The Instigator
Ped-X-ing
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

mp3 players should be allowed in public schools

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 12 votes the winner is...
Ped-X-ing
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,746 times Debate No: 6096
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (71)
Votes (12)

 

Ped-X-ing

Pro

I want to get an opposite opinion on this, but I would not like to start. I will let whoever accepts this start.

simple terminology

mp3 player- music devices such as I-pods, Zunes, etc

allowed- let

public schools- any school open to the public

8,000 characters, 72 hours to respond, 3 rounds, 3 month voting period.

opponent start

X
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Public schools should not exist. They are propped up inevitably by stolen money, i.e., taxes. Taxation is unacceptable.

Now, clearly, the nonexistence of public schools precludes allowing mp3 players in public schools-- it is not possible to allow something "in" something that does not exist. And since the nonexistence of public schools is part of what should be the case, allowing the existence of public schools in them clearly is not part of what should be the case.
Debate Round No. 1
Ped-X-ing

Pro

My first part of my argument is not for my opponent, but for all of the people commenting on this debate.

Stop attacking R-R, he took an unusual tactic on this debate, and if you read back on the early comments, you will see that we both were expecting it. stop all of the arguing with him. you can get in your say, AFTER we finish this debate. thankyou.
____________________________________________________________________________

"Public schools should not exist" was the very first thing my opponent said.
he said it very boldly, and it made me say, "wow".

even though it was a very bold move, sadly, it is not what the topic is about.

the topic is mp3 players should be allowed in public schools, not public schools should not exist, although I would proudly debate anybody on that topic, just not in this debate.

R-R said "Taxation is unacceptable"

without taxation, we cannot pay those people who help america every day. ex. police officers, firemen, elected officials, teachers, etc..

the rest of what R-R said was "Now, clearly, the nonexistence of public schools precludes allowing mp3 players in public schools-- it is not possible to allow something "in" something that does not exist. And since the nonexistence of public schools is part of what should be the case, allowing the existence of public schools in them clearly is not part of what should be the case."

although confusing, the last statement he made was supposed to be allowing the existance of MP3 players in them is clearly not... he made a mistake, and clarified that in the comment section.

ragnar-rahl, I respect your odd approach on this topic, but sadly it does not even slightly have anything to do with the topic. I am sorry.

X
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
even though it was a very bold move, sadly, it is not what the topic is about.
"

It has implications for what the topic is about. It is a premise of an argument from which the conclusion related to this argument is logically derived. Therefore it is relevant.

"
without taxation, we cannot pay those people who help america every day. ex. police officers, firemen, elected officials, teachers, etc.."

As a matter of fact we can. Simply replace taxation with a law enforcement user fee for the purpose of police, the military, firemen, and officials (why "elected" ones? That doesn't have a great track record). Btw, it is impossible to "help america," america is not an evaluative entity. It is only possible to help individuals.

As for teachers, I presume you've heard of private schools?

Naturally, without public schools, the market is bigger for private schools, allowing for production at a cheaper rate, especially relative to the newfound growth of incomes due to lack of taxes.

"
although confusing, the last statement he made was supposed to be allowing the existance of MP3 players in them is clearly not... he made a mistake, and clarified that in the comment section.
"

Yes, I corrected it to what it should have said. You haven't addressed it.

"

ragnar-rahl, I respect your odd approach on this topic, but sadly it does not even slightly have anything to do with the topic. I am sorry."

The topic states that mp3 players should be allowed in public schools, i.e., that allowing such is part of what should be. It follows from the premise that public schools should not exist that this is false. To prove your statement that it is irrelevant, you would have to dispute my deduction, which you have not done-- or to otherwise defeat it, you would have to disprove the premise, which again you have not done. If Q follows from P, and Q is a position on the topic, then P is relevant to the topic.

Indeed, it is you, not me, who has not yet made any substantive argument relevant to the resolution thus far.
Debate Round No. 2
Ped-X-ing

Pro

given, I did focus too much on your odd approach, that I forgot to say WHY MP3 players should be allowed in public schools.

mp3 players play music. music helps with the learning process. for example, when playing mozart to babies, science has proven that they learn faster.

http://edweb.sdsu.edu...

the link above shows research of proof that people learn better with music playing.

when saying "help america"... I am part of america, the citizens are part of america. being part of america, when you help america, you are helping the citizens of america.

you keep straying off the path. we are not debating about the existance of public schools. and it doesn't matter if that is what SHOULD be debated, the topic is not about the existance.

I will gladly debate you on the existance of public schools in a different debate. just create the debate, but that is not what THIS topic is about.

you are speculating that we make the public schools non-existant, well sadly for you, public schools do exist, and it doesn't matter whether or not they SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT...

the topic stays with MP3 players as the focus. MP3 players are beneficial to the learning process, they should be allowed in public schools.

thankyou.

X
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
mp3 players play music. music helps with the learning process. for example, when playing mozart to babies, science has proven that they learn faster.
"

Plenty of reason to allow them-- in private schools.

Course, ya really thing the average student is gonna have MOZART playing on them? *checks his playlist, looks and sees metal... *checks an average playlist, sees rap...

"
when saying "help america"... I am part of america, the citizens are part of america. being part of america, when you help america, you are helping the citizens of america."

Doesn't help the dude who spawned the AN HERO meme when his ipod was stolen :http://encyclopediadramatica.com...

So, you should avoid saying you are helping a collective unless EVERY MEMBER within benefits :D.

"
you keep straying off the path. we are not debating about the existance of public schools. and it doesn't matter if that is what SHOULD be debated, the topic is not about the existance."

The position that public schools should not exist is P. The position that mp3 players should not be allowed in them is Q. Q follows from P. I am not straying off any path, I am taking a premise to a relevant conclusion.

"
you are speculating that we make the public schools non-existant, well sadly for you, public schools do exist, and it doesn't matter whether or not they SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT..."
This debate makes claims about what should be. It does not make claims about what should be GIVEN public schools existing, it makes absolute claims-- claims for all contexts-- including ideal contexts in which such schools don't exist. It does, therefore, matter that they should not exist.

Further, making public schools more palatable by increasing the learning quality in them entrenches them, harming the cause of eliminating them. This is another reason why it should not be.

You have claimed again and again my arguments. are irrelevant without demonstrating how. I have demonstrated again and again why my (unaddressed) arguments are relevant-- it follows deductively from the arguments that the resolution is false.
Debate Round No. 3
71 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
turn off email notifications lol.
Posted by Ped-X-ing 5 years ago
Ped-X-ing
you guys are having a frikken debate in the comment section. it's annoying. I get an e-mail sent to my phone every time somebody posts a comment. though your arguments are interesting, please just make a debate about it...

thanks
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Yet another fallacy of the argument from intimidation.
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
The arguments I've presented are absolutely reasonable considering anyone's standard of debate. Your logical fallacies have not been resolved by your arguments, as they would be considered logical fallacies to anyone who knows anything about debate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
It's called going in circles. You haven't presented any claim that convinced me, just the same claims over and over again, without solving my rebuttals, so it's only natural that I not present anything new either.
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
You haven't presented any new argument RR... I am not convinced that you believe the nonsense you are speaking.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
-Because it is an evaluative, and the requirement for him to present his case. An absolute would be "MP3 players are not allowed in schools""
I wasn't speaking grammatically, but logically-- it is an absolute in the sense that he is stating it is true without giving further qualfiication-- a claim of absolute truth.

"
-A "possible" future is irrelevant to an argument based on present reality. The context of the affirmative leaves the reasonable reader to assume the debate is presented in the context of reality."
If P then Q, P, therefore Q and R, is the essence of your structure here. It leaves little doubt as to the "reality" part certainly, but plenty of room for the "present" part to be open.

"Not if we left it up to you to decide what ought to be. That is the point of debate. If you are the purveyor of what ought to be, then debate is pointless.
"

My claim was not based of my authority. My claim of "ought" was based specifically on deduction from taxes being theft. My opponent, remember, had no rebuttal to that.

"-Right, but only within the presence of the possibility, ie. the existence of public schools. The non-existence of public schools is irrelevant to the recommendation in the affirmative."

You're being selective, I already addressed how it is in fact possible to allow mp3 players in public schools when there are none, it simply should not be done :D.
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
"How so?"
-Because it is an evaluative, and the requirement for him to present his case. An absolute would be "MP3 players are not allowed in schools". "MP3 players are devices that allow you to play mp3's". The evaluative statement "MP3 players should be allowed in public schools" is not an absolute.

"No, we can only do that when the case we are creating ought to be, addresses something not assumed, is in response to a debate about what ought to be, and is possible. That leaves a lot of rules whereby debates can be non- "pointless."
-Not if we left it up to you to decide what ought to be. That is the point of debate. If you are the purveyor of what ought to be, then debate is pointless.

"A possible future in which public schools have been abolished, especially when they HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED BEFORE, is not the same as a "Fantasy land."
-A "possible" future is irrelevant to an argument based on present reality. The context of the affirmative leaves the reasonable reader to assume the debate is presented in the context of reality. A "possible" future is not a definite reality, and therefore irrelevant in this debate.

"Limited to the present reality of some countries."
-Again, it is reasonable to assume the affirmative within the context of the reality of the presenter of the affirmative.

"There are, presumably, places in the world without public schools."
-The affirmative is limited to public schools, therefore where public schools do not exist, the affirmative is irrelevant, and vice versa.

"A recommendation of what ought be should apply to past, present, and future, unless it specifies otherwise."
-Right, but only within the presence of the possibility, ie. the existence of public schools. The non-existence of public schools is irrelevant to the recommendation in the affirmative.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Nowhere did it state "Public schools immutable existence in all contexts is a premise of this debate."
-And nowhere did the premise say it was not- yet it is logical to assume that the affirmative was presented in present context."

How so?

"You are presenting another logical fallacy in your reasoning"
How so?

"-I know you are not an amateur debater, and so I must assume you are being foolish for the fun of it. Assumption of a context outside of reality is unreasonable,"
It's not the "reality" part I was taking us outside of, but the "present" part. It is perfectly reasonable to require a recommendation given no timeline to apply at every time it can be applied, and therefore refute it for any of those times.

"Riiiight... Now where is the reason in that? How is it reasonable to argue that because the premise is not possible in a not-yet reality it is not possible in reality?"
Now you're just misunderstanding me. It's perfectly possible in that not-yet reality, by reinstating public schools. This should not be done, thus, it is a situation to which the resolution applies, in which the resolution is false. thus, the resolution cannot be true in it's present form, it must be qualified.

"Your not-yet reality is hypothetical,"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Hypotheticals are very very important in the field of ethics, i.e., the study of what should be done.

"
-It doesn't. Stating so is presenting a different resolution, but does not preclude the fact that he WILL kill Jews.
"
It is not a metaphysical given that he will kill Jews, nor a metaphysical given that public schools will exist. It is perfectly possible for both not to be the case, any statement about what ought to be broad enough to include them, but not right about them, needs qualification.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
-First, an evaluative is not an absolute."

How so?

"If your argument is to be accepted, then every debate is ridiculously pointless to argue because we can always hypothesize that in a fantastical world created by our own whims (hence the fallacy of "wishful thinking") we are always right because the contrary is impossible.
"
No, we can only do that when the case we are creating ought to be, addresses something not assumed, is in response to a debate about what ought to be, and is possible. That leaves a lot of rules whereby debates can be non- "pointless."

A possible future in which public schools have been abolished, especially when they HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED BEFORE, is not the same as a "Fantasy land."

"It is only reasonable to assume that the affirmative is in the context of reality. It is not reasonable to expect the affirmative to state that his policy recommendation is limited to reality- reality being, in this case, that public schools do in fact exist.
"
Limited to the present reality of some countries. There are, presumably, places in the world without public schools. It is not reasonable to assume the present when not specified. A recommendation of what ought be should apply to past, present, and future, unless it specifies otherwise. It is common and valid practice to dispute recommendations by coming up with possible hypotheticals which would make the recommendation wrong.

"
-There is no past in which something DOES not exist. If you stretch reality far back enough to where public schools DID not exist, the debate would not have been presented. Same as with the future. You are being unreasonable, and expecting the readers to follow the same lack of logic"
There you go again, impugning logic without using it. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, not something meant for mudslinging. It does not require that one assume the unsaid when such will not always be the case.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dvhoose 5 years ago
dvhoose
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Snakepliston 5 years ago
Snakepliston
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Ped-X-ing 5 years ago
Ped-X-ing
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 5 years ago
Labrat228
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dieguixd 5 years ago
dieguixd
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by gonovice 5 years ago
gonovice
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rickymadeja 5 years ago
Rickymadeja
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Enduring_Freedom 5 years ago
Enduring_Freedom
Ped-X-ingRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70