The Instigator
ObjectivityIsAMust
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Schools should drop underachieving students

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 3 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,149 times Debate No: 65837
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)

 

ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

I am debating that schools should drop underachieving students.

Rules:

1. First round is only for acceptance
2. Breaking the rule result in a loss.

Good luck.
Commondebator

Con

I accept.

Before we begin, I believe we are referring to American public schools?

I look forward to my opponent's argument, and I shall present my argument in regards to moral, and lawful views.

I may also include economical standpoints, depending on their relevance.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

1. Underachiever will be defined are those who score under 70 on a test (this includes those who are failing).
2. Schools, in this debate, are the public school since private schools are already selective.
3, We are not debating whether or not the school system is optimal.

The public school system objective is to produce a large amount of productive complacent workers that can function in the real world. This is shown through its design. Its hierarchical structure teaches the students to deal with bosses while the act of doing homework trains them to do tedious repetitive work.

Currently, schools attempts to achieve there goal by teaching every students at the same pace.

This results in a curriculum that is based on the needs of the underachiever since the teacher are force to slow down pace of the class. Because of this the average and advance students scholastic achievements are held back.

This conflicts with the schools purpose since it slowdown the production of workers in to order to caters to students who do not fit with the goal of the school system since these underachievers will struggle during their time at university and in the workforce.

Those who are underachiever because there are not intelligent enough will struggle to be productive in white collar jobs.
While those who are too intelligent will be bored by their repetitive job and therefore will not apply themselves making them also unproductive workers.

The school lesson plans are not design to do develop the minds of the student. In fact, schools teach students through lectures which is the least affective way to learn as it carries only a 5% retention rate. At the same time, the students are instructed to take notes even though studies shown that human being cannot multitasking.

Therefore, those who seek intellectual stimulation will not receive it from school.
Commondebator

Con

Thank you pro for making such an interesting debate

My case:

Multiple scenarios can cause the child to get below 70%
Regarding my opponent"s argument, he is implying that children who get below 70% on a test
do not deserve to be educated. This is wrong in both a federal and moral standpoint. There are multiple
cases that could take place, that causes the child to get below 70% on said class.

1. The child aims for a 70%, but fails to do so
2. The child does not aim for a 70%
3. The child has household issues
4.The child has legal issues
5.Peer pressure causes the child to fail

All I have to do is, successfully show that only ONE of these scenarios is justified for the child to get below 70%, and I have proven my opponent wrong.

1. If the child aims for a 70%, it means that the child is trying. However, due to lack of studying, the child
may fail. This is certainly NOT justified cause to simply abandon the child. The blame can indeed be put
on the teacher for not teaching well enough. If the teacher does her job successfully (e.g provides a
standard learning environment and performs his/her job, and follows accordingly to the state standards and
education system) and the child fails, then the child may be put in extra support. Or, forced to go to
summer school and is forced to do something extra, to achieve failed class. My opponent is implying
that despite the extra classes the school may offer, to increase the child"s education, those extra times
and offers are worthless solely upon the fact that the child got below a 70%. This lacks logic, basic morals
as well as federal support.
2. If the child fails all subjects and gets below a 70% in all of them, it means the the school is not providing
enough activities to reach the child"s interest. Furthermore, it means that the fault is towards the school
for providing a poor education system.
3. This should be quite obvious, and it is the easiest point to prove my opponent wrong. If the child has household issues (abusive/criminal parents, parents who do not care about their child"s education etc") then the fault is not within the child nor the school. Therefore, there is no reason to drop the child if he/she is not at fault
4. If the child has legal issues, then there ought to be extra support. Support from a federal standpoint, to provide an education fit for the child, as well as the school.. The child may be an achieving student before the issue, and dropped after. There has to be support outside school (due to said legal issue the child has performed to lower grades) to bring the child up from an educational standpoint. To bring up the child legally is irrelevant.
5. If peer pressure causes the child to fail, then the child is not at fault. It is his/her surrounding peers that caused his/her to fail, thus the child is not at fault. Therefore, there is no reason to drop the child

I will preform rebuttals and expand my argument in the following rounds. Good luck Pro
Debate Round No. 2
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

"If the child aims for a 70%, it means that the child is trying. However, due to lack of studying, the child may fail."

