The Instigator
labarum
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
debatability
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should teachers be allowed to carry fire arms in school?

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 1 vote the winner is...
debatability
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,561 times Debate No: 54102
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

labarum

Pro

For the sake of the debate, we will assume it is a concealable handgun and that the teacher passed a background and psych test to obtain.
debatability

Con

Teachers should not be allowed guns in school. Kids can get their hands on the guns, or teachers could misuse them.
  • Arming our teachers is one of the worst ways to protect our students. However, there are ways that are more effective. Firstly, trained law enforcement officials inside a school should be allowed to carry guns. I'll talk more about this when I get into my arguments. Secondly, schools can have alert systems that help protect students. Panic buttons can be installed in front of school offices and teachers can wear wireless alert pendants. Schools can use surveillance systems and access control systems at school entrances. Most importantly, relevant legislative committees should consider whether to mandate monthly lock down and active shooter drills and coordinate with local police agencies.
There is always a possibility students will be able to get their hands on guns.
1,448 children died as a result of gun violence in 2010, 165 of those deaths were at the hands of other children. (Huffington Post) In contrast to this, since 1980 (around 30 years) only 297 have died from school shootings. (Slate) That is around 10 deaths per year. Of course, measures should be taken to stop school shootings and to keep a school safe, but arming teachers is not the way to do it. Students are not going to be oblivious to the fact that their teachers have guns. Kids are smarter than we think. In 2001, Paediatrics (a journal) published a study in which children were placed in a room with a hidden gun. 48 out of 64 boys found the gun, 30 of them handled it, and 90% of the boys who handled the gun pulled the trigger. If teachers bring guns to school, they most likely will not carry them everywhere they go, giving students opportunities to search the room and find the gun. Mistakes can happen with younger kids, and if older kids have malicious intentions, they will be more likely to actually obtain guns.

Psych tests are not always accurate.
Psychological tests cannot always adequately evaluate whether a teacher should be able to carry a firearm or not. David L. Mount, a professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine, notes that "Just because someone tests one way does not necessarily mean that they are that way. People are made up by a combination of several personality traits. There also is the chance of incorrectly labelling a person. Employers should be aware that there is no hard evidence that personality tests, like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® test, are accurate measures of one's personality." This shows that psych tests cannot really prove weather a teacher is fit to have a gun or not. There is always a chance that a teacher could misuse their gun privileges and end up hurting a student or colleague.
  • Even if teachers have good intentions, in the case of student acting up or making threats, paranoia could result in a teacher shooting a student. The repercussions of such an action could be disastrous to the class, the student, and the teacher.
Accidents happen.
For example, "LANCASTER, Ohio — A firearms instructor accidentally shot a student while teaching a gun-safety class on Saturday in Fairfield County to people seeking permits to carry concealed weapons." (CNN) Things always have the potential to go very wrong. Even those who know what they are doing with guns make mistakes. This is why teachers really should not carry firearms. If a school is going to have guns, they should be carried by law enforcement officials who actually know what they are doing. Also, opponents of the plan to arm teachers have argued that putting more guns on campus could be more dangerous because if police have to respond to a school shooting, they could mistake a teacher for a suspect. (Houston Chronicle)

Arming teachers will actually have little effect of the safety of students.
In Texas, laws were made that allowed employees to carry guns. Members of the National Rifle Association said the guardian plan would have little effect, they only expect a handful of districts to take advantage of the laws. (Campus Safety Magazine) It isn't right to allow teachers to carry guns when it will actually not positively effect the safety of the students. The things that I mentioned in my introduction are the things that will really positively impact students' safety in a school environment. Even if the school is unable to afford a security system, monthly lockdown drills can give students and teachers a feel for what to do in the event of a shooting. Like I stated before, if a school has guns, the guns need to be handled by law enforcement officials who know what they are doing.
Debate Round No. 1
labarum

