The Instigator
AbandonedSpring
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Schools should have the right to search students lockers

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...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,116 times Debate No: 68140
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

AbandonedSpring

Pro

Schools, should have the right to search students lockers. 1st round is acceptance
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

I accept under the pretense that this is referring to search without cause or search at any point.
Debate Round No. 1
AbandonedSpring

Pro

We are referring to search as any type of search. This is a non-specific. This includes having a serious reason, such as a drug do sniffing drugs, or to less serious reasonable suspicion, such as a student putting a suspicious object into said locker.

Now, I'll begin by quoting the 4th amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Because lockers are school property, they do not fall under a students 4th amendment rights. This would be completely different if were talking about searching a backpack.

For the next argument, I would like you to find a supreme court case that upheld the fact that schools cannot search a student locker, please let me know.

Thank you
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

That was not specified in round 1, and I am going to base my argument off the pretense. Having the right to search lockers should be generally applied as it was not stated.

1) Lockers act as private property of the student. Meaning in regards to US laws and regulations, the school is handing that student the locker to keep his private material in. This can translate to that of renting out a store house. It is someone elses property but it is loaned out for a specific purpose of storage.

This is prohibited by the fourth amendment under unreasonable search and seizure .

( http://www.law.cornell.edu... )

The amendment strictly prohibits people from searching through property without due cause. Meaning I concur that if someone is seen putting drugs into a locker that is reason enough to search, but searching for the purpose of searching as the resolution states, is a direct violation of the Constitution.

If someone agrees to let me store stuff in a locker and gives me permission to keep my private stuff in there, they should not be allowed to go into it with due cause. I agree if there is due cause they should be allowed to enter it but not without it as that is a direct violation of basic rights .
Debate Round No. 2
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Obviously it was not specified because the term was meant to be left blank. At this point, if you waste another round arguing an off-topic point you will essentially forfeit this debate.

" Lockers act as private property of the student. "

This is incorrect. The school used funds from it's budget to provide the students with appropriate recourses to succeed. If the resources are being misused by a student, then the school has every right to seize their property. I as a High school student understand this, and universally accept it. I understand that if I choose to keep a firearm, or cocaine in my locker, then I forfeit the right to have a locker. It's that simple.

"The amendment strictly prohibits people from searching through property without due cause. "

Due cause such as reasonable suspicion, which was outlined earlier.

"someone is seen putting drugs into a locker that is reason enough to search, "

You have formally accepted my side of the argument, and forfeited your views on your own side.

You also apparently were unable to find the supreme court case that I asked for previously. I will assume that is because such a case does not exist. The United States Supreme Court has consistently upheld that student have the right to privacy, but in order to create a safe learning environment, some rights may have to be forfeited. See Tinker v. Des Moines, New Jersey v. TLO, Veronia v. Acton, and there are so many more.

Thanks
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

You can't not specify something then alter the definition. You literally even opened up stating arguments against that, so it will be affirmed in the case of unreasonable searches. Such as for no reason other than to search with no valid proof.

If you note pros rebuttal he states if the *sources* are being misused by the student they have every right to seize the property. I concur, but this is a debate about unwarranted searches. He concedes the debate at this point because he is affirming what i am arguing. The school has the right to search lockers in cases of non reasonable suspicion, but if they have due cause to search it, it would work the same as a search warrant.

I refer you to his first round

" For the next argument, I would like you to find a supreme court case that upheld the fact that schools cannot search a student locker, please let me know. "

" Because lockers are school property, they do not fall under a students 4th amendment rights. This would be completely different if were talking about searching a backpack. "

" Because lockers are school property, they do not fall under a students 4th amendment rights. This would be completely different if were talking about searching a backpack. "

We can cleary see that he was referring to reasons other than those that would justify a search. A reasonable cause violates the students right to the property, as any case in real life does. Searching without cause is a vioaliton of their constitutional rights.

His entire round was about affirming that a locker can be searched at any time, then he alters and moves the goals posts. This is a clear win for me , vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
AbandonedSpring

Pro

You are the one who is attempting to alter the debate. As i previously stated, i intentionally left the topic vague so both sides would have something to talk about. When you accepted the debate, you agreed on the vague topic. It is not your job to decide a new topic.

After explaining this, I stand behind my argument. If a student is abusing his privileges, he voluntarily forfeits his privileges. The debate overall is questioning. A schools ability to search a students property. I have proven that here are situations where a school should. My opponent has failed to show that no matter the situation.

In my quotes, i actually thank you for citing them because there were several arguments you dropped. You never found a supreme court case, because it doesn't exist.

You didn't give an acceptable argument my second quote, however i expect you to now that I've brought it up.

As the voter, i would like you to seriously consider the amount of dropped arguments my opponent had.

He seems to believe that schools shouldn't have the right to search their own property. Lockers are school property, so why shouldn't a school have the right to search.

Finally, you falsely mislabeled my argument. That is not what my argument is about. Not even slightly. With all the dropped arguments and this accusation, i am led to believe you never read my argument, you most likely skimmed.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

=Why i won this debate =

My adversary asserts that schools should have the rights to search students lockers. As you can see from the title and his own argument this applies to an on balance standard. In his own words, he asserts that this is not the students property and that the school and just search it because they want too. This would apply to all types of searches

This affirms what I was stating. That this justifies *any* type of search. I am defending the conclusion that not *any* type of search is justified, and just those with reasonable suspicion. Just walking up to a student and searching their locker for the purpose of searching it is, violating their right to privacy and property. That means that not all searches are warranted

My adversaries only defense is find a case that the supreme court rules in favor of the child, which there is no need to. This point is a non sequitur as what is ruled, does not equate to whether *it should * be done. Should be is a question of ethics and principle, which violating someones right to privacy is a direct contradiction of.

=Conclusion=

My entire argument was dropped as his only assertion was the supreme court case which was not an argument.

My point stands that schools lend out lockers to students as *their property*, even if the school owns it. They are allowing the student to use it as their own property and searching it without reasonable intent is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 2 years ago
Shadowguynick
AbandonedSpringValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for moving the goal post, and used no sources. Overall, valar had more convincing arguments in his favor, especially due to the fact that the law already backs his side. but honestly the debate was terribly made by pro, who tried to alter the debate in the beginning.
Vote Placed by Brian123456 2 years ago
Brian123456
AbandonedSpringValar_DohaerisTied
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's claim was more or less objective rather than subjective. Therefore as the debate went on Pro altered his own claim in an attempt to move the motives more into his favor against con who, to me made more convincing arguments under the circumstance that the school searched the lockers without any viable reason.