It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
"A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.
There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."
We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order -- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful -- and we will be -- we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.
Is it really to inform us to move from our next class?
We all know what time it is as any class I've ever been in had a clock.
Bells are not a necessity. They are a choice. A thought-out choice. These could easily be replaced with a simple verbal announcement to inform of the pending transition. The onus does not have to rest on the educator to inform the students to move onto their next lecture. Other avenues could be explored. However, the choice was made to select bells. And these bells are symbolic.
In any totalitarian state, which the education system is, symbols were used to control the masses. Albeit past or present, the emphasis on these symbols were overt. In a totalitarian state under a new world order, such symbols would be crucial in the daily control of the public.
By instilling these basic measures of control at a young age we are taught to listen and obey. Even as adults this is the case, only the symbols may differ.
it is extremely difficult to teach an old dog new tricks
A study led by the Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care in Toronto has found that older adults can perform just as well as young adults on visual, short-term memory tests. What's remarkable, however, is that older adults use different areas of the brain than younger people.
Having attended school for almost 8 years after September 11th, 2001, never once did I hear of any theory against the official story of what was released by the commission report.
So if critical thought is so obviously essential to our way of life, why is so noticeably absent from any school curriculum?
A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.
There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited.
an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.
Originally posted by Anti - Government
There isn’t anything wrong with teaching kids to listen and obey just because they do that it doesn’t mean that there is a sinister plot behind it there is nothing wrong with teaching kids (from a young age) to behave.
Originally posted by Anti - Government
Mainly because it’s inappropriate to talk about that in school a lot of innocent lives were lost and it’s a pretty touchy subject for most and you’re not exactly at school to learn about what happened on that day you are the school to learn about what effects you in society or to learn valuable skills to be used in society.
Originally posted by Anti - Government
Just because we don’t have a specific lesson in critical thinking it doesn’t mean we are not learning it.
1)Do you believe the New World Order exists?
Yes I do believe that the NWO exists but I believe that they aren’t here to harm or kill us all they are here to achieve a peace state around the world and to move up a level in human development.
2)Do you believe it is possible than the education system has an ulterior motif?
No I don’t I truly believe that the education system as a whole was put I place to educate and help us reach our own individual potentials.
3)Do you feel that some of your time in school is being wasted?
Of course some of the tie is wasted just like it is in just about every single job that you have worked in or workplace that you have visited it’s not just schools.
4)What profession do you intend to seek in the future?
Research tells us that a large majority of gifted and talented students spend most of their day in regular classroom settings (Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985). 2
I would like to simply comment that my intent on alerting this concept of the education system is to emphasize the symbolism that they come with. I'm not interested in debating the semantics of whether or not it is the most efficient tool of transitioning the students, I'm merely looking to emphasize the symbolic nature of the tool.
While my opponent has made an effort to off-set the practical sense of the bells, he fails to touch on the symbolic nature of the sounding bell.
Why should they listen and obey?
Teachers isn't even a term that should be used for the most part. They are individuals who get paid to stand in front of a classroom and regurgitate what someone else has already said. They are not teaching anything.
They are merely echoing the thoughts of someone who came before them.
This notion that my opponent alludes to is the theme of the New World Order. Which is that we should listen and obey to individuals who come with a title. Screw titles. Respect is earned. Students should be courteous as everyone is entitled to courtesy. However, students should not obey every thought of an educator because they are an educator. They should be taught to challenge the viewpoints of all, including their teachers. Not only will this benefit the class, it will hold teachers accountable and push them to be better. No more of this reading the chapter the night before the students did and professing to be the "know all" on the topic.
This was in response to discussion surrounding 9/11.
I'm beginning to question where or not my opponent is a tool of the New World Order.
He asserts that because it is a sensitive subject where innocent lives were lost, we shouldn't talk about it. If that isn't the NWO in a short sentence, I don't know what is. Don't look, don't ask, don't think.. just close and swallow. No thank you!
I can't learn to swim without getting in the water. I couldn't learn to drive a bike without getting on one. And I couldn't learn to drive a car without getting behind the wheel. So please, elaborate on how our future generations are going to learn critical thought without practicing it.
I'm very curious.
Research tells us that a large majority of gifted and talented students spend most of their day in regular classroom setting
Originally posted by Anti - Government
Think about if you go to a job interview and they see 2 people one of which is calm and does the interview professionally. Then you have someone who is running around messing with everything and is totally unprofessional in the way he handles things, even if he has a better C.V the calm and professional wins every time.
Would you prefer they started from the smartest kids and then leave the slower and weaker academically children behind the truth is it far better and easier to start with the weaker ones first look at it this way
While I appreciate the backdrop that you've created for the story, it completely misrepresents the point I was making.
The obedience that I oppose is academic and intellectual obedience. Students conceding that the teacher is right when they don't believe it, or not standing up for what they think is right because they are the student.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But the point here isn't what is more beneficial. The point here is that children ARE NOT reaching their full potential. The current educational format is not aiming at ensuring that each individual student reaches their full potential because if they were, the education system would be much more individualized.
By your own admission, either way children are being left out.
This turned out to be a tough debate to judge, as both opponents made strong points throughout. However, I must give the win to Chissler.
Chissler starts out the gate strong, but it would have been nice if he had included a reference to the study regarding children and sleep deprivation. Makes interesting argument linking school bells to controlled behavior. In the end he sticks to his guns and carries his line of thought through the end of the debate.
Anti-Government does a good job raising doubt about Chissler’s line of logic regarding the use of school bells as the basis of behavior modification, as well as smooth out his opinion regarding the public education system. Unfortunately, his loss of a round hurt his chances of fully rounding out his argument to its fullest extent. In the end he really didn’t have the opportunity to thoroughly shake Chissler’s core line of reasoning.
Over all, this was a good debate.
Round 1: Chissler v Anti – Government: "Education and The NWO"
Opening goes to Chissler..
I liked the way Chissler led the opening salvo in the direct that he did. I felt his opening was very thought provoking and still never left the reader with any doubt as to his direction.
Anti-Government instead left one wondering if he was going to debate the topic, or whether or not we should drop out of school.
Replies and closing:
The first impression one gets when reading he replies in this debate is that Anti-Government was playing catch up. And not due to the missed post.
Chissler moved very nicely from the opening and into the replies, never straying off course and leading the debate exactly in the direction he chose. This is hard to combat.
The distraction Chissler used in the “Bell” issue was nothing short of genius.
Anti-Government spent almost his entire debate just answering Chissler’s post and Socratic Questions and never really was able to “put his point of view” on the table.
While I would give the nod of the closing to Anti-Government, all the replies go to Chissler as does the debate quite handily.
This is a perfect example of the tactic in a debate of taking control. I did not do a character count, but if Anti-Government had the space, it would have been a much closer battle had he used it to better formulate his stance and not so much time simply refuting Chissler’s. All through this debate I was never really able to grasp Anti-Government’s stance.
However I must say that for a new debater to face such an experienced opponent as Chissler, Anti-Government’s performance was/is to be applauded.
Win to Chissler