The Instigator
thinker1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
muzebreak
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should (not alternative) public schools deny students that consume drugs?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,732 times Debate No: 26087
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

thinker1

Pro

I have attended public schools where students openly admit that they consume illegal drugs. These students are a constant distraction in class and a waste of tax-payer money. Should these students be allowed to attend school with students that don't consume drugs, or should they be forced to be educated in an environment that will be most useful for them and not be a waste of time and energy for the students and teachers that want to thrive in a public school setting? I believe that certain public schools should conduct drug tests every year and and get rid of the students that are still on the drugs the next school year.

*I'm new to this and I don't know how this works. But, I'd like to know your view on this.
muzebreak

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this debate, and I'd like to sh him luck in any further ones.

Now, my opponent seems to link drug use with disruptive behaviour, or an unwillingness to learn.
He seems to think that the illegal drug users do not deserve the same education as him.
Well, for my opponents education, a large amount of scientists, who probably paid more attention in school then us, did drugs. In fact, Thomas Edison regularly did took cocaine. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick took LSD. Kary Mills, another Nobel prize winner, all but accredits LSD for his discovery that got him his Nobel Prize. Paul Erd"s, the worlds most prolific mathematician, regularly took amphetamines, and he wrote more peer reviewed papers then any other mathematician. And Carl Sagan wrote a paper advocating for Marijuana, and was know to use it regularly. These are just a handful of the countless number of brilliant minds that did drugs.

So, that's two Nobel prize winners that, under my opponents proposed system, would have been shunned by the public school system for their use of something that helped them discover what they did. Atleast two Nobel prize winners, that if my opponent had his way may have never been Nobel prize winners.

Well, I believe I have trumped my opponent's contention, so I'll leave it to him to retort now.

Sources:

http://io9.com...
Debate Round No. 1
thinker1

Pro

Thank you. It's an honor. Before I begin, I'd like to define my definition of "public schools" and how it should be used in this debate. Drug use affects middle and high school students everywhere. However, they are most prominent in the public middle and high schools. Where ever the term "public schools" is being used, public middle and high schools should come to mind. Also, while I believe that students that come to school drunk should dismissed immediately, my argument is for the more harmful drugs that are illegal. I believe drug tests should only test illegal drugs.

First, I believe that every student deserves an equal education regardless of what they do. However, I believe that students that participate in illegal drug activity should be educated in an environment different from students who don't. Drug users disrupt and decrease learning in a classroom.

First, my opponent did not specifically address how drugs affect the quality of education and the classroom atmosphere. Conversely, he gave an extremely opinionated statement that supports a theory that using illegal drugs actually benefit learning. If he furthers his research, he will come to find that not one single example he provided is sufficient for this debate. One, Thomas Edison only attended public school for 12 weeks as an elementary-aged child; hence, his accomplishments are not a result of education that he received in a public school setting. Also, there is no proof that Francis Crick, Paul Erd and Carl Sagan were enrolled in a public school when they consumed drugs. His examples cannot represent the entire population of students that consume drugs. Drug and alcohol use is the leading cause of death for people aged 15-24 or high school students. If drug use is as detrimental as death, why should it be allowed to be consumed by students anyway?

Schools across the United States are suffering and falling further and further behind in global competition. This is happening for several reasons including lack of technology, poor leadership and teaching, and most importantly, lack of funding. In 2014, according to No Child Left Behind, we are supposed to have 100% efficiency in reading and math. We are not even close. I say spend more money on students who don't consume drugs to better our schools.

A middle/high school student's drug use impairs academic performance, as well skipping class and failure to complete assignments. A small percentage of students consume drugs once, then stop. However, about 1 in every 3 students consume drugs daily. These students are disruptive in class. Spending tax-payer dollars for drug-using students to go to school with non-drug users result in an overall decrease in learning. However, if we find alternative education that is cheaper, drug free schools will have more money to support stronger education.

I hope this counter will serve as much need education for my opponent's poorly executed research. I am interested in seeing if my opponent will expound upon a theory that supports drug use and it's benefit in education, being given the information above and my sources listed below.

Sources:

Geiger, Kim. "Gangs and Drugs Prevalent in Public Schools, Survey Finds." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .

"The Affects of Drug and Alcohol on Academic Life." N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. .

"How Marijuana Affects Learning." - Parents. The Anti-Drug. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .

"Thomas Edison Biography." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .

Personal Knowledge and Experience
muzebreak

Con

Thank you con, for your rebuttal. Now on with mine.

I'd like to start by listing all the assertions you made that were not backed up by any evidence, and so can be dismissed.

"drug users disrupt and decrease learning in a classroom."

"Drug and alcohol use is the leading cause of death for people aged 15-24 or high school students"

"Schools across the United States are suffering and falling further and further behind in global competition"

"I say spend more money on students who don't consume drugs to better our schools" He provides no evidence that doing so would better the schools. For all we know it could end up ruining the entire school system because it turns out 90% of the students do drugs. Until this contention is proved I will dismiss it.

"about 1 in every 3 students consume drugs daily"

"These students are disruptive in class."

"Spending tax-payer dollars for drug-using students to go to school with non-drug users result in an overall decrease in learning."

None of these were backed by evidence.

Now onto my opponent's straw man.

"Conversely, he gave an extremely opinionated statement that supports a theory that using illegal drugs actually benefit learning" When did I support any such theory?

"I am interested in seeing if my opponent will expound upon a theory that supports drug use and it's benefit in education" Yes, and I'm interested in why you think I'll expound upon a non-existent theory.

"First, my opponent did not specifically address how drugs affect the quality of education and the classroom atmosphere" Your right, I didn't. And you did not specifically address how marijuana can reduce reduce cancerous tumor size, and can treat Ms inflammation[1]. And the marijuana has been shown to have minimal, if any, affect upon complex cognitive functions[2]. Oh look, I can bring up random stuff you haven't addressed either. I'm not the one who has to address this issue, that's you, you have burden of proof.

"Also, there is no proof that Francis Crick, Paul Erd and Carl Sagan were enrolled in a public school when they consumed drugs" And I didn't say that they did. All I was doing was addressing your contention that drug users are disruptive. These men were drug users. Do you think they were disruptive during class regardless of whether they did drugs at the time, unless you want to contend that drug use increases disruptive behaviour, in which case please provide evidence. What I was trying to show by these examples is that men of great educational prowess were regular drug takes. I think this point speaks for itself.

"His examples cannot represent the entire population of students that consume drugs" I never said they did, and why you think I did I will never know.

"I hope this counter will serve as much need education for my opponent's poorly executed research" And what information of mine is it that was "poorly executed"?

I'd like to finish this off my simply pointing out the nonsensical statements in my opponents argument.

"First, I believe that every student deserves an equal education regardless of what they do. However, I believe that students that participate in illegal drug activity should be educated in an environment different from students who don't" So, you believe that they should be treated equally, except that only one has the privilege to not be treated differently for a life style choice. Isn't that bigotry?

"If drug use is as detrimental as death, why should it be allowed to be consumed by students anyway?" Do I really have to spell this one out?

"A middle/high school student's drug use impairs academic performance, as well skipping class and failure to complete assignments." I'm not sure if he is trying to say that drug use leads to skipping class and failure to complete assignments, or that skipping and failing to complete assignments reduces academic performance, either way its nonsensical.

"However, if we find alternative education that is cheaper, drug free schools will have more money to support stronger education." Really, so if we have cheaper education, our education will be cheaper!!! Funny think about this statement, the possibility of finding alternative education that is cheaper so we can support strong education. So basically you wanna get a lower quality education so that you can spend more money on education? Because your not going to find any alternative educations that are cheaper and as good.

Well that's it for me, I think I picked apart almost every word he typed. And I feel I did a pretty good job at my refutation, so thank you and good night.

Sources:

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

[2]http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Debate Round No. 2
thinker1

Pro

I'm sure the debate audience is finding it very frustrating and disappointing that we have not your view on why you are against the integration of non-drug and drug users being in the same environment. I was hoping to hear your view as to why you are opposing my point; but, over half-way through this debate, the only the we know is that you are against this.
I'm not sure why you a list of how my information is not evidential when I posted my sources below my writing in response to your first argument. Everything you listed was pretty much quoted from the articles that I cited. This time, I will be posting all of my sources with the actually link, with hopes that this time you will take the time to fact check. I don't find it absolutely necessary to fact-check my information because most if it comes from generic observation of society. For example, most (if not all) news programs has informed society of about America's education system and how far it is falling behind[1].

Also to make things clearer; like you, I am going to list all my assertions that you listed and deliver a counter. As follows;

"drug users disrupt and decrease learning in a classroom."

Do I really need to address this? Well, if you refer to my third resource, "How Marijuana Affects Learning", you will find heavily prevalent information on this. According to this article, marijuana hinders a teen's ability to learn. This article also states the following: "Students who drink or use drugs frequently are up to five times more likely than their peers to drop out of high school." The article also states this: "Teens who are regular marijuana users often have short attention spans, decreased energy and ambition, poor judgment, impaired communications skills and diminished effectiveness in social situations — a set of problems called an "amotivational syndrome" by scientists." With that being said, if students in class have decreased energy they have an negative effect on the students that have energy to learn. If a student loses communication skills and judgement abilities (by consuming marijuana), teachers have to take away time to re-teach a lot of already covered material.

"Drug and alcohol use is the leading cause of death for people aged 15-24 or high school students"

If you refer to my third article, "The Affects of Drug and Alcohol on Academic Life", you will find that the following is quoted: "
Drug and alcohol abuse is the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 15 and 24". This article was written based off of statistical information.

"I say spend more money on students who don't consume drugs to better our schools" counter: "He provides no evidence that doing so would better the schools. For all we know it could end up ruining the entire school system because it turns out 90% of the students do drugs. Until this contention is proved I will dismiss it"

I have no idea where you got 90% of students do drugs, as it is no where in my argument or sources. However, let's say that 90% of students actually did drugs. The funny thing is that you gave this false information in exchange for my 1 in 3 students that consume drugs assertion that is on your list. If we took away the 90% of students that actually did drugs out of school and then placed in alternative education, alternative education would no longer be alternative and normal (drug-free) school would be alternative. Well, even if that happened, the entire school system would not be corrupt because buildings would stay open, and teachers will still work. My "1 in every 3 students" statistic was misread and mistyped. The statistic is outlined in my cited article entitled "Gangs and Drugs Prevalent in Public Schools, Survey Finds" states that 1 in 3 every middle school students admit that drugs are used or sold at their school. This is only among the students that admit it. I apologize for the typing error.

"The students are disruptive in class."

If you refer to my third resource, "How Marijuana Affects Learning" you will find that this is stated: Teens who are regular marijuana users often have short attention spans, decreased energy and ambition, poor judgment, impaired communications skills and diminished effectiveness in social situations — a set of problems called an "amotivational syndrome" by scientists." This means that students have a negative effect on the classroom and activities.

"Spending tax-payer dollars for drug-using students to go to schools with non-drug users result in an overall decrease in learning."

Please refer to my third resource, "How Marijuana Affects Learning", According to this article, marijuana hinders a teen's ability to learn. This article states the following: "Students who drink or use drugs frequently are up to five times more likely than their peers to drop out of high school." Higher drop-out rates mean decreased learning.

You in fact did give an opinionated statement that supports a theory that using illegal drugs actually benefit learning. That's how I perceived your information, and I think anyone would. I asked if schools should be able to admit students that consume drugs, your response was that many people educationally influential people successful. If that's not what you meant (to answer the debate question), why did you say it in the first place?

The reason I said that you did not address how drugs affect the quality of education is because that question should be the first thing you answer to make a point in this debate. I also assumed that you mentioned Francis Crick, Paul Erd and Carl Sagan because of their use of drugs. I understand your point that successful people used drugs. But, this debate is not about a stance that you can be successful even while using drugs. This debate is about should drug users CURRENTLY in public school be admitted. I'm asking that you address that.

Also, I still believe that every student should be educated. Why do you think my stance on this issue is that the drug users will be treated differently? Although illegal drug users are treated differently in society anyway, they should be educated equally but in different environments.

And lastly, alternative education is cheaper. This is because alternative schools don't qualify for a lot of the money normal public schools receive. For example, an online (or alternate) school won't have to pay for as many teachers as well as eliminating the cost for buses and materials. Of course this doesn't have to be the only option, but this is the best example. What else should be said about that? It's cheaper. If the education that drug-users receive is cheaper, the remaining money can be used for the drug-free schools.

Sources:

[1] Zhao, Emmeline. "Education Olympics: How Does America Rank Compared To Other Countries? (INFOGRAPHIC)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 July 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Archived Sources (with links):

Geiger, Kim. "Gangs and Drugs Prevalent in Public Schools, Survey Finds." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. .
<http://articles.latimes.com...;

"How Marijuana Affects Learning." - Parents. The Anti-Drug. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. .
<http://www.theantidrug.com...;

"Thomas Edison Biography." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2012..
<http://www.biography.com...;.

"The Affects of Drug and Alcohol on Academic Life." N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. .
<http://www.fit.edu...;.

muzebreak

Con

I thank my opponent for his speedy response.

Now, as to your question on why I made that list. I made it because It's true. None of those things were supported by any evidence you gave, and most of them still aren't. For instance, your claim that drugs are the leading cause of death between the ages of 15-24. Not only does that article provide no source for the date, every other source I'v found for the leading causes of death between the ages of 15-24 don't even mention drugs, never mind list them as the leading cause.[1][2][3][4]

Now, as to why I oppose this? First and foremost, I am opposed to this because of my own personal experience. I attended public school, and I did drugs, and I had may friends who didn't. Why should we tear such friends apart?
I am also opposed to this, because of the financial cost's that would arise from transferring large portions of student bodies to schools that we would either have to build, or need to buy. And the amount of time it would take to sort an entirely new system out would leave kids education-less for a long period of time. But, the thing is, I don't need to be opposed to this, I just need to not be for it. I, in this case, am for keeping the status-quo.

Now, on to our list. Which, by the way, no longer contain all of the things you asserted without evidence.

I'll number them so as to save character space.

1. "if students in class have decreased energy they have an negative effect on the students that have energy to learn" Non-sequitur.
"If a student loses communication skills and judgement abilities (by consuming marijuana), teachers have to take away time to re-teach a lot of already covered material." This is about drug users in general, not just those that will do drugs before class.

2. I'v already dealt with this one, but there is one line I would like to address here. "This article was written based off of statistical information." Where is it that you found this knowledge, because I couldn't find any sources anywhere in the article.

3. "I have no idea where you got 90% of students do drugs" Please refer to the "for all we know" at the beginning of that sentence, it was a hypothetical made to show the disruption this could cause in the school system.

4. "This means that students have a negative effect on the classroom and activities." Non-sequitur

5. "Higher drop-out rates mean decreased learning." Non-sequitur

6. And what was this opinionated statement? "your response was that many people educationally influential people successful" This statement made no sense.

7. "I also assumed that you mentioned Francis Crick, Paul Erd and Carl Sagan because of their use of drugs" I did.
"I understand your point that successful people used drugs" Strawman. I clearly stated my point, and this clearly isn't it. "This debate is about should drug users CURRENTLY in public school be admitted. I'm asking that you address that." Actually, this is about whether they shouldn't be admitted. You have the BOP to show why they shouldn't.

8. "Why do you think my stance on this issue is that the drug users will be treated differently" Because you want them to be forced out of their current schools and put in to alternative ones.

9. This whole contention proves my point of bigotry. You propose less teachers, less materials, less everything, to save money on educating drug-users so that the money can be used on non-drug-users.

To summarize, you make large amounts of statements that are not backed by evidence. You have made at least 2 strawmen. You seem to be a fan of non-sequiturs. You have a bigoted view on what should be done about this situation. And, finally, you have yet to provide any reasonable point that would support making an entirely new school for drug users, and required drug testing for all school children so as to discern who should go where.

You have failed to affirm the resolution, you have failed to meet your burden of proof, and you dropped most of your points, so arguments should go to me.

You have made at least 2 strawmen of my arguments, so conduct should go to me.

And I'm not really fussed on who gets spelling and grammar, since I know mine is crap.

Ladies and gentleman, and trolls, of DDO, please vote con.

Sources:

http://longevity.about.com...

http://www.cdc.gov...

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu...

http://www.disastercenter.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by haert09 4 years ago
haert09
Hello My Dear,
I am well pleased to contact you after viewing your profile today through my mail contact mail address is
hamisikipkalye(at)yahoo(dot)com) give me your mail for easy contact send it directly to my mail box now and i will add you ok
God bless you.
Yours friend.
hamisi
No votes have been placed for this debate.