The Instigator
Upriser
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
bencbartlett
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Serial Bullies should be expelled and be sent to reform school

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,130 times Debate No: 24637
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Upriser

Pro

Psychological Devastation and Suicide


The amount of psychological and physical devastation caused by bullies is completely unacceptable. Many students are scarred for life due to relentless bullies who continuously berate their victims and are only being given a small slap on the wrist. In most cases, they are given no punishment whatsoever. Students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be denied a free education, be sent to reform school and be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible.
bencbartlett

Con

===Acceptance===

I accept this challenge. Note that the argument was clarified in comments 1 and 2 to this more formal version:

1. Many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school.
2. In most cases, bullies are given no punishment whatsoever.
3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be 1) denied a free education, 2) sent to a reform school, and 3) be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Note that 1), 2), and 3) will all apply to all cases, not some combination of the three.


===Disclaimer===

Before I begin this debate, I would like to make a disclaimer that I do agree with the general premise of the debate. Bullying is a regrettable aspect of the public school system and society in general and should have consequences and penalties. However, I am not debating that bullying is bad - this would be a ludicrous argument; rather, I am debating the extreme level of retaliation that my opponent is proposing against bullying and the problems with implementing this in the public school system.


===Rebuttal===

Since my opponent is the instigator arguing an affirmative change to an existing policy, rather than a hypothetical debate, he has the burden of proof. Also, since my opponent's long introduction constitutes an argument, and the first round was not specified to be acceptance only, I will proceed directly to rebuttal. This will use the numbering system established in the formalized version of the argument.

Rebuttal to Statement 1. My opponent's statement that many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school is unsubstantiated and uncited. I shall proceed to give two possible counterexamples. 1: An adult who happened to be bullied in high school could be scarred for life as a result of bullying in high school, among other factors, rather than solely due to bullying in high school. Furthermore, such an adult could have never learned to develop the proper emotional defensive skills, such as standing up to opposition and bullying, and thus be scarred due to further bullying in the workplace. Note that I am not arguing possible scenario as a main point, but simply presenting a possible counterexample. 2: Because the source is uncited, I will dispute it by default. However, it is a reasonable assumption, so if presented with a source or citation for this, I will agree with this point.

Rebuttal to Statement 2. Again, my opponent's statement is uncited and unverifiable. A sample size for the amount of bullying happening in school is impossible to get from a relatively unbiased source, such as teachers or administration, and prone to exaggeration and hyperbole from a biased source, such as students. Obviously, one is less likely to be bullied in front of, say, the school principal or other administrator, than when no other adults are around, making it impossible to establish an accurate sample size. Conversely, a sample taken from the student body is prone to exaggeration for multiple reasons, such as varying definitions of "bullying", reticence or shame to admit to the interviewer, etc.

Rebuttal to Statement 3. While my rebuttal to my opponent's statements 1 and 2 were mostly technicalities, the main issue I take issue with (and I presume the main issue of the debate) is statement 3. I will break the third part of my opponent's resolution down into the three components established in the formalization of the argument, namely:

3.1. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be denied a free education.
3.2. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be sent to a reform school.
3.3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit.

Rebuttal to Statement 3.1. According to Section 26 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly res. 217A (III), 10 December 1948), "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free..." [1] While bullying should by no means be condoned in school, denying people who bully the right to a free education is not the answer. Education in high school and particularly college is not only a time of academic maturation, but also social maturation. Also, bullies tend to come from homes with immature parents prone to domestic violence. Aside from having to rewrite the entire Universal Declaration of Human rights, an argument could be made that by denying bullies free education, a perpetuating cycle would ensue, as bullies would be forced out of the school system, missing a major part of maturation, growing up to be immature adults more likely to have children ending up to be bullies, just to name one possible scenario. By denying all bullies the right to education without regard to the severity of their social crimes (note that no qualifier was made; "all students who go to school for the solve purpose of degrading their peers" indicates an absolutist argument), one may perpetuate the social cycle that promotes bullying.

