The Instigator
Galaticsandwich
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chase226
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies

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 1 vote the winner is...
Chase226
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,379 times Debate No: 59922
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Galaticsandwich

Pro

I believe school students should be able to fight back or defend themselves against bullies, and not get in trouble at school.
Chase226

Con

Victim retaliation will have deadly consequences. Being able to retaliate for some one doing something you did not like is so subjective that anyone could attack anyone for something as small as giving them a bad look.
Debate Round No. 1
Galaticsandwich

Pro

Well there is a fine line between standing up for yourself, and being a jerk who will attack anyone for any small thing. Let's say a student is constantly getting harassed by another student. If that student were to punch the bully, more than likely the bully will leave the student alone. Especially in high school, telling a teacher or a parent doesn't always work. If this is happens, and there's nothing else to stop the bullying except fighting back, then the child could get depressed. This depression could lead to suicide. Fighting back against the bully could stop this from happening, or help get the depressed victim's life become better. Not only that, but if the bully learns from this, the less chance he'll be like this as an adult.
Chase226

Con

The First Amendment of the United States constitution gives any American the right the free speech. That means anyone can say whatever they want to say with out punishment, how ever harsh ones words may be to another person that person has no right and will be breaking the law if they physically harm another human being for saying something they did not like.
http://constitution.findlaw.com...
"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.
Scenario 1.
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.

Scenario 2.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
Galaticsandwich

Pro

I am aware that fighting back against the bully is illegal, and of the zero tolerance policy . But what the debate is about is whether or not they should be able to fight back. I know it's not allowed, but I think it should be.
Chase226

Con

You can do what ever you want to in America, but there are legal ramifications for some actions an individual may decide to do. We both agree that if it becomes physical everyone has the legal right to defend themselves, however if it is a verbal attack the victim under no circumstances has the legal high ground. If you allow someone to attack someone else because they did not like what they had to say our society as a whole would collapse. People everyday say mean and rude things to others, but it is all subjective to the individual what ticks me off may not bother you, if I do not like something you have to say and I physically assault you doesn't the irony become the victim becomes the bully? I am in no way condoning someone bullying another person, but the principle of free speech what is behind this. Allowing something as small and what seems like the right thing to do in allowing a victim to attack a bully after some verbal harassing will snowball into every group from A-Z is attacking anyone who says anything negative against them, it has happened to South Park and most recently with the Seth Rogan Movie," The Interview" The North Koreans find it very offensive but The First Amendment makes it legal.
Debate Round No. 3
Galaticsandwich

Pro

As I said earlier, there is a fine line between defending yourself, and being a jerk. Someone who would attack anyone for any small thing would be the bully in this case. While I think it should be legal to fight back, I do agree the law should state what the fine line is.
Chase226

Con

Then from what you said, you can see what I am talking about. If you are physically assaulted you can fight back, but if you are called a mean name you cannot.
Debate Round No. 4
Galaticsandwich

Pro

If you are insulted multiple times, several times a day, then I believe you should fight back. If you're just called an idiot or something like that, then fighting the bully may be over-reacting. Even still, depending on the insult, fighting back could be justified, even if only said once.
Chase226

Con

You have presented one reason, depression on why it is good to fight back, I have presented many reasons on why it is bad. In your closing you said, "If you're just called an idiot or something like that, then fighting the bully may be over-reacting" but that is where 99% of the problems are. Being called an idiot and feeling you have to go in to fight or die mode is what barbarians do, we live in a civilized society, be civil. No, not depending on the insult you are justified, you never are. "Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" That is the first amendment of the constitution. I don't care how you think it should be, that is the law of the land.
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.

http://constitution.findlaw.com...

http://billofrightsinstitute.org...

http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by I_am_Spartacus 2 years ago
I_am_Spartacus
I celebrate all retaliation acts against bullies. Give them hell!
Posted by roark555 2 years ago
roark555
The only thing a bully understands is violence. A few good kicks to the head should do it.
Posted by PartTimeHipster 2 years ago
PartTimeHipster
Report 'em. If it doesn't work, do it again.
Posted by roark555 2 years ago
roark555
I literally don't understand in the slightest how anybody could be against defending yourself.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
There is self-defense and there is violence. And there are very different forms of bullying and all require different approaches.

For instance does nobody expect a victim to be beaten up and not engaging in instinctual actions such as kicking or biting, because that is a sort of action that we don't do to hurt the other but to prevent ourselves from further harm. It's not planned and not coordinated. But than there is standing up and not walking away but beating up yourself. And that's wrong again. It can bring you in the position where you purposely cause harm yourself and lose control over the situation. And in many cases makes it the social status of a bullied person even worse because bullies now have reason to exclude them.

Then there is psychological bullying and you can't answer that with physical violence either. And psychological violence against it usually just forces the situation to escalate.

Kids WILL face mild or medium forms of aggression during their childhood and how they deal with it is crucial to how likely they are to become a victim or to bully themselves. This is the prevention side. But once bullying is a case, there are only individual actions possible because the victim-aggressor-relationship is always bound to the individual insecurities and problems of the parties. Some need hard words, some need hard actions, some need positive support and some need separation. But the wrong approach will make it worse for the parties and will give them the feeling that it's either their fault, that they are right or that there is no hope.

Good social skills and empathy are the best one can have to become neither a bully nor a victim and teaching these in a single-kid-city-society is a parental challenge.
Posted by Zoebok 2 years ago
Zoebok
I believe that kids should be able to defend themselves, in a reasonable manner. If the children are in the playground corner and there are no teachers what is the child going to do let them beat the other child up. The child could escape by kicking him in the leg and moving them out of the way so they can go tell a teacher that, that child was bulling him. When I was a child a kid pushed me to the ground and him being a boy bigger than me i got up and punched him of coarse i got detention but atleast he wont mess with me any more and he got suspended for bullying me. But it goes to the point when children are trying to kill the person cause they are sick of the crap and that can lead to a serious injury. Just I think it would be better if children knew a little self defense so they are getting bullied a the time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
GalaticsandwichChase226Tied
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: 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.