Debate Through Calvin and Hobbes: Week 4 Up

[illinialex24]

Hey guys, all tries at creating a successful debate for a week 1 on 1 kinda failed, so I decided to create a different weekly debate. As many of you know, Calvin and Hobbes is a very well known strip by Bill Watterson, and it deals with issues from funny kid stuff like throwing water balloons to fairly philosophical issues.

Anyway, because he introduces fairly good conversations, I decided to create a thread based on topics through Calvin and Hobbes. Simply post a strip once a week (anyone can do it, just post the strip exactly 1 week after the previous debate, I'll do week 1) , post the issues you want the debate to focus on, and then we will have a debate on it.

Here is week 1:

Do you feel that school's should focus on creative expression more so in learning and what are both the benefits and repercussions to learning how to creatively express yourself and both learning through a more standard approach?

 

[aeghrur]

Lol, I like this, I like this a lot. Calvin and Hobbes is hilarious.

That aside, I do feel schools should focus more on creative expression, especially as of now. Right now, America in the business industry has lost its creativity. We are no longer innovating, and simply replicating. This causes slower progress in technology, and it gives America one less export: inventions. Before, it would be the U.S.A which would create things, ship them over for everyone to buy, and then you would have countries like Japan replicate it to tweak it a little. Now, America is replicating each other without anything new being created. I think if schools focus just a little more on the creative aspects, it would help produce more innovative ideas in America instead of being the same replicative ones. That might go a long way to helping our economy.

 

[pockyD]

Open-ended activities such as Show and Tell are already pretty much geared at encouraging creativity...

If you're saying that such activities are decreasing in number and popularity, I agree; schools are trying to teach too much "real information" when in reality, most of it is pretty useless and irrelevant (then again, I haven't been in elementary school for like 12 years, so this is going off of hearsay anyway)... I think that for the most part, schools are sacrificing too much of learning 'how to think' and 'how to express yourself' in favor of massive amounts of brute force memorization of useless facts

Obviously, a more 'creativity' based curriculum leaves much more room to be taken advantage of (laziness/mediocrity masked as 'creativity'), but I'm not convinced that kids slacking off and finding clever excuses is any less productive than memorizing lists of dates

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah, I understand that Calvin is an extreme case but I feel schools are going towards a more systematic approach to compete better with other elementary schools in Asian countries primarily and also around the world, and feel that they need to streamline to achieve that.

 

[Nysyarc]

Great idea, Calvin and Hobbes are awesome! I hope this idea keeps up week for week.

I just finished high school last year, and if they were going to change the system to allow more room for free expression and creativity, I would gladly redo the whole 13 years of it. As much as I learned about modern living, I learned next to nothing about what actually interests me.

Now it's up to me to find a university or college that actually teaches what I want to learn, which is difficult. In fact, looking back, a lot of what I learned in school really won't be that helpful in a career as a musician or a video game developer (my two careers of choice). I play guitar and am adept at using Flash, but I learned both those things from my dad and my own persistence, not from school.

Obviously schools need to teach us how to survive in the modern world. They need to teach us math because we need to be able to use money, do our taxes, and etc... but there are some things in school like language arts and sciences, that really should only be taught to students who are passionate about those things. If you enjoy writing poetry, take an english language arts course, but people who don't enjoy writing and would rather just get by with common knowledge can take digital arts courses instead, or whatever interests them.

I don't think a creativity-based system would inspire laziness or a poor work ethic at all, because it would be encouraging kids to do what they want to do. On the contrary, kids would look forward to school and would learn more eagerly because they are learning to improve the talents and interests they already have. If I could have taken a course on guitar and music theory in elementary, junior high and high school, I would have been happier and probably would have done better in my mandatory classes.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

Over the years my highschool has become more diverse in the area of course selection.

There has always been electives like instrumental music, vocal music, drama, woodshop, history, metal working, etc., but lately there are a lot of new and creative courses that are becoming options to everyone. These courses are things like Communications Technology (video editing, photoshop, html, flash, etc.), Earth and Space Science, Hospitality and Tourism (cooking), Dance, and even Guitar classes.

My school is a big sports school, basketball being number one, but through the past 5 years the curriculum has changed in favour of the creative side of things, which is why my school is a great school and receives the comments that it does.

I guess you could say I whole-heartedly agree. Schools should put the focus back into creativity, instead of memorizing facts. The only thing I remember about Grade 10 History is Vimy Ridge and Hitler, but I can remember all sorts of things that I learned and ENJOYED in instrumental music and commtech.

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah, however, I find the requirements high schools have (especially at my school) often limits greatly what you can do. IE, you get 1 credit for a major per year and it requires 19 majors, and in specific categories, meaning you have to do a lot of work if you want to freely express yourself.

 

[:mad:]

Why was I not informed of this? Me of all people.

I do agree, to an extent. Having the option to take part in classes that promote creativity is great, though you only truly get the option in high school, maybe some time in middle school. Schools put a lot of emphasis on bookwork. Not saying that's bad, you need those skills in the future. I'm glad to see the changes at schools near me, and how it's not all about art any more.

 

[illinialex24]

Week 2 is Up:

Ignore the last panel and we have a very good idea of the debate in this thread, obviously, Calvin's case is unique but the general idea is fairly good.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

That blew my mind. LOL

I don't think cheating on tests is all the big of a deal in school, but then when you get into the work force and start to cut corners, you could be in a lot of trouble. Like Calvin said "...then again, maybe that's why the world is in such a mess."

Personally, I'd rather be ethical and put emphasis on principles rather than success. For example, I don't cut in with friends in a line if they're ahead of me, and other things like that. Although it's pretty meaningless, it's just an example. I'd rather see people in third world countries live than my company make billions.

 

[aeghrur]

I find that in these situations,it's often times better to simply fail than cheat because failure is something you learn from. Cheating isn't. If you fail once, it's fine, most people fail sometime. Learning from failure is a part of life, and it helps people with success.
Cheating, on the other hand, teaches nothing. It's simply... done. Okay, so after one cheats, what do they learn? That's why, to me, accepting failure is better than denial and cheating.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Cheating teaches you how to cheat.

And its not like you don't benefit. Honestly, I sound like a horrible person right now.

If you can swallow your morals then its easy. But when you can't cheat, you are screwed. In the end, there is no true benefit. Don't cheat I guess.

This is my last post in the DH. Later guys.

 

[Amide]

Normally, I think that accomplishing your goals (such as doing good on a test) is the same, no matter how you come to accomplish them. But tests are given not just to see if you can pass them with flying colors. Tests are given as evidence that you understand subject material. Cheating on them could get you placed in a course you don't really understand, but that's besides the point.

Failing gives you more opportunities to learn than fake success.

 

[:mad:]

I think Calvin has the right idea. If you fail a test, that only gives you more motivation to study, and do better next time. Calvin's a special case because he doesn't learn from these mistakes for the sake of humor.

If it were anyone else, I'd probably say that he turned in that blank paper on purpose.

 

[Mewter]

Lol at Calvin turning in a blank paper on an ethics test. It's better to fail a test if you have no knowledge of the test rather than cheat to pass it. Failing leaves more of a positive impact for use in future attempts while cheating gets you nowhere at all.

Sure, you win for the moment, but cutting corners doesn't earn you any experience points. It's Not Very Effective.

 

[Lord Viper]

☆ Cheating is one of the reasons why society is corrupted and can't function the way it should. The only cheating I approve is High School cheating because I clam that you won't need most of the classes you take in High School to the outside world. Don't get me started on cheating in college, if you ever cheat in college, will you feel successful after words, or will you even succeed after college? The questions go unanswered. ☆

 

[Firus]

Yeah, I think Viper has a good point.

Putting aside ethics for a moment, one of the biggest issues with cheating is that you're not going to benefit from knowing the material. In other words, the point of a test is to make sure you have knowledge of the material, and by cheating you disregard that.

So if you legitimately need to know something, cheating will screw you over worse in the end.

If you don't need to know something, if it's useless, then it ONLY comes down to a matter of ethics.

And Calvin really does have a point (as funny as that is to say about a kid like him in a comic strip) with his comment about how that might be why the world is such a mess. Cheating isn't just school cheating, it isn't just about tests. That develops into things like cutting corners on a job, stealing rather than making your own living, etc.

It's most definitely going against ethics at least 99% of the time to cheat in any way, shape, or form.

But I'm going to say whether it's okay or not based on what I base most of my opinions on; if you're not affecting anyone else, feel free to cheat and either screw yourself over in the end or get caught doing it and get in big trouble. Of course, most of the time cheating actually will affect somebody else, so it's pretty iffy.

