children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, )
Debate Rounds (3)
i was close with my teacher, i was going through a difficult time and my teacher Mrs Desena helped me alot. we were close but i knew that eventually she woundn't be there. and i wasnt going to be able to keep in contact. Because i knew this and with the difficult time in my life i went into severe depression and didn't know what to do. i didnt want to loose the one and most important person to me.. So i think children should be aloud to have a relationship with someone as long as they know whats right and wrong. now i think this is a good idea and i personally would let my child do this. if i met the teacher and was happy. If i found that he/she wasn't able to speak to me for what ever reason but had a sensible close bond with her teacher or who ever then i would be happy for them to do so. so whats your opinion on this ......
A relationship that goes beyond teacher-student affects other students indadvertedly. One kid sees that another is getting special treatment, even if it's only a smile or hello in the morning, and a little part of them gets triggered. They start thinking something's unfair and they take action against it.
I don't know to what extent this relationship is intact and visible between the student and teacher, however even just one time that the teacher takes the kid away to say anything to it w/o the others being called, that child is now the teacher's pet and the other kids' superior, even if nothing happened.
In one fell swoop, a kid that gets even an ounce of special or different treatment can become the person the class outcasts.
Two. Fish in the pond.
You're thinking along the lines of "why not," by expressing that there is very little risk to such a relationship, it's beneficial for the kid to have someone, but this person is still a stranger.
A child needs peers not figures in their life. Friends are more important than contacts at this point in a child's life. A teacher will not bring anything to the child's life that a close friend or caring parent could. So, if you need someone to rely on in your life, to tell your problems to, and someone who can help you, there are many other people you can turn to, and many caring peers, of your own age, are always around you in these situations.
Three. A fallacy.
The effect I describe under point 1 affects all other arguments. This is a psychological condition. The teacher is responsible for many kids and cannot be allowed to look after one of them more closely, it ruins the system.
Then, if the teacher does do this, the other kids cast this special child out. There's nothing different about this one child, but the teacher's contact made it different.
What this means is that no matter the relationship the teacher has with the child, extremely positive, necessary, or just friendly, if another classmate sees it, they will feel inadequate, saying "Why didn't the teacher choose me?" We cannot run this risk of affecting a lot of other kids for the sake of one kid who needs someone to help them in their life, especially since that child has alternatives it can turn to.
You think the student is just getting another friend, but the student is getting a relationship instead of a friend.
This is the most significant aspect of this debate, that it's impersonal. What is to be judged is the relationship, not the people involved in it.
With that out of the way, I have to remind you that you're not responding to my arguments, what you did this round was jump onto someone else's comment and used that for your response. Metta said something that wasn't relevant to the round, and it was just a comment so it didn't matter, but you used it, unfortunately. Of course the teacher is a person as well, which is why we have this problem in the first place.
You own five cats. You are their owner, and you're a human. You feed them every day at four. At three, one of the cats comes onto your lap and purrs, and you obviously pet it. You have just created a relationship between only one cat, and yourself, its owner. That cat is now different. The cat is different because it got something the other cats didn't. The other cats let it pass for the time being.
A week later, that one cat gets something stuck in its fur. Two weeks ago, it would have come to the other cats so they could help it get it out, but now it comes to you. Two weeks ago, you also would've disregarded the cat and whatever's in its fur because you saw the cats helping each other this way, and the cat would have done just that. However, now you help the cat yourself, and it's all cleaned up.
The other cats see that it's coming to you and not to them, and that you're helping it and not them, solely on the basis that this one cat now needs you, and they have got each other.
This is the fallacy I described, and which has gone through round 2 uncontested, so I carry it through.
Once again, it is a fallacy to think that you can help one student, or one cat, without reciprocating this to the other ones. Even if they need your help, there are alternatives, as i describe, once again uncontested, in round 1, and then that student becomes different, even in the slightest manner, but nonetheless a manner that resonates strongly enough to change some aspects within the class's, or group of cats', social fabric.
If you eat a pack of cookies in the middle of class, you better have enough to share with all the others.
If you help one student in the middle of class, you better have enough time to also help all the others.
It doesn't matter if they need it, but if they feel as if they don't have it, the one that does will be unfortunate.
Range forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: So to start, Conduct goes to no one because although Con forfeited a round I am not sure that Pro was actually arguing in that last round. Spelling and Grammar and Arguments to Pro, because not only did Pro make good well structure arguments, the were fluid and very well organized, other than that it was a fine debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate