By Cozette Calderon
Benicia High’s debate team has started their season off with great victories at their first two tournaments, and now the team is presenting their talents to their school with their annual debate week. This week’s theme is related to controversial school topics. I’m here to go day by day in case you missed these debates, giving you an overview of what happened.
REMINDERS:
There may be an overlap of arguments because I write about one contention all the way through till the end of the debate, and some rebuttals are the same as previous ones.
AFF: The ‘affirmative’ team, which supports the resolution
NEG: The ‘negation’ team which opposes the resolution
MONDAY 11/27/23
Resolution (AKA the topic): Closing the school’s bathrooms is an effective way to stop vaping.
As some may know, vaping is a hot “trend” that is sadly affecting the teen population. With this in mind, Benicia High has been seeing an uptick in vaping in bathrooms. In recent months, high schools have started to lock certain campus bathrooms to try and curb teens vaping.
The arguments
“Closing the bathrooms” was defined as 2 out of 5 campus bathrooms. (This was decided by the Affirmative and agreed upon by the Negation.)
THE AFF
Contention 1: Health
The AFF’s main argument revolved around health and the effects of vaping. The Affirmative discussed nicotine’s effect on teenagers, and how it has the potential to ruin their memory, lungs, and anxiety. The Affirmative discussed how vaping causes long term health problems, and how this is severely damaging to teen’s health, which is why it’s important to be stopped. The Affirmative moved on to discuss how closing the bathrooms takes away access to the main hotspot for teens to vape. By doing this, BHS would reduce the probability of vaping on school grounds. The debaters also mentioned the success at a fellow highschool, where they had “almost eliminated vaping on campus” entirely,
The rebuttal:
Negation turned the debate to mostly discuss freewill and alternatives to closing the bathroom. The Negation suggested that vape detectors would be just as useful in limiting vaping, which the AFF responded to by mentioning how expensive and time consuming implementing such things would be, while also stating that closing the bathroom is a more effective way of stopping vaping on campus— as shown with previous schools.
The Negation discussed how the long term solution of teaching the dangers of vaping is better than the short term effects of closing the bathrooms. The Negation also mentioned how the bathrooms would be overcrowded, and how some kids may be forced to switch classes to be closer to open bathrooms.
THE NEG
Contention 1: Addiction overcomes restriction.
This argument was arguing that regardless of the amount of restrictions, vaping is extremely addictive, and that addiction needs to be satisfied. Closing the bathrooms takes away bathroom access, but doesn’t take away the crux of the issue: addiction. The team argued that because closing the bathrooms has such a low probability of truly limiting the issue of vaping, we should leave the bathrooms open for a few reasons, such as freewill and how it’s barbaric to try and regulate bathroom usage. Closing the bathrooms would only move the vaping to other open bathrooms or other locations.
Contention 3: “Vape attackers.”
Vape attackers seem to have merely been a catchy tagline because it was never fully explained what a “vape attacker” is. From what I gather from watching the debate and writing notes is that the Negation suggested using new technology to catch vapes. The team also suggested educating students on the effects of vapes.
The rebuttal given by the AFF included rebuttal to the first and second contention: Putting vape detectors would result in the same issue of just moving the location of vapers, plus these detectors are expensive and would take a long time to implement. Closing the bathrooms would have the potential to move vapers, but it has proven at other high schools that vaping is significantly decreased. Having good and accurate “vape attackers”, or what the AFF took as vape detectors, are difficult things to implement and fully trust.
There was no rebuttal to the fact it would be expensive besides that by adding education it would eventually help limit vaping. The AFF replied that they could permutate that plan (they could close the bathrooms and provide education. Simply meaning that argument goes towards the AFF’s case). The Negation turned to discuss LGBTQ+ rights, and how closing the bathroom would mean closing the gender neutral restroom. The team argued the bathroom would certainly close because that’s the biggest hotspot for vaping.
