Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

The use of corporal punishment in schools should be prohibited.
An article on ABC News highlights the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in educational settings (http://abcnews.go.com...). Ultimately, corporal punishment should be outlawed as it has been shown to be ineffective and can even decrease students' IQs. It is imperative that alternative disciplinary methods be investigated and implemented. Best of luck in your endeavors.

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

I would first like to apologize for, as my opponent pointed out, for not giving proper citing. DebateStatistics.org is a valid organization, and I will be citing just three of the sources they used. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, "Workplace Bullying: What Everyone Needs to Know" [online] Workplace Bullying Institute [online] The New York Times, Business, "Backlash: Women Bullying Women at Work" [online] --- Although this is the final round of the debate, I feel my opponent could only drop their argument entirely in the face of these sources -- unless they would like to argue that the New York Times, Workplace Bullying Institute, and Washing State Department of Labor and Industries are ill-reputable sources run by people 'possibly under 18'. My opponent has also said that they agree with my argument on bullying, so it flows to my side. Saying that physical bullying doesn't exist outside of school is highly illogical. I will only briefly mention that domestic abuse and assault are things that exist, feeling confident that I don't have to source their existences. This means that two of three major points presented in my opponent's final argument have just been obliterated, and now completely flow to my side. To wrap things up, I will attempt to shoot down their only remaining point in this debate, stating that places like neighborhoods and social media are substitutes to making friends and interacting. While friends can be made and found through these methods, it is never guaranteed that you will. In a traditional public school, you are guaranteed to be going there with people of your same age, and it's almost assured that at least a handful of them share the same interests as you. This is why I believe the bulk of this argument flows to my side. For all of these reasons throughout the debate, as well as the fact that my major point about parents having to take on the role of teaching, I believe that I have successfully beaten my opponent, won this debate, and so I strongly urge a Con/Neg voter turnout.

Why should students be subject to being treated like children when we go out to the real world hugging, kissing, holding hands, and sex. We should not be denied of what is going to happen anyways.

I completely disagree. Everyone has the right to feel safe and be free from abuse. Abuse is not a right.

"Character is, by its very nature, the product of discipline". These are the words of Austin Phelps an American Congregational Minister and an educator. Growing indiscipline is a major problem among children in the world today. Many research articles show that one of the most devastating effects of indiscipline is a decline in moral, social and cultural values in children. Discipline can possibly be defined as the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not. According to Thomas Huxley discipline is the first lesson to be learned, and it is probably the last lesson a person learns thoroughly. "We sow an act, we reap a habit; we sow a habit, we reap a character." I believe that this is a direct result of discipline. Correct habits depend largely on self-discipline. However a failure to be disciplined or our undisciplined lifestyle results in the sprouting of weeds which choke the plants of virtue. True success is not measured by the amount of money that one has stocked up or by a great accomplishment; rather success is the crown possessed by those who earnestly do their best and live the everyday simple life by practicing all the virtues that it involves. A successful person is one who is honest in his transactions, who rings true in friendships and who is ever living to his moral ethics and values. Living an undisciplined lifestyle makes us vulnerable to undesirable moral qualities such as laziness, indulgence, self-centeredness, greed, unpunctuality and so on. Research has shown than people stop changing their outlook and mind-sets after the age of about 25 and the adolescent period is the period in which our ideologies take a firm shape. These ideologies are defined by our discipline. So, if we are undisciplined now, then we will follow in the paths of undesirable virtues. Indiscipline is a major cause of violence in schools and classrooms. The ideals of forgiveness and brotherhood have disappeared and have been replaced with revenge. Students no longer want everyone to succeed. They either want a win-lose situation or a lose-lose situation. They are even fine with the fact that it is okay to lose as long as my opponent is in the situation. A win-lose situation results in resentment, and both parties are not happy. This arises from the virtue of self-centeredness and even jealousy. An undisciplined lifestyle leads to the adoption of a very dangerous virtue. Once we inculcate it we become caught in a spider"s web and the habit will stick to us and will lead to desolation in our lives. This deadly habit is procrastination. It involves unpunctuality and laziness. Hence, I rest my case.

===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...;

This is only accepting round. This topic is about that bad words should be allowed in schools such as f--k or b---h. THIS ROUND IS ONLY ACCEPTING!!!Note:I am con and you are proCon=Against (Bad words should not be allowed in school)Pro=For (Bad words should be allowed in school)

We will stick for the argument of public schools as you wish, and I prefer it as well. I am actually glad you started this debate for public consumption as I see a lot of people form the opinion that you have without thinking it thru. I disagree with it for a number of reasons and the stance you take. I will first go over your statements and its flaws in round 1 (save a single statement that has some merit) and in round 2, unless you have a legitimate offer of proof for your statement, I will then present mine as you have said a lot. Hopefully we will all get something out of it. R1-1a – “First off, let’s look at evolution; ‘As per Edwards’s v Aguillard, Creationism teaching creationism is illegal and not allowed in public schools in the United States. If it is, it should be reported. This is an argument from exception and anecdotal. This is not proof or evidence it should not be forced. . http://en.wikipedia.org... R1-2 – ‘Freedom. . . “This entire paragraph is all over the map. Not only that, your arguments by comparison are not valid or show proof of your argument “that religion should not be forced or taught. ” You present two impossible tenants to follow, 1) to express your religion freely and 2) religious free zone. This implies that I can be turn on and off my beliefs dependent upon a state rule or a location. Does a pro life individual become pro choice or stop being pro life when they enter say a hospital or voting booth or clinic. They both cannot be true, either you limit my religion in public sphere, or allow it to be present it in school. Again this is not proof and raises a point that validates neither your side of the debate or mine. . . . As for your begging the question about a defenseless woman because she is in a hajib - I calling her faith morally bankrupt and based on ignorance is not a restriction of free speech. That is free speech. Me duck taping her mouth through legal means or not giving her the same ability to speech is a restriction of free speech. Your assumption of free speech is one sided, ALL OF WHICH has nothing to do with the debate on hand. As for your question of a stressful situation. Math is stressful, Shakespeare is stressful, the holocaust is stressful and so honestly is presenting atheism to religious individuals whose whole world view would be destroyed. Comfort level is not a legitimate basis to avoid a subject. Also so you don’t straw man this point and mistake what I am saying, I would not advocate algebra in kinder garden or a presupisitional argument for anyone without the being able to understand logic, as they are beyond the capabilities of what a child at that stage could understand. Either way it’s not an argument for your BOP, or at least a weak one depending upon where you stand on an issue. This is argument based on special privilage. Your 2nd last assumption that there are no atheistic schools, I refute completely. All public schools at least up to high school, are essentially atheist, they are not allowed by law to convert or actively promote one religion over another. Nor are they allowed to convert or preach. If they do they are in violation of the law. This is not an argument that Religions should not be forced upon students; it’s just restating what the current state is. As for Alternate schools, within 30 minutes of me there are a number of Jewish Schools, Muslim Schools. I am in Canada. You present an argument of ignorance, just because you do not see it or have heard it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or can be shown to be true. . . 1) . http://cjetoronto.com... 2) . http://dailymuslims.com... Even if they did not have Catholic, Jewish or Muslim schools, none of this is an argument as to why religion should not be forced. . . I have refuted all your opinions but this one below . . . “So, as my first argument, I do heavily disagree that schools should say that Christianity is the only faith, also, I disagree with schools using the bible as a teaching method. ” This is the only objection that I have not refuted as its a statement of oppinion that supports my possition, not yours. I will address it but in round 2 as response is limited.

Your first debate, let the mayhem begin! Just kidding, I am no better at this than you are most likely. Don't let my win ratio fool you. A couple of weeks ago I was 0-27 now as of this posting I am 24-3-1 I am a controversial personality and people mess with my voting record, it is a completely unreliable indicator of my debating skills or is it HMMM. Anywaaaay. Let me start by saying your entire opening argument infers that all forms of public humiliation must include bodily harm. I specifically stated that if you needed examples to make your case I would provide them. Public humiliation that does not cause bodily harm is not against the law. "Do not confuse slander with public humiliation" Exhibit (A) All the major tabloids and news outlets publicly humiliate people everyday. They can say what ever they want about anybody without impunity. You can not sue anybody for publicly humiliating you. I can walk up to you in a crowd of people and make fun of you and make rude comments about you and there is nothing you can do about it. Public humiliation is in fact being used in several places around the country right now with very good results. Tents for jail cells in the Arizona desert: http://www.cnn.com... The recidivism rate for the inmates that go through the sheriffs rehabilitation program is 14% verses 60% on the national average. You will note that every single human rights and civil rights group in the country has been unsuccessful at closing it down. So this is proof that public humiliation and harsh living environments are not inhumane as long as they don't cause bodily injury. This judge in Texas makes people where signs, again not unconstitutional with better recidivism rate than national average. http://articles.latimes.com... Only 3 out of 600 people have repeated offenses. "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." This link explains the vicious cycle that 4 out of every ten people get caught up in starting out as misdemeanor offence in most cases and end up convicted felons because they can't pay the fees associated with it. It is cruel and unusual punishment to condemn people to a life of crime over a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars. http://www.thenation.com... "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?" The above comment is also addressed in the last link. The legal justice system today is pretty much a business or a corporation theses days. Entire sub businesses are propped up by the legal system. For example: DUI schools, Anger Management Schools, Financial planning schools, Driving schools, they have a school or a class or some sort of councilor for just about anything you can think of. And you have to attend these classes for weeks if not months and the cost of all these things add up: Fines, probation, schools, counseling. The vast majority of the people who have to attend and pay for these things are often indigent to begin with and wind up violating their probation because they can't pay all these fines and fees. Next thing they know they are convicted felons for VOP violations and are given more fines and ordered to more classes and more counseling on top of what they already can't pay for. The vicious cycle begins and a once misdemeanor offence ends up as a felony and the person just gives up and lives it up or runs from the law until the next time they get caught because they now have nothing to lose. "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" This comment is addressed by the fact that people who get caught up in the legal system are unable to find employment because they have warrants and such that prohibit any kind of permanent gainful employment forcing them to engage in illegal means to earn or steel money. Public humiliation is a much better option. People 9 times out of ten will choose to pay a fine or go to jail over being publicly humiliated. People choose to pay because public humiliation is just that "public humiliation" I have given numerous examples and statistics to prove that public humiliation of the types presented in my argument are far more effective at detouring repeat offenses than probation or counseling or schools. All these people caught up in the justice system should be publicly humiliated for their original offence and have all the fines and schools and on and on dropped so the person can get back to living. Public humiliation would reduce crime especially if it is used on first time offenders in particular as it will have a lasting and unforgettable deterrence effect.

Topic: The institution of uniforms should be allowed in private schools. My side: Pro There's a reason why there are private schools. All public schools have to comply to the general rules and standards that their respective district imposes upon them and for a significant number of those rules apply to all the public schools in the nation as a whole. Private schools exist because of a large group of individuals do not concur with how the education system is organized and structured. There are certain rules and regulations that the founders of private schools regard as unnecessary or even wrong. Not all private schools require uniforms, but those that do, find the clothing that some children and young adults wear is inappropriate for a learning environment. In order to effectively accomplish what schools are built for, which is to learn and gain new knowledge, these private schools find that enforcing a dress code improves the focus and classroom behavior in a learning environment. You argue that enforcing this policy restricts the youth in creativity. Clothing are often popularized and worn in fashion trends that occur locally and nationally. Many people in the world dress in a certain way in order to fit in a particular group of people, not to be an individual. Rarely do people dress to practice and challenge their creativity and appear in an original fashion. Even if uniforms do restrict creativity in some way, creativity is certainly not restricted to fashion. There are unlimited possibilities for people to be creative other than how they dress. They could write prose, draw art, devise a project, research on a topic and discover new information, and so on.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Settings?

Should physical punishment be allowed in educational institutions?

Physical punishment, often known as corporal punishment, involves the use of physical force to discipline students. This can include activities such as beating, caning, thrashing, or whipping. It is a widespread practice in schools, with numerous reports of such incidents appearing in the media. This type of punishment has the potential to cause long-lasting physical harm to a student, as well as psychological trauma, potentially affecting their mental health. The use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool dates back to medieval times and is considered outdated. Teachers should demonstrate patience with their students, offering guidance and support in various aspects of life.

The term 'corporal punishment' is synonymous with 'physical punishment', which can have adverse effects on a student's body. It is a form of physical torture that should be condemned and immediately halted. Such punishment can lead to physical impairments that may last a lifetime. Psychologists suggest that it can also have long-lasting mental effects on students. In India, corporal punishment has become a prevalent issue in schools, with instances of physical abuse being reported in the press. For example, a class XII student from a well-known school in Udaipur and a student from a Delhi Municipality Corporation School lost their lives due to severe beatings by their teachers. Another case involved a class XI student in Ahmedabad who claimed that a teacher hit him so hard that he temporarily lost his hearing.

To address this issue, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has proposed a code of conduct for teachers in schools that includes a complete ban on corporal punishment. Currently, only six Indian states have outlawed the use of the cane in schools. However, milder forms of punishment often go unnoticed, and there is evidence that teachers, even in elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate young children as young as five years old. Unfortunately, there is no national law that specifically prohibits cruel or unusual punishment in schools.

Discipline is essential for students in schools and colleges, but enforcing it through corporal punishment is inhumane and unacceptable. This form of discipline was prevalent during the medieval period and is outdated. Teachers should understand that students at the school level are at a vulnerable age and can develop a fear of teachers or even school if subjected to physical torture. A teacher should be a role model for their students, demonstrating patience and guiding them in academics, sports, music, and other extracurricular activities. A student should feel free to ask questions and clarify doubts with their teachers

Your first debate, let the mayhem begin! Just kidding, I am no better at this than you are most likely. Don't let my win ratio fool you. A couple of weeks ago I was 0-27 now as of this posting I am 24-3-1 I am a controversial personality and people mess with my voting record, it is a completely unreliable indicator of my debating skills or is it HMMM. Anywaaaay. Let me start by saying your entire opening argument infers that all forms of public humiliation must include bodily harm. I specifically stated that if you needed examples to make your case I would provide them. Public humiliation that does not cause bodily harm is not against the law. "Do not confuse slander with public humiliation" Exhibit (A) All the major tabloids and news outlets publicly humiliate people everyday. They can say what ever they want about anybody without impunity. You can not sue anybody for publicly humiliating you. I can walk up to you in a crowd of people and make fun of you and make rude comments about you and there is nothing you can do about it. Public humiliation is in fact being used in several places around the country right now with very good results. Tents for jail cells in the Arizona desert: http://www.cnn.com... The recidivism rate for the inmates that go through the sheriffs rehabilitation program is 14% verses 60% on the national average. You will note that every single human rights and civil rights group in the country has been unsuccessful at closing it down. So this is proof that public humiliation and harsh living environments are not inhumane as long as they don't cause bodily injury. This judge in Texas makes people where signs, again not unconstitutional with better recidivism rate than national average. http://articles.latimes.com... Only 3 out of 600 people have repeated offenses. "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." This link explains the vicious cycle that 4 out of every ten people get caught up in starting out as misdemeanor offence in most cases and end up convicted felons because they can't pay the fees associated with it. It is cruel and unusual punishment to condemn people to a life of crime over a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars. http://www.thenation.com... "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?" The above comment is also addressed in the last link. The legal justice system today is pretty much a business or a corporation theses days. Entire sub businesses are propped up by the legal system. For example: DUI schools, Anger Management Schools, Financial planning schools, Driving schools, they have a school or a class or some sort of councilor for just about anything you can think of. And you have to attend these classes for weeks if not months and the cost of all these things add up: Fines, probation, schools, counseling. The vast majority of the people who have to attend and pay for these things are often indigent to begin with and wind up violating their probation because they can't pay all these fines and fees. Next thing they know they are convicted felons for VOP violations and are given more fines and ordered to more classes and more counseling on top of what they already can't pay for. The vicious cycle begins and a once misdemeanor offence ends up as a felony and the person just gives up and lives it up or runs from the law until the next time they get caught because they now have nothing to lose. "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" This comment is addressed by the fact that people who get caught up in the legal system are unable to find employment because they have warrants and such that prohibit any kind of permanent gainful employment forcing them to engage in illegal means to earn or steel money. Public humiliation is a much better option. People 9 times out of ten will choose to pay a fine or go to jail over being publicly humiliated. People choose to pay because public humiliation is just that "public humiliation" I have given numerous examples and statistics to prove that public humiliation of the types presented in my argument are far more effective at detouring repeat offenses than probation or counseling or schools. All these people caught up in the justice system should be publicly humiliated for their original offence and have all the fines and schools and on and on dropped so the person can get back to living. Public humiliation would reduce crime especially if it is used on first time offenders in particular as it will have a lasting and unforgettable deterrence effect.

I believe that you should've proven your point and backed it up with your beliefs in why you think that spelling bees should no longer be allowed. None the less, I will present my argument in an arbitrary fashion on account of me not knowing why you do not favor spelling bees. Spelling bees are not graded, they're simply tests of your ability to spell complex (apparent to your grade level) words. These 'bees' are done to see where students are in their ability to interpret and spell words. Not just their ability to phonetically pronounce and henceforth spell the word, but to apply this knowledge in a fluent fashion to a paper, project, etc. I do agree, in some aspects, that a spelling bee should be an optional program hosted by a school for a school for students to see their own position when it comes to their ability to spell, but I do not think that spelling bees should be outlawed all together.

Well, I thank you for your astounding knowledge of the English language, yet ill try my best to keep up. In your First point I would like to point out that you said "spanking and other violent methods would fail as well" yet spanking is not a violent method, spanking is a way to teach a child. as for all your arguments, NO other punishment is proved to work, where a spanking has been proven to work. Sorry for the short passage, but work has been kicking me in the butt. So as another argument on my part, spanking a child may have a small percent change in the mental health where grounding them may teach them they can get off easy in the real world.

First, of we need to think about if the parent would approve of such behavior by the staff of the school. What if the parent really doesn't approve of the parent disciplining their child and the parent doesn't discipline their child at home most likely. I think it would be very reasonable for a warning, another warning, and then they should leave to go to the discipline office. I am wondering what my opponent thinks about the whole problem and what would they do about the situation.

It seems as though this round is for opening only, so I will wait until next round to bring forth any rebuttals. I will attempt to show you that children and adults have different psychological responses to their environment, and should be treated accordingly in the court of law. Furthermore, the child’s brain has not yet developed to fully understand the implications and consequences of their actions. Development of the brainThe brain is the sole cause of our behaviors. Every thought and feeling we have comes from our brain. A brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25, and children’s brains develop unevenly. Generally in adolescents, the Cerebellum, Amygdala, and Nucleus Acumbens are very active. These centers control our physical coordination, emotions and motivation, respectively. The Prefrontal cortex is the very last part of our brain to develop, and this is what controls our reasoning and judgment of impulses. [1] It is not fair to judge a child with the same standards as adults when their brains are not mature enough to reason before they act. Consequences of impulsive actions made by children should therefore be held with more leisure than the actions of adults. Environmental effects on the brainThe brain is molded by environmental triggers. Neurons that send messages back and forth will strengthen in areas of focus, and will dissipate in areas that are unused. A developing brain has sensitive periods, where any actions or consequences can greatly effect the development process. What this means is that feedback from our environment can help or hinder a brains growth. [2]A young child spends nearly all of their time around family; and this is when their brain is most sensitive. A young brain is one that has plasticity, meaning the ability to change with the environment depending on expected stimuli. This means that the parents are largely responsible for the child’s behavior. An adult’s brain, however, looses plasticity and is more set in its patterns. Because a child’s behavior is largely dependent upon the parent’s responses, the child cannot be fully responsible for their actions. It is not until the child’s brain has matured enough to reason on it’s own that the parents no longer mold the brain, and are therefore no longer responsible for the child. Say a child was raised in an abusive family, where the parents used physical violence on a daily basis. The child’s synopses will be strengthened in areas where violent, physical behaviors are needed. So the child goes on to emulate these actions that he sees. He cannot yet reason that these behaviors are inappropriate; even if he is told by others that they are. His brain is not yet developed to reason before acting. Once the brain develops, the person will be able to reason about his actions. Now he is responsible for them, and should be held fully responsible in the court of law. Special Punishment for Developing BrainsJuvenile court emphasizes therapy and rehabilitation, like my opponent said. This is important and a pivotal factor in the interest of the young criminal, and society at large. Because the brain is still growing and molding, supportive counseling can guide the brain growth into one that makes them a more competent adult. Sticking a child in a cell will do nothing but damage the brain further, making the child more likely to continue his crime in adulthood. A strict lifestyle, focusing on learning, counseling, and routine, can help the child in insurmountable ways. The shaping of or youth is an important step in the process. You cannot pluck a sour apple from a dying tree and expect it to taste good, but you can water that dying tree and make it’s next bunch of apples turn sweet. ConclusionJust like every case is different, every person is different. One should be judged by the circumstances surrounding their crime. A child's circumstances are not always a result of poor judgment; they are a result of a poor environment and lack of judgement activity in the brain. Therefore, appropriate punishments that strive to shape the child for future decisions is the method that is most beneficial, not only for the child, but for society.1. . http://teenbrain.drugfree.org...2. . http://www.ipce.info...

Anxiety in adults is bad for our society as a lot of resources and billions of dollars are used to fix anxiety and depression in the adult population. Here is where exercise in school comes in: I think it is time to deal with the source of anxiety which is the fact that children sit down too much in school and mainly uses the brain to workout problems. This way of living will inevitably cause stress due to TOO much thinking, and a way to fix this would be to have the children to do more physical exercise in other words using the body instead of the brain to workout problems. I totally think it would be worth "sacrificing" a bit of head-knowledge in order to restore the well-being of our lives. This could be done by replacing many subjects in school with physical exercise. And if we do so I"m convinced that the sacrificed knowledge of the younger population will be gained if not increased, after a few years with the new healthy minds. This will prevent billions of dollars being used on medicine and other treatments for multiple illnesses each year.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent, in hopes for a respectful debate. Let me start by asking the following question: who is considered a child? Most would define a child, simply, as a "young person," who is not equipped to deal with life's struggles independently. Legally speaking, however, the definition is a little more specific; something along the lines of "a person under the age of legal competence" (thefreedictionary.com). With that, a child reaches such a point of legal competency at age 18, at least in the United States. Thereafter, this person develops, grows, learns, and - in good hopes - thrives on there own, without their parents hovering over his shoulders. I then raise the following question: if a child does not learn self accountability before he/she turns 18, will there ever be a point at which he/she does learn genuine self accountability? Is it fair that the parent(s) of a child who is 17 years and 364 days old faces harsher consequences than the parents of an eighteen year old, based on the actions of their children? In principle, both the 17-year-and-364-day-old and the 18-year-old are psychologically competent; if one can make logical decisions in school, than so can the other. Furthermore, in proposing a system in which "parents should be held accountable for their children in school," one is presuming functional, nuclear families, that are no longer typical in the evolving world of family structures. Many minors attend public schools without having traditional parents; they are raised by older brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and friends who would not consider themselves the "parents" of that child. What would happen in such instances? Would the child receive the brunt of the punishment, unlike his friends whose parents take the beating for them? Similarly, would a single mother who works full-time be expected to contribute as much to booster clubs and parent organizations as a married mother who stays at home? You see, forcing parents to take full accountability full accountability for their children in school is not only unrealistic, but is counter-effective and unfair to struggling families. Those who propose a system by which parents maintain complete responsibility over children not only fail to recognize variants in family structures, but also negatively reduce the expectations of minors regarding education.

