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

Now for the rebuttal! My opponents assertion that communism requires 100% of the population to accept the ideal is an exaggeration proposed by many whom I have spoken to. He believes that he has dismembered my argument of "man being, by nature, a loving creature" and therefore refuted my argument of government withering away because of man's ability to cooperate with one another. My opponent came to this conclusion by thinking that he has proved man being a loving creature by nature wrong by using a reference to bosses being evil hearted men who "have a profound lack of empathy" and who "use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends" and attributed this to man in general. If my opponent understood the psychology of psychopaths and sociopaths he would understand that these 'maniacs' are not entirely 'born' but evolve into what they are because of one main reason: Lack of parenting. A lack of parenting will lead to 1. Lack of Empathy 2. Anti-social behavior that leads them to use others for their own personal gain. The former comes from the lack of the parent's involvement in the child's early development when they first encounter other children and might lash out at them with no regard for their feelings or health. The latter originates usually, from an uninvolved parent or a physically and/or mentally abusing parent. I know this from speaking to my Psychology teacher, whom I assume, has some merit in this discussion as he holds a degree in psychology. My opponent also believes that humans inherently act in a manner that jeopardizes other's safety due to their fear of injury and death, but, we do not live in an age where we are scouring the globe for food and shelter. These can be provided, so the flight or fight response from fear will not be activated. Now of course if my opponent is addressing people's response to crimes, then of course a self-preservation attitude will emerge, but this isn't important in our discussion. My opponent has come to the conclusion that 'laws' cannot exist in a communistic society, to an extent he is correct. Though, just because there is no controlling body in existence, does not mean that 'laws' cannot be established. Tacit codes may still exist, taught from society, usually encompassing the fundamental principles in most people's 'list of morals' that contain such principals as being kind,generous, selfless, etc. Yes, 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. My opponent may see this as a newly formed government, but I disagree. In the time where this type of society can exist, I , from observation of the small changes that occur in our history, predict that people can make uniformed decisions without creating a 'government'. My opponent's belief of what he calls 'Pocket Utopias' not being able to exist comes directly from his previous assumptions of man not being able to cooperate with one another and since I have refuted that, I have refuted this assumption as well. 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. If the need did arise though, adversity would play its role in having people step up to defend their homes; but they would not follow the typical movement many countries have excused as home protection, but were really invasions (i. e. America's current wars, another matter though). Now to address my opponent's position on the education argument. His first goal of education is correct, how ever the latter is ever changing, as children do not need to adhere to every social 'acceptance', and being non conformists has always been the driving force in change in this world. Challenging current trends, is what makes sure these trends are positive and correct, and if they are not, they can be altered. It is true Freire's pedagogy challenges the current way of teaching though he is wrong in assuming that it teaches to completely disregard certain teachings; if my opponent had read and understand Freire's pedagogy, he would realize his mistake. Simply noticing negative aspects of topics does not have a negative effect on perception as long as the child is taught to learn balance of perception. "Open dialogue may lead into questions of faith, which a teacher may enter into a conversation about with a student. " This can simply be addressed by the child ignoring the discussion. A student would not be penalized for straying from a religious debate. If the child did want to though, he/she could openly or discretely discuss this topic with fellow students, teachers, parents etc. My opponent has chosen to ignore my argument of the negative aspects of the banking concept of education, committing a straw man, by focusing on one small part of my analysis of the banking concept. My opponent should look closely at Jean Anyon's article "The Hidden Agenda of Education". Even though this is from the 70's, its impact has lost none of its tenacity. From my perspective, the way in which education in classrooms are conducted, hasn't changed in even the past 100 years. They still operate in the same manner of Teacher > Student, and the teacher is the one who gives the information. I have mentioned in round two the type of education in which Freire proposes, and that is just the tip of the iceberg that is the effect and true merits of his pedagogy. Further research by any who read this, would show that Freire's methods have actually been implemented and worked in various regions in South America. Here is an article detailing briefly Freire's methods and effects . http://www.jstor.org.... I thank my opponent greatly for participating in this discussion as it has broadened my understanding of my own beliefs, since being able to articulate your beliefs shows that you truly understand them. I hope that voters will see that I have successfully refuted my opponent's argument, though he has the final response in the debate. Even if I do lose this debate, based on voter's response, I still believe that I have done what I set out to do; and that is challenge people's beliefs and help people learn. That is my main goal.