Rebuttal to Statement 3.2. By definition, reform schools are correctional institution for the detention and discipline and training of young or first offenders. Like in prison, reform schools commonly have rape problems, as evidenced by a nine-year investigation in Ireland's reform school systems. [4] By simply casting away bullies without regard to the severity of their victimizing tendencies, one may be condemning a child to an institution far out of proportion to their crimes. Though reform schools are necessary in some case, a delimeter or qualifying process would need to be institutionalized in order to determine who to send to a reform school.

Rebuttal to Statement 3.3. Many states and countries have drastically different bullying laws, as evidenced by the plethora of new anti-bullying laws constantly being instated, some quite harsh. By prosecuting ALL bullies to the fullest extent possible, one is ensuring a draconian system that does not take severity into account in penalties, similar to the scenario in the rebuttal to my opponent's statement 3.2. Furthermore, in the United States, if a student physically bullies another person, he/she can be charged with assault and battery [5] and tried as an adult if at or over 18 years of age. Due to the nature of bullying, (see Rebuttal to Statement 2) the vast majority of prosecuted statements could conceivably turn into a he-said-she-said situation, as bullying is much less likely to happen in front of authorities or a group of unbiased individuals. Since the fullest extent of, say, assault and battery can mean multiple years in prison if convicted, prosecuting all offenders to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of their crimes, is an unnecessarily severe punishment more subject to abuse than proper implementation.



===References===
[1] http://www.hrea.org...;
[2] http://www.education.com...;
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
[5] http://boston.cbslocal.com...;

Debate Round No. 1
Upriser

Pro

==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 1.==

According to psychologist Dr. Helen Cowie, events from bullying ordeals more often than not cause clinical depression, collapse of student's self-esteem and self-worth. According to BBC knews, statistics show that adults who were bullied in school are 7 times more likely to be suicidal than those who were not bullied.

Sources--
http://www.antibullying.net...


==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 2.==

Bullies deceive on a daily basis. Their Jekyl and Hyde behavior more times than not convince school officials that they have done nothing to the victim whereas in truth, they have deeply psychologically scarred the victim through manipulation and social projection. There is a great list which explains the personality of a bully. They are described by many psychologists as: "Child bullies are adept at manipulating weak or inexperienced adults."

Sources--
http://www.bullyonline.org...


==Rubuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 3.1==

Allowing a bully to continue to degrade their victims causes more devestation than allowing them free education or continuing to allow them to work. It's estimated that the total cost of bullying cost a tragic toll of: "£3.7 billion annual cost to society," in the UK alone. The cost of bullying in the United States is: "Human resource managers are beginning to realize there is a real productivity cost to these kinds of things." Psychologist Michael H. Harrison, Ph.D., of Harrison Psychological Associates, quotes a recent survey of 9,000 federal employees indicating that 42 percent of female and 15 percent of male employees reported being harassed within a two-year period, resulting in a cost of more than $180 million in lost time and productivity."




Sources--
http://www.bullyonline.org...
http://www.bizjournals.com...



==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 3.2==

The problem is that a delimeter and qualifying process has not yet been institutionalized. If you present me with solid evidence of such then I will agree on this point.


==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 3.3==

Schools can and many have been installing security cameras in order to keep their students safe. If the bullying is caught on camera, which will likely happen considering that many schools have installed security survalliene, then the bully should be prosecuted to the fullest extend to the law if convicted.

Sources--
http://www.skywaysecurity.com...















bencbartlett

Con

===Preface===

I would like to remind my opponent that he has the burden of proof in this argument. So, by definition, if even one subsection of one argument I make remains valid, a verdict in favor of Con must be rendered. Furthermore, I would like to remind my opponent that whether bullying is a detrimental part of society was never under question, only the severity of the proposed measures against said bullying in a high school setting.