It’s important to mention that the AFF (who in debate rules have the first right to provide definitions), did not define the bathrooms they would be closing as the gender neutral restrooms. Since this was brought up in the second to last speech, the AFF has the right to respond to it in their last speech.
The response was simple but logical: (paraphrasing) “We never said that it would be that bathroom, and it clearly wouldn’t be since we only have 1 on campus and there would be no options for those only wanting to use a gender neutral bathroom.”
Contention 2: More atrocious things have happened in the bathroom
Though this was briefly mentioned, we as the audience certainly understood the memo. The team argued that schools ignore the needs of student’s restroom privileges, and that’s damaging to students.
The rebuttal: There would still be 3 open bathrooms, which is a lot, allowing the students to use the restroom while limiting the hotspots for vaping. The AFF also mentioned that vapers already block bathrooms and are taking away “bathroom privileges.” The team argued kids are deterred from using the restroom when seeing or smelling vapers, causing kids to move to another bathroom anyways.
Ending speeches
The NEG’s main point was that people should be able to use the bathroom freely—that it is a natural bodily function, and that we shouldn’t punish a majority for a minority of students vaping.
The AFF’s main points were that their team gave a proven solution to cut vaping. The team said that we can’t trust students in the bathroom, using NEG’s own words, “worst atrocious things have happened in the bathroom,” which is why we need a proven solution to limit vaping now. They won on the time frame: closing the bathroom provides an immediate solution, while they could still implement education to reap the long term benefits.
Good job to both teams, and congratulations to the NEG for winning by student’s votes.
TUESDAY 11/28/23
Resolution: P.E should not be mandatory
The arguments
The AFF
‘Mandatory’ was defended as the 2 years required for P.E.
Contention 1: P.E is a barrier for extra curricular activities and academic classes.
At BHS, in order to take certain classes (band was used as an example) one must enroll in an early bird class to graduate on time and engage in elective classes. Early bird classes require students to get up extremely early to get to school early. This can lead to mental health issues from lacking the recommended 8-10 hours of nightly sleep.
NEG responded by stating kids should just go to sleep earlier. NEG mentioned how 9th and 10th grade are considered to be the less stressful highschool years. This is why it’s a good time for P.E classes. One would reap the benefits of P.E, hopefully keeping such motivation as one moves on to the stressful years of high school.
Contention 2: Ineffective for health—specifically mentally.
The AFF built their argument around the fact that P.E class has been a hot spot for bullying, and a social hierarchy often forms in P.E classes. This hierarchy is formed because P.E is based on physical ability. Some kids are born with certain abilities while others are not. This leads to exclusion and a greater social status for those who have a greater ability to participate in the class. A hierarchy naturally means kids will be placed at the bottom. This can lead to isolation and poor mental health.
The Neg stated how bullying will exist anyways, with or without PE, so we might as well keep PE and reap the health benefits of the class. (The idea of PE being beneficial to health was rebutted by a study finding that PE reduced BMI very minimally—view AFF’s response to NEG’s contention.) NEG stated how PE is for self improvement and not a social hierarchy. The AFF simply stated in response how the social hierarchy naturally forms, so the class and the hierarchy and the negative effects such a thing comes as one.
THE NEG
Contention 1:
P.E provides exercise and subsequent benefits. The reason we need to keep P.E mandatory is because kids don’t always have time at home to exercise, but P.E gives them the place to workout while encouraging the long-term habit of exercising.
The Affirmative went on to rebut this idea in their second speech with evidence of how P.E does very little to affect BMI, according to studies. They also referred back to their original contention about how P.E takes time away from students who see more value in their education or extra curricular activities. This is a case where the audience must weigh the two options: Promoting long-term health is important, but so is helping long-term academic success because it leads to promising careers and futures. To try and gain more support within the weighing mechanism, the AFF brought up how the social hierarchy that P.E creates reduces health benefits by damaging mental health. If your body is fit but your mental health is in crisis, are there really any long-term benefits to P.E? This is vital to consider in such a debate, especially because the association of bad mental health may be tied to exercise in someone’s mind who experiences cases of bullying during P.E.
Contention 2: P.E is relaxing. The team discussed P.E class is graded by effort, a chance to be with friends, and how PE is focused on self improvement. It’s an easy class.
This argument was rebutted with the opinion that it’s a wasted period if it’s “easy.” What is the class truly doing, especially since it doesn’t prove many health benefits. The other argument was about how it conflicts with academics. “Running a mile after taking an hour-long test would be stressful,” said one of the debaters. The AFF also remained adamant about the nature of bullying in P.E., and how that produces a stressful environment.
Contention 3: P.E produces motivation.
The argument was not warranted in logical steps, instead the audience was told that we struggle to force ourselves to do things. P.E helps teach motivation.
The rebuttal to this was if the class is “easy and relaxing”, what is it truly motivating? This was never responded to by the NEG.
Ending Speeches
The NEG’s main points:
Bullying will exist with or without P.E,, but P.E can help encourage kids’ futures with health and fitness by mandating a starting point—P.E classes. By doing this, we can help kids be focused on long term health goals.
The AFF’s main points:
Without PE classes, students would have the opportunity to focus and pursue academics, extracurricular activities, or electives they are passionate about without worrying or wasting time with early bird courses that would be required. The AFF also mentioned how the NEG’s driving argument on the health and academic benefits of physical activity, which forces early mornings on students, along with body shaming and bullying, clearly is a logical fallacy.
Congrats to the AFF for winning this debate by popular student vote.
WEDNESDAY 11/29/23
Resolution: BHS Should be an Open Campus
The arguments
THE AFF
Contention 1: An Open campus allows time for other responsibilities.
The AFF argued how lunch may be a time for some students to go home and finish chores that they will not be able to do after school because of homework or extra curricular activities. Allowing students to drive home and can allow time to let out the dog, clean up the house, or check on an elderly family member.
The NEG rebutted this with the fact that lunch is extremely short for being able to drive home, do whatever type of chore, and drive back. This time limit will become even tighter because of traffic. Kids will be leaving the parking lot at the same time, causing traffic jams. This traffic and intense time limit will lead to speeding and a higher probability of accidents, meaning harm to students and others.
Contention 2: Open campuses will reduce sickness.
Lunch can be crowded, so by allowing kids to exit the school during one of the most crowded times of the day can reduce the spread of illnesses.
Contention 3: Open campuses encourage responsibility.
By allowing kids off campus, we’re entrusting them to reach BHS back on time. It’s their responsibility to make it to class on time, which engrains responsibility in students.
The AFF also mentioned how they were protesting for liberty and freedom in schools, which can sometimes feel like a prison.
NEG
Contention 1: Safety
This time limit to get off campus is extremely tight. The closest restaurant is Taco Bell, which is 10 minutes away walking and 5 minutes away driving. Kids will be leaving the parking lot at the same time, causing traffic jams. This traffic and intense time limit will lead to speeding and a higher probability of accidents, meaning harm to students and others. Furthermore, allowing kids off campus can mean they have the possibility of bringing bad or illegal things onto campus. The team argued it might put strain on staff because children leaving would have to be checked when reentering campus.
The AFF’s response to potential car accidents was that kids should be responsible and know not to rush or speed. They also mentioned that kids could be walking. The part about staff having to check for illegal substances or weapons was never responded to.
Contention 2: Social opportunities.
The team brought up how kids would miss the opportunities for clubs while also bringing up how expensive eating out everyday of the school year would be.
This was rebutted by AFF by saying how leaving campus would be optional, not forcing kids to leave campus and miss club meetings. The AFF also argued that people have dietary restrictions that may require them to leave campus, and it can be hard to transport lunches or make lunch in the morning. An open campus would allow such students to go home and eat.
