Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Settings?

The Enforcement of Corporal Punishment in Educational Institutions

I propose to initiate the discourse with a concise explanation of corporal punishment, sourced from [1]. "Corporal punishment refers to the physical chastisement of an individual who has committed an offense. While it can include severe measures such as the death penalty, it typically refers to less extreme forms of punishment like flogging, caning, mutilation, and branding. Historically, until approximately 1800, in various parts of the world, most offenses were addressed through corporal punishment or public humiliation, such as confinement in the pillory or stocks, which combined physical punishment with social disgrace. Flogging was particularly common, also used for maintaining order among the institutionalized, in educational institutions, and within the armed forces."

It is essential to clarify that the debate is centered on the application of corporal punishment in educational settings, not in military, law enforcement, or mental health institutions. I will base my argument on a list of advantages of corporal punishment in schools, which will form the foundation of my stance. These advantages can be found in [2].

Advantages of corporal punishment in schools include:

1. Encourages discipline among students.
2. Acts as a deterrent to poor behavior.
3. Minimizes the need for suspensions.
4. Reduces educational disruptions.

In the context of the modern educational landscape, where students often exhibit disrespectful and unruly behavior towards teachers, time that should be spent on teaching is diverted to managing misbehavior through detentions, write-ups, and other forms of punishment. These conventional forms of punishment have proven inadequate in preventing misbehavior, as students tend to revert to their previous conduct. A decline in educational standards in the United States is illustrated by the graph in [3]. It is noteworthy that from the early 1900s to the late 1970s, corporal punishment was widely employed as a disciplinary measure in schools across America. The message was clear: students attend school to learn and must respect their educators. If students failed to show respect, they were disciplined, contributing to higher academic achievement. [4] highlights the states that continue to permit the use of corporal punishment, albeit sparingly.

For those who associate corporal punishment with physical abuse, I will elucidate the forms of corporal punishment and the regulations that govern its application. [5] enumerates the types of corporal punishment, and while some may seem severe, the most commonly employed forms are caning,

My argument stands from before. I have used Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out that education would fall under esteem; certainly not love/belonging, safety and physiological and so is not the most important thing. This is through an existential sense, an individual's perspective on importance. Pro has not given any further arguments, I am guessing this is because of the incredibly short time he set for the arguments, which I did not notice until I accepted the challenge. All judges should take this into consideration, we had only 15 minutes to post our arguments, hence my rushed responses and possibly explaining why Pro forfeited; though he was the one who set the time to be so short in the first place.

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

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

I do not understand how you can make a fair comparison between alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, all of which are harmful and banned in schools, to PDA. PDA is a separate issue from them. Of course you can't force people to not show eachother how they feel, but a public display of intimacy between two individuals does not just show eachother how they feel, but everybody in the immediate facility. No doubt a PDA can be fairly normal and mundane, but in some cases, it can essentially be based on sexual desire, as opposed to emotional affection and nobody likes to be a third party to that, unless they do. Moreover, showing how one feels in a relationship is more than physical displays of affection, as that is all to often tied to sexual desire.

Thanks to Pro for a clear and interesting set of arguments. Also, given the unfortunate state of the pro-spanking literature, I'd echo Pro's sentiment in advising readers to go easy on pro's lack of citations when voting. :-) Let the better arguments win! PRELIMINARIES First, I want to make some preliminary comments. (After that I will advance some positive arguments for my case. Finally I will respond to Pro's arguments, point by point.) I think Pro's case for the necessity of spanking cannot be convincing if it only tells us that (a) spanking has some good effects (e.g. teaching obedience, etc.) Pro also needs to show that (b) spanking is the ONLY way we can achieve those outcomes, and (c) the side-effects of spanking aren't so bad as to make it an unacceptable form of discipline (no matter how useful we might think it is). E.g. if spanking caused obedience but we could have taught obedience through non-violent means, surely that shows that spanking is not necessary. Or, if spanking caused obedience but also caused serious long-term emotional side effects, that also shows that spanking is not necessary"in fact it might be impermissible. In what follows I will argue that spanking meets neither (b) nor (c). MY ARGUMENTS (I) Spanking does not meet requirement (b) above. Empirical evidence suggests that whenever non-violent methods *fail* to work, spanking and other violent methods would fail as well; and whenever spanking works, other non-violent methods would have worked as well. Therefore, spanking is never necessary if one wants to discipline a child. First of all let"s be clear: what counts as successful discipline? I take it that successful discipline doesn"t just teach a child not to misbehave there and then, but also to learn not to misbehave in the future. So, what about Pro"s objection that in some scenarios spanking succeeds where others fail? Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. According to a study by Larzelere, Shneider, Larson, and Pike (1996, quoted in Straus 2005: 144), all punishments (including spanking) tend to fail at an equal rate. The study concerned disobedience and fighting among young toddler-age children. No matter which punishment was used (including spanking), within the very same day 80% of children would misbehave again by disobedience and fighting. Now of course, the above study is just one kind of case, and there are plenty of other situations in which spanking does succeed in teaching a lesson of obedience. But in these scenarios, the empirical evidence suggests that spanking was not necessary to teach the lesson. My evidence is from Murray Straus (2005: 144) who cites a study of toddlers in which parents are assigned a random form of punishment. Some toddlers get locked in a room, others get spanked. Both learn to stop misbehaving after a while, just as long as the punishment is done consistently. The lesson is that successful discipline consists in being consistent, not in "using the right amount of force". To conclude this argument: spanking is never necessary because other forms of punishment would work just as well"whether it be (in young children) a reward system, or (in older children) negotiating and explaining. To be sure, there are some cases in which it"s as if every form of discipline you try fails. But in that case, empirical evidence suggests that spanking will fail as well. (II) Spanking does not meet requirement (c) above. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that spanking has bad effects that far outweigh the good effects. As I have already argued, we should not treat actions as "necessities" if their bad effects far outweigh the good effects (it would be like arguing for the necessity of a nuclear strike on New York City, in order to stop an outbreak of contagious flu). Therefore, spanking is not a necessity. Now, what is the empirical evidence? Well, there are many, many professional articles written by psychologists and sociologists documenting the bad effects of spanking. I'll just one of them here, Elizabeth Gershoff (2002). Gershoff used over 80 independent empirical studies of children, as well as 10 "meta-studies" (studies of empirical studies), to arrive at the following conclusions. Firstly, parental corporal punishment (i.e. spanking, beating and other forms of physical punishment) has ONLY ONE good effect: "increased immediate compliance" (Gershoff 2002: 550). What about the bad effects? Gershoff states that they are as follows (I briefly explain why I think spanking causes these effects while I"m at it): (i) "decreased moral internalization" increased adult aggression, increased adult criminal and antisocial behavior, decreased adult mental health, and increased risk of abusing own child or spouse": This is to be expected because physical intimidation like spanking does not explain to the child what is wrong with the behavior. Thus, the child simply learns not to misbehave when the parent is around, and when the parent is threatening. If a child refrains from misbehavior only because of physical intimidation then they misbehave even more once the parent is gone, and once the parent is no longer intimidating (i.e. when the child has become an adult). (ii) "decreased quality of relationship between parent and child" decreased child mental health, increased risk of being a victim of physical abuse". We can expect this because spanking causes negative emotions. Excessive spanking (which usually follows from spanking, due to its lack of long term success) causes excessive negative emotions. The child associates those emotions with the parent. This interferes with the building of relationship, with learning and with emotional health, and with building of self-worth. (iii) "increased child delinquent and antisocial behavior". Again, not unexpected. Consider: the alternative to spanking is negotiating, explaining, compromising. By spanking, the parent deprives the child of learning how to engage in these skills. This increases the likelihood of antisocial behaviour. To me these effects are good enough evidence to show that the bad effects of spanking outweigh the good ones. Pro needs to give us good reasons to reject this evidence, in order to refute this argument. (III) There"s no principled way of drawing the line at spanking. If spanking is permissible, then why not more vicious forms of 'discipline', like assault and so on? (Imagine the parent who says: "wow, my child is no longer responding with obedience even to my beatings... why not a veiled death threat (I won't go through with it of course) for the next time? That'll show him." Pro has to explain to us why the buck stops with beating/spanking. PRO'S POINTS Having outlined my arguments I"ll offer some brief comments on pro"s arguments/points and why I think they fail, in light of the considerations I have already given. (#1) "when spankings happened in schools, children grew up following the rules, and taking a good approach into adulthood". "This is a fairly strong claim (whether it"s meant to be general or specifically about US schools in the 1970s). First of all Pro has cited no evidence for this claim other than his own assertion. In the absence of evidence it seems unlikely to be true, given the empirical data I"ve cited. Secondly, even if it were true it doesn"t say anything about whether it was spanking that caused the good behavior. Thirdly, even if spanking caused the good behavior it would still be unnecessary and unacceptable, if my above arguments are correct. (#2) "Spanking [is] a necessity to teach the child obedience". "My argument (I) says that this claim is not right. Pro thus needs to refute my argument (I) to show that his claim is tenable. (#3) In the past, children who were beaten by their parents "grew up knowing the difference between right and wrong". "Everything I said in response to Pro"s point (1) apply to this point as well. (#4) "a simple empty threat will not help" spoiling your child tells the child there is no right and wrong, and taking away items, all kids find ways around to getting what they want, until they are spanked" "Again, my argument (I) says that this is not right. There are other forms of discipline, such as reward systems that don"t involve spoiling (e.g. promising a reward only after a certain amount of good behavior). If all the alternatives fail, the empirical evidence suggests that spanking will fail as well, so spanking is not a reliable "last resort". CONCLUSION In my opinion, Pro is right that spanking has some good outcomes. E.g. it brings about obedience, at least in the short term. But this is not enough to show us that spanking is necessary or even acceptable in any circumstances. Pro needs to show that (b) spanking is the only way to achieve those outcomes, and (c) spanking doesn't also have bad outcomes that outweigh the good outcomes. In order to do so he needs to show us where my above arguments go wrong. REFERENCES Gershoff, E. T. (2002). "Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review." Psychological bulletin, 128(4), 539. Accessed at http://www.comm.umn.edu...(2002).pdf Straus, M. A. (2005). "Children should never, ever, be spanked no matter what the circumstances." Current controversies on family violence, 137-157. Accessed at http://fermat.unh.edu...

