Question: Should Instructors Receive Job Security for Life?

It's unjust to terminate teachers solely based on their seniority. Why should teachers face dismissal based merely on the length of their service? In recent times, several teachers who specialize in elective courses have been laid off. Surprisingly, this includes a Music Teacher who was recently recognized as the top educator in the valley! Indeed, the situation is quite paradoxical, don't you think?

look i am trying to make my point short and simple i fully understand your system but the only people willing to teach this would most likley be religious ones as they would also most likely be the only ones with those qualifications to become that kind of teacher. What we have to remeber is a religous person normally feels strongly about their religion and will oppose any opposition to it most of the time and often be biased. I learn this not from assuming this fact but knowing this as i have exprinced this and for example out of around 20 teachers at my school who taught religous studys all of them were storngly biased for there religion and against others. You cant change that in a person but the only way to get around this would be to have teachers who are non-religious but are intrested in religion and are willing to teach it which means there would never be enough. as for religion does kill i feel its off the subject but why not debate that to ? religion does kill , imagine it if there was no religion there would be no murders or wars assioctied with religion in the first and place. saying it is not an actually object religion is in a way not true sure it physically doesnt kill the other person but if religion wasnt invovled in the first place, this misguided indivdual would never have commited this act. thats like me saying the person firing the gun didnt commit the murder the gun did and this person was simply misguided. the jews would of been saved if they were not religious because think logically , sure they were targeted by the goverment , but if they never had this religion in the first place then the goverment never would of targeted them . also like to apologise for spelling and grammer .

To answer your questions Do you think abortion is wrong? yes Are you against affirmative action? yes Do you want a border fence? yes Should the death penalty be illegal? yes Should drugs be illegal? yes Are you against environmental protection? yes Are you pro for estate tax? yes Are you against flag burning? yes Do you like the flat tax plan? yes Are you against gay marriage? yes Is global warming BS? yes Should guns be illegal? yes Are you against labor unions? yes Are you against late term abortion? yes Are you against Medicaid and Medicare? yes Are you against medical marijuana? yes Are you against minimum wage? yes Are you against the missile defense system? yes Are you against national health care? yes Do you like national retail sales tax? yes Do you dislike police profiling? yes Do you dislike president George W. Bush? yes Are you for progressive tax? yes Are you against social programs? yes Do you want social security? yes Do you want term limits? yes Do you want tobacco rights? yes Do you like United Nations? yes Do you like United States? yes Do you like the war in Afghanistan? yes Are you against the war in Iraq? yes Are you against the war in Iran? yes Do you like the war on terrorism? yes Do you like water boarding? yes Are you against Welfare? yes Are you against the World Trade Organization? yes That was fun, on to the next portion which is the most important issue in my opinion. I'll go with social security. Social security is really nice and helpful. When people get old they have a way to get money and a means to live. My grandparents have social security and it helps them get by. I want to have social security when I'm older so I can live a good old person life. This is a legitimate reason as to why it should be around. My dad is getting up there in age and will need it to get by. Also I'll point out that its a way for the government to protect the general welfare of the people. Social security is any government system that provides monetary assistance to people with an inadequate income, and just by that definition sounds just. Generally everyone in the US wants social security. We owe it to our older members of society to pay for their retirement. When you have worked your entire life, its important that you take a break. But to take that break you need social security. Who wants to work all their life and die? This is why social security is good for me and the people of the United states. If the government was to abolish social security, there would most likely be rioting. Next segment of our little game. Yes I watched the video, one thing in common with each clip, is that they all featured fictional characters :) Thanks for making the rules for me by the way. (sarcasm) http://www.youtube.com...

Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media. If the statements do not name any specific person, threaten the lives of people or directly harass anyone the employee should be protected. Otherwise, it is a violation of free speech. Employees should be able to express their opinions without the threat of termination. shared BoP Opponent must prove that it is lawful for employers to terminate their employees for expressing their opinions or making blanket generic statements. Bullying and personal derrogatory insults will be considered direct harassment for this debate.

The point about tracking someone, bothers you. Lets use a simpler way of confirming attendance. Scanning the schools bar code or simply using an app that with a button press, sends your location to the school. A lot of your address my previous points, but they dont counter-argue them. For example, the fourth point, is absolutely your personal statement, which says that face-to-face teaching defeat virtual learning. There is no research supporting that argument. Doctors, hi-tech people, scientists, lawyers etc, use the internet. Number 5 is exactly my point. Why to reiterate it? 6.7. I never said that I would use google during the exam. "the information encoded into long term memory as a result face to face communication is the best known methodology for facilitating encoding." That just shows how little psychology you know. "What's actually driving up tuition are the redundant administrative positions that are growing in number. not hiring professors. but that's a debate for another day." And that point shows that you like talking about something else and not address my point. I was talking about them being high in the current rate. Not why they are growing. "Having an online community to help you would be beneficial as long as it was used as a supplement to what was taught in the lecture." True. You just reiterated my pro argument. "Information must first be encoded into long term memory in the lecture, " Here is that last hilarious closing statement again.

Surely my opponent is joking. The teaching of Marx is illegal. http://articles.latimes.com... In fact this makes Christianity illegal, at least the Matthew 5:34 and James 5:12 part. http://bible.cc... That is where our presigious universities are. Who knows where our high schools are. Anyway, to continue on the Paolo Friere model of education, based on Marxist philosophy: Examining what paradigms might be useful. Entities appear, called "life," which are able to maintain a stable existence in a changing environment. Some of these are cognizant and form and adhere to worldviews, which exist in a very complex multidimensional imaginary metric space http://en.wikipedia.org... but still fall within our definition of "life." We can study the behavior of humans by studying the behavior of worldviews. They are motivated to grow, and compete with other worldviews for adherents. This activity can now be greatly accelerated because of mass media. They can now form protective information shields around themselves by forming them around their adherents using various mass media techniques. How does this change what happens when two worldviews collide? They spawn new worldviews. They attempt to assimilate one another. When a group of humans is formed, and I am tempted to call groups "contests," a new worldview is created. If these humans are in captivity, how will that affect the dynamics and worldview of the group? Allowing any fragment of a worldview to be a worldview, we can probably establish a compact http://en.wikipedia.org... or at least locally compact group http://en.wikipedia.org... topology (in addition to the obvious lattice structure) on Idea Space using the finite set of human beings and, for example, the corresponding set of mutually relevant (or irrelevant) worldviews, and worldviews can be combined to yield new worldviews not only by collision but also by thought-experiment of studying the duality between them, yielding not only infinitely many new worldviews, but uncountably infinitely many. Thus there are a number of mathematical group http://en.wikipedia.org...(mathematics) operations. A locally compact topological group can form exotic mathematical structures such as Pontryagin duality http://en.wikipedia.org... and additionally has the lattice structure http://en.wikipedia.org... and is a metric space. Mathematicians will have fun with this for years to come. Depending of course on your definition of "fun." Each group (contest) is itself an entity and may or may not have its own worldview. Groups will tend to form pairs, or "dualities." There are stable and unstable pairs. Here is an unstable pair: http://www.finitesite.com... Here is an unjust pair: http://www.prisonexp.org... They are not stable over the long run, so are really unstable pairs. A group of more than two will tend to become a pair of "leader" and "everyone else". The leader may be the group's own worldview, as in the case of groupthink. http://www.psysr.org... A duality implies there is a continuum between the two. Studying the nature of a duality will give greater insight. The study of the duality between Scientific Research and Society is called "Science and Technology Studies." The study of the the duality between Technology and Society is called "Technology and Society." All we have to do is discover who they are and what they have in common and what they do not. Variations have been proposed, including activity theory, ethnomethodology, distributed cognition, actor-network theory. I'm not clear how these relate but they are said to be "Marxist," and noting that they are not particularly about economic theory. I think the "Marxist" point of view would hold that "Marxism," if there is such a thing, would have to be the study of everything and could not be conducted solely within the schools but wherever everything is. The schools would be suitable mainly for studying schools. The Communist Manifesto, published in February 1848, Engels claims, represents Marx's philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org... but it may be a little too much focused on economic theory. Besides it just puts me to sleep. and quoting now from http://en.wikipedia.org... "As a scientist and materialist, Marx did not understand classes as purely subjective (in other words, groups of people who consciously identified with one another). He sought to define classes in terms of objective criteria, such as their access to resources. For Marx: ' The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.' — (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1)" Read "Labor's Untold Story" and you might think that it is. It certainly makes history come alive. How many hours did you work today? Your grandfather worked eighteen. Your grandmother too, and when they were teens. Do you have a health plan? They didn't. Bring this book to history class and see what happens. Additionally Marx allowed his views about religion to color his objectivity. The notion that there is only the objective and no subjective contradicts not only Hegel but aforementioned Eastern philosophy.