===Statement 1.===
For brevity’s sake, now that a source has been given, I will concede this point for now, subject to further debate.

===Statement 2.===

None of the information claimed in my opponent’s last response to Statement 2 was contained in his source; therefore, by default, I will refute it. Note that my opponent simply cited the entire website as his source; this is an invalid citation. [1] Furthermore, the website cited is entitled, "Workplace bullying: what is it, how to recognise it, myths, facts, costs, and why me?" This debate is limited to the scope of high school bullying, so the entire website is irrelevant. Also, even if my opponent’s argument to this point is correct, it serves only to prove my original point, which is that sampling the size and severity of bullying is not feasible, due to the lack of an unbiased, unmanipulated source. Should the standard of determining the severity of a child’s bullying tendencies fall to information provided by the student, the bully could simply be convicted because he/she was unpopular at school or acquitted because he/she was popular with his overall peer group, making this type of decision making nearly impossible to implement.

In summary, my opponent has not provided a valid citation to any of his claims made in this response or any valid argument to any of my rebuttal to Statement 1; therefore my rebuttal still stands.

===Statement 3===

For reference, I have included statement 3 to refresh my opponent’s memory.

“All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be 1) denied a free education, 2) sent to a reform school, and 3) be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Note that 1), 2), and 3) will all apply to all cases, not some combination of the three.

===Statement 3.1===

None of the information contained in the two sources is relevant to this argument. According to the formalized version of the argument, the scope of this debate deals only with bullies in high school, whereas these two sources are referring to bullies in the workplace in the United Kingdom. (Note my opponent’s referring to the survey indicating that “42 percent of female and 15 percent of male employees reported being harassed”. [1] [2] This is a separate issue entirely, and not under the scope of this debate. Furthermore, my opponent did not address the issue of rewriting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

===Statement 3.2===

In this response, I will prove, per my opponent's request, that a qualifying process is needed to determine the severity of bullying before sending the bully to a reform school, rather than simply institutionalizing a blanket statement that all bullies are sent to reform school. Since this policy is not commonly in effect, I will be forced to use a hypothetical situation. Furthermore, I shall refer to my opponent’s response to Statement 3.3 along the lines of the implementation of surveillance cameras in schools. Please pardon my use of stereotypes in this analogy. In this hypothetical, there are two individuals who could be classified as “bullies”: a football player who good-naturedly shoulder-bumps a teammate into a locker after winning a game, and a person who bullies LGBT-identifying individuals, say, a homosexual. The football player could be reported if the teammate took the gesture seriously and interpreted it as bullying. Since there would be solid evidence that he bumped the person into the locker, as it was caught on camera, and no unbiased source to verify or refute the motive behind it, the “all bullies go to reform school” policy would dictate that he would end up going to the reform school, essentially prison. However, the second person in this analogy could continue calling the homosexual countless humiliating or derogatory terms until he/she is either scarred for life or, like my opponent pointed out in Statement 1, could possibly commit suicide. However, the second person may have never been caught, since his/her slurs would not be picked up on camera over the racket of hundreds of people, and even if he/she was, he/she would end up going to the same reform school as the football player under the blanket “all bullies go to reform school” policy. Obviously, some kind of qualifier is needed to determine the severity of the bullying taking place. The problem is, as pointed out in Statement 3.1, that this type of qualifier is nearly impossible to obtain without resorting to a biased source. Thus, a different method of repercussions must be instated than simply sending bullies to reform schools. Though this may be appropriate in *some* extreme cases, such as someone bringing a knife to school, knocking someone out in a fight, etc., it is not acceptable as a general policy.

===Statement 3.3===

The problem with my opponent’s reasoning is that 1) not all bullying (for example, verbal or emotional bullying) is caught on camera, such as in the above analogy, and 2) the degree of prosecution should depend on the severity of the crime. Otherwise, the football player shoulder-bumping a teammate into a locker as given in the above analogy could potentially be prosecuted to the same degree as a senior who brutally beat up a freshman and left him/her in the garbage dump, as both offenses would fall under the category of assault and battery, and can carry maximum penalties of multiple years in prison.

