All schools should adopt the "Stop, Start, Continue" system

You state that teenagers are inherently rebellios, but you have no sources to back this up!1. So you're telling me you haven't ever once not done what your parents or teachers or guardian's have told you to? If your answer is no, that you have at one point disobeyed your parents or teachers or guardians, you would have been rebelling. And since at one point in time most, if not all, teenagers would have rebelled against their parents or teachers or guardians, we can reasonably deduce that teenagers have a tendency to be rebellious. Sound logic is a warrant in itself. 2. Just because something doesn't have a website saying why statement x is true, doesn't automatically make statement x false. If this were true, then your argument that I don't have any cited sources to prove my point would be wrong because you don't have any cited sources explaining why that's necessary! Not every line of argumentation needs cited evidence.3. But if you really must have cited evidence, my claim that teenagers are rebellious is still backed up by numerous articles.[1][2][3]You haven't really suggested why punishment for writing vulgar comments on the forms is neccesary or constructive.This is my argument exactly. Since some, if not most, teenagers would do this, it's the exact opposite of constructive. Thusly, these forms are only giving teenagers opportunities to mess around when they need to be learning.Also, schools would need to track down those who did write rude and vulgar comments to enforce the rules of society. Since the purpose of the forms is to instruct teachers of what they can do better and what they ought not do, writing something sexual or vulgar is clearly contrary to the purpose, thus violating the rules. If the school did not make an effort to track down those who did it, it would give normal students who maybe weren't rebelling origionally then idea that they can get away with this kind of behavior, and would only cause more rebellion. So simply 'ignoring it' is an insufficient response.Since this argument was insufficiently responded to, you can extend this argument as one of the first reasons to vote con, as it provides a major down side to the implementation of this policy. The comments don't have to be appliedIf the comments are not being applied, what is the point of this policy in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to then just tell the teacher "Hey, you really should try this instead of this" instead of having to fill out forms of papers that do the same thing in a more complicated manner?But secondly, this isn't even responsive to the point that this argument represented. Since students aren't teachers, they thusly don't have the teachers perspective when it comes to how to teach materials. Thus, suggestions from students would be invalid or only contradicting to the purpose as a bad idea. Since this point was insufficiently rebuted, you can extend this cleanly across the flow as the second reason to vote con, as it shows a second downside to this policy. set aside some time to reviseI have some major problems with this section. For the first part, the cited article she gives isn't saying what she's trying to make it say. The article is about things students can do to earn higher grades, not why teachers changing the curriculum increases student grades. So thus, the source is invalid for the purpose of her argument.Also, most curriculums, if not all, have no room for deviation. Teachers generally have a certain number of assignments and tests that they must issue, and a certain number of lessons they must give in a time period. This doesn't give them any time to spend a day or two reviewing materials that students didn't get: they would have to learn it outside of class or come in for private tutoring. Again, this argument was insufficiently responded to, so you can extend this argument as the third reason to vote con. Again, you haven't given any sourcesAgain, you don't need a source for every line of argumentation. Logic that is sound works as a warrant as well. I'd really like to know where you're getting all this informationSimple intuitive reason. You don't see students standing in front of a room of teachers giving a lecture on how students ought to be taught lessons. Their job is to learn and to achieve a passing grade, not to tell the teacher how to do their job. Also, I'd like to point out that the link you gave lead to a 404 error. So I can't receive certification from your 'source' that you're actually saying what you're claiming to. don't you think...Belief is different from reason. Just because I believe x does not automatically make x true. Refer to Q4Refer to my arguments against Q4. The other two are positive Stop is negative because you're telling the teacher what they're doing wrong. Start is negative because you're pointing out to the teacher that they need to be doing this to be a good teacher. Thusly, start is also negative. The only positive thing is continue, but this positive is outweighed by the two negatives.So this debate breaks down in a few ways:1. My opponent is failing to meet their BOP as to proving definitively why this policy is a benefit. Since I'm showing multiple downsides to this, this is the first and main reason why to vote con.2. I'm the only one with arguments that survived the round. So I'm going to be the only person extending out offense for their side. So you can vote con here off of a risk of offense. I'd like to thank my opponent for a fun debate : DSources: [1] http://www.troubledwith.com... [2] http://www.teenhelp.com...[3]http://www.lifescript.com...