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

teachers ought to be armed to prevent school shootings

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 80801
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Here is how it will go.
R1: rules, acceptance, thanks
R2: Opening statements
R3: Defend, attack
R4: Closing statements

rules: no breaking laws, no cuss words, respect players, do your best, and have fun. How each round will go is posted above. With that let the debate begin.


I accept.

I would like to request that Pro defines 'school shootings' and 'armed'.
Debate Round No. 1


Intro: After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.
William S. Burroughs


Contention 1: Why we need to arm teachers.

Contention 2: How this will help schools.

Contention 3: What this will help prevent.

Conclusion: We need to arm teachers and protect the youth of the world.


Plagarism is not debating. Pro simply produces three newspaper articles(fallacy of authority) and a quote(same fallacy)
Pro provides no evidence to back up points.

Anyhow, even though Pro is 'cheating', I'll still debate him.

Pro's entire argument rests on one contention- namely,'IF we arm teachers and students, school shootings go down.' I think I've read this right.

Two problems with this.
Pro produces not a shred of evidence to say that this would (my caps)
a) reduce school shootings
b)be the most efficient method
c) also not cause any secondary problems (gun crime etc.)
This makes it his word against mine. But, the BoP is on Pro, and so he must prove this claim- extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Who is we? The government. I'll mainly focus on the government in my points, in order to take out the other pillar of Pro's argument thus far.

That the costs of taking such a measure are prohibitive.
Assume the average (legal) [1] gun costs 700$(not really, but an average). There are 98,817 public schools in America. [2]. Assume ten(nice round number, and probably typical) teachers in each. That's 691,719,000$. That's nearly 700 million dollars. That's a lot of money for something that is (C3) inefficient and to prevent a problem that is (C2) fairly rare.
That the relative occurence of school shootings is fairly rare
There have been 74[3] school shootings since Sandy Hook. Compare that with the number of public schools above(not even adding private schools, because they're not the government's responsibility).
That testing if this is efficacious is very hard/impossible to do ethically.
This one should be pretty obvious. If there have been only 74 shootings since Sandy Hook versus 98817 schools, it's pretty hard to have a trial in a 'typical' environs.
Of course, if a teacher wants to carry a lawfully concealed weapon to school to prevent school shootings, that's fine. Second Amendment rights and all that.

Debate Round No. 2


Ladies and gentlemen please see a few things.
1. I am not plagarizing. Here is a link for the defenition.
I ask how am I plagarising when I give specific links and authors? NO plagarizing here. Also NO cheating.

2. My opponent misread my case. I agree in the fact school shootings happenings will not change just because we arm teachers. My case is on the goal of having less deaths.

3. I found the defenitions and provided the links for what the neg has asked me to define.

4. We would be the people and government. Also with miscalculation the neg's first rebuttal doesnt touch my case.

5. Neg c1. I emphasis one word. Assume. Neg is trying to talk costs, but knows nothing of the sort. They are making up numbers whereas I have the actual facts.

6. Neg c2. This involves all teachers. I never once said just public schools or just private schools. This is all schools everywhere within the U.S.

7. Check out the last 2 sentances in the Neg c3. They are in full support of my case. This case is closed. Neg agrees with aff, while falsly accusing of plagarism, and falsly reading my case. Case closed. Please vote with me.


Right. Aff(Affirm) reads my case falsely.

1.the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
Pro is simply using someone else's ideas, and using them as his own, instead of restating them, therefore Pro is plagiarising.

1.keep (something) from happening or arising:
'prevent' in the resolution seems to state(as it wasn't defined to mean) prevent school shooting from happening at all.
Pro's case IS on the goal of preventing, or having no deaths,#

'They are making up numbers whereas I have the actual facts.'
This is only a ballpark figure, but it serves to illustrate the costs.
It's irrelevant whether the numbers are correct(but I have a source for the number of public schools)

' I never once said just public schools or just private schools. This is all schools everywhere within the U.S.'
It is not the government's responsibility to deal with private schools.They have no involvement. Next.

'They are in full support of my case.
No, they aren't. If you read them closely, it says if a teacher WANTS to bring a lawfully concealed gun in, that's fine. It nowhere states that the government should arm all of them.

Pro's quotation at the beginning of R2 is irrelevant. This is the fallacy of authority.

Debate Round No. 3


Tmurdock forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments/rebuttal. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PointyDelta 1 year ago
Hmm, this ought to be interesting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.