Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

Should corporal punishment be permitted in educational institutions? Allowing it in schools could enhance children's discipline and attentiveness. Research indicates that since the prohibition of corporal punishment, children's behavior has significantly deteriorated.

I accept the challenge of why homeschooling should be allowed in society. Myself being homeschooled, I will argue on why homeschooling is good and shouldn't be banned.

I agree very much that the schools should put more emphasis on physical activity, also outside of school, sadly this almost never happens. It's not as if history teachers stops teaching history for 10 minutes to inform the children about exercise. And even if the teachers were to do so, the students who are not athletically conditioned would have a hard time finding a sport to attend, surely this would cause despair in many teens as they will have very little guidance. I really think it's unsympathetic to say that teens should simply just attend sports in their free time, it's not that easy for many many children, unsurprisingly as they are conditioned to sit and listen for multiple hours a day. And to your argument that physical exercise is not suited for all is absolutely unheard of. The only reason it could be wrong for someone to exercise would be if the person did it the wrong way. Now this adds to the argument that physical exercise should be taught more in school, so that the students learn about exercise from an experienced person and in that way understands which exercises he/she should do to claim the essential benefits, that we just established physical exercise provides, so that the student can prosper with a fuller richer and healthier life. To believe that children won't have the same physiological response to excessive stress as adults is absurd. I also fail to comprehend why you would devalue physical education, even when it seems like you understand the remarkable effects physical activity can have. So knowing how the body works will give the students great tools to approach life with, especially compared with the knowledge you gain from let's say math class. To me it's no wonder that 121 million people in the world suffer from depression, knowing that we are neglecting the importance of knowing how the body works. 30% of the US population suffers from depression making the country one of the most depressed in the world. This leads me back to my first round where I suggest making changes to the children's schooling/conditioning in terms of informing the children about how their body works and how to develop themselves in a healthier manner. http://www.healthline.com...

You didn't set a parameter in which school you mean. first i thought it's in the ELEMENTARY where prohibiting junk foods is common. That made us confuse, You should have clarify it first. Okay, It's not bad to follow the instruction given to us by our teachers because all they want for us is nothing but for our own Good. We can't say that we need to be independent because the purpose why we have the teacher is to teach us what's good and every schools has its LAW which should be followed.

":)" Chip off the old block eh? :) You should see my other debates Anyway to rebut your arguments. "1) While it may be true that what my opponent states is a disciplinary tool, it is not the best one nor an effective one....." Your forgetting the whole point. It doesn't matter if it will eventually fail; by then they will probably be analytical by nature (hence adolescence). The point is that it will work for the moment. Virtually all means of discipline will probably fail at some point. Let me take your example: ""if you don't be good, I won't buy the Power Ranger toy that you really wanted to play with." If you're going to figure out the santa claus hoax, you're probably to dang old to be playing with those dang power rangers. Even so, direct punishment may lead to direct results, but that doesn't necessarily make them the better results. If anything your kids may resent you for punishing them. Why not instead try positive reenforcement to PREVENT children from even thinking of getting in trouble. Why not get them envolved in sports, music, or arts? Or get them to work around the house and in return you pay them allowance? The best kind of results are not direct ones, but long term ones that keeps the childs mind on achieving a certain constructive goals to create positive benefits. Here's a good example that directly correlates with the debate: RELIGION! You have strong belief in god right? So you aren't going to lie to people right? Every time before you lie, cheat, or steal, since you have strong faith in god you'll think, "well, maybe I shouldn't do these terrible things. After all, if I'm good, I'll go to heaven (ultimate utopia with free food and air conditioning). And if I proceed with my sinful actions I will go to hell (the ultimate place of suffering with no tv or air conditioning). Since you believe in this thing so strongly, with 'certain' knowledge of it's existence, it compels you to do it's will which happens to be positive. "2) The example presented by me is the same presented by my opponent. You know that you will go to heaven (if you believe in God) the same way that you know that you will die if you jump off a 40 ft. tall building." Man, no you don't. Death by jumping off of a 40ft building has been proven. The existence of heaven remains unproven. It's a faith my friend, not a fact. "3) "You shouldn't go around criticizing people for their beliefs. Everyone has their own cultures and you should respect them for it." Unlike my opponent says, I am not criticizing people's beliefs and disrespecting them. I am simply stating, to sum it up, that it is better to believe nothing than to believe in something false. Why should people go around believing in false things when there are more important things to be worrying about?" You're wrong. Santa claus could be manipulating everyone on christmas by moving superfast and changing everyone's positions so they will get each other presents. And God could be doing the same thing with blessings. The existence of santa claus isn't false. If it is then god would suffer the same fate. Why believe in god when there's more things to be worrying about? I'll tell you why: It keeps people calm. It keeps people disciplined. It keeps people believing that if they stay consistent with the recommended action of society, their actions will pay off. It keeps people in line. "4) You wouldn't have to tell the children that Santa Claus didn't exist had you not told them in the first place that they did. And by saying, "By that age it won't really matter because they will probably be skeptical by nature anyway (being more mature and therefore more aware and questioning).", my opponent is agreeing with the point that I have made above. When they do get older and figure out that Santa does not exist, they will realize that their parents have been lying to them all that time." And? They'll probably be fine knowing that they were extremely naive and gullible when they were younger. :) The resolution is negated Thank you

I believe yes because immature students may do inappropriate actions and may cause a distraction. There more immature students then there are mature but hopefully things change soon and its the opposite

If you don’t mind, I’m going to reorganize your responses so they are back in numerical order. Just cleaning things up. =) Just so this doesn’t get out of hand, since we’re dealing with a multithreaded argument, let me summarize everything that has happened: Statement 1 has been agreed upon that bullying in high school can scar people for life. (This was never under serious debate, only citation technicalities.) Statement 2 is still under debate. Statement 3.1 is still under debate. My opponent has conceded Statement 3.2, that not all bullies should be sent to a reform school and that a qualifying process is necessary to implement. Statement 3.3 is still under debate. So, with that in mind, let’s begin! ===Statement 2=== My opponent’s objection to my argument on Statement 2 is: “Once again your arguement [sic] is based on moral [sic] and does not assume that the 2 students have both been captured on camera.” I am a little confused on my opponent’s objection. My argument was that 1) my opponent cited an entire website as his source, 2) the website he cited pertained to workplace bullying, as opposed to high school bullying, which is the scope of this debate, and 3) showing how what my opponent cited actually reinforced my original statement about the difficulty of gathering accurate and unbiased information about bullying. There was no analogy with two students in my last response to Statement 2, and nothing mentioning a security camera. Also, I fail to see how an argument concerning the validity of my opponent’s citations can have moral grounds. I would ask that my opponent please clarify his objection, then I will be happy to debate it with him. However, for now, my opponent has not provided adequate responses and citations to the objections I originally raised in my last response, and thus has not met his burden of proof. My original rebuttal still stands. ===Statement 3.1=== First, I would like to note that my opponent still has not address my original objection to him about how denying bullies a free education violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Second, after reviewing the included report, I have objections to two things. 1) The estimate of 158 billion dollar loss includes all levels of school – elementary, middle, and high school. 2) The article itself indicates that bullying peaks during middle school: “Younger kids are more likely to be bullied and prevalence tends to be higher in middle school.” 3) The article make no non-perfunctory mention of how the rather doubtful figure of 158 billion dollar loss. In fact, the only mention it makes of the questionable sum is “One way that Plan calculated the cost of school violence was to look at the potential income a person lost because of missed schooling.” This does not constitute a thorough explanation. 4) The article does not explain whether this is the total loss over all of history of the American educational system or an annual loss. 5) I find this value to be incredibly questionable considering it is slightly larger than the combined net worth of the entire Coca-Cola Company. [1] In the words of Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I would ask that my opponent either put forward more evidence of his extraordinary claim that bullying has exacted a 158 billion dollar loss or, by default, retract said statement. ===Statement 3.2 (Opponent Conceded)=== My opponent has conceded Statement 3.2: not all bullies should be sent to reform school and a qualifying process needs to be institutionalized. ===Statement 3.3=== My opponent’s objection to my argument against Statement 3.3 is: “Your defense is entirely built on moral. [sic] You have given no explaination [sic] as to why the football player should not be prosecuted to the same degree as the senior, and so due to this being opinionated [sic], and being based of moral [sic] which itself changes from culture to culture, you arguement [sic] does not hold.” I will break his objection up into three parts: 1) my argument is based in morality, 2) I must provide explanation why the football player should be prosecuted to the same degree as the senior, and 3) morality changes from culture to culture. Response to Part 1: If you would like to state that the fact that people should be penalized in proportion to the magnitude of their crime is an argument grounded in morality, then yes, my argument is grounded in morality. However, I fail to see the problem with having a penal system which is actually moral. Response to Part 2: In the analogy, the football player good-naturedly shoulder-bumped a teammate into the locker, which was misinterpreted as injury. The teammate would not have sustained serious injury (note “good-naturedly” shoulder-bumped), so the “crime” committed by the football player was fairly mild. However, the senior who beat up the freshman and left him in a garbage dump committed a major crime. He assaulted a much younger child and left him in an unsafe location where he was prone to disease and being stranded. If my opponent would like to put forward that people should not, in fact, be punished for their crimes, and that they should all be punished equally, then he must also agree with the inane statement that a person who stole 50 dollars should be punished the same as a serial killer who brutally murdered 50 people. Response to Part 3: Though the debate on morality varying itself from culture to culture is entirely outside the scope of this argument, I will address a component of it – punishment always being in proportion to the crime – briefly. To quote the Encyclopædia Britannica, “Theories of deterrence and retribution share the idea that punishments should be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, a principle of practical importance. If all punishments were the same, there would be no incentive to commit the lesser rather than the greater offense. The offender might as well use violence against the victim of a theft if the penalty for armed robbery were no more.” [2] This notion is almost universal in penal codes because of this reason. ===Response to Final Statement=== The information I have put forward so far is completely unbiased, unless you extend bias to count as part of basic morality. Furthermore, it is impossible to argue this issue without resorting to morality, as it deals with justice and mercy. For example, even your resolution that all serial bullies should be denied free education, sent to reform school, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, is grounded in morality, as it seeks to administer justice. ===Conclusion=== For brevity’s sake, my opponent and I reached a consensus in Statement 1 that bullying could, in fact, scar people for life, which was never under serious debate. (The only issue I had with my opponent’s assertion was his lack of citations.) However, my opponent did not provide a clear, relevant, or even understandable response to my rebuttal to Statement 2. Thus, my argument still stands. Furthermore, my opponent put forward ludicrous values in Statement 3.1 from an perfunctory source placing the net loss of bullying at 158 billion dollars, slightly larger than the net worth of the conglomerate, Coca-Cola. Also, my opponent even conceded Statement 3.2 in that his original assertion that bullies should be sent to reform school was incorrect. Finally, in Statement 3.3, my opponent argued against the institution of punishment in accordance with his crime, instead implying all bullying crimes should be punished equally without regard to their respective severities. In short, my arguments for Statements 2, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 all stand. My opponent has not met his burden of proof. I ask, therefore, that you render a decision in favor of Con. ===References=== [1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://www.britannica.com...

Pertaining to his arguments that if parents were to be liable for their kid's actions during school, they'd be over them at all times, society doesn't function that way. A person is held accountable for the actions of their pet(s), and no one is with their pet 24/7. It is the responsibility of the owner, or in this case, a parent, to teach the pet (kid) how to behave in the world and to keep the pet on the proper leash. If a pet destroys another person's property, it is the responsibility of the owner to repair and restore the property. The legal system is essentially based on children being extensions of their parents. School systems are not the ones with legal authority and responsibility over the kids when other kids are harrassing them or misbehaving. Legal offenses are handled in the criminal justice system.When my opponent says that schools should teach children to behave, he is not entirely in opposition to my case. Yes, schools can have a part in teaching children to behave. However, resolutionally, it is not compliant or relevant. The resolution asks for enforcement of punishment and policy, not just for teaching, which isn't the responsibility of the school. A school's function within society is to teach, and the criminal justice system's responsibility is to punish those committing criminal offenses. And my opponent then talks about the person in my analogy who we did not expect to risk his life to save someone from fire when that was not their function in society. My opponent says the person should call the police, a point I stressed in my initial case, that it is the responsibility of the police to handle criminal offenses, not the school. This strengthens my case, as it shows that the responsibility falls on police to handle situations as severe as my opponent cited.Finally, my opponent provides that there should be more teachers on patrol at recess and more supervision to prevent rapes and fights. Then my opponent goes on to say that in the real world, when you get in a fight, you go to jail. The same thing should happen in a school as well. Just because it happens in a school doesn't make it exempt from societal punishments and standards, and those sorts of things are handled by the police.This is why I conclude this argument with the statement that it is not the responsibility of the schools to enforce severe punishment.

I do not think it is necessary to spank children. Debate accepted. Over to you, Pro!

Thank you for taking the time to paitently respond to each of my rebuttals. ==Rebuttal to Statement 3.1==There are several sources which state that bullying costs the United States over $158 billion annually, which makes my rebute therefore valid. Secondly, I will state why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contradicts with bullying in every possible way. These are the following which bullies violate whenever they physically and psychologically assault another human being:"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls on every individual in society to promote respect for human rights and freedoms.[24] This is because bullying is everyone’s problem."The right to be free from violence whether mental, emotional or physical.The highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.[17] Bullying can impact negatively on your physical and mental health causing harm in the form of physical injuries, stress-related illnesses, depression and other health issues.Bullies violate the Declaration of Human Rights for all of the above reasons and should not be given a free education because if they are, it directly contradicts the Declaration of Human Rights itself.Sources--http://www.cdc.gov...Yet again a second source which states that bullying costs the United States $158 Billion along with:http://www.bbc.co.uk......http://www.hreoc.gov.au...==Rebuttal to Statement 3.2==I accept the penalty system. However, you are twisting my words and exaggerating. I had not once stated that all punishements should be equal. Rather, all crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as explained in the beginning. Your analogy is critically flawed, as a football player who shoulder bumps a fellow peer and a serial killer who murdered 50 people would still be given differing punishments even if they were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Serial Killer would typically be handed 1st degree murder while the football player would be given a simple felony. My rebutal still stands. Refer back to this rebutal for the moral issues.==Rebuttal to Statement 2==If the bullying is not captured on camera, there are countless amounts of different ways which distinguish the bully and the victim. It's been generally accepted by many psychologists that the victims generally have: Low-self esteem, Difficulty in trusting others, Lack of Assertiveness, Agression, Isolation, depressed and withdrawn. A psychologist who is experience in this field of work would be able to distinguish a bully from a victim from thourough evaluation.http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...==Conclusion==Statement 2: Still in DebateStatement 3.1: Universal Declaration of Human Rights contradict Bullying. My rebuttal standsStatement 3.2 and 3.3: Have reminded my opponent about the idea of being prosecuted to the fullest extentof the law. My rebuttal stands.I have proven my opponent wrong and exposed a critical flaw in statements 3.1,3.2 and 3.3. My opponent's rebuttal no longer stand so therefore I ask that you favor your decision with Pro.All Evidences:http://www.bbc.co.uk......http://www.hreoc.gov.au...http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...http://www.cdc.gov...

Just by saying that we don't have a choice doesn't mean we should get a tangible reward. Education in itself is a reward. Look at the long-term benefits. You go to school, you go to college, you graduate either get a job or go on for further education. That gives you a reward. Rewarding students physically is just not a good idea because there is no single flat physical gift. Letting people do whatever they want is not an option due to legal liabilities. Money, how much? Where's it coming from?


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

Should Corporal Punishment be Reinstated in Schools through Physical Exercise?

Let me preface this by stating that I am personally opposed to corporal punishment; however, this is an engaging debate topic we recently explored in school. Corporal punishment, which involves physical discipline administered by a teacher for a student's misbehavior, should be reconsidered for reintroduction into educational institutions. Although it has been misused in the past, with the implementation of new guidelines, corporal punishment could become a constructive component of a student's educational experience.

In this scenario, traditional tools such as rulers or even a teacher's hand would not be used to physically strike the student. Instead, the punishment would involve physical exercise, specifically running. The distance a student would need to run would be determined based on the severity of the offense and the student's physical condition. This approach ensures that students are not subject to physical abuse by teachers, and it also promotes health and fitness. According to the Better Health Channel (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...), running contributes to strong bones, muscle strength, cardiovascular health, calorie burning, and helps maintain a healthy weight. Thus, this form of punishment not only disciplines the student but also supports their overall well-being.

Moreover, this method avoids the issue of missed class time that often results from detention or suspension. The running would take place before or after school hours, ensuring that the student's education is not disrupted. This approach is also cost-effective, as it requires no financial investment. Given its efficiency in terms of time and cost, corporal punishment in the form of running should be reintroduced into schools.

would prefer L-D High School Format however if you have argument(s) feel free to accept challenge thx & GL [Wright, Nancy. 2009. "Criminal Law Brief. 4:76.] documents a despicable tale "For example, in State v. Hundley, Betty Hundley's "build up of terror and fear" extended throughout her "tumultuous" ten year marriage to Carl Hundley. Over the years, Carl "knocked out several of Betty's teeth, broke her nose at least five times and threatened to cut out her eyeballs out and her head off." He also "kicked Betty down the stairs on numerous occasions and had repeatedly broken her ribs." When Betty moved out, Carl "started a pattern of constant harassment," Ultimately, Carl broke down the door of the motel room where Betty was staying, choked her, raped her and threatened her life, as he turned his back to her to reach for a beer bottle, Betty shot him five times in the back." It is because of the horrible experiences of victims like Betty who have endured both physical and, although harder to see but no less terrible, psychological abuse due to domestic violence that I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution: Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. I would like to define a few terms at this time. All definitions will come from [Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. 1983.] Unless I say otherwise. Moral- is defined as "principles and practice in regard to right and wrong; ethical." Permit- is defined as "to suffer without giving expressed authority; to allow." Domestic Violence- the following contextual definition is from [ Meyersfeld, Bonita. 2003. Albany Law Review. 67:371.] "…defines domestic violence as: physical abuse; sexual abuse; emotional verbal and psychological abuse; economic abuse; intimidation; harassment; stalking; damage to property; entry into the complainant's residence without consent, where parties do not share the same residence; or any other controlling or abusive behavior towards a complainant, where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the complainant." More definitions are available upon request. My value in today's debate will be Quality of Life. We can see that quality of life is the most important value we can consider in today's debate because it is held in important regard to not only individuals but to societies across the world as well. If this was not the case then slavery would be allowed instead of outlawed in most countries today and we would not care if rights were violated like rights to liberty, pursuit of happiness, and right over one's body. We would not have seen the civil rights movement or the promotion of women rights here in America if it wasn't for the deep regard we have for quality of life. After all what is life if you spend every day in chains, if you are not free to spend your free time as you choose, or if you don't have equal consideration? This leads me directly to my value criteria of maximizing individual rights. Only through maximizing individual rights can we continue to uphold the value of quality of life. These rights like the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness are inherent, furthermore these rights can only go as far as not to infringe upon other's rights. Domestic violence by definition infringes upon these inalienable rights and sends the message that the quality of life does not matter not only for the victim but for others as well. The fact that the resolution posits a situation where this infringement and negative message is repeated further supports the need to uphold the quality of life. I will have three main points to support my position: (1) Many factors often prevent victims from leaving; (2) Social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self-defense; (3) Deadly force on the part of the battered may be justified in several ways. To my first point, many factors prevent victims from leaving. Several pieces of evidence shine light on this horrible truth. [Hope Toffel, Southern California Law Review, Volume 70, 1996.] "For example… people taken hostage may subsequently show positive regard for their captors… abused children have been found to have strong attachments to their abusing parents… and cult members are sometimes amazingly loyal to malevolent cult leaders. The relationship between assaulted women and their partners, then, may be seen as one example of what we have termed traumatic bonding – the development of strong emotional ties between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other." [Nancy Wright, law professor at Santa Clara Law School, Criminal Law Brief, Volume 4, 2009.] "Another reason that women don't leave abusive relationships is called "separation abuse," meaning that the battered woman fears retaliation towards herself, her children, other family members, friends or even co-workers. Although only 10% of women are separated of divorced, they account for 75% of all victims of domestic violence and are fourteen times more likely to be battered than women who are still cohabiting." When considering this evidence we must see that these victims are faced with the horrific choice of staying in an abusive home or leaving, just to face escalated violence at the hands of their tormentors. This leads me directly to my second point that social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self-defense. [Ayyildiz, Elisabeth. 1995. American University Journal of Gender & the Law. 4:141.] "Vigilantism as a permissible mode of self-help for battered women may be justified under social contract theory. The breakdown of the social compact occurs when the state fails in its obligation to protect the individual. This breakdown justifies the individual's resort to self-help. Under social contract theory, if the state fails in its obligation to protect citizens, the government is considered dissolved and the people are entitled to provide for their own protection." When society fails to undertake necessary measures to eradicate, or at least meaningfully reduce, domestic violence, it ought to be morally permissible for potential victims to take matters into their own hands and prevent themselves from continuing to be victimized. Moving on to my last point that deadly force on the part of the battered may be justified in several ways. [Ayyildiz, Elisabeth. 1995. American University Journal of Gender & the Law. 4:141.] explains "First, death may be necessary because lesser degrees of force may be insufficient. Death may be the only means by which battered women can escape the abuse. Moreover, the use of deadly force is legally permissible in circumstances other than self-defense. In California, for example, deadly force is permitted by any person, not just a police officer, if necessary to apprehend any person for any felony. In these situations, a citizen must also have a reasonable fear that his or her life is in danger. Battered women should be seen as apprehending the batterer for committing a felony, the battery itself. Finally, death may be justified under a retributive analysis in which the battered woman is seen as punishing the batterer. If the battered woman is stepping in where the state has failed, then she should be permitted to exercise the same powers as those possessed by the state. The death of the batterer, therefore, is a permissible solution for battered women." In conclusion my case clearly outlines the affirmative position that repeated domestic violence is an egregious violation of individual rights, a violation where the use of deadly force to escape the situation is not only a morally permissible solution, but often times the only solution. I strongly urge you to remember the victims like Betty Hundley and promote the individual rights and quality of life for not just the past and present but for the future as well. Vote affirmative in today's debate.

