• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should high school boys be required to pledge never to commit Domestic Violence?

Requiring high school boys to pledge never to commit Domestic Violence is

  • A great practice promoting respect

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • A good practice

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • A bad practice

    Votes: 28 73.7%

  • A human rights violation

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Total voters
    38
Captain Adverse said:
It is a violation of the First Amendment protection of freedom of expression.

You cannot require anyone to take an oath unless they volunteer to participate in something requiring an oath.

For example, enlisting in the military or testifying in court.

This would not fly here in the USA. Hell, we don't even require the Pledge of Allegiance anymore.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're offending me; I need a safe space. :lol:
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Another example of Australians being so much more socially advanced than America. Domestic abuse isn't a product of alcoholism or biology or genetics or whatever. It's a product of the hatred of women that is drilled into them from the minute they are old enough to understand what is happening around them. This must be countered with education and awareness.

If I were president I would hold any US high school without the pledge in breach of Title IX.
Click to expand...
Hatred of women must be prominent in Australia.
 
SCitizen said:
In Australia, boys are required to pledge:



Could such a pledge be required in USA? Would it be Constitutional?
Click to expand...
Sounds like the virginity pledge for girls.

Do the boys get a ring like the girls?
 
year2late said:
Sounds like the virginity pledge for girls.

Do the boys get a ring like the girls?
Click to expand...

i believe they get a pocket knife inscribed with the pledge
 
I am against ALL pledges and oaths that are coerced. The fact they aren't voluntary makes them meaningless.
 
TheGoverness said:
That pledge would be as meaningful and effective as the school pledges to stop bullying or to be drug-free. It's not going to do diddly squat.

Plus, it's not only men that commit Domesitc Violence.
Click to expand...

That's the hilarious part about it. The highest rates of domestic violence are in lesbian relationships. Don't get me wrong, it's good to be teaching everyone not to commit domestic violence but this singling out of boys is sexist and demeaning, treating all men like they are monsters.
 
Boys have been taught from very young not to hit girls.

Now in High School you want to tell them that hitting girls is an option but they should say they won't do it?

Why put that idea in their heads in the first place?
 
justabubba said:
i agree with that
but it looks like they are playing the percentages here
Click to expand...

Which percentages? Lesbians have the highest rates of domestic violence out of any other demographic.
 
Fishking said:
Which percentages? Lesbians have the highest rates of domestic violence out of any other demographic.
Click to expand...

do they commit most of the documented acts of domestic violence?

if not, then my statement stands
 
I signed a pledge in high school saying I wouldn't have sex until marriage. FAIL.
 
year2late said:
Sounds like the virginity pledge for girls.

Do the boys get a ring like the girls?
Click to expand...

Suggesting that you will have premarital sex is not at all comparable to suggesting you will beat your wife.
 
Henrin said:
Suggesting that you will have premarital sex is not at all comparable to suggesting you will beat your wife.
Click to expand...

No, suggesting that girls (and girls alone)plege not engage in premarital sex is just as valuable as when boys and boys alone pledge not to beat their eventual wives.


Either pledge is just as helpful. In many cases the virginity pledge backfired.
 
year2late said:
No, suggesting that girls (and girls alone)plege not engage in premarital sex is just as valuable as when boys and boys alone pledge not to beat their eventual wives.


Either pledge is just as helpful. In many cases the virginity pledge backfired.
Click to expand...

Forced pledges don't backfire, but just get ignored since they are seen as meaningless by the people taking them. Girls didn't just decide to have sex before marriage because of the pledge, but just never really gave a crap about the pledge in the first place and did what they wanted too.
 
justabubba said:
do they commit most of the documented acts of domestic violence?

if not, then my statement stands
Click to expand...

They commit it at significantly higher rates. Also, males who are the victims of domestic violence is extremely under-reported so who knows what the actual numbers are or what systemic bias in enforcement exists. If lesbians have higher rates of DV then it's fairly logical to assume that woman can be just as abusive as men. The only real difference is that men are generally significantly stronger so the physical damage is more significant.

Like, I've found chihuahuas to be one of the most apt to bite dog breed I've run across but they can barely break the skin. I've never been bit by a pit bull but if that were to happen the damage would be very different.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men
 
Fishking said:
They commit it at significantly higher rates. Also, males who are the victims of domestic violence is extremely under-reported so who knows what the actual numbers are or what systemic bias in enforcement exists. If lesbians have higher rates of DV then it's fairly logical to assume that woman can be just as abusive as men. The only real difference is that men are generally significantly stronger so the physical damage is more significant.

Like, I've found chihuahuas to be one of the most apt to bite dog breed I've run across but they can barely break the skin. I've never been bit by a pit bull but if that were to happen the damage would be very different.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men
Click to expand...

then it would appear my post was accurate. most domestic violence acts are committed by males. and it would then be appropriate to 'play the percentages' when addressing them about not committing domestic violence
 
justabubba said:
then it would appear my post was accurate. most domestic violence acts are committed by males. and it would then be appropriate to 'play the percentages' when addressing them about not committing domestic violence
Click to expand...

Uhh...no. I think you responded to my post without reading it or you read the words without comprehension.
 
If those of us who did not and do not support Team Trump do not mobilize to limit President-Elect Trump's power and influence, we might transition to Martial Law... in a country newly nicknamed Trumpland. In Trumpland, mandatory screening at puberty for sexual deviant tendencies and castration could become the new norm. This could become a much more effective deterrent than a pledge to slow down domestic violence. I'd prefer a tolerant society determined to fight for our rights associated with the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments. Let us drop the notion of a mandatory pledge, instead work on creating a culture of nonviolence, respect, and tolerance for one another.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
If I were president I would hold any US high school without the pledge in breach of Title IX.
Click to expand...

In USA, forcing anyone to take a pledge is unconstitutional. Forcing students to take The Pledge of Alliance has been ruled to be a violation of students' First Amendment rights.
 
year2late said:
Sounds like the virginity pledge for girls.

Do the boys get a ring like the girls?
Click to expand...

Even a much more innocent "empty words" of "love honor and obey" formerly taken by brides in England generated much outrage from feminists. Kate Middleton proudly omitted obey from her vows to make a point.
 
Henrin said:
Forced pledges don't backfire, but just get ignored since they are seen as meaningless by the people taking them. Girls didn't just decide to have sex before marriage because of the pledge, but just never really gave a crap about the pledge in the first place and did what they wanted too.
Click to expand...

Actually where the virginity pledge was concerned, there was some backfire. Virginity to some was seen as a technicality to be worked around. Virginity technically was about vaginal sex. So girls who would not have thought of anal or oral (etc)became skilled while keeping their pledge. So vaginal penetration is delayed by about 18 months....the StD rates are similar,
 
year2late said:
Actually where the virginity pledge was concerned, there was some backfire.
Click to expand...

In 1980 age 10 I plead loyalty to USSR. Never took it seriously. I was happy to leave USSR with my family in 1983 among few who left that year.
 
SCitizen said:
In Australia, boys are required to pledge:



Could such a pledge be required in USA? Would it be Constitutional?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine why most people voted it is a bad practice. Maybe it's the "required" part. Yes, I suppose that's it. Not required, but after several assemblies, just lead them to pledge. Ignore nonparticipants. Edit...assemblies that address both sexes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom