Serial Bullies should be expelled and be sent to reform school

Again, if you don’t mind, I’ll rearrange your arguments in numerical order. Also, you previously conceded Statement 3.2 (Note: “Since my opponent has clearly brought up all of the requests which I have asked in this section, I will have no choice but to concede on 3.2”), but your rebuttal matches Part 2 of your objection to Statement 3.3, so I’ll refer to that as Statement 3.3.2. Let the final round begin, and thanks for a good debate! ===Preface=== Before I begin, remember that Pro has the burden of proof. In fact, in my opponent’s conclusion, he even admitted that Statement 2 is “Still in Debate”. Therefore, by default, he has not met his burden of proof. However, for the sake of the debate, I will address the remainder of his arguments. ===Response to Statement 2=== My opponent’s proposed method of using a psychologist to distinguish a bully from a victim is valid, but implausible for statistical data mining. As the original point of contention was on the accuracy of gathering data for statistical sources, using a psychologist to determine bullies from victims would involve interviewing and profiling every individual to be sampled. Assume now, for the sake of argument, that every bullying event is captured on camera. Even now, using cameras is not a viable data collection method because of the tremendous amount of footage that would need to be traversed in order to get a marginal sample size. Furthermore, on camera and out of context, many “joshing” gestures common with high school males can be misinterpreted as bullying (as in the football analogy.) Obviously, this is not a viable option for gathering data. My overall point here is not that data is impossible to gather, it is that the data gathered will be biased in one direction or another due to having to use teachers or students. ===Response to Statement 3.1=== To begin with, two of the three sources you mentioned (bbc.uk and hreoc.gov) do not mention the figure 158 billion dollars on the page to which I was directed. Furthermore, even with the source you cited, I believe the data to be faulty. Given that the total federal expenditure on all education in the United States is 153.1 billion dollars as of 2012 [2], bullies costing the US educational system 158 billion dollars annually is ridiculous and illogical, as it would yield a net gain of -4.9 billion dollars per year. Obviously, my opponent’s sources are either taken out of context or exaggerated. In response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, my opponent’s statement about people being free from violence is correct. However, my opponent’s solution that bullies should be denied a free education is incorrect, as it contradicts the UDHR in article 26: “Everyone has the right to education. Education should be free.” [1] The solution, therefore, would be to send the students to an alternative school (NOT a reform school – they are two different things, and my opponent has already conceded sending bullies to a reform school) where they could still receive and education while causing minimal collateral damage. However, this contradicts with my opponent’s assertion that ALL bullies should be denied a free education. Since the very source my opponent uses to support his argument also negates it, Pro has not met the burden of proof. ===Response to Statement 3.2=== My opponent has previously conceded his statement, in that his original assertion that all bullies should be sent to reform school was incorrect. I am assuming his “Rebuttal to Statement 3.2” is referring to Part 2 of my rebuttal to Statement 3.3 (effectively Statement 3.3.2), as his argument matches with that, and he made no indication he wished to withdraw his concession. ===Response to my Rebuttal to Statement 3.3 (Effectively Statement 3.3.2)=== My opponent seems to have misunderstood my analogy. My opponent had requested that I explain the original analogy of the football player vs. the senior. (I was not comparing the football player to the serial killer – that what I said the consequence of his line of reasoning would be.) Both the football player’s actions and the senior’s actions could fall under the category of Assault and Battery, a felony in the USA punishable by multiple years in prison. However, obviously, the football player’s actions are less condemnable than the senior’s actions. But if both were prosecuted “to the fullest extent of the law”, both could potentially face the same punishment. I then went on to state that if this was the ideal my opponent was pushing for, then one should try petty thievery on the same lines as serial killing. Obviously, this is a ridiculous concept, it was simply taken ad infinitum to show the implications of prosecuting all bullies “to the fullest extent of the law”, as almost all physical bullying will fall under the category of assault and battery. My original analogy was to demonstrate the need for a qualifying system to determine the severity of bullying, rather than simply prosecuting all bullies “to the fullest extent of the law” – a system prone to abuse. Therefore, since my opponent misunderstood my actual analogy, he has not made any viable counterarguments, so the analogy is viable, and my argument still stands. ===Conclusion=== As this has been a rather long and arduous debate, I will address each element of the resolution in turn. 2. Statement 2 is still under debate, even to the admission of my opponent. My goal in rebutting Statement 2 was not to prove that bullies are more often than not given punishment, but rather to show that my opponent cannot prove his statement from the original resolution. Though I have done so adequately, my opponent has already done the job for me by admitting that it is still under debate; therefore, he has not proven Statement 2. By definition, since he even admits he has not proven Statement 2, he has not proven an element of his case, and therefore has not met his burden of proof. 3.1. My opponent has used an element of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to support his argument; however, later in the declaration, the same document refutes his solution to the argument. My opponent has based his argument off of a document which both supports and negates it; thus, his argument is flawed. Because he has not proven Statement 3.1, he has not met his burden of proof. 3.2. My opponent actually conceded this point, indicating that his original assertion that all bullies should be sent to reform school was incorrect: “Since my opponent has clearly brought up all of the requests which I have asked in this section, I will have no choice but to concede on 3.2” Since, by his own admission, he has conceded Statement 3.2, he has not met his burden of proof. 3.3. My opponent still maintains the ridiculous assertion that bullies cause more damage every year, at 158 billion dollars, than the entire federal expenditure on education for 2012 – 153 billion dollars. Furthermore, his argument against my rebuttal to Statement 3.3 is based on a misunderstanding of the original analogy I put forward. Furthermore, since almost all physical bullying would be categorized under the blanket category Assault and Battery, my opponent suggests that all bullies be prosecuted to the fullest extent that Assault and Battery would allow, regardless of the severity of the crime. My opponent’s sources are questionable and his argument does not allow room for modification, therefore, my opponent has not proven Statement 3.3, and has not met his burden of proof. In conclusion, my opponent has admitted he has not proven Statement 2, downright conceded Statement 3.2, and not proven Statement 3.1 and 3.3. Therefore, he has not met his burden of proof. My opponent’s argument does not stand, and his proposed anti-bullying measures are draconian and unjust. I ask, therefore, that you render a decision in favor of Con. ===References=== [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...