"My opponent claims that rape, kidnapping, and attempted terrorism do not cause death, and thus does not deserve a death sentence. However, this form of "an eye for an eye" judicial system does not hold up because of the intangible psychological effect involved. The main purpose of the mentioned crimes are to inspire FEAR in the victim, and this intangible (and yes, perhaps subjective) effect of the mentioned crimes must be taken into account." --> The adverse effects are taken into account. However jsut because someone might be afraid doesn't mean that a person deserves death as a punishment. Corporal punishment would be an adequate punishment for this. I will show how my opponents reasoning is flawed. E.g. Someone robs a house and is caught. However, the person in the house is afraid to be in his/her house again, because he/she does not want to be robbed. Does this fear mean that the robber deserves death? Obviously not. Just because fear may happen to a person doesn't mean that another person deserves death. "If proportionality is not legal equivalence, then why am I wrong in advocating the death penalty for these criminals? If you do not demand "an eye for an eye", why can we not go above and account for intangible costs and deal them the death penalty? The death penalty is the greatest punishment that we can deal out, and in the cases of the despicable acts of rape, kidnapping, and attempted terrorism, the death penalty is justified (and has already been embraced by societies around the world)" --> We can argue proportionality vs. legal equivalence all day. however this misses the point. You have yet to explain why in certain cases corporal punishment is not justified. You are just saying that we can use the death penalty if it warrants. Just because option, according to you, may be justified doesn't automatically make corporal punishment unjustified. "Precisely, how is corporal punishment (i.e flogging, whipping ect) not harsh? Can we claim that it is the actually PLEASANT to be whipped and flogged? I think not. It is clearly intuitive that there is at least some harshness to the whipping or flogging of criminals." --> you miss the point. According to Beccaria, a punishment is harsh if it exceeds the punishment due. Punishments are not meant to be kind, they are meant to be harsh. You miss the point Beccaria is making. A punishment must be due, not exceeding the fairness of it. "As to my citations for the prison guard beatings, is it not PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT with the intention of PUNISHMENT/RETRIBUTION? So what exactly distinguishes from the corporal punishment except it is not carried out in a regulated place. The use of physical violence in this case is clearly forbidden, and thus should be used as a precedent against the use of PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT (aka corporal punishment)." --> Ok, then according to you the death penalty is unjustified, and you continually use that point. Also, labor would be unjustified because it can create physical pain on the body. "But is not my opponent argument precisely that the mass-killers and all the perhaps mentally unstable and dangerous people in society should be given corporal punishment in order to reduce prison sentences?" --> This is where you misunderstand my case. I am not abolishing all punishments to be replaced by corporal punishment. The key word is warrants. A mass-murderer has killed so he deserves the death penalty. I said if it WARRANTS they could reduce sentences and use corporal punishment. "Furthermore, my opponent claims that it will serve as better deterrence; however, my opponent has not provided concrete proof of it (CITED STUDY FROM A SCIENCE JOURNAL). Since my opponent has the burden of proof, his warrentless assertion must be discounted" --> If I remember correctly, I made a link between other countries that use corporal punishment compared to the US. Since deterrence cannot be proven 100%, we must use comparative arguments. "My point is not that society should not punish, we should not use anachronistic methods of inflicting intense PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT in order to remedy crime. As a highly developed civilization, our morals dictate that we use the most reasonable and painless methods of punishment while retaining deterrence and other consequences of punishment at an acceptable level. The infliction of pain undermines the moralistic foundations of a society. If my government is actively beating people, what's to stop them from torturing us later? Perhaps we are restricting rights when we send criminals to jail, but we're violating not only their HUMAN RIGHT (as opposed to civil right) and SOCIETY'S ACCEPTED MORALS in order to deal punishment to those who might otherwise not need them. We need to restrict civil liberties of people in jail because their actions have justified that, but we have no right to invade human rights." --> Punishments and morality are incoherent. All punishments are in some way immoral. It is immoral to kill some, it is immoral to take someone out of society and restrict their freedoms (jail). Thus, your morality point is dropped on the fact you are trying to make to opposite ideas coherent. Secondly, we're going down a slippery slope of government violating our civil liberties. If the government can actively use physical punishment against criminals, what's to stop it from abusing this power or spreading it for the general populace? NOTHING. If we do allow corporal punishment, the fundamental civil liberties guaranteed to us by the bill of rights will be severely compromised. --> Nothing stops them now. They could easily use physical punishment on us without making corporal punishment legal. Furthermore, what makes the government not take everyone into jail, but we have a jail system. Your punishment has no real link to the resolution. "Thirdly, my opponent claims that corporal punishment would show proportionality. Why is it that the current system does not accurately serve PROPORTIONALITY, apart from the very subjective argument that the crimes do not fit the punishment? The definition you provided for proportionaltiy could very well include the death penalty under its wings, making any discussion moot." --> As I said before, I am not taking away the DP all together. I am arguing that certain crimes and circumstances deserve a punishment in between 2 extremes. I.e. jail and the death penalty. Furthermore, it helps judicial discretion on the judges part. [Voting Issues] 1. My opponent has not negated the given resolution. All his points and examples explain why corporal punishment may not be the best system, but he doesn't explain how it is not a just punishment. 2. It is clear that corporal punishment is a justified when it is warranted. For these reasons I urge an affirmation.

This debate is about should schools in the United States (grades K-12) have their students go barefoot and not allowing having any students to have any footwear on school campus would be a helpful tactic for student's education (not including swimming classes or sports activities). For an example, students can't wear any footwear like shoes, socks, and sandals on campus for any reason so a student must go barefoot at the start of the school hours until the end of school hours, even if it rains or snows. I am against this rule for a couple of reasons… First reason is weather conditions. Students can get sick if they go barefoot in an inappropriate weather for a certain length period of time. Schools are usually 6-8 hours a day, a bad weather conditions for going barefoot would make a student sick, most likely with the flu. In the northern part of the United States, they get snowy weather. Students can get frostbite if the students go barefoot in snowy weather. In the Midwest, they can get unexpected tornados while students are in school. If there were an unexpected tornado, then kids would have to walk barefoot on hazardous debris. Earthquake can go for that same reason too, students would have to walk barefoot on hazardous debris, especially walking home. Second Reason, students would have a high risk stepping there bare feet onto something hazardous. One of those risks is a sharp object where the student can cut their feet and students can get hookworms on a wound on the feet (http://www.cdc.gov...). Plus kids can step on gum with their bare feet. Third reason is many of the PE activities. Other than swimming, there are may things can go wrong while going barefoot in PE activities. First off that school often have baseball or softball as one of the PE activities. Running on the dirt a little too much would cause kids to have cuts on their feet. Barefoot during PE on the blacktop would also cause barefoot scrapes and injuries on the foot, http://www.flickr.com.... Sometime students take the public city bus to school or to home. These buses have that "No shirt, no shoes and no service" policy. If transportation is out of the question, then the kids would walk barefoot to school or home, and they would have to walk more than a mile towards school or home. Along the way, who knows they will be stepping on with their bare feet. One time, I almost step on a snake. I hope Kleptin accepts my challenge, as I like to take on the best debater with this debate. This is my only second debate so I am beginner debater taking on the master debater with a easy debate.

Bullying should not be allowed, whatsoever. Bullying has been proven to cause severe mental issues, such as depression, anxiety, isolation, even suicidal thoughts and/or actions. As I would prefer to keep this argument based on facts, I'm going to write about my experiences. I'm thirteen, and I have been bullied since I was five years old for many reasons. My race, being the main one. I'm white and hispanic, and I am not excepted by the hispanic community... I live in LA so that's difficult to escape. Others include the fact that I'm much younger than everyone else in my grade, I don't break the rules, I don't dress very feminine, etc. I attempted to kill myself for the first time when I was eight years old... That's pretty young, don't you think? Well, I guess I started getting bullied from an early age. My second attempt was when I was eleven. I still get bullied to this day, and have been forced out of my school because of it. My GPA, which usually stood at a 4.2,has now dropped to a 1.2 because my depression, and fear of going to school. Beyond my sad little back story,I would like to get back to the detrimental effects bullying has caused in many cases such as Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris of the Columbine Massacre, Amanda Todd, Rebecca Sedwick, and many more. They all suffered depression, anxiety, and many other disorders as the aftermath of bullying (except Eric Harris who was a born psychopath). I, myself, suffer depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and violent black outs. There have been situations where my bottled up rage towards my attackers have caused me to black out and become aggressive... When I was seven, I was dragged into the girl's bathroom and began to be beaten by other girls, some from my grade, some from grades above. My head was slammed against a toilet bowl and a wall as I was kicked and punched repeatedly. Four years later, a girl who had been bullying me since I was eight (and her little group of friends) came up to me and cornered me, yelling at me, and pushing me down. They began kicking me in my ribs, and bam, flashback. I don't remember what happened, my mind had gone blank, but after watching school security footage I realize that I probably could have killed that girl if teachers wouldn't have pulled me off of her. This not only shows that bullying puts the bullied child's life in danger, but also the bully's life. Bullying should be treated the same as harassment is in legal terms.

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited round 2. In addition to the ethics mentioned before (here's the link to the book; I was referencing the beginning of chapter one http://books.google.com...), there is also a practical argument. With increasing child abductions and numbers of sexual predators, child leashes for younger children just learning to walk increase their safety(http://www.essortment.com...). Responsible parents would put their younger children on leashes. There is practical benefit and ethical justification.

first off a leash? lets be honest for a minute what ever happen to the old years of punishing your kids the right way like spankings for touching things in the store not putting them on leashes like they are an animal that you can not handle

