avatar
12 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      This was an excellent debate and it's unfortunate that we can only have 1 winner..
      @thaddeus_tague congrats for advancing to the next round!
      @kahnwiley we need to see more of you on QallOut, I hope you make it for our next tournament - registration is now open

      • 2 years ago

        That ending tho @thaddeus_tague

      • 2 years ago

        That was a really really good debate. I will have to rewatch this later to figure out how to vote. You both are very solid.

        • 2 years ago

          LOVED the HAT!! @kahnwiley Thanks for a great debate

          Here are the sources I quoted.

          .” ( https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-buzz-blog/should-students-be-drug-tested-school)

          Randomized Drug Testing is a abject Failure. NCBI, 2005 (Susan P. Stuart, When the Cure is Worse than the Disease: Student Random Drug Testing & Its Empirical Failure, 44 Val. U. L. Rev. 1055 (2010). Available at: http://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol44/iss4/)

          Odgers CL, Caspi A, Nagin DS, et al. Is It Important to Prevent Early Exposure to Drugs and Alcohol Among Adolescents? Psychological science. 2008;19(10):1037-1044. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02196.x.

          TheScientificWorldJOURNAL (2010) 10, 356–365 TSW Child Health & Human Development ISSN 1537-744X; DOI 10.1100/tsw.2010.31

          Ellickson, P., & Bell, R. (1990). Drug Prevention in Junior High: A Multi-Site Longitudinal Test. Science, 247(4948), 1299-1305. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2873716

        • 2 years ago

          Ok first of all, you both have some of the coolest style I've seen on Qallout. @thaddeus_tague looks like he belongs in the next big budget Hollywood flick, and @kahnwiley is somehow making "Hipster Cowboy" the newest awesome trend. :D

          So I've watched this debate twice. It's a really great debate and I really want to vote for both of you. Both of you are very strong debaters and could have won a lot of rounds had you not hit each other so early. But, since I have to pick, here's my thought process for how I chose one of you. (Ftr I'm not a judge, this is just my opinion.) The second time I watched the debate, there was something that stood out to me a lot, that I hadn't noticed the first time through.

          The status quo already has compulsory, random drug testing in schools.

          When I first watched, I thought this was a debate between "Have compulsory drug testing in schools" vs. "don't have compulsory drug testing in schools" and most of Con's arguments are focused on that differentiation. But as I watch it again, it's actually a debate between "have mandatory drug testing for ALL students" vs. "have mandatory drug testing for RANDOM students.

          This is pretty important, because I feel like most of Con's arguments were against the idea of any drug tests in schools, but even by voting for him those drug tests will still exist.

          I think if Con wants to argue that the constitution and bill of rights are being undermined, he can't at the same time be defending the status quo. Unless Con is running a Minor Repair/Counterplan, in his system, Compulsory Drug Testing is going to exist anyway. Also, if random drug tests are already acceptable in the school system, there's more reason for me to believe Pro when he says the Supreme Court is ok with this and that it's not a constitutional problem. For that reason I think Pro is correct about the constitutional questions.

          Now, Pro's main contention is his moral standard, that schools have a responsibility to act like his friend did and get the students help on life threatening issues. I think both Pro and Con agree that this is a life threatening issue, so in that I agree with the Pro, but at the same time, I don't think this is supposed to be the role of government, so I agree with Con when he says that this is not how a friend should be acting.

          But once again, I have to come back to the fact that, even if it might not be the ideal role of government, government already is involved. So the question I as a voter have to ask is, would it be more effective to drug test random students, or to drug test all students?

          So let's weigh the pros and cons

          Pro:
          Nearly all drug use will be found out
          Many lives will be saved

          Con:
          Some kids will register with false positives
          Some kids wind up on a pipeline to prison once they get found out
          Some kids will turn to harder drugs
          This will be expensive

          You could look at those pro's and con's and go either way, but I think overall, if government is going to be involved, it's probably better for them to do this the right way, and logically I certainly agree with Pro that picking out random students just doesn't work, whereas the knowledge that at any time all of us "will" be drug tested, will almost certainly make a difference in deterring kids from doing drugs in schools, and catching the ones who are doing them.

          For that reason, I vote Pro. But again, fantastic round from both of you. I don't begrudge anyone who votes for Con, and I hope both of you will stick around and do future debates. You're each a pleasure to listen to.

          • 2 years ago

            @debateme13 I respect your decision calculus, but there is NOT random drug testing in the schools right now; this is simply untrue. On face, it's untrue, or this resolution wouldn't be worth discussing.
            Not only that but I'm still confused on whether the pro was DEFENDING or AGAINST random testing. . . You need randomized testing within a population in order for it to be effective; the study he quotes suggests randomized testing is ineffective, which he admits, but there is no alternative model for testing a large group such as all the students in a school. So I don't actually know what the testing procedure would be, if not random.
            There is a lot of confusion on this point. The 4th amendment requires probable cause for drug testing of students, just like for adults. That's the status quo I'm defending. The Supreme Court decision which we both discussed (but was mislabeled as Acton) restricts the abilities of schools to drug test without some form of suspicion, UNLESS students are involved in extracurricular activities. That's the order of magnitude I'm talking about vis a vis testing ALL public school students vs. a small subset. And hence why there are quantitative impacts to the 50,000 student false positive rate. (Once again, only numerical calculation in the round.)
            I tried to make this clear in the overview of the last few speeches, but my time allocation was poor. Considering I haven't debated for six years I'm not too upset about it.

          • 2 years ago

            @kahnwiley From the research I did, my understanding is that random drug tests is legal and practiced, especially in areas where students are competing in extracurriculars. Here is one example:

            http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/922442/deped-guidelines-random-drug-testing-in-schools

            I apologize for the confusion. My contention was simply this. Run a DA against the SQ, (randomized testing is an abject failure card). Followed by a case that fixed the mechanism by which the SQ was a failure. Also we never limited the scope of the round to just the US, some of my evidence was international too.
            Edit: By random I mean randomly selecting students for testing is a failure, rather than comprehensively testing students at a random date.

            But if you just google the question, you will see that many US school have implemented selective or random drug testing of a small population of students. Thanks again for the discussion!

          • 2 years ago

            @thaddeus_tague You are correct that random drug tests are legal, FOR extracurricular activities. And I agree with your interpretation of what "random testing" means. But this is not the same as implementing such a policy for students as a whole, nor is such an action currently legally permitted under Board v. Earls (2002). An important reason for this delineation, according to the Supreme Court, is that students can "opt-out" of testing by not participating in extracurricular activities. That's a world of difference from a system where any student, regardless of participation in the football team or not, is liable to testing.
            I think there's obviously a huge difference between the status quo and what the pro is advocating.
            (I always had the bad habit in high school of arguing with judges. Forgive me.)

          • 2 years ago

            @thaddeus_tague That link you posted is for the Philippines.