-> In the context of school, trying implies studying therefore the argument that it could be due to a lack of studying is invalid.

"The blame can indeed be put on the teacher for not teaching well enough."

-> The teacher has been hired to follow the educational standard that the school system, through previous deliberation, has decided upon. If the teacher teaching method does not meet this standard then the class average would be lower and she would be flag in the system which would lead to an investigate. In order for the school to drop a student they must be sure that he is an underachiever therefore they could not drop any student that was under a bad teacher since there would be doubt as to whether or not he truly was an underachiever.

"then the child may be put in extra support."

-> The school system has a limited budget that it can use to allocate educational resources for all the students. The cost of the ratio of one teacher per 30 students is high but it pales in comparison to the cost of having to give a ratio of one private tutor per problematic student. In addition, there is no grantee that this lesson will help the student over come his academic struggles and even if it does the student may still end up dependent on extra help in the following years.

By placing all these resource on the struggling students, the school would be shortening the already very small budget it has for all the other student thereby lowering the educational experience of all the other students. Hypothetically, this could lead to bigger class and more underachievers. This can create a circular problem that progressively worsens the school system as they must increasingly support more and more underachievers.

"Or, forced to go to summer school and is forced to do something extra, to achieve failed class."

-> One of my argument is that a teacher teaching pace is depend on the underachieving students. This idea places a group of underachievers in the same class. However, not all these students are underachiever to the same the degree. Therefore, in this summer school the class pace would be glacial since it would be dictated by most underachieving student of them all and summer school also drains the school budget which the other student end up paying for.

"If the child fails all subjects and gets below a 70% in all of them, it means the the school is not providing
enough activities to reach the child"s interest. "

-> A student has access to so many exciting sources of interest outside of school that it can be very difficult or almost impossible to stimulate his interest with academic activities. The academic have to rival video games, television, sport and social activities. All these are not directly related to academics. I use the word directly because computer programing could be link to video games but two activities are so different that they do not necessarily interest the same people. In addition, these students may not be interested intellectual learning.

So how should the school system compete with this? And why should it be force to? Since attempting to do this could end up slowing the education process even further.

"If the child has household issues (abusive/criminal parents, parents who do not care about their child"s education etc") then the fault is not within the child nor the school. Therefore, there is no reason to drop the child if he/she is not at fault."

-> Whether the child is at fault or not, he Is still a burden to society. This may seem harsh but this is because this argument only views one perspective. It is not the schools or others students fault either yet they would end being penalized as a result. The situation is unfortunate but taking away from the majority in order to help the few is also immoral.
Commondebator

Con

"In order for the school to drop a student they must be sure that he is an underachiever therefore they could not drop any student that was under a bad teacher since there would be doubt as to whether or not he truly was an underachiever."

This was not stated previously by my opponent, and it was presented by his argument that it is justified to drop the student for the sole reason for getting 70% or lower. It appears as if my opponent agrees that if the teacher is not doing her job correctly, the student does not deserve to be dropped. Thus, proving my opponent wrong.

Regarding my opponent's argument, my opponent's logic is that if the child gets below 70%, it is best for everyone if we drop the child. However, this is absurd, for it could lead to higher homeless rates for the lack of education. Let me pull out some statistics.

1. The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country, now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries.
2. A high school dropout will earn $200,000 less than a high school graduate over his lifetime. And almost a million dollars less than a college graduate.
3. In the U.S., high school dropouts commit about 75% of crimes.

Now, with forced dropouts, it is greatly expected to see a decline in jobs (thus theoretically causing a decline in the entire GDP), and increased criminal activities. This is certainly not beneficial for the child, as well as the society as a whole.

It is very possible that the child can progress later on. The emotions of the child can change, and he/she becomes an achiever in his/her later years. Apparently, my opponent believes it is logical to drop out the student despite the fact that people can change.

Students should only drop out, when they feel it is best for them. Lets not leave it to the school to assume what is best for the students, personally.

https://www.dosomething.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

"This was not stated previously by my opponent, and it was presented by his argument that it is justified to drop the student for the sole reason for getting 70% or lower. It appears as if my opponent agrees that if the teacher is not doing her job correctly, the student does not deserve to be dropped. Thus, proving my opponent wrong."

-> A school test is a test that is in accordance to the standard of that schools educational system. Therefore, a test that does not adhere to those guidelines is invalid as it is not testing what was intended. Therefore, the student could not be consider an underachiever by this school system which gives it no reason to drop the student.

Misrepresenting the Pro's arguments: "Regarding my opponent's argument, my opponent's logic is that if the child gets below 70%, it is best for everyone if we drop the child."

-> I stated that dropping the student was the best course of action for the other students. Nowhere do I mention everyone since that would be a clear generalization.

"1. The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country, now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries.
2. A high school dropout will earn $200,000 less than a high school graduate over his lifetime. And almost a million dollars less than a college graduate"

-> This arguments are from the perspective of the dropouts which I have not debated. I will merely counter that these statistics don't account for the future difficulties and lower salary that the others students (they will be under qualified) will encounter because of the slower learning pace in a school system that keeps its underachievers.

Generalization: "3. In the U.S., high school dropouts commit about 75% of crimes"

-> This study is about the current high school dropouts which involve many students who voluntarily dropout of high school. Therefore, this study cannot be accurately implied to the hypothetical students that would be forced out of the educational system.

-> In addition, correlation does not imply causation. There could be a third variable such as the type of neighborhood in which the child grows up since poorer neighborhood are correlated with abusive family homes.

Bias: "Now, with forced dropouts, it is greatly expected to see a decline in jobs (thus theoretically causing a decline in the entire GDP), and increased criminal activities."

There is no guarantee that the GDP will go down. GDP is based on productivity not on how many workers are present in the workforce. In addition, those who dropout of school would simply take a minimum wage jobs therefore they are not outside of the workforce. Theoretically, the GDP might even increase since the remain students (the majority of the student at the school) would be more prepared for the workforce and thus more efficient.

"It is very possible that the child can progress later on. The emotions of the child can change, and he/she becomes an achiever in his/her later years."

-> It is possible but unlikely since humans are creatures of habit and have strong tendency to conserve their energy (to do the minimum, especially if they lack interest). In addition for a person to alter their personality requires a lot of time and effort.

"Students should only drop out, when they feel it is best for them."

Why should the interest of a few students trump the ones of the many? The school system should factor the interest of all of its students in its decision not just those with difficulties.
Commondebator

Con

" A school test is a test that is in accordance to the standard of that schools educational system. Therefore, a test that does not adhere to those guidelines is invalid as it is not testing what was intended. Therefore, the student could not be consider an underachiever by this school system which gives it no reason to drop the student."

->My opponent's definition of an underachiever is anyone who gets below a 70%. He did not elaborate any further concerning that definition. Therefore, he is unable to further elaborate on what he originally meant.

"I stated that dropping the student was the best course of action for the other students. Nowhere do I mention everyone since that would be a clear generalization"

->Well, I stated earlier that my opponent's logic is dropping out a student and abandoning that child is best for everyone. Well in fact, rather than being closed minded about a child getting 70% or below, there are other courses of action the school may take. It is a human right to be educated despite the fact that the human is an underachiever or not.

" This study is about the current high school dropouts which involve many students who voluntarily dropout of high school"

->And a forced dropout is expected to decrease criminal activities? The school should seek other ways to educate the child rather than dropping it out and seeing increased criminal activities due to lack of education.

"child grows up since poorer neighborhood are correlated with abusive family homes."

->Pro had made this argument for me. It is unjustified to drop a student without looking at all the factors, and coming straight to the argument to drop out the student. I believe I had stated that earlier.

"Theoretically, the GDP might even increase since the remain students (the majority of the student at the school) would be more prepared for the workforce and thus more efficient."

->Pro provides no evidence on how decreasing underachievers may lead to more focused children. Punishment on classroom distracters may, however I fail to see how dropping a student who brings no harm to others may increase a child's productivity.

"It is possible but unlikely since humans are creatures of habit and have strong tendency to conserve their energy"

Again, there are many possible factors. A habit of getting bad grades is not the only one.

Thanks for your reply pro. Good luck

http://www.unesco.org...
Debate Round No. 4
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

ObjectivityIsAMust forfeited this round.
Commondebator

Con

Unfortunately my opponent was unable to reply to the final round. I look forward to a late reply in the comments, before the voting period ends.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
Con won the debate because Pro claimed that practical benefits would outweigh unfairness, but did not meet the BOP by presenting data showing that practical benefits would outweigh the disadvantages of unfairness and of having more uneducated students.

I think Con missed two good arguments. A tracking system, which is used in some US schools, answers the objection that underachieving students hold back higher achievers. Even if a formal tracking system isn't used, there are almost always advanced or difficult course that have only the better students. Also, publicly funded schools are obligated by law to provide education to all citizens, not just a selected elite. That's a Constitutional right of equal protection. Democracy requires that most citizens have a reasonable minimum level of education.

Japan has one of the top-rated education systems, and they do not use a tracking system. Their approach is to make it the responsibility of the top students in a class to tutor the underachieving. I suspect that the adage that you don't really understand something until you teach it comes into play to provide an educational benefit to the better students. I don't know if this would work in the US, with a culture quite different from Japan.

I think that it is real problem that potentially well performing students underachieve because the material is dumbed down. I think a tracking system is the best available solution. It's also true that learning is the student's job, so the material has to be learned whether it is fun or not. Lots of thingsin life have to be done even though they are not fun.
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
Whether or not people don't like the school system, it's tough luck. Gotta learn what you gotta learn. I hate how children say that school is like a prison, they need to sit down and shut up.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
First off all, that is a very poor argument. A large part of underachievers are simply uninterested in the school system. This means that they are not actively engaged in learning and furthermore if one want to learn one can simply pick up a book and do self study. In fact, such a self study would give you the chance to learn something you are truly interested in.

It is also worth noting that this is a DEBATE and I am playing the DEVIL ADVOCATE.. So your aggressive comment is completely unjustified.
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
Why would you drop someone from schools just because they're not good at it? The point of f*cking schools is to learn. It's not college you f*cktard.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
True, taking the side of logic can be considered the easy way out, but not everyone can see when they've veered into illogical territory, as it's not always obvious. Sticking with true logic and maintaining pure rationality goes against the very nature of human beings, so it is a practiced and difficult skill.

If I wanted to win the tennis match, I would choose the adult. If I wanted to have fun and be challenged, I would choose the kid. It depends on my mood that day.

Most people have opinions on just about everything, even if those opinions have a weak foundation or none at all. Sometimes one can be against a particular topic, choose to play devils advocate for fun, research the topic thoroughly, then start to understand that their previous position wasn't what they wanted it to be based on the new information (whether through research or through the points made by their opponent). Sometimes one could get an opponent skilled enough to actually *convince* you of their side and force you to recollect your personal opinion. Though, if one only plays the debate game and essentially ignores what the other side says, except to look for rebuttal material, it is likely one will never be swayed. Like I said, it all depends on the goal of the debate. Some want to win win win, some want to have fun, some want to teach, some want to learn, and some just love watching people erupt in a firestorm of anger.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
"Logic (when stuck to and performed correctly) will almost always shine the light on what is the correct side."

I did not debate that one subject could be viewed as correct over another. I do think, however, that those that chose the logically consistent side are taking the easy way out.

I will support my argument using this reliable source -> "Sure, a good debater can argue for the incorrect side and win against a less skilled debater, but in all equal skill levels, the correct side will be correct every time."

Therefore, those who chose the logically consistent have an advantage over those who don't. The question can be compared to a tennis match where a kid plays against an adult. If you could chose to be whether to be the kid or the adult, which would only last till the tennis match is over, which one would you chose? Advantage or disadvantage?

"Playing devils advocate is a good way to sharpen debating skills"

I agree.

"maybe even sway you to a new side as you learn about what you're attempting to argue."

For one play the devil advocate, he must not agree with the stance he is debating for. Therefore,
are you implying that playing the devils advocate would sway your personal opinions to the side your debating? Is this what you mean by a swaying one to a new side?
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
That is one way of debating, sure. Especially if you're going for a win. I personally see every issue that is debated as having a correct and an incorrect side. Logic (when stuck to and performed correctly) will almost always shine the light on what is the correct side. Sure, a good debater can argue for the incorrect side and win against a less skilled debater, but in all equal skill levels, the correct side will be correct every time. Take the debate with Christoper Hitchens vs William Lane Craig. Craig made the first argument and then spent the entire debate waiting for a "rebuttal" from Hitchens, ignoring everything Hitchens was saying while he waited for what he "wanted" to hear. Hitchens side-stepped Craig's argument and presented information that attacked the roots of Craig's position (rather than the actual argument) and showed why any arguments from Craig are therefore flawed.

One stuck with the traditional debate rules and style, while the other stuck with logic and common sense. Who won the debate? I don't know, it depends on whether "failed to counter" is an automatic loss because Hitchens certainly deconstructed Craig's position until there was nothing to stand on.

And, getting rid of personal feelings in a debate is easier said than done. There will almost always be a position you agree or disagree with from the start. How well one can tune out those feelings and stick with logic marks the skill of the debater. Playing devils advocate is a good way to sharpen debating skills and maybe even sway you to a new side as you learn about what you're attempting to argue.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
Atmas I will say this again, the point of a debate is not to point out the truth. For instances, the position that I am defending would end up being refuted given enough logical arguments and scrutiny. But it still can be won because debaters are flawed and therefore they make mistakes.

The core of debating revolves around using semantics to reinforce ones position and to point out the fallacies in the opponent's arguments. Even if one wins a debate, that does not confirm that his position is correct. It simply shows that the debater was better than the other and consequently out witted him.

Another point to consider is that not all position in a debate are equal. Some debates give a clear advantage to one of the debaters which should be factored when judging who won.

Therefore, debaters should not take issues personally and instead should focus on refuting another person arguments. This they must do not by making claims of absolute truths but by point the logical inconstancies in another person statement or by showing another logical perspective.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
"The ironic part is that I agree with you! Let's kick all the morons out of school and let them work at McDonald's. Do know how utterly bored I was waiting for "Johnny the Hammer, lead linebacker of the school" to get through just two paragraphs from Of mice and men? I would have strangled him had he not been able to destroy me in a physical fight. That we cater to the dumb kids and let the smarter one's suffer is a wretched and backwards thinking."

By no means is what I stated in this debate my personal views... I am just picking a multitude of issues and playing the devil advocate for sport.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
The ironic part is that I agree with you! Let's kick all the morons out of school and let them work at McDonald's. Do know how utterly bored I was waiting for "Johnny the Hammer, lead linebacker of the school" to get through just two paragraphs from Of mice and men? I would have strangled him had he not been able to destroy me in a physical fight. That we cater to the dumb kids and let the smarter one's suffer is a wretched and backwards thinking.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
ObjectivityIsAMustCommondebatorTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
ObjectivityIsAMustCommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden to prove that dropping underachieving students would benefit society, but he offered nothing beyond his assertions that it would be net benefit. Con argued that the practice would be unfair, and Pro argued that the unfairness would be compensated by the benefits, but those benefit were only asserted. Pro needed some data to show that those benefits would occur -- do the countries with the best systems drop the underperforming? The burden of proof requires evidence. (More in comments.)
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
ObjectivityIsAMustCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con, Con used sources while Pro did not, Pro did very little refuting and Con made a convincing argument about crime rates and the increase of uneducated people released into the public. Plus, Auto-Win due to forfeit.