However, no one likes someone that BS's their way through life while everyone around them actually has to try.

 

[RDK]

First of all, I like the idea for this thread. Good job Illini.

However, no one likes someone that BS's their way through life while everyone around them actually has to try.

But that's the point. Cheating only works when a small sample of the group does it. If everybody started cheating, then the system would break down. There has to be a balance.

That being said, from an evolutionary perspective - or even just a competitive perspective - isn't the individual who can cheat without getting caught just being smart? Things like that are rewarded, at least in the short run if not in the long run, or else nobody would do it.

TL ; DR answer: if there's a hole in the system that allows cheating to go unpunished, then the system deserves to be overrun by cheaters. Perhaps then the system will "learn something"...

 

[Mewter]

I agree with what Firus said. He put it pretty well.

☆ Cheating is one of the reasons why society is corrupted and can function the way it should. ☆

I don't see why something would be called cheating and banned from the rules if it helps everything run correctly. It should instead be encouraged!

What are you getting at? Or am I just misunderstanding?

 

[Lord Viper]

I don't see why something would be called cheating and banned from the rules if it helps everything run correctly. It should instead be encouraged!

What are you getting at?

☆ Stupid typo's, I meant to type can't. It really doesn't sound right if society functions well when it's corrupted, sorry about the typo. >.< ☆

 

[Mewter]

☆ Stupid typo's, I meant to type can't. It really doesn't sound right if society functions well when it's corrupted, sorry about the typo. >.< ☆

Haha. Alright. Good thing that was fixed then.

 

[illinialex24]

Someone wise, in short, Bill Watterson once told me through the medium of the 10th anniversary book the following:

"Whats left to debate?"

I thought there was a whole lot so I decided to post this strip for week 3:

So the question is, does gore, violence, and shootings on TV help cause violence in the real world and if so, how?

 

[:mad:]

Violence can be influenced by television. It probably wouldn't cause anyone to go out on a drive-by just because they saw it on TV, but it can still give someone ideas.

If somebody's mentally unstable, suicidal of sorts, they could be persuaded to shoot the person that caused them to feel this way because of a show they saw on TV. Maybe the aftermath could bring them happiness, knowing the source of their problems is gone and people are upset because of it.

Though I don't believe television itself directly causes violence, it can help fuel the desires to become a criminal. The way television makes illegal substances look, I'd say it helps their decision to smoke rather than kill.

 

[RDK]

Saying that watching a violent movie or playing violent video games is the direct cause of kids going out and shooting people is absurd. Every little thing we do influences people, but the decision to act is still up to the person being influenced.

Unless you want to create a pseudo-Orwellian world where nobody is allowed to do anything out of fear that it might influence some maniac to go out and shoot people, then it'd probably be best to drop this "violent media causes violence" nonsense.

And you're legitimately ******** if you think censoring violence on TV and in movies will help the problem while getting rid of guns won't.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

Violence on TV does have an influence, but then again EVERYTHING has an influence like RDK said.

 

[aeghrur]

I hardly believe that violence on TV will translate to violence in real life.
I'm pretty sure things such as poverty, standard of living, experiences with people, etc have a much bigger effect on causing violence than watching TV. =/

 

[illinialex24]

I personally think violence on TV has almost no effect on violence in the real world, people who are unstable would find other ways of causing violence, and are much more affected by those around them. I actually think the news and other things that are much more life like have more effect, just reporting a killing I personally believe can sometimes cause others to do the same.

 

[Pr0phetic]

I always was on the side that violence on TV can be a influence, but not a direct cause. said action, as RDK said, is person dependant.

So far it seems we mostly agree.

 

[cF=)]

When you watch TV, I'm sure your brain is lazily being entertained rather than receptive and alert. It makes no difference whatsoever in that case if you watch a lovely soap opera or a mass murdering psycho going out at night to slaughter gnomes, because it's not gonna make you act any differently in the end, positively or not.

If, however, a show aimed at kids was being as serious as a school class and teaching that violence solves any everyday problem, I'd be much more worried. That or the media are sources of biased information I wouldn't really want my kids to grow up to.

 

[aeghrur]

Hm, cF=) brings up a good point.
The media is a much more dangerous tool to society right now. It creates a certain type of thinking amongst our kids/teens and influences them in a *usually* negative manner. Furthermore, it misleads a majority for of the population upon many people, and makes many speculative ideas seem true. One great example is Michael Jackson. The media had many believe that he was a child molester, when he was acquitted. =/

Furthermore, I'd like to ask, is our media becoming more useless nowdays? Where was the media that based itself upon useful stories that MATTERED? The media used to focus on how our leaders were running the country, while now, I feel as though the media simply focuses on non-important celebrities. I mean, do we really need every news station to be another form of TMZ?

 

[illinialex24]

One great example is Michael Jackson. The media had many believe that he was a child molester, when he was acquitted. =/

Counterpoint, courts in California are, for lack of a better term, ******** honestly. When you let off a guy who has blood of the victim on a possession he in fact owns who writes a book later detail on how he would have committed the crime in question in great detail, there is something VERY wrong with that.

And when the only prevailing alibi, that the glove did not fit, was because they stored it in a leather preserver which shrank the glove. Dumb, yes, but in short, OJ's guilty as hell. Being acquitted doesn't mean much, it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict you and/or the prosecutors were essentially gold diggers, like in the MJ trial.

 

[Firus]

Over time, the more the media exposes us to some things, the more their shock value decreases, obviously. If you see a person get their arm blown off once a day for a year, by the end of the year it's not really that big of a deal anymore. To an extent, it can affect you, yes...

But there's a difference between not being shocked by something and being inspired to act because of a lack of a shocked reaction to something. Video games/TV/books/etc. are not going to hypnotize you into doing anything. They can alter the way you think maybe, but only to a certain extent. The worst it will do is inspire someone already going to do something in their methods.

Of course, this doesn't mean I necessarily approve of gratuitously violent crap, because it's just weird that we watch something like Saw for entertainment...but if a nutjob goes out and copies Jigsaw, that's just it...they were already a nutjob.

Furthermore, I'd like to ask, is our media becoming more useless nowdays? Where was the media that based itself upon useful stories that MATTERED? The media used to focus on how our leaders were running the country, while now, I feel as though the media simply focuses on non-important celebrities. I mean, do we really need every news station to be another form of TMZ?

Yeah, speaking of Michael Jackson, I find it obnoxious how the entire world fell apart for a week because Michael Jackson died. As you pointed out, the media didn't hesitate to portray him as a child molester whether or not he was. You can't treat him like a saint AND say that he was a child molester, it doesn't work that way. There are MUCH more important things going on than some celebrities dying, or Britney Spears/Lindsay Lohan doing something stupid for the millionth time.

 

[illinialex24]

I think this is pretty self-explanatory, but where do you think virtue comes from?

 

[CRASHiC]

I can't read the text, but luckily I own the book and know this by heart.

Children do not know virtue. Have you ever seen a child share? They must be taught to share. Virtues come from culture.
Though let me clarify, culture is NOT society. Society is the government and economic systems. Culture is the way of life passed on to you from your parents. Culture and society are constantly at odds. The things your parents teach you in truth hinder your chance of success in a capitalist environment, where it is winner take all.
The real issue I see with Calvin's delima is that a life of 'sin' is based upon immediate gain. The life of virtue runs its long rewards, though the user may not instantly see them.
To dip your self in a million whores runs its immediate gains, but also is likely to run you a coarse of emotional trauma as well as an incredibly chance of STDs.

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah, I can read it but I also know it by heart.

Anyway, I think life comes from a mixture, I think children do know virtue but in a limited sense, you can't sacrifice yourself for the better good all the time or you will be an empty shell really and just a tool, even if you originally feel good for doing it.

However, if you just take time for yourself and do things at the expense of others, you will soon be opposed by others and have difficulty living and enjoying life.

Its a mixture.

 

[aeghrur]

It sounds like Supply side economics v. Demand side economics.
Unfortunately, I cannot even see the picture, so I really can't partake in this week's debate.

 

[illinialex24]

Oh **** the picture got removed. I'll find another copy....

 

[illinialex24]

I'm gonna put up a few more links in text to it since yeah, I don't want people to be unable to debate:

http://img107.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/12/22/untitled-48x5uzu6b.jpg
http://mpachon.googlepages.com/Calvinhobbes.gif/Calvinhobbes-full.jpg
http://op-for.com/calvin and hobbes.GIF