Should Tenures Be Taken Away
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
| Started: | 6/12/2012 | Category: | Society |
| Updated: | 12 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 12,082 times | Debate No: | 24252 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)
 Pro Tenures are to be defined as allowing a teacher to be guaranteed the teaching position for the rest of their life (just for this debate to simplify definitions). All terms and words are to be based on the U.S. culture, economy, system(s), etc. Pro will be for the removal of tenures while Con will be for the status quo which is the existence of tenures. First round is acceptance. |
 |
|
Pro I am for the removal of tenures for teachers. There are 3 reasons that justify my position: http://tinyurl.com...
 Con Prevent Arbitrary Firings: If teachers did not receive tenure they could be fired for any reason. In other words, they would be limited in doing their job for fear of being fired. This promotes ineffective teachers for fear of being fired. That is something you do not want from teachers or students won't learn as much. (1) http://www.usatoday.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... Tenures Retain the Best Teachers: The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. Many other careers offer higher pay, but very few offer as much security as tenures. Furthermore, to remove tenures would only drive more great teachers away from the profession. Which would then weaken our educational system even more. (1) http://lilt.ilstu.edu... Rebuttals: Tenure does not limit possibilities: My opponent states that tenures prevent new teachers from a teaching position. That is completely false with teachers being one of the most needed positions. There is even a grant the government has out to draw more teachers. (1) http://teaching.monster.com... (2) https://teach-ats.ed.gov... Tenure does not pull down our economy: Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more. In addition, every single teacher, if they stay long enough, will get tenure. Tenure in no way restricts teachers from making more. (1) http://www.lasvegassun.com... Teacher tenure does not allow an abuse of position: "It is a myth that teacher tenure provides a guarantee of lifetime employment, ensuring notice and providing a hearing for generally accepted reasons for termination, such as incompetence, insubordination, and immorality." (1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com... |
 |
|
Pro I'd like to thank my opponent for having this debate with me. First off, I'd like to state my rebuttals to his arguments: R1: The fallicious logic connects being "arbitrarily fired" to having tenures. First, people don't get randomly fired unless for economic reasons. Even so, this would mean firing those without tenures which: - Supports my 1st point that new teacher possibilities are eliminated - Shows how unfair tenures are to new teachers R2: As a link to R1 the moral of the argument is flawed. Based on Con's work-for-treat idea, teachers would be encouraged to fight for their positions through pulling down others from getting a job. Also, he states that removal of tenures would drive away "great teachers." He forgets that without tenures, the best teachers with new and innovative ideas continue to teach and are not "arbitrarily fired" without a definite reason. I would like to highlight are the flaws in my opponent's rebuttals to my points. They orginate from a lack of understanding of American economic stand and society markets. These are elaborated in the following: CR1: Con's entire argument in invalid. His sources are out-of-date and range from 2007-08 when there were many teachers needed. In 2011 to present, the situation is much different with a dearth of teaching positions. http://tinyurl.com... [1] CR2: Tenures have nothing to do with teachers getting paid more. I stress Con to reflect upon the definition of tenure which is longer stay, but no implication of more pay. http://tinyurl.com... [2] CR3: Con supports my 3rd point. Indeed tenures do not protect those from illegal acts. However, tenures do provide people with undesired personal values (such as smoking outside of campus--see my support 3) to continue to influence many children on a daily basis. http://tinyurl.com... [3] Con's points and sources are invalidated and rebuttals are refuted. Once again, I'd like to thank Con and viewers for spending their time and energy for this debate. Con Thank you for the debate, however, all your points were refuted. The main goal of teachers is to educate students. That is why my two arguments focus on how having tenures is best for the students. CR1: In an academic environment people have differing views on touchy subjects. Tenures, thus, protect teachers from being fired for teaching contrary to what administrators want, they provide academic freedom. Prior to tenures teachers were fired for differing views and any reason administrators wanted. 1)http://www.mlive.com... CR2: My opponent never refuted my round one argument, "The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers." 1)http://www.dukechronicle.com... R1: My opponent has failed to provide proof how tenures dive out innovation. On the contrary, it provides the freedom to come up with new styles of teaching. Since they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment. 1)http://www.joebaugher.com... R2: I also urge my opponent to reflect on tenures more, not just the surface level definition. What happens if teachers are not protected by tenures? They will be fired as soon as they start making more money. You can see that happens in every field of work. Thus, tenures do help teachers make more money. 1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com... R3: My opponent proposed in round one that tenures make teachers unfireable. I then completely refuted that point by providing a source. He then tries to cover up his defeated argument by saying they can not be fired for smoking. I ask, can any employee anywhere be fired for smoking? 1)http://blog.timesunion.com... The proof is in the pudding, tenures allow teachers to provide a better education for students. |
 |
|
