The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
GZUS96
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation.

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...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 816 times Debate No: 24607
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

First around is acceptance.
GZUS96

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I must stand on the PRO side of this debate and affirm the resolution. In this debate, the overarching themes that I'm going to focus on are morality (with a strong focus on consequentialism) and societal welfare. With this ideal in place, I will move on toward my contentions.

Contention 1: Anti-bullying legislation focusing on sexual orientation is practical.
Because bullying leads to negative effects for the individual as well as society and bullying as a result of sexual orientation is so heavily common, a piece of legislation from government focusing on sexual orientation is heavily preferrable. The resulting effects from such legislation show us the practicality, and analyzing

Sub-point 1a: Bullying is common against members of differing sexual orientation, and this has severe negative effects.
Sexual orientation is certainly one of the largest reasons for bullying in the United States: "According to GLSEN’s 2009 National School Climate Survey, which polled more than 7,000 self-identified gay and straight students between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one from all fifty states and the District of Columbia from 2008 to 2009, 61 percent of all students felt unsafe at school because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation whereas only 9.8 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their gender and 7.6 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their race or ethnicity (Kosciw et al. 2010)." The methodology of this survey, by the way, is legitimate considering the largeness of the sample and how widespread it is throughout the United States, but the actual population size of the United States is still 10 times larger than the sample size. Other surveys conclude the idea that this is a problem:
"LGBT youth regularly face insidious verbal and physical abuse. A recent nationally representative survey of LGBT teens by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that 84.6% of those surveyed had been verbally harassed, 40.1% had been physically harassed (pushed or shoved), and 18.8% had been physically assaulted (punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon) because of his or her sexual orientation in the past year." The effects that come from such bullying are incredibly negative: "The detrimental impact of this climate is apparent in the host of negative outcomes that attend gay youth: LGBT children and teenagers report dramatically higher levels of depression and anxiety, as well as decreased levels of self-esteem relative to their heterosexual
peers. Of course, gay students are not inherently more likely to experience mental and physical harm; rather, it is “a direct result of the hatred and prejudice that surround[s] them.”

Sub-point 1b:
Legislation is effective, and alternatives are few.
The many legislations in the United States after the suicides of 2010 prove the effectiveness of legislation against LGBT bullying: "Over the years, a small number of states have chosen to extend explicit protection to victims who are bullied based on enumerated personal characteristics. Although enumeration remains a minority position, the most recent spate of anti-bullying statutes offers a promising indication that this may be shifting. Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington—over half of the states enacting statutes in 2010—provide a list of prohibited bases for bullying behavior, including sexual orientation. These lists are uniformly nonexclusive,to highlight for teachers and school officials certain types of bullying as absolutely prohibited while still reaching bullying based on unlisted characteristics. New York’s statute, for instance, encompasses but is not limited to “conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or abuse based on a person’s actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex.” Gay rights organizations strongly support enumeration, and research indicates that statutes that specifically identify sexual orientation as an impermissible target for bullying lead to a greater decrease in LGBT bullying than those statutes that do not. The Supreme Court, too, has stated that statutory “[e]numeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply.” Similar numbers of students report hearing homophobic remarks frequently in
schools with non-enumerated anti-bullying laws (74.3% of students) as in those with no laws at all (75% of students).
However, those enrolled in schools with enumerated policies experience less bullying, feel safer overall, and report that teachers are significantly more likely to intervene in instances of anti-gay bullying. These statistics underscore the tremendous potential for enumerated anti-gay bullying legislation to positively impact the lives of LGBT youth." Alternatives are few and ineffective: "The impact of an unwelcoming school climate is aggravated for students who lack a protective buffer of social support. Studies showthat positive parental practices protect adolescents from involvement in both bullying perpetration and victimization, but sexual minority youth are less likely to receive this support at home. Approximately one third of gay and lesbian teens have suffered verbal abuse or physical violence from a family member as a consequence of coming out, and one half have experienced some form of parental rejection. Although some theorists argue that being an “anonymous and diffuse” minority is beneficial to sexual minorities, it can also make it more difficult for LGBT youth to identify similar individuals, particularly within their own age group. Facing rejection at home and school because of their sexual orientation, LGBT youth may experience a “narrow view of the options available to deal with recurrent family discord, rejection, or failure [that] contributes to a decision to commit suicide.”"
Connolly, Lisa C. "Anti-Gay Bullying in Schools--Are Anti-Bullying Statutes the Solution?" New York University Law Review 87 (2012): 248-83. New York University. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.law.nyu.edu......;.


GZUS96

Con

I want to start off by stating I do not condone bullying of any kind, against any person (gay or not). Bullying is absolutely reprehensible. I will state also that unfortunately it is just a part of life, and to think you will escape it once in adulthood you are sadly mistaken. I believe the focus should be on teaching children to deal and cope with it rather than tell people to stop bullying. Studies have shown that in the work place with the increase in "sensitivity training" harassment has not declined, and some studies actually show an increase in harassment after these types of training has been implemented.
Counter to your 1st Contention:"Anti-bullying legislation focusing on sexual orientation is practical"

How is this practical? When you consider homosexual students only account for about 5% of the student body. So you want schools that are already broke to expend a great deal more money to focus on such a small group of students. As with most policies there needs to be more focus on the actual consequences and outcomes, NOT the well intentions of the policies. Too often policies end up hurting more, the ones they are intended to help.

http://cnsnews.com...

Counter to 1a:
"Bullying is common against members of differing sexual orientation, and this has severe negative effects."

I will not dispute that bullying has negative effects, it does and does so on all groups (gay or not).

Common? According to the American Medical Association (non-bias unlike the source you cite) has only found that "one-fourth of students across grades reported that they had been harassed or bullied on school property because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability". Now that one fourth group comprises not just gay but all the other minority groups mentioned. The problem with the findings in the report you cite is that only those whom were bullied were surveyed. Where as in the AMA survey not only were the victims surveyed but also the perpetrators. A victim is really just guessing as to what the motive of the bully was when they were bullied. And just because a bully may have used "gay offensive" words while conducting the bullying does not absolutely give their motive. Perceived bigoted words could only be a result of observation of the victim's perceived condition. The bully may in fact not have anything against a peer being homosexual, but just simply knows by saying anti-gay words and phrases causes more harm to their victim. The AMA and the APA have conducted studies on homosexual children and found no causation between their being bullied and their rates of depression. The students who report to not have experienced any bullying have been found to have about the same amount of depression.

Counter to Sub point 1b: First of all you begin this point it seems by stating since legislation is being passed then it must be effective. Just because many states pass similar laws that address the same issue does not mean they are effective. Without going into much detail just look at anti-texting laws, states haves passed these laws one after the other, so anti-texting laws must work right? Nope, they have not the number of accidents has gone dramatically in each state that passes these laws. Our legislators primary motive to pass laws is that the public perceives that they must not be doing their job if they don't pass laws. Which in many cases it is actually best they do nothing.
You give percentages though that attest that students where there is some type of anti-bullying law but do not specifically state 'you shouldn't pick on gay children' that 74.3% of these children still hear "homophobic remarks" vs. places that have no kind of anti-bullying law 75% of students say they hear "homophobic remarks". Then you assert or the report asserts that places that have anti-bullying laws that specifically mention 'don't pick on gays' experience less, yet no statistic is given of how much less. Interesting? Could it be that there is no significant decrease. And here is the quote "...those enrolled in schools with enumerated policies experience less bullying, feel safer overall, and report that teachers are significantly more likely to intervene in instances of anti-gay bullying."

A student "feeling" safer does not mean they are actually safer.

Then there is this "... but sexual minority youth are less likely to receive this support at home. Approximately one third of gay and lesbian teens have suffered verbal abuse or physical violence from a family member as a consequence of coming out, and one half have experienced some form of parental rejection."

