The Instigator
Yavneh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should Schools Have the Right to Search Student Lockers?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
AbandonedSpring
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,332 times Debate No: 68040
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Yavneh

Con

First round is for Acceptance.
Second Round is for Constructive statements.
Third Round is for cross examination- Pro will answer Con's questions and write his/her own also in that round.
Fourth Round is Rebuttal, with Con answering Pro's wuestions and then writing a rebuttal.
Final Round: Summary of Opinion, Conclusion.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

I accept your debate, good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Yavneh

Con

Dear AbandonedSpring,
I assume that you are worried about guns and drugs being stashed in lockers. I think your concern about illegal materials is well-founded, However, you may want to read the fourth amendment. It states that the government cannot search property without a warrant. An amendment would be necessary to allow schools to randomly search student property, and that's not coming anytime soon. The fourth amendment, by the way, applies to the states, as decided in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). And since the schools are controlled by the state, the school must comply. As for the reasoning behind the fourth amendment, I'll include that if you ask for it.
PS: Here's the wording of the amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.
[a] Effects means property.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

"assume that you are worried about guns and drugs being stashed in lockers. I think your concern about illegal materials is well-founded, However, you may want to read the fourth amendment."

I have read the 4th amendment. The 4th ammendment protects your personal property. Lockers are not person property.

"The fourth amendment, by the way, applies to the states, as decided in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). And since the schools are controlled by the state, the school must comply. As for the reasoning behind the fourth amendment, I'll include that if you ask for it."

The school cannot search your personal property. See Tinker V. Des Moines. I know the 4th amendment. As a matter of fact, ill quote part of it. "The right of persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches." Please read to me where it says that schools font have the right to search lockers, even if they have REASONABLE REASON to search.

Lets look at USSC cases that apply directly to schools, since using cases that don't makes absolutely no sense.

Tinker v. Des Moines
New Jersey v. TLO
Veronia ISD v. Acton

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
Yavneh

Con

I am a little confused about Pro's statements.
First off, Pro has taken the liberty to write a cross examination in the second round, while leaving out a constructive statement. Thus, I cannot cross examine Pro's opinion.
I will, however, answer/attack Pro's question, to the best of my ability (As I do not fully understand what was said.)
#1: "Lockers are not personal property."
I know that. However, the things you keep inside are personal property. That wasn't much of a point of debate.
#2: Calling the court case I brought in incongruous.
Pro then lists three cases. The first is on a completely different amendment; The third includes the signing of waivers allowing a search.
The second case, however, is more to the point. It details how a school bypassed the fourth amendment. There was, however, a teacher who saw forbidden activity taking place, and one collaborator admitted to illegality. Thus, the case was basically closed.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

If you are confused, perhaps you should not be creating debates.

The burden of proof is on you since you started the debate. I chose to find holes in you arguments to further enhance mine.

I also find it interesting how you were able to talk about not being able to "Cross examine my opinion", however you seem to do so a little bit later in your argument.

Your #1: "#1: "Lockers are not personal property."
I know that. However, the things you keep inside are personal property. That wasn't much of a point of debate."

The debate is, "Should Schools Have the Right to Search Student Lockers?". I said that lockers are private property. Therefore they can be searched. It wasn't much of a point? It essentially shows how i'm right. Your failure to provide a decent arguments strengthens my main points.

"#2: Calling the court case I brought in incongruous."

I was calling on different cases that involved the 4th amendment. I was hoping you would read the opinion of the court, because that is where the real ideas are. You failed here to argue the fact that the cases you provided were completely irrelevant. If they don't relate to this debate, then they don't belong in this debate.

"Thus, the case was basically closed."

This is incorrect. The case went to state court, then federal court, then the supreme court. It was hardly closed early.

This link completely proves why I'm right. Failure to rebut it is an essential forfeiture.

http://www.nytimes.com...

The supreme court upholds the fact that locker can be checked. It is a done deal.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 3
Yavneh

Con

First off, I would like to address the fact that you think I should not be debating, as I was confused by your arguments. If you can't write clear arguments, then maybe you should not be debating. Just saying.
Next: I didn't cross-examine your opinion. I attacked your questions. There's a difference.
Thirdly, the statement, " I said that lockers are private property. Therefore they can be searched," is completely naive (with two dots over the i) of the fact that the lockers' status as private property is precisely what makes them enter the realm of the fourth amendment, whereas if they were public property, then it would support your opinion. But the issue, however, is moot, seeing as the objects inside the locker are obviously private property, and the whole point of the locker search is to search the belongings inside. And, for example, even if you admit to having cocaine in your house, a warrant must be issued for your house to be searched.
Additionally, the court cases you brought in weren't all relevant to the fourth amendment, either. New Jersey v. T.L.O., the only relevant case that Pro brought in , actually established that, to quote Wikipedia, "Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials (administrators)." The only reason that T.L.O. lost the case was that a school rule had definitely been broken, requiring the confiscation of the cigarettes, and the cocaine was in plain view. Plain view is the one exception to the fourth amendment. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, go to http://en.wikipedia.org....)
Finally, my comment about the case being closed was stupid. I acknowledge that. It was only a placeholder for a later argument, as I needed to get off the computer to prepare for the Sabbath. For the actual reason that the T.L.O. case was decided in favor of the school, look at the paragraph above this one.
All in all, the fourth amendment has been proven to apply to schoolchildren, as per the above-mentioned Supreme Court case. So, this debate is, for all intents and purposes, closed.
I'm interested to hear what you'll say in this round. Even though I believe that I've won, there's always the possibility that I've missed something. AbandonedSpring, this debate is yours to make or break. But, for certain, it will be an uphill battle. Up a cliff.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

In the next round, I ask that you please organize your arguments into different paragraphs. You talked a lot, and just repeated the same point, so your argument is very difficult to follow.

"I said that lockers are private property. Therefore they can be searched," is completely naive (with two dots over the i) of the fact that the lockers' status as private property is precisely what makes them enter the realm of the fourth amendment, whereas if they were public property, then it would support your opinion. "

I believe I said earlier that lockers are not protected under the 4th amendment because they are not the student amendment You failed to rebut that argument, therefore this point is invalid.

"And, for example, even if you admit to having cocaine in your house, a warrant must be issued for your house to be searched."

This is a ridiculous point. If you admit to having an explosive in your house, the police do not need a warrant because you are a danger to the public. This is similar to how if I have a firearm in my locker, schools have the right to search my locker to find it.

"New Jersey v. T.L.O., the only relevant case that Pro brought in , actually established that, to quote Wikipedia, "Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials (administrators)." The only reason that T.L.O. lost the case was that a school rule had definitely been broken, requiring the confiscation of the cigarettes, and the cocaine was in plain view. Plain view is the one exception to the fourth "

The case was used to describe the 4th amendment. I wanted to encompass the entire 4th amendment, rather than to just cherry-pick it. Overall, is supported the fact that schools can search you if they need to.

"I'm interested to hear what you'll say in this round. Even though I believe that I've won, there's always the possibility that I've missed something. AbandonedSpring, this debate is yours to make or break. But, for certain, it will be an uphill battle. Up a cliff."

You really believe you won this early? You dropped almost every supreme court case I brought up. You completely ignored this link:

http://www.nytimes.com...

Because you failed to even bring this up, it must mean it was too strong for you to rebut. The supreme court literally said schools have the right to search lockers ,and you ignored it.

Because you were 1 for 3 on the court cases I brought up that strengthened my argument, I will attach the link again.

I hope this time you will not fail to rebut all the cases, and the link I provided.

Tinker v. Des Moines
Veronia ISD v. Acton
http://www.nytimes.com...

Thank you, and I ask you to please organize your arguments into separate paragraphs like I have. It makes it easier on me and the voter.
Debate Round No. 4
Yavneh

Con

AbandonedSpring:

First off, there were paragraph breaks. Don't pretend that they don't exist, like you do the unequivocal holding of New Jersey v. T.L.O. But, for your convenience, I'll hit the return button twice. Whatever floats your boat.

Next, my point about lockers is not invalid, unless you are trying to search the metal of the locker itself. Anything placed inside a purse, backpack, or coat and left in the locker is still protected by the fourth amendment, and illegal materials are seldom left alone.

'And, for example, even if you admit to having cocaine in your house, a warrant must be issued for your house to be searched.' (My argument).

"This is a ridiculous point. If you admit to having an explosive in your house, the police do not need a warrant because you are a danger to the public. This is similar to how if I have a firearm in my locker, schools have the right to search my locker to find it." (Your commentary).

I agree. The Bill of Rights is ridiculous. While you're at it, destroying personal privacy, who needs freedom of speech?

"Overall, is supported the fact that schools can search you if they need to (New Jersey v. T.L.O.)"

Back in Kindergarten, you learned to read. Although this may seem a cumbersome undertaking, it comes in handy when you need to understand debate proofs. Here's the holding from NJ v. TLO:
"Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials (administrators)." You might want to read that again, extra-slowly. Having trouble with the word 'Prohibition'?

You also brought up the notion that your court cases were too hard to rebut. Preposterous.

Tinker v. Des Moines: Deals with the first amendment, not the fourth. Once again, reading comes in handy.

Veronia SD 47J v. Acton: The athletes had already agreed to the search beforehand, as a prerequisite fir joining a sports team. Thus, it was wholly constitutional to test them for drugs.

The Wisconsin case is a little more direct. The ruling goes directly against the Supreme Court holding in New Jersey v. T.L.O., and so I can simply quote the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" The Supreme Court's ruling supersedes the state's ruling.

In conclusion, the fourth amendment clearly states the right of the people to preserve their privacy from the government. This ruling was applied to students in school by the Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T.L.O. Therefore, schools cannot search lockers and rummage through student belongings, for any reason (barring a warrant).
AbandonedSpring

Pro

"First off, there were paragraph breaks. Don't pretend that they don't exist,"

You sound so bitter. I was just asking that you structure your arguments. They were not structured very neatly. I appreciate your compliance.

