The Instigator
sweetbreeze
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
prunesquallor
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Do you think that there should be more harsh punishments for bullies?

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 2 votes the winner is...
sweetbreeze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,250 times Debate No: 35245
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

sweetbreeze

Con

I'm just asking if you think there should be more harsh punishments for bullies. I don't think it could change them, but if you have any ideas, could you type them bellow? Thanks, sweetbreeze.
prunesquallor

Pro

Although it is apparent that this is a typically juvenile argument- and I don't even see whether or not there is an argument nestled in some corner of this question, which basically demands an opinion of me. I'll assume that the OP defends the belief that bullies should not be dealt in kind (i.e.) the nasty buggers should not be whacked.

To defend this stance, my opponent may argue that it would create more problems and would do more bad than good. However, whether or not they "had it coming" is not something I will try to debate- and will strive to keep myself as objective as humanly possible.

Personally, I believe that a bully is just that- someone who likes to hit others either for entertainment or to fulfil desires. How any of this can be prevented is beyond the scope of this argument. Whether or not hitting a bully is helpful in long term, is again not so easily contended. Therefore, I believe that hitting a bully is only pragmatic (i.e.) it might scare the bully off and save the victim from further beating. On the other hand, not doing anything at all is clearly not going to accomplish anything. A bully likes beating for what it is- not doing anything isn't going to change it and might even aggravate the whole situation.

An (objective) list of ways in which bullying can be possibly stopped:

i. Send the bully to juvenile prison.
ii. Beat the hell out of the bully.
iii. Kill the bully.

And so on and so forth.

Debate Round No. 1
sweetbreeze

Con

I think there shouldn't be more harsh punishments for bullying. I don't think it would change anything for many bullies, because they just might be too stubborn. And it might even get worse. What will the punishment be? A teacher or adult doing the same thing the bully did to the other person/people? It wouldn't work. I'll tell you why:

One day, some guy decided to go out and torment somebody. Then, he found his victim. He punched and kicked his victim, until the bell rang and lunch time was over. The tormentor warned his victim not to tell anyone, or else there'll be serious trouble. This happened day after day. Until one day, the victim was tired of keeping the secret and told his teacher. The teacher then called the tormentor/bully to come over to her. Then, she called for the class's attention. After she got her classes attention, started to punch and kick the bully, until there was severe bruising. Then, the teacher explained to her classed what had happened every lunch time to the victim. Then, the bully got into rage and started crashing and ruining everything he can. He threw chairs, and got the classroom into a mess. The teacher got mad and sent the bully to the principal's office. When it was home time, the bully told his parents that his teacher was abusing him. The next day, his parents talked to his teacher and his teacher told him everything that happened yesterday. Then, they saw the victim's parents and the the 2 families started to argue with each other and the teacher.

So, you see, doing it back to them isn't a very good idea.
prunesquallor

Pro

My opponent presents an unfathomably deep and intellectual dilemma. I find it hard to justify why a singular and isolated incident should not have an impact upon the debate- after all personal experiences should be considered to be the paramount of contentions. For example, when my neightbour tells me that their cat likes the company of mice- and furthermore helps them in carrying out various chores such as the daily collection of cheese- I find myself at existential crossroads. After all, my neighbour has recounted a firsthand incident, and it makes sense to forget everything I have learnt about cats simply because all of it has been from secondhand sources.

Having said that, I believe my opponent has missed the point quite spectacularly. My opponent narrated the incident upto the inter-family argument but forgets to tell us what happens to the bully's victim after this argument. As if, that particular parent-teacher argument has sheared the moral fabric of the universe, and the victim might as well have suffered from the beating instead. I request my opponent to contemplate upon the possibility that an argument might not be as important as the victim's life- and if it leads to two disgruntled families but a happy child, there might be some good to it.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
sweetbreeze

Con

Beating up the bully or killing the bully won't work, especially the killing. What would their families say? Sending them to juvenile prison might work, but can't they just have detention? What if they were abused some specific time in their life that made them a bully? What if they're daft people and don't even realise they're actually bullying people? We have to find a more peaceful and non-violent way to solve things. Beating up the bullies and killing the bullies is too harsh. I disagree that we should use the hard way to teach them.
prunesquallor

Pro

My opponent argues that a bully should not be killed on account of the conundrum of unpredictability (i.e.) to kill a bully, we first have to answer the question- "What would the bulliy's family say?" This, indeed, poses considerable challenges. How are we to know what the bully's family would say? And if we cannot tell what the bully's family would say-it makes no sense to kill the bully.