First of all, it is odd that you would only use anecdotal evidence to support your claim, furthermore, the evidence you use show us more about the character's specific character flaws and circumstantial evidence then any real information as to why a "tit for tat" method of reprimand is wrong. To explore exactly why your argument is wrong, I will directly address and analyze both of your stories. But first, I would like to lay out some general points to clarify my position on this debate. -As we are considering the use of equal punishment dealt out by an authority figure (ie. the teacher) and NOT how this position on punishment is viewed by our society, we must accept that the use of said force against the child is legally condoned to focus fully on the potential advantages or disadvantages to the children involved in such a system. -I would also like to impose a limit on what is considered bullying. Stabbing someone or poking out their eye is NOT bullying, it is assault. Therefore, if such an attack that is not legally condoned is committed against another child, I am not suggesting that the bully be stabbed back, but rather that they are taken to the proper authorities. Acts that do fall under bullying include, but are not limited to: rough housing, name calling, throwing objects, taking lunch money, etc. Now, now last point before I start on your anecdotes: Where are your stories from? Are they from personal experience, can they be sourced or are they completely fictional in nature? --------- Story #1: In this story, a bully ("some guy") decided, seemingly on a whim to bully someone. To leave it at that is to ignore the psychology of the bully and to focus more upon his aggression as a derogatory thing. However, it is important to note that bullying is largely seen as the result of two forces upon a child: 1. The need to "empower" one's self and boost his own self esteem.(1) 2. An imbalance of social or physical power. To prevent further bullying, it is logical that a display of public humiliation through bullying towards the bully would show the child that physical violence toward his peers would result only in a similar reprimand. Classical conditioning suggests that pain and humiliation will cause the bully to discontinue bullying once it is associated with that stimulus. (2) Once this connection is established, it will become clear to the child that bullying is not an effective way to empower himself, thus teaching him a valuable lesson. Additionally, getting bullied in turn would show that the perceived social imbalance of power that prompted him to aggressive action versus his victim is not actually in his hands, rather in the hands of the teacher, where it should be. The issue of authority, as your story implies, does not end here. Although it is illogical that the bully would: "[get] into rage and started crashing and ruining everything he can." due to a fear of further punishment, it is likely that he would turn to his parents. Here, however, we run into a very grey area of the argument. Different parents with different ideas of how their child should be raised would have a multitude of responses ranging from outraged that action was being taken against their child to support of this technique. I think that for the sake of a focused and rational debate, we should focus more upon how children would react to this method of punishment and if it is effective rather than on the less predictable parenting ideas. This will further the debate on whether quid pro quo is effective and avoid a major tangent from the original question. Story #2 First of all, I would like to point out that in this story there is a death threat. Due to the way the anecdote was written it is unknown how serious this threat is, but if it is intended as an actual threat on her life, it goes way beyond bullying and into assault. There is a legal premise for such an act, and is beyond the scope of this argument. (for those who are interested in an example: see source 3). I would like to note that in this story you have mentioned that the teacher and student "argued and argued until the bell rang for home time." This seems like an unlikely manifestation of this principle because, as I have mentioned before, bullying is predicated on an imbalance of power. Therefore, if the teacher is bullying the student, it is much more likely to be in one direction only: from the teacher and to the student. Such an interaction would more clearly demonstrate to the class and to the bully what is the point of this kind of punishment. Furthermore, it is unlikely and inefficient for the teacher to "quickly [tell] the class what the bully had been up to every lunch time," at what sounded like the last minute of class. Instead, if this is going to be a tactic used by teachers, the point of the exercise would be made clear at the beginning of the humiliation as to maximize the impact and effectiveness of the punishment not only as a lesson to the bully but also as a deterrent for the entire class. As you have failed to mention what tactics you would suggest instead of such a method, I will leave my argument as such and wait for your reply. Thanks for taking the time to have this debate, and good luck! (1)http://www.scribd.com... (2)Bouton, M. E. (2007) Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer (3) http://www.wsoctv.com...

First off, I would like to say good luck to you. I feel that P.E, or some type of physical activity, is necessary and should be a required class that should be taken in class. Studies have shown that people that get out and have fun, or exercise, will have a more focused mind when learning a concept. For example, there are workplaces in Sweden that force office workers to go outside/the gym during their break. Data showed that those workplaces had a higher productivity rate. Many people have heard of the Play 60" campaign. This campaign states that every child should exercise for at least 60 minutes a day. Some kids are not able to go outside and get exercise. P.E is an alternative for that group of people. Now, regarding your statement about gifted kids getting lower grades because they are judged on how they hit the ball or how far they can run. With my experience, P.E teachers usually watch you and grade you based on your ability level. You said, "Yet this class often fails at its main goal of encouraging children to exercise and alienates children by encouraging a violent atmosphere in which the strong prevail and the weak get picked on." I am confused how the P.E class is a violent atmosphere and people getting picked on. May you please explain this to me in you next statement?

The students should be able to decide if they want to use there time texting. If they want a good or bad education that is their decision. So banning it are only going to make it sneaky and bad.

Parents SHOULD be held liable for controlling their kids, I agree. However, when children are on school property, any actions that the children do should be in the schools` hands. If the parents aren't willing to properly discipline their children, somebody has to, and that's when the school should step in. When parents drop their children off to the school, they expect their teachers to substitute for them as a chaperone. It is the teachers and schools responsibility to watch over children and input disciplinary actions. If it were the parents responsibility for their children (while at school), then I suggest parents should be next to their kid at all times, since nobody is there to care for them. When you say a school is an institute for teaching, think about behavioral issues. The school should "teach" children how to behave. If schools are for learning, let children learn how to act socially and learn manners. In response to your comparison when you gave an example about a bystander and a fire, if the bystander sees the fire and keeps on walking, how will the police or fire department ever know? The bystander should call the police and inform them of the information. Same goes with the school. For fights and rapes, there should be more teachers on patrol watching the children at recess. A school should serve as a future reference to the real world. When you get in a fight, you go to jail. When somebody gets in a fight at school, they should be put in detention, or be suspended.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Settings?

The use of corporal punishment is morally reprehensible.
In this round, we'll focus solely on arguments. Let's begin with parental corporal punishment. Parental corporal punishment:
1. Hitting is often an impulsive act. Studies have shown that parents are more likely to spank or hit their child immediately, without giving them a chance to explain their behavior. In audio recordings, it appears that the child is being hit without any explanation as to why their behavior was unacceptable. Parents tend to hit out of frustration without considering the severity of the child's actions. They also spank their child for minor infractions, not just major ones. Corporal punishment is supposed to be a last resort, but according to these studies, parents are acting impulsively. They are also hitting their child more times than recommended. Essentially, parents are abusing or exaggerating the moments to use corporal punishment. Holden explains: "From the audio, we heard parents hitting their children for the most mundane offenses, typically violations of social convention. Also, corporal punishment wasn't being used as a last resort. On average, parents hit or spanked just half a minute after the conflict began."
2. Hitting leads to externalization of behavior and increased aggression. A study by Michael Mackenzie of Columbia University found that maternal spanking at age 5 was associated with greater aggression and rule-breaking by the time children were age 9. Additionally, lower scores on vocabulary tests by the age of 9 were also associated with the use of spanking at age 5.
3. Hitting children affects their development. Akemi Tomoda's (et al.) study showed that harsh corporal punishment reduced children's gray matter, which processes information in the brain. Another study revealed that corporal punishment had a bidirectional relationship with lower cognitive ability, meaning that parents tend to hit children with lesser cognitive ability more frequently (likely out of frustration), and children who experience corporal punishment often have a lower cognitive ability as a result. These negative effects on the brain are certainly connected to the increased aggression and externalization of behavior found in other studies.
3.1 Hitting leads to mental illnesses. The study, "Physical Punishment and Mental Disorders: Results From a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample," released in the August edition of Pediatrics, clearly states that children who are spanked, hit, or pushed have an increased risk of mental problems when they grow older. The research suggests that the effects can range from mood and anxiety disorders to drug and alcohol abuse. Approximately

Fighting will only lead to future tensions, fueling the flame of more fights and brawls.In the event that there is bullying, resorting to telling an adult or teacher is the best method. Not only will they be punished, but if you were to report another instance where the bully still continued to bully you, you would have the upper hand, issuing more punishments to the bully to teach him/her a lesson. Not only are school punishments recorded on your record, but teachers are required to protect the students, and are encouraged to use punishments if necessary.

Since I believe my point can be stated and affirmed with brevity, I will attempt to keep this last round relatively short. Is It Force? "when I used the word I meant it as meaning 'to make someone do something'. Not through only physical aggression, but to make the person perform an act they do not want to perform in order to gain something like a diploma. "Granting my opponent's use of the word force, what and how does someone make someone do something they wish not to do? So far as I can see, such a definition of force has not escaped the arguments of my previous round. In order to make another person do something they desire not to do, you must employ physical force or coercion. Since schools are not employing physical force or coercion, it necessarily follows that they are not forcing kids to participate in service learning hours. Moreover, the latter part of the above cited quote renders virtually all human transactions as force. For instance, I do not WANT to pay my mortgage, but, unfortunately, it is a necessary thing that I must do in order to gain something, namely, my home. According to my opponent's logic, it necessarily follows that I am forced to pay my mortgage. Even worse, my mortgage would be considered a form of slavery. The underlining problem is that choice remains rendering the notion of force impotent (pun intended). So long as any person - child or otherwise - has an alternative choice, like, say, to willingly NOT fulfill the graduation requirements by opting out of student learning hours, then the notion of force is illusory. All my other points remain unshaken by my opponent's last round. Thank you. InquireTruth

Schools should not be teaching activities such as these for multiple reasons: 1. It encourages violence 2. It is unnecessary 3. Most schools currently have systems in place for break-ins 4. We can do things like this extra circularly. There are so many programs outside of school nowadays that teach self defense. I'm sure there is a few that teach sword fighting as a hobby. 5. Students who misuse or joke around about what they learned may cause injury or death to another student 6. Some students may just not be interested in this type of learning and others may think it's too violent 7. Given that this is something that takes quite a bit of practice and materials, how will swords or materials for every student be purchased? It would be a lot of money as schools usually house many students. It will also take up a lot of time. Up to two hours of the day! Because in some schools there are up to 30 students in a class, they wouldn't be learning in picking things up in that time period. 8. Yes, some may find it fun but I see it as an easy way for someone to get hurt. Eyeballs are things that might not want to be poked out.

