The Instigator
Fresh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CGBSpender
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,885 times Debate No: 17349
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Fresh

Pro

My general opening statement: America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized. Competition is a key ingredient when considering the results of any sector of our economy. Public/subsidized schools effectively prevent competition; therefore, the price of education is higher than it needs to be (considering educational spending from taxes/debt), and the quality of education is sub-par. The ultimate remedy for this would be to allow privatization and competition to exist by letting the free market, profit motive and the invisible hand encourage fufilling the demand of the consumers.
CGBSpender

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this most interesting debate and look forward to a productive argument.

As my opponent has failed to offer any key definitions for this argument, I would like to provide my own. I propose they be accepted on the basis that they are commonly-held meanings of the words.

Education- the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. (1)

Effective- adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace. (2)

Profit Motive- Chance of generating a surplus of revenue over all costs the reason most people start and stay in a business. (3)

Consumer- 1. A purchaser of a good or service in retail.
2. An end user, and not necessarily a purchaser, in the distribution chain of a good or service. See also customer. (4)

Opening Statement: The education system of the U.S.-or any country for that matter-might be improved by privatization, but only accidentally. There is nothing to suggest that privatization would necessarily render an education system more effective as the motivations and purposes of a free market are categorically different from that of an education system. Privatizing anything effectively should render it cheaper and more profitable; this is not what is being debated. Making education cheaper and more profitable does not make it more effective as neither of these qualities has anything to do with the purpose of education. Making education subject to other purposes (i.e. profit, consumer satisfaction) subverts the education system as it forces those involved to work not towards the goals of education, but towards the goals of a business. In this way, it becomes less effective and fundamentally corrupted.

Conclusion: the statement "America's education system could possibly be made more effective if completely privatized" is true, however the statement "America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized" is an impossible epistemic commitment and categorically false.

On the topic of consumers, which of the above definitions does my opponent propose be used? If the first, than the volatile minds of children are prey to the impersonal interests of the tax payer with their own beliefs and agendas, often purely economic as their only connection to the child is mostly through their pocket book. If the second, than the purpose of a privatized education system would be to satisfy the children, thus reducing all educational policies to a selection of desired cartoons and ice cream flavours. Either way, an education system whose primary goal is to satisfy the "consumer" is a dangerous thing and ineffective thing given the purpose of education.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3) http://www.businessdictionary.com...
(4) http://www.businessdictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Fresh

Pro

I appreciate my opponent's response and will do my best to understand the argument against my claim. Furthermore, I accept the terms and definitions stated above; the definitions appear to be quite broad. In regards to the definition of "consumer," the way it will be defined is in accordance with definition #1 (A purchaser of a good or service in retail). So, in this specific case, it would almost always be the parent(s). I would also like to define the terms listed below:

Perfectly Free Market: (1) "A free market is a market in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts." This means absolutely no businesses are able to lobby for any unfair subsidies, government loans, tax discrimination, or other forms of regulation in order to gain a competitive advantage.

Relatively Free Market: A market which is either a perfectly free market, or very close to it. Almost no unfair subsidies, taxes, loans, or other regulations are enforced in this form of a market.


As you have said, privatizing education results in schools working towards the goals of a business. (2) One main goal of a business is to make as much profit as possible. I will use this for the basis of my argument of privatizing education being more effective.

As you have mentioned, privatizing a sector of our economy does indeed make that product/service cheaper to the consumer. This partially contributes to the argument of privatization of education being more effective. Competition does lead to a decline in price. When a product/service is made efficiently in a competitive environment, this decline in price results in an increase in availability to society. One purpose of having an effective education system is to deem it affordable and usable to as many people as possible. With this decline in price, more people will be able to afford it and have access to it; therefore, the lower price of education does contribute to it being more effective overall.

Secondly, another major factor that businesses must consider in order to maximize profit is the quality of the product/service. Quality is also a major contributor to the effectiveness of a product/service. The higher the quality, the more adequate it is to accomplish its purpose. The quality must be competitive with other schools of the specific price range. In terms of quality, results, and overall satisfaction, the businesses which succeed in a competitive market must cater to all needs/wants of the consumers (the consumer being the purchase of the education). A high quality service, in this situation, would mean that the education effectively teaches the children the specified material, and successfully prepares them for the job they wish to pursue (or merely basic life skills). Also, the amount of time required for the child to be at school per day may also contribute to the quality of the school, in terms of consumer demand. This is generally what the consumer (parents) of education look for when choosing a high quality school. The result is a high quality product/service which consumers are happy and satisfied with, which deems it even more effective.

