The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 66724
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am completely against bullying like many people should. However high school students are still doing it. I am for having assemblies in high school to make students aware of what could happen to a student who is being bullied. Online bullying is a major issue now days and schools do not have any say on what doesn't happen on their grounds so I feel like parent's should and need to talk to their kids about bullying and how it's wrong.


Let me begin by saying I do not advocate "bullying". I do not believe an adult can bully someone, to me that is harassment. I believe the focus is on children, so..

What is bullying? Is it saying something with the intent of hurting someones feelings? If so, what if the subject of the comments is uneffected.. does that mean "bullying" didn't take place? What if there is a poor 4th grader who is always wearing the same clothes and one of his classmates says "you always wear the same clothes"? Is that bullying.. does it depend on how the individual reacts to the comment. Two scenarios: A.) The child burst into tears and tells the teacher he is being "bullied." B.) The child responds "I know, I like them."

Personally, I believe bullying is based by the individuals response. You could call me ugly and I won't care.. but call the wrong girl ugly and she will kill herself. Well, what if I am ugly and have accepted it. What If i am ugly and know it but haven't accepted it? When you call me ugly your being honest, but call and equally ugly individual ugly and you are now a criminal and a bully because they are mentally weak and killed themselves.

My point is, it's only bullying if it effects the individual.. and that leaves a lot of desecration in the individual. People like to say bullying is about power, but I believe there is now more power in the "victim". It's not right that the same statement can make you honest or a criminal.

"Bullying" is the only time you can be penalized for speaking because someone didn't like what you said (Outside from threats).. and I do not agree with that.
Debate Round No. 1


Bullying is more among teens and students now days. However I get where you are coming from that if I were to call you ugly and you wouldn't care and if you told me the same thing I wouldn't care their. However teens are still psychologically wondering who they are and how they are suppose to fit in. At this time in their life they are very vulnerable; I am not sure If understood you correctly about your side but if a student is constantly being picked at and no one is standing up for them and or they got tired of standing up for themselves eventually they will start to believe they are ugly. I don't think it's right for a student to be singled out because something is different about them that people don't like. Now if a kid likes to wear the same clothes everyday that's their choice but it doesn't give anyone the right to treat them like crap.


The example with the kid and the clothes was not that the child liked to wear the same clothes every day, but that he had no other clothes and therefor no other option of attire.. "I know, I like them" was the childs outlook on his circumstance. My point being, it would have been "bullying" if the kid started crying and told the teacher he was being bullied.

My problem with the term "Anti-bullying" and its 0 tolerance policy is that it is not case specific, primarily in the school system. I've personally witnessed many back and forth incidents in elementary school that lasted for weeks, both were guilty of "bullying", but only one was punished because after escalation by both parties one reached their breaking point and told the principal on the other. They both actively participated in the "bullying", but one became a victim when he realized he was losing this game of insults and no longer wanted it to continue. The victim was just as guilty as the "bully". I've seen this more times than I can count in grades 1-8.

Hypothetical comparison: We are next to eachother at a red light when you ask me, or I ask you, to a street race. We both agree and are off to the races.. at first the race is even but I start to pull ahead. Not willing to lose and angry at me, you call the police reporting my license plate for speeding. I get pulled over and arrest for doing the same thing you did, and could have as easily called the police on you and watched you get arrested. This is the same idea as someone who goes back and forth with someone until they can't win or are upset and report being "bullied".

To further reiterate a previous point I will provide a real life example. For some reason 2 girls are bullying 2 other girls. They go back and forth, calling each other names and saying nasty things about each other for weeks. Finally, one of the girls is found dead because of the attention and reaction they have all equally added to the situation. Now the girl that was being bullied, and bullying along with the other girl , is still alive and they all realize how foolish the whole situation was. Except it doesn't end there.. The two girls who bullied the girl who killed herself are charged as criminals and go to jail for 5 years. Is that right? Is that just? If the two "bullies" killed themselves, before the girl who killed herself did, than the victim would be on her way to jail.

Now lets take this one step further.. the girl who killed herself comes from a broken home, was recently cheated on, and was failing out of school. None of these factors or the people responsible for them go to jail, but the person who returned the straw that broke the camels back does.

To create a social war on "Anti-bullying" is a lot like "The War on Terror", a lot of innocent people are unjustly caught in the cross hairs.
Debate Round No. 2


I completely agree with you if both parties are bullying each other; we must ask ourselves when does it stop? Does it stop when some one get's hurt or dies while the others get punished? It's not very fair. However when I talk about bullying I mean it is one sided. For instance a student that was mildly disabled and a bit different from the rest of the student body was being pushed around by other students. While the students are picking on the disabled student other people are laughing at him. Is it right for students to zero in on people who may appear weaker than they are? Is it right for students to feel like they have to worry more about how they will be bullied that day instead of worrying what test they have to study for?


"For instance a student that was mildly disabled and a bit different from the rest of the student body was being pushed around by other students. While the students are picking on the disabled student other people are laughing at him. Is it right for students to zero in on people who may appear weaker than they are?"

It is not right at all. My point has been proven by our differing examples. What I'm saying is the "Anti-bullying" campaign has allowed principals to throw the book at a student without doing any real investigation into the incident. Instead of showing someone who is being mean to an innocent person the psychological effects of their actions they are just handed a suspension. The problem with every Anti-bullying assembly in the nation is that it does not go into the science of mental health and well being.. but highlights rare cases where your words make someone kill themselves and you go to jail.

0-tolerance laws on bullying are insane. Instead of creating a positive in the situation, we create more negative by expelling the bully or even placing them in jail. Through this method, the person being harassed and insulted never gains real closer or an honest apology. The bully often doesn't understand how their words can hurt more than a punch.

"Anti-bullying" and "Gun Control" are the same.. Of course I want people to stop being hurt, but the proposed solution is half hearted at best. One speaker in the gym that no one is listening to does nothing but waste money. Expelling the "bully" is just a lazy way for a principal to appear in control of the student body they reside over.

Students should be taught in grade schools the psychological effects. This is a perfect opportunity for catholic schools to make a positive change and prove themselves relevant once again. Save the stories of 13 year old jesus turning water to wine for sunday, and take an hour a day to teach kids the science behind mental health. Teach them why what they say does what it does. Teach them that mental strength varies just as height and foot size does.

In conclusion, I am for good humanity. I am for people being nice to each other and helping each other without being asked. The reason I disagree with "Anti-bullying" is because it does not solve the root of the problem. What it does is bring in some 20 year old jesus lover who not only no one listens to, but no one can relate to. Mental health specialist should be giving these presentations. 0-tolerance gives an uninvolved principal a way to shine and look powerful when in reality by the time it has come across their desk they have already failed. Unlike a black eye from a punch, Kids cant see the injuries they cause to someones mental well being and therefor have a difficult time understanding. "Anti-bullying" is nothing new.. it has never been ok for kids to be mean to someone.. but it is not working. It is a lazy and ineffective way to prevent children from mentally harming one another.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BillionBrainCells 1 year ago
You should read what I said. "Anti-bullying" is the 0 tolerance policy in schools nation wide. It allows lazy principals too much power with little investigation. For someone with such strong opinion's of mine, we should have a debate.
Posted by Pegasus4 1 year ago
Bullying is also psychological, you should look up the definition of bullying
Posted by BillionBrainCells 1 year ago
Physical violence is assault. I said I don't advocate people being mean. But "Anti-bullying" is not the way schools should handle these incidents. They need to be investigated case by case.. 0 tolerance means 0 deep review.
Posted by Stefy 1 year ago
BillionBrainCells: dude. not everyone has your confudance and some kids get much more than being called ugly. and sometimes their even physically assaulted. I think the person doing the bullying is about one hundred percent more to blame than the victim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a great job of showing the flawed science behind Anti-Bullying tactics... I feel he gained a lot of ground when bringing up how the tactics don't handle the psychological matter at hand, and doesn't provide a lot investigation into each matter. It doesn't account for the psychology of bullying on either side of the conflict. Another point he won on here was the fact that him and Pro disagreed on what Bullying was. This made it an immediate win for Con, as the disagreement seen right in front of us was empirical evidence that Con was right... Anti-Bullying can't work because there is no solid interpretation of what counts as "bullying." The vagueness is a major hit against Pro. I don't hand out spelling, and conduct was tied. There were no sources.