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

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

CON has lost. CON's last statement was the following:'Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt. 'That entire statement is irrelevant. (S)He hasn't responded to the fact that no sports are violent, and the resolution is: 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools. ' Therefore, the statement 'but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt,' does not have anything to do with the resolution.

Having P.E. every day has not been a problem for me, in fact, it is enjoyable, as well as good for children's health. Now, I'm not expecting every school to make 6-year-old kids run across town and back, but having P.E. every day could provide many benefits. It will make them more physically active, which is something every kid needs these days, especially with everyone sitting on their butt all day watching the television or playing video games. Also exercise can actually help people feel happier, they release some chemical that makes people happy, I forgot which one because I learned this a few years ago. Anyways, it also may help kids get their energy out as well, because many kids have pent-up energy from sitting in a classroom all day.

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


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

If educators and parents were prohibited from physically punishing children, they would likely adopt more constructive disciplinary methods.
The overall quality of student conduct and academic performance in numerous schools has deteriorated since the state outlawed corporal punishment. Numerous teachers in the UK argue that this decline is attributable to the fact that corporal punishment was an effective means of managing unruly students. Therefore, corporal punishment should be an alternative tool at the disposal of teachers – but not the sole one, nor should it be employed indiscriminately. A prohibition on corporal punishment merely deprives teachers of a highly effective means of discipline.

Have you thought that not all bullies know that they're bullying? They could be brainwashed in some way. They could be worried something might happen to them if they don't do it. They might have mental problems. Maybe they don't even know they did it. It's not always about them breaking rules, but it's about what they actually know. You might think that they know it, but what if they don't? Maybe they do, but they didn't know they did it? Harassment is bad, but their education is more important. You have to teach them about harassment so they know. For those who don't know, can keep being punished so they could learn. Borrow books for them to read about bullying, show them websites about bullying, etc. If they don't behave, get them suspended or something. Or send them to another school. I've heard about this boy that was a bully. He was so bad, that he got sent to another school. He was more well behaved in that school and he had discipline. He learned. He dropped his bad habits.

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

what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that

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

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

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

===Preface=== I would like to remind my opponent that he has the burden of proof in this argument. So, by definition, if even one subsection of one argument I make remains valid, a verdict in favor of Con must be rendered. Furthermore, I would like to remind my opponent that whether bullying is a detrimental part of society was never under question, only the severity of the proposed measures against said bullying in a high school setting. ===Statement 1.=== For brevity’s sake, now that a source has been given, I will concede this point for now, subject to further debate. ===Statement 2.=== None of the information claimed in my opponent’s last response to Statement 2 was contained in his source; therefore, by default, I will refute it. Note that my opponent simply cited the entire website as his source; this is an invalid citation. [1] Furthermore, the website cited is entitled, "Workplace bullying: what is it, how to recognise it, myths, facts, costs, and why me?" This debate is limited to the scope of high school bullying, so the entire website is irrelevant. Also, even if my opponent’s argument to this point is correct, it serves only to prove my original point, which is that sampling the size and severity of bullying is not feasible, due to the lack of an unbiased, unmanipulated source. Should the standard of determining the severity of a child’s bullying tendencies fall to information provided by the student, the bully could simply be convicted because he/she was unpopular at school or acquitted because he/she was popular with his overall peer group, making this type of decision making nearly impossible to implement. In summary, my opponent has not provided a valid citation to any of his claims made in this response or any valid argument to any of my rebuttal to Statement 1; therefore my rebuttal still stands. ===Statement 3=== For reference, I have included statement 3 to refresh my opponent’s memory. “All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be 1) denied a free education, 2) sent to a reform school, and 3) be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Note that 1), 2), and 3) will all apply to all cases, not some combination of the three.” ===Statement 3.1=== None of the information contained in the two sources is relevant to this argument. According to the formalized version of the argument, the scope of this debate deals only with bullies in high school, whereas these two sources are referring to bullies in the workplace in the United Kingdom. (Note my opponent’s referring to the survey indicating that “42 percent of female and 15 percent of male employees reported being harassed”. [1] [2] This is a separate issue entirely, and not under the scope of this debate. Furthermore, my opponent did not address the issue of rewriting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ===Statement 3.2=== In this response, I will prove, per my opponent's request, that a qualifying process is needed to determine the severity of bullying before sending the bully to a reform school, rather than simply institutionalizing a blanket statement that all bullies are sent to reform school. Since this policy is not commonly in effect, I will be forced to use a hypothetical situation. Furthermore, I shall refer to my opponent’s response to Statement 3.3 along the lines of the implementation of surveillance cameras in schools. Please pardon my use of stereotypes in this analogy. In this hypothetical, there are two individuals who could be classified as “bullies”: a football player who good-naturedly shoulder-bumps a teammate into a locker after winning a game, and a person who bullies LGBT-identifying individuals, say, a homosexual. The football player could be reported if the teammate took the gesture seriously and interpreted it as bullying. Since there would be solid evidence that he bumped the person into the locker, as it was caught on camera, and no unbiased source to verify or refute the motive behind it, the “all bullies go to reform school” policy would dictate that he would end up going to the reform school, essentially prison. However, the second person in this analogy could continue calling the homosexual countless humiliating or derogatory terms until he/she is either scarred for life or, like my opponent pointed out in Statement 1, could possibly commit suicide. However, the second person may have never been caught, since his/her slurs would not be picked up on camera over the racket of hundreds of people, and even if he/she was, he/she would end up going to the same reform school as the football player under the blanket “all bullies go to reform school” policy. Obviously, some kind of qualifier is needed to determine the severity of the bullying taking place. The problem is, as pointed out in Statement 3.1, that this type of qualifier is nearly impossible to obtain without resorting to a biased source. Thus, a different method of repercussions must be instated than simply sending bullies to reform schools. Though this may be appropriate in *some* extreme cases, such as someone bringing a knife to school, knocking someone out in a fight, etc., it is not acceptable as a general policy. ===Statement 3.3=== The problem with my opponent’s reasoning is that 1) not all bullying (for example, verbal or emotional bullying) is caught on camera, such as in the above analogy, and 2) the degree of prosecution should depend on the severity of the crime. Otherwise, the football player shoulder-bumping a teammate into a locker as given in the above analogy could potentially be prosecuted to the same degree as a senior who brutally beat up a freshman and left him/her in the garbage dump, as both offenses would fall under the category of assault and battery, and can carry maximum penalties of multiple years in prison.===Conclusion===In every subsection except Statement 1, which I conceded for the sake of brevity once a source had been provided, my opponent either did not include viable or relevant citations for arguments required them, did not include any citations for arguments requiring them, or did not produce a valid counterargument for my rebuttal of his original statements. In particular, my assertion from Statement 3 still stands that denying bullies a free education, sending all bullies to reform school regardless of the severity of their crimes, and prosecuting all bullies to the limit of the law without regard to their crimes is a draconian and unjust system of repurcussions prone to abuse. The burden of proof is on my opponent, and he has not met that burden. Vote con. ===References=== [1] http://www.bullyonline.org...[2] http://www.bullyonline.org......[3] http://www.bizjournals.com......

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

Thanks to Pro for a clear and interesting set of arguments. Also, given the unfortunate state of the pro-spanking literature, I'd echo Pro's sentiment in advising readers to go easy on pro's lack of citations when voting. :-) Let the better arguments win! PRELIMINARIES First, I want to make some preliminary comments. (After that I will advance some positive arguments for my case. Finally I will respond to Pro's arguments, point by point.) I think Pro's case for the necessity of spanking cannot be convincing if it only tells us that (a) spanking has some good effects (e.g. teaching obedience, etc.) Pro also needs to show that (b) spanking is the ONLY way we can achieve those outcomes, and (c) the side-effects of spanking aren't so bad as to make it an unacceptable form of discipline (no matter how useful we might think it is). E.g. if spanking caused obedience but we could have taught obedience through non-violent means, surely that shows that spanking is not necessary. Or, if spanking caused obedience but also caused serious long-term emotional side effects, that also shows that spanking is not necessary"in fact it might be impermissible. In what follows I will argue that spanking meets neither (b) nor (c). MY ARGUMENTS (I) Spanking does not meet requirement (b) above. Empirical evidence suggests that whenever non-violent methods *fail* to work, spanking and other violent methods would fail as well; and whenever spanking works, other non-violent methods would have worked as well. Therefore, spanking is never necessary if one wants to discipline a child. First of all let"s be clear: what counts as successful discipline? I take it that successful discipline doesn"t just teach a child not to misbehave there and then, but also to learn not to misbehave in the future. So, what about Pro"s objection that in some scenarios spanking succeeds where others fail? Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. According to a study by Larzelere, Shneider, Larson, and Pike (1996, quoted in Straus 2005: 144), all punishments (including spanking) tend to fail at an equal rate. The study concerned disobedience and fighting among young toddler-age children. No matter which punishment was used (including spanking), within the very same day 80% of children would misbehave again by disobedience and fighting. Now of course, the above study is just one kind of case, and there are plenty of other situations in which spanking does succeed in teaching a lesson of obedience. But in these scenarios, the empirical evidence suggests that spanking was not necessary to teach the lesson. My evidence is from Murray Straus (2005: 144) who cites a study of toddlers in which parents are assigned a random form of punishment. Some toddlers get locked in a room, others get spanked. Both learn to stop misbehaving after a while, just as long as the punishment is done consistently. The lesson is that successful discipline consists in being consistent, not in "using the right amount of force". To conclude this argument: spanking is never necessary because other forms of punishment would work just as well"whether it be (in young children) a reward system, or (in older children) negotiating and explaining. To be sure, there are some cases in which it"s as if every form of discipline you try fails. But in that case, empirical evidence suggests that spanking will fail as well. (II) Spanking does not meet requirement (c) above. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that spanking has bad effects that far outweigh the good effects. As I have already argued, we should not treat actions as "necessities" if their bad effects far outweigh the good effects (it would be like arguing for the necessity of a nuclear strike on New York City, in order to stop an outbreak of contagious flu). Therefore, spanking is not a necessity. Now, what is the empirical evidence? Well, there are many, many professional articles written by psychologists and sociologists documenting the bad effects of spanking. I'll just one of them here, Elizabeth Gershoff (2002). Gershoff used over 80 independent empirical studies of children, as well as 10 "meta-studies" (studies of empirical studies), to arrive at the following conclusions. Firstly, parental corporal punishment (i.e. spanking, beating and other forms of physical punishment) has ONLY ONE good effect: "increased immediate compliance" (Gershoff 2002: 550). What about the bad effects? Gershoff states that they are as follows (I briefly explain why I think spanking causes these effects while I"m at it): (i) "decreased moral internalization" increased adult aggression, increased adult criminal and antisocial behavior, decreased adult mental health, and increased risk of abusing own child or spouse": This is to be expected because physical intimidation like spanking does not explain to the child what is wrong with the behavior. Thus, the child simply learns not to misbehave when the parent is around, and when the parent is threatening. If a child refrains from misbehavior only because of physical intimidation then they misbehave even more once the parent is gone, and once the parent is no longer intimidating (i.e. when the child has become an adult). (ii) "decreased quality of relationship between parent and child" decreased child mental health, increased risk of being a victim of physical abuse". We can expect this because spanking causes negative emotions. Excessive spanking (which usually follows from spanking, due to its lack of long term success) causes excessive negative emotions. The child associates those emotions with the parent. This interferes with the building of relationship, with learning and with emotional health, and with building of self-worth. (iii) "increased child delinquent and antisocial behavior". Again, not unexpected. Consider: the alternative to spanking is negotiating, explaining, compromising. By spanking, the parent deprives the child of learning how to engage in these skills. This increases the likelihood of antisocial behaviour. To me these effects are good enough evidence to show that the bad effects of spanking outweigh the good ones. Pro needs to give us good reasons to reject this evidence, in order to refute this argument. (III) There"s no principled way of drawing the line at spanking. If spanking is permissible, then why not more vicious forms of 'discipline', like assault and so on? (Imagine the parent who says: "wow, my child is no longer responding with obedience even to my beatings... why not a veiled death threat (I won't go through with it of course) for the next time? That'll show him." Pro has to explain to us why the buck stops with beating/spanking. PRO'S POINTS Having outlined my arguments I"ll offer some brief comments on pro"s arguments/points and why I think they fail, in light of the considerations I have already given. (#1) "when spankings happened in schools, children grew up following the rules, and taking a good approach into adulthood". "This is a fairly strong claim (whether it"s meant to be general or specifically about US schools in the 1970s). First of all Pro has cited no evidence for this claim other than his own assertion. In the absence of evidence it seems unlikely to be true, given the empirical data I"ve cited. Secondly, even if it were true it doesn"t say anything about whether it was spanking that caused the good behavior. Thirdly, even if spanking caused the good behavior it would still be unnecessary and unacceptable, if my above arguments are correct. (#2) "Spanking [is] a necessity to teach the child obedience". "My argument (I) says that this claim is not right. Pro thus needs to refute my argument (I) to show that his claim is tenable. (#3) In the past, children who were beaten by their parents "grew up knowing the difference between right and wrong". "Everything I said in response to Pro"s point (1) apply to this point as well. (#4) "a simple empty threat will not help" spoiling your child tells the child there is no right and wrong, and taking away items, all kids find ways around to getting what they want, until they are spanked" "Again, my argument (I) says that this is not right. There are other forms of discipline, such as reward systems that don"t involve spoiling (e.g. promising a reward only after a certain amount of good behavior). If all the alternatives fail, the empirical evidence suggests that spanking will fail as well, so spanking is not a reliable "last resort". CONCLUSION In my opinion, Pro is right that spanking has some good outcomes. E.g. it brings about obedience, at least in the short term. But this is not enough to show us that spanking is necessary or even acceptable in any circumstances. Pro needs to show that (b) spanking is the only way to achieve those outcomes, and (c) spanking doesn't also have bad outcomes that outweigh the good outcomes. In order to do so he needs to show us where my above arguments go wrong. REFERENCES Gershoff, E. T. (2002). "Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review." Psychological bulletin, 128(4), 539. Accessed at http://www.comm.umn.edu...(2002).pdf Straus, M. A. (2005). "Children should never, ever, be spanked no matter what the circumstances." Current controversies on family violence, 137-157. Accessed at http://fermat.unh.edu...

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


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

Should the use of corporal punishment be prohibited or maintained in schools and daycare settings? As a student, I believe that given the current behavior of children and teenagers in society, they require some form of discipline. What are your thoughts? Would reinstating corporal punishment in educational institutions and daycare centers potentially lead to an increase in respect from children towards their parents? In my opinion, it should be reintroduced and continued.

**Question**: Is college worth the cost?

**Documents**: College is not worth the price
The cost of college is too high for the benefits it provides. Students are often left with massive amounts of debt that take years to pay off. Many graduates find themselves working in jobs that do not require a college degree. Is it really worth it?

**Similar Documents**: The value of college may not justify its price. The expense of higher education often outweighs its advantages, leaving students burdened with substantial debt that can take years to repay. It is not uncommon for graduates to end up in positions that do not necessitate a college degree. Is it truly worth the investment?