===Conclusion===
In every subsection except Statement 1, which I conceded for the sake of brevity once a source had been provided, my opponent either did not include viable or relevant citations for arguments required them, did not include any citations for arguments requiring them, or did not produce a valid counterargument for my rebuttal of his original statements. In particular, my assertion from Statement 3 still stands that denying bullies a free education, sending all bullies to reform school regardless of the severity of their crimes, and prosecuting all bullies to the limit of the law without regard to their crimes is a draconian and unjust system of repurcussions prone to abuse. The burden of proof is on my opponent, and he has not met that burden. Vote con.

===References===

[1] http://www.bullyonline.org...
[2] http://www.bullyonline.org......
[3] http://www.bizjournals.com......

Debate Round No. 2
Upriser

Pro

Firs, I want to thank my opponent for giving a thorough response to each of my rebuttals.



==Rebuttal to Opponents Response 3.3==

Your defense is entirely built on moral. You have given no explaination as to why the football player should not be prosecuted to the same degree as the senior, and so due to this being opinionated, and being based of moral which itself changes from culture to culture, you arguement does not hold.


Opponent Conceded on Statement 1.


==Rebuttal to Opponents Response 3.1==

I will respond to my opponents request to bring an unbiased source. If that is so, according to BBC news, bullying in the United States alone costs $158bn (£100bn) for all youth violence in schools, which is still a hefty price that can not be ignored.


Sources--
http://www.bbc.co.uk...



==
Rebuttal to Opponents Response to 3.2==
Since my opponent has clearly brought up all of the requests which I have asked in this section, I will have no choice but to concede on 3.2


==Rebuttal to Opponents Response to Statement 2==

Once again your arguement is based on moral and does not assume that the 2 students have both been captured on camera.


Final Statement

I will request that my opponent bring unbiased information which is not based on moral to each of the directed response.



bencbartlett

Con

If you don’t mind, I’m going to reorganize your responses so they are back in numerical order. Just cleaning things up. =)

Just so this doesn’t get out of hand, since we’re dealing with a multithreaded argument, let me summarize everything that has happened:

  • Statement 1 has been agreed upon that bullying in high school can scar people for life. (This was never under serious debate, only citation technicalities.)
  • Statement 2 is still under debate.
  • Statement 3.1 is still under debate.
  • My opponent has conceded Statement 3.2, that not all bullies should be sent to a reform school and that a qualifying process is necessary to implement.
  • Statement 3.3 is still under debate.

So, with that in mind, let’s begin!

===Statement 2===

My opponent’s objection to my argument on Statement 2 is: “Once again your arguement [sic] is based on moral [sic] and does not assume that the 2 students have both been captured on camera.

I am a little confused on my opponent’s objection. My argument was that 1) my opponent cited an entire website as his source, 2) the website he cited pertained to workplace bullying, as opposed to high school bullying, which is the scope of this debate, and 3) showing how what my opponent cited actually reinforced my original statement about the difficulty of gathering accurate and unbiased information about bullying. There was no analogy with two students in my last response to Statement 2, and nothing mentioning a security camera. Also, I fail to see how an argument concerning the validity of my opponent’s citations can have moral grounds. I would ask that my opponent please clarify his objection, then I will be happy to debate it with him.

However, for now, my opponent has not provided adequate responses and citations to the objections I originally raised in my last response, and thus has not met his burden of proof. My original rebuttal still stands.

