azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

You said .........It seems to me that "indoctrination" is just the word that gets used to refer to instruction one disagrees with whereas "education" is used to refer to sort of instruction one agrees with. I'm dubious that it's even possible to not indoctrinate so long as we're committed to instruction in some form.......,You keep misusing the term indoctrinate to describe all instruction , you know very well the meaning but for some reason persist in asserting the opposite, this is the unfairness I speak off
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Alleging misuse is a far cry from demonstrating it. Similarly, excerpting my remarks so as to remove their supporting analysis is a far cry from addressing that analysis. I have already explained at length why all instruction is indoctrination, and I am not altering the definition or asserting its opposite in order to draw that conclusion so the misuse and unfairness you allege is baseless. (And if misusing definitions is unfair, then that makes you a guilty party.)In reiteration...The definition of indoctrination which you provided is "to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” or “to teach systematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically". I am using that definition verbatim and am not confused as to its meaning (even though you keep trying to change it by introducing your preferential biases into its tautology as warrant for your preferential biases). There is nothing oppositional about holding 'indoctrination' and 'instruction' as synonymous, as their respective definitions do not preclude it.My conclusion follows from epistemic nihilism. If we fail to presume certainty on all matters, against our common instruction, then it becomes evident that instruction is indoctrination because it is the practice of systematically teaching an uncritically received doctrine of certainty where there is none. It is necessary to presume as true that which is not proved true, in order to instruct on concepts advanced therefrom. Any profession of knowledge absent certainty is a profession of high-credence belief... and therefore a preference, a bias. When more than one axiom is presumed, as happens in instruction, there is doctrine. All criteria which must be satisfied by the definition of indoctrination are satisfied by the operative essence of instruction. The further implication, then, is that any selective ascription of 'indoctrination' to a class of beliefs is a preferential expression of personal bias against those beliefs and in preference for those secured against such ascription. This is because all instruction on any beliefs is indoctrination, but only those beliefs which one is averse to are identified accordingly. Ironically, this hypocrisy is itself a regular consequence of indoctrination into the doctrine of certainty (which is hypocrisy compounding itself).
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Yeah atheism is hardly a religion. It contradicts Christianity and makes no sense. They claim there is no God and yet claim atheism is a religious belief? It's just like relativism claiming there is no good nor evil nor right nor wrong but in doing so, the term's definition contradicts itself completely.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Although I myself am an atheist, and don't mind the posters, I still think that it is not okay. One might say that it is different, as atheism is not a belief system, but I don't think that's enough to make it okay. I think it's pushing some sort of view which is not directly related to what is being taught at school, and that the students should be left to make up their own mind. It's not that I worry anybody will be offended, just that it's not the schools job. The school should not be making any comments about the validity of religion, especially since the younger students may be easily influenced by things like this, and won't then make up their own minds. I want atheism to become more popular, but not through underhand methods such as this. If the school's science department thinks that skeptical scientific thinking leads to atheism, then they should teach skeptical scientific thinking, not atheism. I'll leave it at that though, as I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not a god exists here.I am open to a good reason as to why it is okay to put up these posters though.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Thanks for another interesting debate topic.What I question in your analysis here is whether students are really so impressionable that the mere exposure to a few posters is going to give them fixed ideas about anything. The idea that we need to shelter them to this extent suggests to me a level of disbelief in students' critical thinking capacity which is inconsistent with trying to develop critical thinking (after all, the capacity has to exist to be nurtured). As long as students, faculty, and staff are allowed to put up pro-theism posters as well then this seems to engage students in an active, real life process of applying critical thought and navigating disagreement.More radically, maybe we don't want schools to be egalitarian and maybe we do want them to indoctrinate students into a certain way of thinking. If we really believe that theism is a harm, for instance, then we should want to prevent them from being theists. Ideology being about affecting circumstances to the conclusion one desires, I think this is defensible.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Hi Jace,The youngest students at the school are 12 to 13, so I would argue that they are impressionable, I was probably a bit impressionable at that age, although I never noticed the posters until I was about 16 (I don't know if they were up then), and already an atheist, so maybe the younger kids just don't care about it? I think that they already try to develop critical thinking at the school, I remember one lesson where we were learning about the age of the earth, and the teacher gave us an article written by creationist Ken Ham, and asked us to evaluate its reliability. (Everyone seemed to agree it was rubbish) I have no problem with this, as science is directly opposed to creationism. (For that reason I'm okay with the poster(s) that are anti-creationism, and anti-conspiracy theory, etc) I think that they make students evaluate the reliability of sources enough in science, history, etc, that the atheism posters are entirely unnecessary in the development of critical thinking skills.Also, probably the biggest problem, is that I don't think the staff are allowed to put up pro-theism posters, at least I've never seen any (I'm pretty sure it's just one teacher in particular putting the posters everywhere, not the school). The school has had some (entirely optional) Christian prayers at assemblies though, so you could say that they have endorsed Christianity as well as atheism?. I think the only reason the atheism posters are permitted is that they are under the guise of science (whether or not atheism is a scientific view). Interestingly, I can't find anything in NZ law addressing things like the putting up of posters that support either theism or atheism.As to your last point, I understand you, but I think a theist could make an equivalent argument that religion should be encouraged, even if we disagree with their reasoning. For that reason, even if it would be beneficial to endorse atheism, I doubt it would ever happen overtly.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

