This House would hold students legally responsible for bullying if it resulted in the

victim's death
Bullying can be any form of behavior, physical or verbal, intended to berate, humiliate, scare, or
harass another person. The behavior is usually repetitive, and can extend over a long period of time.
Bullies are frequently in a position of power over their victims, either physical or social. Bullying has
always existed in schools and in a myriad of other environments from the home to the workplace. In
the past, it was viewed as a harmless right of passage children had to go through to toughen up. But
in recent years, a better understanding of the traumatic effects it can have on its victims, has
increasingly highlighted how damaging a phenomenon bullying is.
The law should always punish actions that inflict serious harm - whether physical or
psychological
Point
Bullying can inflict serious psychological harm
on its victims, especially in the case of young
people. It leads to low self-esteem, depression,
and for some kids it leads to suicide[1]. Bullied
children are almost 6 times more likely to think
about or attempt suicide[2]. This phenomenon
has been termed bullycide and the law should
recognize it. Many forms of behaviour that
result in the death of another person are
criminal, from murder to negligence. It is the
duty of the law to brand such behaviour as
unacceptable, deter future incidents, punish
the perpetrators, and offer comfort to victims: in
this case, the families of those who lost their
life to bullying.
[1] O'Moore, Mona, Understanding School
Bullying: A Guide for Parents & Teachers,
Veritas, 1, Dublin, 2010

[2] Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh YJ, Boyce WT

Bullying Increased Suicide Risk: Prospective
Study of Korean Adolescents. Arch Suicide
Res. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp15-30. 2009.
Counterpoint
The law should only punish people for their
own actions, not those of others. Its fine to
punish bullies for their bullying behaviour, if it is
against the law. But bullycide implies the bully
bears individual responsibility for the death of
the victim, just like in the case of murder or
manslaughter. But the bully did not pull the
trigger, the victim did. While the bully may have
intended to harm or berate the victim, she
made no attempt on the victims life, and
cannot be treated like a murderer, who
intentionally took the life of another.

The bully's intentions are irrelevant

Point
In criminal law, the establishment of culpability
does not always depend on the intentions of
the perpetrator. If, during a fight on a train
platform, I shove someone and that person
falls on the tracks and is killed by a train, I will
be guilty of manslaughter, whether I intended
to kill the person or not, because the harm
caused by my actions is so great[1]. The same
applies to bullying. Bullies try to hurt their
victims through their actions, either physically
or psychologically. Whether the bully intended
for the victim to die or not, is irrelevant. The
bullys actions were responsible for the victim
taking her own life.

[1] Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal

Law, Chapter 7.5. Oxford University Press.
2009.
Counterpoint
There is a fundamental difference between
someones actions directly resulting in another
persons death and the case of bullying. In the
case of manslaughter, the victim never had a
choice. The perpetrator is solely responsible for
what happened. But some victims of bullying
take a decision to kill themselves, while others
do not. The bully cannot be held responsible
for someone elses decision and action, only
for her own.

The current legal regime is not able to prevent or adequately punish bullying
Point
Even when bullies are sometimes prosecuted,
they are charged with offences that constitute
individual components of the bullying

behaviour, like harassment, stalking, causing

bodily harm[1], or invasion of privacy[2]. But
these offences were not designed with bullying
in mind and fail to capture its overall impact

and the harm it causes. While bullies may be

charged with several of these offenses this will
still not capture the kind of harm being done
and would not be as effective as a specifically
tailored offense. We need laws that recognize
that harm and which punish those who inflict it
adequately.
[1] Eckholm, Erick. Two Students Plead Guilty
in Bullying of Teenager. The New York Times.
May 4, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/05bully.
html
[2] Foderaro, Lisa W. Private Moment Made
Public. Then a fatal Jump. The New York

Times. September 29. 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/3
0suicide.html
Counterpoint
The laws are inadequate because it is very
hard to define bullying. Almost any act or
gesture can constitute bullying depending the
victims subjective experience of it.
Criminalizing bullying would lead to
criminalizing behaviour that would be
considered normal by most standards.

Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions
Point
In any free and democratic society, criminal law
should only hold people accountable for the
things they do, not for the actions of others. We
are all autonomous, moral agents who make
decisions and have to live with their
consequences and the consequences of our
actions. While it might be justified to punish
bullies for their bullying behavior, if it breaks
the law, we cannot hold them accountable for
another persons decision to commit suicide.
Counterpoint

Under this law, bullies would be held

accountable for their own actions, not those of
the victim. The law wouldnt have to equate
them with murderers, punish them as harshly,
or suggest they bear sole and full responsibility
for the victims death. But it would make it clear
they bear some responsibility for the outcome,
and that they should be punished for their role.
If they are children, they can be prosecuted as
juvenile offenders and given less harsh
punishments, like community service.