Well even so if he or she had the audacity to physically harm another the punishment should fit the crime. Sitting in a timeout does nothing to a person who is willing to hurt another. If a student is being attacked they have no time to run or even think News, U.S. "12-Year-Old Boy Who Was Victim Of Bullying Attack Dies After Weeks In Hospital". NBC News. N.p., 2016. Web. 5 Feb. 2016. This will not get any better unless we are able to fight back

I agree that suspension is definitely not a reasonable consequence for not wearing the correct clothes. Maybe a warning the first few times then lunch detention for everytime that it happens after that. 1) A dress code promotes a more serious school atmosphere which emphasizes academics and promotes good behavior. 2) Dress codes have proven to increase student achievement by encouraging students to concentrate more on their studies and less on their wardrobe. A de-emphasis on clothing can also save money, As there will be less pressure to keep up with expensive trends and fashions. 3) Dress codes in school settings reduce social conflict and peer pressure that may be associated with appearance. 4) Studies indicate that a school dress code can reduce the prevalence of certain behaviors which are often expressed through wardrobes such as violence or promiscuity. 5) As opposed to uniforms, Dress codes still allow students to wear what they want which leaves students with a sense of choice and expression. and if you haven't seen some students parents don't care what their kids wear to school. Thank you

suspension is bad because some kids lose more education everyday by missing school also that takes part of the 75% of children that drop out of school before graduating high school and they are not going to be on the successful level that they wanted as they grow. besides suspending the student the staff/teacher/principal can put them in detention with no curriculum activities or write an consent form so the parent can have the say in the suspension even if there child is bad that is why

Logical Fallacies will not be permitted The United States was formed on the basis of the philosophy of the likes of John Locke, William Blackstone, And Adam Smith. Namely, That the people and the Individual is far more intelligent and important than the greater whole of society and its contract. This is especially true in the case of the management of familial and community units. However, These ideas are falling by the wayside. Nowhere is this more felt than in our public school system. Every human being has a right to an education. The government has seen fit to interpret this as meaning that every human MUST be forced to get a government provided education. There have been few tragedies that fly as directly into the face of our principles as this abomination. First, The government is abusing a system meant to help those with fewer resources. The public school system was never meant to be the main source of education in America. It was meant to supply poor families with a more affordable option. The rest of the schools were built and operated privately, By those wishing to progress the human race. However, Over time, The government began to create and enforce more regulations upon the curriculum of these schools, And the schools that were accepting public funds (which should never have happened in the first place) became dependent on the funds provided by the government, Which then dictated what could or could not be taught by these schools. This has lead to a population of government worshippers who believe that every problem the United States has faced has been solved by government, From slavery and racism to the great depression. This could not be less true, And is leading us down a very dark path of big government movements like the Socialist state dreams of Ocasio-Cortez and other campus radicals who have been brainwashed into believing the trash spouted by the government about such matters as the role of our Founding Fathers, Of Racism, And of the New Deal. One wonders why the products of our government run school system are supporting the growth of our government. They have been turned into Alinsky"s useful idiots, Serving the system they were trained to blindly follow and strengthen. Secondly, This leads to the death of choice. Now, Every single American citizen is forced by law under penalty of fines and the Social Services to attend an educational course for "between 175 and 180 days of school and/or between 900 and 1, 000 hours of instructional time per year, Depending on the grade level (Center For Public Education). " This is one of the most obvious examples of subjugation that has ever been present in the United States. With these mandates, The government is implying that they, As the "ruling body, " know what is best for the population and that they should therefore be able to force their ideas upon us. It"s disgusting, And is an obvious violation of the underlying and fundamental principles of the United States of America. There should certainly be trust in the ability of parents to choose what is best for their children, But this idea is being ridiculed and destroyed by the government. Why? Because, As said by Brutus in the Anti-federalist number one, "it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, That every man, And every body of men, Invested with power, Are ever disposed to increase it, And to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. " This is also backed up by Abigail Adams in her assertion that "Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could, " in her Braintree letter to John Adams on March 31, 1776. The most well known statement of this type is "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " which was written by lord Acton. There is an obvious solution to this problem. The Common Core government program must be overturned and replaced by independent and privatised schools. We must have faith that there will always be Individuals such as Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln, Who adhere to the principle of scholar empowered learning. Anyone who refuses to attend a school should have that choice, As those people exist now and are simply a drain on resources and serve as distractions to those scholars who are willing to learn. A choice based system would eliminate the need for internal the discipline issues of today"s school systems. This would also free Individuals from large taxes going toward indoctrination programs and drains such as those mentioned above. This system would force schools to compete for attendance like businesses, Ensuring that only the best would thrive, As the Free Market was meant to do. Of course, This will lead to more uneducated members of society who refused to take the initiative of education. Those people exist now, Though. They go through the Public School System refusing to retain knowledge and acting as a drain on resources, Tax dollars, And time. A choice system would only make these people easier to notice. One might also object that people would not be able to learn the difference between right and wrong, As is taught in Kindergarten and Elementary schools. However, With a choice system, Parents would still have the prerogative to teach right and wrong, Which would also be reinforced by church and normal social interactions. The parents who would not have that prerogative would be the same ones who don"t know either, Which would make no difference. In the end, The only downsides are negated by the fact that they are also the pitfalls facing us now, Whereas the merits of this proposed system are self evident: increased freedom, Better education, And a sense of independence from the government which is healthy in a Free Society. Works Cited Gatto, John. "How Public Education Cripples Our Kids, And Why. " The Natural Child Project. Https://www. Naturalchild. Org/articles/guest/john_gatto2. Html. Accessed 15 October 2018. "What is School Choice? " ed Choice. Https://www. Edchoice. Org/school-choice/what-is-school-choice/. Accessed 15 October 2018. Hull, Jim. "Time in school: How does the U. S. Compare? " Center for Public Education. Http://www. Centerforpubliceducation. Org/research/time-school-how-does-us-compare. Accessed 15 October 2018. Adams, Abigail. Letter to John Adams, Braintree March 31, 1776. Brutus. Anti-Federalist Brutus I, October 18, 1787. Lord Acton. Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887.

