The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,681 times Debate No: 30151
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




First round acception only please. This is for friendly debate practice and constructive criticism is much appreciated.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for his acceptance. Throughout this posting, I will state three contentions in favor of the motion. I will also define the terms within the motion now: Teachers will be any certified instructor within a school system. Concealed weapon will be a lisceneced weapon that is concealed appropriately, without any necessary training. Classroom will be anywhere on the school campus.
It is understood that school shootings are a rising threat. Yet is this the correct way to combat violence? With more violence? Essentially, to arm a teacher is to add more bullets, more violence, and more death to the scene. Already, policemen have trouble hitting a target, yet what of an untrained, nervous teacher tasked with saving his/her students? What should we do in response to violence? Add more violence? perhaps arm the whole school to the teeth?
which leads into my SECOND CONTENTION
What about the teachers that sexualy harass students, or feel agression towards them? Although these are extreme cases, think of all of the stressed-out teachers. When armed with a tool with the ability to end multiple lives, a certain physcological effect takes place. Although it would be egregious to say that if a student is upsetting a teacher the teacher will immediately pull a gun on the student in question, possesing a gun in stressful situations makes the user more confident, and endows the posessor with a misleading sense of power. Let us discuss an extreme (but too common) circumstance. If a shooter invades a school and takes a student hostage. A teacher without a gun will call for backup. A teacher with a gun will be much more likely to use it to save the student, although a violent response to a person with violent intent will certainly trigger a chain of events, for hit rates against live targets are low even among policemen, and kill rates low as well, perhaps leading to even more unessecary deaths. Again, fighting violence with more violence simply adds fuel to the flame. Perhaps a different approach is called for.
Already, policemen are seen on campus of many schools. At least these policemen are trained, more detatched, and have more tools at their disposal. Policemen also carry exposed weapons, which may serve as a detterent to any potential shooter. Instead of funding weapons for teachers, enforce security such as gates more closely, or hire more professional policemen. 3 in 4 gunmen (TIMES magazine) turn on their own community. This shows that the problem comes from within. Instead of tearing ourselves apart with the accumulation of even more weapons, more effective ways and programs to rehabilitate the person in question before the violent act is commited would be the most effective in stopping these unessesary deaths.

In conclusion, granting gun rights to teachers worsens the situation by adding another aspect of violence to the scene. Also, already-pressured teachers who are granted a gun are more likely to use it. And finally, more peaceful and efffective methods are available.


I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity for this debate.

I agree with the definitions except a concealed weapon will be a licensed weapon that is concealed appropriately WITH necessary training.

My contentions rebut my opponents arguments.

Contention 1
As stated with my disagreement of definition of concealed weapon. The teachers should have adequate training before being able to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Many scenarios require violence to combat violence. This is a cold hard truth. The difference is, the school teachers would be combating IMMORAL violence with MORAL violence. For example, if a school shooter came into a school with the intention to kill 20 innocent people in the school. Perhaps this school shooter makes it in the school and starts shooting, he shoots 11 people, at that point a concealed weapons carrier fires and kills the shooter. In this example 12 people would be killed, but 20 were intended to be killed. In reality, the concealed weapons carrier killed one person but saved 9 lives. What is more moral, letting more people die without killing, or killing to save lives? The point is, if a mentally deranged person has an eager intent to shoot up a school, they'll probably do it, the teachers should have help in saving as many lives as possible.

Contention 2
There are also teachers with psychological problems. Firstly, I would suggest that all teachers who are legible for carrying a concealed weapon on campus would be subject to a psychological test. Secondly, it is possible even after the psychological test the teacher still has some problem. So one day in an extreme and unlikely scenario they do pull a gun on one or several students and start shooting. Easily near by teachers can come and shoot the out of control teacher before more innocent lives are taking, thus saving lives of the innocent.