Conduct offence
Point
Defining bullying would be nearly impossible.
Spreading rumours, giving someone the silent
treatment, inviting all your classmates but one
to a party, expressing a religious belief about
someones sexuality, eye rolling, making faces,
these can all be hurtful and perceived as
bullying[1]. Yet this is perfectly legal behaviour.
Criminalizing bullying would amount to
criminalizing these acts. They may be
offensive, they may even be hurtful, but these
gestures should never, ever constitute criminal
behaviour in any society that is concerned with
human rights, freedom of speech, and of
expression. Throwing someone in prison for
spreading rumours or eye rolls might be worthy
of a totalitarian state, but not a liberal
democracy.
[1] Bolton, Jos, and Stan Graeve. No Room
for Bullies: from the Classroom to Cyberspace.
Boys Town Press. 2005.

Counterpoint
We criminalize behaviour when it is truly
harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it
leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling
and gossip are not harmful enough to be
criminal offences. Nor would they be under this
law. What would become a criminal offence
would be the sustained and prolonged torment
of another person to the point of pushing her to
committing suicide, whatever forms that
torment takes, whether its gay slurs, or
physical threats and insults. It has also long
been established that there are limits to the
freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if
that can result in the direct harm of others. For
example, we dont allow people to incite
violence against others.

It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide
Point
Many of the children and adolescents who take
their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying

have a far more complicated background.

Some already struggle with depression, and
have unstable family situations that make it

hard to turn to their parents for help with their

problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was
taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her
parents divorce, was self harming, and had
already attempted suicide after a break up. And
that was long before she was allegedly bullied
to death[1]. She was a very troubled young
woman, and anything could have pushed her
over the edge. It would be hard to find the
bullies criminally responsible for her death.
[1] Bazelon, Emily. What Really Happened to
Phoebe Prince? Entry 2. Slate. July 20. 2010.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/
2010/what_really_happe...
Counterpoint
Of course there will always be ambiguous
cases. That is why we have trials, and rights for
the defendant. The weight of the evidence
presented in court should establish what
degree of culpability, if any, the bullies had. If
the prosecution does not have a solid case to
present, it may even choose not to prosecute.
But the law should be in place for those cases
where it is needed.

Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivize robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by
schools
Point
Schools are educational establishments that
parents trust to protect and educate their
children. Teachers and school administrators
are those who should be keeping a watchful
eye on the students in their care and intervene
before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs
at school, then that school has failed in its
duties. In fact, in cases where suicides
occurred, it has often later come to light that a
bullying culture was widely tolerated at the
school, and that school staff that knew about it
did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results[1].
To prosecute the bullies would shift
responsibility from the woeful failure of the
adults around them, who should have known
better and done more than the children in their
care.

[1] Bazelon, Emily. What Really Happened to

Phoebe Prince? Entry 1. Slate. July 20. 2010.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/
2010/what_really_happe...
Counterpoint
Prosecutions of bullies responsible for
suicides, and improved safety in schools are
not mutually exclusive goals. Programmes
need to be set up that stop bullying early on,
give victims support, and people to turn to
when they are in need. Schools and their
administrators can and should also be held
accountable to their boards, and the
community. But in those cases where tragedies
still happen in spite of such measures, the
culprits should be held to account.

This House believes that parents should be held responsible for their school-going children's
discipline problems.
This is an idea that has been floated by some education reform advocates (mainly conservatives) who believe
that the problem of childhood discipline in the classroom cannot be remedied unless parents themselves are
acting at home to engender good disciplinary habits in their children. The idea was briefly enacted in both
Florida and Michigan. In Florida small fines were imposed on parents and in Michigan coveted parking permits
were suspended when children misbehaved. Both programs were promptly discontinued due to parental
outcry. In the United Kingdom there have been cases of parents being jailed for failing to stop their children
being truant from school.[1]
The assumption behind this brief is that by and large the children being discussed are those with chronic
discipline problems.
Points For
Parental Incentives
Collaborative Approach
Children Held Accountable
Parental Responsibility

Points Against
Individual Responsibility
Unjust
Danger for Abuse

Authority Aversion

Homework is a waste of time. (Junior)