I propose a solution. My opponent outlines a scenario in which the bully has been abused at some point of time. Ethics dictate that the family of a child is responsible for the child- therefore it follows that the bully's family must be responsible for the bully. In case the bully is a child who has suffered abuse, it is the family that is to blame. Therefore, the intuitive solution to the dilemma of- "What would the bully's family say?" after the bully is killed- is to kill the family as well. This makes sense because it is logical to believe that the bully's actions are primarily the fault of the family- and in addition to that it solves that particular itch of "What would the bully's family say?". We can now safely answer- "The bully's family will say nothing. Nothing at all, because they all are dead". In fact, it is a morally sound, simple and convenient solution.

My opponent wonders whether detention would not solve the problem. I say, why not? However, my opponent does not specifically point out to the detention's whereabouts. But no worries, I have a solution to that as well. A detention to the afterlife will clearly solve the bully's problem- as well as the victim's issues.

Thus, it can be concluded that killing a bully is the most ethical, direct, simple and convenient approach to solve the various issues of poverty, unemployment, and terrorism in the world.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Coinsruledude 4 years ago
Coinsruledude
@prunesquallor Unfortunately, not everyone has an innate sense of humor. They take EVERYTHING to heart..

Newsflash, everybody! Jokes, especially those containing black humor, are NOT meant to be taken seriously!
Posted by sweetbreeze 4 years ago
sweetbreeze
@prunesquallor

Everything has a consequence, you see. You joke about the harsh punishments for bullying, you get voted down. People here don't accept that kind of humour for bullying in debates, you see. Well, not to worry. You can always try again.
Posted by sweetbreeze 4 years ago
sweetbreeze
@Sandy8

This. :)
Posted by Sandy8 4 years ago
Sandy8
I highly disagree with the notion that bullies should be killed, and if it was a joke, may I ask:
Why would you joke about something as serious as bullying? Would you laugh if you were a bully and someone said "Yea, you should be killed. Death sentence for you...just kidding"?
Remember, bullies are people. The main reason people become bullies is because they were probably bullied or raised poorly. It is not reasonable to punish them severely; that will only make them more bitter and aggressive. Punishing them severely will only cause them to have another reason to bully others. They just want others to feel the same way they felt when they were treated badly.
I believe the only reasonable way to handle bullies is with psychologists. A psychologist would get them to understand the reason they are bullying and why they need to stop. Instead of punishing with violence, death, detention, etc., bullies should be handled in a calm manner. If bullies are handled in a calm matter, then they will be able to understand why they bully, why they should stop, how the victim feels, etc., and then they could be punished mildly with an hour of detention or something of similar sorts to think over what they've done.
Bullying is an emotional thing, it can't be handled with harsh punishment.
Posted by sweetbreeze 4 years ago
sweetbreeze
@prunesquallor

Hmm...
Posted by prunesquallor 4 years ago
prunesquallor
@Flipbook is clearly retarded, I'm not sure why you are trying to reason with him @sweetbreeze.
Posted by sweetbreeze 4 years ago
sweetbreeze
@Flipbook

Have you never thought of clicking on my name and view my profile?
Posted by Flipbook 4 years ago
Flipbook
So you apologize for being harsh and then call us boo-hoo-hoo-bullies thinkers?

First off, being harsh in debate lowers your status, we don't care. And numero dos is plain weird and out of place.
Posted by prunesquallor 4 years ago
prunesquallor
No one was making it harsh and as a matter of fact, I was astonished to find out that no one realized I was humoring you, @sweetbreeze. Of course killing a bully is bad- what do you think I am? Usually, I make sure that my statements are ridiculous enough for them to be attributed the qualities of deadpan humor- to which, I believe, the current assertions qualify.

I just wish you would stop calling me "harsh" and stop with the boo-hoo-bullies-should-not-be-killed attitude. It is very irritating.
Posted by Flipbook 4 years ago
Flipbook
Where do you live?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
sweetbreezeprunesquallorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think that Pro was meant to post a joke argument.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
sweetbreezeprunesquallorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: What happened to the cane? arguments to Con, because I can not agree that bullies and their families should be killed, simply because they are bullies. Eeirly enough, conduct to Pro for making sense out Con's arguments, also spelling and grammar to Pro, who's format of the debate, was much more easier to follow.