Bullying initiatives are a waste of money in schools

If I am understanding your conditions, then they are what I was stating in my point: that you must prove that putting money into anti-bullying measures is a waste, and I have to put your testimony into doubt. I had a truly clear, well-worded, and impeccably-crafted answer to your arguments, and then my browser shut down and the "auto-save" saved it from long before the actual work, so this will be much more brusque. The first point is actually negated by his own evidence. In his article from The Guardian, the Aff attempts to cite the article as saying how bullying tendencies are increasing. That is not explicitly evident from the statement. The article details how there is a marked rise in reporting of bullying incidents by CHILDREN. The working definition of bullying that is being developed by school counselors across the country is that bullying involves making someone, or causing them to feel, powerless. With the rise of reportings by students, we can see that students are feeling more empowered compared to years past, which is a positive effect of the very initiatives which the Aff is resolving to shutter. As the article states, "So what else does the release by CHI show? Well, the number of contacts received in 2012 was more than double those received in 2006, but as CHI note, the rise in contacts could also be associated with growing awareness of bullying amongst children. " Yes, the evidence from the Aff actually states that the anti-bullying initiatives may likely be attributed to the beneficial effects of the standpoint of the Negative. On the second point, the dragon of the Aff is toothless. By this parallel, I mean that the Aff does nothing to prove that the problem with the status quo even exists, nor that this "problem" even has the supposed effects. In summary, the Aff's first point's evidence actually contradicts his attempted case, and the second case has no proof backing it up, it is just filler. I propose that we listen Elizabeth Englander, the person whose quote was taken out of context by the Aff, and refrain from using the term bullying so much. In fact, as in Larry Magid's article "Let's Not Create a Cyberbullying Panic", he recommends that we, as a society, portray statistics in an optimistic fashion, portraying fads like cyberbullying as negative attributes. He also cites in his article how between 2003 and 2008, the bullying rate had decreased and that preliminary studies for 2010 were displaying another decrease. These statistics dovetail with the statistics from The Guardian by showing that while actual bullying rates decreased, reporting of bullying by the bullied increased. Thus, continuing with the current programs, we will continue amplifying the number of students who feel empowered to resist bullying, and by also cutting the fascination with "If it bleeds, it reads" by the media, we will finally break this tempestuous torrent of encouraging bullies by making the practice of bullying seem popular, and retain the beneficial effects of the programs that are evident from the Aff's evidence. In total, the Aff's first point is contradicted by his evidence, and so is not credible. His second point had no evidence, and is also not credible. I have shown through a correlation between Larry Magid's evidence and that of The Guardian that the anti-bullying programs were having a beneficial effect, thus invalidating the affirmative further.