We all hate homework, but is it really important that we do it? Is doing homework good for us or is it
simply a waste of time? This debate sets out the arguments on both sides.
Homework is an assignment that students are given to do at home. It might be a continuation of class
work or a new piece of work. It may also be preparation for the next class. The amount of homework
school students get varies a lot not only from country to country, or from school to school, but often
from day to day. For most the amount of time spent on homework gets longer as we go through our
school lives. At the start of primary school we get almost no homework but it is often several hours a
day by the time we finish secondary school.
The most important thing in this debate is not so much how much time is spent on homework but
whether that time is wasted. If it is time well spent then having a lot of homework to do may not be a
bad thing. The debate should therefore consider what else school children would do with that time.
Another angle would be to look at whether school could replace homework with something that
makes better use of time. For example in Britain the education secretary (the member of the
government who controls education across the whole country) wants schools to scrap homework and
instead have longer days in school.
POINTS FOR
When out of school we should have time to ourselves
Point
Time is valuable. We all need some time to ourselves. School already takes up a lot of time and it is
necessary to have time which does not involve concentrating on learning. Education is not the only
important activity in everyones day; physical activity, play, and time with family are just as important
as all teach life skills just in different ways. The internet makes it possible to be learning at home,
there are even many computer games that help with learning. Homework clashes with these other
activities. It can damage family relationships as it means parents have to try and make their children
do their homework.
Counterpoint
We should expect to get a certain amount of homework per day and build other activities around the
homework. Homework can be a useful part of time with family as it provides a chance for parents and
other relatives to take part in schooling.
Homework takes up class time
Point
Homework does not only take up time doing the homework at home but also takes up time in class.
First there is the time that the teacher takes when explaining the task. Then more time is taken going
through the homework when it is done and marked. This time could be better spent engaging with the
class to find out what they do and dont understand. The answer to this is to have more time in class
rather than boring homework.
Counterpoint

When homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does
not harm the class work. Homework aids class work by providing a space for those who have not
finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class.
Homework wastes teachers time
Point
We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher
needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they
got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told
individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use
the class work to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would
save them time.
Counterpoint
Teachers will need to mark and go through work whether it is class work or homework. It is better that
the teacher should spend their time in class teaching so leaving practicing the methods taught to
homework.
Homework puts students off learning
Point
Especially if we get too much homework it can take the enjoyment out of learning. No matter how
engaging the teacher is in class homework will almost certainly be stressful, boring and tiring. It is
simply much harder to make homework engaging and interesting as it is often done on our own. We
know that there is no direct link between how much homework is set and grades. Studies done on
this come to different conclusions so teachers should only set homework when they are sure it is
needed. When we only get homework occasionally we will consider that piece more important and a
better use of time.
Counterpoint
Whether homework puts us off learning will always depend on what the homework we are given is.
Tasks that involve no interaction, or are not engaging will discourage learning. But homework could
also mean reading an interesting book, having to find something out, create something, or doing a
task with family. Homework can be as varied as class work and just as interesting.
POINTS AGAINST
Homework teaches us to learn on our own
Point
The main aim of education is to prepare us for the rest of lives. Homework is teaching us a key skill
that we will need in the future. When we do homework we are learning to work on our own, the
discipline to get the work done without the teachers prompting, and when we come up against
difficulties we learn how to overcome them without our teachers help. Millions of people work for
themselves (self-employed), or work from home, they are using exactly the same skills doing
homework teaches us. This is not a waste of time.
Counterpoint
Most homework is simply fulfilling a task that has already been explained so not truly teaching you to
work on your own. Working on your own means setting your own targets, and working out how to
overcome obstacles.
Doing our homework means we are taking responsibility for ourselves
Point

We are the ones who gain from learning so we should take responsibility for some of our own
learning. We can take responsibility by doing homework. When we dont do our homework we are the
ones who suffer; we dont get good marks and dont learn as much. We also lose out in other ways as
taking responsibility means learning how to manage our time and how to do the things that are most
important first rather than the things we most enjoy like playing. Homework then does not waste time;
it is part of managing it.
Counterpoint
The same kind of responsibility is given to us no matter the kind of work. When given class work we
are responsible for completing it rather than playing around. The only difference at home is that it is
our parents telling us to work not our teachers.
Homework is needed to finish class work.
Point
We should think of homework as being a continuation of our class work. Not everyone in the class
works at the same rate so it is necessary for teachers to give anyone who is falling behind the chance
to catch up. If this was done in class those who are faster would have nothing to do during this time,
which would be a real waste of time. Homework then allows those who are behind to take as long as
they need to catch up with the rest of the class.
Counterpoint
Teachers should not set class work expecting that the class will have to finish that class work as
homework. Students who are falling behind should receive more attention from the teacher during
class to make sure that all the members of the class can move at the same speed.
Homework makes sure we remember what we have learnt
Point
One way we learn is by repetition, another is by doing things, when doing homework we learn in both
of these ways. When we are taught a method at school, such as how to do a type of sum, then we
need to practice using that method to make sure we know how to so that we can remember it. If we
just learn the method and dont practice it we will soon forget how we do it.
Counterpoint
We dont spend all of class time learning new methods so there should be time in class to practice
any new method that is taught. Once some repetition has been done in class how much more do we
really need at home? If we have not successfully learnt the method in the class then we will be simply
repeating the mistake.