Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
Capital punishment is inconsistent with the values of a civilized society.

The topic of our debate is the death penalty. We believe that the death penalty should be abolished. The United States spreads a message telling others that killing someone is wrong. Then, they go and allow offical people to be hypocritical and kill someone for a crime committed. Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." This is an inhumane way to treat other humans. Even though they made an incredibly bad choice by committing a capital offense, they are still human and we must treat them as one. A Florida study found that states could cut costs by $51 million simply by eliminating the death penalty. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted. Not only is it expensive, but it also has had many errors. Given the facts above, we believe that the death penalty should be abolished and we plan to prove it.

I have to say my opponent is very specific and comprehensive in his arguments. So, I will respond in kind. I have two main sections: 1)Rebuttal & 2)Defense of my original arguments from my opponent's rebuttals.(I) REBUTTALC1. Capital Punishment saves innocent lives.SPA: Capital Punishment keeps a killer from striking again. As per Pro's own source 98.8% of those convicted of homicide were not rearrested. Only 1.2% were. And this was in 1994. Since Pro chose this year to make his argument, I am sure that even less were reaarested in years other than 1994. Of those rearrested, how many were actually convicted? Pro's source does not give the answer but this [1] source shows that the conviction rate for homicide cases is less than 10%. This means that about 0.12% of people released after committing a homicide were convicted again and 99.88% were not convicted of another homicide. The risk to the innocent public is extremely minimal at 0.12%. That is 1 in a thousand. The people on death row committed those crimes because they had nothing to lose. Once someone is sentenced to death, they have absolutely no reason to not try their best to escape and if necessary kill the police during the escape. They are already sentenced to death even if they behave. Where is the motivation.As for racial tensions between inmates and fatal fights in jail, they are common and not restricted to people who committed homicides.You mention that Clarence Ray Allen was sentenced to life without parole, he was released. How is that possible. What I am saying is that all people sentenced to the death penalty must be sentenced to life without parole. That means no release. To conclude SPA (what does SPA mean anyway? and C1?), life without parole also keeps a prisoner from killing if it is implemeted correctly. This should not be played around with and inmates sentenced to life without parole should not be released. So DP is not required to stop an offender from reoffending. Even if they are released, the chances of reoffending are miniscule.SPB: Capital Punishment has a deterrent effect.No, it does not! [2], [3], [4], [5]. You seem to be mixing coincidence with corelation. If you were right, then I could argue that it does not deter homicide because states with death penalty have a much higher homicide rate [3] and that executions make people want to kill. So, capital punishment does not save innocent lives because people who reoffend should have been locked up for life anyways and it doesn't deter other criminals from committing homicide.C2. The DP is a better punishment than Life without Parole.SPA: Life without parole does not always mean life.There may have been one case where one criminal sentenced to life without parole was eligible for parole. Whether he was actually paroled, pro's source doesn't say. In any case, taking the life of a person to safeguard against a possible future change in laws is an inhumane preemptive strike against life.SPB: Prisoners view the Death Penalty as harsh Firstly, the death penalty is not a punishment, it is a state sanctioned homicide. Secondly, of course the prisoners view dying as harsh. So, are you saying we should kill people so that others become scared? It is a reckless disregard of human life to kill in order to set an example for someone else. Besides this point seems too similar to the point about deterrence which I have already refuted in a more precise fashion.(II) DEFENSE OF MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS1) Human rights violation: Amnesty International is the supreme authority on what constitutes a human rights violation so pro can't just dismiss it as an "opinion." Also the United States cannot a police state which routinely abuses human rights for to save innocent lives or "for the greater good" as some other states like Zimbabwe and Nazi Germany might. Human rights are supreme and are not to be violated under any circumstances. 2) Barbaric and Medieval: The impact is that my opponent is saying "The vast majority (65%) of Americans disagree with my Opponent and believe that the Death Penalty is a moral action." and I am saying that support is actually declining. Secondly, medieval people are less civilized than modern people, hence modern people's abolition of the DP shows that it is a cruel medieval "punishment" just like drowning, iron maiden etc which will be abolished when people become civilized enough to do so. Thirdly, it is true that it is declining as my source shows. There is no reason to believe that Pro's source (Gallup polls) is any more credible or impartial than Amnesty International which is a sexy, top notch international organization. Galloping is something that horses do, so it is medieval. (okay, just kidding!)I agree that Con did not make those arguments. I made those arguments when it was my turn to provide opening arguments. 3) Costs more: My opponent's own source [6] says that the death penalty costs more. I'll take this point as a freebie and not waste time arguing further. Thank You thett3. :-)4) Leads to the death of innocent peopleHow dare Pro says that no examples are given since no examples exist?? <mock outrage> Again, Pro's own source says "Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Its imposition is irreversible which deprives an individual the right to benefit from new evidence that might lead to the reversal of a conviction." [6] There have been 273 post-concivtion exonerations in the United States. 17 of the 273 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.[7]And overall the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to dateI can't believe that my opponent would just let 138 innocent people die because of a miniscule possiblity that a future law change may cause someone who was sentenced to life without parole to be released and then commit a crime of which there is a 1 in a 1000 chance of hapenning. That is a blatant violation of human rights. Correction, this is genocide. 5) There are other optionsIf people escaped from prison, it only means that prisons should be more secure. That is the fault of the prison guards, not a reason to impose DP. 6) Doesn't help the victim or the victim's familyPro does not understand the point I am trying to make. I am saying that taking a life is wrong by any standards and even if we take a life in response to a criminal act, it is not worth it because the victim's life will not be restored and we will have two dead people. The prisoner's life is not taken when he/she is sentenced to life without parole. I think it was a miscommunication since my opponent and I seem to arguing two completely different things. Hope this clears it up.I saw the victim's families responses but the question remains: What do the victim's family get when the killer becomes the killed? 7) Cruel and Unusual punishmentThere is a difference between awaiting impending death in the near future than dying after living a natural life.Just because the supreme court says it doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. We are not debating what is, but what should be. Using the same logic, the vast majority 60% of Western Europeans are against the DP[7] so it proves that they don't consider it moral.ConclusionI have refuted all of my opponents points and defended my own against my opponent's refutation. Vote Con. Sources[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...;[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.enotes.com...[5] http://www.dartmouth.edu...;[6] http://www.globalpolitician.com...;[7] http://www.innocenceproject.org...;[8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;

The resolution is: Death Penalty is a logical and practical punishment compared to life imprisonment. I will be arguing that life imprisonment is a better option compared to the death penalty, and my opponent will be arguing on the side of the death penalty.

