The Instigator
liamjog
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Samiam
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Bullying initiatives are a waste of money in schools

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 2 votes the winner is...
Samiam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 668 times Debate No: 44796
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

liamjog

Pro

I believe that bullying initiatives are a waste of money. First round is for challenge acceptance.
Samiam

Con

I hold that bullying initiatives are not necessarily a waste of money in schools. As the affirmative, you hold the burden of proof for proving that, according to the resolution, ALL bullying initiatives are a waste of money in schools. Ergo, if I show that at least certain types of bullying initiatives are not money-sinks, your argument is invalid, per the resolution. Agreed? If so, good luck sir, and may the odds be ever in your favor!
Debate Round No. 1
liamjog

Pro

I disgree with your statement and will proceed only on the terms that I have to show that money being put into bullying initiatives are a waste

Waste- an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

I never stated ALL money was a waste, and as such, my argument will not try to encompass all of the subject matter.

Case 1: Bullying tendencies are still increasing. Even with our best efforts, the rate of bullying is increasing, as shown in an article by the Guardian : http://www.theguardian.com....

This is a perfect example on how, even when initiatives are being cranked out faster then you can say it, the bullying reports are still increasing.

Case 2: Bullying initiatives are, for some parents, a way to justify their children's victimization. Even though bullying is a serious issue in our schools today, there are those who are taking advantage of the programs and spotlights available to them causing the word "Bully" to be brought out of context, "By calling everything bullying, we're actually failing to recognize the seriousness of the problem," This quote is from Elizabeth Englander a professor of psychology and founder and director of the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University.

Now don't tell me you're not seeing instances when Mom and Dad are using bullying as an excuse for little Jimmy's behavior, this behavior has always been around, but now these "Awareness Programs" are starting to make the situation worse, barring access to kids who really need the support.

Those are my first two, hit me with your best shot!
Samiam

Con

If I am understanding your conditions, then they are what I was stating in my point: that you must prove that putting money into anti-bullying measures is a waste, and I have to put your testimony into doubt.

I had a truly clear, well-worded, and impeccably-crafted answer to your arguments, and then my browser shut down and the "auto-save" saved it from long before the actual work, so this will be much more brusque.

The first point is actually negated by his own evidence. In his article from The Guardian, the Aff attempts to cite the article as saying how bullying tendencies are increasing. That is not explicitly evident from the statement. The article details how there is a marked rise in reporting of bullying incidents by CHILDREN. The working definition of bullying that is being developed by school counselors across the country is that bullying involves making someone, or causing them to feel, powerless. With the rise of reportings by students, we can see that students are feeling more empowered compared to years past, which is a positive effect of the very initiatives which the Aff is resolving to shutter. As the article states, "So what else does the release by CHI show? Well, the number of contacts received in 2012 was more than double those received in 2006, but as CHI note, the rise in contacts could also be associated with growing awareness of bullying amongst children. " Yes, the evidence from the Aff actually states that the anti-bullying initiatives may likely be attributed to the beneficial effects of the standpoint of the Negative.

On the second point, the dragon of the Aff is toothless. By this parallel, I mean that the Aff does nothing to prove that the problem with the status quo even exists, nor that this "problem" even has the supposed effects.

In summary, the Aff's first point's evidence actually contradicts his attempted case, and the second case has no proof backing it up, it is just filler.

I propose that we listen Elizabeth Englander, the person whose quote was taken out of context by the Aff, and refrain from using the term bullying so much. In fact, as in Larry Magid's article "Let's Not Create a Cyberbullying Panic", he recommends that we, as a society, portray statistics in an optimistic fashion, portraying fads like cyberbullying as negative attributes. He also cites in his article how between 2003 and 2008, the bullying rate had decreased and that preliminary studies for 2010 were displaying another decrease. These statistics dovetail with the statistics from The Guardian by showing that while actual bullying rates decreased, reporting of bullying by the bullied increased. Thus, continuing with the current programs, we will continue amplifying the number of students who feel empowered to resist bullying, and by also cutting the fascination with "If it bleeds, it reads" by the media, we will finally break this tempestuous torrent of encouraging bullies by making the practice of bullying seem popular, and retain the beneficial effects of the programs that are evident from the Aff's evidence.

In total, the Aff's first point is contradicted by his evidence, and so is not credible. His second point had no evidence, and is also not credible. I have shown through a correlation between Larry Magid's evidence and that of The Guardian that the anti-bullying programs were having a beneficial effect, thus invalidating the affirmative further.
Debate Round No. 2
liamjog

Pro

liamjog forfeited this round.
Samiam

Con

I would like to extend my arguments from the second round, as well as adding another facet to the issue.

One of the increasingly-popular alternatives to standard anti-bullying measures is to utilize "peer counselors" or some such like program; effectively, they are students who develop and design their own programs for a variety of goals, including fighting bullying. Groups like these are relatively cheap to create (often only requiring enough funds for occasional small projects and donuts) and are highly effective because they address the issue of a bullying culture within a school, like with Magid's advice in his article from round 2, as well as having other beneficial effects throughout the school. Student-led groups such as that are extremely cost-effective as the primary "cost" is simply time.
Debate Round No. 3
liamjog

Pro

liamjog forfeited this round.
Samiam

Con

I extend my arguments from the previous rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
liamjog

Pro

liamjog forfeited this round.
Samiam

Con

Samiam forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 3 years ago
Maria_Magalhaes
Wow! You completely crushed your opponent Samiam!
That was pretty impressive!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
liamjogSamiamTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro might have won if he hadn't forfeited any rounds. Con provided some positive effects that result from the bullying initiative programs.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
liamjogSamiamTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: More rounds forfeited by Pro.