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

Is it necessary to have metal detector in 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
David_Debates has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 100134
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Metal detector is not necessary in schools.


Con argues the E statement (in logical form), "No metal detectors are things that are nessesary in schools." Thus, my burden is to contradict this statement, so I will support the contradictory I statement, "Some metal detectors are things that are nessesary in schools." I await Con's opening constructive.
Debate Round No. 1


Imagine all the different ways a student can get inside our school when no one is there to monitor with a metal detectoe. Also, if a student is willing to die in their mission to kill, what good can metal detector really do?
Schools do not need metal detector because they cost a lot of mondy, there are other weapon that can be use to murder people, and students can easily get weapons in the school without ever going thru a metal detector. I know this is true especially for our school.


Con's argument is faulty for 2 main reasons. I'll explain them now:

1) The argument that "people would still bring in weapons anyway if they had the will to die" can be used faultily in virtually any scenario.

I can say that people bent on attacking a police station would still bring in weapons anyway if they had the will to die, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take the precautions to protect it, like stocking our police stations with well-armed police men.

I could say that people bent on assassinating the POTUS would still bring weapons anyway if they had the will to die, but that doesn't mean we should suspend the Secret Service.

I could say that a person who wanted to murder the judge that sentenced him to prison would still bring a weapon into court, but that doesn't mean we should take the metal detectors and X-Ray machines out of the courthouse entrance.

In other words, Con is attempting to use the exception as the rule. This is his main argument: the exceptions warrant the change of an entire rule, and this logic can be used faultily in an infinite amount of blatantly false scenarios.

2) The argument that "we don't need metal detectors because there are ways to get weapons in my school without going through a metal detector" is an invalid argument.

Notice, this argument does not attack whether or not metal detectors would help schools, instead, it is a misdirection. The problem with this argument is that it fails on the logical scale. I'll list Con's argument into a logical syllogism to examine its validity.

1) (omitted by Con) No schools that you can go into without going through a metal detector are schools that need metal detectors.
2) Some schools are schools that you can go into without going through a metal detector.
3) No schools are schools that need metal detectors.

Not only is Con omitting his major premise because he does not want the voters to realize it's absurdity, he fails to construct a valid syllogism. This syllogism is categorized as an EIE-1 syllogism, which commits the fallacy of the illicit minor, making it invalid (1).

I ask the voters to vote Pro, as a result of the fact that Con has made no attempt to guarantee the validity of any of his arguments.

Debate Round No. 2


Where talking about school.
School is different from the court, police station or others. Lets say we need to invest for the safety of the students, but are we confident that the district would never run out of money? We have different scenario Mr. , We have police but we don't need metal detector because theres a lot of thing that should be improve in schools.
And besides we should fight for the bullies because thats the reason why student trigger to bring weapons in school. The school should advance there techniques to fight for bullying, not metal detector.
As far as I know my debate is valid for we have different view on this topic.


I'll rebutt Con's points.

1) School is different from courts.

Correct, but I am examining the logic you are using. Your statement is: "We shouldn't have a metal detector in our schools because people can get into the school without going through the metal detector." This logic can be used and applied in so many different senarios, thus rendering your argument invalid, or in other words, that your argument does not prove your conclusion.

2) We should fight against the bullies, as they are the reason why students bring weapons into school.

First off, what evidence allows you to make such a blanket statement? And either way, wouldn't screening students for weapons with a simple metal detector partially eliminate any such threat? You mention other weapons. I ask you to provide me a weapon that can wreak havoc in a school that cannot be detected by a metal detector.

3) My debate is valid.

No, that isn't how validity works. Validity is an objective subject, not "different views on the topic." What I'm saying is that your premises don't match up with your conclusion.
Debate Round No. 3


According to www.motherjones.Com
The victims of bullying are nearly twice as likely to carry guns and other weapons at school. An estimated 200,000 victims of bullying bring weapons to school over the course of a month, according to the authors' analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control's 2011 Youth Risk Surveillance System Survey. That's a substantial portion of the estimated 750,000 high school students who bring weapons to school every month.
The study, presented yesterday at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, found that 20 percent of participating students reported being victims of bullying, and that those teens were substantially more likely to carry weapons if they had experienced one or more "risk factors." These included feeling unsafe at school, having property stolen or damaged, having been in a fight in the past year, or having been threatened or injured by a weapon. Among bullying victims experiencing all four of those factors, 72 percent had brought a weapon to school in the past month and 63 percent had carried a gun. Those victims were, according to the study's authors, nearly 50 times more likely to carry a weapon in school as students who weren't bullied.
And base to Ken Trump, President of National School Safety and Security Services, School shootings and violence often occur outside of the school on school grounds. How will the metal detectors be deployed to provide prevent weapons offenses on those areas prior to students entering school? (Answer: Again, it is doubtful that any school district could accomplish this task even if it wanted to do so.)
My conclusion is clear, metal detector is not necessary because of the cost, there's a lot of non metal weapon (search:non metal weapon) and students can bypass the weapons. You also been a students so you know the scenario in the school. There is a metal detector but one door only and the other is door is nothing. There's no use and it's just wasting.

And if the students are not being bully then what's the reason that the students are bringing guns?
Just like policemen why are they bringing guns? (Answer:To protect their selves from any scenarios that out of control.)
But then your argument has no evidence, You as Pro should give the voters an evidence that metal detector is worth it.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.