Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Settings?

The Debate Over Spanking in Schools: A Closing Argument

In this debate, I will summarize the discussion and provide a final statement. My opponent has presented contradictory arguments: Should spanking be universally prohibited, including in the privacy of homes, or is it the parent's right to decide whether to spank their child? I have argued that spanking should not be banned across the board, and I have also shown that if parents have the right to spank their children, they should also have the right to choose schools that may use corporal punishment in a responsible manner. My opponent mentioned studies indicating that spanking can lead to future problems, but failed to provide sources for these claims. Conversely, I have provided sources demonstrating the effectiveness of corporal punishment, as well as a testimonial from a teacher who appreciated the ability to use it in the classroom due to its proven benefits. Throughout the debate, my opponent has made various claims without substantiation. The sole piece of evidence presented by my opponent, the case of a child returning home with bruises, was not convincing. The child's mother was upset that the school did not properly administer corporal punishment, not that the school used it at all. The child was clearly at fault, and faced minor bruises instead of a more severe consequence that could have affected her permanent record. If anything, this case highlights the need to refine and improve the implementation of corporal punishment, rather than abolishing it altogether. In addition to refuting all of my opponent's points, I have also established the following:

- Spanking is similar to other forms of punishment society uses; opposing it in schools would require a broader argument about punishment in general.
- Spanking gives teachers another tool to maintain discipline and ensure smooth classroom operations.
- Spanking has benefits due to its immediacy and proven effectiveness in preventing misbehavior.
- Spanking is a better alternative to other school punishments that may have long-lasting negative effects on a child's future.

In conclusion, when administered correctly, corporal punishment in schools is appropriate, just like any other form of punishment society must employ for various levels of misbehavior, whether it involves imprisoning criminals or disciplining pets. Spanking should not be eradicated from schools, and if anything, it should be more widely practiced.

I shall be arguing against my opponent's assertion that prayer should be made legal in schools. I will first start by stating that since prayer is legal in schools, as well as everywhere else, my opponent must be talking about either mandatory prayer, or public/group prayer organized by schools. My opponent's only point is that prayer leads kids down the right track of discipline. I disagree with this notion because I believe prayer does nothing to improve a child's discipline. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Discipline is essentially the molding of moral character, conduct, and obedience. I believe that praying does none of these. Discipline would theoretically arise from reading scripture and following God's law, not necessarily from communication with God. In addition, there are many ways to ensure discipline in young children. I myself was beaten every time I did something wrong, like break a dish or get less than an A on an exam. I was also beaten when I disrespected my elders, acted out, or rebelled. Beatings are a very effective disciplinary tool. One that works both at home and at school. Another way would be to reward children when they do something positive, to encourage good behavior. To teach them the virtue of patience, for example, you could tell them that if they were good and did not ask for anything for one month, you would give them a coveted video game or toy. God is not always this predictable, and to mimic this exercise with prayer might make a child frustrated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

The motion for this debate is whether children should be punished for their offence. I am taking "For" side. 2 rounds is for arguing and the last one is concluding arguments. All children misbehave as at the beginning they simply don't know what is good and what is bad. Discipline of children is essential part of bringing them up and their health development, it is as important as feeding them or clothing. It has to be both physical and mental. But many parents get confused about physical discipline and I do not get reasons to be afraid of it. 1. First of all, physical punishment implies spanking/slapping and making child do something (eating soup, for example). In my opinion, the misbehavior of children has become a problem of our time. Parents cannot deal with their own children anymore, they get nervous and ashamed of children's awful acting on people. Of course, there is always a possibility of mental discipline - talking and explaining things. But from my own experience, I can surely say that it actually doesn't always work well. Good if child understands you, which happens sometimes. But what about cases when instead of it he gets mad and hits you? Especially, in the public place and he cannot calm down. I think that the child has to realize who his parents are and what respect he should have. Spanking may work in this case. 2. "Once burned, twice shy". Getting hit once, there is a chance that he would understand that it is bad thing and he should avoid doing it. The child tries different things out of curiosity and there is always danger for his life. Talks don't work in this case - it can even provoke bigger interest and desire to try. One little spank can show him that he should never try it again.

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

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.

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...;

A teacher does not need to have a "mental insanity" in order to make a wrong move at the wrong time. We are all human and make mistakes. A teacher may have anger issues and get very mad at a student and take it to the next level. Like stated before, most high schools have a patrol officer on campus. Teachers do not need to protect the students of an invader. Teachers should lock their classrooms, close and cover the windows, and have the class wait in silent. Not to mention, what if a student gets their hands on a weapon?

