The Instigator
Matthew3.14
Pro (for)
Tied
10 Points
The Contender
tyler90az
Con (against)
Tied
10 Points

Should Tenures Be Taken Away

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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,388 times Debate No: 24252
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Matthew3.14

Pro

This is a debate of tenures for teachers. The definitions are to be set such that:

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew3.14

Pro

I am for the removal of tenures for teachers. There are 3 reasons that justify my position:


1. Tenure Possibilities


Tenures allow for teachers to be guaranteed a lifetime teaching position according to the definition of tenure in the structure of this debate. By having this set out, many new teachers are prevented from teaching positions. Many include:

- New people with new techniques for students

- Fresh graduates with an eager heart to teach

- People with new knowledge of a particular subject


By barring these people from jobs, we stunt the growth of a new generation of Americans that provide our future with updated knowledge, ideas, and techniques.


2. Economic View


From an economic viewpoint, tenures pull down our economy. Through keeping old teachers in positions, tenures make money flow only towards older generations of teachers. Thus, there is an imbalance of currency distribution which will:

- New generations of teachers will struggle to earn a living

- Contribute to the slowdown of money flow and economic downturn

- Disable young people from working and benefiting the US while giving

older people the majority of money -- an imbalance



3. Abuse of Teaching Positions

Through allowing teachers fulfilling a number of years to have permanent jobs, tenures open the gateway for abuse of teaching positions. In 1999 six professors sued the state for banning them from watching porn on state computers. Tenures allow abuse of positions for people such as:


- Those with corrupted moral standards

- Teachers who might harm children indirectly through their depravity

- Teachers not conductive to learning environment


Note that this "corruption" is not limited to being illegal in the sense that an arrest is at issue but also for such things that don't infringe on the law but still might be harmful for student values such as smoking outside of the school.


Sources:

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

tyler90az

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...
Debate Round No. 2
Matthew3.14

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.
tyler90az

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.
Debate Round No. 3
Matthew3.14

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!
tyler90az

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!

Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
This debate was a mess, and so very difficult to judge. If we are talking about the tenure system as actually implemented, then the virtue is in preserving academic freedom, and the disadvantage is making it difficult to fire incompetent teachers. But Pro set up a definition of tenure as a lifetime guarantee, and then used that overstated definition to claim that teachers could not be fired even for gross abuse.

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.
Posted by Jacket123 4 years ago
Jacket123
Thanks, just fixed it!
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Jacket123, You can change your RFD by copying it back into the the RFD box anytime before voting closes. There are some bugs in the software that sometimes cuts off RFDs.
Posted by Jacket123 4 years ago
Jacket123
Stupid computer had a problem while I was typing. Here's RFD for vote:

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.
Posted by tyler90az 4 years ago
tyler90az
It is pretty simple to understand... I elaborated further, but had to cut it due to character restraints.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
"Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more."

Wut
Posted by tyler90az 4 years ago
tyler90az
Man... I had to cut like my whole argument lol
Posted by Matthew3.14 4 years ago
Matthew3.14
@socialpinko--Thanks for the advise! I'll improve.
Posted by rosafarnandis 4 years ago
rosafarnandis
I found this informative and interesting blog I think it's very useful and knowledgeable. Thanks.
promotional supplies
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Pro, debaters generally number their sources to refer to the specific points they seek to justify. It doesn't make sense just to post some sources at the bottom without referring to specific points.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 4 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
Matthew3.14tyler90azTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
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 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Matthew3.14tyler90azTied
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:31 
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 4 years ago
Jacket123
Matthew3.14tyler90azTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
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 4 years ago
Cobo
Matthew3.14tyler90azTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.