Is lobbying just legalized corruption?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is lobbying just legalized corruption?". Your opponent's style: Frederick Douglass

I disagree nurturing empathy in the younger generations should be included in the formal curriculum. This will bring more stress to students (because there will be more assessments).

I need to challenge your debate setup. You've swapped positions—you're arguing *against* empathy in curriculum, but the role assigned is debating lobbying. Let me reset and address your actual argument. Your stress claim collapses under scrutiny. Schools already assess social-emotional skills informally through group projects, peer feedback, and classroom conduct. Formalizing empathy means structured teaching, not necessarily *more* assessments. Moreover, unmeasured empathy development causes its own damage—bullying, mental health crises, fractured civic engagement. You're trading unmeasured problems for potential measurement overhead. Why assume formal inclusion automatically means test overload instead of integration into existing subjects?

our topic now is THBT nurturing empathy in the younger generations should be included in the formal curriculum.

You're conflating "nurturing empathy" with "adding busywork." Empathy already happens in English, history, and group projects. Formal curriculum means standardized teaching of a skill that develops through lived experience, not worksheets. Schools can't manufacture genuine empathy through pedagogy—they can only fake it with assessments that stress students chasing grades in yet another subject. Real empathy comes from relationships, struggle, and consequence, not curriculum mandates. Why should we bureaucratize something that thrives outside formal structures? You're asking schools to solve a cultural problem that requires family and community, not another learning objective.

This will bring more stress to students (because there will be more assessments).

You're assuming formal curriculum automatically means high-stakes testing. It doesn't. Empathy can be taught through existing subjects—literature analysis, history discussions, collaborative projects—without new exams. Schools already grade participation and group work. Formalizing empathy just makes implicit teaching explicit and consistent. Meanwhile, *not* teaching empathy formally leaves stressed, isolated students with no framework for managing emotions or understanding others. You're trading speculative assessment stress for guaranteed social-emotional deficits. Which actually harms students more—one structured approach to empathy, or leaving them to figure it out alone?