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

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

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

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

ok i will take this up ,i will base this argument on personal exprince and not statistics , as for me i have lived through some bad domestic abuse , nothing even close to dictaorship or goverment evil , i am talking about the place were i grew up . When i was young in the city i lived in called glasgow , scotland . I was never once taught violence was bad , infact i was taught the complete opposite. Now it was not that my parents never cared for me it was for one simple reason, If i thought violence was bad and was afriad of it then , there is a very very high chance i wouldnt be here right now. Where i grew up drugs were coming into play , alchol abuse was incredibly high and teenagers were alays lookign for a fight with deadly wepaons . This may not be the glasgow the world knows , this is the glasgow i know and the people of glasgow know. Stabbings were common , deaths even more common ... i was taught violence was good to an extent , i was taught if you are violent you still stand a good chance of being invovled in violence however if you are not violent , not willing to stick up for yourself even when somebody calls you something stupid and wont apologise then you become a vicitim. Certain groups become victims i accept mainly because they let themselves become vicitims they are not prepared to do something about it. i was taught to respect violence , i leanred myself that you never start a fight . But however you will always have the last laugh. i think the old saying is right to an extent if you lived in a place like i did , " better to be feared than loved " or in my case " better to be feared , than stabbed to death " ...

I do not understand how you can make a fair comparison between alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, all of which are harmful and banned in schools, to PDA. PDA is a separate issue from them. Of course you can't force people to not show eachother how they feel, but a public display of intimacy between two individuals does not just show eachother how they feel, but everybody in the immediate facility. No doubt a PDA can be fairly normal and mundane, but in some cases, it can essentially be based on sexual desire, as opposed to emotional affection and nobody likes to be a third party to that, unless they do. Moreover, showing how one feels in a relationship is more than physical displays of affection, as that is all to often tied to sexual desire.

Good evening. Sorry it took so long to post-back to college life. Anyways, I support most of your arguments here. My argument for this round however is simple again-its embarrassing for a coach to yell at their players. I do not personally feel a coach should do this because it embarrasses the player/s involved. I do not think you want to have the shame of being the one/s that your coach called out, or yelled at full force at practice. If there is a problem with one or more players the coach should take them aside privately and talk to them kindly, as a father-figure. Yes he should speak firmly, but kindly, not yelling at them in front of the entire team. It will be a lot less embarrassing, and a lot less bad memories of playing for that coach will remain with that player. Therefore, another reason why coaches should never yell at their players. Back to you, friend. Thanks for the debate so far!

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

Yes, because it teaches life lessons they can use later in life.

Hello and welcome to my debate. This is the debate on school teachers being allowed to carry weapons(guns, taser, pepper spray, etc..) to make the school a safer place to be. I will be arguing the pro side of teachers and staff having weapons. I look forward to a debater. :)


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Institutions?

The use of corporal punishment on children
Physical harm is only associated with abusive forms of corporal punishment.

Hi your argument makes sense, but I am telling you now that it is not only one child not misbehaving in certain lessons, children might be intimidated due to the fact they don't want to go to school. Parents should have the rights to pay for whatever they want so I really don't see how your point is valid to our motion. Private schools do have trips and program that children attending the school could go to.

I do apologize, but I disagree. Morally speaking, no one has the right to abuse. Perhaps I shall challenge you to a follow up debate on how morality can differ from legality, but that is beside the point. In many countries (Britain, Canada, and so on), abusive speech is a crime, as it should be. Note that i speak of actual abuse, and not just plain rudeness. Example: N*****rs should die: abuse. Eff you: rude, but not abuse.

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

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

First wanted to explain how the debate will be 1st round premisses, 2nd round one makes 1 question pro 3rd round one answers the other's question, 4th round refute the other's answer, 5th round final considerations. My arguments are as follows: The school should not have political influence, Because the role of the School is to teach the curricular subjects, But not to educate politically.

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

I'm sorry that I missed round two and I suggest you to set the time to 72 hours. I am busy now and I will not debate much. I think that students should concentrate more in their studies than dating or finding wives or whatever. Boys will sometimes be embarrassed when they saw girls. Girls will be a distraction to the boys. This is the end of my debate. I hope you enjoyed debating as I am.

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

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

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


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Utilized in Educational Settings?

The use of corporal punishment in schools.
My endorsement of corporal punishment within educational settings is grounded in one fundamental belief. There might be instances, albeit infrequent, where the application of physical discipline, such as the use of a strap or similar tool, could be both essential and advantageous.

You don't need to explain to me what schools are, I know they exist to 'enhance learning' and to 'help them get a better education' as you put it. And believe it or not, I know teachers are their to help the children understand something they may not of understood previously. But even with this insight, I don't believe this is being done well by any means. If schools are good for children, like you say, what about the 40% of them that don't achieve 5 GCSE's grade A to C? What has school done for them that couldn't of been done by something else? 40% is huge, its almost half for gods sake! If you had a factory that made 40% of its products faulty, it would be shut down! So yer, school might be good for those kids who typically would of done alright anyways (because of their socio-economic class), but what about all those who fail? School does not encourage learning. Those who are interested may continue to be interested but few, if any, are brought to this mentality purely by schooling. From my experience I have found very few people my own age (and I mean like 2 people) that are interested in anything but man made things. For example football, cars, tv shows, music, celebrities and other shallow things such as, for men at least, women (but purely from a sexual perspective). Things like science, nature, history, politics, the universe, our bodies and biology are 'nerdy' or too an older person simply 'boring'. Funny how these things are the things we are forced to learn against our will throughout our entire childhood. Rule number 1: if you want a child to hate something; make them do it all the time against their will. This is Rule number 1 for human behaviour: that we want what we carnt have, and we don't want to do what we have to do, and we spoil ourselves with what we have. Also the hole process of learning is outdated and frankly boring. I mean, look at David attenbourgh's nature documentaries: if I saw that in school I would be hooked. There are also many documentaries and video's online that just make science wonderful, despite all this however, we still insist children sit in a class room at 9 o'clock in the morning (a time which is proven to be bad for learning for children as they are not meant to be awake at this time) and be force fed information about a subject they have no interest in. To learn something, you must first WANT too. Schools do not do this for children, it expects them to learn things in fear of a result of a test. Also once a child fails a test he/she loses their confidence and can become disengaged further, lowering their self-esteem. Also school only recognizes what we call academic intelligence, anyone who is expert at something that doesn't fit under this category is deemed 'stupid'. I know all the political correctness and all that but at the end of the day, this is the effect it has on the child's perception of themselves. Indeed, the child may not even know they have these talents as the system that is designed to enhance them, fails to notice. Even more worrying, is that even if a child is gifted at something regarded as academic, they can be squandered. Good examples of this include Einstein. School regarded him as a failure and failed him, he went to university through contacts and they thought him usless too. Had it not been for a friend and a string of chance situation, Einstien would have remained a lowly clerk and we would not know his name now. Another example is the Beatles; one particular MUSIC teacher had half the Beetles in his class and recognized no musical talent. Another example includes particular dancer and founder of an extremely successful dance school, she was thought to be disruptive and could of been diagnosed as having ADHD, but because of a fluke incident and an intelligent psychologist, she was discovered to be a natural dancer. She went to a dance school instead of normal school and ended up becoming a millionaire and brought joy to millions. So how many other potential geniuses has school overlooked? what are we now missing because of the school system squandering talents. It is my view that we are all potential geniuses, that intelligence is unique to the individual and that we can all be geniuses in our own way and in our own area of knowledge. There is enough knowledge and work to be uncovered and done for everybody and every different kind of talent is needed. School is uniform, it makes all children jump through the same hoops and feel a failure if the don't adhere to the schools narrow view of intelligence. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its whole life it is a failure. So to wrap it up, 40% of people 'fail'. Forcing people to learn (if you actually want them to learn, which I believe the system doesn't) is clearly ignorant to anyone who knows the first thing about human psychology. We judge intelligence in one way, and this is key to what is wrong with the system. Finally, our method of teaching (classroom, tests, early starts and long days) is frankly no good. I could write a book on this last point so I am trying to not get carried away. Also I would like to add that my personal experience of school was terrible, even though I am more 'academic' than anyone I have ever met !

Having P.E. every day has not been a problem for me, in fact, it is enjoyable, as well as good for children's health. Now, I'm not expecting every school to make 6-year-old kids run across town and back, but having P.E. every day could provide many benefits. It will make them more physically active, which is something every kid needs these days, especially with everyone sitting on their butt all day watching the television or playing video games. Also exercise can actually help people feel happier, they release some chemical that makes people happy, I forgot which one because I learned this a few years ago. Anyways, it also may help kids get their energy out as well, because many kids have pent-up energy from sitting in a classroom all day.

Reasons why this shall cause more problems then good . 1. Some kids can't help it and they can't get passed there disability like others u see she kids like me are born or have a disability that stops them from learning let me use an example me . Im a 14 year old child and I am legally blind that's how blind I am . You see being blind isent my fault I can't help it if I wasn't a person who rad and loved to learn I wouldn't be good at school and have bad grades thus I get blamed for being a bad student while I'm not I'm not doing it on purpose I have a disability and I can't see what others see . So my main question why be fined when you have a form of disability that prevents u from learning . 2.. If u make so one pay for not doing good then in the end those who don't what to take the punk nets they get from there parents and are always a getting bad grades arnt going to take it there going to drop out and leave becouse they are being stressed to get Good grades . 3 . School isn't a place just to learn sure it's a place that main priority is education but school is also a place were we learn to socialize but if we are paying for not eating good grades then that stops and making generations isolated form one another sure u get them smart but they won't be talking and and just be quiet nothing more .m

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

I will give my opponent an chance to post an argument since she missed her last round. Thus, I will re-post my previous arguments. _____________________________________________________________________________ Okay, let's begin. I will be dissecting my opponents arguments. Opponent: "You give some good points, but the fact of the matter is, there is a difference between simple teasing and bullying." My response: I understand the difference between teasing and bullying. I have be pushed around too. However, I feel bullying should be allowed because it teaches kids how to handle it. Personal Anecdote: Not only I have been bullied, I have also witnessed it. In all the cases where I personally knew the person, they were not affected by the events. These are all people I talk to, and are friends with now. Rather than be traumatized, they have LEARNED from the experience. As I said about myself, I can say about others: We have gained more confidence and endurance as a result of our past experiences. Opponent: "This means that if you are "different" then someone else, or don't meet the criteria others assume you must, it's OK to be bashed for it. I'm considered weak, does this mean that it's OK for someone to bully me?" Misconception: I did not say that people SHOULD bully others. I just said that is should be allowed. People shouldn't drink, but it's allowed. Understand the difference? Also, everyone is different. They exploit your differences because they have their own as well. Rather than dwell on what they say and do to you, think to yourself: "What are they hiding?" It will help you understand why they do what they do, and what they are insecure about them-self. Opponent: "Now, what about the bullies? By bullying, they are putting themselves at risk as well. About 87 percent of students say school shootings are motivated by the desire to get back at those who have hurt them." My response: Of course. Bullies are not smart people. They feed off the "weaknesses" of others. But that statement is almost trying to help bullies. If they want to be stupid enough to bother unstable and insecure people, they may have to face the consequences and retaliation. {-Do not misconstrue that statement! For everyone: Violence is never the answer. Hurting others or yourself will never solve the problem. Death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. If you are bullied, learn how to handle it, rather than react wrongly-} Perspective (Cont.) Bullies have a simple job. Bully others who are different. This statement may be taken wrongly: If we make bullying illegal and unaccepted, many kids will lose their source of happiness. Wait, here me out. Bullies, almost all the time, are insecure of themselves or problems in their life. By making bullying illegal, we are taking away a way they deal with their problems. Thus, if they couldn't be bullies, how would they otherwise vent out their anger. They could possible turn to violence.... With regards to the Columbine Story and the resolution at hand, how one reacts to bullying is very important. The side I argue for is the logical side: To simply stand up to it, and not let them hurt you emotionally. There are obviously cases of violence being spawned by bullying, but there are psychos in any situation who would resort to violence. You even said it in your own response: "A distraught Klebold was easily manipulated by Harris." It wasn't only Klebold's fault, because he was coerced into doing it, and Harris preyed on his weakness. Almost like bullies do.... That could even be compared to Hitler. The German soldiers were not inherently violent people, but were egged on by a smooth-talking dictator, Hitler. The point I'm trying to make, is that how people react to bullying is so important. The way I did, the way I saw others do, is the way that everyone should. Simply learn from the experience, stand up to them, and not let them tear down your walls. If students reacted in a better manor to bullying, rather than resorting to violence, leaving school, etc, I don't see a problem with bullying going on, as long as the student knows how to handle it. This is why, rather than have talks in school about why bullying is wrong and kids shouldn't do it, there should be talks in school about how to HANDLE the bullies. The seminars should teach kids how to stand up to them, and how to make them stop. If kids were taught how to react, and how to grow from their experiences, bullying would not be a problem, but rather an effective way for kids to learn and understand how the world works, a world that isn't always perfect.

Ahem, interesting views. I guess we agree on the one very important factor that PHYSICAL exercise really does relieve stress. Still you don't think that more physical exercise in school would be beneficial as it deteriorates the intellect of the student. Studies show that: "It has also been proven that when students are involved in a physical activity program, there is an improved rate of academic learning per unit of class time (Taras, 2005) and that increased time spent in physical education does not negatively effect student scores. A study done in France increased its physical education time to 8 hours per week, reducing time devoted to academic subjects. The students in this experiment were physically and psychologically healthier and had increased academic performance when compared to the control group (Sallis, 1999)." So by replacing hours with thinking while sitting in the classroom with hours doing physical exercises, will at some point benefit the individual and society on multiple levels. As you rightfully said there are multiple factors contributing to stress. The main one although is the fact that we use our heads so much in school and take that habit home with us until we finally let go of our thoughts and fall asleep. And as you said, I cannot completely pinpoint what causes stress but as proven above exercise does relieve it and contribute to the individuals intellect, now why is it that physical exercise should't be greater implemented in school life? More studies show that only 8% of elementary schools, 6.4% of middle schools, and 5.8% of high schools provide daily physical education to all of its students (SHPPS, 2000). In addition, 20 percent of all elementary schools in the U.S. have abolished recess in favor of increased classroom time under pressure to improve student achievement (Satcher, 2005). Less than 25% of children are engaged in 30 minutes of any type of daily physical activity (Satcher, 2005). You say that it's an exaggerated claim that stress leads to disease and money lost on medicine? Hundreds of studies on the internet will tell you that this is happening.: "Anxiety disorders are the most common mental illness in the U.S., affecting 40 million adults in the United States age 18 and older (18% of U.S. population)." and "Anxiety disorders cost the U.S. more than $42 billion a year, almost one-third of the country's $148 billion total mental health bill, according to "The Economic Burden of Anxiety Disorders," a study commissioned by ADAA (The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60(7), July 1999)." To say that exercise will further contribute to stress might be true in some cases, but children who sit down up to 8 hours a day in school will without a doubt experience positive impacts. http://sitemaker.umich.edu... http://www.adaa.org...

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

That is a good point. That is why teachers and staff need to get a mental test done in order to ensure that nothing like that will happen.To make sure the teacher does not have anger issues and problems mentally. One of the reasons other then safety in the physical sense but also in the emotional and mental sense. If your parent or guardian takes you to school it sets them at ease to know that you will be safe. It will also make you feel safer. How would you feel going into to school and not feeling safe at all? if you have the fear of being killed. Yes i know that all of the precautions can never secure that you will ALWAYS be safe, but it can help prevent it.

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

I have demonstrated that the participation in sports can be damaging to one's ability to learn, and that sports should not be compulsory in school. PRO has made a bald assertion and has failed to support it with either argumentation or evidence.