Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I see no reasoning for this.

Here, what I have so far for a mock debate on a Gaia Subforum:

Proposition:
Resolved: That schools be allowed to remove student(s) from class based on behavioral observances and work produced by said student(s).

Definition of Terms:
1. Schools: Any institution of learning, public or private, which employs teachers or professors and includes a student body

2. Remove: To suspend indefinitely from either campus or normal classes and school functions

3. Student: Any person enrolled in and regularly attending any school (as defined in definition 1) for the purpose of learning

4. Behavioral Observances: Any action on the part of a student that warrants concern in fellow students or staff and provides reason to subject said student to a psychological exam

5. Work: Any assignment collected or graded, written or verbal, to be completed by a student. This is inclusive of personal writings, notes, etc. confiscated or otherwise acquired by school staff or administration

Observation: Since the Resolution does not specifically infer or declare the type of specific nature of the work in question, the negative side automatically proposes that the infractions in question are logical and show that the students might exhibit the behavioral problems are defined.

Otherwise the affirmative and attempt a ground-splice and attempt to infer that the resolution may be referring to work that may be positive in a sense, because “remove” was defined as suspending indefinitely from campus OR classes. A creative affirmative may say that removal can be positive, meaning that a superior student who’s behavior and work is at a level above those of his/her peers may be taken from lower classes and added to a more advanced course—which pertains to this resolution.

However it is clear from the definition of behavioral observances that the framer’s intent was not in any sense positive thus we call any arguments in that sense as moot.

Overview: The resolution queries whether or not schools should be given the right to remove students due to an infraction.

The resolution also provides the only two infractions that lead to removal –

A) Behavioral observances
B) Work

However these two given sets of violations are subjective.

As Professor Richard McCormick of Rutgers College States, "There is no warning on this wave of new suicidal children and mass shooting murderers. The actual signs that so-called specialists diagnose are far too undeterminable; it is like saying that any art that involves death and violence can be perceived as a possible lead into shootings. Nor is there anyway to decipher whether or not the said student in question is a danger to either him/herself or those around him/her."

The fact is that teachers or those who are to evaluate students cannot correctly or fairly assess the students in question.

There is a logical impossibility to have an ultimate and fair arbiter who will declare those who have violated an unset rule of behavioral demands or crossed the line for the set boundaries of valid “work”.

Beyond this the status quo is vague and impossible to understand; what is the exactly bright-line that we are arguing?

For the affirmative to win the round, they must clearly explain and identify the specific definition and form of work and behavior that is regarded as “impunity”.

Thus we draw two burdens that the affirmative must fulfill:

I. A clear and logical explanation that identifies the category that “behavioral violations” and “work” would have to fall under for said students to be removed. There cannot be a clear ruling, clear argument, or clear decision on the round without an indefinite set of given standards. Without giving boundaries about the specific behavioral violations and offending work that apply to the resolution, you cannot affirm because they have proven nothing, which would mean you negate automatically due to the fact that you will not vote positive for a position that is not clearly explained.

Reasoning for this burden is that an undefined category of behavioral observances and work can result in illogical situations, such as where “behavioral observances” no longer is just, but is any sign of slight emotional distress, and students may be removed just because their work included the word ‘death’.
II.