The Instigator
The_Enigma
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

A Bill requiring all public school employees to submit to drug testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,992 times Debate No: 9977
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (11)

 

The_Enigma

Pro

Well as this seems to be my first debate ever online (which I didn't even know was a possibility until my friend mentioned it to me.) I am starting my First debate... Now.

~ Arguments ~
1. A number of students & adults are both under the influence of drugs. Since most adults have jobs it makes drugs more accessible to them than it is to the majority of students without jobs. Yet school employees don't have to be drug tested, for some unknown reason and only Students are to be drug tested.

2. School employees such as teachers, principles, and counselors have the job not only to be our educators but to be our "second set" of role models (beside family members and friends). A teacher under the effects of drugs may impair their teaching ability and their attitude, possibly leaving students baffled.

3.If school employees were to submit to drug testing, not only will our schools be cleaner for fear of being fired, it would also discourage drug dealers to continue selling drugs because of the lack buyers slowly and possibly ending all drug usage within the schools.

---------------------------------------------------------
As I said before this is my first debate and I would like everyone to be as strict towards my speech as possible I would like all the help I could get. Please and thank you.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and welcome him to debate.org.
First, I will respond to my opponent's arguments; then, I will present my own.
1. My opponent's first argument lies in hidden assumptions, that the drug testing of students is warranted and beneficial and that students and teachers should be treated equally. The second assumption is false and thus the sequence is negated. Teachers are less rebellious than [1] and therefore are less likely to recreationally use drugs. Further, the argument contradicts the advocacy. To have all teachers submit to drug testing would not make them equal to that of the student because not all students are exposed to drug testing. Student drug testing is random.

2. His second argument lies in the assumption that there is some rampant drug problem for teachers in public schools, and this cannot be proven. There is no current drug problem in the teaching staff. Further, if a teacher were to use drugs to the point where their teaching ability were to be harmed, this would be noticed and reported. No test is needed.

3. This argument also lies in the assumption that there is some rampant drug problem in our teaching staff. There is not. Drug-using teachers are fired with or without a test for ALL teachers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CON's advocacy
I advocate not for an expensive mandatory test, but a testing system that only applies to reported cases.
-This is cheaper, and much less wasteful, because not every public school teacher in the United States has to be tested consistently.
-This limits the testing process to the reported and accused, rather than the general population.
===================================================
So, the resolution must be negated because the resolution is expensive and beyond what is necessary to keep our education system pure. A better system has been proposed, and so the resolution is negated.

[1] http://www.straightahead.org...
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
cont. Urinalyses can be used as a legal precedent to justify the use of more intensive means in the future.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
I hope you don't mean "bring it" because your drug-free. This is not the point. People who don't break the law, which think that they have nothing to worry about when their privacy/civil rights/civil liberties are encroached because they aren't law-breakers are committing a great mistake. Innocent people turn into terrorists by default when civil rights are broken, even if they are playing by the current set of rules. "Piss tests" are a great violation of privacy, and the innocent are going to lose in the long run if we don't get this loop hole closed up. If the gov't gets used to knowing our bodily chemistry, it's only a matter of time before the tech progresses and they are going to want to know more...
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
I'm a HS teacher, bring it :o)
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Enigma: Instigating a debate in affirmation of the resolution puts the burden of proof on you, which is extremely hard to bear in a one round debate. I wouldn't suggest going this route again with any topic!

This resolution would be very difficult to defend in 3 rounds, and just about suicidal in 1 round. I think you would have a much greater chance to win this if your resolution was "school kids shouldn't be drug tested", and then gave yourself an actual chance to rebut some arguments with 3 rounds. Drug tests can be seen as an invasion of privacy, and a civil rights violation. Since when does the government have a right to know the chemical composition of my body? The hazards of not testing are EXTREMELY dubious. There is a Supreme Court case in particular (it is evading me at the moment) in which the Court rules that only professions in which there is an imminent threat (e.g. truck drivers) can the Constitutional line be crossed to warrant a search of your property in this manner without probable cause (or a warrant). In the case, airline security, which uses handguns in a public environment and is exposed to drugs all the time (in busts), were not seen as an "imminent threat", despite the potential for these weapon-bearing people to procure some of these drugs for themselves. The possibility of them procuring the drugs was seen as hypothetical.

How we went from a case like that (probably from the early 90s) to where we are now, where you can be tested just for applying for a job at McDonald's, I do not know. It is pathetic, to say the least, that the gov't has made it's way into my bladder and is trying to get into a woman's uterus as we speak. It is the wrong direction to be headed! People think that because they have nothing to hide that their rights need not be protected! These people are sheep, and if they allow the government increased power than the government will have the ability to turn innocent people into terrorists when they see fit
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by MrHardRock 7 years ago
MrHardRock
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pofoformofo 7 years ago
pofoformofo
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by CommanderTaco 7 years ago
CommanderTaco
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
The_EnigmawjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06