- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Your argument against me makes no sense. I am not lowering my standards, they have been lowered for failing students, without me or you in mind. Students have had opportunities to “bump” their grades for six WHOLE weeks. Those who have wanted to raise their failing grades to passing grades have most certainly done so, those who were content with failure have not. My argument is that willing failures should not be given a second chance to recover six weeks in eight hours and if they are, then successes should be allowed to replace a 36 week course in forty-eight hours. Sure, it sounds absurd to take and complete an AP course in 48 hours but that option should be available for required courses such as health and speech.
I honestly don't know where you get the idea that I was lowering my standards aside from the fact that you clearly misinterpreted my post.
Maybe I'll stop being narrow-minded when you get on my level.
Students who have failed a course should not be allowed to remediate a whole six weeks worth of work in eight, one-hour sessions. Why should students who have failed to commit to the class be given such an easy second chance? It undermines the whole purpose of the educational system. If on-level failing students are allowed to take one test to replace a six-weeks average, then advanced passing students should also be allowed to take one test to replace a displeasing average. Why should leniency be granted for failures and rewards not granted for success? Furthermore, many teachers advertise the fact they are available for tutoring and assistance to students who are struggling. Teachers make the effort to help students;they want to see them pass. If the student feels the same way, then they will put in extra work and set up sessions with the teacher or study on their own (those with compelling circumstances can speak to the teacher who will most probably understand, and if not, well, that is a different issue.) However, the majority of students lack the drive or simply shirk their responsibilities. There is a dearth of academic seriousness and it is deplorably sad. So, no failing students should not have the chance to recover their grade. It is offensive to students who have put in the time and work, to the teachers who have attempted to help them, and to the educational institution.
In this circumstance, yes, the people who watched, and therefore indirectly abetted the gang-rape, should be punished. The article cites that "[as] many as 10 were involved in the assault" and "as many as 20 [were] present at [the] gang rape" meaning that 10 witnesses did nothing to help the 15-year-old girl. If anything, shame and horror should at least drive the hapless witnesses to stop the rape at once.
Before making any hasty decisions, one has to consider the severity of the situation. Obviously a minor slap-on-the-wrist crime shouldn't constitute the punishment of walking off the NHS plank and similarly, worse offences certainly require the need for harsher punishments. However, the conduct of the NHS member should come into play before finalizing any choice;therefore, a holistic approach needs to be taken. Has the student actively participated in NHS? Have they contributed significantly to the society? Prior to the incident, have they had a relatively clean slate? And if so, should leniency be granted? (& If not, tough luck?) The question is very ambiguous and I for one, cannot immediately take a stance without complete knowledge of the situation.