Should schools implement zero tolerance policies?
Debate Rounds (3)
Additionally, there is little reason for zero policies to even exist. It is not as though if they didn't exist that legitamate gun and drug offenses would be tolorated. All that is truly accomplished with these policies in bringing down the hammer where it is unnessasary to do so. Dropping zero tolorance policies would force administrators to critically think about how they run their institution where disciplinary policy is concerned.
"The policies came about partly because schools faced lawsuits charging that principals disciplined unequally based on race or other factors"
Another website quotes "Some supporters also argue that the mass publicizing of examples of unfairness serves the schools' purpose by frightening students into conformity instead of galvanizing them into resistance. The policy assumption is that inflexibility is a deterrent because, no matter how or why the rule was broken, the fact that the rule was broken is the basis for the imposition of the penalty."
Another website states "Proponents of the Zero Tolerance Policy say that disruptive students should be removed, enabling teachers to devote more time to teaching, rather than trying to maintain order in their classrooms. They also state that having clear guidelines and swift, firm consequences for violations helps to deter disruptive behavior and violence, thereby promoting a more conducive environment for learning."
Another one states "Several years ago, prior to graduation of a large private school, a young lady was kicked out of school for drug use, three months before she was to graduate. The reason was because this school has a "Zero-Tolerance" drug policy and this student violated it. You may say that this was cruel. Well, it was, especially for the student who got kicked out of school. However, she knew the policy, as did all the rest of the students. As we all know, word has a way of getting around very quickly and the remaining members of the graduating class, as well as all future students, understand that their actions and behavior do have consequences."
Yes, zero tolerance policies may be cruel sometimes, but again they are there for a reason. Those students who get expelled or suspended for things like touching pills are disciplined like that for a reason. As the second quote states it doesn't matter how the rule was broken, whether it be big or little, the rule was broken. They are examples to their peers showing that even the slightest broken rule will have consequences.
Good job and good luck :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, defend your arguments. You keep jumping ship and moving on to new ones, which would have been fine if a) all of your best supported ones didn't come up in the last round where they can receive no response, and b) weren't quoted from uncited materials. You end up plagiarizing by failing to post those links, since you may not be representing them as your own material, but you're still failing to give credit. Con's case is overly general without any evidence of harms, but Pro accepts that those harms exist without a fight, and then makes a bunch of claims that Con adequately refuted. I never see any attack on Con's logic, and that leads to him claiming the debate. Conduct to Con as well due to the plagiarism issue and last round arguments, sources to no one as Con also incorrectly cited (an author and year aren't enough). Both sides had numerous S&G issues.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.