As much as I might enjoy demonstrating why young goats should not use microwave ovens in aquatic environments necessary to have groups of fish I shall try and restrain myself. Unless of course that was the debate my opponent was seeking. Definitions: Electronics [1]: (1) A branch of physics that deals with the emission, behavior, and effects of electrons and with electronic devices. (2) Electronic components, devices, or equipment. I'll assume that we're talking about the second definition here but that still leaves us with a ridiculously broad field. For the purposes of this debate we should narrow the definition the "electronic devices typically used by minors". Thus, my opponent won't argue the benefits of having schools upgraded for the electric light and I won't try and demonstrate that school board budgets might be strained by installing an LHC. More thoroughly, we should discuss why the electronic devices should be used in schools rather than simply permitting their presence. School[2]: (1) An organization that provides instruction as (a) an institution for the teaching of children (b) college, university... (2) A large number of fish or aquatic animals of one kind swimming together. Ignoring the entertainment value in the second definition, we are still left with a wide variety of types of "schools" including colleges, universities and schools of thought. For the purposes of this debate we should stick to definition (1a) and should probably restrict the discussion further to public schools as private schools have a different standards and rules too varied to properly cover. If my opponent would prefer to use different definitions I'd appreciate clarification in the next round. This still leaves a variety of electronic devices to cover: Entertainment This is the most easily dismissed category of electronics. Personal entertainment devices in the school environment serve only to distract. They distract not just the child but other children in the same classroom. Their only possible use is improving hand-eye coordination and in an age where childhood obesity and inactivity is rising [3,4] and attention spans are falling [5,6] there are more fit and active ways to achieve this. Children get more than enough electronic entertainment at home so school policies should encourage children to leave their DS at home. Communication Many parents equip their children with mobile phones for safety and basic communication needs. These devices should be allowed in schools but should be kept off during class time. Texting and talking on mobile phones is obviously disruptive in the classroom [7] amongst other perils. The most obvious problems are poor grammar and decreased information retention [8]. Computing Personal computers are one form of electronic device that should not only be allowed but required in schools. In the information age, computer literacy is a requisite for most jobs above the grade of fry cook and should be taught as part of all school curriculums [9]. Back in the day schools taught cursive writing and long division. Today's schools need lessons on proper search techniques and internet privacy. However, these lesson should be taught on school computers. Having children bring their own computers causes a host of problems including: - Theft, loss damage. Problems that will be familiar to anybody who remembers how they treated their textbooks. - Disadvantages to underprivileged students due to the expense of the electronics and the software. - Classes become difficult to impossible to teach when different students all have different computers, operating systems and software. - Teachers have to police a variety of non-class computer issues from minor distractions through cyber-bullying, pornography, phishing scams and sexual predators [10]. As such, computer literacy should be taught at school using school computers. While there are exceptions for students with disabilities who need computers [11], in all other cases student computers become redundant for educational purposes. Student computers should be left at home to prevent damage, distraction and a host of other problems. Conclusions There are few reasons to allow students to bring electronic devices to school and, with a few special exceptions that prove the rule, no good reason to allow their use in school. Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.cdc.gov... [5] http://www.parentingscience.com... [6] https://www.apa.org... [7] http://www.education.com... [8] http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... [9] http://www.commerce.gov... [10] http://www.digitalbookworld.com... [11] http://ldatschool.ca...

Should social education be practiced in schools?

As the speaker may have valuable points such as discipline, it still causes horrendous conformity. Simply put, conformity and discipline is like the military; such an act on small children in early education makes them machines. With Syria, that worn torn country has emboldened students with their blue uniforms (washingtontimes.com). Clearly, this is contradictory to “land of free.” To add, it apparently “[interferes] students' right to choose their dress…[Violating] First Amendment rights (Mitchell and Knechtle, 2003).” Thus, apparently this is militarization and constitutional infringement. With finance, parents should know how to spend wisely; if they afford new “kicks” every season, they certainly can afford at least 7 pairs of clothes.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Institutions?

The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Educational Institutions: An Inappropriate and Unwise Decision

Dear readers, in this discussion, I will argue against the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools, emphasizing that it is inappropriate and irrational. I will highlight that corporal punishment is ineffective, often harmful, can leave lasting psychological scars, and may damage the teacher-student relationship. I will provide detailed arguments to support these claims.

Argument 1: Prohibition of Corporal Punishment Reduces Abuse

Countries worldwide that have banned corporal punishment in schools have seen a reduction in abuse rates at home. For instance, Sweden's 1979 prohibition of corporal punishment in educational institutions led to a significant decrease in support for the practice among parents, from 50% to 11%, and a corresponding decline in domestic abuse rates. This example demonstrates that banning corporal punishment in schools can reduce domestic abuse rates, making it a productive and beneficial measure.

Argument 2: Corporal Punishment Has Long-Term Psychological Consequences

Physical punishment, even in a controlled academic setting, can be shocking, especially for young children. Numerous studies have found that corporal punishment increases the risk of developing dangerous and threatening behaviors in punished children. It has been linked to addiction and various serious mental health disorders. A study by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse/dependence, and several personality disorders, even after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and family history of dysfunction (adjusted odds ratio: 1.36-2.46).

This psychological harm can lead to a growing resentment towards authority, making it more challenging for teachers to effectively educate students. As psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff writes, "Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists cannot responsibly recommend its use."

Argument 3: Corporal Punishment Damages the Student-Teacher Relationship

Students learn best in a supportive and comfortable teaching environment. When teachers employ corporal punishment, the students' trust in the teacher is significantly eroded. As Edward Clark explains in his work "Creating a Context for Teaching and Learning," students perform better when given positive reinforcement for successes rather than negative reinforcement for mistakes.

Furthermore, when teachers try to teach acceptance and tolerance, students may not take these lessons seriously. Students may begin to

Also would like to apologize for not stating, yes I am referring to the American school system. "My opponent says that if a student does not take school seriously then putting them in the military and consequently giving them a stake in this nation's national security will fix the problem. " I see where you are going with this statement. The Military is not only a national security position but it is also a job. As crucial the Military is to our security it is not reliant on a single person. Their job within the Military determines their part in national security, to an extent in my suggestion. As I mentioned," There are certain restrictions I would propose such as they are NOT allowed to go into combat or near it and any job that is considered high risk. " End result being that are more responsible for maintenance or even janitor duties. "My opponent believes that giving a problem child a stake in the U. S. military, which is publicly funded just like the public school system, will somehow take the burden off of the American taxpayer. " You are correct by saying that public funds also go to the Military. Public funds also go to housing inmates on petty charges that cost more than a child's education. [1] One way or another these students will cost the tax payers money but which choice is more rewarding to the people paying the bill. Clearly I argue that the Military offers a much more worth while end result. There are, in the Marines, eighty different job types and that is not including sub positions in those jobs. [2] At first glance that may seem small but the Marines are meant to be the smallest branch and they employ which is approximately 180,000. "My opponent has yet to show why taking troubled children out of the educational system and giving them a stake in national security will solve anything. " Correct I have failed to provide aqueduct information towards nation security. Below will explain more. "Military schools are most appropriate for children and teenagers who do not have any underlying emotional or behavioral problems. " [3] Students without emotional problems, as elaborated on in cite three, assist in their discipline. Discipline is one of the crux's of my argument not nation security. Yes nation security is always a concern but young students would not be on the front lines or any other high risk areas, I would also take the liberty and say Intel job would be off limits. [1]. http://www.insidehighered.com... [2]. http://www.aspeneducation.com... [3]. http://usmilitary.about.com...

Sorry but that is hardly a valid argument. Religion is a part of discipline? By that statement are you saying children need to be disciplined? Instead of treating them as people, you are suggesting they are treated like dogs, forced into submission with fear and promises of an afterlife. These are children we're talking about. If a parent fails to raise their child, they should turn to religion and fear? I do not agree. People deserve choice and open-mindedness, something religion often takes away.

I affirm: Corporal Punishment is a reasonably adequate and just punishment for certain crimes. [Definitions] For clarity I pose the following definitions. Corporal Punishment: caning or flogging. Reasonably: fair, proportionate Adequate: sufficient for the purpose Just: giving each their due [Observational Analysis] For analysis of the resolution, I pose the following observations. 1. The resolution asks for a "reasonably adequate" punishment. This is a punishment that is proportion to the crime that has been committed. Note: Proportionality is not equivalence. 2. Certain crimes. The affirmative offers the 3 following crimes that warrant Corporal Punishment while in Jail/Detainment. Crimes: Rape, Kidnapping, Attempted Terrorism. [Contentions] Contention I: Corporal Punishment is a reasonable punishment.(Proportionality) For the 3 crimes I have posted above; corporal punishment is a proportionate response. These 3 crimes do not deserve death but they are too great for jail only. Punishments must be fair and proportionate. Using corporal punishment open up an avenue for an intrum punishment. I.e. a punishment between staying in jail only, and receiving the death penalty. For a punishment to be reasonable it must be: "fair, proportionate". Corporal Punishment is indeed proportionate for crimes that do not warrant death or jail only. Corporal Punishment could be sued while the person is in jail for the given amount of years, or life. (Since we are talking about rape, kidnapping, and attempted terrorism). Contention II: Reducing Crime (Justice) According to the CIA country information site, the countries which have corporal punishment have significantly lower crime rates then the US. E.g. Japan and Singapore. If deterrence is indeed a factor being played, it is a good secondary outcome, that is just for the members of society. Contention III: 8th Amendment (Proportionality, Constitutionality) The 8th Amendment is based off of the ideas of Beccaria. He said the famous quote: "The punishment must fit the crime." The 8th Amendment claims no cruel and unusual punishment. Beccaria explains that this means that the punishment cannot exceed that of the crime committed. If it does, then it is an unjust punishment, and thus violates the Constitution. for reasons in contention I, the punishment is proportionate, and is thus in coherence with the constitution. Contention IV: Faulty Jail System (Justice) The jail system in the US is faulty. We have overcrowded jails which lead to lessining of sentences. This is the reality of things. however the justice system must keep justice. Using corporal punishment can be used to achieve proportionality but have reduced sentences, if necessary. That way, we would have more room to fix the system, and return it back to normal. Therefore, corporal punishment is a just way for members of society by reducing taxes and making a more efficient justice system. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

It's a bad idea because the bully would just be abused and there could just be a big mess after that. Sending them to juvenile prison is better than doing it back to them. Besides, teachers are not allowed to hurt students physically now. Another thing, I have other ideas about what kinds of other things people could do to the bully other than doing it back to them.1. Send them to juvenile prison.2. Make them more active (eg. make them do push ups in front of the class or grade).3. Talking about bullying more in the school and make them think about what they did to their victims.4. Make them talk to an expert.5. Give them time out.6. Send them to the principal's office.And so on and so forth.

First of all, it is odd that you would only use anecdotal evidence to support your claim, furthermore, the evidence you use show us more about the character's specific character flaws and circumstantial evidence then any real information as to why a "tit for tat" method of reprimand is wrong. To explore exactly why your argument is wrong, I will directly address and analyze both of your stories. But first, I would like to lay out some general points to clarify my position on this debate. -As we are considering the use of equal punishment dealt out by an authority figure (ie. the teacher) and NOT how this position on punishment is viewed by our society, we must accept that the use of said force against the child is legally condoned to focus fully on the potential advantages or disadvantages to the children involved in such a system. -I would also like to impose a limit on what is considered bullying. Stabbing someone or poking out their eye is NOT bullying, it is assault. Therefore, if such an attack that is not legally condoned is committed against another child, I am not suggesting that the bully be stabbed back, but rather that they are taken to the proper authorities. Acts that do fall under bullying include, but are not limited to: rough housing, name calling, throwing objects, taking lunch money, etc. Now, now last point before I start on your anecdotes: Where are your stories from? Are they from personal experience, can they be sourced or are they completely fictional in nature? --------- Story #1: In this story, a bully ("some guy") decided, seemingly on a whim to bully someone. To leave it at that is to ignore the psychology of the bully and to focus more upon his aggression as a derogatory thing. However, it is important to note that bullying is largely seen as the result of two forces upon a child: 1. The need to "empower" one's self and boost his own self esteem.(1) 2. An imbalance of social or physical power. To prevent further bullying, it is logical that a display of public humiliation through bullying towards the bully would show the child that physical violence toward his peers would result only in a similar reprimand. Classical conditioning suggests that pain and humiliation will cause the bully to discontinue bullying once it is associated with that stimulus. (2) Once this connection is established, it will become clear to the child that bullying is not an effective way to empower himself, thus teaching him a valuable lesson. Additionally, getting bullied in turn would show that the perceived social imbalance of power that prompted him to aggressive action versus his victim is not actually in his hands, rather in the hands of the teacher, where it should be. The issue of authority, as your story implies, does not end here. Although it is illogical that the bully would: "[get] into rage and started crashing and ruining everything he can." due to a fear of further punishment, it is likely that he would turn to his parents. Here, however, we run into a very grey area of the argument. Different parents with different ideas of how their child should be raised would have a multitude of responses ranging from outraged that action was being taken against their child to support of this technique. I think that for the sake of a focused and rational debate, we should focus more upon how children would react to this method of punishment and if it is effective rather than on the less predictable parenting ideas. This will further the debate on whether quid pro quo is effective and avoid a major tangent from the original question. Story #2 First of all, I would like to point out that in this story there is a death threat. Due to the way the anecdote was written it is unknown how serious this threat is, but if it is intended as an actual threat on her life, it goes way beyond bullying and into assault. There is a legal premise for such an act, and is beyond the scope of this argument. (for those who are interested in an example: see source 3). I would like to note that in this story you have mentioned that the teacher and student "argued and argued until the bell rang for home time." This seems like an unlikely manifestation of this principle because, as I have mentioned before, bullying is predicated on an imbalance of power. Therefore, if the teacher is bullying the student, it is much more likely to be in one direction only: from the teacher and to the student. Such an interaction would more clearly demonstrate to the class and to the bully what is the point of this kind of punishment. Furthermore, it is unlikely and inefficient for the teacher to "quickly [tell] the class what the bully had been up to every lunch time," at what sounded like the last minute of class. Instead, if this is going to be a tactic used by teachers, the point of the exercise would be made clear at the beginning of the humiliation as to maximize the impact and effectiveness of the punishment not only as a lesson to the bully but also as a deterrent for the entire class. As you have failed to mention what tactics you would suggest instead of such a method, I will leave my argument as such and wait for your reply. Thanks for taking the time to have this debate, and good luck! (1)http://www.scribd.com... (2)Bouton, M. E. (2007) Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer (3) http://www.wsoctv.com...

ok education is first ok bush and his no child behind law makes us clear of this any child that has a c or below should not be allowed to play sports i play basketball and im in early college and to meet these standards you have to have a high eye cue you take a punch at college classes in the tenth grade

Public schools should not exist. They are propped up inevitably by stolen money, i.e., taxes. Taxation is unacceptable. Now, clearly, the nonexistence of public schools precludes allowing mp3 players in public schools-- it is not possible to allow something "in" something that does not exist. And since the nonexistence of public schools is part of what should be the case, allowing the existence of public schools in them clearly is not part of what should be the case.

Just by saying that we don't have a choice doesn't mean we should get a tangible reward. Education in itself is a reward. Look at the long-term benefits. You go to school, you go to college, you graduate either get a job or go on for further education. That gives you a reward. Rewarding students physically is just not a good idea because there is no single flat physical gift. Letting people do whatever they want is not an option due to legal liabilities. Money, how much? Where's it coming from?

M. O'Donnell: 15 october 2008 In recent times, judicial use of public humiliation punishment has largely fallen out of favor since the practice is now considered cruel and unusual punishment, which is outlawed in the United States Constitution. According to sptimes.com, published Feb. 18, 2007, "Times have changed since George led our country. Mail is no longer delivered by horseback, and white wigs are no longer in fashion. Back then, adultery was illegal and Hester was made to wear her scarlet A in public. Public drunkenness was forbidden, and those who broke the law were made to stand in the town square in a wooden contraption with their heads and hands unable to move. Other crimes were punished the same way. It was not only humiliating but also painful. Today, lawbreakers could not be treated this way. We would be taking away their civil rights. Public humiliation would not be allowed. The American Civil Liberties Union would bring lawsuits against the law enforcement agencies." (http://www.sptimes.com...) Now to attack my opponents case: My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process? This argument clearly falls. My opponent gives 'his opinion' on how our nations legal system ought to work, but provides no facts or evidence (unless you you count your last sentence as evidence, well then, yes I would like to see an example other than what is in my evidence). Due to lack of support or statistical data, this point falls as well. My opponent also states that they often resort to stealing to meet the cost of being a criminal, but no facts or statistics were provided so this point falls. The affirmative also points out that public humiliation leaves a lasting impression on them. Answer me this: if you are permanently scarred by being publicly humiliated. are you more likely to hate the government or submit wholly to it?

Bringing children up and its rules remain different for society. in other words, it is not even proved yet how exactly should children be taught. And of course, children cannot become mature and polite in one moment. It is also a part of bringing up which should begin from child's birth. Otherwise, if parents wait till they are grown up to teach children good manners, they will suddenly realise that it is too late. Not just too late to say them something about behavior, but too late to actually change something. When person is grown-up it is hard and almost impossible to change him. And he reminds the same person - impolite, selfish and rude, just because parents didn't tell him anything in time. And not all children really listen to what their parents say. I think that if words don't make sense to the child it is okay to remind him that they should by spank. This action will show child that he better have respect for the parents and listen to them. Second thing is that proper use of physical force - I don't mean drubbing - will not cause children to hate everybody and bully others. It will better explain children that this is bad and he shouldn't do it again. This is the case when memory works - the child got slapped, it is a bad memory, he doesn't want to have it again and therefore never will do.