Premise 1: Sports can hurt you [1].Premise 2: Pain inhibits learning [2].Conclusion: Sports can decrease your ability to learn, therefore, they should not be compulsory. Sources: [1] http://kidshealth.org... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Let's start off by defining some terms Bullying- According to {stopbullying.gov} , bullying is "unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. Allow- a. to admit as legal or acceptable; b. to give the necessary time or opportunity for So, this resolution, in other words, is to prove that aggressive action should be deemed acceptable. I will dissect my arguments into a few points. -Perspective- Bullying, in the eyes of the victim, is the actions against them personally, that can make them fell unwanted or unaccepted. This can lead to feelings of depression. [http://www.stopbullying.gov...] Bullying, in the eyes of the bully, is teasing or more serious annoying. To them, the victim is not affected, as most of the venting is done at home through crying from the victim. So, perhaps to the bully, things seem okay, and no one seems to be affected by the almost one-sided aggression. From a different perspective, bullying can seems like a totally different relationship. {P1} Builds character Personal Anecdote- Since I am a guy, I have seen 'bullying' more than girls probably have. Since boys playfully tease one another, we all know not to take it seriously. So, here's a series of events: (Verbal Bullying) Event 1: Bullying by peers When I was bullied in third grade, I never seemed to take it seriously. Fourth and fifth grade, the terms "gay" used a derogatory insult was thrown around like it was a competition. Event 2: Acceptance When these terms were tossed around, rather than feel offended, I just laughed. Perhaps some people were genuinely mean, but their words couldn't hurt me. Event 3: Resilience As the amount of insults increased, so did my age and my character. As a guy, I became accustomed to constant insults and belittling comments. Event 4: Progession and Growing Now that I am much older, I am much more thick-skinned. No barrage of comments can affect me, and I have, in effect, become impermeable to whatever people say to me. I have heard so many insults, but they no longer affect me because I am confident in myself, and know that others insult me because they are insecure of themselves. {Side-note to Con- Show confidence when you face your bullies. Let them know that what they say doesn't hurt you anymore. You are a strong, young person, and nothing they say affects you, because we all know how good of a person you are.} (That should not be counted as part of the debate.) {P2} Experience, Lesson Now that you understand my back-story, you know that I have experience. Since I faced comments and actions against me, I will not be shocked by them in the future. When others around me are rude, like classmates and co-workers, I will have experience how to deal with them. How would I deal with them? In a similar way my younger self dealt with his assailants. I will simply laugh and show that what they say does not affect me, because it doesn't. I am confident in myself and my abilities, and nothing they say can take that from me. Also, who are they to judge? They have their own flaws and faults, but by being the better person, I will not exploit those and reveal them to the world. {Side-note to Con- Since you have experienced bullying for a while, you have experience. Show those around you that you don't care what they say. By the way you told that story, I know you are a smart person, so don't let those who are dumb around you stop you from achieving your dreams. Stay strong!} {P3} Future You are/were a young kid when you got bullied, as was I. However, we must leave the past behind, and look ahead for the future. If children handled 'bullying' the way I did, which included verbal, mental, and sometimes physical aggression, they would become a stronger individual afterwards. Now, in the future of my bullying past, I can stand strong and poised, confident in myself, with the knowledge that what they say is untrue, and they are simply jealous of my better qualities, or insecure in their own. Now that I am older, the comments get worse, but my reaction does not change. I do not react. I am not weak, I am strong. I am not stupid, I am smart. I am not small, I am bigger than them. I am not worthless, I will make a difference in this world. It is not a crime to be different, I am unique. "They laugh at me because I am different, I laugh at them because they are all the same." {If you face bullying, that's what you should think. Be strong, Be confident!} In conclusion, bullying, whether physical, mental, emotional, or verbal, should be allowed. It gives kids experience and the opportunity to build self confidence. It teaches them to stand up for themselves, and trains their body and mind not to react to any actions against them. It gives them experience and strength to handle aggression when they're older, and more independent. I, like other victims, having endured bullying, can now stand poised, confident that nothing they say will affect them, and that no one can hurt them, now matter how hard they hit. We will stand strong and tall, without a fear in our minds. {Remember Con- Nothing they can say will hurt you. You are beautiful and smart, they are simply just jealous. Stay strong!} Thank you. http://www.stopbullying.gov... http://www.stopbullying.gov... https://www.google.com...

I believe schools should be stricter because kids nowadays have no manners at all. I recently went to my younger brothers elementary school and heard kids running down the hall way, cussing at each other. My brother has also been in situations when he went to the restroom, and when he came back to the class, his belongings were stolen from his desk. My other brother has been getting bullied numerously with others just laughing at him, to the point where he has to take online school. He has told us about a kid getting in 5 fights already, and he still hasn't been expelled. I've also heard of instances where kids have stolen things from the book fair, rapes, fights, and heavy bullying.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

Should corporal punishment be permitted in educational institutions?

The use of corporal punishment by educators to modify student behavior is a controversial practice. When children are subjected to physical punishment, they often experience anger and depression, leading them to believe they are bad or worthless. Excessive corporal punishment can result in increased aggression and violence in children towards their peers. Instead of punishment, teachers and parents should focus on reinforcing positive behavior by praising students for their good actions, which can motivate them to strive for excellence in their endeavors. For instance, if a student is tardy, the teacher should encourage them to arrive earlier in a kind manner. When students are instructed to do something, they may resist or ignore the request if the teacher resorts to physical punishment instead of communicating effectively. Some educators may resort to further physical punishment if the student does not comply. This can lead the student to want to leave the school, and if they are also experiencing physical punishment at home, they may even consider running away.

I find the premise of your argument questionable. The debate is about should PDA be banned in schools and your opening line is linked to the fact that the adults, I assume, treat your generation like children when you PDA. This does not link to your argument at all, but appears to indicate that you are speaking subjectively, from a teenager's point of view and, as such, the argument is invariably flawed in its concept. This suggests that your opinion is liable to be inexperienced of what it means to be an adult, moreover to the fact that adulthood is merely attained by "real world hugging, kissing, holding hands, and sex.' Indeed, your argument is subjectively held by your peers and will contain much to that effect. I must, however, ask con to outline a reasonable argument as to why PDA should not be banned in schools.

Really what you believe doesnt make it right. It doesnt matter whether whining solves anything because that doesnt mean you can kick them in the nuts. "at times in my life ive had my as* kicked and every single time i learned from it."- GAO You know what its cool if thats the way you learn but people that are deeply depressed need attetion and care, they dont deserve to be physicaly harrassed! " its not my fault you dont get it cuz your a pansy humanist weenie"- GAO Thats really immature and an ignorrant thing to say. Poor debating on your part my friend. I conclude that this debate is pointless as my debatee is."Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the nuts.

However, I am thankful to debate with you :). Now then, my opening argument is very simple, and I will keep it short since it is late at night here where I am as I write this. A coach is a coach, yes, it is their job to mentor, and as the name implies, coach their players, and teach them to hone their craft in the respective sport they are playing in. But, a coach is not one thing, and that is the job of parent. A coach is hired to teach, not assume the role of a parent. It is the job of parents, and parents alone, to yell at their children if they have done something wrong. This is not the place, or the right of a coach to do. In yelling at their players, coaches assume the right of a parent, something that they have no right to do. If a parent feels their child is in need of correction on a sport, then let them step in, and talk to their child, or yell at them if they see fit. But it is not wise, nor is it right, to let a coach assume this role. In summary, friend, coaches should not yell at their players for this first reason, they assume the role of a parent in doing so, which is not their right or their place. Thank you for the debate, friend. I yield the floor back over to you and look forward to your arguments :).

Hey everybody :)! This is a challenge to anyone who wishes to have a pleasant debate with me. I believe with all my heart a coach should be forbidden to yell at their players. I find it in poor taste, and embarrassing. I will develop this in later rounds. First round=Acceptance. Good luck!

