Instigator / Pro
14
1491
rating
10
debates
70.0%
won
Topic
#4535
Parents shouldn't be able to ban school library books
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
jamgiller
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 25,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Description
Resolution: It should not be possible to ban or remove books from school libraries based on parents' or guardians' objections to the content.
Happy to establish other conditions, rules, etc. in the comments. This is my first time creating a new debate.
Round 1
I want to thank John00 for accepting my challenge. We are both new to this website, so I believe this will be a good, low-stakes learning experience for us.
I support the resolution that it should not be possible to ban or remove books from school libraries based on parents' or guardians' objections to the content. If parents believe that certain books are inappropriate for their children, they should personally regulate their children’s reading behaviors instead of petitioning to ban or remove the books from a school library, which would deprive other students of access to the books.
Laws against the distribution of obscene material can ensure that no such material is present in school libraries for parents to object to. In the United States, federal law places restrictions on obscene material, including prohibiting the distribution of obscene material to minors. Quoting the same US Department of Justice web page, the Miller test is used by judges and jurors to determine whether matter is obscene as follows:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
- Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Because a book that satisfies the above criteria would not be in the school library, a library book under objection from parents
- Has “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;” or
- Would not be found by “the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards” to be prurient or patently offensive.
By removing such a book from the school library, the students would be deprived of a valuable piece of literature, or the objector(s) would impose their personal standards on others, against the principles of liberty. As an example of objectors imposing their personal standards on others: according to a PEN America study, the plurality of books banned in US schools have LGBTQ+ themes, which only a relatively small group of conservative individuals—not “the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards—”would find to be offensive. Furthermore, the proliferation of library book challenges can result in soft censorship, such that school staff avoid putting some books on shelves for fear of challenges.
Parents have alternative means to regulate their childrens’ reading behaviors. A parent can teach their child(ren) how to identify appropriate literature, incentivize their child(ren) to read appropriate literature, answer their child(ren)’s questions about difficult topics such that they are less likely to pursue information from inappropriate sources, etc. Furthermore, even if a child is exposed to inappropriate material (from the parent’s perspective,) the parent can discuss the material with the child to create a positive lesson from the experience. These approaches are superior to attempting to ban books from school libraries because they
- Don’t negatively affect others’ children;
- Are consistent with both the principle of free speech and parental rights;
- Foster communication between parents and children;
- Don’t open the door to further attempted censorship in other contexts such as public libraries, bookstores, etc.; and
- Are less likely to create forbidden fruit.
Forfeited
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
It seems like Con unfortunately could not find time to post. Extend my first arguments. Vote Pro.
Forfeited
(Shrug)
People have different views of what is moral, what is harmful,
The kids can read LGBT themes as adults, 'if they choose,
'Or as kids if their parents support such.
The risk is putting to a vote something that people should have the right to, like reading harmless books that feature LGBT themes.
I'd say I'm a fan of free speech and academic freedom,
But there are places speech get's limited,
Places academia get's limited.
I 'would put it to a vote, in a Parent Teacher Association,
If there 'is a minority as you say,
Then the vote won't pass.
But if a majority of parents and teachers 'do think it harmful to the children,
Then it 'ought be banned.
Not a big fan of freedom of speech or academic freedom?
Oh that's a shame, that John00's a no show.
My view is that Con ought have an overwhelming advantage in this debate.
Sure. I'd have to ask for 3 days or more between rounds. I can only put in so much time per debate.
We can redo this if you want.
Any more debates like this? Looks fun
"it is important to consider the contrast of this material against current truths to ensure this ugly truth can be identified quicker next time"
So your argument is basically an assumption that Hitler's book will help you identify the next Hitler. Sadly, thats not how the world works. The masses of people arent capable of identifying the most obvious lies, let alone to be capable of identifying Hitler.
Searching for the next Hitler would just result in everyone labeling their enemies as "Hitler". So yeah, since people have a limited amount of books they can read during lifetime, Hitler's books should probably not be in that equation.
this is true while Mein Kampf's subject mater may not be palatable to most it is important that a lesson is learned, this cant be done without reference material exposing the truth. Mein Kampf like it or not was a truth for the Germans that used it as a manual. it is important to consider the contrast of this material against current truths to ensure this ugly truth can be identified quicker next time before it has the time to become another ugly truth about humanities nature.
Mein Kampf is actually good history material, for example. My English teacher literally recommended the book. He wasn't a Nazi of course, he is just an avid lover of historical studies.
It really depends on how you teach kids the books. You are not going to declare Mein Kamph the ideological epitome the kids are supposed to preach, you are going to use it as pure historical material, as it should.
Great, I'm looking forward to this, I think this site is exactly the space I've been looking for.
Yes, that's right. I will post my first argument soon, and you should get a notification when it is your turn to respond. There are 3 days available to post an argument.
for us to begin you must go first, this is correct?
you too my friend
Thanks for accepting my challenge. Looking forward to our debate. Good luck.
I would like to debate you with the understanding I am a beginner and may require assistance from time to time. just navigation and things, i can formulate a good argument for Parents being allowed to ban books
I would take the side of Parents being allowed to ban books
Straight to Hitler?
I'm debating on the side of not allowing parents to ban books. I can change the title.
From the description I think it's the former, though they should probably have titled the debate something different.
are you debating on the side of not allowing parents or the side of allowing parents to ban books?
Cool, so next, the kids are gonna be reading Hitler's books.
If parents cant object, why could you?