My opponent is obviously going into defense mode. Pulling out circumstantial evidence that he wouldn't have thought about in the first place if I had not BLOWN HIM AWAY like I had in my last round. It seems that my opponent had been so intent on proving me wrong that he just proved himself wrong. Point: He says that cell phones should not be allowed in school. Then, he says that "rules are meant to be broken"~ Ethiopia 619. So why make a rule that cell phones are not be allowed inside of school in the first place Ethiopia 619!! For a rule to be succesfully enforced, one has to discourage students from breaking that rule. One, have snitches inside of the classroom who get rewarded for telling and protection from the trouble makers. Two, have harsh enough punishments so one doesn't want to risk being caught. Three, make an example of the subordinate. Punish the trouble maker in front of class. Seeing that children are easily intimidated by punishment, way less children will bring cell phones into class than before. It will be nearly impossible to completely get rid of cell phone abuse all together, but the number of children involved will be extremely decreased. In a CLASSROOM setting, I could see this working because a classroom is small relative to the outside world.

If sending a bully to juvenile prison is a harsh thing to deal with bullying, then doing the same thing/s the bully did to their victim as a punishment is more harsh when it comes to physical bullying. It would only abuse them, and in return, wouldn't help much for the bully to understand that what they did is wrong. We must find a way to deal with the bully so they can understand that what they did is wrong, and they won't do it again. Otherwise, they might not stop because they don't understand how wrong they are to their victim and would only abuse them. You might think that sending them to juvenile prison will not help the bully to understand what they did wrong, but it's a better idea than just doing it back to them. In juvenile prison, someone could talk to them about what they did wrong and explain why. Then (hopefully), the bully would understand how wrong they were and would stop bullying others.

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

Throughout the years, I have seen parents become less and less involved in the education of their children. It seems that in some places, the only way to get parents to show up to school is to offer free food, have a dance party, or offer a raffle with the opportunity to win something. Otherwise some of them (not all) could care less. They see the school as a free babysitting service, and if the child fails or misbehaves it's something the teacher did. I call major WRONG on that. Anything the child is doing at school also happens at home and the parent is more than likely aware of it. They just may not know how or even have the desire to handle it. My argument is that parents should be required to be more involved in any school they send their child to. Yes, work schedules are difficult but some parents don't even work, so they should be more present in the schools in a collaborative way. This does not mean they're up there trying to tell teachers how to do their job, but they are supporting the educational system that they are sending their child to and are just as much at fault if the child fails as the teacher. The teachers these days are dealing with more and more parents who would rather sit back and not pick up the phone or come to a conference. Then when the child brings home a referral or bad report card, they come up to the school ranting and raving about how the school was out of line. Forgive me, but no. Anything a child does is the sole responsibility of the parent/guardian. It's their child. The school teacher is a part of the education process but they only govern their classroom. The parents' job is to make sure that their child does their best in school. I'm open to all who choose to debate this, but please come up with arguments that make sense because I'm a bit tired of some of the excuses I've read and heard. Seems like some parents may need to go back to school because they missed a thing or two.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

The use of corporal punishment on children by their parents has been a controversial topic for centuries. While some believe it to be an effective disciplinary tool, many argue that it is cruel and inhumane. Corporal punishment is still used in certain countries, but is banned in others due to its negative impact on both the child and the parents.

One of the primary concerns with corporal punishment is its effect on the child's mentality. While some may argue that it is beneficial for the child, studies have shown that it can have more negative effects than positive ones. Children who are subjected to corporal punishment are more likely to become violent and suffer from anti-social behavior, and there is a higher risk of suicide among these children. When a child is subjected to violence from their family, they are more likely to mimic that behavior later in life, leading to social isolation and depression.

A survey of 3,900 people found that 76% of those who had experienced corporal punishment had been negatively affected by it. Many who have experienced corporal punishment are also more likely to suffer from mental disabilities later in life. This raises the question of whether violence is an appropriate way to discipline children.

Those who support corporal punishment argue that it is necessary for children to learn what is beneficial and what is not. However, there are many forms of punishment that do not involve violence that can still be effective. For example, parents could use allowance as a way to teach children about money and how to use it responsibly. By taking away the allowance when the child does something wrong, parents can still get the same message across without resorting to physical harm.

Furthermore, the physical harm caused by corporal punishment is not temporary. It can lead to changes in the child's neurotransmitters that affect pain, mood, and sleep. It can also cause disruptions in daily activities, anxiety, and depression. These effects can last for a long time and can even be permanent.

Proponents of corporal punishment argue that it can instill a psychological disincentive towards bad behavior. However, studies have shown that psychological disruption is a common cause of crime. Therefore, corporal punishment can actually increase the likelihood of criminal behavior rather than reduce it.

In conclusion, the use of corporal punishment on children by their parents is a complex issue with both positive and negative effects. However, given the negative impact on the child's mentality and the availability of alternative forms of punishment, it is clear that corporal punishment should not be used as a disciplinary tool.

My own definitions (since that's what he asked for) Fair: giving each their due. Proportional: in likeness to. Sufficient: not extreme but not to easy "Contention I: Corporal Punishment is a reasonable punishment. i.My opponent claims that the 3 crimes (rape, murder, attempted terrorism) do not deserve the death penalty. However, this argument is not true. My opponent later cites Beccaria's "The punishment must for the crime". For such horrendous crimes my opponent has mentioned, it is intuitive that the death penalty (or otherwise strongest possible punishment) is justified for the three crimes my opponent mentioned. The psychological and physical damage done by rape, murder, and terrorism clearly outweighs the death of the perpetrator (and thus is a fitting punishment." --> First, I claimed the three as: Rape, KIDNAPPING, and attempted terrorism. He claims that these 3 that I mentioned coincide with "The punishment must fit the crime. I have 2 response: 1. No crime listed above results in death. The 3 I list are implied that it did not result in another crime, i.e. murder. Therefore, the death penalty would be too extreme of a punishment. 2. Let's say that one of these crimes did result in death. I am not advocating taking away the death penalty totally. If it was necessary then it should be up to the discretion of the court system. All I am arguing is that for certain crimes, just jail is not enough, but the death penalty goes to far. "Secondly, my opponents claim that corporal punishment opens up for interim punishment is not inherent in today's society. The flexibility of prison years allows the government to pursue interim punishment reasonable for the crime." --> My opponent affirms right here. "The flexibility of prison years allows the government to pursue interim punishment reasonable for the crime." Essentially, if the court system believes that a crime warrants corporal punishment as an interim punishment, then they would do so. Essentially, an interim punishment is one that is worked in relation with the jail system. I.e. during jail time they would receive a corporal punishment once a week. (For argument's sake) "Contention II: Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy My opponent claims that corporal punishment decreases actual crime rates. First, I must demand citations (papers) to support this claim. Secondly, this is a classic case of Post Hoc Ergo Propter hoc fallacy. Correlation does not mean causation. One must question the other influences present in countries my opponent mentioned. One possible influence is better police forces or anti-gun ownership laws ect… Such confounding variables undermine my opponent claim of causation." --> First off I cited a source. He is open to look if he wishes. Secondly, I clearly state in my point that if deterrence is indeed true, and it does work, then it is a good secondary outcome. It is not necessary to affirm, but it is a good method to help protect society. "Contention III: The 8th amendment may have been founded on the premise of "the crime fits of punishment". Furthermore, it also forbids harsh and unnecessary punishment. It is clearly evident that corporal punishment can be construed as harsh and unnecessary punishment." --> The key word is construed. Essentially, it is an opinion. Since the harshness of a punishment is subjective, we must look at Beccaria's proportionality part of the 8th Amendment. Link ym contention 1 to this "Although this may not be the corporal punishment advocated by my opponent, it is certainly analogous to infliction of physical pain on a prisoner" --> As is evident by the case presented, the force was one produced out of personal want to hurt another person. It was not intended as a means for punishment. Essentially, it was a vigilante (so to speak) use of force. Corporal Punishment would be overlooked by the justice system and the jail system. It would be administered proportionality in deal with the previous crime committed. "Contention IV: Although our prisons may be crowded, my opponent has given no evidence in support of the deterrence of corporal punishment. For all we know, the reduced prison times may lead to the release of very dangerous criminals in our streets. Jails serve to keep dangerous members of society from mainstream society as well as a deterrence/punishment role. Releasing them early because they have suffered corporal punishment is antithetical to the first purpose. The economic costs of releasing known criminals (i.e murderers, rapists, terrorists) into the streets far outweighs the amount of money saved by the government in prison-keeping fees. Not only are economic costs incurred by releasing such prisoners, other intangible social costs (i.e higher crime rates, can't go out during the night ect) also result from releasing more prisoners." --> As is clear from my point, we would have less sentences with corporal punishment if it warrant. Obviously, we would not let a mass-killer out of jail. Furthermore, the use of corporal punishment would send a stronger message of just retribution for crimes as posed above. It would be much more effective then: "Your going to jail." (Oh God, I'm so scared. Recreation time, meals included. I'm getting a free ride by tax payers. I don't know how I can deal with it.) I'll refute his own case Point I Ok essentially the whole idea behind this argument is that we as a society can't condone physical punishment on a criminal. Ok, I have 2 responses: 1. Ok, then why is it ok for us to restrict liberties when we send them into jail. For a society, according to you, should be above this. We wouldn't want to condone taking away given liberties. Furthermore, the death penalty is not painless as you so mention. For about 1 minute before you die, you go through shock and immense pain. (This is lethal injection) Basically, your point means that a society should not punish. 2. You will say that physical punishment is different. It doesn't matter. If the court decides that a criminal warrants such punishment, then it is used to achieve justice. According to Rawls, justice is foremost in an institution and society. We would be more of a society if we act out of justice. "Secondly, the acceptance of corporal punishment would signal that the society no longer views corporal punishment by its members as illegal (i.e I can beat my wife.) --> This is stupid. Do people go around murdering because the government implements the death penalty. Do people kidnapping because the government puts people in jail. No. It is the exact opposite. People do not wish to have negativity brought upon them. Therefore, they will refrain from such actions. I.e. deterrence. "Thirdly, my opponent argues that "the punishment must fit the crime". Does he advocate that we should rape, murder, or attempt terrorism on the perpetrators. Basically my opponent is arguing for a weaker form of "an eye for an eye". There are numerous arguments against this moral and judicial philosophy that I could mention later if my opponent so obliges." --> Proportionality is not legal equivalence. We should not rape because someone rapes. This is where corporal punishment has a plus. It is used as a punishment that needs harsher means but is not equivalent, or death. Having only jail shows that we as a society do not condemn crime as much as we ought to. Having corporal punishment furthers proportionality and wanes us off of legal equivalence. Turn this argument against my opponent. "In conclusion, since my opponent has not shown (with proof/studies) that corporal punishment actually serves a significant deterrent against crimes or that corporal punishment" --> He didnt' finish the sentence. However, the resolution is asking for fairness and proportionality. Deterrence is not necessary for that. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Good evening :) I thank you for a compelling, and insightful debate that has been a great learning experience for me. I hope to debate you again sometime this has been fun :). Time for round 4, how fun this will be. Okay on the high school and up side, we can agree totally my friend, being as how I am a former curler in high school, I did appreciate it after a while when coaches told me firmly I needed to correct myself in certain areas. A kid will know morals, as you said, right and wrong by high school, and a coach can have a bit more discretion here. Here is my next argument though, like you said coaches know their limit. However, with regards to what you said regarding age, coaches need to be careful when dealing with younger children, for instance. A coach should never yell at someone younger than high school age, and here's why. When a coach, or anyone yells at someone else for that matter, it hurts deeply emotionally, and mentally. In a younger child's case, let's even say 6th grade, they do not fully understand some concepts fully, and even some basic sports principles. They also are still, some of them anyway, are learning to socialize, or relate to authority figures. A coach yelling at them will severely damage these facilities, and their quest to negotiate the authority figures in their lives. Authority is something kids struggle with, I witnessed it a lot in my high school years as I sat in isolation, and even in elementary school when I wasn't as laid back as I am today. A coach yelling at a young student can really make things difficult, and will likely cause them to disrespect their coach even more. If a coach is supposed to be a father-figure of sorts, or even of course, the mentor in the room, why not take the player aside and talk to them one on one, firmly yes, but kindly first, tell them what is going on, say they have told them before, ask why they remain unchanging, and either work with them gently, or talk to their parents. Yelling at them is not the best way to do things in these cases. Therefore with this argument in mind, I respectfully rest my case for round 4. Again, thank you my friend for a wonderful debate that has taught me a lot already. I look forward to your content in this round.