Following, the NEG mainly discussed how the lunches at school save kids money, and that it’s not that big of a deal to carry a lunch pail if one’s dietary restrictions require specialized food. The team also mentioned how by having a closed campus, we’re actually saving kids’ and parent’s money on gas.
Ending Speeches
The AFF
The AFF’s main points were that they gave choice to students, which can feel like a sense of freedom in a place where students may feel stifled. This sense of freedom improves the mental health of children. Having an open campus is helpful for those with dietary restrictions or kids who have responsibilities at home they need to finish.
THE NEG
The team reminded students of the economic benefits of not using as much gas and of the social part of lunch, which helps boost engagement and personal time with friends. The biggest, and the most serious, point was safety: rushing on and off campus causes accidents and encourages reckless behavior.
Congratulations to the Negation for winning by student vote.
THURSDAY 11/30/23
Resolution: English classes should be valued over science classes.
The arguments
AFF
*All arguments were responded to in broader ways, but nothing was responded to directly.
Contention 1: English correlates to everything.
In this contention, the team discussed how English is vital to communication—it is the language we use in our everyday lives (at least in English-speaking areas/countries). English helps with confidence in everyday life.
Contention 2: English makes you more attractive.
English has attractive words. The examples used were “bodacious” and “sensual.” Then, the team discussed how poetry is formed only by having a strong basis of English, and poetry is ‘fancy’ and extremely attractive. The team also proposed the idea of how romantic relationships are aided when one is clear, so if we focus on English, romantic relationships will improve.
Contention 3: English helps create lyrical geniuses.
English is how we create lyrics. Without focusing on English, without a strong understanding of the language, great artists would not have been able to create beloved music. The example given was Taylor Swift.
Contention 4: English creates a productive society.
This contention was based on how language is the basis for communication, and how if one cannot share their ideas and interpret information—which is what English teaches—science would be useless. We have to value the starting point in order to gain any later benefits. English is the starting point.
THE NEG
Contention 1: Innovation.
Science is the basis for amazing and vital research, leading to innovations that improve human existence. The more we focus on science, the greater these innovations will become, leading to greater benefits. The impact of this is raising the quality of life for humans.
The AFF responded to this by bringing the idea of their last contention. Science would not be able to exist without having language. We would not be able to communicate with one another without language. The AFF also brought in the idea of self expression that English provides, arguing that without self expression, it’d be impossible to truly enjoy life. The NEG rebutted that without innovation and science, humans wouldn’t be able to be alive.
Contention 2: Medical personnel shortages.
The medical field is currently struggling to find workers. Not having enough workers means less chances for human survival and more suffering for sick patients and more strain on overworked staff.
The AFF argued how one could not become a doctor without studying and researching. Without providing a strong basis of language, we wouldn’t have adept doctors at all.
The NEG responded with how one can’t become a doctor by majoring in Journalism.
Contention 3: Climate Change
The funnier warrant for this contention was how English classes require the use of lots of paper for essays. However, the team moved on to discuss how science is actively trying to decrease climate change. Reading about Climate change is fine for knowledge, but it wouldn’t be possible to save humanity without scientist’s knowledge.
The AFF argued how English provides the capability to spread knowledge about Climate Change, which is vital to gain support for ‘green energy’ and ‘green ways of living’. Responding to the funnier warrant about English classes using lots of paper: Essays are mostly digitized now.
The NEG responded to this by stating how paper will always be used, and devices just limit paper usage. The team also argued how science is fixing climate change, which will help repair the damage caused while spreading knowledge will not.
Final Speeches:
The NEG:
The NEG reminded the audience how Newton was able to logically rationalize his discord of gravity, and how he didn’t rely on English or books to do so. The team stated that science is the true foundation for English’s success and ability to flourish. The team was reminded how science is more useful to advance innovations that will help raise human’s quality of life.
The AFF:
The AFF reminded the audience that science classes would not be taken out of the curriculum, but by valuing English, we express ourselves. Science may give us an extra year of life, but how do we want to live that life? With music, art, literature, and self-expression, which is exactly what English provides. English translates to everything we do in our day to day lives: talking and communicating. English leads to a productive, connected society.
Congrats to the NEG for winning by student voters.
FRIDAY 12/31/23
Resolution: Get Focused is a useful class
The arguments
THE AFF
Contention 1: Get Focused helps kids plan their future.
The AFF discussed how Get Focused is a starting point for children to prepare for their future, which can be a lengthy process. Get Focused starts this process early. The class makes students aware of responsibilities they will face in future years. The team discussed how the Get Focused curriculum is transferable to real life situations. Kids dream of their future, but Get Focused helps kids plan for that future. Teens don’t care unless forced. The first speaker also mentioned a personal anecdote about how her older brother found the class to be useful.
The NEG rebutted this with the fact that kids don’t care because the class is useless, so of course they don’t care. The NEG also responded that 1 person saying the class is helpful doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. That one person may have gotten resources others didn’t. The issue is, the class is extremely short—only a semester. The class is too rushed to truly achieve anything.
THE NEG
Contention 1: Get Focused overwhelms freshmen.
Get Focused is a class specifically for freshmen. This is an extremely new time for students and being asked to think 10 years in advance for a ten year plan can be stressful, especially because the plan the website used for the class offers weird options for the ten year plan like “Will you be widowed?” How is that truly helpful for freshmen?
The AFF admitted that the class could be overwhelming to freshmen, but the team argued that overwhelming freshmen is better than having clueless juniors and seniors in the future, making already stressful years more stressful.
The NEG responded by stating how their team argues for not overwhelming students at all. If Get Focused was truly important, why are we having to force students to do it? If it was truly helpful, they would be willing to volunteer for it. The AFF simply said that kids don’t care enough to be prepared to take the class.
Contention 2: Limited Personalization.
Get Focused is a one-size fits all type of class, which limits students options, and adds one more class to a new student’s schedule. This contention was never responded to.
Contention 3: Get Focused prepares for an uncertain future.
Get focused heavily focuses on students building a 10 year plan. However, the issue with this is that the world can completely alter within the next ten years, meaning that a 10 year plan can be absolutely useless. People also change their minds a lot from freshman year to truly entering the ending years of the 10 year plan. This class takes time away from classes that can actively lead students towards their interests instead of forcing them to pick a plan based on the need to pass a class.
The NEG argued that though it’s possible for the world to change, it’s an important skill to know how to make a plan, and the 10 year plan in place may be a good general plan to keep.
Contention 4: Time/resource allocation.
Get Focused is one more class that uses valuable teachers and students time on pointless activities. These resources can be going towards other, useful school activities.
The response to this by the AFF was that Get Focused only takes a semester of time, and within that time the class is able to prepare for college, and high school is all about preparing kids for college. In a short time, the class accomplishes lots of things. The NEG responded that since the class is so short and outdated, it’s a weak attempt at truly prepping students.
Ending speeches
THE NEG
The NEG mainly focused on how the class easily becomes outdated because the world constantly changes, the class steals time for other classes that also prepares kids for college, the class being rushed so any benefits it could give are wasted, and how if kids find it to be useless, we can focus on the other classes that have some of the same effects of Get focused.
THE AFF
The AFF focused on how the class reduces future stress by exposing kids to future worries and prepares them to handle such situations. The AFF mentioned how multiple previous students stated their gratitude to Get Focused.
Congrats to NEG by winning from student votes.
Overall, this debate week was interesting and drew great crowds. Congrats and good job to all debaters that participated this week. If you’re interested in learning how to debate yourself in time for next semester’s debate week, come to room O-204 Mondays and Thursday after school.
beniciapaw.com 