How is it that homosexual youth are less likely to receive support from home when only 1/3 suffer verbal abuse after coming out? That means the majority of these youth (2/3) are not getting verbal abused when they come out. And one half have experienced some form of rejection, and again half are not being rejected that hardly tells me they are less likely, now if the study gave us stats on other issues maybe we could say there is a problem. In either case children where is the comparison to non-homosexual children? For instance why did the study not look into an easy target when we are talking about "support at home". That is teen pregnancy which would be your pool of heterosexual children, I know that these girls were miss-treated in school when I attended and I am pretty sure most of their parents did not say kind words to them either when they informed them, and we all know these girls experienced some form of rejection too. My point is that most disturbing news to parents from their children is not welcomed. The study would have been better had it did a follow up to these children coming-out, maybe at first the parents reacted harshly but then as time passed things changed.

This concludes my counters.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Contention 1: According most studies I have read children whom are bullied because they are homosexual is only about 15% of all bullying that happens. With the majority of bullying committed by a male on a male simply because the victim is perceived to be weaker, or exhibits weak behavior (shy, timid, not very vocal, etc.).

If any money should be spent I would say it should be spent on the bigger problem and that is bullying of any type is wrong. The problem I have with focusing homosexual bullying is that it seems to dominate the conversation these days about the issue. Also it is turning into the new "boy who cried wolf" hate-crime. That is in this country if a white commits a crime on a black it is automatically assumed that the white person was racist, however the converse is not treated the same. This starting to happen as well with homosexuality. If it is identified that a victim of a crime was gay and the perp was not, then the perp is assumed to be "homophobic".

I will find the Journal Article and post in a later round. However many studies have shown that sensitivity training or even anti-bullying classes in schools and the work place do not work and in many cases end up leading to more of the same. We have the same goal "to lessen the instances of bullying" (it is a pipe dream to think we could eliminate it), however where we disagree is the means to get there. What I have seen when I attend my children's anti-bullying assemblies is more bullying. All it does is bring more attention in the wrong way. However here are my solutions, and they mostly will cost next to nothing.
1. Teachers should be trained on how to recognize who bullies are.
2. Bullies should be punished openly and immediately(bad behavior needs to be dealt with and good behavior needs awarded)
3. The all encompassing no-fighting rules need to go away. A bully will most likely stop once he/she gets popped in the mouth.
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

The first thing, judges, you will notice is the fact that my opponent has absolutely not cited any of his sources for his counterarguments and case arguments. This makes it impossible for me or you to be able to access his information and evaluate the strength of the evidence and validate its existence and strength. For that reason alone, every single argument he's made so far is considerably weaker, and I'm already winning the sources point with consideration that my evidence is cited at the bottom of the page.