Contention 3
Our governments do not have enough police officers to have multiple officers per campus. The average amount of police officers per capita is 265.7 per 100,000 people. (1) With a low amount of police officers they will not be able to take out the offender and save lives quick enough since they'll have to cover a lot of ground on campus. If most of the teachers on campus had a concealed weapon and were trained accordingly they could save more lives from being taken from the offender as opposed to a few police per each campus. Enforcing security gates more closely will help prevent but will not be a 100% guarantee of prevention. My opponent has also stated 3 in 4 gunmen turn on their own community and claims it from TIME magazine but doesn't give link to the article. I can't be sure if its true but if it is, as I stated earlier in Contention 2, if a teacher turned on the students, there would be enough sane teachers to take out the out of control teacher. My opponent has stated we should have rehabilitation for the suspect in question. I agree with this if we know the suspected offender potentially has plans of having a shooting spree in a school. However, we can't always know if somebody has this terrible plan of killing innocent people in school. So when such a person comes along into a school without notice, the teachers should have to potential to save as many lives as possible.

My opponents concludes by stating we should not add another aspect of violence. I have already differentiated the difference between immoral (unnecessary) violence and moral (necessary) violence. Moral violence saves lives more than it takes.

Debate Round No. 2


I accept my opponent's altering of the definition. I will now proceed to protect my original arguments while piecing apart my opponent's arguments.
Yes, it is better to save the lives of, say, 5 children rather than none, yet it is far better to prevent the occurence of a shooting altogether. My opponent seems to almost accept the fact that there will be shootings regardless, and that all we can do is to minimize the effects. This is not true. It would be far more effective to invest into more police officers (I will expand upon this in the third contention), better security systems such as gates, and programs to help a potential shooter before the shooting actually occurs. Also, policemen nation-wide have a hit rate of about 34 percent of all bullets fired. This includes suicides among policemen. If policemen, who's entire careers revolve around enforcing laws using physical violence (if necessary), only have a 34 percent hit rate, then what will the accuracy be like of a teacher, who has little experience in an actual gun fight, is a nervous wreck, has heard shots already being fired down the hall, and is very emotionally attatched to the children she/he has suddenly been tasked to protect. If anything, the teacher might hit another student, or instigate even more shooting once the shooter come under fire. Think also of the availability of the weapon. It is unlikely that the teacher keep it on their person, because a gun holster or strap requires a blazer over it, which is highly unrealistic for hot weather. So the gun would most likely be placed in a locked drawer, which would be extremely difficult to access in the case of a shooting. I will expand upon cost issues and limited police force in the third contention.
Given that a background check is required, many of these background checks are not effective, as my opponent admitted. "Easily near by teachers can come and shoot the out of control teacher " this is a complete logical falacy. First of all, the motion states that teachers have the right, not that it is a requirement, so not every teacher may have a gun. Also, how long does it realistically take to kill a room full of un-armed students? Too long for it to be stopped. And finally, if you did not arm teachers in the first place, this scenario would have no chance of occuring! Therefore, my opponent has in fact stated why teachers should not have guns, since they have stated a disastrous scenario in which a teacher posseses a weapon.
I assume that there is a lack of policemen to secure the schools because of lack of funds. Yet if the guns are payed for by the individual teachers (and remember, not all will have it, for it is not required, only a right), very few will have one, for a gun, plus a concealed weapon liscence, as well as ammo and gun-checkups are very expensive relative to a teacher's generally low salary. If the govenrment is paying, then again, this will be of much cost for the govenrment, including background checks and periodical checks. These funds instead could be diverted to hiring more police officers to serve these schools, and increased security to stop the problem before it occurs, not while it already has happened. Also, if a rehabilitation program is offered in a more friendly, effective manner to the whole student body, troubled students may first consult with a counselor before any extreme measures are taken, or may be more easily identified with a more extensive, better funded program(s).
I apologize for not posting the website about the gunmen, for I was reading a hard-copy of the article, and is only available for subscribers, yet a trial portion of the article is available:
statistics about shooting ratios:


misterme forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


abrahamlipets forfeited this round.


misterme forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by abrahamlipets 3 years ago
How would this be an unfair motion? I took this motion from the Houston Urban Debate League website, so I assumed it was legitimate.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Are you sure this topic is a fair motion?
No votes have been placed for this debate.