The Instigator
MattDoesGML
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Tommy.leadbetter
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should schools drug-test students?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Tommy.leadbetter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 65820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

MattDoesGML

Pro

Rules

1. First round is for acceptance, and acceptance only.

2. This rule should not even have to be stated, and it will apply to all my debates. I will no longer be stating this rule, and if I catch an opponent of mine in one of my debates doing so, I will point it out: No plagiarism.

Failure to follow the rules above will result in an automatic loss of 7 points.
Debate Round No. 1
MattDoesGML

Pro

I look forward to a good debate!

Argument(s)

I do not have any experience with drugs (Though I do not look forward to having any), so I may be unsure about somethings about them.

Also, I believe they should be given out only to kids who at the least look like they just might be taking drugs.

So, if you take enough drugs, at a certain point, it can cause you to do things that you do not intend to do, like punching someone, kicking someone, even killing someone. Simply this explains how bad the influence of drugs are. So, if we do not drug-test students, we are unsure if someone in our school takes drugs. Those who do, one day, might take enough drugs to cause them to do things they do not intend to do, like possibly killing, as I stated.

I do not know how drug-testing works. Maybe it involves something that at the most, stings. So, in that possible case, some of those kids may have a hard time dealing with those things. But it is better than not knowing that the kid takes drugs (If the kid does, but drug-testing was not done), and having the possibility that one day, that kid takes enough drugs to later on in school do things they do not intend to do, like killing. Also, it is not like something really bad is going to happen to the kid.

I await my opponent's arguments.

Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Thank you for choosing me, I look forward to a productive debate.

I will give you my arguments before I come to yours.

I have two arguments why drug testing should not be allowed in schools.

Firstly, on a moral level. It's nobody else's business whether a person does drugs or not. You wouldn't expect your employer to be anything more than someone who gave you money for favour would you? we are not talking about heroin and crack here presumably, because these are not being used in school. It is marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes and speed/coke/ecstasy/legal highs and such, yes? Class A drugs are not used in schools, and if they where I would expect intervention at once, and one probably wouldn't need a drugs test to know something was seriously wrong. I smoked weed in school and did well, I'm a happy, balanced, mature and responsible individual who has high ambitions and a desire to make a better world. I smoked weed all through school. It should be the duty of the education system to educate, it should not practice lordship over the students for it has no right. Whatever law may be, to a self-aware person in school at age 15, getting forcibly intruded upon feels wrong. I don't know if you have ever been searched, made to give a swab or fingerprint or been forcibly injected, but I can assure you it's not the physical effects that are the issue. The feeling of being forced against your will, to endure some kind of intrusion of your body, is humiliating. It's a breach of basic human rights, if the school has concerns it can go to the parents or social services, and let the professionals deal with it. Basic human rights should not be ignored without serious consideration from an appointed specialist.

Secondly, this point links with the first one, feeling humiliated is what causes hatred and opposition. The vast majority of people who use drugs, use them responsibly. Those who go bad would probably in most cases, have gone bad anyways. drugs don't always help, but they are never the sole root of the problem-can become the problem however, and make the problem far worse. But what I'm trying to get at, is that the issue of 'drugs' should be centred around stopping addiction, not eradicating drugs. So we are clear- i think heroin, crack and other serious class a drugs should be illegal. So I'm going to make this relevant don't worry. So addiction is the problem. We know that being disengaged in school and from mainstream society is one of the early signs of a possible drug addict. The only people we need to be bothered about, from a drug taking perspective, are those who are going to develop a drug problem. Those people are in danger of disengaging from mainstream society, more so than anyone else. We need to be setting them back on the right track not subjecting them to humiliating treatment that will only push them further away. So to put it briefly: it has the opposite effect on the ultimate goal.

Now I will address your points.

You say you have no experience of drugs and don't want too, so therefore you admit your knowledge is shaky. Well, this kind of shows in your presumptions about drug use. Drugs don't exactly make you kill people, that's like the stuff on the 50's propaganda films. I don't think that's even the issue with the officials. Drugs are seen as bad because you can get addicted, what people in the academic world are starting to realise, is that addiction comes from within. Like we all shop without becoming shopaholics for instance. Unfortunately, it takes the rest of the world some time before they understand, and the institutions take even longer to accommodate the new knowledge. Addiction will not be solved by removing drugs. There's always legal drugs, and if you got rid of all them-god knows what people would get addicted too (abuse, or other bad things that fulfil certain aspects of our personality that might otherwise be satisfied by drugs). Drug abuse is a symptom of a disengaged person who doesn't feel fulfilled in life. This is the root cause and can only be changed by society. Forcing drug tests on students is ludicrous to me and so backwards.