"Next, my point about lockers is invalid, unless you are trying to search the metal of the locker itself"

This literally makes no sense. Schools can search lockers, it has been upheld by the supreme court. Lockers are property of schools, and are being used by students. We as students are given the privilege of lockers, if we choose to abuse our privileges, we shall lose them.

"I agree. The Bill of Rights is ridiculous. "

This is truly comical. You have no refutation here. You didn't rebut my point, you used sarcasm, I'm assuming. I had a valid point, and you couldn't give an argument, so you used sarcasm. I also find this comical because this is an actual thing. It's like if a cop hears a scream from inside a room, the cop does not need a warrant to search.

You once again failed to mention the link! This is truly because they my defense was too difficult to rebut.

Your analysis of New Jersey v. TLO was on point. Overall, schools have the right to search property, even if it does not directly belong to them. Although, in this direct situation (lockers), the school does directly own them.

"Veronia SD 47J v. Acton: The athletes had already agreed to the search beforehand, as a prerequisite fir joining a sports team. Thus, it was wholly constitutional to test them for drugs."

The students had a problem, and they said constitutionality was a question, similar to what your doing now. This is a case that proves that schools once again have the right to search property.

"In conclusion, the fourth amendment clearly states the right of the people to preserve their privacy from the government. This ruling was applied to students in school by the Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T.L.O. Therefore, schools cannot search lockers and rummage through student belongings, for any reason (barring a warrant).'

That is not what the 4th amendment says. It was previously cited earlier. It says people have the right to their own property. Of which, lockers are not students property.

Thanks, and now I'll move on to voting issues:

1. My opponent failed to rebut all of my points.

I posted the link, http://www.nytimes.com..., which my opponent never addressed.

2. It took him several rounds to rebut this, so it was practically dropped, because we were not able to completely debate the points.

3. He has completely ignored the text of the 4th amendment. He claims "the fourth amendment clearly states the right of the people to preserve their privacy from the government. ", however, anyone who has actually read the 4th amendment knows what the 4th amendment is actually talking about. The 4th amendment actually guarantees that property you actually paid for, and therefore own, the government body needs a warrant to search. Lockers are not OWNED by the student, they are owned by the school. They are BORROWED by the student.

4. My opponent failed to prove that the supreme court has said schools cannot search lockers. This is because, every time a case has been brought to them, the supreme court has said schools have the right to search lockers.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yavneh 2 years ago
Yavneh
An open open letter to AbandonedSpring:
I recongize that I was a little bit, er, a lot bit, snide during the final round. Looking back on it, it was stupid for me to use that tone of writing. The reason I did write like that, I believe, was because I was watching the O'Reilly Factor at the time, where debates often get a little heated. I forgot all dignity, and therefore I sincerely apologize.
Sincerely,
A. Nony Mous
Posted by Yavneh 2 years ago
Yavneh
You keep personal property in your lockers.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
It does? I uphold that schools cant search personal property, but they can search lockers.
Posted by Yavneh 2 years ago
Yavneh
Abandoned Spring, you know that your opinion is that schools should be able to search lockers, right? Because you say, "The school cannot search your personal property." This seems to support me.
Posted by Yavneh 2 years ago
Yavneh
Bunch of things:
1: Why do you need to know my name? I'd rather it be kept private, and you should respect that.
2: I had no idea about conduct rules. I figure that if I argue with someone, I should be allowed to debate them and publicize the issue.
3: The lockers belong to school like the apartment belongs to the landlord. It is basically like a rented space, except the school is GOVERNEMENT-RUN, meaning that it has to abide with U.S. law as if it is a government institution (WHICH IT IS). As such, the fourth amendment applies in full, and the school is not considered a landlord but rather the government.
4: Can we agree to a 24 hour cross-examination, not including Saturday, where we MUST answer each other's comments?
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Also, some advice. Don't send random challenges. It's poor conduct.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
You never answered my question. Who are you?
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
That's your mistake... The term "Their"... Lockers to not belong to students. The Constitute protects us from government, not students from schools own the lockers.

You're misusing the Constitution and overstretching it to a situation where the Constitution doesn't stretch to. Schools searching their own property =/= police searching your house. This isn't a Constitution issue... The lockers belong to the Government, not to the students. The Students have no privacy or property here.
Posted by Yavneh 2 years ago
Yavneh
Also, the word police is not mentioned, but ranther the statement refers to government-controlled positions, which includes the police but also the educators at a public school.
Posted by Yavneh 2 years ago
Yavneh
That, my friend, is not exactly truye. I'll print the exact text from the bill of rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.

The footnote on [a] explains the meaning of this phrae in modern english: Items of property.
Plus, the issue of papers is already there in a school setting.
The fourth amendment is clear in its support of my opinion of privacy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CullenWoodward 2 years ago
CullenWoodward
YavnehAbandonedSpring
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Easily had better conduct and more convincing arguments. The Con was just spewing random stuff about what he thought schools owned while the pro actually cited real supreme court cases. There has never been a case where the American courts said that lockers aren't school property