Pro

I would like to start off with what you said about children being put in a class room with a gun to see if they would find it. It is true that if students are put in a class room alone and are permitted to roam free then they will most likely go snooping and may find said gun. However, as I would assume you know, teachers never leave their classrooms for more then a few minutes at a time except in cases of emergency. If given a limited time frame and the knowledge of a teacher or another authority figure to return most likely without warning, children would most likely not leave their seats and go snooping around in class possessions. Even if this were the case, all firearms not being carried on a person must be contained inside of a guns case with a lock. So even if children were to find said case, and know what it contained , they would not be able to open it. However, I can tell you from being around numerous gun carriers that they all say that they try to carry their weapon on their person as much as possible. I cannot give a statistic on this, no such study has been made yet, or I have just not been able to find it. You mentioned also that "if a school has guns, the guns need to be handled by law enforcement officials who know what they are doing." The laws pertaining to arming teachers in school would fall under Conceal and Carry. Conceal and Carry require any individual whom is looking to purchase a conceal and carry license to pass a gun course. Contrary to you saying "if a school has guns, the guns need to be handled by law enforcement officials who know what they are doing." The teachers whom choose to be armed would have prior training in how to handle the weapon. You also mentioned that "Psychological tests cannot always adequately evaluate whether a teacher should be able to carry a firearm or not." This is true, psych tests are not always accurate, the can be mishaps in the testing. However, mistakes are bound to happen, statistically speaking, the odds of a psych test being accurate are relatively high. There is the chance that they can be wrong, but the odds are against it. Another thing you mentioned how schools, instead of allowing their members of faculty to be armed, to install surveillance systems, have access control systems at school entrances, and monthly lock down drills. I have a source linked on the bottom that shows you that most schools in America already have these systems in place with the exception of monthly lock downs. I am at least sure that they do it more then once a year. Another thing you mentioned quote "Even if teachers have good intentions, in the case of student acting up or making threats, paranoia could result in a teacher shooting a student." This is perhaps the biggest concern among opponents to arming teachers. This however, is a false concern. There has never been a single recorded incident in the world were a teacher was the shooter at a mass school shooting. In almost every case, it is either students, or former students whom commit the shootings. I have link below. If you pay careful attention, you will notice that quite often teachers are among those are shot, meaning, they had made contact with said student and if said teacher were armed they could have stopped student before massacre ensued.

Although the things that you listed above would make us more secure, we already have these systems in place and we are still hearing about incidents like Newtown and Columbine. I believe that it is time for us to arm the victims so that they may be prepared to protect them selves and not be another number on the body count. If teachers were armed, they could either stop or contain a massacre before it even beings. I await your arguments. Also, please read the sources...

http://www.popcenter.org...
http://www.infoplease.com...
http://nces.ed.gov...
debatability

Con

Students obtaining the gun: Here my opponent talked about how students would not be able to obtain the gun for several reasons. Firstly they said that teachers do not leave the classroom for long periods of time. This is not the case. I would agree that while class is going on, teachers generally don't leave the class room. However, teachers have things such as plan periods, lunch duty, and department meetings that keep them from their classroom. Students generally are not unaware of such goings on. A student with malicious intentions could easily take advantage of this and go snooping around the room, looking for a gun. My opponent also talked about how the gun would be carried in a case with a lock. This, of course, cannot be guaranteed. Even if it was in a case with a lock, there is always a possibility that students would be able to get it open. The study I cited with the students who found guns was done with a group of kindnergarteners. If kindergarteners have the ability to find a well concealed gun, then middle schoolers and high schoolers certianly do as well. In Jacksonville highschool, a teacher carried a handgun in her purse and the student was able to steal it. Jeniffer Ellen Paul, the teacher, claimed that she simply forgot she had the gun with her (1). Incidents like this are bound to happen if teachers start carrying guns on a regular basis.

The credibility of the person handling the gun: My opponent talks about how if teachers have a conceal and carry lisence, they should be allowed to carry a weapon in school. This is not true. A conceal and carry lisence should not qualify a teacher to bring firearms to school. Here are four major mistakes that individuals new to conceal and carry make (2):
1. Not understanding the great responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon, nor adopting the related mindset and training plan.
2.
Initally not getting sufficient fundamentals classroom and range live-fire training. This one is especially important. Often the process of obtaining a conceal and carry lisence only requires the individual to take a 45 minute course on how to actually fire the gun.
3. Not regularly getting refresher firearms' fundamentals training and legal updates for your state residence. Like I said in the point above, the training to get a conceal and carry lisence is minimal. It's not as if teachers have time to regularly take refresher courses and check on the legal implacations of taking a firearm into a school.
4. Not regulary practicing. If teachers don't practice, their skills will deteriorate. Gun professionals note that... "Our shooting skills and accuracy during a real-life encounter do not come close to our worse day of accurate shooting at the Range, but actually decrease. Your body is going to dump massive amounts of adrenaline into your bloodstream which will make you temporarily stronger and faster, but it adversely affects fine motor coordination such as your ability to focus on the front sight and press the trigger without disrupting the sight alignment." It is actually suggested that individuals with a conceal and carry lisence should practice at least once a month. Busy teachers will generally not have time to practice this much, and since it is not required by law, they most likely won't bother.
For these reason, teachers really should not bring guns to school. There is not telling how they will react in a dangeous situation where they actually may need to use their firearm. The possibility that they may make a mistake is high. My opponent talks about how psych tests are generally accurate. However, I have proved through my evidence that they generally are not completely reliable. Even if you, as a reader, do not buy my psych test argument, look to the four reasons I listed above. These show that teachers should not be the ones who carry guns in the school.

Alternatives to prevent shootings: My opponent exlained that most of the alternatives I listed that attempt to prevent shootings are actaully already in place, except for lock down drills. I would agree that most schools have such things, but do they really know how to use them? Monthly lock down drills are what the school needs to really show them how to use such features in the time of the emergency.

Accidental shootings: My opponent notes that a student has never actually shot a teacher as a result of paranoia, nor has a teacher been the shooter in a mass school shooting. I agree with this point. However, this is only the case because most schools do not allow their teachers to carry guns. Teachers do have the potential to act out and harm a child. For example, Micheal Yeager, a school teacher was charged with second degree harassment for acting out and hitting a student with a ruler (3). This, of course, is nothing close to shooting up a school, but it shows that teachers do have potential act out and harm a student due to annoyance or paranoia. Imagine what could happen if Yeager was armed.

Effect on the safety of the students: My oponent stated, "If you pay careful attention, you will notice that quite often teachers are among those who are shot, meaning, they had made contact with said student and if said teacher were armed they could have stopped student before massacre ended." This brings me to three main points. Firstly, there is a high probability that the teacher has never shot anyone before. It takes a lot of courage to actually end a life. The probability that a teacher wouldn't want to harm the shooter is actually very high, especially if the shooter is one of their students. Also, the legal implacations of a teacher shooting the shooter could be complicated. Secondly, look at my evidence where I discussed four major reasons why a conceal and carry lisence is not enough to qualify a teacher to carry a weapon inside school. In the heat of the moment, especially if the teacher is out of practice, there is a possibility they could miss. Lastly, if a teacher pulls out a gun in front of an shooter, he/she will most likely be shot.

Solvency:
My opponent failed to address the point. It is, in my opinion, the most important point in this debate. According to the Campus Safety Magazine, "Members of the National Rifle Association said the gaurdian plan would have little effect, they only expect a handful of districts to take advantage of the laws." If a plan to arm teachers would have little effect, what is the point in putting it in to place. Arming teachers will most likely not solve for anything, but it has the potential to cause numerous problems. Look to my evidence from Slate and Huffington Post: 1,448 children died as a result of gun violence in 2010, 165 of those deaths were at the hands of other children. (Huffington Post) In contrast to this, since 1980 (around 30 years) only 297 have died from school shootings. (Slate) Because arming teachers has much more potential to create problems, then to solve them, vote con.

(1) http://www.arkansasonline.com...
(2) http://www.usacarry.com...
(3) http://poststar.com...

Debate Round No. 2
labarum

Pro

labarum forfeited this round.
debatability

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
labarum

Pro

Sorry, I logged onto my computer and something was wrong with my connection and I wasn't able to get it online again until it was to late.

I would like to begin this round by pointing out a point that my opponent made. "If this law were to be put in place then we are likely to see a rise in students finding their teachers weapons." However, my opponent would greatly exaggerate the flaws in conceal and carry. To start, they stated that students with malicious intentions would go snooping around the room looking for a gun while teachers are away for long periods of time. They then stated that even though cases will be available for these weapons that they may not be secured with a lock at all times. This may be the case at some times, however, occasions such as this are expected to be very rare and for two reasons:

1. The teachers whom possess these weapons are likely to keep these weapons on their person at all times during the school day and after.

2. For the times that teachers do put their guns in their cases, the odds of them putting a lock over said case are very likely.

Of course there will be times were this is not the case. Eventually, some one will forget to put a lock over their case. Even if this did happen, in order for a student to find the case and open it, it would require that the teacher leave for an extended period of time without a help to watch over the class, and it would require a student to go looking for the gun case which they are unlikely to know the position, let alone know its existence in that classroom on that certain day. All of these statistics factored would mean that the odds of a student finding the gun unsecured are without over watch is very very unlikely. If there was no help watching over the class but still a lock over the case, the odds a elementary school student picking said lock are, needless to say, unlikely. If a highschooler were to be put under the same situation, they would likely have an easier time picking said lock depending on what kind of lock it was. However,in 86% of all high schools in America, camera systems are in place in every room ( that includes showers and bathrooms, ever wonder what those slanted mirrors are for?) So, even if a highschool student were to try and lock pick a case, then cameras would be able to spot him and proper authorities or armed school faculty would immediately be dispatched to said classroom. And the study that you keep referring to, could you please she me an online reference to it? It seems that the room was not over watched and that the gun was not that well hidden. I would very much so like to see this study.

The paragraph were you addressed the credibility of the person handling the gun will now be addressed. First off, the teachers whom take advantage of this new law would undoubtedly know the one reason why this law was set up in the first place. To defend human life, even at the expense of aggressor. They would without doubt know the kind of responsibility that they are taking up and why. Secondly, you would state that "Often the process of obtaining a conceal and carry lisence only requires the individual to take a 45 minute course on how to actually fire the gun." This would be false. I am sure that you honestly did not know this, as I have read over your source and you practically quoted it word for word. The state required training course is on average around 8 hours of training, not just for firing said gun, but also, safety, cleaning, repair, and proper etiquette for guns. I have a few sources all from different states to back my statements. Another point that you made was " It's not as if teachers have time to regularly take refresher courses and check on the legal implacations of taking a firearm into a school." This is also false. Reason why. Teachers have, weekends, holidays, snow days, and summer vacations off to do as they please. Actually, teachers have more off days than nearly job in America. Yes, many of these days are taken up grading papers and going to meetings and such, however, the fact remains that they have more time then most professions. Also, from the prospective of most gun owners, shooting is fun! Practicing with your weapon, doesn't really seem like practice and people often do it as a hobby. Practice will not be an issues in this case.

Another point my opponent liked to argue was that " Teachers do have the potential to act out and harm a child. For example, Micheal Yeager, a school teacher was charged with second degree harassment for acting out and hitting a student with a ruler (3). This, of course, is nothing close to shooting up a school, but it shows that teachers do have potential act out and harm a student due to annoyance or paranoia." Your right, hitting your student is a shameful act however not an uncommon one. Punishing students weather it be spankings, warping wrists with a ruler, or the highly noted 'dunce' cap, were all common place punishments until 2 to 3 decades ago. Secondly, although teachers do the potential to act out or harm their students in school due to paranoia or annoyance, no student has ever been intentionally killed by a teacher at school. There have of course been accidental killings, but no purposeful killings. Is the potential there? Yes. Is the evidence? No. Even if said gun law is not passed in any district, teachers would still have the ability to bring knives to school, and many do currently. Knives, are just as much tools as they are weapons, and no killings with these weapons by a teacher have ever been recorded, anywhere! Just like there have never been any gun killings by teachers, anywhere!

My opponent goes on to say that "there is a high probability that the teacher has never shot anyone before. It takes a lot of courage to actually end a life. The probability that a teacher wouldn't want to harm the shooter is actually very high, especially if the shooter is one of their students." First off, I would like to say " I hope they have never shot anyone before." Yes, it does take a lot of courage to end a life. However, in the heat of the moment, where its kill or be killed, the reptilian brain ( primitive side of our brain controlling fight or flight) tends to take over. If an individual has the potential to stop an attacker from killing themselves or loved ones ( in this case a student) then they will most likely kill said individual, even if it is one of their own students. The teacher may not want to harm said student ( I certainly hope not) but out of protection of the larger group, they will hopefully not hesitate. Another point my opponent made was " Also, the legal implacations of a teacher shooting the shooter could be complicated." I highly doubt that ' legal implications' are going through the teacher's mind as they are being shot at. I will not address the qualifying factors of a carrier as I have already addressed them above. There is the possibility that the student will shoot the teacher if the teacher pulls out a gun, and there is a distinct possibility that the student will miss. There is a high likely hood that the student on the shooting rampage has never touched a gun prior in their life. However, it is a guarantee that the teacher whom is carrying a firearm has. This difference in skill could give a crucial advantage to the teacher whom most likely has more experience then the student.

As for solvency. I did forget to mention this in my last round, my apologies. your own argument can be turned against you. Observe " Members of the National Rifle Association said the gaurdian plan would have little effect, they only expect a handful of districts to take advantage of the laws.' If a plan to arm teachers would have little effect, what is the point in putting it in to place. " If you notice, the reason why the NRA said the guardian plan would have little effect was because only a handful of districts would take advantage of it. If more districts were too take advantage of these laws, then we could expect more positive effects to take place. Also, the list of how only 297 children have died from school shootings ( were not sure how many teachers have died, I bet that would crank the number up) since 1980, may seem small for thirty years, when in actuality, this number has been rising in the last 30 years. I have records below. And since Newtown, we have had 44 mass school shootings. this number is not stagnant it is increasing and our current security systems are failing too much. It is time that we arm the teachers so that they may not become victims to what ever malevolent peoples may lurking and be able to defend themselves, their class, and their schools for when no one else can. Vote for everyone's favorite conservative, gun totting, bible thumping, right wing extremist nut. And vote pro.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.usacarry.com...
http://www.isp.state.il.us...
debatability

Con

I will begin by going over the major arguments made in the round; I will then move on to some key voting issues.

Students obtaining the gun:


My opponent makes two points to attack this argument.
1. The teacher whom possesses these weapons are likely to keep these weapons on their person at all times during the school day and after. My opponent never cites a study to further prove this point. There are exceptions to this. I cited a story in the round before where a teacher completely forgot that her gun was in her purse and brought it to school. Everyone can be forgetful and with a lethal weapon inside a school, forgetfulness can be deadly.
2. For the times that teachers do put their guns in their cases, the odds of them putting a lock are very likely. My opponent notes afterwards that… "Of course there will be times where the gun is not in the case, some on will forget to put a lock over to their case." I am not trying to say that such instances will happen often, but the bottom line is that they will happen. This renders arming teachers highly unsafe because there is always a small chance the students could obtain the gun.

As for my study: I put a video link down below (1). There were cameras and the guns had no bullets. The objective was to see if young children could find the hidden gun and to see what they would do with it.

My opponent explains that students could not go into a classroom and obtain a gun, nor could they open a gun safe because they would be seen through security cameras and caught. Firstly, many schools do not have such cameras in every single room. The schools that don't have this equipment are the schools where teachers are more likely to be armed for safety purposes. That's the goal of the Guardian Plan which was cited in the solvency section of the previous round. If there are no security cameras in the classrooms, arming teachers is actually more dangerous. I'll elaborate on this later. Secondly, if a student is armed, sending faculty (even if they are armed) to try stop a student is a risky decision because the student could always shoot.

Alternatives to prevent shootings: Dropped. I will address this in the voting issues.

Credibility of the person handling the gun:

My person opponent explained that the process of getting a conceal and carry license takes eight hours. This is true, but just the process of learning how to actually fire the gun takes 45 minutes, which is not enough time. I did read the full source; I am not talking about the whole conceal and carry license training program, just the part where a person is taught how to shoot. Also, I agree that teachers do have a large amount of time off, but there is no guarantee that they will spend this time learning how to fire a gun because there is simply no law that requires it. Even if a teacher does regularly practice, they will never truly be prepared to use it on a student, as I will address later on.

Accidental shootings (this argument has somewhat evolved into malicious shootings)

My opponent attacked the point I made about teachers acting out by explaining that teachers currently bring knives to school, but no student has ever been hurt by them. Since this is a new argument for my opponent, I'll go ahead and attack it with some evidence although it is the last round. A substitute teacher from Normandy pulled out a knife and held it up against a student's chest. Of course, that substitute was arrested (2). While this was just a substitute teacher, and while the student was not killed, this shows that there is still potential for teachers to act out. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to my opponent's statement: "There have of course been accidental killings, but no purposeful killings. Is the potential there? Yes." Here my opponent basically conceded to my point. There is always a chance that something could go wrong. Earlier on, my opponent dropped my psych test argument I made in earlier rounds. To sum it all up, if a potentially dangerous teacher's psych test was inaccurate and they were able to obtain a gun, an instance similar to the substitute teacher in Normandy could happen again. Imagine what would happen if the teacher pulled the trigger. Just because teachers are often among those who are shot, doesn't mean they don't have the potential to hurt a student.

