The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Public schools ought be required to teach LGBT history and issues

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 4 votes the winner is...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,196 times Debate No: 22743
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

First round acceptance.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate at hand, and I solemnly affirm the resolution of today's debate and stand with the PRO.

Contention 1: Learning requires the full comprehension of the natural world and society.
The purpose of the public school system and education therein is to create a class of well-informed and educated citizens aware of their surrounding environment in the natural world and society, which include humanities, mathematics, and sciences. To exclude LGBT issues in this scope would be counterintuitive to the general purpose of education.

Sub-point 1a: Full knowledge of history serves the purpose of history, warranting the need for knowledge on LGBT history.
The American Historical Association elaborates on the necessity of history: "In the first place, history offers a storehouse of information about how people and societies behave. Understanding the operations of people and societies is difficult, though a number of disciplines make the attempt. An exclusive reliance on current data would needlessly handicap our efforts... Some social scientists attempt to formulate laws or theories about human behavior. But even these recourses depend on historical information, except for in limited, often artificial cases in which experiments can be devised to determine how people act...
The importance of history in explaining and understanding change in human behavior is no mere abstraction. Take an important human phenomenon such as alcoholism. Through biological experiments scientists have identified specific genes that seem to cause a proclivity toward alcohol addiction in some individuals. This is a notable advance. But alcoholism, as a social reality, has a history: rates of alcoholism have risen and fallen, and they have varied from one group to the next... History is indispensable to understanding why such changes occur. And in many ways historical analysis is a more challenging kind of exploration than genetic experimentation. Historians have in fact greatly contributed in recent decades to our understanding of trends (or patterns of change) in alcoholism and to our grasp of the dimensions of addiction as an evolving social problem." A full or broad knowledge of history aids to serve the purpose, and not only this, but also provide an objective analysis by students themselves on LGBT issues in society. Such would be achieving the purpose of history.

Sub-point 1b: The need for knowledge on the homosexual community is warranted.
There are many facts and fictions in the scope of the homosexuality and the nature of homosexuality itself needing overview in order to get a fair and balanced picture of what encompasses the homosexual community. Such speculations include that homosexuality is an illness, homosexuality itself is dangerous, etc. While some may be true and some may be false, a curriculum focused on the LGBT community will help to clear up some of the speculations that are false. Such false speculations have prompted discrimination and bullying against the gay community, which has become rampant in society: 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.”

Contention 2: Mandates on LGBT teaching in public schools are justified.
Any sort of blotting out of homosexuals in the context of history or issues taught in American schools is nothing more than discrimination against the gay community in addition to the idea that it depicts LGBT groups as second-class citizens for the reasons that their issues are not made requirement in the context of learning in schools.

Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I will start by saying it is a pleasure to debate this interesting topic with my opponent. I would also like to point out that my opponent has provided absolutely no sources to warent his claims. This is important to note since one can not go by the claims alone because unless their is proof then then there is no way of kinowing whether the claims are absolutely fact or they are just false.

===> Rebuttels <===


Refutation for 1a

My opponent states the following:

“Learning requires the full comprehension of the natural world and society... To exclude LGBT issues in this scope would be counterintuitive to the general purpose of education”

However, I say that there is little reason to believe what he says considering that he has not supporting evidence to back up what he says. In fact it wholly contradicts the central logic and history of Western education, which consistently demonstrates that a versatile command of certain essential “core knowledges” such as Reading, Mathematics, and the Physical Sciences, is precedent to, and necessary for, the consideration of demographically-niche issues such as LGBT studies. For example: in order to even discuss the demographically-unarguable statement, “human homosexuality is a statistical aberration”, one must possess a basic measure of reading ability and comprehension, as well as at least a rudimentary conception of statistical mathematics – simply to understand the statement being made, before the assignment of any value judgments whatsoever!

American public schools today are doing an absolutely horrible job of transmitting these essential “core knowledges” to the students of today, with American students being ranked 22nd in the Sciences, 27th in Maths, and 33rd in Reading (the lowest ranking amongst all OECD member nations) [1].

If we were to actually do what Scarlote is advocating then we would actually worsen the current situation. Because by adding more time in the classrooms for LGBT we would lessen time spent teaching core knowlege.

Refutation of 1b.

Also, I would like to point out that my opponnet still gives no proof that what he claims is true. In addition, there is no real reason that he will achieve the positive results that he is claiming. He claims that a lack of understanding and violence against LGBT people justifies the inclusion of LGBT studies in the public school curriculum however, given the demonstrable incompetence displayed by American public schools in transmitting even the most basic and essential “core knowledges” of Reading, Math, and Science, there is no reason to expect that the teaching of LGBT studies would be accomplished in any sort of uniformly-competent manner. In fact, the far greater likelihood is that LGBT studies would be taught with the same abysmal incompetence as other subjects, resulting in zero positive effects while only diverting time and attention from the already deficient instruction in core knowledge.


===> My Case <===

Contention 1: Public Schools Should Not Teach LGBT Issues because Public Schools Should Not Exist!

Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

This is above is what my favorate president and drafter of the U.S. Constitution has to say about this.

The problem with Scarlote's arguments or rather his world veiw is his acceptance of the dictum that public schools have the right to teach LGBT studies, or any other area of instruction not demanded by parents operating voluntarily in the free market. Public Schools in America today already consume taxes equal to nearly $11,000 per-student every year [2]. Do note that this only includes the official, line-item reported spending on public schooling – if extraneous spending related to educational expenses is included, the gross amount is estimated to be at least 44% higher than officially reported [3]. By contrast, the greater efficiency enjoyed by for-profit, capitalistic educational models allows Private Schools to deliver far superior educational results [4] at a Tuition cost which is 30 to 50 percent less than comparable Government Spending on the Public Schools [5].

Thus, if the public school system were abolished or privatized altogether: for the exact same amount of money that the Government is spending on the public schools, our society could provide Parents with vouchers or tax credits sufficient to pay 100% of the tuition for the (educationally-superior) Private School of their choice, not to mention an additional $2,000 to $4,000 per-child in cash, to spend on food or clothing or health care, or whatever the child may need. While it is true that the teaching of LGBT studies would be virtually non-existent in such a for-profit, capitalistic educational model (since homosexuals themselves do not procreate, and the vast majority of parents demonstrate little economic demand for their children to be subjected to LGBT studies), any positive benefits which might be claimed for the teaching of LGBT studies would be far outweighed by the benefits of superior education, at lower cost, in a privatized educational model.

Therefore, my opponent's commitment to public schooling, and to the teaching of LGBT studies therein, effectively represents his commitment to an utterly-failed educational model, and the worsening of what little educational value the public schools are able to transmit, even in the status quo.


===> Conclution <===

In conclusion, My opponent has no sources to back up his claims therefore, there is no reason to believe what he claims. Teaching LGBT will not work since the teaching of other classes in more important subjects have been a proven close failure. It would also divert teaching of other more important subjects and worsen the current situtation in America's education. And LGBT issues should not be taught in public schools because public schools should not even exist. Education would be better of privatized!

I will now await my opponent's response.

[1]http://www.geographic.org...

[2]http://www.census.gov...

[3]http://www.cato.org...

[4]http://www.capenet.org...

[5]http://mjperry.blogspot.com...







Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Defense of Sub-point 1a: Based on what my opponent has said against my sub-point, it is evident that my opponent misunderstands two things: (1) Statistics (2) The implementation of LGBT studies into a curriculum. What one really needs to understand is that the United States is one of the few countries of the world to have a public school system as a mode of education, meaning that we are literally teaching every student in the United States of America, and in the analysis of education, we're looking at every single student in the samples motivated and unmotivated taking in every lurking variable into account unlike other school systems in other countries where education is more privatized and less moved toward getting undermotivated students to get motivated about education and only look toward the more motivated students. This is not even to account, also, the education systems in certain regions of America in contrast to others and how well governments fuction in order to fund and maintain education in those regions as well as how administration of schools in those regions are able to handle the situations therein. What this means is that the samples of the two statistics were radically different in this scenario. Am I saying that our education system in the public sector is great? No. What I'm saying is that based on the disparity in taking the statistics, we shouldn't base our interpretation of the public school system solely on the statistics. Second, the implementation of teaching LGBT issues will be incorporated into the core classes as part of the curriculum. If anything, incorporation of these issues into a curriculum would provide a great focal point to spark the interest of students and enhance their understanding. Learning on the current research of homosexuality would delve into great detail understanding the human brain, which would enhance learning for biology, just to provide an example. My opponent says that I have no sources in order to evaluate what I'm saying (even though I provided an explanation by the American Historical Foundation iterating on the importance of history and the full understanding of it), but then he goes on to say that Western education focuses on these "core courses" with no sort of evidence of his own. This implies that Western education doesn't value history and knowledge of society, and based on what I have provided to you through my evidence, I have clearly proven that history is important, warranting the need for the full understanding of it. For my opponent to say that I need evidence to prove that people need to understand society in order to make it work better (which I did) is like saying that I need evidence that people need to understand what numbers are before they can start learning mathematics. Rather than this being a valid point, it just ends up being a flawed one.
Sub-point 1b: Again, I explained to you that the competence of the public school system should not be entirely focused on the statistics of the situation. We need to know the entire methodology of it and a stronger analysis on the functioning of the system, which my opponent doesn't provide. If you are to give any reason as to why homosexuals are persecuted, every reason, I argue, is as a result of misunderstanding. Some claim it's a disease even though the APA ruled it not so in 1976. Some claim it's unnatural even though animals in nature exhibit the same behavior. This knowledge that I have attained required research into the topic for debates that I've had, but this doesn't mean that every person in America has a warrant to discover this information, and as I've explained, I feel that it is the duty of education in order to be able to at least provide this information. Also, I provided sources for what I said as well, since I cited GLSEN in the study that I was referencing.
Liquidation of the public school system: I wouldn't really need to argue against this point considering that the entire idea of it is counterintuitive to the purpose of the resolution and the debate at hand. What he's doing here is providing some sort of counter-plan even though that the main idea is to make an argument on behalf of whether or not public schools should teach this issue as part of courses under the implication that public schools are here to stay. Even if we were to analyze this on the perspective that my opponent brings up, the question I ask is why privatized schools shouldn't also provide this education? In the wording of the resolution, I wanted to provide a scope of schools that is more mainstream especially for the United States or the few other countries that work under this system (considering the idea that public school systems are not only construed to the US and my opponent only analyzes this through the scope of the US, showing us that even his counter-evidence is not fully reaching expectations). Essentially what I'm saying is that my opponent is not adhering to the resolution at hand considering that this scenario takes place in the status quo, so it should be evaluated as such. Analyzing what my opponent IS saying in his single contention, however, we do realize there are some problems with the scope of his sources. First, he says that private education costs less, but the study says nothing about how many students are in the private school system considering that this is a study from the US. Again, please note that the US teaches practically every student, meaning that since many students attend public school systems, costs for sustaining them are naturally going to be higher. If we were to switch to a public school system, all the costs of maintaining kids in the public school system will just transition to the private, and since there is an increased demand for private school education and private school education is a capitalistic system, this will make prices for tuition increase. Not to mention that if my opponent is saying that government will provide vouchers for the customers in question, it means that government spending may not be reduced by much anyway since, as my opponent stated himself, they're about the same as spending for regular public schools.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Conduct vote: It's clear to see that I'm the one currently winning the conduct vote considering the fact that I have been punctual to every single debate round as of yet in contrast to my opponent. In addition, all arguments are extended across the flow because of my opponent's lack of rebuttal against them.
Liquidation of public schools: The resolution inherently assumes a scenario where public school systems are the status quo not being taken over by anything else, meaning that the entirety of my opponent's case is straying away from the point of the debate at hand and the resolution. The point of the resolution under my opponent's case could be cross-applied to ask why private schools also should or should not include LGBT issues and history in the curriculum (under the assumption that the government, while the public school system is abolished, will however intall a required curriculum), but this is not the point of the debate. It's clear that I'm winning the argumentation point as well considering the fact that I stay on topic. In order to provide an argument against my opponent's case, however, I clearly explained the disparity in samples of statistics showing that private schools are better in their education, and I explained the market scenario of increased demand for private schools increasing their cost and the costs of public schools just spilling over toward the private schools in the perspective of my opponent's irrelevant scenario, meaning that even if this were a valid argument for this debate, it is not argumentally sound.
Sources: In the matter of sources, I do provide them, as I clearly explained. The quotations that I pulled were cited within the arguments themselves in their sources, and many of the things that my opponent jabbed at me about not having sources were really things that were at least axiomatic. I explained how the purpose of education was to provide understanding of the natural world and society, and my opponent explains that I needed evidence for that, which really doesn't make sense. I claimed that all of the discrimination against LGBT groups resulted from misunderstandings of the minority, and I provided examples as to why this was true in my previous rebuttal. If anything, my opponent is contradicting himself on providing sources when he himself said things like Western education emphasizing on core classes, which implies that the curriculums of the Western world do not emphasize on history in addition to the fact that considering this resolution isn't specifically talking about the Western world, the scope of his rebuttal is too focused to be valid in its reasoning.
Contention 2: I almost forgot to say: my opponent is totally mute on this point. He has made no argument against this whatsoever, meaning that inclusion of LGBT issues in the curriculum is justified, and my opponent agrees.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Rebuttel and Defense

What one really needs to understand is that the United States is one of the few countries of the world to have a public school system as a mode of education

My opponent's statement is utterly ridiculous. In fact, pretty much every industrialized nation has some form of coercively-mandated, tax-funded government school system. While it is true that the nation ranked highest in the world in Reading, Math, and Science scores is, not coincidentally, the nation which also has the highest percentage of its secondary students enrolled in some form of private school – that only serves to reinforce my point about the superiority of privatized schooling, it doesn't change the fact that what my opponent has just asserted is an outright fantasy.


meaning that we are literally teaching every student in the United States of America

It literally doesn't mean that at all.Due to the fact that there are literally millions of private-schooled, private-tutored, and home-schooled students in the United States of America – an enormously broad and diverse demographic sample.
Which is why I, literally, am able to compare the coercively-mandated public school system, with the free-choice Privatized School sector. And see that the privatized education model I am advocating is, literally – as all the evidence presented thus far has already proven far superior.

we're looking at every single student in the samples motivated and unmotivated taking in every lurking variable into account unlike other school systems in other countries where education is more privatized and less moved toward getting undermotivated students to get motivated about education and only look toward the more motivated students.

Which is why I am happy to present study after study confirming that, even when controlling for all such social and demographic factors, the difference between the coercively-mandates Government Schools, and the free-choice Private Schools, remains stark and undeniable: Private Schools consistently deliver testably superior educational results – period [1,2].

Am I saying that our education system in the public sector is great? No

Scarlotte is not saying this, because he can't say this. He has no defense to offer. Since the PROponent of a debate MUST defend both the proposed policy, and the proposed agency of action (i.e., its ability to execute the policy capably enough to deliver the claimed benefits) -- his inability to prove the competency of the Public Schools to effectively deliver his claimed educational benefits, essentially amounts to his concession of the debate.

What I'm saying is that based on the disparity in taking the statistics, we shouldn't base our interpretation of the public school system solely on the statistics

Except that, even when you control for such social and demographic variables, Private schools are still simply better. (As demonstrated above).

Second, the implementation of teaching LGBT issues will be incorporated into the core classes as part of the curriculum.

No offense to my opponnet but this is a pipe dream. There is no such thing as homosexual algebra, or homosexual geology, or homosexual physics; the solution to a formula, the composition of a rock, or the speed of light in a vaccuum do not change one whit based upon the sexual preference of the observer. To attempt to shoe-horn time-consuming “LGBT studies” into subjects in which it is, in fact, completely irrelevant, can only detract from our Public Schools' already-deficient instruction in core knowledges.

(even though I provided an explanation by the American Historical Foundation iterating on the importance of history and the full understanding of it)


My opponent's own evidence proves the wrongness of his contentions, since it cites a telling example of alcoholism as a phenomenon which is now believed to include a genetic component – yet nobody would seriously propose the include of “alcoholics studies” be mandated in the core Public School curriculum: because it's uniformly understood that such a niche area of study hardly qualifies as the sort of core knowledges that Public Schools should be attempting to deliver. As for niche-area studies, in school curricula? Even “Great Alcoholics in History” should be a one-day extra-credit elective class, at most. But then again, maybe not: because like everything else it does, the Government fails miserably even at “helpfully educating” people about alcoholism – with programs which have achieved results exactly opposite of what the social planners hoped for [3,4].

Then he states that I didn't give evidence of the core courses. However, other than the fact that I presented evidence proving that these three areas of core knowledge (Reading, Mathematics, and the Physical Sciences) are the three areas of study that every industrialized country in the world agrees, are the basic, essential foundations of core knowledge which every student requires in order to ever gain a fuller understanding of more complex and/or niche areas of study.And that free-choice Privatized Schooling delivers far superior results, in these core areas, than the coercively-mandated Government Schools your opponent is defending.

“People need to understand society in order to make it work better”?
Good grief, what drivel. Can we get a sense of priorities here? We're talking about whether or not Public School students are ABLE TO READ, get it? If they're functionally illiterate then our Public School system has failed them utterly no matter how politically-correct and culturally-sensitive they may be.And as already proven, mandating that LGBT studies be shoe-horned into the basic curriculum can only detract time and concentration from the Public Schools' already utterly-deficient instruction in core knowledges – with Government-mandated teaching of LGBT-studies itself as likely to be a complete failure, or actually counterproductive, as any other incompetently-executed Government public-information program.

Refutaion of sub-point b: a study that reported that a majority of homosexual students in the Washington DC Public Schools feel unsafe.But what that study certainly did not demonstrate, is whether or not the Public Schools are in any way adequately-competent for the task, nor in any way desirable for society to continue to fund as a means of education.Which are points your opponent has consistently failed to refute, and which are both fatal to his case.

I wouldn't really need to argue against this point considering that the entire idea of it is counterintuitive to the purpose of the resolution and the debate at hand.
My opponent's entire educational philosophy depends upon Government coercion of students against their wills, and against their parents' wills. It's integral to his case, being inherent given his use of the word, “require”, not to mention his chosen agency of action (coercively-mandated in the Government-mandated Public Schools).Against such as totalitarian worldview, a consistent defense of individual liberty, and of student and parental rights to free choices, is a perfectly appropriate avenue of contrary argumentation.

What he's doing here is providing some sort of counter-plan even though that the main idea is to make an argument on behalf of whether or not public schools should teach this issue as part of courses under the implication that public schools are here to stay. Even if we were to analyze this on the perspective that my opponent brings up, the question I ask is why privatized schools shouldn't also provide this education?

even if LGBT studies were widely available in free-market Private School, the very fact that such studies would no longer be required in the Public Schools means he loses his argument: parents and students having their educational dollars returned to them, and the free choice to attend either schools which teach LGBT studies or schools that don't, defeats his whole insistence upon requiring such studies.


I will await my opponnets response.










Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Point 1: The government school systems in different countries function differently from one another, for one thing. The public school system in Switzerland, for example, places the control of public education in local governments, which makes it stronger in the areas of funding and development. The public and private schools in the United Kingdom are in direct competition with one another. The simple fact that there is so much diversity in the functioning of public school systems, the entire concept of public school systems shouldn't be generalized in the same fashion, as my opponent does. He talks about how there is the highest rank in reading, math, and science scores, but he is once again mute about methodology. As I explained earlier, statistics depends all on the methodology, sample sizes, variables, and other factors, including the amount of students that even take these scores and aren't discouraged to engage in academics, so they drop out, the amount of students taken in the sample, etc. My opponent states that all of his evidence controls for all of these social and demographic factors even though I looked at his evidence myself and there was no mention of that anywhere. The judges can do so themselves, and if there's anything in the evidence that I missed, my opponent could do me the favor of pointing it out. As for the public education system in America teaching every kid, it means that every child has a right to education in the United States under the current system, even if they decide to move toward a private school.
Point 2: My opponent also seems to be mistaking the burden of proof for my case. My only burden is to prove that under a status quo of public education, LGBT issues and history ought to be taught, and the entirety of my case is focused on just that, in contrast to my opponent, where he decides to switch the scope of the resolution to trying to change to privatization. Also, as I explained before, even if my opponent wanted to switch the focus from teaching LGBT issues to the existence of public education, the question could then shift to the idea of why private schools cannot be required to do this either. He states that I'm losing the argument by even implying this even though that I'm trying to cross-apply this scenario to the worldview of a case where public schools don't even exist, and he's saying that I'm saying that I'm no longer supporting the requirement for LGBT studies in public school education: how am I supposed to defend the requirement of LGBT studies or any study in general in public schools in a world where public schools don't exist?
Point 3: It's not a pipe dream. It's that my opponent has no understanding of appropriations in the curriculum. Of course, the history of LGBT can be incorporated in history courses, including things like US History in the iteration of the gay rights movements in the 1960s and 1990s. The discussions of genetics and research can be discussed inside biology classrooms. My opponent is completely hyperbolizing the scenario. There's not going to be "LGBT algebra" or "LGBT physics" or anything like that. To be quite frank, this argument is borderline a strawman argument. He continues to be detracting from the point by stating that no one would offer "alcoholics courses" based on my evidence and whatnot. Again, he's hyperbolizing what my evidence is saying. What my evidence is merely doing is providing an example as to show how current issues can be predicted and analyzed through the use of history, showing us the importance of history and a full understanding of it in the modern time period. Why am I not arguing for alcoholic history? It's not my burden. My burden is to prove the necessity of LGBT teaching in public schools, and as my case shows you, an understanding of homosexuality and its history is warranted by the stigmatization of homosexuality. My opponent keeps jamming burdens onto me that are not warranted by the resolution in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, nothing in that argument explains why what I'm saying in the context of LGBT studies or through the analogy of alcoholism why my contention is wrong.
Point 4: And even then, I was able to explain how LGBT issues can be fitted into the core knowledge courses, and regardless, my opponent hasn't really disagreed that history is valueable. The image that my opponent seems to try to impose is that public education is completely dysfunctional and incapable of teaching students even the rudimentary basics, but all he really tries to do is prove that private education is better with statistics that are mute on statistical methods and studies of significance in order to prove the significance of the information with no mention on the control of lurking variables despite what my opponent has said about his studies saying that.
Point 5: My educational philosophy of adding LGBT topics to courses only depends on the adherence to the resolution at hand which creates the status quo of having public schools, not having to defend the status quo itself. Nothing that my opponent has said in regard to this has made any sense at all. My burden is not to prove that public schools should continue to exist.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I hate the 8,000 character limit...Here is my sources (do bear in mind that my opponent presented no rules):

[1]http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
[2]http://www.manhattan-institute.org...
[3]http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu...
[4]http://newsinfo.iu.edu...
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Sorry about the forfeit..I went to my friends house for the weekend to go to a concert, and he didn't have internet. But I will finish the debate.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
@16kadams Oh, I'll do much more than that. Watch me.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
scarlett, say extent arguments, dont FF.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
@1dustpelt Buddy, I think you're on the wrong debate..lol
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
They already have bullying laws. Bullying Laws apply to ALL FORMS of bullying, thus there is no need to create a special bullying law specifically directed to LGBT. Is there a bullying law for ethnicity? No. Is there one for Religion? No. Why should there be one for LGBT?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
ScarletGhost4396DeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: D-D-D-Double FF!
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
ScarletGhost4396DeathbeforedishonourTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple forfeitures and terrible spelling -- this one's a no-brainer. Hopefully SG's next opponent will be "DebateBeforeDishonour."
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
ScarletGhost4396DeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Double forfeit.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
ScarletGhost4396DeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Double ff