===Statement 3.1===

First, I would like to note that my opponent still has not address my original objection to him about how denying bullies a free education violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Second, after reviewing the included report, I have objections to two things. 1) The estimate of 158 billion dollar loss includes all levels of school – elementary, middle, and high school. 2) The article itself indicates that bullying peaks during middle school: “Younger kids are more likely to be bullied and prevalence tends to be higher in middle school.” 3) The article make no non-perfunctory mention of how the rather doubtful figure of 158 billion dollar loss. In fact, the only mention it makes of the questionable sum is “One way that Plan calculated the cost of school violence was to look at the potential income a person lost because of missed schooling.” This does not constitute a thorough explanation. 4) The article does not explain whether this is the total loss over all of history of the American educational system or an annual loss. 5) I find this value to be incredibly questionable considering it is slightly larger than the combined net worth of the entire Coca-Cola Company. [1] In the words of Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I would ask that my opponent either put forward more evidence of his extraordinary claim that bullying has exacted a 158 billion dollar loss or, by default, retract said statement.

===Statement 3.2 (Opponent Conceded)===

My opponent has conceded Statement 3.2: not all bullies should be sent to reform school and a qualifying process needs to be institutionalized.

===Statement 3.3===

My opponent’s objection to my argument against Statement 3.3 is: “Your defense is entirely built on moral. [sic] You have given no explaination [sic] as to why the football player should not be prosecuted to the same degree as the senior, and so due to this being opinionated [sic], and being based of moral [sic] which itself changes from culture to culture, you arguement [sic] does not hold.

I will break his objection up into three parts: 1) my argument is based in morality, 2) I must provide explanation why the football player should be prosecuted to the same degree as the senior, and 3) morality changes from culture to culture.

Response to Part 1: If you would like to state that the fact that people should be penalized in proportion to the magnitude of their crime is an argument grounded in morality, then yes, my argument is grounded in morality. However, I fail to see the problem with having a penal system which is actually moral.

Response to Part 2: In the analogy, the football player good-naturedly shoulder-bumped a teammate into the locker, which was misinterpreted as injury. The teammate would not have sustained serious injury (note “good-naturedly” shoulder-bumped), so the “crime” committed by the football player was fairly mild. However, the senior who beat up the freshman and left him in a garbage dump committed a major crime. He assaulted a much younger child and left him in an unsafe location where he was prone to disease and being stranded. If my opponent would like to put forward that people should not, in fact, be punished for their crimes, and that they should all be punished equally, then he must also agree with the inane statement that a person who stole 50 dollars should be punished the same as a serial killer who brutally murdered 50 people.

Response to Part 3: Though the debate on morality varying itself from culture to culture is entirely outside the scope of this argument, I will address a component of it – punishment always being in proportion to the crime – briefly. To quote the Encyclopædia Britannica, “Theories of deterrence and retribution share the idea that punishments should be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, a principle of practical importance. If all punishments were the same, there would be no incentive to commit the lesser rather than the greater offense. The offender might as well use violence against the victim of a theft if the penalty for armed robbery were no more.” [2] This notion is almost universal in penal codes because of this reason.

===Response to Final Statement===

The information I have put forward so far is completely unbiased, unless you extend bias to count as part of basic morality. Furthermore, it is impossible to argue this issue without resorting to morality, as it deals with justice and mercy. For example, even your resolution that all serial bullies should be denied free education, sent to reform school, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, is grounded in morality, as it seeks to administer justice.

===Conclusion===

For brevity’s sake, my opponent and I reached a consensus in Statement 1 that bullying could, in fact, scar people for life, which was never under serious debate. (The only issue I had with my opponent’s assertion was his lack of citations.)

However, my opponent did not provide a clear, relevant, or even understandable response to my rebuttal to Statement 2. Thus, my argument still stands. Furthermore, my opponent put forward ludicrous values in Statement 3.1 from an perfunctory source placing the net loss of bullying at 158 billion dollars, slightly larger than the net worth of the conglomerate, Coca-Cola. Also, my opponent even conceded Statement 3.2 in that his original assertion that bullies should be sent to reform school was incorrect. Finally, in Statement 3.3, my opponent argued against the institution of punishment in accordance with his crime, instead implying all bullying crimes should be punished equally without regard to their respective severities.

In short, my arguments for Statements 2, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 all stand. My opponent has not met his burden of proof. I ask, therefore, that you render a decision in favor of Con.

===References===

[1] http://money.cnn.com...

[2] http://www.britannica.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Upriser

Pro

Thank you for taking the time to paitently respond to each of my rebuttals.

==Rebuttal to Statement 3.1==


There are several sources which state that bullying costs the United States over $158 billion annually, which makes my rebute therefore valid. Secondly, I will state why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contradicts with bullying in every possible way. These are the following which bullies violate whenever they physically and psychologically assault another human being:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls on every individual in society to promote respect for human rights and freedoms.[24] This is because bullying is everyone’s problem."

The right to be free from violence whether mental, emotional or physical.
The highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.[17] Bullying can impact negatively on your physical and mental health causing harm in the form of physical injuries, stress-related illnesses, depression and other health issues.

Bullies violate the Declaration of Human Rights for all of the above reasons and should not be given a free education because if they are, it directly contradicts the Declaration of Human Rights itself.

Sources--
http://www.cdc.gov...
Yet again a second source which states that bullying costs the United States $158 Billion along with:
http://www.bbc.co.uk......
http://www.hreoc.gov.au...



==Rebuttal to Statement 3.2==

I accept the penalty system. However, you are twisting my words and exaggerating. I had not once stated that all punishements should be equal. Rather, all crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as explained in the beginning. Your analogy is critically flawed, as a football player who shoulder bumps a fellow peer and a serial killer who murdered 50 people would still be given differing punishments even if they were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Serial Killer would typically be handed 1st degree murder while the football player would be given a simple felony. My rebutal still stands. Refer back to this rebutal for the moral issues.


==Rebuttal to Statement 2==

If the bullying is not captured on camera, there are countless amounts of different ways which distinguish the bully and the victim. It's been generally accepted by many psychologists that the victims generally have: Low-self esteem, Difficulty in trusting others, Lack of Assertiveness, Agression, Isolation, depressed and withdrawn. A psychologist who is experience in this field of work would be able to distinguish a bully from a victim from thourough evaluation.
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...



==Conclusion==

Statement 2: Still in Debate
Statement 3.1:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights contradict Bullying. My rebuttal stands
Statement 3.2 and 3.3: Have reminded my opponent about the idea of being prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law. My rebuttal stands.

I have proven my opponent wrong and exposed a critical flaw in statements 3.1,3.2 and 3.3. My opponent's rebuttal no longer stand so therefore I ask that you favor your decision with Pro.

All Evidences:
http://www.bbc.co.uk......
http://www.hreoc.gov.au...
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
http://www.cdc.gov...









bencbartlett

Con

Again, if you don’t mind, I’ll rearrange your arguments in numerical order. Also, you previously conceded Statement 3.2 (Note: “Since my opponent has clearly brought up all of the requests which I have asked in this section, I will have no choice but to concede on 3.2”), but your rebuttal matches Part 2 of your objection to Statement 3.3, so I’ll refer to that as Statement 3.3.2.


Let the final round begin, and thanks for a good debate!



===Preface===


Before I begin, remember that Pro has the burden of proof. In fact, in my opponent’s conclusion, he even admitted that Statement 2 is “Still in Debate”. Therefore, by default, he has not met his burden of proof. However, for the sake of the debate, I will address the remainder of his arguments.



===Response to Statement 2===


My opponent’s proposed method of using a psychologist to distinguish a bully from a victim is valid, but implausible for statistical data mining. As the original point of contention was on the accuracy of gathering data for statistical sources, using a psychologist to determine bullies from victims would involve interviewing and profiling every individual to be sampled. Assume now, for the sake of argument, that every bullying event is captured on camera. Even now, using cameras is not a viable data collection method because of the tremendous amount of footage that would need to be traversed in order to get a marginal sample size. Furthermore, on camera and out of context, many “joshing” gestures common with high school males can be misinterpreted as bullying (as in the football analogy.) Obviously, this is not a viable option for gathering data. My overall point here is not that data is impossible to gather, it is that the data gathered will be biased in one direction or another due to having to use teachers or students.