Pro has admitted that keeping criminals in prison is much more expensive than executing them, but he believes that the prison is a more effective punishment as "most people would rather die than to stay in prison". However, I think that this is purely his assumption. If most people prefer death, why don't they just commit suicide? The fact is 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial. [1] Therefore we can see that the criminals fear death most. Pro's second argument is the family of the executed criminals will hate the state forever. But how about the victims' family? Do you think they will be happy if the criminals are not punished with what they deserve? In short, no matter what we do, someone will be unhappy. If we are too concerned with that, we will be unable to make any decision at all. Therefore, the criminals' family's "hatred" is not a reason for us to abolish the death penalty. The reason why we should keep the death penalty is because of its deterrence effect. In one of his research in 1975, Professor Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Buffalo estimated that each execution deterred about seven or eight homicides. [2] Additional research of Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina has reconfirmed Professor Ehrlich's results. [3] There are also newer studies confirming the deterrence effect of death penalty. Seventeen out of twenty four studies carried out from 1996 to 2010 claim that the death penalty does deter crime. [4] For example, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh of Emory University and Joanna Shepherd of Clemson University, after analysing the panel data covering the fifty states from 1960 to 2000, found out that the murder rate increases when the death penalty is abolished and decreases when it is reinstated. [5] In another study, Joana Shepherd found out that the death penalty "deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates". [6] In short, the death penalty can deter crime. It can save lives. [1] . http://sobek.colorado.edu...[2] "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," (1975), Isaac Ehrlich[3] "Homicide and Deterrence: A Reexamination of the United States Time-Series Evidence," (1985), Stephen K. Layson[4] . http://www.cjlf.org...[5] "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment'", Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna Shepherd (2003)[6] "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment", Joanna Shepherd (2003)

Thank you, nargiz_gab, for initializing the debate. I accept and will be arguing that the death penalty ought not be supported. I request that for the second round we each advance our arguments in support of our respective positions and that for round three, the final round, we counter argue the each other's argument in the previous round in addition to summarizing our respective positions thereby concluding the debate. I invite nargiz_gab to advance his argument as to why the death penalty ought to be supported.

I'm afraid future responses won't be quite this fast. Introduction,Pro's argument is founded upon the idea that men deserve death if they have killed blatanly. Basically, justice requires men recieve their due. I would agree that death penalty makes sense morally, however in an imperfect world the death penalty does not serve justce. Let's take a closer look at the goals of the dealth penalty in my first main point. 1. The goals of capital punishment are deterrence and justice. Rachel C. King (J. D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011> . http://law.bepress.com... “In its post-Furman jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has acknowledged several state interests that may support capital punishment. These interests include deterrence, retribution, [and] incapacitation, and denunciation and vindication of legal and moral order. Deterrence and retribution are the two most commonly cited reasons for maintaining the death penalty. ” However the dealth penalty fails in these purposes. To prove this, let's take a look at my next few points. Death Penalty does not serve Justice. 2. Innocent people sentenced to death Prof. Victor Streib (professor of law at Ohio Northern University, attorney specializing in violent crime and the death penalty, frequently cited by the U. S. Supreme Court), “CLASSIC ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY,” Elon Law Review (Vol. 1 Issue 1 pp 1-16),2009 . http://www.elon.edu... “The ultimate end result of discrimination, caprice, and just plain bad luck can be clear error: convicting and sentencing to death an innocent offender. The death penalty system is operated and controlled by human beings who are not immune to human error. [later, in the same context:]Over 120 innocent persons have been sent to death row in the current era (since 1973), and several other states have ordered a moratorium on executions until the causes of these fatal errors are found. ” The death penalty also has a violently negative effect on other innocent victims; the families of death row inmates. 3. The innocent suffer with the guilty Rachel C. King (J. D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011> . http://law.bepress.com... “Many people lose the support of their friends and community when a family member is on death row. One woman whose brother was on death row said, “[a]ll my friends . . . just abandoned me. They didn’t support me at all during the years, and when I came down for [my brother’s] execution, not one of them showed any support. Not one of them called or came over, NOT ONE! ” This woman eventually developed high blood pressure, migraine headaches, depression and sleeplessness as a result of her brother’s arrest. ” Not only does the death penalty punish the innocent along with the guilty, but capital defendants are also given grossly incompetent legal representation, severely lessening their chance at a fair trial. 4. Capital defendants are given incompetent representation Prof. Scott Vollum (Ph. D. in Criminal Justice, Associate Professor of Justice Studies, James Madison University), Prof. Stacy Mallicoat (Ph. D. in Sociology, Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at California State University—Fullerton, CA), and Prof. Jacqueline Buffington-Vollum (Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at James Madison University), “Death Penalty Attitudes in an Increasingly Critical Climate: Value-Expressive Support and Attitude Mutability,” Southwestern Association of Criminal Justice, published in Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp 221-242), 2009<accessed July 2, 2011>. http://www.utsa.edu... “Organizations such as the American Bar Association, countless observers and participants in capital trials, capital jurors, and scholarly research studies have all testified to the grossly incompetent legal representation offered to many capital defendants during their trials and sentencing. In addition to the often ill-prepared, ill-equipped, inexperienced, or simply incompetent representation in many capital cases, numerous cases of mentally ill, drunken, and sleeping lawyers have been documented in recent years. ” These three points put together shows how capital punishment cannot serve its goal of justice. 5. Non-deterrence Prof. Scott Vollum (Ph. D. in Criminal Justice, Associate Professor of Justice Studies, James Madison University), Prof. Stacy Mallicoat (Ph. D. in Sociology, Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at California State University—Fullerton, CA), and Prof. Jacqueline Buffington-Vollum (Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at James Madison University), “Death Penalty Attitudes in an Increasingly Critical Climate: Value-Expressive Support and Attitude Mutability,” Southwestern Association of Criminal Justice, published in Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp 221-242), 2009<accessed July 2, 2011>. http://www.utsa.edu... “In spite of decades of studies, researchers have failed to find the death penalty to be a general deterrent (i. e. , the death penalty has not been found to deter or stop other people from committing murder). ” The bottom line is this, the dealth penalty is flawed and does not serve justce. Nor does it deter future violence. A much more just sentence with less error woulfd be life imprisonment. I apologize for any mispelled words.

Yes, the death penalty is a punishment for a crime. I must argue however, that the majority of the people receiving the death penalty, are psychopaths and sociopaths who were most likely abused during their childhood. They didn't know any better. They were sick. And they needed help. And judging by the amount of executions that have been carried out in the U.S, the death penalty does not scare these people. If they really want to, they will kill anyways. Psychopaths and sociopaths do not feel fear the way people without these mental disorders do. It is also possible for a murderer to frame someone else, if they are crafty enough. Just think about that. It is possible for a person to kill someone, and blame you. If you were found guilty and got the death penalty, the government would be putting you, an innocent man to death. Doesn't that scare you? There have been many cases where an innocent man was executed. I got this story from the death penalty information center. "Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993 A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle cast serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man. Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle. In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person." Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three seperate times. Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial. She noted, "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that." (Houston Chronicle, November 20 & 21, 2005 and Associated Press, November 21, 2005)." There were about 12 other cases on this website with extremely sad stories. These people were put to death, and afterwards police were either suspicious or they realized that they killed the wrong guy. Here are the names of all the other innocent people listed on this website. Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989 Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995 Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997 David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997 Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998 Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000 Claude Jones Texas Convicted 1989 Executed 2000 Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004 Troy Davis Georgia Convicted 1991 Executed 2011 Lester Bower Texas Convicted 1984 Executed 2015 Brian Terrell Georgia Convicted 1995 Executed 2015 Richard Masterson Texas Convicted 2002 Executed 2016 I must also point out that life imprisonment is absolutely not giving people convicted of murder kudos for killing 10 innocent people. It is keeping a potentially innocent but most likely guilty person off the streets, so that they are unable to kill again.

First off, I would like to say that I am aware that 34 out of the 50 states allow the death penalty and this is appalls me. However, I did notice that my opponent lives in one of the states that allows it, Texas, and I am from New Jersey which does not. So, I recognize that possibly being a reason for our opposing views, but am still respectful of my opponent's views as well. I have noticed in my 18 years of life, that the justice system in our country is far from perfect. But, it is ridiculous how guilty people can walk free at times and the innocent can be executed when they are wrongly accused of a crime. Recently, a 17 year old boy named Trayvon Martin apparently looked "suspicious" and was murdered - even when young Trayvon was begging for his life. All the poor boy had on him was skittles, an iced tea, the clothes on his back, and a cell phone! The man who murdered him, named George Zimmermann, was part of the neighborhood watch in Florida, an area where the death penalty is allowed, and this man walks free for murder. Where is the justice in that? What about Troy Davis? He was executed by lethal injection in Georgia for a crime he "apparently" committed over 20 years ago, which was the shooting of an off-duty Savannah officer named Mark MacPhail. From the moment he was accused to the last minutes of his life, he still swore his innocence and was not even carrying a gun that night. Plus, there was the Casey Anthony trial, also in Florida. All of the signs pointed to her killing her baby, Caylee, but she walks away free, too. To this day, I still feel that cases like these are determined by bribery, tricks played by the lawyer, or by even racism, and Casey Anthony is an attractive, young, Caucasian female. These events are not the first times things like this has occurred in the U. S. It happens way too often, which is why we should not execute any criminals. After all our country has done to fix and improve "the system", these outrageous events should not still be occurring. Since, the legal system often has flaws, who is anyone to truly say whom deserves capital punishment and whom does not? More importantly, what exactly the justice of killing a killer? He or she should rot in jail for their crime if they commit such a murder. Plus, there are some people who kill out of crime of passion, not being able to take someone's physical/mental/emotional abuse anymore, to protect themselves, or because they have psychological problems and could not control themselves. Not saying that this makes what they have done alright at all, however, they deserve less of a punishment or possibly hospitalization and treatment for mental illness. Some are even executed for other things not even as severe as murder, which isn't even fair. So, what is it that makes capital punishment alright?

If someone has enough nerve to take the lives of others, then they too should have their life taken from them. Those are the people that simply do not deserve to live. Life is our most precious possession. this is exactly what Capital punishment does. Capital punishment lets all murderers know that they will have to abandon their lives if they take the life of someone else. More than 20,000 people are killed each year and to let the animals (you can't even call them humans) survive is unjust. The stricter our state is with its punishment, the more people will know not to commit murders. American citizens need to know that chastisements are proportionate and fair. For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims. Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals. How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people? We have to enforce the Death penalty, because once again, life is the most precious thing one can receive.

You know you don't need to put my name in quotation marks. Allright, my opponent's rebuttal was quite lengthy so I will answer each of his points in turn. "This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases." This is false. Punishment does not necessarily mean death. Punishment can mean exile, jail, a fine, or even public service. You have twisted my words around so that the punishment means death. That's a cheap card to play, man. "I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose?" I would like to clarify that I am in no way suggesting that education will completely eliminate all crime. And likewise, the fear of being punished will also (and does) not eliminate all crime. By citing a single incident of education failing to discourage a man from crime in no way proves that education is completely useless in the effort of decreasing crime. If I so pleased, I could do the same thing with your method of decreasing crime via fear, by citing incidents of people going on killing sprees despite the fact that they will almost certainly wind up in prison or in the electric chair. But regardless of the effectiveness of education when compared to fear, it must be acknowledged that education is a better foundation for society than fear. It creates a healthier atmosphere, and makes the populace moral people, rather than immoral people who are scared to act out their immoral ideas. And once more, I am not saying that punishment should be completely eliminated, I am saying that a balance should be made, with alot of emphasis on education, and less emphasis on punishment. "So what 'Harlan' is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to 'kill more people in order to get organs'. Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment." Here you go again twisting my words. I never said that the death sentence is in place for any purpose. This is a hypothetical debate (see resolution), and has nothing to do with any death-sentence policy that exists in real life. I was merely responding to your hypothetical death-sentence ideas, which you happened to justify on the basis that "organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them" (see round 1). Those are your words, not mine. What you have done in the above quote is completely changed your argument to "The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment.", while completely ignoring my rebuttal to your original point (the one you just pretended you didn't make), which was that the felon's organs could be used. "This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person." It's not so much a matter of "feeling sorry", as you have twisted my words to say, as it is honoring every Human being's fundamental rights, regardless of their personality. Once more, 2 wrongs do not make a right, and with that in mind it can be said that it is not justified to deny a fellow Human being of his rights, no matter what the scenario is. I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring. "Why doesn't 'Harlan' feel sorry for those who were killed?" Where could you have possibly made this conclusion out of anything that I said in round 1? Now you are simply making up stuff that I said. "I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues." Once more, this is a problem that has a simple and practical solution: don't release them. You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life. "Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe." Well, too bad. It's their job. "We are not trying to get rid of people." Neither of us said this. "We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood." Those were your words, not mine. "We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population." I never said this either. "We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done." Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness. "And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in 'Harlan's' argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in 'Harlan's' argument." Fine, if we ARE playing that game, then I guess I'll play too. In the above quote, his first sentence did not need a comma and should have had a quotation mark instead of a period, since it was phrased as a question. Also (I wasn't going to say anything, but I suppose I will), he misquoted Al Capone earlier. -Harlan


Question: Should there be a Simplified Process for Discharging Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy?

Wealth accumulation at the top doesn't naturally benefit those at the bottom. I sense the discussion has veered more towards the issue of student loans than the original topic of supply-side economics. Nonetheless, we both seem to agree that student loan debt is a significant issue. However, we differ on the effectiveness of supply-side economics. I've been trying to convey that, more often than not, money given to the lower and middle classes is more likely to be spent and circulate within the economy. Those defaulting on student loans represent a minority, albeit a notable one. Most of them would use any additional money for other expenses, given they're already managing their student loan payments. Conversely, if that money is given to a wealthy individual, it's likely to be saved rather than spent, thus not stimulating the economy. The GOP's promise to create jobs and opportunities for all is often seen as enriching the already wealthy. This is evident from their corporate donors (although Democrats have their share too). It's not surprising that they prioritize the interests of the rich, given the financial support they receive from them. The GOP's continued adherence to supply-side economics is to serve their wealthy supporters. Can you really expect them to prioritize the average person over their campaign donors? The Republican Party is often viewed as the party of the rich, with much of the promotion of supply-side economics being corporate propaganda. The myth of wealth "trickling down" has been thoroughly debunked. Why doesn't it work? Simply put, the more wealth accumulates at the top, the less is available for the middle class, leading to reduced demand and harming job growth. How will fixing the student loan problem facilitate the success of supply-side economics? Wouldn't that wealth just remain at the top? Why would the wealthy spend it if the poor and middle class are relieved of their student loan burden? It's unclear when we can expect the wealth to "trickle down." If the poor and middle class are supposed to benefit from supply-side economics, why hasn't it happened yet? The rich tend to hoard extra money rather than spend it, which is counterproductive for economic growth. Demand drives job creation, benefiting the economy as a whole. Reducing taxes for the wealthy decreases demand due to increased wealth inequality. Providing money to those who need it most would stimulate the economy more effectively. You've argued that this won't happen because many are burdened by student loans. While a significant minority is struggling with student loan debt, many can still contribute to the economy as

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...

I feel that all students in high school shoud be required to take a financial literacy course, so they will have a clue what they are talking about when it comes time to join a bank, or take out a loan etc.

Students, parents and sometimes teachers are not in agreement with this plan. Some teachers have actually left the district as a result of year long school as stated in an article from the Atlanta Journal. The article goes on to discuss teachers and students feeling "burned out" as a result of attending school for a longer period of the year. This plan would also prevent students from gaining meaningful employment during the summer months when they are not attending the public school system.

All points extended. This concludes my part of the debate. I now ask the voters, in the sense that I have debated with no worry of rebuttals and nothing to stand against my arguments except two forfeits, that you vote for me. I also open up my arms to my opponent in hopes that they will use the opportunity to post their arguments. I'm very interested in seeing how they were, or would prove that free college is a good idea. At this point I have nothing further to say.

Though I will readily admit that this is possibly one of my least favorite LD topics of all time, I want to run my cases for blocking purposes. Plus, I feel as though I have been long absent from DDO. :) I ask that my opponent use LD format, but I'm not going to be a huge stickler about it. In other words, the purpose of running this is two-fold: I want a good debate, but I also want to be able to run it in such a way that helps my kids block out my arguments and a decent neg case. This requires LD format. I also ask the the rounds mimic competition slightly in that RD 3 is reserved for voting issues only (i.e. please no new arguments). --------------------------------------------------------- I affirm, resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Observation 1: Definitions Standardized Exit Exam: any state-wide assessment that must be passed prior to receiving one's public high school diploma. The affirmative acknowledges that some states choose not to assess a student's potential to successfully exit high school using the stereotypical multiple-choice test. Observation 2: Standards. V: Justice. Justice, defined by Aristotle as giving each person his or her due, is precisely what education is about. Justice as related to education requires equality of distribution, as every citizen is due a culturally acceptable education in order to succeed within society, otherwise the concept of a meritocracy is fundamentally compromised. Therefore, the affirmative will strive to achieve this due for all US public education students. C: A legitimate system of education. In order to have a meaningful debate on education reform, we cannot neglect the system that the test is directly linked to. The affirmative contends that exit exams not only fail to indicate mastery within the educational system, but entrench the inequality of education distribution to the detriment of student success. 1.My first contention is that exit exams test a deeply biased system of education, which makes the exam invalid. A. US school systems are socio-economically stratified by resources, materials, & personnel. It is widely acknowledged in countless educational studies over the years that the education system in the United States, like all other human institutions, is rife with disparities. Unfortunately, as it is in most cases, the poor bear the brunt of the burden, receiving less qualified educational instructors and less overall resources than districts with more available funds. This inequality oftentimes manifests itself in the form of standardized exam results, as detailed by Viadero: "The detrimental effects of the new policy were harder on girls than on boys. Girls experienced a 19-percentage point drop in graduation rates after the Californian High School Exit Exam… was implemented, while the graduation rate for boys with similar academic profiles decreased by 12 percentage points over the same period. Likewise, graduation rates among black, Hispanic, and Asian-American students declined by 15 to 19 percentage points following the enactment of the exit exam policy. The comparable graduation-rate drop for white students in the same achievement quartile was 1 percentage point." (2009) Since a standardized test assesses one's competency within a set of standards, if all of those standards are disparately taught, the test cannot be valid. B. Results of this invalid exam withhold diplomas unjustly, and even prevent student mastery and success. Exams, in their inability to solve for inequalities in education, simply entrench already disadvantaged students further by labeling them falsely as failures. Since the educational standards of a given state cannot be equally represented in every classroom in that state due to these deep-seeded disparities, the students who are most underserved are more likely to fail those exams. The psychological effect of being branded a failure is described as Viadero continues: "Even though students have plenty of opportunities to retake the exam—and most do—poor, inner-city students who just missed the passing cutoff in 10th grade are less likely to graduate on time than demographically similar students who just barely passed, even though both groups scored at roughly the same levels on the 10th grade exam. Failing or passing the tests seems to have no statistically significant effect, though, on the probability of graduation for wealthier, suburban students." (2009) The stigma of failure, even though that failure is generally one of the institution, and not the student, is enough to significantly reduce the chances of a poorer student graduating. Students who are mistreated by the system, and who do not graduate as a result, are much less likely to succeed, and will even become a social liability. Carnoy explains: "High school is where economically disadvantaged young people—many of them African Americans and Latinos—make it or break it educationally. High school determines how these students will be incorporated into work and social structures. High school is also where educational reformers' efforts to improve how much students learn face the acid test. If students do not finish high school with their cohort, they are likely to be marginalized from the mainstream and to become a social liability. Reforms aiming to improve educational quality must ultimately be evaluated in terms of improving high school completion rates." (2005) 2. My second contention is that standardized exit exams offer no academic benefits to those who pass them. Even if the system itself weren't inherently damaged, the test itself, in both material and form, do not correlate to a student's mastery of important skills or future success. Considering that high school is a preparatory institution for college and the workforce, as well as the final stop in a 12-year quest for what society deems as crucial cognitive skills, if the exit exam cannot prove mastery or indicate a readiness for graduation from this institution, it must be abolished. Warren & Grodsky published a comprehensive study of exit exams in 2009 which spans the last 30 years of educational data regarding the exams. Over that 30 years, they discovered the following: First of all: "We found no evidence for any effect of exit exams…on reading or math achievement at the mean or at any of several cut-points of the achievement distribution. These results hold for 13-year-olds and for 17-year-olds and don't vary across racial/ethnic or social class backgrounds, undermining claims of disparate impact." Second of all: "Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds." In other words, Warren & Grodsky found that exit exams not only do not test a student's competency accurately in reading or math, but that they also have no bearing whatsoever on a student's employability in the US workforce. As exit exams have proven themselves as illegitimate measures of academic achievement, they cannot be used to provide legitimacy to the education system. Have at me :)

My final round will be in the order given by my opponent: On my overview: my assertion was that my case is essentially untouched because no effort was made by my opponent to actually refute my advocacy. At this point, since the attempt at a standards debate still hasn't been made, you will be weighing the round via mine. If I can prove that my opponent cannot access a legitimate system of justice per my standards, then please affirm. Setting aside the fact that my opponent is introducing what constitutes a whopper of a new argument, and can then further that argument in RD 3 without my ability to counter, there are several reasons why you won't prefer his analysis to mine: 1. My opponent has clearly misconstrued my argumentation in RDs 1 & 2 with regards to my "intended" arguments. My intended arguments are clear: I am stating that exit exams are invalid because they test an inherently biased system and because they don't actually indicate mastery of high school curriculum or skill goals. My opponent essentially puts words in my mouth when he states that I want to eliminate the entire education system. My purpose in pointing out the inherent bias in the system was not to scrap the entire system, but to state that exit exams don't improve its state. Hence, if we are trying to legitimize education by maximizing equal access and reducing discrimination, exit exams aren't the way there. 2. It is ridiculous to assume that because I criticize a system as biased that I want to eliminate it entirely. Basically, as the quotation my opponent uses from my case states, every human institution contains some element of discrimination. Maximizing justice is simply minimizing bias, not eliminating any system that doesn't contain bias. 3. The accusation my opponent makes regarding my use of justice in the round being reductio ad absurdum is warrantless. He doesn't actually tell you why my contention about exit exams entrenching bias into the school system is illogical or absurd, which is what "reductio ad absurdum" arguments are supposed to be. 4. I fail to see in what way I have violated the terms of Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate. Normally, I wouldn't even bother addressing this, but I have lots of characters left and a classroom full of kids taking state tests right now (I know, right? Irony!) Essentially, my opponent has misquoted this rule. Though I contend above that I have not made any illogical or unwarranted arguments, I would also contend that the NFA rules aren't suggesting that illogical arguments are actually against the rules of debate. The debater in question still needs to adequately refute all illogical arguments presented in a given round. That rule is referring to the burdens given to either side in a debate, and not the quality of arguments. Now, for a few voting issues: 1. Extend my entire affirmative case, as my opponent calls some of my arguments "reductio ad absurdum" in RD 2 but never actually tells you why. He attempts to warrant this by making a few arguments for me that were, by my RD 1 posting, clearly not intended. So, essentially, he's straw manning me. Specifically, note that, coming out of RD 2, my opponent has admitted to exit exams being invalid on all three levels I describe: they entrench discrimination, rather than allowing equal access to high school education, they are not an indicator of mastery of skills or curriculum, and they are not indicative of success in the workplace. 2. Extend all of the offensive arguments that I assigned to his advocacy in RD 2. Never does my opponent fulfill his burden of proving that exit exams are something that should be instituted in US public schools. He gave warrantless arguments in RD 1, which I addressed adequately. He then chose to abandon his entire advocacy in RD 2, which means that he has no offense coming into RD 3, no matter what new arguments he chooses to bring up after this is posted. Thank you for the debate. Vote affirmative.

Did you really just overtly shift goalposts on the last turn? The first question is, relative to the big picture, how does a significant change in GDP matter in relation to effectiveness of an educational initiative? (hint: it doesn't. ) Fortunately Pro decided to not back that portion and therefore not back the conclusion making it a leap in logic since saying that all person's do better and the GDP actually increases is not equivalent to claiming that the GDP is a sound measurement of the effectiveness of AA. Red Herring and Non-sequitur and shifting goalposts, and then finally my opponent just admits that they don't care anymore in their "final words". What a waste of time.

So I had been working on my arguments for several hours now, but my browser just crashed and I lost all my work!!!!!! And it was really good. I had two original arguments, and responses to all three arguments, more than a dozen sources, including academic works, philosophical writings, and I had learned quite a lot already in the debate.I forfeit the debate, as I cannot redo all that work I had done.Is there anyway to delete the debate?If you would like I am willing to do a simplified version of the debate. Shorter, simpler/less complex arguments, but the same rules and topic.

No. You go to school to learn. Why waste the mind that God gave you. Got to school, graduate or get you GED and goo to college for chits and giggles. I believe it is a sin to waste the mingd God gave you and will take my own advice.


Question: Should there be a Simplified Process for Discharging Student Debt in Bankruptcy?

Federal Student Loans Should Be Reformed, Not Abolished.

I will structure my arguments into five sections to ensure clarity and coherence. Federal Student Loans Have Contributed to the Education Bubble. Over the past few decades, tuition costs in the United States have skyrocketed. Between 1978 and 2012, tuition increased by 1210%, or 12 times, which is four times faster than the increase in the consumer price index (1). This significant problem can be attributed to the artificial inflation of tuition prices caused by government intervention and the abundance of federal aid. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, explains that "The basic issue is straightforward: when everyone is given $100 to pay for higher education, colleges will raise their prices by $100, negating the value of the aid. Inflated aid, primarily federal, has gone up from $4,602 per undergraduate in 1990-91 to $12,455 in 2010-11. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced-priced education has artificially inflated the price of college education, leading to a classic upward price spiral caused by government intervention: subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. "(1) Patrick Hedger, a policy analyst from FreedomWorks, found that “Students are taking out cheap loans as liberally as colleges spend their tuition. With money readily available at low rates to anyone who asks, students never think twice and colleges have no incentive to keep prices low. The end result is tens of thousands of dollars worth of each student’s tuition being spent by universities on superfluous things designed simply to draw more and more students and their government-backed blank checks. "(2)

Federal Student Loans Have Caused a Rise in Tuition. As a result of the Education Bubble, tuition has been artificially inflated through government intervention. Chris Edwards, from the Cato Institute, explains that “It is a matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education, which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumer willingness to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increases, the public’s budget constraint has been lifted. ”(3) Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, noted that federal subsidies “are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking … tuition

In my opinion, the American education system is negatively impacting the mental health of students within the past decade. I make this claim based on 3 primary premises, the amount of homework given, the lack of support/education pertaining to mental illnesses and, the pressures of standardized tests. These main components of the American education system is causing too much stress on the students and without the proper resources and tools to help the students cope, it is causing a rise in mental health issues.

