The Instigator
UkulelePower08
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EAT_IT_SUKA
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should "boys will be boys" be an excuse for harassment?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
EAT_IT_SUKA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 389 times Debate No: 85462
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

UkulelePower08

Con

I'm your average 15 year old tomboy, and I sit with a bunch of guys at lunch. In the lunch line, some other person called me a slut because of that. Upon reporting it, the office secretary just replied with "boys will be boys". I think that should be an invalid response for a school to say to a young woman. When I told my guy friends, they promptly tracked the kid down and did something. But I still think schools should do something, and not making young women have there friends to help them.
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

Good day.

Framework
I will be talking about:
The definition of "should" and adults' obligation to intervening with insults
Pro's definition of "harassment"
The mild event that happened
How adults should be spending their time and how they can help children by not intervening with their mild problems

Con's Case
Should definition
Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency (1)

Basically what the Con is telling us is that adults should have an obligation to step in and not to say that boys will be boys (as proved by "But I still think schools should do something..."). Con does not explain what this obligation is driven by--morality? Authority? Responsibility? Empathy? Until this question is answered, Con has a fatal flaw in her case.

Con's definition of harassment is nothing like the real one. Con thinks that an insult in a lunch line in high school is harassment. Although actual harassment is repeated and thus Con's definition is not harassment (2), Con has defined harassment that way and we shall use her, and only her, definition for this debate. Con was insulted. So what? Con is not going to die over an insult. In fact, Con wasn't even hurt by this insult. The main reason bullying victims don't report bullying is because they are afraid of the bully making their life worse afterwards (3): Con reported the bully right away, so she wasn't hurt by it. A single insult won't hurt you, just as it didn't hurt Con. The event was so mild that the office had a decent reason to say that boys will be boys. Why should adults intervene in such a tiny event?

Pro's Case
My case is that Con's definition of harassment is mild enough in which events that can be described by Con's definition of harassment (eg: harmless insults, perhaps in a lunch line) not only can, but should, warrant a weak response such as "boys will be boys."

Adults should not have to intervene every time something unkind has been said. During life, there will be people who will not like you. There will be people that will say unkind things about you. There will be people that will insult you. This is a part of life. An adult shouldn't have to go out of their way to find the insulter and lecture them every time your feelings are hurt because they could be using their time better by, say, doing what they are getting payed to do.

In fact, by not intervening, adults are actually making you grow thicker skin and to get used to it.

By claiming that boys will be boys and not intervening, adults will force children to solve their own problems and to work problems out on their own, thus training them for the real world. In fact, Con even conceded that her friends worked out the problem ("When I told my guy friends, they promptly tracked the kid down and did something."). If kids are trained for the real world, they will be better prepared for real life situations which is objectively better than not being prepared for said situations.

Now, when it gets to the point where serious bullying happens or the situation escalates, adults should intervene. However, we are sticking to Con's definition of harassment, which we know includes "insults in lunch lines."

Summary
Con has failed to explain what factors drive adults' obligation to not say "boys will be boys" and rather to intervene, which creates a large flaw in her case. One single insult is quite mild and won't hurt you as it didn't hurt Con. Adults should use their time better than using it to track down people who have insulted you and to lecture them. Adults saying "boys will be boys" and not intervening will help children to grow thicker skin. Adults saying "boys will be boys" and not intervening teaches kids to deal with problems themselves and will prepare children for the real world.

Citations
(1): http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2): http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
(3): http://bullying.about.com...

Debate Round No. 1
UkulelePower08

Con

I must give you that, but I did forget to mention this is most certainly NOT the first time this has happened, but the first time I have ever said anything. I have a tough personality, but my mental instability makes it hard sometimes. That day, my "thick skin" was seemingly being peeled off by my depression I've been battling for 8 years. The school, according to some of my friends, has been pulling things like that for a while, since about intermediate level (Year 5-6) when hormones are kicking in and boys think it's okay. Upon telling my mother, she contacted the school, and they said the same thing (Sorry for the inconvenience, harassment at school is not allowed but, when we are dealing with boys at this age, can you see why?) were some of the exact wording in the brief paragraph they sent to her in reply. Schools are supposed to provide a safe place for children and teenagers to learn, not to be called names, and (this is happening to girls, mostly) being touched with out permission. I have had to strongly urge one of my friends to report a boy who did that before ending up taking the matter in my own hands.
So, in conclusion, I think "Boys will be boys" is an invalid excuse for harassment.
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

Framework
Today, I will be talking about:

How Con's post is biased

How Con's definition of "harassment" is still not actual harassment based on her post

How Con has only reported the harassment only once

Con's idea of how schools should be a safe place

How Con has made one argument during this entire debate

Con's Case
First of all, pretty much everything that Con has said during this round could very well be lies. Con currently has an incentive to lie during this debate as she lost the last round (she even conceded so: "I must give you that...") and needs something to turn this debate around into her favour. Therefore, everything she said can't be fully trusted.

"I must give you that, but I did forget to mention this is most certainly NOT the first time this has happened, but the first time I have ever said anything."
First off, Con has conceded that everything I have said in the first debate is true.

Here, Con's definition of "harassment" is still not actual harassment because actual harassment involves threats and/or demands (1). Therefore, I will still be using Con's definition of harassment for this debate, which I know includes "insults in lunch lines."

Here, Con also concedes that this is her first time saying anything about the harassment. Because she hasn't specified how many times she has been insulted, the secretary may have a just reason to just say "boys will be boys." Maybe Con was only insulted twice. If Con was insulted many times, see my points about Con saying that schools should be safe.

Her next point about her instability and depression is irrelevant.

"The school, according to some of my friends, has been pulling things like that for a while, since about intermediate level (Year 5-6) when hormones are kicking in and boys think it's okay."

Do your friends know severity or the frequency or the number of harassments per report of these reports? I don't either so I'm not going to say anything definitively, but a couple of insults should warrant a response such as "boys will be boys." See my point about Con saying that schools should be safe if there are many insults.

Her next point about her mom contacting the school is just basically retelling the story in her first post, and does not advance Con's case at all.

"Schools are supposed to provide a safe place for children and teenagers to learn, not to be called names, and (this is happening to girls, mostly) being touched with out permission."
Although this argument may seem bulletproof Con has failed to explain via her plan of making schools safe:

Who is going to be needed to make schools a safe place

What makes he think that this will work--bullying hasn't been stopped yet

What schools are going to be involved in making schools a safer place

What time period of school hours will be used in making school a better place and what is going to be sacrificed in whomevers' schedule to carry this out

Where is this plan going to happen in school (eg: hallways?)

Because Con hasn't explained this, there is a fatal flaw in this point. Also, touching people without permission isn't part of Con's definition of harassment, so I'm not commenting on that.

Con's next point not only does not advance her case, but supports my point of adults not intervening being beneficial to kids.

Con ends her post by posting that she thinks that the resolution is true, which doesn't advance he case.

I want to point out that Con has made one argument (schools being safe) that was refuted by me, and has no standing arguments where all of mine are still unrefuted. I should win argument points for this debate.

Pro's Case
Extend arguments.

Summary
Cons definition of harassment is weak enough to warrant the response of "boys will be boys." Con's only argument was that schools should be safe places, which was flawed because it wasn't explained well. Because all of my arguments are unrefuted and Con has no standing arguments, vote PRO.

Citations
(1): http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by EAT_IT_SUKA 1 year ago
EAT_IT_SUKA
I agree as well, as long as Con is actually being harassed. I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk to you. If you are actually being harassed take the suggestions that Tashasays has told you. I would never, ever argue for schools to do this if actual harassment is taking place.
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
UkulelePower08, setting the debate aside, you are absolutely right. I am appalled that you school do not even talk to the offender. That's just lazy. I'm so angry right now. Ignoring small issues is the way they turn into big problem that result in expulsions. There are so many examples of schools not addressing a problem and then over-reacting instead of just teaching students how to resolve problems and get along. Have you told your parents? If you were my daughter, I would have gone straight back to that school and given that secretary a piece of my mind. Then I would talk to the principal about the secretary dismissing a compliant without informing anyone. If I still wasn't satisfied that the issue was rectified, I'd email the superintendent. Please don't let this go. If it happened to you, it will happen again. This is a systematic error that needs to be resolved.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
UkulelePower08EAT_IT_SUKATied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Pro cited sources.
Vote Placed by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
UkulelePower08EAT_IT_SUKATied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the Con needs to learn that what people say shouldn't affect her. I am a tomboy with all male friends and if someone calls me a slut it just means that they wish they were in my situation. Don't take such a petty comment so hard, it's a word.
Vote Placed by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
UkulelePower08EAT_IT_SUKATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The r2 of con's debate has failed to explain why the young boys statement alone amounts to harasement .. I mean constant bullying does amount to harassment but that wasn't mentioned in the r1 of con's debate ..hence the debate was to based around that single incident .. Although I do agree with con's premise that boys will be boys is an invalid response and slut shamming is a real issue the con hasn't been able to make any convincing argument regarding this issue themselves while the pro has explained the reasons why the insult shouldn't amount to harassement and why adults should not intervene in these issues..hence the points for convincing argument automatically goes to pro.. Con based the debate around her story..which for all we know could be completely false..hence the point for most reliable sources also goes to pro