If youth are really so impressionable as all that, then trying to teach them critical thinking seems rather ill-fated from the offset. Either they can't learn it so what's the point in trying (and shouldn't we try to indoctrinate them by our interest before others get to them?), or they can in which case they should be able to autonomously think about a simple poster on their own. Already, at the point where one has determined even just to teach critical thinking and science a stance has been taken by the educating institute about the legitimacy of ideas. Drawing a line such that anti-creationism and anti-conspiracy are acceptable but anti-theism isn't seems muddled to me, particularly where creationism is a theistic doctrine and religion might be considered a conspiracy. I'm not inclined to support the instruction of youth in creationism, theism, or what I consider to be conspiracy. I think you're inclinations are quite similar. But the only basis from which to preclude them is to preference the narrative of reason and science over theistic or otherwise non- or anti-reason philosophies. What I'm suggesting is that that isn't actually a problem, largely because the value of egalitarianism has been overstated. So what if the theist can make the same argument? What matters is whether they can control the preponderance of power necessary to realize their vision. There's nothing inherent in their narratives stopping them from imposing their values through educational institutions, and in fact their narratives often encourage the effort. But egalitarianism's close association with secularism weakens advocacy for pro-reason and pro-science proponents, by limiting how and when theocratic values can be pushed out. If we sincerely value reason and science and are convinced that youth should be educated according to those values, then we have an immediate interest in securing those values against competing interests.I admittedly don't know the situation in NZ as well as where I've lived, but I'm nevertheless not very convinced that this non-egalitarian competition can't occur overtly. Not only theism but politics broadly has a history of denying the obvious and coming out ahead. Religion claims to be about love but preaches hate, and this did not undermine it (resistance did). Political party claims to be for the people but passes laws which harm them, and this does not undermine them (resistance does). Morality claims to be about protecting the greater good but isn't, and this doesn't undermine it (resistance could). People are not predominantly rational, and presuming they are is a costly strategic error. Why can't we overtly be anti-theistic and just claim that we're not? What actually prevents that?(Interesting that NZ doesn't have clear law on something like posters, but I don't think the US does either. It's mostly in the common law...)
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

"or they can, in which case they should be able to autonomously think about a simple poster on their own."I'm not sure that makes sense. I think they can learn it, but simply haven't learned it yet. That means teaching it would make sense, as it would yield results. I think it's better to keep the children free of indoctrination either way until they can understand critical thinking better, and be left to analyse the situation objectively. At the end of the day that's just my opinion about what is right (which I think we both agree isn't enough to make it right), and perhaps perhaps it would be more beneficial to indoctrinate them into out interests, as you put it, but I personally don't think that would be fair, or right. "Already, at the point where one has determined even just to teach critical thinking and science a stance has been taken by the educating institute about the legitimacy of ideas."I think it's okay for the educating institute to accept scientific ideas as valid, simply because they seem to work, although this might be unprovable. This means that they shouldn't accept things which are directly in conflict with accepted science, this would be hypocritical. Creationism is directly in conflict, and when I said conspiracy theories I meant ones that were in conflict with science too, like "global warming is a hoax" or "Bigfoot is real" if one would call these conspiracy theories. Things like the existence of God aren't directly in conflict with science - there's no scientific evidence against God. "The value of egalitarianism has been overstated"An interesting point. Treating people equally is beneficial to society as a whole I would expect (Can we agree that the goal is to get what's best for society here?) , as it won't result in people rioting, etc. about injustices. I'm not sure how to go about deciding whether or not egalitarianism has been over-valued. As for your last two paragraphs, you make a good point in saying that egalitarianism prevents both good and bad narratives in this sort of area being put out be govt. institutions. I think if reason and science are as good as we think they are they should take over anyway if it is possible to prevent any sort of indoctrination into non - reason things. I think you might be wrong to say that egalitarianism prevents pro science and reason being advocated for by the govt. There's nothing to stop the govt. promoting reason, just that they might not be able to promote things like atheism, even if they are the product of reason. When you say "Why can't we overtly be anti-theistic and just claim that we're not? What actually prevents that?" I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I often wonder why schools do not have classes in critical thinking skills ; over here they are talking about introducing philosophy into classrooms from junior level upwards .I went to a totally unique school where we had a one hour philosophy class three times a week ; it instilled in me a love of the subject that's ongoing .
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Either a reflection on the motives or aptitude of educational infrastructure, no? My school only offered one semester of philosophy, and it was purely elective (great for me, but not a great reflection on the educational system). Did everyone take the course at your school?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

The school was seen as innovative at the time and was totally different to the accepted model ; the ministry of education were trying different approaches to the accepted model at the time , the school was possibly a testing ground for these endeavours .The course was factored into the school program , one could opt out if one wanted in favour of another class in a preferred discipline .
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

"Is it possible for you to just accept that you are doing a bad thing as the lesser evil to permitting a worse thing to be done by others? Is there an ethical justification for that, do you think, and if so is it really a bad thing? I guess I'm wondering if "indoctrination is morally wrong" might be a bit less absolute, with certain allowances granted by a broader ethical framework."Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. Indoctrination into critical thinking will prevent against more indoctrination in the future, overall it's a lesser evil (assuming it's evil, etc) to indoctrinate into critical thinking. Like that 'if you could go back in time and murder Hitler while he was an innocent kid would you do it?" question, to which my answer would be yes. I think it would be worth it.I get what you say about society, and agree. "I'm interested in what that looks like if you'd care to elaborate..."Basically, I'm following my own morals here. I don't always fully want to do that, as is understandable, but I feel a duty to do what I think is right, even if it is illogical. Then again, maybe it is logical to follow your own emotions and morality? I have a philosophy about morality that there are no intrinsically moral/immoral actions, e.g. you can't say murder is definitely wrong, but that it is (objectively?) moral to follow your own subjective morality, and do what you think is right, even if you don't entirely want to. Then again, perhaps if you have to choose between what you 'want,' and what you think is right, whatever choice you make will actually be what you want. In that respect, If I choose to vote to fund an alternative to NASA because I think it's morally right to fund the alternative, then maybe I did choose what I want. Did that last part make sense? In other words, I want to fund NASA, but I want to be what I think a good person is even more. Although, on the day I might vote differently depends on what I want more, don't know for sure yet, too young to vote.But... Here's a question: Even if there is a form of objective morality, would it be rational to follow it? (assuming no side-effects like eternity in hell) Is emotion/wants a good enough reason? I think emotion can be a good reason to do things, we are humans after all. I don't want to think I'm bad, so I'll do what I think is right - that seems rational enough.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