[PRO Case]
Anti-bullying legislation: It's come to my attention that one of the things that I needed to define in the resolution is "anti-bullying legislation." What this legislation does, mostly, is make harsher punishments and provide more disciplinary intervention against bullying done for the reasons of sexual orientation. When you look at my opponent's case, his solutions are essentially what anti-bullying legislation is about doing except for the elimination of anti-fighting rules. I explain this mainly for the statement that my opponent made about sensitivity training. In my knowledge of what this legislation does, it doesn't explain anything about sensitivity training, meaning that this statement is irrelevant to the understanding and outcome of this debate, and even if it isn't, my opponent hasn't cited a source for this anyway, so the statement cannot be evaluated.
C1 Thesis: My opponent makes contradictory statements. He states at the inception of his argument that all bullying is reprehensible (which only immediately provides more fruit for my argument), but then tries to argue the thesis of my C1 by implying that legislation for this bullying is not practical because it's affecting a small group of people. (1) If my opponent sincerely holds the standard that all bullying is reprehensible, the numbers wouldn't matter. What would matter is an attempt toward mitigating if not eradicating the problem so that bullying of all forms can be decreased. He's trying to imply that because the group is small, the problem of bullying against this community isn't something we need to focus money on--money according to him we don't have, even though he has no source for this either. (2) And in the following sub-point 1a, I explain the effects of bullying (the effects that he agrees exist), only further explaining the severity of the outcomes of bullying and further explaining why this is a problem that needs to be solved. All in all, these two reasons will lead you to conclude that this legislation is practical and my opponent has inconsistent reasoning.
Sub-point 1a: In this rebuttal, we find only more inconsistency from my opponent. One of the things that my opponent is trying to lead you to conclude is that there is no causation between bullying and rates of depression even though only a paragraph or so ago he states in his own words that he understands that bullying causes many problems, not that my opponent can hold much water in this argument because he cites no sources. Furthermore, he in no way addressed the other effects of bullying in the sub-point, meaning that everything else can be extended across the flow. Causations can be proven through experiementation, and in the following experiment in Finland, it proves what I've been talking about this whole time: [1] My opponent attempts to further prove that bullying may have only been perceived rather than actual, and in order to try to counter what I stated about the study in this sub-point, he speaks about another study that he also doesn't cite. The problem with the methodology lies not in my source, but my opponent's if they were looking too at the perpetrators. If any source is most likely biased, it's my opponent's with consideration that they look at the perpetrators themselves for questioning, which could result in repsonse bias on the part of the survey taker when they're being subjected to a survey about bullying to a bully himself/herself. My opponent then talks about the possibility about how the anti-gay sentiment or motive in the bullying could just be something perceived, and instead of speaking about a source phantom to us in the scope of citation, he blantantly makes this assertion with no sources whatsoever. He states that these victims are really just guessing and believing they're bullied because of their sexual orientation, and even if the evidence about the cases of bullying leads toward the direction of proving that it is because of the sexual orientation, my opponent disregards it. My opponent has gone from being unfounded to unrealistic. I'll need to prove that bullying against people because of sexual orientation exists (even though I did in my sub-point), and as ridiculous as this assertion is, I'll do so anyway: [2][3]
Sub-point 1b: I in no way stated that just because a lot of states have accepted this legislation, it means it's effective. The only thing the evidence is stating is that states are employing anti-bullying legislation because they believe it's effective. I couldn't write everything that was inside my evidence, but had my opponent looked for my evidence (which apparently, he didn't), he would've found more information therein: "
Students in schools with policies expressly including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression are less likely to report a serious harassment problem at school (33% compared to 44%), have teachers that are more likely to intervene “always or most of the time” (25.3% compared to 15.9% at schools with a non-enumerated policy and 12.3% at schools without any policy), and are almost twice as likely to feel “very safe” at school (54% compared to 36%). Students at a school without an enumerated policy are three times more likely to skip class because they feel uncomfortable or unsafe (16% compared to 5%)." There are more sources within the source cited that attest the same exact information with similar data. My opponent states that just because students feel safer doesn't mean they are, even though the exact quote itself said that bullying also decreased and teachers were more prone toward aiding such students. The quote my opponent then talks about actually seems to be more substantiative for my sub-point 1a than 1b, but his perceptions about the data are faulty. 33% of LGBT youth suffering verbal abuse from family after coming out is a huge chunk, let alone half of LGBT not having support from their family. Adding to this is the fact that 40% of homeless youth are gay because they're kicked out of their homes [4]. My opponent is also asking me for more evidence that doesn't have any impact at all in this debate.

[CON Case]
Contention 1: Again,my opponent mentions studies, but doesn't cite any. He talks about how this gay bullying is becoming a "boy who cried wolf" hate crime wave. He's once again trying to prove as if gay bullying doesn't exist, when I certainly have provided evidence for the latter, and he has no sources of his own to substantiate any points in this conention. He talks about how sensitivity training does nothing. I've already addressed this earlier in the round, and pretty much all of the parts of his plans are addressed in my case except for the "no-fighting" rules. The last one certainly is unsafe. He says that a bully will most likely be stopped if the victim resorts to violence, but has no evidence for such a claim, and his last idea is mostly unsafe. If there's nothing to stop the fighting, it can escalate into something more severe, it means that all fights regardless what the cause can happen. This last idea is not good at all.

[1] http://www.bmj.com...
[2] http://www.aclu.org...
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[4]
http://www.americanprogress.org...;
GZUS96

Con

GZUS96 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I extend all of my arguments across the flow.
GZUS96

Con

GZUS96 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Extend all arguments and vote PRO.
GZUS96

Con

GZUS96 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GZUS96 4 years ago
GZUS96
I am waiting.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ScarletGhost4396GZUS96Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
ScarletGhost4396GZUS96Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF