politics should be introduced to the youth

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "politics should be introduced to the youth". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

I STRONGLY believe and stand with this motion.

You want to expose kids to politics early? That's how you poison their development before they can think for themselves. Here's what actually happens when you inject partisan politics into childhood: you're not teaching critical thinking—you're installing *tribal loyalty*. A ten-year-old doesn't weigh evidence and form nuanced positions. They absorb whatever their teacher, parent, or social media shows them and treats it as truth. You're creating foot soldiers for ideologies, not citizens who question them. The real damage is worse than indoctrination, though. Kids need *psychological safety* to develop. When politics becomes part of their identity before age 15 or 16, they stop exploring ideas that contradict their "team." They become defensive instead of curious. A teenager who's already committed to a political identity won't genuinely consider opposing views—they'll just argue to win. You've traded their intellectual growth for your movement's recruitment. And let's be honest: whose politics gets taught? If it's pro-environment, fine. But what about the kid whose parents are coal miners? Now he's sitting in class while his family's livelihood is treated as the enemy. That's not education—that's alienation wrapped in good intentions. **So answer this directly: How do you teach "politics" to youth without it becoming someone's ideology being forced on someone else's kid?** What mechanism prevents the bias you're trying to avoid?

First, i'd like to state my rebuttals that will answer your question. We can teach politics to youth AND they can be open-minded at the same time. If we teach a certain someone no matter the age group politics, they can instill beliefs of their own and ending up forcing their opinions on others too, and what i'm trying to say here is that it does NOT just apply to the youth but rather everyone else WHO HAS OPINIONS. Plus, we can prevent that from happening to youths, as per your concern, by instilling moral education and teaching them to be more open-minded and let them learn that EVERYONE has different opinions and views on things, while still learning about politics.

You're trying to have it both ways, and that's exactly where your argument falls apart. You say "we can teach politics AND keep them open-minded"—but that's not how human brains work, especially developing ones. Neuroscience shows that adolescents' prefrontal cortexes—the part responsible for rational judgment—aren't fully developed until the mid-20s. You're asking kids to think like philosophers when their brains are literally still under construction. Adding "moral education" on top doesn't fix this. It just means you're layering *more* instruction onto minds that are naturally prone to absorbing information as absolute truth. Here's your real problem: You claim bias affects everyone equally, so we shouldn't worry about it with kids. But that's backwards. Adults can *choose* their information sources, debate back, recognize manipulation. A 12-year-old can't. A teacher presenting "both sides" of climate policy isn't neutral—the framing itself is political. Which studies do they cite? What tone do they use? Kids pick up on that immediately and internalize it as authority. You're also dodging the power dynamic. When a teacher introduces politics, it's not a peer discussion—it's an adult authority figure embedding values into developing minds. A parent with opinions? The kid can argue back, walk away, or reject it later. A classroom? That's institutional. That's different. **Your "open-mindedness education" is supposed to prevent bias, but you haven't explained how it overrides the natural human tendency to protect beliefs we've already adopted.** How does teaching "respect different views" stop a kid from doubling down on the politics they've already internalized from that same lesson?

Firstly, you're claiming that TEACHING and instilling moral values in kids, or just teaching essential topics to children or youth are like forcing instructions children should follow. What is the logic here?? So are you saying that teaching or educating children is basically forcing them to apply to a set of rules? How does that make any sense? if so, then everyone in this world that has received education have been put through this, as we've all been taught topics, and i'd like to emphasize, MORAL TOPICS THAT I'M ARGUING ABOUT. Next, you're comparing an adult to youth, specifically 12 year olds. Yes, it IS TRUE INDEED that MOST 12 year olds are not yet developed. However, AGE IS JUST A NUMBER. IT IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF YOUR MATURITY. 12 YEAR OLDS CAN BE MATURE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND MANIPULATION AND RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM BOTH SIDES THROUGH TRAINING AND PRACTICE. WHAT MAKES A 12 YEAR OLD UNABLE TO POSSESS THOSE SKILLS, IF GOD FORBID LIMITS ON CERTAIN SKILLS ON CHILDREN! As for the power dynamic, have you not seen students clarifying teachers while they are teaching? A student won't just believe everything their teacher teaches them, and plus, politics is not even a taught subject in middle school, high school. only university majors include politics and social studies. Plus, a child can reject their parents' opinions but not their teachers'? WHAT IS THIS LOGIC YOU ARE TRYING TO APPLY? The main clash of this debate is also that humans tend to protect their own beliefs that they've already adopted. However, I'd like to argue that THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING THE STATE AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE STATE OF THE WORLD, WHAT ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN OUTWEIGHS OPINIONATED CHILDREN. CHILDREN, CAN ALSO BE OPINIONATED THROUGH OTHER THINGS IN LIFE NOT JUST POLITICS. Plus, "respecting different views" is completely irrelevant as that is about mutual understanding and respect, which i have repeatedly emphasized as moral education. This also leads to my 1st point, where people, especially children should have the right to understand and know what is happening in the current world we live in. Being introduced to these topics early on, children can develop stronger views in the future rather than having no stance in anything whatsoever and following other peoples' views. Next, politics can also be introduced and help children grow their ambition for pursuing politics in the future, nurturing world leaders early on. With that, I'd like to rest my case, but never my stance.

You're conflating education with indoctrination, and that's the entire problem—not the solution. Yes, we teach children facts: math, history, biology. Those have verifiable answers. Two plus two equals four everywhere. The Titanic sank in 1912. But politics *doesn't work that way*. There is no objective "correct" political position. When you teach a child "the state of the world," you're inherently filtering it through a political lens. A teacher explaining climate policy, taxation, immigration, or healthcare is making *value judgments* about competing interests—and that's where education becomes ideology. Your "age is just a number" argument actually proves my point. You're admitting maturity varies wildly among 12-year-olds. So which ones get politics? The mature ones? Who decides? You've just created a system where teachers subjectively determine which kids are "ready," which is exactly the bias problem you claim moral education prevents. It doesn't. And you say students challenge teachers and parents equally—but they don't. A child can reject a parent's views and leave the conversation. They can't reject a teacher's framing without academic consequences. That power imbalance is *real*, and "mutual respect" doesn't erase it. Here's your fatal flaw: You claim kids need to know "what's actually happening" to develop strong views—but you haven't addressed that *what's actually happening* is contested. Two equally intelligent people disagree on what's "actually" true about economics, justice, and governance. You're asking schools to referee that. They can't. **If your answer is "teach them multiple perspectives equally," then you're not really teaching politics—you're just deferring the decision to kids who lack the life experience to make it. Why not let them develop that judgment *after* they have some skin in the game as adults?**