Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies
Debate Rounds (5)
"there's nothing else to stop the bullying except fighting back, then the child could get depressed. This depression could lead to suicide" There are a few problems with this statement.
The stereotypical bully-victim scenario is a "big alpha male" lets call him "Mike" against a "scrawny kid in the band" who will be called "johnny"
Mike likes to tease Johnny but he doesn't find it very funny and the only reason Mike continues to do so is because of the knee jerk reaction Johnny gives. Johnny does not make clear that he feels Mike bully's him to anyone, never talks to a teacher, counselor or his parents and lets anger build up to the point where he feels he has to become physical with Mike to stop an action no one knew bothered him.
He builds up the courage to attack Mike with his fists and Mike being so much bigger than Johnny turns the table and slaughters Johnny, but Johnny threw the first punch so Mike isn't in trouble he was defending him self. More resentment will build up as Johnny will be disciplined because of something called, Zero Tolerance.
Johnny brings a gun to school and goes on a rampage.
Unless you are being physically attacked, you need to talk to someone to help solve these issues so they do not escalate. Because the law is on the instigators side if he is just saying mean words and he is attacked by the victim.
Your argument has been very bland and vague, you have done a terrible job in presenting your argument. You said in response to assault," I know it's not allowed, but I think it should be". You never expanded on it. Then later," there is a fine line between defending yourself, and being a jerk". With what you are saying if someone bullies you you should be able to fight back. That means if I call you a name and you feel its bulling you can "defend yourself" against that mean word, it will only create a mess. "If you are insulted multiple times, several times a day, then I believe you should fight back" By the same person? or multiple? Say they call him an,"jerk" well what if he is an "jerk" and the people who called him "jerk" are not bullies but they just called it as they saw it? Does he have the right to "defend himself"? What you're saying yes. if you are called a mean name you can. That is the reality of what you're saying. For what ever reason if an individual feels another individual has bullied them they can become a street enforcer and without any due process they can be judge, jury and executioner. That is scary, and it is anarchy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: A relatively narrow victory for Con. Pro started with the notion of "defense"--something that Con conceded, and would have had a hard time justifying, I think. But Pro expanded his scope, giving leave to physical attacks merely for insults--and never sufficiently justified that position. As such, arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.