I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e. g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school. Sources: My thoughts ;D, no seriously.

First off you need SCHOOL because you can't even spell. the word and school does a lot of things like giving people the opportunity to play sports make good grades and also have a good career starting from college to retirement to make money for yourself. By the way how did you even post this A computer, A tablet, A phone? How do you think those were made from 5 year old or 15 year old no a educated man who went through school and college and got a job and you telling me they should be nuked! Well lets see your idea No school mainly and that would mean no phones no tech-knowledgeably and no lifes all i haft to say is good plan.

If a student knows what they want to do when they grow up (IE;teacher) they should have schedules more based towards helping them. For example Algebra will not be required if a student wants to be a lifeguard when they grow up. or a student will not need Gym for if they want to be a librarian. They need to become more self dependent and be able to make the right choices. If you know what you want to do when you finish school you should set up your schedule. For example someone who wants to be an athlete should have multiple gym classes. or someone who wants to be an artist should have multiple art classes and less science classes.

If you are to do good in your LSAT or graduate in law in their bachelors degree then you can open so many doors for you. You can work in a hospital, schools, correction facility or any other public place, you can even open your own law firm. And even if that does not work out you can be a college professor, teaching college students on laws. You would at least make $50 an hour .If we are talking people who get job right after their high school graduation vs students who gets their job after college educations then we have to look at the Job quality, pay rate, hours and what kid of job it is. For a high school student it is very unlikely to get a job that pays them at the most $15 an hour, even if the manage to get a job that pays that well, it has to be a really odd job ( speaking from experience). Now for college students there are loans you can take, financial aid and not to mentions the scholarships. Any of the above can pay for your tuition. The connections that you make in college and the connection you make in high school is different between an acorn to an oak tree

My opponent still hasn't refuted my original arguments. For the final round, I will simply refute his previous arguments again. First, I would like to make it clear that the government wouldn't be "forcing" people to hire security guards. If the property owner cannot afford to make his gun free zone safe for everyone, he can simply allow guns instead. Thus, requiring gun free zones to have security guards is justified. And once again, the fact that they can simply choose not to enter is irrelevant. The chances of getting killed are so low that almost no one will be afraid. But gun crimes do happen, and the hiring of a security guard would still reduce the number of people killed each year in gun free zones. And as I said above, the property owner can simply allow guns, choosing to reduce crime by conceal carriers instead of security guards. Airliners are not a good example, as they do put armed guards (called Federal Air Marshals [1][2]) on planes, disguised as normal civilians. This argument is self-refuting, because in this situation they do exactly what I am proposing. In your next argument, I will once again state that the government isn't forcing anyone to pay for something, because if you don't want to hire a security guard, you can just allow guns. Thus, none of these "property infringements" require money to be paid. Does it cost someone money NOT to make his property a gun free zone? No. My opponent still hasn't provided any proof that the government cannot hire security guards, and although I am still not arguing for this, I will give my opponent the benefit of doubt for the moment: Assuming I was actually arguing this, what proof have you given that security guards couldn't be hired? None. You have given no sources confirming this; only a source saying some jobs have been lost, and a source of someone claiming it would cost 9 billion. These claims by themselves do not prove that the government cannot hire security guards. And even if the government really couldn't, they could potentially cut other government programs to afford it. All of this aside, it is clear that teachers still exist. There are also crossing guards, and many other school employees, all of which get paid a very good salary. If the government can afford all of this, I see no reason why they can't fit in a security guard. Furthermore, there are other solutions - most notably, the government could simply stop making schools gun free zones. But none of that is relevant, because I am not debating this; that subject could fill an entire debate of its own. My opponent claims that I am debating this, and makes up his own resolution, which is NOT the resolution I put at the beginning of this debate. Please read the resolution one more time: QUOTE (round 1): If a property owner (such as the owner of a restaurant or office building) wants to make their property a gun free zone, they should be required to hire one or more armed security guards. "Property owner" clearly does not refer to the government; it refers to an individual, an owner of private property where he (most likely) plans to set up a business, as implied by my examples of "the owner of a restaurant or office building." My opponent emphasizes on the word "all." I would like to note that nowhere in the resolution (be it the complete one, or the summarized one I put as the title) did I say the word "all." Nowhere in the resolution does it say that the government would be included in such a rule, and this simply isn't what we are debating about. In summary: -My opponent is mainly against the resolution because he believes people will be forced to hire security guards. This isn't true, as the property owner can simply allow guns instead. -Con reasons that you can simply choose not to enter a gun free zone. This is irrelevant to the fact that the hiring of security guards would save innocent lives. People that enter gun free zones regardless of potential danger are still innocent. -Con's argument concerning the citizen's risk when boarding an airplane is self-refuting, because airlines do have Federal Air Marshals (which are akin to security guards) -Con believes I am arguing for security guards in schools. Based on this assumption, he claims that the government cannot afford to hire security guards. I am not arguing that security guards in schools should be required. Even if I was, Con has provided no proof, and I provided several points proving the argument irrelevant. All of my opponent's arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Please vote Pro. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.federalnewsradio.com...


Question: Should Instructors Receive Lifetime Job Security?

The American Public Education System Hinders Creativity and Independence

I wish to commence this discussion by clarifying the implications of my subject: A substantial proportion of so-called educators are essentially cogs in an obese mechanism of mediocrity, under the delusion that they are contributing positively to society (unaware that their actions are fostering a widespread decline in our nation's youth's intellectual capabilities). My gratitude.

Regarding the question of whether teachers should receive tenure, it is crucial to consider the broader context of the American public education system, which often suppresses free-thinking and individuality. Many educators, who might initially possess a genuine desire to make a difference, can become entangled in a bureaucratic system that promotes conformity and mediocrity. This system, rather than fostering creativity and critical thinking, can inadvertently contribute to the "dumbing down" of students, as educators might be pressured to adhere to standardized curricula and testing, which prioritize rote memorization over deep understanding and innovation. Thus, the debate over teacher tenure should not be viewed in isolation but rather as part of a larger conversation about the role of education in society and how best to support educators in nurturing the next generation of thinkers and leaders.

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are "lesser"? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.

I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e. g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school. Sources: My thoughts ;D, no seriously.

