The debate would go more smoothly if you addressed his actual claims about what he's making claims about, not the inference you're assuming he's making from his claims about the main thesis.

In particular, Charles seems to be taking exception to the degree to which you want to hide truth from children by taking an example of where recent historical atrocities are taught, in contrast to your claim that things are universally whitewashed. (Aside: contrasting Germany and Japan is quite instructive here.)

You seem to be losing track of what the sub-discussion is supposed to establish and are returning to the original question. But you can't argue a complex topic productively unless you can stay on track on sub-discussions until you resolve something!