I await your response, thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
MattDoesGML

Pro

I thank my opponent for presenting his arguments so thoroughly.

I have already presented my arguments. So, I will only be putting disputes on his arguments and disputes of my arguments.

Rebuttal(s)

First paragraph rebuttal

"It's nobody else's business whether a person does drugs or not."

If someone is doing something, as long as it does not affect others other than maybe himself/herself, it is nobody's business to judge whether or not they do it. However, as I stated, one of the many influences of drugs is that it can cause you to do things unconsciously; Do things without being aware of both what you are even doing and its potential danger.

My opponent makes a go on disputing my argument on that as well. So, I will respond to that.

Second paragraph rebuttal

"The only people we need to be bothered about, from a drug taking perspective, are those who are going to develop a drug problem. Those people are in danger of disengaging from mainstream society, more so than anyone else."

Yes, indeed, and drug-testing is what's going to find you those kind of people and try to convince them to stop taking drugs by listing its dangers, maybe to worry them that they are damaging their body, but mostly the fact that, as I stated, it can cause you to do dangerous things unconsciously, such as killing (And definitely state that part), which will worry the person that he/she can cause massacres and go to jail, or be penalized through death.

"We need to be setting them back on the right track not subjecting them to humiliating treatment that will only push them further away."

I do not think schools should drug-test students to just suspend/expell them, but to help them. Suspending them can give them time to think if they are going to stop taking drugs without the need. Expulsion is mandatory when the student has agreed that he/she will not. Even before suspension, they will be told that the drugs can cause him/her to affect others.

Now I will put disputes into my opponent's disputes on my argument.

"Drugs don't exactly make you kill people, that's like the stuff on the 50's propaganda films."

Indeed, taking drugs will not instantly make you kill people. Though, it is a potential, with no good to contrast, other than pleasure, which is far from even doing so. I always give killing as an example, and I admit, I make it seem too bad. So here, I am going to give other examples:

Punching, kicking, raping, breaking into houses, stealing, etc.

"I don't think that's even the issue with the officials."

You probably did not mean it this way, but I am going to put this dispute in just in case it is.

It does not matter if it is not the issue with the officials. You can come up with new reasons as to why drugs should be illegal. If other reasons were ignored just because it was not the "issue with the officials," we can get into all sorts of trouble, considering the fact that maybe a majority of those "other reasons" were valid.

"Drugs are seen as bad because you can get addicted, what people in the academic world are starting to realise, is that addiction comes from within."

I will not go off-topic; We are talking schools, not the country.

That is why I say we expell those who choose to continue taking them without the need to; It is very difficult to get rid of the addiction, almost to the extent that it is impossible. It will avoid students who take them needlessly from causing things like kicking people, punching people, killing, etc. They'll be gone from the school.

I await my opponent's response.
Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Thank you for your response, I will just get stuck in:

In response to me saying that its nobody else's business, whether one chooses to use a drug or not, you say:

(""If someone is doing something, as long as it does not affect others, then it is nobody's business to judge whether or not they do it. However, as I stated, one of the many influences of drugs is that it can cause you to do things unconsciously; Do things without being aware of both what you are even doing and its potential danger."")

You have not said why that means its other people's business. All things can potentially be dangerous, drugs not the most either (except alcohol). So where does a government draw the line? It's a little bit shaky to give a government the ability to remove freedom, on the grounds that something can be deemed potentially dangerous. For on them grounds, a government could ban many sports, which are exponentially more dangerous than many drugs. Or they could ban/regulate sugar, fat and salt. Where does one draw the line? I think that only in extreme cases, such as automatic weapons, bombs, deadly poisons e.t.c should a government be allowed to exercise domination over people. And notice how these are all capable of harming others, not oneself. I mean, even the idea of assisted suicide is acceptable in the modern world. One can do what they like to themselves in most cases. Again, extreme cases differ, for instance-a young girl committing suicide should be stopped because she would have regretted it. Also, if a blind man is walking onto a train track-then stop him for heavens sake! But see how different these situations are that than a 16 year old choosing to smoke some weed. Coca-cola is arguably worse, not saying it is, but it's at least not far off. Could you imagine being banned from that? Not just coca-cola, but a huge range of modern packaged foods. Kids aren't encouraged to be healthy in other domains, indeed the opposite is more true. They are advertised junk food, and people are making money selling our kids food, that arguably is far worse for them than, for instance, smoking weed. And they are getting rich not getting arrested. So if your argument is that its potential danger is legitimate cause for a government to compromise freedom, then I say to you: what about everything else that is potentially dangerous? How dangerous do you think smoking weed is? and for that matter, cocain, ecstasy, alcohol and tobacco? And I mean, in what way does in make a person behave in a way that is potentially dangerous?