Pro Thank you Con for helping to provide an engaging debate. I want to start off by taking off the CR's: Weak points: ~ CR1- Con's CR1 has nothing to do with this topic. "What administrators want" have nothing to do with tenures. I suggest Con to focus on the debate. ~ CR2- I urge Con to read my counter rebuttal. I addressed the flaws in the idea that ""The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers." In Round 3, R2. Con has no reply and concedes. Now here are some things I would like to address for Con's Rebuttals: CR1- As shown in previous points, Con has ignored my arguments. I clearly provided how tenures inhibit new ideas in my 1st Support. He concedes. Also, notice that he provides his main point that "they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment" near the end of the debate. Abusive argumentation is abusive. CR2- Once again, Con ignored my point that people aren't arbitrarily fired in my R2, Round 3. Furthermore, as he has also shown, when those without tenures are fired, those with tenures will NOT be fired which is unfair and supports my 1st and 2nd supports. CR3- My creative opponent has ignored the core of my argument. The point is that teachers may have undesirable habits on their personal basis but still influence children on a large scale. It doesn't have anything to do with other jobs-- the point is kids are affected by those that are backed up by tenures. Also, I did not say that tenures make teachers "unfirable", but rather harder to fire. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Here are some flaws with Con's argument as a whole: 1. He concedes to many of my rebutals and agrees with my arguments. 2. Con digresses from the main debate, while I stayed on topic. 3. He overlooks the definition and supports/facts around tenures, while I have brought the debate back on track. Thank you to Con again for his efforts and viewers for their time. With this I urge you to vote Pro! Con Thank you Pro. I have to do this round a little bit different as Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. Instead, he used multiple fallacies throughout the debate. Namely, Ad Hominem(CR1), Ad hominem Tu Quoque(CR2), Appeal to Ridicule(CR1), Begging the Question(CR3), Post Hoc(round 3), and Red Herring(round 3). None of my contentions were refuted by Pro, therefore, I should win the debate. C1: Tenures prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired, which allows academic freedom. If there was no tenures they could be fired for teaching about issues contrary to what the administration believes. My opponent tried to make it disappear by saying, "it has nothing to do with tenures." C2: Tenures help draw and retain better teachers. It does this by having great job security, which rivals all other careers. If it was not for tenures, we would have worse teachers due to no job security. Again my opponent never did respond. My opponent also danced around my rebuttals. R1: My opponent attempts to assert that new innovative teachers will not be able to get a position. I then proceed to crush that argument in the next two rounds. The two things I prove are that teachers are needed and tenures actually foster an environment of innovation. R2: He makes an assertion that tenures will do great damage to the economy. However, I disprove that by showing teachers will make more. Like any industry, when people can be fired who make more they will be. That is why tenures help prevent seasoned teachers from being fired over salary. He decides to completely drop the argument after that. R3: Then he makes the claim that if a teacher is tenured they can not be fired. Which is completely false and a huge misconception. I prove that by providing links. Again, he chooses not to respond. 1. He never responded to my contentions. 2. His contentions were completely defeated by my rebuttals. 3. Drops all arguments in round 4 4. He committed multiple fallacies, especially in round 4. Vote con! |
 |
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 12 months ago
| Matthew3.14 | tyler90az | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 2 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Not a wonderful debate. Arguments go to Con due to making some decent ones while many of Pro's did not really follow, and also ignored or brushed off many of Con's. Sources to Pro as he showed Con's were out of date, to which Con ignored. Conduct to Con for Pro being dismissive.
Upon rechecking spelling, Pro had three spelling errors: fallicious, orginate, and rebutals. Could not find any spelling errors for Con.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 12 months ago
| Matthew3.14 | tyler90az | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: The definitions are critical to the debate, but Pro gives a strange definition that it is a guaranteed lifetime job (never mind if there is a homicide conviction), but then contradicts that by saying it is "the status quo" which allows lose of tenure for malfeasance. Pro failed to provide a clear resolution. Both sides made unsupporte assertions. why does paying teachers more a result of tenure? Why does it helps the economy? More in comments.
Vote Placed by Jacket123 12 months ago
| Matthew3.14 | tyler90az | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted most of con's points. Some were conceded in Round 3. Arguments to pro for that. Con's points were a bit off the debate in 2nd and 3rd round. Through refuting Con's points, Pro invalidated his sources so Sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by Cobo 12 months ago
| Matthew3.14 | tyler90az | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: The only thing pro actually accomplished was pointing out the sources, but this was negated as Pro never highlighted which source as for which claim(RD!) and gave sources without fully explaining the tie into the round(RD2 and RD3
Con had the superior arguments and conducted himself in an orderly fashion.
Both sides made claims unsupported by arguments, then argued that unsupported claims were not refuted. For example, what is the evidence that an inability to be fired for an reason would attract better teachers? Wouldn't an inability to be fired attract worse teachers (or physicians or plumbers, for that matter)?
What is the evidence that that tenure boosts salaries or that it helps the economy? Or that if there is no tenure that teachers will be fired arbitrarily? Does any of that happen in the professions without tenure?
The bottom line is that the debate was a mess. I thought Pro tried to set up a bogus definition of tenure. That's not really a conduct violation, but I used the conduct category to ding Pro for some points for failure to make a clear resolution. I gave Pro arguments for having a slightly better follow through on the point-by-point debate.
Pro refuted most of con's points. Some were conceded in Round 3. Arguments to pro for that. Con's points were a bit off the debate in 2nd and 3rd round. Through refuting Con's points, Pro invalidated his sources so Sources to Pro.
Wut
promotional supplies