Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.