The Instigator
ProfJacob
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
ProfessorJake
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should students be authorized to argue against their professors?

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 6 votes the winner is...
ProfJacob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 45049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

ProfJacob

Pro

Rules

1. I will argue in favor of the resolution that students should indeed, be authorized to argue against their teachers.

2. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

3. The BoP is shared.

4. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.

5. Con may argue first. However, in round 4, he/she must type "I shall make no arguments, as agreed upon."

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.
ProfessorJake

Con

If you argue with your professor, YOU ARE taking the role of teaching
Debate Round No. 1
ProfJacob

Pro

Both a rebuttal and the presentation

"If you argue with your professor, YOU ARE taking the role of teaching"

Not at all cases.

Based on a student's knowledge, he/she may feel as if he/she has encountered an error. If you can't scrutinize/criticize your professor's views, that can be known as cowardliness, as the professor will ignore all criticism and still claim what he/she deems true. That's also fallacious, like the fallacy where if most people believe in something, that must be true. And also, from being authorized to argue with the professor, the student(s) can have a better understanding.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
ProfessorJake

Con

true but its like you are teaching the students instead of the professor and thats unacceptable
Debate Round No. 2
ProfJacob

Pro

Rebuttals

"true but its like you are teaching the students instead of the professor and thats unacceptable"

1. You didn't prove your claim.

2. You are being a coward. You ignored my criticism and still claim what you deem true.

3. Some students may not have enough knowledge to be able to base off an argument due to an error encounterment. So, those students have to accept what the Professor teaches, regardless of whether or not it is incorrect? No! We can scrutinize/criticize his teachings because we feel that they have encountered an error, and can correct him/her.
ProfessorJake

Con

well what if there is no person that can base off their arguments?
Debate Round No. 3
ProfJacob

Pro

Rebuttal

"well what if there is no person that can base off their arguments?"

Then, I guess there's noone who could do so. However, if there is, you're not going to take advantage of that? The presence of one is a benefit; If he/she feels he/she has encountered an error in the Professor's teaching, he/she will try to scrutinize/criticize him/her, and maybe correct him/her if she/he is correct. If there is a benefit, make it worth one.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
ProfessorJake

Con

UHUH F*CK YOU YOU MOTHERF*CKING *SSHOLE YOU SUCK YOU SUCKZJFBABFABFIBIUFBUIDUBFASIJDFAEBKJFUBEW
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ProfJacob 3 years ago
ProfJacob
In a way, Con undermined his potential of receiving at least a point (Conduct) from an individual.
Posted by ProfJacob 3 years ago
ProfJacob
In the 4th round, Con sure didn't present any arguments. However, he/she didn't conduct him/herself well. I do not condone that type of behavior in my house.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
ProfJacobProfessorJakeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct :(
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
ProfJacobProfessorJakeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow - con should have behaved better. Arguments not too powerful.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
ProfJacobProfessorJakeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much arguments by Con and presented a bad conduct.
Vote Placed by amik10 3 years ago
amik10
ProfJacobProfessorJakeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Wish this had actually been debated but Con never provides a case, then trolls in the end.
Vote Placed by TheAmazingAtheist1 3 years ago
TheAmazingAtheist1
ProfJacobProfessorJakeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Although Pro called Con a coward, that's not as severe as Con swearing at Pro. S&G: This is self-explanatory; Con excludes mandatory punctuation and misspells words. ARGUMENTS: This, I just believe that Pro's arguments were better, as it is in formal format, and they, I believe, are actually logical.
Vote Placed by TH3Antag0nist 3 years ago
TH3Antag0nist
ProfJacobProfessorJakeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a truly pathetic debate. Pro did alright but con..........no just no.