'laws' cannot be established" and that "… someone may choose not to abide by these non 'enforced' laws but if that were to happen, the society would operate as a single body and come to a decision on the matter." It is empirically evident that people do not, in general, share the same decision making processes. People approach the world differently, and come to different conclusions. If they didn't, we would not be having this debate. By extension, one can infer that people come to different decisions regarding what activities need regulation, how they are to be regulated, and what the punishment must be for an infraction against such regulation. One can observe this phenomenon by analyzing the non-uniformity of laws dealing with criminal infractions in the various codes promulgated under State law within the United States, and the difference in the number of and nature of infractions amongst international laws. People were once hung for stealing horses. Some may feel that this is still an appropriate punishment for the crime. Does one favor that punishment, or one that would require the perpetrator of the crime to provide the offended party with free labor? Regardless of what decision is made, how can any member of society be sure that the punishment will be fair or just? Without a codification of laws and methods of enforcement, a society could choose to hang one person and wrist slap another for the same crime. Even if one argues that this is an acceptable price to pay for greater societal freedom, one has not eliminated government, but rather reduced it from a stable entity to one established ad hoc, with predictably unreliable results. My opponent's refutation is therefore in error and must be discarded. 2. My opponent attributes the development of psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies to "lack of parenting." This is fine, except that he does not provide an argument as to how a communist society could ensure against bad parenting without establishing laws against neglect. Without such rules, it would seem that psychopaths and sociopaths are more likely, rather than less, to develop in a communist society. My opponent's refutation is therefore incomplete and must be discarded. 3. My opponent claims that my belief regarding "…'Pocket Utopias' not being able to exist comes directly from [my] previous assumptions of man not being able to cooperate with one another and since [he has] refuted that, [he has] refuted this assumption as well." My opponent misstates the scope of my claim. I did not claim that pocket Utopias were unfeasible because people were unable to cooperate, but rather that if one were to establish such a community it would be in contravention to the existing order outside the community, which the community would still have to contend with. This is the reason a military would be necessary. While it may be that "… a military, for the most part, would not be needed as this society would have no need to instigate foreign aggressions as they would be non interventionists and isolationists" my argument for the establishment of a military is not for the purposes of aggression, but for defense of the community's territory. My opponent claims that "[i]f the need did arise … adversity would play its role in having people step up to defend their homes." This is a noble sentiment, but it is difficult to imagine a loosely organized militia succeeding in defending against a modern military power. My opponent has already stated that the nature of the community would be peaceful and non-aggressive. Imagine such individuals forced to quickly turn their ploughshares to swords in the face of an enemy that was the anathema of their society: warlike and territorial, with a military prepared for the purpose of territorial expansion. It would be a massacre akin to what one would expect if Taiwan declared independence from China, or if Tibet rebelled against China, or alike to that experienced by Georgians at the hands of the Russian government (and the Georgians are at least somewhat more aggressive about things). My opponent's refutation is therefore in error and must be discarded. 4. My opponent challenges my assertion that premature challenges to societal conventions are detrimental to student development by stating that I assume "that [the pedagogy] teaches to completely disregard certain teachings." This is not my argument. My argument is that children must live within the framework of convention until they understand the purpose of the convention, and that challenging the convention before the student has had a significant period to reflect upon the convention would make it difficult for the student to interact with those who never set the convention aside. The difference between my opponent's argument and my own is that my opponent argues the benefits of the pedagogy in a vacuum, where as I am looking at implementation difficulties in our present society. Because my opponent has not directly responded to my criticism, his refutation is in error and must be discarded. 5. My opponent argues that a child in a classroom deconstructing the child's religious beliefs should be able to ignore the discussion. This does not change the fact that the discussion takes place, and that the argument may turn into an irreconcilable refutation of the student's beliefs. This refutation would be an unconscionable imposition of secular rationalism on the student contrary to that student's beliefs. Consequently, my point remains untouched by my opponent. My opponent's refutation therefore is incomplete and must be discarded. 6. My opponent accuses me of committing a straw man argument by ignoring his criticisms of the banking system. This is not accurate, as I was only just stating my case against his proposed pedagogy. I had not yet had the opportunity to state the case for the present pedagogy. As I do not have the time or space to go into detail, I will state briefly my support for the current pedagogy: (a) we live in a capitalist society, (b) in this society one must work to obtain necessities and creature comforts, (c) one must possess a bare minimum number of skills to function at society's lowest tier jobs, (d) the current pedagogy provides those skills, (e) the proposed pedagogy does not, exchanging time spent learning skills for developing critical thinking, (f) students interested in developing critical thinking skills can develop such skills in college, (g) students uninterested in developing critical thinking skills may not go to college, and therefore must develop marketable skills to survive graduation, (h) therefore implementation of the opponent's pedagogy is inappropriate at the high school level. This concludes my final argument and the round. As my opponent has been unable to refute my arguments, I urge you to vote Con. Thanks for the debate,