The Instigator
Historybuff87
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should there be an armed U.S marshall in every school in America?

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 2 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 28725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Historybuff87

Pro

In this debate, my opponent and I will present evidence backing up our statements. We will also present facts and opinions stating why or why U.S marshals should be or not be in schools.
bladerunner060

Con

I accept, and await my opponent's initial arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Historybuff87

Pro

I thank my Opponent for his response and I wish him luck.

I belive their should be an armed marshall in every school in America because it can prevent terrible things, such as the Newtown Tragedy. Having an armed marshall in every school can prevent shootings, stop shooters, and ease minds of children.

The U.S marshall is a trained person that can prevent these shootings from happing in the first place. Now I want you to go into the mindset of a shooter. What would you attack, the school with a armed marshall or the school with no marshall? If you can keep these mentally ill people from the schools in the first place, the shootings would not happen nearly as much.

Now think about the shooting in Newtown, CT. Imagine if a armed marshall would have been there. The death toll could have been possibly decreased. Maybe Adam Lanza could have even been stopped. The National Rifle Association (N.R.A) has stated, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." Meaning bad people can be stopped by good people.

Finally, the students at these schools can feel mentally eased. This can present a couple of advantages. The students can feel safer, knowing that if something were to happen someone would be able to defend them. Also, these children have another person to talk to if they are having problems with anything. If children are our future, why aren't we defending them to the best of our abilities?

I rest my case for this round, and wait my opponent's response.
bladerunner060

Con

Thanks again to my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topical topic.

I intend to go point by point through my opponent's initial argument, then to introduce my own.

First off, there are some conflicting statements here.

"I belive their should be an armed marshall in every school in America because it can prevent terrible things, such as the Newtown Tragedy."
agrees with
"The U.S marshall is a trained person that can prevent these shootings from happing in the first place.",
but not with
"The death toll could have been possibly decreased."

Possibly decreasing the death toll is not preventing the tragedy. While a Marshal in the right place at the right time stands at least some chance of preventing a tragedy, at the same time, I don't think you've established that this is the likely scenario.

Schools are often campuses, with multiple floors and multiple buildings. Columbine had a guard, an armed Sheriff's Deputy no less, but he was not able to help much, if at all. And the school's surveillance system failed to assist with detection of the bombs placed. [1] So, despite the school having what you recommend (albeit a Sheriff' Deputy, not a Marshal), the shooting occurred, and there is no indication the armed guard made the loss of life less. Further, the guard was shot at by the perpetrators; what if they had hit him? Would that not have been one more gun for them to use as they continued their spree, before the cops showed up en masse?

"Finally, the students at these schools can feel mentally eased. This can present a couple of advantages. The students can feel safer, knowing that if something were to happen someone would be able to defend them. Also, these children have another person to talk to if they are having problems with anything. If children are our future, why aren't we defending them to the best of our abilities?"

I respectfully request some data or reference to back that up. Because I know I wouldn't have felt mentally eased; I would have felt harassed and oppressed by the watchful eye of my armed jailer. And I certainly wouldn't have felt comfortable talking to a Federal Marshal about a problem, considering many "problems" may have components that are not strictly legal. Some inner-city schools have already gotten guards and metal detectors and security measures, and their problems have not vanished, nor do their students feel safer. "Protecting [children] to the best of our abilities" would technically require body armor, armed humvees, bubble isolation systems, gas masks, and bunkers. Obviously, all safety measures MUST be balanced against quality of life and cost/benefit analysis.

Moving on to some of my points:

The negative aspects (or costs) of having US Marshals must be considered, and balanced against any benefits. I believe I've shown that there aren't as many benefits as Pro has suggested, but now I'd like to mention some of the costs.

Armed Marshals would cost billions a year[2]. Further, they have the distinct possibility of psychologically HARMING children, or at least as much as much as they do of COMFORTING them. Also, the closest parallels we have at present to this concept are Air Marshals, a group that has seen more of their members ARRESTED for inappropriate behavior than crises averted. [3]

We did not put armed Marshals in the schools after the deadliest mass murder at a school in US history (contrary to popular belief, not the Virginia Tech shooting, but rather the non-gun explosives based 1927 Bath School disaster). [4] We do not need them now.

As a proposition with little to no real benefit, high known cost, and chance of ancillary problems (psychologically, culturally), I believe that armed US marshals are not the solution, and that there should NOT be an armed US Marshall in every school in America.

Thank you.

[1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] -- http://johnshore.com... (for the record, I acknowledge this as a source with obvious bias, but could find no fault with his numbers for "one per school".

[3]-- http://www.propublica.org...

[4] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Historybuff87

Pro

Historybuff87 forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Con

My opponent has failed to respond. Arguments extended.

Please vote Con.

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
Historybuff87bladerunner060Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and con used sources.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
Historybuff87bladerunner060Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff