The Instigator
RobertMcclureSmith
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Female high school teachers should not be prosecuted for sex with male high school students

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...
AlexanderOc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 58267
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

RobertMcclureSmith

Pro

Female teachers (especially attractive females) should not be prosecuted for engaging in sexual relations with high school male students.

Rules and general guidelines:

This debate will not permit or consider discussing same sex relationship (i.e. male teachers, male students; female teachers and female students)
This debate will not consider or permit the discussion of middle school aged students
This debate will not consider or permit for discussion situations where the female teacher has drugged the male student or encouraged them to be involved in criminal or violent behavior.
And for the sake of debate let"s say we are talking about males aged 16"that means my opponent cannot try something like "well imagine a gifted students who has skipped several grades and is a high students but he is only seven years old" because that is not what this debate is about at all.
Definition of sexual relations: oral, anal, vaginal"and any other kind of sexual fetish as long as it is between a high school female teacher and male high school student. That means no threeways, gang bangs, or other people at all.

Or to put in succinctly: take the position that directly addresses the question and provide a good argument for why female teachers should be prosecuted.
Citations or sources are welcomed but are not necessary in this debate since it is largely a matter of matter of opinion.
AlexanderOc

Con

I accept this debate.

Seeing as my opponent has made any arguments yet, I assume first round is only acceptance.

Female teachers are currently being prosecuted for sex with 16 year old male students and my opponent holds BoP to explain why this should not be the case.

I will be mainly Cross-Examining his arguments and forming a few minor points of my own during this debate.

Good luck to Pro and I hope for an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
RobertMcclureSmith

Pro

For each round I will provide quotes from reports of recent cases, one or two will be enough, to show convincingly no crimes are being committed. If my opponent does think or argue these students are "victims" and have be violated be forced into causal sex with attractive older women, I will be the first to admit my willingness to work with police organizations across the country root out these criminals; I am even willing to allow these women to perform the same "crimes" on my body.
Two weeks ago a women named Rachelle Heenan "was arrested for allegedly have sex with a student in a hotel rooms on multiple occasions," CBS Dallas Fort-Worth reports. [1] The student was 18 but under Texas law it is a crime for a teacher to have sex with a student even if they are of legal age. [2] So what did this criminal do?

"Ultimately the victim and the suspect met each other in the parking lot of a private gym in Fort Worth, held conversations inside the vehicle, and ultimately led to kissing," Criado told CBS Dallas Fort-Worth. "The victim met the suspect at a local hotel in Fort Worth and they eventually had sex for the first time. They did have sex after that, I believe multiple times."
The only thing unjust here is this kind of behavior is the unjust legal system.

A second case: Megan Denman, a 29-year-old social sciences teacher at Hoover High School in Fresno, Calif., was arrested for allegedly performing oral sex on and sleeping with a student who was under 18, KFSN TV reports.[3]
Now unfortunately I could not find the a mug shot, so it remains unclear whether this women was attractive or unattractive, which might provide some insight into how long the "victim" suffered for a long duration before leaving behind evidence on the perpetrator"s body, face or breasts. It is unclear whether the alleged criminal swallowed the evidence or spit it out at the crime scene.

It is clear these women should not be prosecuted and the victims who endured "sex in a hotel room" on multiple occasions or received oral sex should not be referred to victims; the only sense in which they are victims is that "crimes" stopped because of prosecuting these very nice educators, who believe that education isn"t just about the class room it is also about the bedroom. The first women was a biology teacher, and from my perspective, she provided a hands-on experiment on human anatomy"these women should be receiving national education grants for the courageous work and afterschool counseling; they are innovators, not criminals. Free these women! Stop the injustice!

[1] http://dfw.cbslocal.com...
[a mug shot is included]
[2] http://www.nbcdfw.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
AlexanderOc

Con

Before I begin my Construct, I must commend my opponent. His bravery to debate such a topic is admirable. I must also thank him.

For making this debate so easy.

I. Construct
Let's start off by identifying the reason laws like these are made in the first place.
Children (being 17 or younger) are commonly restricted by law for certain reasons. Those reasons mainly have to do with a lack in life experience. Laws bind children to an adult to make vital decisions for the child until he reaches adulthood. Adults can be trusted to make logical decisions with the child's best interest at hand. The same cannot be said for the kid.

Sexual interaction is one such vital moment in a person's life. Much like driving or getting a job.
Currently, there are laws in place that protect these children from sexual interactions with an adult. There are also laws limiting the time at which a child is allowed to begin sexual relations known as "Age of Consent"

These laws are in place to make sure that only teenager in his adolescence can have relations with another teen in adolescence and adults may only have relations with other adults.

My opponent is suggesting that there be made an exemption.

II. Cross-Examination

"...I will be the first to admit my willingness to work with police organizations across the country root out these criminals; I am even willing to allow these women to perform the same "crimes" on my body."

This is completely irrelevant to the debate. Pro should refrain from voicing his sexual desires in the middle of an argument.

"The only thing unjust here is this kind of behavior is the unjust legal system."

How is this unjust? The school teacher had relations with a teenager who wasn't of age. That is a crime that was punished as it should have been. My opponent has not given a reason to suggest these relations were justifiable.

"It is unclear whether the alleged criminal swallowed the evidence or spit it out at the crime scene."

This 'evidence' spoken of was not mentioned anywhere in Pro's explanation of this event. Also how does the destruction of this evidence relate to the resolution?

"It is clear these women should not be prosecuted and the victims who endured "sex in a hotel room" on multiple occasions or received oral sex should not be referred to victims;"

Actually, Pro has not made this statement clear at all. All he did was provide 2 cases in which an illegal crime was comited and say that it was justified without so much as a single reason.
My opponent then goes on to say the biology teacher who comited the first crime was not doing wrong simply because it was a "hands on experiment"
Experiment or not, illegal is illegal.
Illegal sex with an adult = Illegal sex with a biology teacher.

III. Closing Remarks

Pro has failed to fulfill his BoP. His construct was nearly non-existent and the only justification he gave was that one criminal was a Biology teacher.
Until Pro has made an actual statement that supports the resolution, I am forced to question his reasoning behind these criminal affairs.
Debate Round No. 2
RobertMcclureSmith

Pro

Of course we have age restrictions to protect children from adults or to prevent them from engaging in activities including restrictions on purchasing alcohol and cigarettes. But these and virtually every instance, anyone can clearly see the connection, the reason behind the law. The drinking age 21 exists because alcohol is a dangerous substance that often results in death, car accidents, violence, and in general it has a negative effect"with the exception of people who claim to drink one glass of red wine every evening. Smoking too, the reason is clear why we restrict those 18 and younger because a clear link binds consumption and harm. Smoking has zero benefits to the individual smoker and causes cancer and many other medical problems. We set this limit because there is not a single doctor or peer-reviewed study suggesting that heavy daily consumption of either of these products has any benefits to anyone. Moreover, I do not and do not believe anyone should take seriously the idea that the law or legal system or policies in general worry about the welfare of children in society. Recently Human Rights Watched published a report on children working on tobacco farms in several states, the report: [1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 138-page report, "Tobacco"s Hidden Children: Hazardous Child Labor in US Tobacco Farming," documents conditions for children working on tobacco farms in four states where 90 percent of US tobacco is grown: North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Children reported vomiting, nausea, headaches, and dizziness while working on tobacco farms, all symptoms consistent with acute nicotine poisoning. Many also said they worked long hours without overtime pay, often in extreme heat without shade or sufficient breaks, and wore no, or inadequate, protective gear.
"".
Many of the pesticides used in tobacco production are known neurotoxins, poisons that alter the nervous system. The long-term effects of childhood pesticide exposure can include cancer, problems with learning and cognition, and reproductive health issues.Children are especially vulnerable because their bodies and brains are still developing.Human Rights Watch sent letters to 10 US and global tobacco companies and met with many of them to encourage these companies to adopt policies, or strengthen existing policies, to prevent hazardous child labor in their supply chains.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also they is a long, well documented history of treating black. Here is again, another thorough report by Human Rights Watch of black teens being tried as adults for nonviolent crimes that resulted in long sentences. Here is a great paragraph that illustrates my earlier point:
"The children caught up in the "direct file" law cannot legally vote, drink, or buy cigarettes in the state of Florida," said Alba Morales, a US researcher at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report. "Yet they can be tried as adults with no judge evaluating that decision, and branded as felons for life." [2]