Effect on the safety of the students:

Here the argument of teachers actually having to shoot their own student was brought up. As my opponent states: "the reptilian brain (primitive side of our brain controlling fight or flight) tends to take over in such circumstances." I would like to reference my earlier evidence from round 2. When this part of the brain takes over, people (even if they regularly practice) can end up missing the shot. The consequences of this, of course, would be negative.

My opponent is partially right about the legal implications part. In a state of such confusion, legal implications will not be the first thing on a teachers mind, however they are still a negative impact. Such implications can be applied to other situations as well, such as where the teacher keeps a gun, students getting a hold of a gun, and a teacher pulling out or shooting a gun due to paranoia for whatever reason.

Lastly, my opponent brings up that if a student were to try shoot a teacher as a teacher pulled out a gun, they would most likely miss. This may not be the case. Generally, the shooter is not going to be in a paranoid/frightened state of mind because since they have the gun, they have the power. The teacher, on the other hand will be. This means that there really will be no substantial difference between their shooting abilities at the moment.

Solvency:

As for this last argument, my opponent said the NRA believed the plan would have little effect because not many schools would utilize it, rather than because they believed the actual plan to be ineffective. In believe the evidence was explaining that it would have little effect AND not many schools would use it. This point would come down to the way the voters choose to interpret the evidence, except for one fatal mistake my opponent made. If you look, you'll notice that my opponent talked a lot about how security cameras will catch students trying to find a gun or open a gun safe. The guardian plan was made for schools that do not have the security measures that other schools have. This means, that unless the teachers constantly have the gun on them all the time (and my opponent cannot prove that they do) the students have much more potential to find the gun. Essentially with this point, I aim to prove that arming teachers most likely will be ineffective. I have proved this with each and every point by showing that giving our educators guns will cause much more harm than good.

Voting Issues:

1. Arming our teachers will cause more harm than good.
My opponent says again and again that there is always a chance something will go wrong, but the chance is so small that it doesn't really matter. I have proved multiple times times that the chance is bigger than my opponent believes. Even if you, as a voter, buy my opponent's argument and believe that such an occurrences would be rare, look to the fact that such occurrences of a death or injury from a gun belonging to a teacher would be eliminated if teachers could not bring guns to school. Students always have the possibility of getting their hands on guns. There is never any way of telling whether the teacher is able to handle a gun correctly, even if they have a license. There is always a possibility that a teacher could accidentally or maliciously shoot a child. All these possibilities are eliminated when teachers remain unarmed.

2. There are more effective alternatives.
My opponent dropped my final alternative argument. My opponent did note that lockdown drills are not done monthly. If they were, the school would better know how to use the equipment they have to protect themselves in the case of a shooter. Also, if a school does not have security equipment, arming teachers is not the right alternative because, as I said before, students will be able to obtain the gun from a teachers room with no camera surveillance. If schools really want to take precautions, they should make sure they have a substantial amount of law enforcement officials, rather than arming faculty.

(1) http://abcnews.go.com...
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thank you to labarum for your arguments! For all the reasons above, please vote con.

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
eh, this debate is one that i'm not particularly proud of. i didn't spend much time on it.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
@debatability.

Your argument about psychiatric tests was pretty lame.

A sign that says you cannot carry firearms onto school property isn't going to stop a crazy teacher from getting a gun and shooting up a school.

literally carrying a gun on your person doesn't increase the chances of you becoming psychotic. You should have thought that argument through.
Posted by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
I think this particular approach to the "Should teachers be allowed to carry fire arms in school?" is wrong.
We should not debate if teachers need a gun in a way policeman our security does. They certainly do not.
The question should be - If carrying handgun would be allowed to a certain person who is teacher, can he/she bring his/her personal gun (that he/she carries by default, for personal security reasons) at the school?
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD:

Pro raised some interesting points, but Con's case clearly won the day here--the danger of their presence was an easy target, and Con took full advantage.

I suspect Pro will, if he does this again, have to adjust his R1 assumptions if he hopes to win. This did not factor into voting, but it is worth noting: At Columbine, there WAS an armed guard, but he did not stop the event. Again, didn't factor into my vote, but interesting.

Pro failed to adequately rebut the danger point, and never sufficiently supported the benefit point. So arguments to Con.

Sources, S&G, and Conduct all seemed equal enough to warrant no score.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
wtf
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
labarumdebatabilityTied
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: RFD in comments.