Is Lunch Detention/Working Lunch in Middle School Really Beneficial?
Debate Rounds (3)
The low self esteem is the way we cause pain to the student after all it is a punishment and they must dislike it for it to work.
The lessons they learn from other bad kids is how to get better at being it, that way they can end up in detention less often by avoiding getting caught.
If they avoid detentions it means they're getting less punished which means everybody's happy and the discipline system is working.
And that they need to learn not to get caught which could later cause the habit of hiding stuff and lying to authority figures such as cops just so they could avoid detention or jail.
I think it is a waste of time all together because the teacher in charge just sits their in silence and doesn't get there much deserved break, also the kids just sit in there and talk. I think that lunch detention/ working lunch is wrong
A break is something they must earn with good behavior. It is more of an easily attained privilege as opposed to a god given right.
I thank you for reading this debate and I shall just quickly defend my point regarding my Round 2 points.
If the kid's self esteem is hut by having to go to attention it is successfully deterring hte kid form doing the action that ended him/her in the detention in the first place as they clearly won't enjoy the loss of self esteem.
If the kid learns form fellow naughty children how to get good at being naughty, they will be able to enjoy the bad stuff they do without the school or them getting too stressed about it which benefits everyone. I'd rather that kid grew up did some weed and had a good job and avoided prison rather than one who was naive and got caught with the weed, poor dude wiht a criminal record he can't go anywhere in life other than rap perhaps.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 6 months 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: Pro provides a moral framework that emphasizes punishment and turns con's argument in his own favor. Con never gets around to explaining why hurting kids is bad.
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.