Normal children are noisy and rude, but schoolhoming shall correct this. With schoolhoming, the equivelant of the bedroom is the library, so children will at least be civilised for a third of the day. A couple of days of doing this will transform normal scratty children into superchildren. The whole concept of this goal would encourage children universally to not be so terrible.Second, it would be very educational, since time spent being educated is in the vast majority of cases, less than time spent doing home stuff. The child would be surrounded with informative posters and intellectual minds (the teachers). This would transform the child even more into a superchild.Another thing is the school rules. Because of the threat of a detention, children will act really good. They will not lie, deceive or steal. One or two years of this and that behaviour will be applied by the child in all scenarios in his/her life.Schoolhoming is a completely new idea, with the origin of its concept being introduced in this very debate. I have also only revealed its features in this round to date. This would mean that he has not experienced any kind of schoolhoming, meaning that however convincing his arguments supporting his side of the debate may be, they are wrong. This is because he has never learnt the lessons "Don't steal, deceive or steal" like what schoolhoming teaches you. I plead you to vote for pro. I do not lie, deceive or steal.The thought may come to mind that I haven't been through schoolhoming either. This is true, but may I remind you that schoolhoming is my own creation, and what would happen there is ultimately my choice. That being said, I have therefore learnt the moral lessons that schoolhoming teaches you.How does schoolhoming teach you moral lessons? Schoolhoming cannot be understood or comprehended by outsiders, so there would be no point in telling you. Once you have experience schoolhoming, then and only then shall you understand it.Schoolhoming also teaches fair voting and to eliminate bias.I thank you.

":)" 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

No they should not. Teachers should wield pens, not guns.

No idea why you chose to challenge me, but thank you anyways. Hmmmm, well this appears to be an opinion debate. Thus I will state my case. Suspension like any form of punishment offers some deterrent from doing something wrong. In this case the deterrent is most likely based on the idea that the child will no longer be able to communicate with his/her friends while at school. Though for the more studious or dedicated student the incentive might instead be in the form or his/her reputation among not only his/her friends but also his/her parents. My conclusion is rather simple. Suspension and its threat offer a deterrent that generally speaking keeps a classroom setting in less distracting environment that is in turn more conducive to learning. While the alternative of detention has some merit it is usually taken very lightly in school settings. I can remember back to a few students in my middle school who had detention at least a few times every week. The fact that it is not a formidable punishment in turn reduces its credibility as a deterrent. So while yes, suspension does do harm to the selected student, however it does a greater good to the rest of the students by increasing their ability to learn while decreasing distractions. Thank you.

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

I accept. http://www.youtube.com...I also request that Pro clarifies who we are debating it is good, or bad, to; the student, parents of the student, the teacher, society or the government?


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Settings?

Should corporal punishment be permitted in educational institutions? Greetings, Jack! It’s good to see you. As you mentioned, the majority of schools and academies employ corporal punishment, which many students find disagreeable. However, I believe it serves a purpose, helping to maintain discipline and ensure students adhere to the rules set by teachers.

Psychological Devastation and SuicideThe amount of psychological and physical devastation caused by bullies is completely unacceptable. Many students are scarred for life due to relentless bullies who continuously berate their victims and are only being given a small slap on the wrist. In most cases, they are given no punishment whatsoever. 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, be sent to reform school and be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible.

Hopefully we can have a friendly and kind debate about this issue. First, I want to talk about parenting types. Not everyone is sure of what happens in people's homes. It can be physical abuse, verbal abuse, starvation, child molestation, etc. .. That is a parenting type. Say that parent decided to homeschool their child. The child cannot get a second view of the difference between right and wrong. If you are raised poorly, you would grow up to be just like your parents. School teaches you want is right and what is wrong. Their is a HUGE difference. 99.7 children in America who were raised with abuse are growing up to be abusers themselves. That percentage can go down when children go to school and learn.

My thanks to Muted for his acceptance. I hope for an intelligent, interesting debate. By virtue of his brief R1, I presume he understands the resolution in full.Massed vs. Spaced PresentationOne of education’s main goals is for students to retain what they learn at school – we ought to prefer systems which result in greater retention of knowledge as it’s a goal for education. A good test score due to cramming, with the student later forgetting such knowledge is sub-optimal vs. a lower test score yet greater memory retention.How does this relate to the resolution? Being in school encourages spaced presentation, which results in better memory retention.This is all about the ‘spacing effect’ [1]. This effect details how humans more easily learn / remember things when studied a few times over a longer period of time (spaced presentation) as opposed to repeated study in a shorter timespan (massed presentation). However, and this is key - "the benefit of spaced presentations does not appear at short retention intervals; that is, at short retention intervals, massed presentation lead to better memory performance than spaced presentations" . SeeGreene, R.L. (1989). Spacing effects in memory: Evidence for a two-process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 371-377.School via timetabling tends to promote spaced presentation – lessons are not put back to back to back for the same subject. However, many students might do a mass of homework for a subject in one go because a) Their schedule promotes that, b) They remember as they go (ie. Ex 1. Is a prerequisite for Ex 2. And so remembering Ex 1 helps with Ex 2) along with other reasons. Essentially, students will tend to group together clumps of related homework and do them in go, which is more a form of massed presentation than spaced presentation. Ergo, school, by encouraging spaced presentation under the proposed model through putting ‘homework’ in class time in effect, is preferable. But it doesn’t end there for memory retention. I recently read Memory by Jonathan K. Foster (first published 2009), one of OUP’s fascination very short introductions. To quote one part: “Other things being equal, we tend to remember information better if we are in a similar physical context and emotional state at the time we wish to retrieve information as we were in at the time we were exposed to that information.” School is more akin to work than the home environment, so as per a more similar physical context we remember better. This is specified in the encoding specificity principle. Also, the emotional state at school is more constant than at home, more like work. This again promotes better memory retention as the retrieval cue matches memories better. This sort of logic strongly explains why we can’t remember dreams – the physical context is different, our emotional state different and our physiological state are also different. Homework vs. InstructionOn homework briefly:Much homework is sub-optimal, which can't be helped. Some homework is good but a student doesn't realise it. Some homework is simply beneficial. The issue in evaluating the value of homework is what students do outside of school - for some capable people homework is restrictive; many are just wasting their youth on trivialities; homework is good, no matter it's sub-optimal state, for these people.Textbooks are instructional to a point. However, a teacher’s guidance + a textbook is superior. If a student doesn’t understand their textbook’s example (say, maths) when doing an exercise (the type of homework being restricted) then they will perform sub-optimally (ie. Very short answers to written questions), waste an inordinate amount of time doing the exercise (vs. doing the exercise then something else productive) or they’ll copy the answers. Some of those are diametrically opposite, but that reflects the student’s beliefs being different. A student at school will seek guidance from a teacher when stuck, eliminating time wastage (‘inordinate’). They will have greater difficulty copying answers due to teacher supervision. They will be pushed to perform optimally not just by the teacher, but by peers – iron sharpens iron is just as true in education.CostStreamlining students and workers to the same timetable reduces things like day care costs somewhat, debases tuition costs (private tutoring that is) and ensures maximal use of public transport on a wider basis (many buses and trains around school time are less cramped than during peak hours) . More importantly though, parents can work for longer. There’s less concern for parents to be at home, supervising their children, if they can trust that their child is safe and productive at school, vs. potentially the converse at home.Reduction in general mischiefIt’s a fact – youth disproportionately commit crimes. “A comparison of the proportion of total offenders who were aged 10–24 in 2009–10 (48%) with the proportion of the general population who were aged 10–24 in Australia as at December 2009 (23%), clearly shows the higher proportion of young people in the offender population (graph S13.1).” [2] What do youth have that adults have? A disproportionate amount of unallocated free time, which combined with various rebellious impulses and hormones results in crimes being committed. See the graph in the link for a visual explanation of the aforementioned.A solid school environment and a reduction in this poorly utilised free time (crime is a poor use of time with regards to the collective) will reduce crime. Furthermore, additional schooling increases the ability to get messages out to avoid drugs and the like. Government messages have been effective at reducing drug use, such as smoking [3] [4]. Education is cited as one of the main reasons for this decline in smoking. If we can combat smoking then a more effective message through a safe, controlled environment like school will also reduce illicit drug use, and legal, yet harmful drug use. Longer school hours can help achieve this through better education.Working mindset / Lack of agrarian workforce currentlyWhy did the US and many other countries originally adopt a 9-3 style of schooling? Why did the, now rather ludicrous, idea of summer vacation eventuate in the US? The reason that this occurred was that the US was formerly an agrarian society – children of agrarian society left school to go work in the field at home. Now we have no such demand on our time other than school. Let me quote YYW from the second link last round:“Children must be taught the importance of self discipline, the necessity of a strong work ethic and the importance of maximized productivity from birth. I'm not saying that kids should be pushed into the fields or factories, but rather suggesting that all the time wasted in the summer months is the opportunity cost of greater preparation for college, for grad school, for work and for life.”Now, this debate isn’t about summer vacation, but why not have children work as their parents do? It instills the values of work, the value of free time, presents social mischief (see earlier) and gives children and teenagers a greater appreciation of their parents duties and workload, which increases familial harmony. This mindset in beneficial for future productivity – another goal of education. ConclusionEncouraging spaced presentation, increasing available instructional assistance, reducing cost, a reduction in crime and social mischief, the development of a working mindset and familial harmony are all good reasons to extend the school day.I eagerly await my opponent’s response.Sources1- http://en.wikipedia.org...2- http://www.abs.gov.au...3- http://www.cancercouncil.com.au...4- http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au...

