Thomas Sowell & the case for TEACHING instead of PREACHING "The experiences of life can help people outgrow whatever they were [incorrectly]  indoctrinated with. What may persist, however, is the lazy habit of hearing one side of an issue and being galvanized into action without hearing the other side--and, more fundamentally, not having developed any mental skills that would enable you to systematically test one set of beliefs against another. Would it make sense for a jury to reach a verdict after having heard only the prosecution's case, or only the defense attorney's case, but not both?  Elementary as it may seem ... we should hear both sides of an issue before making up our minds.  Some students may even imagine that they have already heard the other side [because they were given a summary; teaching is two or more sides of an issue that are both positive; presenting one side as positive and the other as negative does not make for a level or equitable basis of judgment].  But a jury would never be impressed by having the prosecution tell them what the defendant's defense is. They would want to hear the defense attorney present that case.  Hearing only one side does nothing to equip students with the experience to know how to sort out opposing sides of other issues they will have to confront in the future, after they have left school and need to reach their own conclusions on the issues arising later. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that students are being indoctrinated with the correct conclusions on current issues, that would still be irrelevant educationally [because this] would still not be equipping students with the mental skills to weigh opposing views for themselves, in order to be prepared for new and unforeseeable issues that will arise over their lifetimes  … without either a knowledge of what is said by those on the other side or the intellectual discipline to know how to analyze opposing arguments."    ENGAGE IN DEBATES. Arguments are after all, cooperative, not competitive ventures.  The purpose of an argument is always to come to agreement.  Usually when arguing, you are seeking to convert your opponent to your point of view.  Sometimes you’re seeking compromise, but either way you’re seeking agreement.  Also, when venturing into an argument, you accept the risk that you could be the one converted.  In this way an argument is a cooperative venture.  Those who seek to “win an argument” were never in an argument in the first place, they were in a bickering match.  A nation or a culture with out argument and debate is like a crab, it can only move sideways or backwards.  The nations with the most vibrant debating culture are sure to be the ones making the quickest and most rapid progress.  Get out of Pleasant Valley and stop being afraid of running into someone you might disagree with!  ~J.W. Kraft