You'd be humoring my purely tangential curiosity is you'd answer... but I'm curious about your views on the value of moral principles (based on your comments here). Do you value them for their own sake at all, or solely for their effects?You say Basically, I'm following my own morals here [...]If I weren't a value nihilist, then I'd be a moral egoist. Personal want and personal morality are the same thing on my view, so the two operating at odds with one another doesn't even seem possible to me. I view the tension you've highlighted in the NASA vs alternative scenario rather differently than you. So I'm curious... why do you think it is understandable that you don't always want to do what is moral?I agree with your view that there are no intrinsically moral or immoral actions, though our reasons may differ (I'm not sure). Your observation that it might nevertheless be (objectively) moral to follow one's own subjective morality is intriguing; you're suggesting it might be the case that the only intrinsic (possibly objective?) moral truth would be that one should follow their moral beliefs? Related, do you think it is immoral to preference a mere want before a moral want? You ask: Even if there is a form of objective morality, would it be rational to follow it? Is emotion/wants a good enough reason? I think emotion can be a good reason to do things, we are humans after all. I don't want to think I'm bad, so I'll do what I think is right - that seems rational enough.Really interesting question! I think... emotion is the only reason to do things (unless one counts instinct as a reason). Rationality is merely the most efficient means to achieving what one wants. There is a rational way to pursue an end, then, but nothing rational about the selection of the end itself which is strictly down to preference. If that is good or bad on some objective moral account, then there's nothing we could do about it nor do I see that it changes what is rational (though it would pass a moral verdict on rationality, perhaps). So... if your end is not to think that you're bad and doing what you think is right achieves that, then it is rational to do what you think is right. But that doesn't make what you want or how you get it rational....... on my view anyways!
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

"I'm curious about your views on the value of moral principles (based on your comments here). Do you value them for their own sake at all, or solely for their effects?"I'm not sure if value is the right word. The reason I follow them is mainly because I'll feel bad if I don't. Rational behavior to satisfy irrational desires, as you said in your last paragraph. I'm not really sure if I actually value my moral principles themselves, so I guess I don't value them for their own sake, I just value the effect of following them."Why do you think it is understandable that you don't always want to do what is moral?"Temptation. Everyone who follows a set of moral principles will surely be tempted to disobey them for personal gain. I might always want to do what I think is moral, but I might want to do something else even more."you're suggesting it might be the case that the only intrinsic (possibly objective?) moral truth would be that one should follow their moral beliefs?"Correct. I thought to add: We might already see some degree of adherence to this idea in that (I think this is true, it at least looks this way on T.V.) someone can't be convicted of a crime if they are unable to understand what they did wrong, at least in some countries. "Related, do you think it is immoral to preference a mere want before a moral want?"I think 'preference' might not be what you meant, as one can't decide what one prefers, so I don't see how that could be considered immoral. If I can replace 'preference' with 'choose (to satisfy)' then it makes more sense. In that case my answer would be (for myself) yes it is wrong (just off of emotions & instinct etc), but for others it would of course depend on whether they thought it would be wrong (although they might necessarily think it is wrong?) if I'm to follow the philosophy I mentioned to you. This kind of gets topsy turvy as an answer, let me know if it's unsatisfactory. There might be some circular reasoning in there. Perhaps my philosophy about doing what you think is right only works for people who believe the philosophy?"There is a rational way to pursue an end, then, but nothing rational about the selection of the end itself which is strictly down to preference."Couldn't have said it better myself.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I'll get back to you on this soon, a bit busy...........................................................
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

At your leisure, of course.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Exactly Mack. Science in fact was created by God Himself and evolution even cannot explain how life began. Most atheists were believers until something went wrong along the road for them. Thus their faith died. Some atheists have even explained near death experiences and saw Jesus and God. Then they started to believe again. These are legit stories from individuals who lost faith in God and then regained his or her faith. God is real and atheism makes zero sense. Atheists contradict themselves 100%.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I don't think any publicly funded school should be allowed to enforce any type of worldview.This includes political parties and religions. While atheism is not a religion it is still a worldview. You can be a quiet atheist just as you can be a quiet Republican or a quiet Christian, but it remains something that shouldn't be forced on anyone.Having a secular school is fine as it doesn't favour any one religion. Having a multi-faith school is something I'm OK with.Having a school promoting atheism (rather than simply free-thinking) makes me uncomfortable as much as a school promoting Christianity, Marxism or anything else would make me uncomfortable.I think it's dangerous to put up pro-atheism posters in a science department because it encourages the belief that science is directly opposed to theism when this is not the case.Something like, "Question Everything" would be more appropriate as it's not pushing atheism but still encouraging young people to be independent thinkers -- something which a pro-atheism poster is actually not doing.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

"I don't think any publicly funded school should be allowed to enforce any type of worldview."Well then why should transgendered bathrooms be pushed on publicly funded schools. Come on Progressive what you got to say now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!