===Response to Statement 3.1===


To begin with, two of the three sources you mentioned (bbc.uk and hreoc.gov) do not mention the figure 158 billion dollars on the page to which I was directed. Furthermore, even with the source you cited, I believe the data to be faulty. Given that the total federal expenditure on all education in the United States is 153.1 billion dollars as of 2012 [2], bullies costing the US educational system 158 billion dollars annually is ridiculous and illogical, as it would yield a net gain of -4.9 billion dollars per year. Obviously, my opponent’s sources are either taken out of context or exaggerated. In response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, my opponent’s statement about people being free from violence is correct. However, my opponent’s solution that bullies should be denied a free education is incorrect, as it contradicts the UDHR in article 26: “Everyone has the right to education. Education should be free.” [1] The solution, therefore, would be to send the students to an alternative school (NOT a reform school – they are two different things, and my opponent has already conceded sending bullies to a reform school) where they could still receive and education while causing minimal collateral damage. However, this contradicts with my opponent’s assertion that ALL bullies should be denied a free education. Since the very source my opponent uses to support his argument also negates it, Pro has not met the burden of proof.



===Response to Statement 3.2===


My opponent has previously conceded his statement, in that his original assertion that all bullies should be sent to reform school was incorrect. I am assuming his “Rebuttal to Statement 3.2” is referring to Part 2 of my rebuttal to Statement 3.3 (effectively Statement 3.3.2), as his argument matches with that, and he made no indication he wished to withdraw his concession.



===Response to my Rebuttal to Statement 3.3 (Effectively Statement 3.3.2)===


My opponent seems to have misunderstood my analogy. My opponent had requested that I explain the original analogy of the football player vs. the senior. (I was not comparing the football player to the serial killer – that what I said the consequence of his line of reasoning would be.) Both the football player’s actions and the senior’s actions could fall under the category of Assault and Battery, a felony in the USA punishable by multiple years in prison. However, obviously, the football player’s actions are less condemnable than the senior’s actions. But if both were prosecuted “to the fullest extent of the law”, both could potentially face the same punishment. I then went on to state that if this was the ideal my opponent was pushing for, then one should try petty thievery on the same lines as serial killing. Obviously, this is a ridiculous concept, it was simply taken ad infinitum to show the implications of prosecuting all bullies “to the fullest extent of the law”, as almost all physical bullying will fall under the category of assault and battery. My original analogy was to demonstrate the need for a qualifying system to determine the severity of bullying, rather than simply prosecuting all bullies “to the fullest extent of the law” – a system prone to abuse. Therefore, since my opponent misunderstood my actual analogy, he has not made any viable counterarguments, so the analogy is viable, and my argument still stands.



===Conclusion===


As this has been a rather long and arduous debate, I will address each element of the resolution in turn.


2. Statement 2 is still under debate, even to the admission of my opponent. My goal in rebutting Statement 2 was not to prove that bullies are more often than not given punishment, but rather to show that my opponent cannot prove his statement from the original resolution. Though I have done so adequately, my opponent has already done the job for me by admitting that it is still under debate; therefore, he has not proven Statement 2. By definition, since he even admits he has not proven Statement 2, he has not proven an element of his case, and therefore has not met his burden of proof.


3.1. My opponent has used an element of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to support his argument; however, later in the declaration, the same document refutes his solution to the argument. My opponent has based his argument off of a document which both supports and negates it; thus, his argument is flawed. Because he has not proven Statement 3.1, he has not met his burden of proof.


3.2. My opponent actually conceded this point, indicating that his original assertion that all bullies should be sent to reform school was incorrect: “Since my opponent has clearly brought up all of the requests which I have asked in this section, I will have no choice but to concede on 3.2Since, by his own admission, he has conceded Statement 3.2, he has not met his burden of proof.


3.3. My opponent still maintains the ridiculous assertion that bullies cause more damage every year, at 158 billion dollars, than the entire federal expenditure on education for 2012 – 153 billion dollars. Furthermore, his argument against my rebuttal to Statement 3.3 is based on a misunderstanding of the original analogy I put forward. Furthermore, since almost all physical bullying would be categorized under the blanket category Assault and Battery, my opponent suggests that all bullies be prosecuted to the fullest extent that Assault and Battery would allow, regardless of the severity of the crime. My opponent’s sources are questionable and his argument does not allow room for modification, therefore, my opponent has not proven Statement 3.3, and has not met his burden of proof.


In conclusion, my opponent has admitted he has not proven Statement 2, downright conceded Statement 3.2, and not proven Statement 3.1 and 3.3. Therefore, he has not met his burden of proof. My opponent’s argument does not stand, and his proposed anti-bullying measures are draconian and unjust. I ask, therefore, that you render a decision in favor of Con.



===References===


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


[2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
The challenge says, "Students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be denied a free education, be sent to reform school and be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible." The clarification in comments doesn't seem to undo that part of the challenge. How would it ever be proved that bullying was the "sole purpose." It might be proved that some slight learning was accomplished by the bully. Con raised the issue of a standard, but posed an example of a bump intended as a friendly gesture. That's bogus because it isn't bullying at all, never mind that it might be misinterpreted. Football players are perpetually assaulting each other on the playing field without legal assault.

The debate was good in that both side diligently tried to follow the other's arguments and refute them, but it was poor at getting at the meaning of the resolution. I cannot object to someone judging Pro to have not met the burden of proof. In the end, I took the view that the debate was over "extreme bullying should be met with extreme punishment" and that Pro had made his case.

Note that reform school is is nonetheless a "school" so education is provided. That wasn't important because students have a greater right to be protected from abuse than a bully has to an education.
Posted by bencbartlett 5 years ago
bencbartlett
You have to have completed three debates before being able to vote... Site rules, sorry.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 5 years ago
Stupidwalrus
Actually, it will be tomorrow. But it will be done.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 5 years ago
Stupidwalrus
I'll be voting soon.
Posted by bencbartlett 5 years ago
bencbartlett
Really hoping someone will actually vote on this debate....
Posted by 123chess456 5 years ago
123chess456
I actually believe that serial bullying should be rewarded as it lets kids experience the real world. The kids that fight back should be severely punished, even if it was self-defence. It'll teach them the unfairness of the real world
Posted by Upriser 5 years ago
Upriser
Very well bencbartlett, I accept your requirements, and yes, I verify your clarification of my argument.
Posted by bencbartlett 5 years ago
bencbartlett
I will accept your challenge if you will agree to verify this clarification of your argument:

1. Many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school.
2. In most cases, bullies are given no punishment whatsoever.
3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be 1) denied a free education, 2) sent to a reform school, and 3) be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Note that 1), 2), and 3) will all apply to all cases, not some combination of the three.

Please comment in a response here, and I will post this in my acceptance comment after I accept the challenge, then you can add a sentence verifying this formalization of your response.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ldcon 5 years ago
ldcon
UpriserbencbartlettTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm voting on the BoP..Pro doesn't quite meet the threshold weighing the different interests.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
UpriserbencbartlettTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A very difficult debate to judge. Pro wins the free education argument; the right against abuse predominates. The requirement that a bully have no other reason for attending school seems impossible to prove, but if proved it would be an extreme case deserving harsh punishment. But neither Pro nor Con debated the consequences of that extreme standard of proof, so does it count? I'm not sure, but I'll give the edge to Pro. the resolution seems to be that extreme bullies deserve punishment.