Really what you believe doesnt make it right. It doesnt matter whether whining solves anything because that doesnt mean you can kick them in the nuts. "at times in my life ive had my as* kicked and every single time i learned from it."- GAO You know what its cool if thats the way you learn but people that are deeply depressed need attetion and care, they dont deserve to be physicaly harrassed! " its not my fault you dont get it cuz your a pansy humanist weenie"- GAO Thats really immature and an ignorrant thing to say. Poor debating on your part my friend. I conclude that this debate is pointless as my debatee is."Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the nuts.

Having video games at school is educational.It brings in new information it also helps their memory if players are able to memorize the proceed farther into the game they are playing therefor it does help memory.If my opponent thinks it is good not to let children have these benefits then what will happen to all the children out there who love new information. thank you

if kids don't get punished they will no learn from there mistakes and keep doin them.

Rebuttal 1: Some chores are also outside. Mowing, weed whacking, and clipping the bushes are just a few examples. These you wouldn't let a child do, especially by themselves. Many a parent will tell their kid to go out and rake or do some other physical chore while they sit down and watch a movie or play on their computer. The kid, especially if their small, are doing something that they may not have the physical capability of, but they have to do it anyway. The parent should be out there helping them. One shouldn't tell their kid to go out to do something and not help them. Argument 1: Grades can be affected by chores as well. If a child is expected to go clean their room, or even the yard. Depending on how messy it is, it could take away all their time to do homework. Children are encouraged to take at least 1-2 hours out of their day to homework. But if they are told to do a chore that could take a long time, they lose that opportunity. Then they're getting in trouble at school for not doing their homework and at home for not getting good grades. So who's the one that's supposed to be taking the heat (the blame/ chewing)? Rebuttal 2: Some parents will force their kids to clean their room everyday, even if it's already clean. My opponent says that some kids willingly clean their rooms to make their parents happy, but would a kid willingly clean a clean room? To add to that, some parents are bad enough to go and wreck their rooms while they're at school, just so the kid can clean. This doesn't seem humane to me. Rebuttal 3: Though I agree with my opponent somewhat. Some parents give their children treats for doing their chores. For instance, T.V. time, playing with friends, but the majority of parents don't really care, as long as they don't have to do the work. My parents for instance, feel that children were put on this world to do the work that the parents don't want to do. This is a little humane, but it's still a little bad.

I am a student and I refuse to be attacked endlessly without being able to fight back I will not cower in a corner. Would you want your kid to be attacked and when he finally pushed the kid off get suspended and what for the other kid to get suspension and attack you for snitching when he gets back.

Science is aright I guess, but Physical Education (P.E) is better. Think about it, you could sit in a classroom for and hour learning about molecular reconfiguration, or you could play football with your mates. Why would you want to learn about molecular reconfiguration anyway? I think the argument here would be based on, healthy mind or healthy body. With science being the healthy mind and P.E being the healthy body. To work this one out all you got to do is ask Steven Hawkins. Only 500 words

No they should not. Teachers should wield pens, not guns.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Institutions?

Should physical punishment be permitted in schools?
Physical punishment, or corporal punishment, is defined as physical torment inflicted on a student. This may involve beating, caning, thrashing, or whipping. Unfortunately, corporal punishment is a frequent occurrence in schools, with numerous cases reported in the media. Such punishment can have long-lasting physical and psychological effects on a student, potentially impairing them for life and causing mental distress. This form of discipline is outdated and should be condemned.

The practice of disciplining children through corporal punishment originated in medieval times and is no longer appropriate for an enlightened society. Despite this, there are still instances of milder forms of punishment that go unnoticed. Research indicates that teachers, even in prestigious schools, physically and verbally intimidate young children, some as young as five years old. Unfortunately, there is no national law that prohibits cruel or unusual punishment in schools, although the National Policy on Education states that corporal punishment is not permissible.