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

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.

Also, I am only talking about the US. While one in five is a lot, has the students' academic record changed? I'm assuming you're from the UK so I pose this question to you, do parents have the option as to whether or not their child can be paddled? Here in the South most of the schools have forms stating the guidelines of corporal punishment. Speaking of detention, there are numerous ways you can make it effective. I'm in college now, but when I was in school, detention was copying the handbook. Most students were never back in that detention room. Most students who were paddled, however, were in there lots of times because once again I will say this, corporal punishment is ineffective. Once again, thank you for debating me.

i say schools should teach sword fighting because it would be self defense and would help students defend the school if someone broke in while classes were going on

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.

Con I deem that this topic is quiet controversial, but still I do not agree with the opinion of my opponent. Children are human beings and as a result have the same human rights as anyone else. They are amongst the most vulnerable members of society, it is society's duty to protect them and their rights. I do not support the motion because of the following reasons. Firstly, parents are powerful figures and they tend to be a lot older than their children. It means they have had plenty of time to mature and become big and strong. They must not use the vulnerable side of children. It is better to start nurturing, talking to children in a proper way from little ages. Besides, physical force teaches children to bully. Laying your hands on your child to make them behave instead of reasoning with them shows that you as a parent have lost control and that you are not intelligent or patient enough to teach them properly. Teaching your children to fear and hate you might make them obey you, but not for the right reasons. The are easily influenced and usually learn things from their parents, thus physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express feelings and to solve problems.

You argue that it is wrong that the teacher chooses the content that should be taught, but look around in schools all over the country and all over the world. This for the most part is how it has been taught and continues to be taught all over and seems to be working by producing great minds. Although we are creatures able to determine right from wrong we must first learn the history in the country and determine exactly what went wrong in the past for us to realize that it is wrong now. Not everything has been banned, such as pedophilia was acceptable in Spartan time but is now wrong, for us to realize that it is wrong we must first know the history behind it which is taught in school by teachers or your so called 'tyrants' "Education is the practice of freedom" But to realize what that freedom is we must learn exactly what people had to sacrifice to get that freedom. So in conclusion I believe The Banking Concept is not oppressive and should in fact be the method of education everywhere.