In my last post rich text didn't appear to work so the first few lines seem badly presented. It is still my fault though so I accept being penalised on the basis that no-one just votes con for spelling and grammar and does not base his vote on anything else. R1: The title was not "we should remove all security" but "security is jot a threat in the modern world." The point is that nearly every action you do is to protect yourself. When I touch the keyboard my fingers instinctively bend. The higher levels of security is all sorted out by the people who work in that sector. But if Random individuals speak out about security like in the recent 'not in parliament' five way UK election debate [1] then the government must speak out and reveal security plans that only worsen security that ultimately we shouldn't be worrying about. The only person who wanted trident was Nigel Farage anyway who, well, lets face it is, a bit rubbish (although I do believe he is NOT racist, we can debate about that some other time). He isn't a very good debater either [2], so it may have been a little desperate. I think that if these views had not of been publicly revealed we could leave it to people who really know what they are doing without oppositions knowing. I think that my opposition hasn't quite taken the message correctly and so that is why you should vote pro. Of course it has been a fantastic debate but my opposition hasn't quite understood what he is meant to say. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: 1. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk... 2. http://www.theguardian.com...

Basicly as Pro I have to argue that Certain jobs have to be done by men. Military In the course of battle it should only be men not women, because if in battle the men would be more concered about the women's safty then killing the enemy. http://dailycaller.com... Teacher's In today's world women should be teachers vs. men. Women have the tendency to be gentler then men when teaching.

Thank you I'msmarterthanyou98 for accepting my challenge, thank you all who are following this, I will now present my opening case. Contention 1: Grades create stress. The ides that grades engender create stress in two ways. Firstly, grades are effectively a way of linearly comparing a group of people, by comparing their work to a fixed external standard. In doing this, one creates a sense for students of having to measure up to those around them, creating stress. This is a major impact because stress decreases from performance. Few students perform well under stress and most perform poorly. [1] One can see this from a purely psychological and reasonable standpoint in that it causes extraneous thought. When one is stressed, one worries about a failed outcome while preparing for or attempting to achieve a successful one, detracting from ones ability to solve the problem at hand. If one is not measured against an external standard, thought about the outcome goes away. Not only can stress be shown to be detrimental from a psychological standpoint, it is also shown to be detrimental Neurologically. Conditions in which an individual is overstressed lead to activate the fight of flight response, pumping adrenaline into your system. Small amounts of adrenaline keep you focused but large quantities begin to shut down all but the parts of your brain necessary for survival. When constantly living under high stress, one sees everything as a threat, and has trouble focusing on things like schoolwork. Contention 2: Grades discourage students from looking at meaningful feedback, and discourage teachers from giving it. Even if a narrative (or some other form of meaningful feedback) is given, students don’t pay attention to it, and it is often written as a justification of a grade. It is essential in correcting ones mistakes to place a premium on feedback that tells a student what they can do better, and not feedback that tells them where they fit with respect to others. If this is so obvious, one might ask why students don’t just look past the grade? The answer is that grading becomes a lifestyle. Students are taught that they must work hard to get a good grade, and must get a good grade to get into the next level of education because educational specialists believe that all forms of motivation are the same. This overemphasis on and often threat on arbitrary placement and sorting, means that students are taught from a young age that grades are what they are and what they judge themselves by, making meaningful feedback seem irrelevant. Contention 3: Grades harm interest and ambition. [2] When a student receives a grade that does not live up to their standards, they are discouraged from pursuing work in that field. A student who gets a bad grade in math for example, may think, “I’m interested in math, but I’m not good at it, maybe I shouldn't take advanced math classes.” Students have two reasons to come to this conclusion due to grading. Firstly, they are dissuaded because of the possibility that further grades may be bad, lowering their GPA and making it harder to progress into a desired institution for the next stage of their education. Even if a students bad grade comes from external circumstances or if the student was merely behind because of a class that did not prepare them earlier in life, the result is the same. With the way that most grades are doled out; someone who made use of their skills from a disadvantaged position to attempt to solve a problem but failed, will receive the same mark as one who makes little use of the wealth skills they have; and fails anyway. Taking away grades forces teachers to give meaningful feedback about student work and effort. Secondly; grades emphasize 2 things: adeptness over interest and precision over creativity. A student with a controversial approach to a problem who gets some minor calculation or detail slightly wrong thinks that they had better not go into the field in which they failed, because grades teach that one must be adept. Contention 4: Grades put emphasis on external, extrinsic motivation. Kids are learning not because they are interested, but because they want to be given a good ranking in comparison to others. This type of motivation tends not to interest students in the subject but rather interest them in a grade. In fact, extrinsic motivation has been shown to directly impair intrinsic motivation, and “ A “grading orientation” and a “learning orientation” have been shown to be inversely related and, as far as I can tell, every study that has ever investigated the impact on intrinsic motivation of receiving grades (or instructions that emphasize the importance of getting good grades) has found a negative effect.” [3] Contention 5: Grading fosters individuality and detracts from interaction, as well as promoting cheating. Because of the intrinsic competition involved in grading (especially grading on a curve,) students are encouraged to compete rather than to work together. If you work with Johnny, and it turns out you understand the material better than him, then he will benefit from your knowledge, and drag your grade down. Collaboration has been shown to be an integral part of student learning, and has been shown to raise intrinsic motivation, cognitive functioning, and retention of information, as well as decreasing racism. [4] Conversely, the pressure often leads students to cheat, so as to do as well as (or better than their piers.) [5] Contention 6: External standards do not allow for teaching to outliers. With a grade based system it is difficult to teach to children that are either far above average or far below average. A student that is far above average is given an A, and rewarded for what is simple to them, where they should be being pushed and challenged. Every detail should be explained to them. Conversely, a student with a D or an F is discouraged and, instead of having the general picture explained to them comes away with a sense of disappointment and dislike. Contention 7: Grades foster rote memorization over creativity, and put arbitrary standards on creative processes. In any system grades will be somewhat arbitrary, especially in the humanities, but it is hard to grapple with that rationally as a young kid. A kid receiving a B from a class with a more difficult professor that a friend receives an A in with a different professor, assumes that they can not work at the same level as their pier. To account for this, schools tend towards rote memorization. It is easier to see if Student A is better than Student B, if both teachers give a grade on a vocabulary quiz, rather than a piece of creative writing and or an analytical essay. This has results in horrible curriculum standards, especially in STEM fields. To create a level playing field and make sure kids are learning the same things, they assign a curriculum that everyone can take standardized tests on. This allows for people's results to be quantized, even if the tests are arbitrary and meaningless. In the field of mathematics especially, most students must get to college or even grad school before they actually start doing proofs, research and creative work. This deters students from taking math, and gives the impression that math is a field only used as a tool. The same is done with many of the sciences. Contention 8: Grades promote focus on easy problems, and detract from willingness to challenge oneself. Lets say that a student were to have a homework assignment with 10 problems, and had only one hour to complete the assignment. Now assume that 5 of the problems take from 3-5 minutes, making them comparatively easy to get done, but 3 of the remaining problems take 5 to 10 minutes and the last two take 10-20. From an interest and educational standpoint, the last two and the three before that are the most important, and all five could probably be done within the hour the student has available. A student with internal motivation about the subject does those five problems, but a student motivated by the need to get a grade does the first 8, completing more problems in less time. By assigning a grade, the teacher detracts from the level of work students engage in. The same is true with the humanities; students are discouraged from writing about topics that are more complicated than necessary because there is a greater chance of failure. This is corroborated by educational psychologists mentioned in my 3rd and 6the sources. Contention 9: Students who are graded tend to forget what they learned more quickly and think in a more superficial manner. Students working for a grade view knowledge as something that must be internalized in order to achieve a high mark, instead of something that can be intriguing when discussed and grappled with. It follows that once their objective is completed, the knowledge becomes unnecessary, as it is no longer necessary to obtain a grade. It also follows that students are less likely to engage with material, thinking only about what they need to know for a test and not about what a particular passage means in the grand scheme of things, or how a text relates to the world. In a study “students told they’d be graded on how well they learned a social studies lesson had more trouble understanding the main point of the text than did students who were told that no grades would be involved. Even on a measure of rote recall, the graded group remembered fewer facts a week later.” (Grolnick and Ryan, 1987) [6] Thank you, please vote Pro [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://www.bbc.com... [3] http://www.alfiekohn.org... [4] http://www.ccsstl.com... [5] www.mendhamboro.org/cms/lib02/NJ01000391/Centricity/ModuleInstance/638/Anderman_et_al._1998_-_Motivation_and_cheating.pdf [6] http://www.alternet.org...

"There would be more driving schools with more intense teachers for that and instead of the driving school only being 6 months it could be 1 year" Call me crazy, but I think that the billions of dollars in additional accidents and insurance costs would be more then enough to erase any benefit by paying driving instructors more.... In fact driving teachers might not teach longer either since thats just hopeful speculation not backed by any actual evidence. When people started going to college more colleges didnt hire more teachers, they just expanded classroom sizes. Same thing would happen with driving classes Pro dropped all other arguments about how costly cars already are to the economy so I extend those arguments as well

since my opponent has failed to post an argument there is nothing for me to refute so I will just make a few points on the matter observation1- what do you mean by Universities? is it all universities? or specific universities? or private universities? observation2- since my opponent made relative the word "universities" then it must be all university's can you say what universitys actually want does the university at Montepellier prefer the same programs as the Texas lutheran university and if they don't then wouldn't that make whoever's for this resolution by default wrong observation3- since "universities" is relative and the resolution is subjective this begs the question how should this resolution be debated? contention 1- The liberal arts cover a wide range of academic disciplines: art, classics, language, literature, philosophy and much more. Completing a Doctorate in Liberal Arts generally prepares you to become a university professor, but certain concentrations can lead you into nonacademic fields. this is very interesting if you learn about everything you can become a professor, but who is actually or who in general wants to become a professor nowadays and if a doctors gets you to become a professor imagine what a masters does a teacer at some praised private school and then it probably goes down hill from there

Thank you for your opinion, I see your point of view. But let's take into consideration public schools that financed by government and money for salaries for the teachers, repair and new furnishing they get from state. It proves that education can and SHOULD be free. From my point of view, it's unfair to gauge the amount of knowledge with a person purse, and not even his, with his parents money. we can't get a good job with high salary without a diploma. so, everyone should have a chance to get quality education.

I am arguing the contrary position. Your argument is that there should be restrictions. My argument is that there should not be restrictions. Do you forfeit?

But if the students do not know the teachers have a weapon how would they get it? they wouldn't! if the teachers have a concealed weapon( even maybe just a knife) they could help prevent deaths. Now im not saying things could go wrong, because well they surely could. That is why i think it would be important for people interested in being a teacher they must get a mental test done to make sure they are mentally right for a teaching job.


Question: Should Instructors Receive Job Security for Life?

Colleges should not eliminate the system that allows teachers to earn tenure.

I will argue against the proposition that the institution of tenure for college professors should be eliminated, presenting three main arguments: [Argument 1]: Tenure is an essential safeguard. [Argument 2]: Tenured teachers can still be dismissed (and other misconceptions). [Argument 3]: Research endorses the value of tenure.

[Argument 1]: Tenure is an essential safeguard.
The notion of tenure has a history stretching back over a century to the early 20th century, when the educational landscape was markedly different from today [1]. The teaching profession was predominantly female, class sizes were larger, and working conditions were subpar [2]. Prior to the establishment of tenure, teachers could be dismissed for any reason. A teacher could be fired instantly for getting married or, worse, becoming pregnant. Tenure and teachers' unions were introduced to ensure a degree of job security for educators. They sought the assurance that their employment would not be terminated without cause. At the high school level, teachers typically need to work at the same institution for 3-5 years before being considered for tenure, with their teaching ability being a crucial factor. At the university level, 6 years of teaching is usually required before being eligible for tenure. Once granted tenure, however, teachers are not immune to dismissal. "Tenure safeguards academic freedom. Without tenure, teachers could be dismissed for any reason. They might be fired if the principal dislikes them or if they are experienced and thus costly. They might be fired for speaking out [2]." In essence, tenure allows teachers to participate more actively in school decision-making, rather than being passive recipients of changes. This is particularly crucial at the college level, where professors often challenge students' preconceived notions and encourage critical thinking. When I took a Sociology class during my senior year, the professor warned us about an upcoming lecture on religion that would scrutinize various faiths. I found this warning odd, as I believed that individuals with strong convictions should be open to having their beliefs challenged. Surprisingly, some students' parents complained about the lecture. Tenure in this scenario protects the professor from being dismissed merely because a student disagreed with the content.

[Argument 2]: Tenured teachers can still be dismissed (and other misconceptions).
There are numerous misunderstandings surrounding tenure, which is a primary reason I am engaging in this discussion. Some believe that tenured teachers cannot be fired and have permanent job security, allowing them to relax

All you do is sit there and play video games. Play a movie or something mabye? If this is all your supossed to do as a teacher many people could easily become one.

I will be arguing that teachers should be allowed to carry, but not forced to, given that they have valid CHL licenses in the states which they reside.

Based upon the opposing sides wording, I am having some difficulty in discerning what they are proposing. View 1 of what opposing side is saying. If you take the plain letter wording of what opponents argument is, it it would be, "Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism." I believe a simple response would be: "showing racism" is not the problem, instead it is the lack of showing racism that is worse. Consider this example, Teacher A: Gives student a grade of a C on a paper and in the comments writes "Irishmen cannot understand this topic because they are always drunk and therefore your opinion is terrible" Most likely this showing of racism would result in a grade protest and academic disciplines. However, if Teacher B shared teacher A's view about the Irish but did not outwardly show racism it would look like this Teacher B: Gives student a C on the paper because he assumes Irishmen cannot understand this topic, then writes in the comments "your lower grade reflects a failure of understanding of the topic" In both examples the grade was not based on the student's ability; instead, it was based on the racist teachers' view and student received a C. However, in the second example, when the teacher did not outwardly show racism, the student would likely have no knowledge of the teacher's racial motivation and he also would have to look harder to find some sort of proof. Therefore, in this example it is better for a teacher to show racism in marks, then it is to have racism underlying a mark but not be expressed. View 2 of what Opposing side is saying. In order to provide cognizant view for me to debate I will summarize and rephrase opponents argument into something more articulate. OLD ARGUMENT "Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism. Yes it's true. i have seen in some schools and some universities, teachers are showing racism in giving marks. They are giving more marks to the students those who are good for them and familiar to them. I'm strongly disagree with this kind of teachers. Some teachers are looking country wise to give marks. They are giving more marks to their own country students. What is the purpose of this?" Opponents new argument:In my experience across several schools and universities, Teachers are subjectively grading students based upon various categories. These categories include whether they like the student 2. whether the student is agreeing with them and finally 3. Whether the student is foreign or of a different ethnicity. Subjective grading is bad and therefore teachers should dismiss them. View 3 of what opposing side is saying (this one is probably off and utilized a lot of reading between the lines) In my experience teachers are racist because they did not give me good grades and other people did get good grades. ARGUMENT: I will wait for opposing response before I write anymore, hopefully they can clarify and we can have a good discussion on the use of subjectivity in grading.

I completely understand where you're coming from with the firearm definition.The other clarification that I would like to make is campus is High, Middle, and Elementary Schools.Constructive SpeechContention 1: InherencySchool shootings are tragic occurrences that have become far too common in our culture today by many standards. In light of some of the most recent events involving school shootings in Philadelphia, New Mexico and Colorado, as well as the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, some state legislators are considering a new approach to the problem: licenses that allow educators to carry concealed weapons onto campus. The first known school district to institute such a policy was the Harrold Independent School District in Harrold, Texas, but numerous other districts have followed suit in recent years, with other districts considering the possibility rather seriously. Contention 2: HarmsAccording to [1] since 2000 there have been 179 school shootings in the United States of America. The fact of the matter is that we as a country are allowing these killers to enter school and kill students. This harm is completely unacceptable. As a country we need to develop a plan that reduces these crimes. The Affirmative Plan Solves this.Plan:Plank 1: Madate: The United States should implement a plan in which all High School, Middle School, and Elementary School teachers will be required to know how to use and operate a handgun. This plan should also implement teachers taking a firearm saftey course.Plank 2: Mechanism: The United States will implement this plan by requiring all teachers to learn how to operate a handgun. This will require a handgun saftey course. Plank 3: Funding: The funding for this plan will occur through a 1 penny increase on gas. According to think progress [2] raising gas 1 penny will transfer to a 5.8 billion dollar payday for the government. By requiring the Government to implement a gas tax, we can make enough money to pay for a handgun. On average, the typical handgun cost's between 500-800 dollars [3]. Plank 4: Enforcement: This plan will be enforced through the United States Department of Education, then transfered down the Each and Every School District to enforce this plan.Contention 3: SolvencyThe plan solves school shootings.This plan, will increase the amount of firepower that is on school grounds. Countries like Switzerland [4] that require all citizens to own a handgun have the lowest crime rate of all counties in the world. As John Czarnecki PhD of Forensics at the University of Colorado Boulder once said, (2014) "The threat in public of law abiding citizens having weapons, and the training to do so, will always deter shooters not to follow through with what they plan on doing." Switzerland requiring all citizens to own a handgun deters the threat of violence.School requiring teachers to have a handgun with them in class, will show shooters that there is more teachers with weapons to protect the students than him/her. This will deter them from ever stepping onto school grounds with the thought of killing students.In the end, having proposed a thorough plan, and 3 contentions to back up this plan of the need for teachers to have firearms, I arge an affirmative ballot in today's debate. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] http://www.cabelas.com...[4] http://www.elist10.com...

His own arguments which he does not extend no longer matter in this debate. I defined school as an average American public school. He did not dispute this definition, therefore, that is the definition. To graduate an average American public school, all one needs to do is take 1 year of art- and no music and technology. The student also needs to take two years of foreign language. These years will only cover the basics and are not excessive, like PRO claims they will be. Onto history. He brings up that we need to forget our past and focus on the future. I have several responses to this. 1) There is only a future if we have a past and a present. Therefore the past is important. 2) We don't know what to do if we didn't have a past. George Washington set a precedent by stepping out of office after two terms. 3) Always expand your horizons. Who says you won't become president or senator one day? Also, a broad knowledge of little tidbits makes one seem smarter than he actually is. 4) He says America is dumb and then proposes to cut school. Ok? His credibility just shot right out the window. 5) He says America is dumb yet provides NO OTHER solution to fix this problem other than cutting school. Argument 1) He doesn't respond to the argument that cutting schools will not encourage people to become teachers. Let me expand. Currently, a teacher's salary is low. People will only become teachers if they love working with children so much that that overcomes to salary. Eventually, as school gets cut, the salary becomes so low that teachers will not be willing to take that much of a salary cut (1/6 or 1/3) to remain a teacher. Thus, the best teachers get thrown out and we are stuck with new, untrained teachers. He says America is currently dumb. Implementing is plan is not helping this cause; it actually hurts the cause. Thank you.

people dont take notes in class often. Homework is proof for the teachers that you understand the material and are able to excell at it. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU LEARNED. You have forgoten about people who have strugles learning material. They need an education to. You have failed to refute any of my points and have not developed and argument. You put a 500 charecter limit on this.

Hello my friends. Thanks for your attention to this topic. I really thank you. So, going to college for career, making connections, or getting degree or whatever doesnt really mean anything. It is totally waste of money and time. FYI, each year, tuition and fees increase anywhere pretty much. Bring it on if you are disagree with the statement ! ha

To answer your questions Do you think abortion is wrong? yes Are you against affirmative action? yes Do you want a border fence? yes Should the death penalty be illegal? yes Should drugs be illegal? yes Are you against environmental protection? yes Are you pro for estate tax? yes Are you against flag burning? yes Do you like the flat tax plan? yes Are you against gay marriage? yes Is global warming BS? yes Should guns be illegal? yes Are you against labor unions? yes Are you against late term abortion? yes Are you against Medicaid and Medicare? yes Are you against medical marijuana? yes Are you against minimum wage? yes Are you against the missile defense system? yes Are you against national health care? yes Do you like national retail sales tax? yes Do you dislike police profiling? yes Do you dislike president George W. Bush? yes Are you for progressive tax? yes Are you against social programs? yes Do you want social security? yes Do you want term limits? yes Do you want tobacco rights? yes Do you like United Nations? yes Do you like United States? yes Do you like the war in Afghanistan? yes Are you against the war in Iraq? yes Are you against the war in Iran? yes Do you like the war on terrorism? yes Do you like water boarding? yes Are you against Welfare? yes Are you against the World Trade Organization? yes That was fun, on to the next portion which is the most important issue in my opinion. I'll go with social security. Social security is really nice and helpful. When people get old they have a way to get money and a means to live. My grandparents have social security and it helps them get by. I want to have social security when I'm older so I can live a good old person life. This is a legitimate reason as to why it should be around. My dad is getting up there in age and will need it to get by. Also I'll point out that its a way for the government to protect the general welfare of the people. Social security is any government system that provides monetary assistance to people with an inadequate income, and just by that definition sounds just. Generally everyone in the US wants social security. We owe it to our older members of society to pay for their retirement. When you have worked your entire life, its important that you take a break. But to take that break you need social security. Who wants to work all their life and die? This is why social security is good for me and the people of the United states. If the government was to abolish social security, there would most likely be rioting. Next segment of our little game. Yes I watched the video, one thing in common with each clip, is that they all featured fictional characters :) Thanks for making the rules for me by the way. (sarcasm) http://www.youtube.com...

I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many.

Teachers nowadays are giving out way to many detentions leaving students liable to more, Is this acceptable. I would like to welcome my opponent to this debate on a ever lasting topic. Debate starts next round.


Question: Should Instructors Receive Tenure Status?

The right to collective bargaining for teachers should be abolished.
PRO erroneously asserts that I have not demonstrated that collective bargaining leads to educational inefficiency. I have presented various reasons why collective bargaining is inefficient, supported by mathematical proofs based on monopoly theory. It hinders educational reform by blocking necessary changes. PRO argues that school districts cannot raise taxes, but teacher unions fund political campaigns in exchange for tax hikes, which would increase the school budget. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has donated millions to political campaigns, yet teacher unions do increase the school budget. PRO acknowledges that labor costs are the largest expense, which is directly influenced by teacher unions through collective bargaining, driving up labor costs. As I have shown, teachers earn more than psychologists, and public teachers receive higher salaries than non-unionized private teachers. PRO claims that removing collective bargaining rights will result in poor teachers due to lower pay. However, if teachers cannot be fired, they have less incentive to perform well. If reduced salaries lead to poor teaching, school districts will raise teacher salaries without union intervention. Private schools outperform public schools, paying teachers less and not unionizing them. PRO dismisses the differences between public and private sector bargaining without providing an explanation, despite my demonstration of why public sector bargaining is more dangerous to economic freedom. PRO asserts that unions are responsible for many government worker regulations, but there is no proof that unions are responsible or that the regulations are beneficial. OSHA safety regulations have not increased safety, and the rate of reduction in workplace fatalities has not decreased due to OSHA [1]. Mandating a 40-hour work week is unnecessary, as people choose jobs based on their willingness to work, which is why part-time jobs exist. The market ensures that worker salaries and conditions improve as capital resources and technology advance, without the need for unions or government intervention. Henry Ford voluntarily paid his workers higher salaries, reduced their working hours, and created a department to improve worker welfare. He did this not out of generosity, but because he wanted healthy workers and fewer turnovers. He was also anti-union. PRO's only rebuttal to education being a public service is that 'It is what it is' and confirms that teacher unions are responsible. However, I advocate for school choice, which makes US universities the best in the world. PRO argues against a program proven to work that teacher unions block. PRO states that tenure and dismissal are set by states and should be part of the debate, but his source shows that teacher unions play a role in tenure. When school

Teachers are the biggest slackers and dog fvckers in the world. I just saw the schedule for this year and there is a PA day after one week of school. Seriously? You are telling me that the 150 days for summer was not enough time to prep yourslf for the school year. All teachers do is bitch and complain about too many kids in their classroom and not getting paid enough. Really? Welcome to the real world dog fvckers. A teacher works for what, 8 monthjs of the year? You get 2 weeks for Christmas, You get spring break, You get reading weeks off, You get the whole summer off and you are still bitching? Most people get 2-3 weeks off not 4 months off, And everyone is busy and works hard, Yet the teachers are the ones always bitching and complaining on the news about wages and over crowding, Blah blah blah, Cry me a river. Teachers are the biggest dog fvckers in the world #teachersRlazy, #teachersRslackers

Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. "Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, "Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well.

My opponent has failed to give me his main argument. At this point, I understand that my opponent believes in creationism, but I do not know his stance on whether or not teachers should have the freedom to teach it in schools. There are no rebuttals that can be made presently.

Let us go straight to the arguments. I. Life For the rest of this debate, aka. this round, let us assume that my math was incorrect. Let us assume now that there are 100 minutes of lessons and 20 minutes of break. This was not clear at the beginning. It must have been a brain block on my part. Notice that pro has not in the least addressed the dilemma I created. In it I showed that teachers would have to teach twice as much if half the class elected to take their 40 minutes free time (As presented by Pro) in the morning and the other half in the evening. This would create added work on the teachers. Unintended by Pro’s model, maybe, but present nonetheless. According to Pro, his model actually increases free time outside school. This is weird. There is only 24 hours to a day. Let us assume that the current school time is 9-3, his proposal would be an effective of 9-2:40. However, as stated in his resolution, the model proposes a 9-5 schedule. If he wishes for students to come and go throughout the day with small snatches of time, this would mean small portions of time with no adult supervision at all, aka. time which can be spent committing minor crimes. As far as my experience goes, no company would employ any workers for short snatches of time before seeing them head back to school or something like that. Thus, unless pro meant a reduce homework, reduce school time in his resolution, this model is absolutely impossible to implement for just these two reasons alone. Unless Pro wishes to stay up past midnight doing homework and getting up at 5:30 the next morning to go to school, I suggest not implementing the particular model in which I am familiar with. II. Memory retention Pro has unfortunately continued to ignore the counter-proposal I made in the previous two rounds. Digitalize homework. This is already happening in many places, as I found out through personal experience. Unless Pro wishes for the model to change somewhat when students come of working age, his counter to my points about working is mute (:D). As I showed in the previous point, increasing net free time is not effective unless those free time comes in large blocks, which as far as I understand Pro’s model, is not part of.It would seem that our two studies contradict. However, although Pro’s opinion poll was from CareerBuilder, mine was from Stanford. It is up to the reader to determine whose is the more reliable.The whole point of my citing the study, I thought I clearly linked the two, is that as workers are more productive at home, it must be because they have better memory recall. Note that I have as such turned Pro’s quotation against him, showing that people are more productive at home, aka. remember more, than at work. This also ties in with the conceded point about comfort. All these factors argue strongly against Pro’s model. The fact that most school students do not work is a testament to short-sightedness and lack of life-planning. III. Cost Even were we to concede all of Pro’s points here, they will still not increase the quality of learning. In fact, my point regarding teachers working all-nighters have not been addressed. How does spending 95 minutes at school accomplish what is done in one night? It does not. Not in the least. Should I extend arguments here? IV. Social Mischief My opponent has not shown that crimes are committed disproportionately between 3-5pm. Even if we forced students to complete their homework in school (Negating the whole purpose of homework), you can only keep them in school for so long. Let us assume that we release students from schools at 5pm. Not only does students who have completed their homework have absolutely no motivation to do anything, as pro noted, not even work. This would increase the motivation, brought on by boredom, to commit crimes, reversing any benefit intended by Pro’s model. If, on the other hand, more net free time is given in which no homework needs to be done, like as I noted above, not only would companies not hire such students, they would actually be motivated by boredom to commit crimes. V. Mindset All counters have been adequately addressed for this point in other points. The net effect would not be beneficial, rather, destructive to students. VI. Teacher Instruction As I clearly showed in the earlier round, this is merely an assertion. From personal experience, I know that even though I self-studied for much of my high-school equivalent syllabus, I still outperform the average high-schooler who have the “advantage” of live teachers. This also is an assertion, but is one that at least is backed by my own experience. Iron only sharpens iron if both iron are as hard as each other. Have you seen katanas cut through long swords? Conclusion So it can be clearly seen that teacher instruction is not a requirement for memory retention, mindsets are the result of nurture, which is impossible to implement for varied reasons I mentioned above, the cost of health for teachers would be catastrophic, unless one increases drastically the number of teachers. Life and memory retention would not benefit from this change in school schedule. In regards to voting, note everything Logic has said. With that, I would like to thank Logic for a thought-provoking debate. I have certainly learned not a few things.

I have learned as a student that when students are rewarded they work towards getting the reward over and over. My teacher is using a method where she would give out teacher dollars to the students at the top of the class and for doing an assignment and getting full marks and even perfect attendance. right now there is a battle for who has the most teacher dollars in the class which means that in all our marks that are being recorded no one in my entire class of 25 kids has any marks below half.

Teachers nowadays are giving out way to many detentions leaving students liable to more, Is this acceptable. I would like to welcome my opponent to this debate on a ever lasting topic. Debate starts next round.

With the rigorous standards imposed by federal and state lawmakers concerning education a casual observer might believe that education is held in high regulars. One might look at the numerous tests a student must take in order to receive their diploma and think that they will exit high school ready to face the problems and challenges of the real world. This same observe would surly be please by the even more rigorous standards and tests imposed on collage students with there abundant work loads, dense text books, and knowledgeable professors and all. Why education seams glorious in America these days from this perspective, but is it? I mean what do all these tests and standards mean? Is a person who attains a diploma truly smart or were they able to just slip on by. Its obvious that not everyone who graduates deserves to but to what degree is education actually relevant to one selected vocation? Diplomas have suffered inflation just like the U.S. dollar and like the dollars inflation no one want to admit it. Jobs that once required an associates degree now require a bachelor's, one that required a bachelor's degree now require a masters and so on. Educational digress are susceptible to the same supply and demand law as any other valuable commodities, specifically the more people obtain degrees the less valuable they become. Since the 1970's the amount of people attending community collages and four-year collages has increased significantly. This increase in the amount of people obtaining diplomas has led to the increase of standards imposed by employers. And what's with the curriculum? The amount of remediation is discussing, obviously something is not working if students must be subjected to the same material and go the same courses over and over again. Why must a student study the same math problems over and over again in high school and collage? Why would they study them in collage if they have no particular relevance to their future vocation? I submit that irrelevant classes only hinder and hurt a student's academic performance by forcing them to split their time between classes more pertinent to their future vocation and classes that are simply irrelevant. Perhaps if course curriculum were more relevant to student's lives and future vocations such levels of remediation would not be necessary.

Thank you for your opinion, I see your point of view. But let's take into consideration public schools that financed by government and money for salaries for the teachers, repair and new furnishing they get from state. It proves that education can and SHOULD be free. From my point of view, it's unfair to gauge the amount of knowledge with a person purse, and not even his, with his parents money. we can't get a good job with high salary without a diploma. so, everyone should have a chance to get quality education.

Evidently *someone* hasn't had much experience in learning English. First off, I would suggest you better define "survival skills", because one could say that math and English were skills needed to survive in the professional world. Schools teach these subjects so that students may grow up and secure a job, make a living, and thus eliminate the need for these survival skills. In addition, other organizations (ex. Boy Scouts, martial arts centers, etc.) provide children with self-defense and survival skills should they want to learn these "life-long" skills, which may not necessarily be too life-long. I have a friend who was once a black belt in tae kwon do but no longer practices and has basically lost all of his knowledge of martial arts. -The Professor

I stand in negation of this act, taking in mind that the safety and well being of students will be unbalanced. Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. My second argument is the economic aspect of this act. Allowing school teachers to carry guns, will lead tot he School Board having to pay for the license, ammunition, and the gun. Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions.


Question: Is it appropriate to grant tenure to teachers?

Teacher Tenure: A Detriment to Education Quality and Flexibility

Arguments against teacher tenure abound, with critics pointing out numerous negative effects on educational institutions. Tenure creates a sense of complacency among teachers, as they know their job security is virtually guaranteed. This can lead to a lack of motivation to improve their teaching methods or put in extra effort. The process of dismissing underperforming tenured teachers is arduous and lengthy, often involving multiple legal and administrative bodies, making it a costly and time-consuming endeavor for schools.

In a June 2009 study by the New Teacher Project, it was found that a significant percentage of school administrators were aware of poorly performing tenured teachers at their schools. However, the vast majority (86%) of these administrators admitted that they did not always pursue dismissal due to the cumbersome process involved. In Michigan, removing a tenured teacher can take up to 335 days before the courts are even involved. This "last-hired, first-fired" policy, where seniority is prioritized over performance, has been criticized for harming younger teachers and students from low-income backgrounds and communities of color.

The necessity of tenure for teacher recruitment is also questioned. For instance, Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, still received 900 applications for 80 job openings. The American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, filed in February 2010, further highlighted the issue of basing layoffs on seniority rather than performance. Although a settlement was reached in October 2010 to cap or end layoffs at certain schools, the problem persists.

Tenure is not required to protect teachers from unfair dismissal, as existing court rulings, collective bargaining agreements, and state and federal laws already provide sufficient safeguards. This is why few other professions offer tenure, as employees are adequately protected by existing legal frameworks. The high costs associated with removing a teacher with poor performance or misconduct, such as the average $250,000 it costs to fire a teacher in New York City, further exacerbate the financial strain on schools.

The short tenure-granting period of three years in most states does not allow enough time for teachers to demonstrate their true capabilities or shortcomings. A 2008 study by the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education found that initial teaching years do not predict post-tenure performance. Moreover, tenure does not guarantee academic freedom, as the emphasis on standardized testing under the No

Let me start by thanking you for letting me debate you today. This is a very interesting concept to me, as I am still in high school, so I would be able to properly defend it to the best of my ability. Let the best man win, good luck and good sportsmanship!

If a teacher wants to bring a weapon to school they can? So you wouldn't mind having teachers in our school walking around with weapons? Teachers with weapons is the same as a student with a weapon. It is not necessary you are there to learn not to fight. Teachers with weapons is dangerous and the school would have a big liability.

Weapons are absolutely necessary to have in every school. Since 2010, there has been 43 school shooting throughout the United States. Not all of these school ended in causalities because they had a police officer near by the school. It is impractical for a teacher to pick a classroom object, such as a ruler, to stop someone with a gun. If a police was patrolling the school, most of these conflicts would be stopped before they even happen. All teachers should have some object to go up against the shooter in case the police can not reach the room in time, like pepper spray. School is suppose to be a safe place to send your children not some place to be scared of.

I will not argue that it is important for individuals to be knowledgeable in subjects such as math, science, history, etc. However, I do not believe that school teaches you what you REALLY need to know to survive in the world. Yes there are classes that one can CHOOSE to take to learn things such as accounting, however it is not mandatory. (Furthermore, do you really believe that a teenager is going to WILLINGLY take a financing class, or a politics class?) There are classes that I find to be unnecessary, such as keyboarding. We are in the 21st century, learning how to type properly, is no longer an issue. Teenagers are typing constantly, whether they type on their cellular devices, Ipads, tablets, lap tops/ computers, etc. There is also a class where a student will learn how to properly use Microsoft office software. I will say that this is both necessary, and unnecessary. Many know the basics, and it is not hard to play around until you find what you would like or- yes I am going to say it- Google it! I will agree that the class is helpful and convenient, however I will reiterate that it is not needed. There are other electives given such as art classes, band, etc. (Let us not forget gym, which four years of a passing grade is needed in order to graduate. Let me also say that I do not understand this once so ever. If it is to improve health, well I find that to be incredibly contradicting seeing how many fast food places, yes places, not restaurants, or Dunkin' Donuts you can find on just one street.) Yes I agree art and music classes are a helpful way to express ones self, however by the time one is a junior, or a senior, they should have an idea of how to express themselves when it is necessary outside of school and they will need to learn about other substantial subjects. (I will discuss this further later.) Furthering my point, there are individuals placed in these classes who do not even wish to be. It is actually mandatory at some schools to take an art class in order to graduate. My question to them, is why? If one does not wish to take an art class, then why should they have to. Some people simply do not enjoy art, and well, some people suck. To clarify and conclude my point there seeing I went a bit off topic, art classes should not be mandatory. To continue, I would like to ask my next question. How many students in an art class are honestly going to continue and go to an art college? Do not twist my words, I have no doubt that some will proceed to be an amazing artist one day, however if one has no intent on continuing that path, I believe it is not a needed class to take and others are more important. (I am not arguing a position for a band class because that I know of, you ask to be placed in this class.) I will now explain what classes I believe should be mandatory, are helpful, and then give my reasoning and further points. As I earlier mentioned, there are classes available such as accounting, financing, and politics. I am not saying individuals need to learn every single aspect of these subjects, however I know that I myself, am ignorant to these subjects. I will also add that these classes should be junior and senior classes. Yes of course teenagers have adults in their life, however you can not guarantee nor say that every single parent or guardian will teach teenagers how to do something such as writing a check, cashing a check, buying a car, etc. They will be told, "You're getting older now, figure it out." I am a junior, and I just worked for the town on election day, and I was required to fill out a W-4 form. I had no idea what to do! (My step father filled it out for me.) Now wouldn't it have been convenient if there was a class that taught you how to do things such as that and many more? One day we will be on our own, and I can only speak for myself and say that I do not wish to be that ignorant person who does not understand what is going on and have every employee trying to help me. For an example, purchasing a house, paying bills, owning a checking account, purchasing a car, etc. As I mentioned, I worked the polls on election day, so I witnessed everyone who had came to vote. I can honestly say, but do not quote me and keep in mind this was only one polling place, the majority were people about 35 and over. There were, I believe somewhere between 5-10 individuals who were younger than 35. I am saying this both as an assumption, and with some knowledge, that it is because they simply do not care. I have heard many times individuals of voting age saying that they do not plan to vote because they do not care. I cannot help but be thankful for this, simply because many do not know what is actually going on in the world around them and will just vote randomly. As many have said themselves, they "don't care." I find this to be quite upsetting. Much has happened in our history just to acquire the right to vote, and now many do not even CARE to do so? I will not argue that some teenagers will absolutely hate this class, but some teenagers also absolutely hate math, and years of math is required. Overall, my argument is that too many teenagers are ignorant to the important things that they will find that they need to accomplish both while in school, and after graduation, and something should be done.

Did you here about the news last year? An American uni student who couldn't afford anything graduated. he's lucky since his girlfriend supported him. yet not every student can afford it, a uni even had half of the students not able to pay school fees. you think it's appropriate for them, struggling when they really want education? most universities should be free, for the sake of the university students and families of them too.

You no what? I meant to make myself Pro instead of Con. My mistake! I agree wholeheartedly with you. Sorry.

Although teachers find this beneficial, it is discriminatory to children who do not speak English well, exchange students who have trouble with American work, and also children with special needs who need extra help. "English language learners take tests in English before they have mastered the language. Special education students take the same tests as other children, receiving few of the accommodations usually provided to them as part of their Individualized Education Plans (IEP)" (2). The students who require extra help with their work do not receive it during these tests, which is unfair and unjust to them. Furthermore, these tests are unreliable to judge the students on their level of education and their learning performance. "A 2001 study published by the Brookings Institution found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary and "caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning..." (1). Due to the variety of students who take this test, everyone learns differently and at different paces. The test does not give an overall view of the students learning capacity.

look i am trying to make my point short and simple i fully understand your system but the only people willing to teach this would most likley be religious ones as they would also most likely be the only ones with those qualifications to become that kind of teacher. What we have to remeber is a religous person normally feels strongly about their religion and will oppose any opposition to it most of the time and often be biased. I learn this not from assuming this fact but knowing this as i have exprinced this and for example out of around 20 teachers at my school who taught religous studys all of them were storngly biased for there religion and against others. You cant change that in a person but the only way to get around this would be to have teachers who are non-religious but are intrested in religion and are willing to teach it which means there would never be enough. as for religion does kill i feel its off the subject but why not debate that to ? religion does kill , imagine it if there was no religion there would be no murders or wars assioctied with religion in the first and place. saying it is not an actually object religion is in a way not true sure it physically doesnt kill the other person but if religion wasnt invovled in the first place, this misguided indivdual would never have commited this act. thats like me saying the person firing the gun didnt commit the murder the gun did and this person was simply misguided. the jews would of been saved if they were not religious because think logically , sure they were targeted by the goverment , but if they never had this religion in the first place then the goverment never would of targeted them . also like to apologise for spelling and grammer .

A big thanks to my opponent for his rebuttals! First of all I ask you to really review the line of logic my opponent has been making throughout the course of this debate, what you will notice is that his logic is incredibly well-formed and he makes stunningly on-target arguments. While his knowledge and navigability of the site may currently be benign; he is not at a loss for logic. So now consider his rebuttal to my prior statements in which he gave us this clear example of his supposed lack of apptitude. Point being I still cannot evaluate my "student" especially on such a benign weighing mechanism such as him being new to the site and not quite grasping it's functions completely yet. Now going on, my opponent claims that the ability to weight certain situations is something we have and use everyday. But point is we are not talking about gauging a situation, or evaluating our own ability. We are debating the teacher evaluating the student. So extending my arguments from the last paragraph we can never do this. Also I would like to extend my example in my prior argument about the artist and his art teacher, while the artist themselves can most definately weight their skills and know their limitation, if the teacher did this it would halt education. The teacher would see where they were, what they where capable of, and only give them what they where capable of; or even worse, the teacher would not properly gauge where the student was at, and give them work below their level. Now the teacher could do exactly as my opponent is advocating in their argument here, but that would not make them a good teacher, it would only suffice for mediocre. and as for my opponent's illustration of his own art teacher, look to the later example when she asked his permission to display his art. let's talk about moderation for a moment. I do not contend that a teacher is to constantly push their students beyond their limits, but because this teacher was willing to do both in moderation she is a good teacher. whereas on the opposition my opponent would have you believe she must only stick to what my opponent could have handled (was that wording understandable?) now again on the Drama teacher teaching astro physics, yes there would be evaluation here, but not in the sense that my opponent advocates in round 1. This is something obvious and necessary, again we must take everything in moderation. And as for the second point, I content that a teacher doesn't need to know where a student is to take them to the next level, but instead should think about their maximum potential. To be a good teacher, they should be able to recognize potential in this student that they could never dream of! Where there is a mutual faith among people, the teacher believes in the student and vice versa they can grow even without knowing their current status. When I was in middle school I suffered from a learning disability know as dysgraphia; I could hardly hold a a pencil, let alone write. However my wonderful teacher didn't do what others before me had done and give me less work, or not have me do writing assignments, instead she pushed me beyond my capability, exercising both determination and kindness. Even today I will tell you she was the best teacher I ever had, she taught me a confidence I could have never grasped myself simply because she saw more in me than was actually in me. Again carrying the argument on the conclusion just a little bit further, I still say there are no universal qualities that must exist, at least not in teaching. My opponent offered you the illustration of an Olympic runner, something very precise and tangible. However the nature of being a teacher is not like this, unlike these two athletes of the same sport two teachers of the same profession can vary immensely. How could you even begin to cross-apply this logic between say, a Home Economics teacher, an Ag teacher, and a Seminary professor? and extending my own point made in the last speech, my opponent's proposition could only even be possible if the teacher where only a teacher. What about say, and athletic coach, or a Sunday school teacher being you dad, or parents teaching their child how to drive? Point being the Pro stance is not even possible And while I agree that ever teacher must meet a certain criteria, it does nothing to further my opponent's stance. Now also, my opponent is beginning to change his stance here, instead of arguing my opponent's three points this has become a debate over what the alleged universal requirements for each activity would be. there is none, whether a debate coach, tennis coach, football coach, or any other; as long as that drive to teach and expand the minds of students exist they will be a good teacher. I now hand the debate back over to my highly capable opponent.

"I also can not prove anything"That's too bad, you need proof especially when you are the Instigator and Pro where you accept the Burden of Proof to prove Youtube somehow negatively influences children."Is there a SINGLE misguided teen that has not looked up an inappropriate video on Youtube"Probably not but there probably aren't any teachers, pilots, scientists, military officers, doctors, architects, etc and various other individuals who hold prestigious positions in society that havn't looked up videos on youtube as well that fit your defintion of "inappropriate". "Inappropriate: Any topic your parents have to introduce to you before you know about it. There are many."So explain how a child of around 9 or 10 years of age will be negatively affected if he or she sees an exposed female breast. Or hears adults using curse words. The Burden of Proof to prove that viewing innappropriate material somehow scars a young child so much to the point that they, from then on out, become delinquents all throughout their lives, is all on you.So far your entire position and your arguments are based on mere assertion.You also said, "Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls"You have yet to prove this statement to be a fact or carry any amount of weight."what about a system where only the friends of the poster can see the eliminated videos?"What about parents taking responsibility for their own children and locking certain websites rather than have a successful corporation that provides a good service most people enjoy eliminate videos that many people wish to see and ruin it for everyone else?Let's say for the sake of argument, viewing exposed sexual organs, hearing profanity, and witnessing acts of violence, somehow turned a kid that was really going to accomplish great things in his life, into a troubled teen and eventually a troubled adult, which you still have yet to prove or even back up.Why does the burden and responsibility of keeping a child from being exposed to that kind of material rest on Youtube and the billions around the world who enjoy Youtube and not the adults raising the child?Why do videos millions enjoy have to be banned for the sake of children when the people raising those children can just as easily put a password on their computer or watch what the child does on the computer?That's like saying we should ban everything that can potentially harm children because what you are saying is that the responsibility of a child's well being, no longer rests on the parent.Guns can harm children, but instead of having parents keep guns locked in safes, we should ban guns.Cars can harm children, but instead of parents keeping their car keys from children or keep their children from playing in streets, we should ban cars.Medical drugs can harm children, but instead of parents keeping medical drugs locked up in a bathroom or kitchen cabinet, medical drugs should be bannedAnd now you claim that the Youtube videos can harm children, but rather than have parents lock their computer, lock youtube, or supervise their children when they go online, Youtube videos should be banned.