Discipline is essential for students in schools and colleges, but enforcing it through physical punishment is inhumane. This type of punishment was common during the medieval period but is no longer acceptable. Teachers must understand that children at the school level are impressionable and may develop a fear of approaching or meeting a teacher if subjected to physical torture. They may never develop respect and love for their teachers, which is crucial for their overall development. Teachers should act as role models for their students and deal with them patiently, providing guidance and support in academics, sports, music, and other extracurricular activities. Students should be free and friendly with their teachers, asking questions and clarifying doubts while respecting and obeying them. This respect and obedience should come naturally, not through force.

The Supreme Court has stated that children should not be subjected to corporal punishment in schools and should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. The National Policy on Education directs school authorities to take action to prevent the harmful effects of corporal punishment on the physical and mental health of children. Corporal punishment has no positive impact on a student and can worsen the situation, making a student more aggressive and potentially causing permanent physical damage. Verbal abuse can also be damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, and parents often complain to school authorities about their children being abused. In such cases, the state government must intervene.

In conclusion, teaching is a noble profession, and teachers should treat their students as their own children, with love and care. They should applaud their achievements and help them

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.

Please extrapolate what you mean when you say "just be a big mess after that." This is an abstraction and doesn't provide any substancial evidence for your argument. Also, as I have already said in my first argument, it is obvious that teachers cannot hurt students now, but for the sake of this argument that focuses on the pros and cons of using such force, we are suspending the legal implications. In the past it has not been unusual for teachers to be allowed to use force against their kids, especially rulers, lets revert to those laws. Sending bullies to juvenile prison is an odd idea. First of all prison seems like a very harsh punishment for the level of bullying that we are talking about. However, before I can make a proper formal argument against it, I would like you to extrapolate exactly what you mean. Where are you incarcerating them, in juvenile hall with kids who actually committed crimes? Furthermore, the prison system in the united states is meant as a system of punishment for people who do wrong. Although it isn't exactly what the bullies were doing to someone else, it is a similar concept to the tit for tat principle you are arguing against. Please clarify this point and prove that it isn't. Additionally, your idea of "Make them more active (eg. make them do push ups in front of the class or grade)." Is also very similar to the idea of public humiliation that I brought up in my first argument. In fact, I would agree that that sort of punishment, especially where it is relevant (where a perceived physical imbalance of power is at play with the bully) would be very much aligned with my argument. Although your argument can be praised for its brevity, I would aslo ask you to further explain why any of your alternatives is a better way of dealing with bullies. Although you have provided some alternatives, you have not provided any reasons why my method is wrong or indeed why your's is right.

Education is a human right. It is also such an important right that it is not to be given to the parents. The reasons are that not all parents have their child's best interest in mind. For nowadays you no longer need just a high school diploma…it is essential that you have a college degree and just to get into a decent college you need to be on the cutting edge in your class. So if the parent's would rather have their child do something else such as working for there living than that would be horrible considering the fact that education is a catalyst for development. That is why it is so key to offer education to third-world countries—if it weren't, than why would we be constantly wasting our time? Thus, it isn't fair for a child who might yearn for the power of knowledge yet denied it because of their parent. It's the child's right to have the same stepping-stone that most of their peers will have. If a parent objects to the way the school system is run than they have a choice of home-schooling their child but if they are too lazy to do even that…then they don't care about their child and obviously incapable of making such a decision on whether or not their child should even have an education. A parent has a right to make adaptations to their child's education—share their beliefs, take an active part, choose the school, and the choice…but to deny it altogether is a risk for the future. It is like food—the child has a right to eat but the parent chooses what mainly goes in it. The child has a right to education but the parent may choose what mainly goes in it. This concludes my first argument, and I thank those who have taken the time to read this. I'm also sorry for the delay in this post.

kids are not animals and ahould not be treated as one!!! if you can not handle your children then you should of never had sexual intercourse and make one if you do not know how to disipline your children then i sugest you should of thought about it before having kids

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...

No because of Blah. The teachers are entitled to teach and so we should let tehm teach and blah if they want.

Please can you reread my comments and respond to my argument? Incarcerating people is a terrible punishment. Confinement and lack of freedom are some of the most extreme punishments and even physical abuse, due to its shorter nature, is a much less harsh punishment then the separation from the child from his life and family. Furthermore, as I have said from my first argument, the point of the public humiliation and punishment would be explicitly shared to the whole group in order to make sure they learn a lesson from it. In this manner we are more efficient because we teach not only the bully but the whole group why bullying is wrong and the consequences of doing so. I do not see any reason as to why they would learn that lesson better confined in prison. I do not see any significant evidence of therapy being an effective way to prevent bullying. Therapy requires the person to want to change and to work with the therapist. For bullies who are not willing this won't be as effective. However, my method of punishment promises a more universally effective reaction.

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.

No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them, we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids. I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life. Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE. although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement

I thought you already conceded. Oh well, either way, I shall continue.REBUTTALS "Actually you just bragged and how would that ban their freedom outside of school you have alot of freedom you don't have to line up to go back in at home you can do anything you want outside like bring your electronic out side and you have more freedom like at school you have a perimeter to follow but at home you really can walk anwhere you want ( if your parents are not strict lol )" Before I even point out how your whole argument is a run on sentance (S&G points) I shall refute this argument. I didn't "brag" about how it would ban their freedom. Also, though you can go outside at home, various parents as you agreed are very strict, and don't allow such to occur. However, at school, there is a specific perimeter, and a variety of supervisors to ensure the safe well being of all students. "o yeah thats my opinion and do not say it make the cause of obese go up cause it dose not lol......" Here is where you are wrong. Children do tend to get obesed while skipping recess. These days, education boards have been lowering times for important subjects such as physical education. Because of such, children need another way to excersice. Regardless if they are reading a book, or running, they are still getting exercise. Even teachers agree. Here are somethings, including obesity that will occur with the abscence of recess. Reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease Increase self-esteem Help prevent obesity Lower blood pressure Increase test scores for school age children Enable students to learn/practice good character traits [1] As you can see, not only does recess prevent obesity, but a lot of other things such as cardiovascular disease, self esteem and more. Now, in school, kids get the chance to go outside. Plenty of children aren't permitted to go outside after school hours. This is why recess is both helpful and required. Now please, in further debates, refraind from doing a run on sentance with no punctuation. It was quite dificult to understand your contention. ---------- In conclusion, recess is important because it relieves stress, orevents obesity, and aids in various other areas as well. This improves test scores, and overall well being in students. Banning recess would stress kids, and contribute to various health hassards. There is no valid reason to ban recess. Source:[1]http://www.learnnc.org...;