Wrap-up: It seems that you've gone from revision to elimination. However there's no explanation on how judges would exist for all the debates here and whether or not that would still hold value or how they would be tested (if they would) and granted that privilege? The 7 point open forum system has yet to really be shown anymore faulty than your system so not to say that it is great it's just to say that if it's to be changed it cannot be changed in how you envision it. There needs to be more meat to the plan. [you don't have to read the rest, this is a quick synopsis] -- There are two issues here that I see; the first is the example you provide where the 7 point system is what you claim to be the problem but then your solution to the problem is privatization. Well that removes the problem of bias but it also removes the point of this debate because the criteria changes immensely once you have a private judge. It is literally no longer a matter of "X" points but instead of really a well-crafted argument for or against your own judgment. It's a totally different system altogether. The second issue is actually the DDO article itself. It's not "How to Debate" it's "tips for a better debate" and you're right none of the basics like BoP are mentioned and neither is an exhaustive list of fallacies or anything that would arm you for the ability to actually debate. Instead it's "tips" and they are good tips but they are not lessons. It's not for that so if you're using that and asking "What's wrong!?" that's sort of like getting onto a horse and wondering why it won't go "VROOM!" and where the key notch is. So when we talk about the article it's really appealing more to those who actually know what they are doing to begin with. It's kind of like "How to save gas when you drive", well the assumption is that you know how to drive to begin with, right? But this is why it's so important that we don't eliminate that system which grants that flexibility to begin with; a lot of people assume and assert so many different things so when it's down to a real "how-to" people aren't educated or skilled in it and that's the basic truth; they think they know, they do their best, and they interpret what's given but a lot of debates that I've been in have had "insufficient evidence" whether I won or lost and used sources that were good but didn't prove their points! People voted anyway reading what they thought was there because they aren't official judges and hell some are only 16 so who expects them to be professional about it? :p Like if I asked you what IS weak evidence? Oh, man that's a road-trip of a question; you could (and people have) written an entire set of books on how that works. Credibility is the same. Your 7 Points: 1. There is no such thing as a topic (claim) without a burden of proof or an objective method of argumentation. Definitions should be clear for sure but again this is biased against the beginner specifically because what if you, the voter, just say "No, I don't like that definition, doesn't sit well with me?" even if it's legitimate? Also, you can't produce a debate and have an inconsistency with the BoP. You can try but it won't make sense and will fall apart quickly anyway so it's not a major concern. 2. Well jargon and technical language basics really should solve this. Ambiguity is not acceptable and neither is Equivocation so this is already covered long before it began or was brought up here. 3. That's not how it works. You're misreading that; what it's saying is basically once everyone establishes the axioms it helps to know BoP and how it works. So let's say that we want to debate whether nachos are sentient, it's saying that first we need to define sentient and nachos THEN we use BoP to help guide us through it so if I make the claim "Nachos are sentient because rocks." I have BoP for that claim and if you go "No, rocks do not make nachos sentient." YOU have BoP for that claim. Disagreeing does NOT negate (contrary to everyone's belief) BoP. I added that in because a lot of people think that the "mechanism" of BoP works by allowing one side to say something and the other to go "nu-uh" when in reality that's not how it works at all; my last debate had this problem where my opponent just shirked off their own BoP for their own claims and then accused me (consistently) of arguing something I Was not without reason (just an unsubstantiated claim) and then asked complex questions with emphasis on appeal to emotion. Now all of that is horrible but the worst of it all was evading BoP. He "claimed" it rested on me so he never backed up anything he said. He just made it up. 4. However if we use judges instead of voters and the open public then this negates the point of this debate AND this criteria. This has to be relative to the open forum voting system. Doing away with it doesn't work because then you have to find incentives for volunteer judges and face judge bias as well where it's a "buddy" of one of the debaters. 7. There's no testing for it. I mean you "should" but "should" isn't enough. Your system works in a perfect world but all do, so when facing it I'm thinking it just doesn't work outside of the bounds that you build and you built them more strict, not more lax, so there's more holes in it than this. That's bad. It means the system is weak.

By American education system, I am talking about K-12 grade and college. The education has a bit of a snowball effect. In elementary school, students must take standardized test so that the government can evaluate the schools and provide funding based off of that. Teachers then teach students how to take tests and teach to prepare for the test, and less to teach for the sake of learning. Same goes for high school; however, now students are placed under even more stress to succeed on these tests in order to prepare and get into college. By the time, students arrive at college, they have already arrived with mental health issues that arose throughout their elementary through high school years. An article in Newsweek by Katie Baker, explores how colleges are failing to support students who do struggle with mental illnesses. This article points out the fact that colleges have great disability services and accommodations for learning and physical disabilities but mental health disabilities are a whole different story. (http://www.newsweek.com...) Mental illnesses is such a wide spectrum, however, for brevity, I'd like to narrow it down to depression and anxiety. These two are the most common mental illnesses that seem to develop due to the amount of stress placed on students. Mental health to me is simply the well being of both the psychological and emotions of a person. When you say that there are homework clubs and other opportunities for homework help, how does that address and provide a solution for the amount of homework given? Groups such as the National Education Association and the National Parent Teacher Association suggest ten minutes of homework per day for each grade level is generally a good rule of thumb for elementary and middle school students. However, many students report to having 80 minutes of homework in elementary school and upward to 100 minutes of homework in middle school, exceeding the recommended amount. (http://www.k12.com...) I believe the lack of resources and proper education about mental health is further perpetrating the problem that there is a rise in mental health issues. To be more exact , according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, suicide is the second leading cause of death of 15-24 year olds and the third leading cause of death of people aged 10-24 in the United States. There are gym and health classes that help keep kids bodies in shape and healthy, but not classes to teach kids how to manage stress and encourage healthy and safe coping mechanisms. Without these skills and techniques kids are left feeling hopeless, helpless and stressed out. These are some of main symptoms of depression and anxiety. Would you please share your source from where you talk about adding multiple homework club and what considered other opportunities? What are your definitions of the American education system, mental health and mental illnesses? That way we can be on the same page?

What people do not understand is that standardized testing is a waste of time due to the fact that the information on these tests are not relevant to the school curriculum and do not help the students in their life beyond high school whatsoever. Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives. China displaced Finland at the top of the 2009 PISA rankings because, as explained by Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, "Chinese schools are very good at preparing their students for standardized tests. For that reason, they fail to prepare them for higher education and the knowledge economy."China is trying to depart from the "drill and kill" test prep that Chinese educators admit has produced only "competent mediocrity"" (1). Not only are these tests incompetent, they also create extra and unwanted stress on these children. Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students. According to education researcher Gregory J. Cizek, anecdotes abound "illustrating how testing... produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both." On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that "test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it" (2) Students do not need these tests, the stress that comes along with it, nor do they benefit the students in the least. Overall, standardized testing is not important to a students learning curriculum and should be taken away.

i see from your profile that you have joined only one day ago. this coupled with your lack of argument leads me to believe you are making this debate solely for the sake of meeting the minimum debate requirement of 3 debates. i am also new and wish to achieve this. although i was hoping to actually achieve this via actually debate to help me get a feel for the site. Il make a brief and poor argument anyway. for the sake of it. Exams pigeon hole students and blah blah yea nah. im done. It's a shame this debate wasn't better. oh well

This is a school-related debate. First round is acceptance, second round is arguments, and third round is rebutals. Good luck.