Also, do you think that smoking weed (and I use 'weed' a lot because its the most common drug used in school) is so much more dangerous than coca-cola (or other things), that coke should be advertised, and the possible users of weed, should be forcibly injected/tested? You must be able to at least understand why I'm confused, even if you don't agree.

Your rebuttal to my second paragraph:

You don't address my points or answer them at all here, I'm not sure if wrote it well enough because you don't seem to have grasped it quite.

For instance: You say, in response to me me saying that treating those kids in this way, can make them rebel and be pushed further away: that you don't think we should exclude them. It's doesn't link to what I said. I say that being forcibly intruded upon makes people feel humiliated, therefore they rebel against those who humiliate them. So they rebel from school and authority and that leads them to a life of drugs.

I have to make this point before we continue: dude drugs don't make you unconscious or make you kill people. You've got to stop with that, it shows that you have been fed exaggerated horror stories from your parents that you haven't yet shaken off. It's like the final santa clause. I'm assuming your young, right? Mate drugs aren't that scary. Now, there are drugs out there that can make you go a little crazy, but this often comes from a lifetime of abuse and a severely unstable character. And these drugs are serious drugs like bath salts, crack, heroin and various new drugs on the market (some legal). I've been a drug user for years, and the worst drugs I have ever seen have been legal. But, these drugs aren't used in school so they don't belong in this debate. Kids don't smoke a joint and get unconscious and kill someone. This does not happen with tobacco, alcohol e.t.c. It just doesn't happen, look at that boy from America that did went mad and killed his classmates,, it was because he couldn't get a girlfriend. That's a societal and cultural mentality issue. It's easy to blame drugs, the government do because they don't want you to think their society is the one at fault, when in fact it's entirely the fault of society why we have drug addicts, not drugs alone.

My friend, drugs don't make you unconsciously rape, break into a house e.t.c. My dear, if a drug effected you so intensely-to the point where you would commit such an act (if you wouldn't of anyways), then the other side effects of the drug would have successfully disabled your body, from being physically capable of committing the act. I don't know what drugs your talking about here, that make a normal person do such acts. Apart from alcohol, that can make an otherwise normal person do bad things. But are we talking about alcohol here. Can you please state the drugs we are talking about...

You have not responded to the point that subjecting kids to humiliating treatment pushes them further out, when they already are far out, as they are using drugs. And pushing kids out is what causes addiction in the first place.

You have not responded to the fact that drugs are not the root of the problem, and drugs are not dangerous for more than 99% of users. And the reason why some are vulnerable is because society does not meet their needs, not because drugs just pick people off.

Now, these are the worst two things you say all argument:

1. You say, in response to me saying that the academic world is starting to realise that addiction comes from within rather than from drugs alone. "That we are talking about schools and not the country"... And that's really all you say. As if the country and schools are completely unrelated like in a different universe. The point was made to try to get you to understand that drugs are not the problem, and so spending loads of taxpayers money on humiliating/disengaging kids, just to reduce drug use (which I'm trying to get you too see isn't the root of the problem) is a waste at best.

Now your last point has to be the worst of all. You actually say: "I say we expell those who choose to continue taking them". My friend, then what happens to them? You know that the first steps in most drug addicts career's is getting expelled from school? You think the best thing to do about the drug problem is to create more addicts? You say those who need the most help should be denied even opportunity? My friend, I'm sure you have the best intentions, but you need to update your philosophy. This approach is not new, indeed, it's too old fashioned. Neglect and ignore those who need most help? My dear what are we coming to?

Forgive the less than formal nature of my final paragraph, I just am personally moved by such belief.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
MattDoesGML

Pro

This debate is going very well. My opponent presents not only logical, but thorough arguments. I thank him for that.

Rebuttal(s)

"You have not said why that means its other people's business. All things can potentially be dangerous, drugs not the most either (except alcohol). So where does a government draw the line?"

Thank you for pointing this out. I was not clear about this.

People taking drugs would be other people's business because, as I had forgotten to point out. drugs can cause you to do this unconsciously that affects others, again, as I stated, not being aware what you are doing. For instance, punching a person, kicking a person, etc.

The aforementioned reason shows that it affects people, thus it would be other people's business. If something someone is doing affects others negatively, it should be other people's business, don't you agree? There you go.

The other examples you have mentioned are dangers involving no one else but themselves. So, in that case then, that is the person's decision. It is their body.

"Again, extreme cases differ, for instance-a young girl committing suicide should be stopped because she would have regretted it. Also, if a blind man is walking onto a train track-then stop him for heavens sake! But see how different these situations are that than a 16 year old choosing to smoke some weed."

I hear that weed does not have the same influence as the other drugs; It does not cause you to go doing things unconsciously. So, let us substitute that with ecstacy.

Also, I do not understand this one. There are many ways of interpreting this. So, please make this one clear for me.

"How dangerous do you think smoking weed is? and for that matter, cocain, ecstasy, alcohol and tobacco? And I mean, in what way does in make a person behave in a way that is potentially dangerous?"

Add something in to change the whole meaning: Potentially dangerous to others. I do not care about, say, tobacco's dangers to those who take it. That is their decision whether or not to damage their own body. However, drugs can cause you to go doing things unconsciously, such as punching others, kicking others, stealing, breaking into houses, etc. That affects others, and when something you do affects others, it is their business too; Whether or not they are comfortable with what you are doing, right?

"Also, do you think that smoking weed (and I use 'weed' a lot because its the most common drug used in school) is so much more dangerous than coca-cola (or other things), that coke should be advertised, and the possible users of weed, should be forcibly injected/tested?"

Coke's influence only involves the user. Drugs, however, can cause you do things unconsciously, even to others, such as killing, punching, stealing, etc.

"You say, in response to me me saying that treating those kids in this way, can make them rebel and be pushed further away: that you don't think we should exclude them. It's doesn't link to what I said. I say that being forcibly intruded upon makes people feel humiliated, therefore they rebel against those who humiliate them. So they rebel from school and authority and that leads them to a life of drugs."

Ah. I misinterpreted your argument.

This is why we should have teachers trying to help students instead of humiliating them. In fact, that is the point of implementing drug-testing. It benefits both the student and the school. You can maybe convince the student to not do it because it damages their body, but mostly to not affect others. If they do not plan on stopping, you can expell them, which will avoid future dangers in school.



Alright. Before I get to a new point, this is how I respond to arguments: I go straight into posting an argument. Then, I press the "Show the previous arguments" button to respond to my opponent's most recent argument(s) one by one.

As I responded to each argument, I came across this:

"I have to make this point before we continue: dude drugs don't make you unconscious or make you kill people. You've got to stop with that, it shows that you have been fed exaggerated horror stories from your parents that you haven't yet shaken off. It's like the final santa clause. I'm assuming your young, right? Mate drugs aren't that scary. Now, there are drugs out there that can make you go a little crazy, but this often comes from a lifetime of abuse and a severely unstable character. And these drugs are serious drugs like bath salts, crack, heroin and various new drugs on the market (some legal). I've been a drug user for years, and the worst drugs I have ever seen have been legal. But, these drugs aren't used in school so they don't belong in this debate. Kids don't smoke a joint and get unconscious and kill someone. This does not happen with tobacco, alcohol e.t.c. It just doesn't happen, look at that boy from America that did went mad and killed his classmates,, it was because he couldn't get a girlfriend. That's a societal and cultural mentality issue. It's easy to blame drugs, the government do because they don't want you to think their society is the one at fault, when in fact it's entirely the fault of society why we have drug addicts, not drugs alone."

This made me think. I decided to do research on this. I have to say: I concede. Yes, I concede. Some may think, "How does this guy concede? Try to give your best arguments, even if you know they are wrong; It might just work." Indeed. However, it's better to be open-minded than stupid.

You, my friend, are smart and lucky. I concede.
Tommy.leadbetter

Con

No you are smart. To be able to concede in light of compelling evidence, or due to seeing a viewpoint previously un encountered, is intelligent. It demonstrates an ability to envelope new information properly.

So does this mean you think forced drug tests are probably not the best way to help the drug problem?
Debate Round No. 4
MattDoesGML

Pro

Yes, I do. I thank you so much for such a great debate.

Conclusion:

Conduct: Tie. We were both respectful and serious

S&G: Tie; Both were understandable.

Arguments: I conceded. This must go to my opponent.

Sources: Tie.

My opponent has won. Good job and good luck on your future debates!
Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Okay thank you for a great debate.

Good luck in all your debates in the future.

All the best good sir
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sargon 2 years ago
Sargon
Just challenge me when you're ready.
Posted by MattDoesGML 2 years ago
MattDoesGML
@Sargon

Yes, definitely! Anyone who chooses can debate me on this topic. Hold on though, I need to write an argument.
Posted by Sargon 2 years ago
Sargon
Would you like to debate this topic with me, Matt?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
MattDoesGMLTommy.leadbetterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
MattDoesGMLTommy.leadbetterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con did make a better argument I wanted to give pro some points. It is rare to find someone that will admit when they have lost.