Make your own free website on Tripod.com


Resolve:Establishing A Safe Educational Enviroment in Grades K-12 Justifies Infringement on Students Civil Liberties



Aff. Case


VALUE: Education Without education, how would our country survive? We need a safe educational environment in schools. In my arguement, I will show you why education is to be valued so greatly

Contention
one: Students are still in the learning phase

Students in school, while still American citizens, are still learning what to do and
how to do it. Now, this may seem like a very small and un-important part of daily life,
but it actually plays a major role in modern Society.

This phase of learning which the childeren of america are going through lasts 12 years.
After this, they are on their own. School is supposed to help them get on later in life,
so the schools should do everything i their power to help. If that means laying rules,
these rules are for the good of the COMMUNITY as a whole, not the individual student.

Now,of course, any infringement on a students civil liberties would have to be just.
It would be extremely un-fair to infringe on a students civil liberties because "it just
looked like the student whose liberties were being infringed upon was guilty". However,
an infringement of a students civil liberties, such as metal detectors after a bomb threat,
makes sense, depending on the scenario. It is not fair to say that in all cases it would
be resonable to infringe on a student's civil liberties. Of course, since in SOME cases
it would make sense to the community as a whole to infringe on a students civil liberties,
I now move on to my second contention



Contention two: Schools are responsible for the students within it
It is a commonly know fact that schools are responsible for the people within them. Now,
although it is the LAW that one must go to school, it is the combined choice of student
and parent to attend the school that the student is attending.
If a student fealt that if his/her rights were being infringed upon, then that student
could do home schooling or change schools. Therefore, since the school is responsible
for te students within its walls, it should have the right to do everything in its power
to prevent any mishaps that might occur, such as having metal detectors to prevent against
the bringing of weapons into the school.


Contention Three:younger student's learn from and copy their elders

Picture this: you are a thrird grader. You see school as a fun place to go, you admire the "big sixth graders" and hope to be like them someday. One day, a fifth or sixth grader brings a weapon to school. Now here comes a conflict of interests-to do what your parents say is right or do what the sixth grader does. To a third grader, the answer would probably be to copy the sixth grader, and even if the third grader does not, that memory is still there forming an uinconsious impact on that childs thinking.

School, as itself, is not designed for scenarios like this, and it is not that often that they happen, bnut they do happen. Little kids look up to older students. And in order to prevent little children to see weapons orother violent/or illegal objecs, steps have to be taken to keep these object out of the American School system.
I urge an affirmative ballot



Neg case



value:Liberty

Libert is defined by dictionary.com as: Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

The following definition is givin for greater understnading: Communism
"A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. "
dictionary.com



Contention 1:America is a Democracy, and should staty that way


Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. --Frederick Wilhelm Nietsche

America is considered to be one the oldest and proudest democracies in the world. In this, the government is supposed to be a guiding hand in the lives of the american people, not a monster to whom it's citizens fear. If infringement were allowed on any man or woman's civil liberties in any part of the United States, how much difference would there be between the American democracy and communism, other than there being multiple parties?
This may seem a little broad, but let me explain. Communism, a type of government the United States has been trying to contain since before the Cold War, is dealing with everyone sharing and helping, yet people don't get to chose what happens to them. Now how different is this from having searches in schools? Not very much. If the government is intent on "creating a "safe enviroment for the next generation", this generation, the one being affected by it now, could get used to it. It would be like a hole in a dam, a small amount comes through, then the hole gets wider, more comes through, and finally the water has compleatly peneatrated the dam.
Furthor more, as Benjamin Franklin once said "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." If we allow our right to free speach to be infringed opon, the door for communism to enter the United States would be un-barred. I now move on to my second contention.


Contention 2:We should stick to the Bill of Rights
As I'm sure you already know, in the year 1776, the United States of America fought it's war of independance again Britain. Why did the founders of our country fight this war? Too gain Independance from Briton, because the brittish were taking the colonists rights. Many colonists had come to America to have MORE rights, and when the brittish put taxes on tea, with out the colonists even having a say, the colonists revolted. When the colonists founded this country, they made a constitution and a bill of rights to ensure that their generation and future generations had the BASIC RIGHTS of humanity.


As James Madison once said, "We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

The fourth amendment to the bill of rights is stated as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, how does that state that kids sitting around school can be searched for no reason? IT DOESN'T
What right do any schools have to decide that the fourth amendment of the bill of rights is not needed? Furthormore, what could make a school, which is founded by the government, go against one of that governmant's most importantr documents?



Contention 3:Safety is NOT worth liberty


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy

This famous quote by John F. Kennedy reflects the minds of millions of modern day Americans. How many americans would be willing to say that safety is more important that liberty to them? Few, if Any would.
The schools of America should have no right to infringe on anyone body or any group of people's rights. This is like telling someone they have to stay cooped up inside their house and not go out side to make sure no one mugs anyone or gets mugged themselves. It's like taking away the right to sell food in case there is poison in it.
If any child wants to smuggle something illegal into a school, he, she or they will find a way to do it. Furthermore, infringing on a group of students civil liberties can and most probably will make them try to find a way past any device in which a school trys to enforce its policies that infringe on student's civil liberties.

i will now move on to attack my opponents case