1. The commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. Con asserts that "schools are meant to be schools," and cites the dearth of students playing sports professionally, undermining that scale of college athletics, in terms of both commitment from the players and revenue for the schools. An NCAA survey showed that athletes spent upward of 40 hours a week with their sport[1]. That's more than the time commitment necessary for college classes; that's the time commitment necessary for a full-time job. The work these students put into their sports reaps billions for their schools: the University of Texas produced $165,691,489 in revenue from athletics[2]. Certainly schools ought to be schools, but these numbers make it clear that they are doing more than just educating. 2. Unmotivated athletes take up valuable seats in classes they have no business being in. Con continues to perpetuate the myth of the successful student-athlete, claiming that "many people who play these in college still put school ahead of other things such as football and basketball." However, a CNN survey showed that football and basketball players at the University of Georgia averaged an ACT score 18.75, a whole 33% lower than the rest of the student body [3]. The title of that CNN article, "Some athletes play like adults, read like fifth-graders," accurately captures the problems with forcing athletes to learn when they're only interested in playing football. An college degree for one of these athletes might be giving them the chance for a successful future, but its giving that chance to the wrong person. There are people who would do anything to be in a college classroom, who have put in the work in high school, and just don't have the money. These are the people who deserve a degree, not the better football player. Furthermore, making college sports a degree doesn't prevent a student from minoring in something else and getting something useful from college. 3. A degree in a sport would allow athletes to truly become students of the game, and more easily get to the next level. Lastly, making competitive college sports degrees would allow athletes to do what they love safely and with less injury. The 40 hour work week wouldn't be in addition to classes, and this would allow for better rested athletes and a better product on the field. Sources: [1] CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com...) [2] USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com...) [3] CNN (http://www.cnn.com...)

===Acceptance=== I accept this challenge. Note that the argument was clarified in comments 1 and 2 to this more formal version: 1. Many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school. 2. In most cases, bullies are given no punishment whatsoever. 3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be 1) denied a free education, 2) sent to a reform school, and 3) be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Note that 1), 2), and 3) will all apply to all cases, not some combination of the three. ===Disclaimer=== Before I begin this debate, I would like to make a disclaimer that I do agree with the general premise of the debate. Bullying is a regrettable aspect of the public school system and society in general and should have consequences and penalties. However, I am not debating that bullying is bad - this would be a ludicrous argument; rather, I am debating the extreme level of retaliation that my opponent is proposing against bullying and the problems with implementing this in the public school system. ===Rebuttal=== Since my opponent is the instigator arguing an affirmative change to an existing policy, rather than a hypothetical debate, he has the burden of proof. Also, since my opponent's long introduction constitutes an argument, and the first round was not specified to be acceptance only, I will proceed directly to rebuttal. This will use the numbering system established in the formalized version of the argument. Rebuttal to Statement 1. My opponent's statement that many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school is unsubstantiated and uncited. I shall proceed to give two possible counterexamples. 1: An adult who happened to be bullied in high school could be scarred for life as a result of bullying in high school, among other factors, rather than solely due to bullying in high school. Furthermore, such an adult could have never learned to develop the proper emotional defensive skills, such as standing up to opposition and bullying, and thus be scarred due to further bullying in the workplace. Note that I am not arguing possible scenario as a main point, but simply presenting a possible counterexample. 2: Because the source is uncited, I will dispute it by default. However, it is a reasonable assumption, so if presented with a source or citation for this, I will agree with this point. Rebuttal to Statement 2. Again, my opponent's statement is uncited and unverifiable. A sample size for the amount of bullying happening in school is impossible to get from a relatively unbiased source, such as teachers or administration, and prone to exaggeration and hyperbole from a biased source, such as students. Obviously, one is less likely to be bullied in front of, say, the school principal or other administrator, than when no other adults are around, making it impossible to establish an accurate sample size. Conversely, a sample taken from the student body is prone to exaggeration for multiple reasons, such as varying definitions of "bullying", reticence or shame to admit to the interviewer, etc. Rebuttal to Statement 3. While my rebuttal to my opponent's statements 1 and 2 were mostly technicalities, the main issue I take issue with (and I presume the main issue of the debate) is statement 3. I will break the third part of my opponent's resolution down into the three components established in the formalization of the argument, namely: 3.1. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be denied a free education. 3.2. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be sent to a reform school. 3.3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Rebuttal to Statement 3.1. According to Section 26 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly res. 217A (III), 10 December 1948), "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free..." [1] While bullying should by no means be condoned in school, denying people who bully the right to a free education is not the answer. Education in high school and particularly college is not only a time of academic maturation, but also social maturation. Also, bullies tend to come from homes with immature parents prone to domestic violence. Aside from having to rewrite the entire Universal Declaration of Human rights, an argument could be made that by denying bullies free education, a perpetuating cycle would ensue, as bullies would be forced out of the school system, missing a major part of maturation, growing up to be immature adults more likely to have children ending up to be bullies, just to name one possible scenario. By denying all bullies the right to education without regard to the severity of their social crimes (note that no qualifier was made; "all students who go to school for the solve purpose of degrading their peers" indicates an absolutist argument), one may perpetuate the social cycle that promotes bullying. Rebuttal to Statement 3.2. By definition, reform schools are correctional institution for the detention and discipline and training of young or first offenders. Like in prison, reform schools commonly have rape problems, as evidenced by a nine-year investigation in Ireland's reform school systems. [4] By simply casting away bullies without regard to the severity of their victimizing tendencies, one may be condemning a child to an institution far out of proportion to their crimes. Though reform schools are necessary in some case, a delimeter or qualifying process would need to be institutionalized in order to determine who to send to a reform school. Rebuttal to Statement 3.3. Many states and countries have drastically different bullying laws, as evidenced by the plethora of new anti-bullying laws constantly being instated, some quite harsh. By prosecuting ALL bullies to the fullest extent possible, one is ensuring a draconian system that does not take severity into account in penalties, similar to the scenario in the rebuttal to my opponent's statement 3.2. Furthermore, in the United States, if a student physically bullies another person, he/she can be charged with assault and battery [5] and tried as an adult if at or over 18 years of age. Due to the nature of bullying, (see Rebuttal to Statement 2) the vast majority of prosecuted statements could conceivably turn into a he-said-she-said situation, as bullying is much less likely to happen in front of authorities or a group of unbiased individuals. Since the fullest extent of, say, assault and battery can mean multiple years in prison if convicted, prosecuting all offenders to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of their crimes, is an unnecessarily severe punishment more subject to abuse than proper implementation. ===References=== [1] http://www.hrea.org...; [2] http://www.education.com...; [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; [5] http://boston.cbslocal.com...;

I'm sorry to see my opponent forfeit his third round argument, so I'll leave you with this thought... Is it really necessary to change the current curriculum, hire new staff and create vast numbers of new study material, all of which will be paid for by taxpayers, when all the information and financial help students may need is so readily available online. Students can easily find it as and when they require it. Thank you.

Thank You for this debate, I disagree with your statement. Just because 1 student doesn't show the interest in learning it does not mean it effects the entire classroom. Teachers usually will have accommodations for those who are excelling in class, and for those who are struggling. I also would like the brief that Private schools charge parents heavily on tutiton . Most parents are hit with numerous fees that only a high class family can afford. Why? because private schools must generate their own funding, which typically comes from a variety of sources: tuition; private grants; and fundraising from parents, alumni, and other community members. Most public schools have programs these days like International Baccalaureate, which are designed for academically gifted schools. So parents don't have to send their kids to Private schools, because public schools already offer many different programs.


Question: Should there be a Simplified Process for Discharging Student Debt in Bankruptcy?

Education isn't the only path to wealth and success.

In response to your points, I noticed you've used some logical fallacies (misrepresentation, straw man, hasty generalization) in your arguments, which might sway less critical readers but won't work on me. Let's focus on your objections to my claims.

You questioned the suicide of graduates due to debt, suggesting it's an extreme scenario. However, it's a fact that some graduates, overwhelmed by debt, have taken their lives. I didn't cite sources because the information is widely available, but here are a few examples:

- Jason Yoder, a chemistry graduate from Illinois State University, with $100,000 in debt, committed suicide. His mother was still contacted by debt collectors about his loans.
- Toby Thorn from England, with "8,000 in debt, took his life.
- Roswell Friend, a Temple University student, also committed suicide due to defaulting on her student loan.
- In 2008, Claire Ashing, a science graduate, killed herself over a "40,000 debt.
- Marc Wadjas, a mechanical engineering student, couldn't afford food and took his life.
- Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a computer student, ended his life after his bank demanded payment for his "1,000 overdraft.
- Lisa Taylor, 26, felt she couldn't repay her "14,000 debt and took her own life, blaming her depression on debt.

(Source: www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/23/student-suicide-depression-debt-recession)

Cryn Johannsen from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project discusses the link between suicide and student debt, noting it's under-reported despite media attention on student loans.

According to the World Health Organization, suicide claims over one million lives annually, often linked to student loan debt. Many seeking counseling cite private student loan debt as a major reason for suicidal thoughts.

(Source: EzineArticles.com)

A suicidal student in America planned to set himself on fire on the Capitol steps to draw attention to the student debt crisis.

(Source: HuffingtonPost.com)

Student loans have high interest rates, and if not paid on time, penalties are added, making the debt grow exponentially. Defaulting on a student loan can lead to staggering balances, with interest compounding on interest. John Koch, 47, originally borrowed $69,000 in

The affirmative forfeiture and advocacy should have them dropped.

The only reason that those people who went to school became successful is because of the way our system is made. If money was given equally, everything would change. And I would like to remind you that I am debating to the fact that SCHOOL should be abolished. When that happens, people will educate themselves there own way and most of the people will be happy and poverty will decrease. Of course, this sounds crazy to a capitalist like you, because all you care about is money and yourself.

Alright. The grammar is getting worse and worse, so I'll do my best. This third round for the Pro is grounds to give me S&G points. Looking toward the arguments. My opponent says that people are more likely to fail when getting forced to take classes, but this argument is non-unique because it happens in universities today when students are allowed to chose their classes. Furthering allowing this in the Pro world means that more students, not less are likely to fail. Therefore, vote Con. Simply saying that one should follow their dreams isn't an argument and can also be disregarded in the debate. The Pro has no offense in the debate and my points are untested. THEREFORE, VOTE CON. Thank you.

Wow, great argument! So what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Please do address my argument and counteract it with contrary info to the moot claim. Also, don't just throw evidence out of nowhere. Back it up with what it has to do to relate with why colleges should be free. Thanks Pro. I await to hear from you.

yes they should. The schools should find each persons strengths, and then put them on in full pursuit of a career that they would be skilled at and would enjoy. Like for example, a kid that would be a very skilled engineer and that is intersted in math in science would drop social studies/humanities and Language Arts classes completely and do Math and Science and engineering classes full time.

It is an exact statistic, and I don't see you making any arguements besides "they get paid in education" and saying I should be disqualified; take it easy. You're right, there's a reason they call them student athletes and not the other way around but what's the difference from any other student getting extra compensation from their school? There are countless jobs for students where the college pays their salary. Athletes are providing a service to their school where the school benefits financially so therefore they should be paid, end of story. Athletics for most of these students is a full time job and they are already put at a disadvantage from everyone else by giving up their time for their school. You can say they get paid in scholarships and education all you want but the fact is only a small percentage of student athletes receive athletic scholarships. Colleges are exploiting their athletic programs for financial gains and in the end, the ones benefiting aren't the ones doing all the work.

By "forced" I mean that it becomes a graduation requirement. I do mean this in response to the financial crisis, which would possibly be over by the time of implementation. However, if you look at American history, the American people have a cycle of making the same mistakes over and over again. They keep running into issues with credit. If you begin teaching each generation to not make these mistakes, perhaps the cycle will be cut off. These would be a classes to teach students how to make budgets, and wise financial decisions. Would it not be more useful to teach students these skills instead of something they will never use ever again, such as British literature or for some students advanced math?

Balancing the budget by raising taxes is like curing the disease by killing the patient. There is actually a much simpler solution to this problem; repudiation. While to renege on a debt which is owed privately is in fact tantamount to theft, this is not the case with public debt. After all, the primary revenue stream for the state is taxation. Taxes are collected under penalty of incarceration. Since it is a violent act to take a man against his will and lock him up in a prison, it is only through the use of coercion that the public debt will be repaid and it is wrong to raise money through threat of violence. We all condemn the mugger for threatening to beat someone up if they do not hand over their wallet but if we are to be consistent in our moral principles then we must also condemn the government for using this same business model. Raising taxes will only funnel more money into endless war, government bureaucracy and interest groups. The responsible thing to do is to cut taxes and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned. This would create political pressure on politicians to cut spending and without such confiscatory tax rates the economy would have more room to grow.

young people struggle for jobs. It is ridiculous for people to be paying money for education when they need money for rent, food, and daily needs. Also, some people need to sacrifice one of them... job or schooling? Of course schooling. This is one reason they couldn't achieve their dreams, like opening shops, being a singer or so on, because of the lack of money. Generally, many youngsters want good universities. Free unis might not be the dream school or fulfill their needs. So I believe this motion shall stand. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201486