_____________________________________________________________________________

Now let me move on to an amazing case. This time the "criminal" in question is Debra Lafave. Police records report that Lafave had performed oral sex on the boy on June 3rd, and had sexual intercourse with the him in a portable classroom at her school nine days later. Lafave, who worked before college as a model in auto magazines such as Makes and Models".[4]
What is the crime here? Where is the harm? Why should we prosecute these women? What are we punishing? In reality what crime or harm has this great, dedicated teacher done? Maybe aggravated assault on the penis? Physical abuse due to aggressive use of tongue, mouth, oiled hand, oiled-breast? Maybe you could make a case for intent to kill by way of excessive pleasure but strikes me as a hard case to make.
I noticed someone mentioned in the comments section about the law makes no distinction between persons. Apart from this never being the case, including these cases where the women usually receive little or zero jail time, and men who do the same with female students almost always receive at a minimum a year in jail, I think it is illogical to make the case male and female sexual behavior is comparable. I could be wrong, my opponent may be able to provide me with thorough reports on all the females raping males around the country, or all the sexual crimes and unwanted harassment that vulnerable men experience all the time.
My argument exists also in television form: "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy" is the tenth episode of season 10 of Comedy Central's South Park. It originally aired on October 18, 2006.
My final thoughts: There is not a link or clear evidence or a logical argument to support the notion that women like Debra Lafave, an auto magazine model cause harm or should be prosecuted for crimes, given that "crime" in these instances means a tongue-bath of the private by an attractive woman. These laws are unjust because of the absence of a crime. What my opponent will need to show is the harm caused by Ms. Lafave, the Makes and Models model, who willing modeled a student"s penis in her mouth. Show me the crime.

[1] http://www.hrw.org...
[Here is a link to a Huffington Post story along with a segment from the Daily Show]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.hrw.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Someone mentioned in the comments section the law cannot be subjective, which as we know from the colonial period to day was the case. If that is true here is the completely non-subjective history of US legal
Slaves, indentured servants, women, Indians received fair treatment under the law
Children, especially those of marginalized groups were treated with respect and dignity
Women were allowed to own and sale property
It was illegal for men to beat their wife
Women gained the right to vote and participate in politics
The Japanese internment during WWII never happened
Native Americans own several large swaths based on treaties signed and ratified by the US congress and president
After the Civil War, Africans Americans were treated equally under the law with respect to persons
After 9/11 not a single case exist were Muslims were unfairly treated and legislation was never passed to directly target them
AlexanderOc

Con

The argument above has so little ground to stand on, I'm just going to skip to the cross.

I. Cross-Examination

"What are we punishing? In reality what crime or harm has this great, dedicated teacher done? Maybe aggravated assault on the penis? Physical abuse due to aggressive use of tongue, mouth, oiled hand, oiled-breast?"
Any form of 'assault' or physical abuse is generally illegal. So yes, that would be the crime they are being charged for.

"What my opponent will need to show is the harm caused by Ms. Lafave, the Makes and Models model, who willing modeled a student"s penis in her mouth. Show me the crime."
1. No I don't Pro has BoP. He should have proved no crime was being comited as underaged sex is currently a crime. 2. My opponent already stated what these crimes were in that last statement. So he is essentially negative BoP at this point.

II. Closing statement
That's it. Everything else Pro said was either irrelevant or sexually irrelevant. Pro has not proven molestation justifiable and therefore has made basically no argument for resolution.

Had fun.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by CommonSensePlease 2 years ago
CommonSensePlease
2 of 2

"I'm a man. As a man, my body told me exactly when I was ready for sexual exploration. I was young and it was scary and there was nothing wrong with that, it was just a part of growing up. Girls are probably different, but a boy couldn't physically do it if he wasn't ready, no matter how much the teacher pressured him. The question: What's wrong with letting nature decide when they're old enough instead of some arrogant lawmaker? Regardless of what the law says, there's no magical age when it suddenly becomes ok.

Also: Saying "they're not psychologically ready for it" isn't a valid answer without some sort of support for it. I personally think that particular argument is bullcrap. There may be a case here or there where that may have been true but I don't believe it's true for most. They're ready when nature says they're ready, just like every other part of life.
Posted by CommonSensePlease 2 years ago
CommonSensePlease
1 of 2
First off, I don't believe female teachers should be prosecuted in cases where the male student was perfectly willing but my mind is always open. I also want to specifically point out that none of the following points apply to girls. I"ve never been a girl so I won"t presume to understand their life experiences. The following are actual questions to which I'm seeking answers. Regardless of who the BoP is on, I feel the points below were inadequately addressed or not addressed at all in the debate. FYI, "because it"s the law" isn"t a good argument. There have been a lot of laws that were bad. Like slavery. I"m not addressing the law; I"m addressing the question of morally right or wrong.

"What harm is done to a 16 year-old male by (very) willingly engaging in sexual relations with an older female? What if the female was the same age as him? Why does that make a difference?

If I replace the word "sex" with another fun activity such as "sledding," the argument sounds kind of silly. "Boys shouldn"t be allowed to go sledding when they"re 16, they need to wait until they"re 18 to be allowed to consent to sledding. They"re not ready for that kind of fun. If a female teacher goes sledding with a boy because the boy asks her and then they both have a great time, it doesn"t matter. We still need to put her in jail." Not the greatest argument, but it makes you think. Is sex some special activity that makes it different from any other pleasurable activity? Why? What makes it so fundamentally different that the rules change and they"re no longer allowed to decide for themselves if they"re ready? Because that"s how babies are made? So what?
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
LOL. This sure was a fun read.

I do understand the point Pro is trying to make....rather grotesquely. Why is "pleasure" deemed assault?
That is actually a very good question, but goes into the Con argument about children being able to make their own choices.

If I were Pro, I would likely make the rebuttal, If I can drive stick shift at 16, why can't my teacher drive my 'stick shift'.

The only things I disagree with is the Texas law, if true (I haven't looked) stated in Round 2 by Pro
"[1] The student was 18 but under Texas law it is a crime for a teacher to have sex with a student even if they are of legal age"

If both parties are of consenting age, they should have the right to fornicate with whomever they like.
Now I believe schools should have a rule stating teachers may not have sex with any students at their school. But if it is a State Law (for now), then it must be followed.

If you break the law you should prosecuted. Arguing to change the law, that is a much better debate. (hopefully not so vividly next time).
Posted by thenewkidd 3 years ago
thenewkidd
The Law cannot be a respecter of persons so logistically the law HAS to prosecute statutory rape.
Whether it be a "hot" female diddling a 14-16 year old boy or a "ugly" unhygienic male diddling a little girl.

The law cannot take a subjective look at whether or not someone is good looking or ugly in the matter of "was it statutory rape or not".

That said.. When I was 16 I knew exactly was sex was and I think there was a few teachers I wouldn't have minded "diddling" myself to be quite honest.
I don't know too many guys that would turn down sex if offered by someone pretty good looking whether they be 18 or 34.
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
I am just going to post something he posted on my debate. It fits this debate perfectly....

"The Pro side makes zero sense, shows a complete misunderstanding regarding basic features of law, economics, and government. Please tell me the pro side is not serious. It has to be a joke, right?"
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
The best part is how he adds in "especially attractive females".
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
"Definition of sexual relations: oral, anal, vaginal"and any other kind of sexual fetish as long as it is between a high school female teacher and male high school student. That means no threeways, gang bangs, or other people at all."

lmfao
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 3 years ago
2Sense
RobertMcclureSmithAlexanderOcTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more objective reasoning behind arguments. Pro relied mostly on conveniently selected articles and personal beliefs. Hardly any objectivity. Points to Con.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 3 years ago
AdamKG
RobertMcclureSmithAlexanderOcTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro appears to be skilled at writing, but lacks some skill in debate. Con ultimately has the more convincing argument. Pro had sources while con did not, but he failed to use them very effectively as they didn't directly aid his position.