I shall be arguing against my opponent's assertion that prayer should be made legal in schools. I will first start by stating that since prayer is legal in schools, as well as everywhere else, my opponent must be talking about either mandatory prayer, or public/group prayer organized by schools. My opponent's only point is that prayer leads kids down the right track of discipline. I disagree with this notion because I believe prayer does nothing to improve a child's discipline. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Discipline is essentially the molding of moral character, conduct, and obedience. I believe that praying does none of these. Discipline would theoretically arise from reading scripture and following God's law, not necessarily from communication with God. In addition, there are many ways to ensure discipline in young children. I myself was beaten every time I did something wrong, like break a dish or get less than an A on an exam. I was also beaten when I disrespected my elders, acted out, or rebelled. Beatings are a very effective disciplinary tool. One that works both at home and at school. Another way would be to reward children when they do something positive, to encourage good behavior. To teach them the virtue of patience, for example, you could tell them that if they were good and did not ask for anything for one month, you would give them a coveted video game or toy. God is not always this predictable, and to mimic this exercise with prayer might make a child frustrated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

Should schools employ corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure? Prior to delving into this discussion, it's crucial to clarify the terms involved. Firstly, corporal punishment refers to physical discipline, and schools are educational institutions for children. Therefore, the question can be rephrased as: Should educational establishments resort to physical punishment? In my view, the use of corporal punishment should be considered. This form of discipline has been utilized for decades without causing significant harm.

Full text of resolution: "This house would ban written examinations in educational establishments". Round 1- Acceptance only. No need to ask for permission. Rounds 2-4: Main arguments and rebuttal. Round 5: Rebuttal and summary only- no new arguments. Sources should be placed in the comments section. Voters should ignore any arguments made in Round 1 or the comments section, or any new points made in round 5. "Select winner" voting system. Open to the first member to accept as con; no need to ask my permission. Good luck, and enjoy the debate!

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...

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

If sending a bully to juvenile prison is a harsh thing to deal with bullying, then doing the same thing/s the bully did to their victim as a punishment is more harsh when it comes to physical bullying. It would only abuse them, and in return, wouldn't help much for the bully to understand that what they did is wrong. We must find a way to deal with the bully so they can understand that what they did is wrong, and they won't do it again. Otherwise, they might not stop because they don't understand how wrong they are to their victim and would only abuse them. You might think that sending them to juvenile prison will not help the bully to understand what they did wrong, but it's a better idea than just doing it back to them. In juvenile prison, someone could talk to them about what they did wrong and explain why. Then (hopefully), the bully would understand how wrong they were and would stop bullying others.

Not only does Con take this debate to a personal level, but attempts to strawman, as well. The hubris of the defeated… My contentions were never along the lines of “Creativity is something that lives inside us all. We should be able to express ourselves in our clothing and in the actions we do.” The debate is revolved around whether uniforms should be allowed in private schools. My opponent has yet to state reasonable justifications for why uniforms should be prohibited. One can express creativity in unlimited ways and can dress as s/he wishes outside of a class environment.

P.E. is a class required by schools all across the country. Yet this class often fails at its main goal of encouraging children to exercise and alienates children by encouraging a violent atmosphere in which the strong prevail and the weak get picked on. Not only that, but it oftentimes affects bright individuals' GPA and is not fair to students' grades and academic achievement. How can you base a grade on wether someone can hit a ball the right way or run a certain distance.. Other activities revolving around P.E. such as having to take communal showers or having to change into a horrible uniform every class also make P.E. a terrible experience and overall reduce students' quality of life.

prayer should be allowed in schools... because young kids need to get on the right track in their dicipline and i think preyer should be made leagal every where.... now shoot that down

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...;

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.

In America"s school districts, P.E. class should not be required. It is embarrassing. It is awkward. Parents are questioning if it should be. It is embarrassing. If you can't do 10 push-ups or 20 sit-ups, everybody shoves their score, of like 50 or 40, in your face. If you try to hard you could get injured. If you fall while doing some sport you get laughed at. It is awkward. If you are in your squads and have to warm up, you might have to touch your toes. In order to touch your toes you have to bend over. It feels like you are sticking your butt in someone's face. Or vice versa. Parents are questioning if it should be required. According to an investigation by MSNBC, the average time spent exercising is 16 out of 45 minutes. That's not very much physical time. Since we aren't doing very much parents think that it should be cut. All in all, gym class should not be mandatory. Students get embarrassed. Students feel awkward. Parents think it should be cut. We need more time for better things like study hall or longer classes.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

Corporal punishment within the family context!
Spanking: A Legitimate Discipline Method? I acknowledge that there is a debate surrounding the use of spanking as a form of corporal punishment, with some viewing it as child abuse. However, there are those who advocate for its effectiveness. Personally, I experimented with spanking as a disciplinary measure for my child, but I found it ineffective and not to my preference. Nonetheless, I don't equate it with child abuse. It becomes abusive when parents go too far, hit excessively hard, or employ inappropriate methods of striking the child.

I too hope for an educational debate. There will be quite a few clashes between my opening and his. In this debate, I will merely be negating the resolution. Although there is no explicit requirement for me to have a BoP, it is implied under the debate structure. My argument will be focused on a few strong points, as opposed to many weak points. As this is my first educational debate (Pun intended), I do not expect to present too compelling a case, but I will try. I. School does not equip the students for work life This is an obvious one. School primarily is meant to equip the student for success in life. Students have been known to be highly underprepared for the realities of the working world [1]. That, however, can be remedied if the student is willing to learn. If, however, a student is kept in school for 9-5, there is absolutely no chance for the student to gain work experience. Work experience is absolutely vital for future job success. This has been recognized by the government, so much so that a “School to Work Initiatives Act” was passed in 1994. [2] Employers routinely value experience over qualifications [3][4]. This simply means that if there were two people with the same qualifications, the one with the more experience is hired. It also means that non-intellectual jobs like plumbing, currently one of the top paying jobs in the U. S. with a pay of $50,000 per year (. http://www.indeed.com....) which do not need qualifications, would oick people with experience and no qualifications other than a license rather than a highly qualified person without experience. No matter how much theoretical knowledge one might attain, without experience, qualifications mean nothing. What the full resolution wishes is for the banishment of any form of partial employment leading leading to a disadvantage between such students and students with work experience. If a student is in school from 9-5, the only time to work would be from 5-10, which is impractical. For now, this is all I have to say on this point. I will await a rebuttal first. II. Spacing effects can be implemented in other ways than through the resolution This point is directly related to one of Pro’s other points. However, it is not exactly a rebuttal as it builds on the same fact but comes to a different conclusion without exactly negating Pro’s points. Pro has already given a concise explanation of the spacing effect, to which I will refer readers. My point rests on the fact that technology can implement this without the need of a human teacher [5]. Technology has been used, and is being used, to enhance the learning process outside of the school. It has been found through multiple studies that people learn more, and faster, in a comfortable environment [6]. The obvious choice for the most comfortable place to be in is definitely the home, unless the student comes from a broken family. Combining information from [5] and [6], it becomes apparent that technology, widely used in homes, can be used to deliver lessons without the need of verbal transition between teacher and student. Students, furthermore, will be much more likely to learn as the environment surrounding them is conducive to learning, as the studies cited in [6] showed very clearly. If the object of schools is not indeed to prepare students for work life, but to place as much knowledge as possible within their memories, then certainly it is more profitable to place students within a comfortable environment, specifically the home, to do homework in a regulated manner, allowing for maximal retention. III. Cost[7][8][9] This is a simple point which I will make very clear. The average pay for a U. S. teacher is incredibly low. A high school teacher will receive on the average, $43,954 per annum. This translates to about $3663 per month. The highest average pay is Special Education, Secondary School, with $44,867, or around $3739 per month. Teachers in the U. S. spend an approximate 11 hours 20 minutes per day on the job. This includes marking homework, preparing lessons, and otherwise teaching. Preparing lessons take up the most time, as a good quality lesson requires much effort on the part of the teacher. Putting together a lesson is not as simple as ABC. At least 95 minutes is needed for job related activities other than direct teaching. If we consider 45 minutes to be for marking, 50 minutes would be taken up solely to prepare a 60 minute lecture. In the U. K. , it is even worse. Many teachers spend the whole night just to prepare for the next day’s lecture! This is highly damaging to their health. To look at the amount given of work/pay, an average U. S. teacher will receive, assuming a total of 22 days of work, a mediocre $15.50/hour. Increasing their workload by 2 hours means that their pay has to increase, something which governments currently, with their already high education budget, would not like. Replacing worn out teachers would also be problematic. It takes only a year for a teacher to get worn out, but it takes at least four/five years to train one. Let us look at the average schedule of a teacher: A day has ~24 hours. 11 hours 20 minutes is spent on the job or on job related things. 8 hours or less will be used for sleep. This means that a teacher will have around 4 hours 40 minutes to have some life outside school. Let us take into account the fact that much of their holiday is also spent on work related items and that 70% of U. K teachers spend whole nights preparing lessons. This means that the 8 hours reserved for sleep will now be used to concoct an effective lesson which, given the under three hours (1 hour 40 minutes being used for eating and other body maintenance) of sleep which might still be used for preparing. What does this make. This makes sleepy teachers who will be ineffective at presenting the lessons they have tried so hard to make during the night. Sleepy teachers, no matter the learning methodology, will not be of help to students. Conclusion: The value of an addition of 20 minutes of extra lessons would not offset the cost in terms of health and quality. This 20 minutes was derived from: 60*2- (40*2 + 20) = 20. This is accurate. The amount of money required to train new teachers far outweigh the benefit in getting knowledge through to the student, which can be gained via other means. Experience in work would also be non-existent, meaning such students would be disadvantaged as a result. I eagerly await a rebuttal of this, as I know Logic_on_rails is a very skilled debater.1. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2. . http://horizon.unc.edu...3. . http://www.careergeekblog.com...4. . http://www.ecademy.com...5. . http://mashable.com...6. . http://www.edutopia.org...7. . http://www.payscale.com... (All information in this section comes from these references)8. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... (U. S. )9. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (U. K. )

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

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.

My opponent is setting forth a proof, and attempting to show that it is a bad idea for schools to implement a rule banning footwear. However, before I begin, I must make several things clear: 1. We are not talking about the plausibility of passing the rule. My opponent has set forth a proposition and neither of us will argue that it is absurd, a violation of student rights, or any such thing. This debate will be based solely on the standards that my opponent has set forth in his opening argument. 2. My opponent states in his opening round "a helpful tactic for student's education". However, all three of my opponent's opening arguments revolve specifically around a student's safety, and not particularly their education. Thus, we MUST assume that this resolution involves making the school a safe place for education, not improve the education directly. 3. My opponent is the instigator and I am the contender. He is trying to prove a point and I am trying to negate it. I need not conclusively prove that this proposal is a bad idea, I need only negate my opponent's argument that this is a BAD idea. However, I will still do my best to show that this is indeed, a good idea. Now that we have that settled, let us begin. First, I would like to summarize my opponent's key points: 1. Forcing students to go to school and go back home barefoot is unreasonable because there are environmental conditions that make this hazardous for student health. 2. Students may step on something sharp or otherwise dangerous, or just step on something annoying, like gum. 3. Physical Education classes can get dangerous if there is no protective footwear. 4. Shoelessness will exclude students from public transportation, and forcing students to walk home will be dangerous without footwear as well. Having done that, let us now examine two parts of my opponent's resolution: "not allowing having any students to have any footwear ****on school campus****" "student must go barefoot at the ****start of the school hours until the end of school hours****, even if it rains or snows. " I hope the audience has caught the same thing that I have caught. At very first sight, we can completely throw out 2 out of 4 of my opponent's arguments. My opponent has specfically stated that this rule would only take place within the school campus, and only from the start to the end of school hours. This means that before class starts and after class ends, students may wear their shoes. Furthermore, if a student has to leave school in the middle of the day, he can just wear his shoes as long as he is out of school grounds. Thus, there is no worry about transportation, environmental concerns, hazards of the road, bad weather, etc. Thus, arguments #1 and #4 can be thrown out. Argument #2 states that students might step on something sharp or dangerous. Why would any school allow sharp and dangerous things to be littering the floor in the first place? Even in schools where shoes are allowed, broken glass and other things are cleaned up immediately because school regulations require a certain level of protection for the students. There should not be anything hazardous on the ground in the first place. There is also no problem with gum. While it may be a little irritating, gum is not allowed in most schools anyway, and in those that do allow gum, it is certainly not school policy to allow students to spit gum on the floor. Even so, it is far more annoying to get gum unstuck from a sneaker than to get gum unstuck from the sole of your foot. My opponent's complaint about hookworms is misleading. Anyone who reads the source that he posted can see why: . http://www.cdc.gov... This source clearly states that hookworms are endemic "in areas with warm, moist climates". This does not describe the floor of a typical school building. Furthermore, the method of transmission is as follows: "You can become infected by direct contact with contaminated soil" Again, tile floors are not soil. The source states that hookworms can only thrive when eggs are lain into stool, which mixes in with the soil, and the eggs only hatch in soil that has met the conditions of moisture, warmth, and protection from light. Thus, it is impossible for students to get hookworms in schools, even barefoot. Thus, argument #2 can be discarded as well. Finally, my opponent mentions PE activities. Let me first point out that my opponent stated "(not including swimming classes or sports activities)" in the resolution. I find it unfair that I may not offer any evidence regarding sports activities, whereas my opponent is free to offer arguments based on sports activities. As such, I will ignore this restriction until my opponent clarifies. Many American schools have limited room, and their physical activities are limited to indoor gymnasiums, not wide outdoor fields. If such is the case, we need not worry about scrapes and cuts, because the floors would be tiled or better yet, padded. In addition, the schools that adopt this shoe policy need not play physical education games like football, basketball, or baseball. They could instead opt for Taekwondo, Kung Fu, Judo, Yoga, Tai-Chi, Gymnastics, Aerobics, and countless other sports that are easier to engage in shoeless. In fact, all of these sports are far superior in terms of burning calories and encouraging exercise and physical activity than the traditional sports. I have countered all of my opponent's arguments. Now, I shall submit my own: There are actually an enormous number of health benefits related to walking barefoot, and as our school system is responsible for the growth and health of children from ages 5 to 17, it should support lifestyles that lead to greater health and well-being. It is no secret that our ancestors went barefoot, even through the scorching savanna and the infested rainforests, our ancestors trodded shoeless for millions of years. Yet curiously, there have been no historical records of foot problems until the era of the Renaissance, when human society had become accustomed to the concept of footwear. . http://www.sixwise.com... The implementation of footwear had actually had a huge impact on health. Our bodies have evolved to walk barefoot, and the change in gait and posture by footwear actually changes our biomechanics, putting emphasis on the wrong muscles and incorrect force on the bones. This leads to unnatural fatigue and premature foot problems. . http://www.post-gazette.com... . http://lifehacker.com... These scientific studies also show that going barefoot inherently leads to fewer acute and chronic foot injuries and uses less energy and effort in foot activities. . http://www.sportsci.org... Furthermore, going barefoot also eliminates the chances of spreading foot fungus, which is actually incubated by footwear and contrary to popular belief, is not the simply the result of catching something while barefoot. The only thing that stands in the way of all these health benefits are the possible environmental dangers. However, on top of the fact that the sole of the foot actually strengthens massively upon usage, the school environment is very safe compared to the outside world, if maintained properly. If anything, school is the perfect place to implement a barefoot policy, because it is where kids from 5-17 spend the majority of their day. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

First, I will establish my case and then refute my opponent's case.I. Limiting speech is a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment gives the freedom of speech; others are not supposed to be regulating what we can and can't say. These rights also apply to minors, as the supreme court has ruled multiple times. Since schools that don't allow profanity are regulating what we can and can't say, then that violates the freedom of speech. (Source: U.S. Bill of Rights)II. Liberty, a fundamental human right, is violated in banning words in schools. John Locke, a key inspiration of our founding fathers, stated that life, liberty, and property were the fundamental human rights. Our founding fathers based our country on these ideals. Banning words in school takes away some of our liberty; you can't do what you want. A political philosophy that we founded our country on was that anyone can do as they want as long as it doesn't hurt others or take money/possesions away from others. III. There is no reason directly related to the use of profanity to why it should not be allowed. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?" Anything can be used as a disruption in class; profanity can be used as a disruption in class, but so can every other word in every other lanugage. The use of profanity isn't causing anyone to die, or be hurt, and it isn't causing anyone to have to pay money. Now onto my opponent's case.My opponent stated that profanity can lower your cumulative grades and you can get expelled for it. The resolution is that profanity SHOULD be allowed in schools- if it is allowed in schools like it should be, you wouldn't be able to get expelled for it. Also, as it is, at most you'd probably get a suspension, never an expusion. Also, he didn't explain how it makes grades lower. He also argues that it can mark people down and make people hate you; however, if you go to a school, most students use profanity, and so that argument is invalid. Also, if it did make someone hate you, that is your problem to deal with; it is not where the school intervenes. The school should not ban something on the basis that it could make someone "hate" you. According to the USA Today, 64% of America uses the F word, so really it is a majority of people rather than a minority.CXHow does profanity lower cumulaitve grades?

==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 1.==According to psychologist Dr. Helen Cowie, events from bullying ordeals more often than not cause clinical depression, collapse of student's self-esteem and self-worth. According to BBC knews, statistics show that adults who were bullied in school are 7 times more likely to be suicidal than those who were not bullied.Sources--http://www.antibullying.net...==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 2.==Bullies deceive on a daily basis. Their Jekyl and Hyde behavior more times than not convince school officials that they have done nothing to the victim whereas in truth, they have deeply psychologically scarred the victim through manipulation and social projection. There is a great list which explains the personality of a bully. They are described by many psychologists as: "Child bullies are adept at manipulating weak or inexperienced adults." Sources--http://www.bullyonline.org...==Rubuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 3.1==Allowing a bully to continue to degrade their victims causes more devestation than allowing them free education or continuing to allow them to work. It's estimated that the total cost of bullying cost a tragic toll of: "£3.7 billion annual cost to society," in the UK alone. The cost of bullying in the United States is: "Human resource managers are beginning to realize there is a real productivity cost to these kinds of things." Psychologist Michael H. Harrison, Ph.D., of Harrison Psychological Associates, quotes a recent survey of 9,000 federal employees indicating that 42 percent of female and 15 percent of male employees reported being harassed within a two-year period, resulting in a cost of more than $180 million in lost time and productivity." Sources--http://www.bullyonline.org...http://www.bizjournals.com...==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 3.2==The problem is that a delimeter and qualifying process has not yet been institutionalized. If you present me with solid evidence of such then I will agree on this point.==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 3.3==Schools can and many have been installing security cameras in order to keep their students safe. If the bullying is caught on camera, which will likely happen considering that many schools have installed security survalliene, then the bully should be prosecuted to the fullest extend to the law if convicted. Sources--http://www.skywaysecurity.com...

Hello, this will be my first debate on this site so I will do my best. I accept your challenge and will represent the argument against dodgeball's allowance in public schools.

In most schools today, profanity does count as poor behavior in their policies- however, this is about whether or not they SHOULD be allowed in schools. If they are allowed in schools, points wouldn't be allowed to be taken off for behavior. Freedom is NOT just for being positive- in Brandenburg v Ohio, the supreme court ruled that any free speech is allowed so long as it does not cause imminent lawless action- which is disobeying a law intentionally and fast as a result of your speech. Its fine to go up to someone and say "I don't like you". Look at what we have today- all these people criticizing the government and especially President Obama. This just shows that freedom is for postive and negative, the constitution doesn't care if you are trying to be unkind to someone.CXAre you saying it should be illegal to criticize the government, because that is a negative freedom?

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