Example: (3) The market pertaining to computer hard drives is considered a relatively free & privatized market when compared to other sectors of our economy, such as education and health care. Throughout time, there has been an obvious demand for larger storage space, both for personal and business use. As the demand remained steady, it was met with a nearly exponential increase in hard drive storage price available. This demand was met with both domestic and international free trade. Consumer demand is the main factor that contributed to this huge increase in quality (hard drive space) of the product.

Thirdly, along with the maximization of profit comes competitive wages. In order for businesses to succeed, they must have not just hard working employees, but "smart" working employees (they must be effective in helping the business succeed). Many factors contribute to obtaining hard working employees, one of which is employee wage. In order for an employee to stay working at a business in a relatively free market, it is generally not possible for that employee to get a similar job elsewhere that offers a higher wage. This forces the business to offer a competitively high wage, which the employee agrees on. Higher wages, in this instance, means teachers make a decently high amount of money. Although, competitive wages also result in an upper wage boundary. Higher wages result in a higher price to the consumer, and is therefore also limited in a relatively free market. Teachers will end up being paid what they agree is a "fair" wage; a wage that is not too high or not too low.


In summary, the privatization of education does indeed result in private schools attempting to maximize their profit. In a relatively free market, this profit motive leads to a decline in price, an increase in quality, and a "fair" wage for employees. These three drastic results of privatizing education contribute to the increase in overall effectively of education privatization.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.jcmit.com...
CGBSpender

Con

I thank my opponent for his remarks and accept his definitions except for the "unfair subsidies" as I believe this is a highly loaded statement, however, I feel this is a minor point and so as not to detract from the debate will accept it.

I would like to begin this rebuttal with a quote I heard once. Though I cannot remember its exact wording or who said it, the idea remains key to the question currently being dealt with:

In a free market, not the best, but the most popular ideas win out.

This fact would be ok in the consideration of privatizing any other sector, but education is necessarily the development of minds that try to discover and hold the best, not the most popular ideas ("...developing the powers of reasoning and judgment...").

Reason-to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ). (1)

In logic, appeal to popularity or convention is a recognized fallacy. (2) As my opponent describes, a privatized education system will work to attract consumers. Therefore what will be success or not will not be a matter of the quality of the idea/teaching system, but the appeal of the teaching system to consumers. Its primary value is popularity and not rationality. Since reason is included in the accepted definition of education, privatization must be considered at odds with its goal and therefore necessarily rendering the education system less effective.

"As you have mentioned, privatizing a sector of our economy does indeed make that product/service cheaper to the consumer. This partially contributes to the argument of privatization of education being more effective. Competition does lead to a decline in price. When a product/service is made efficiently in a competitive environment, this decline in price results in an increase in availability to society. One purpose of having an effective education system is to deem it affordable and usable to as many people as possible. With this decline in price, more people will be able to afford it and have access to it; therefore, the lower price of education does contribute to it being more effective overall."

This is a very peculiar argument as a public education system is already accessible to all. If the argument is that access to more people will render an education more effective than privatization can only reduce effectiveness as it cannot be available to more than 100% of people.

"Secondly, another major factor that businesses must consider in order to maximize profit is the quality of the product/service. Quality is also a major contributor to the effectiveness of a product/service. The higher the quality, the more adequate it is to accomplish its purpose. The quality must be competitive with other schools of the specific price range. In terms of quality, results, and overall satisfaction, the businesses which succeed in a competitive market must cater to all needs/wants of the consumers (the consumer being the purchase of the education). A high quality service, in this situation, would mean that the education effectively teaches the children the specified material, and successfully prepares them for the job they wish to pursue (or merely basic life skills)."

While quality is an important factor it can as much be a calculated low quality as a push for a high quality that drives a business model. The Ford Pinto case is an excellent example of this. Ford manufactured a sub-standard car that was in fact dangerous. They did this because it was cheaper to make the car badly and pay out the lawsuits that it would have been to make the car at a higher quality. (3) In fact, this very concept is the basis for the "dollar store" business model (except for the lawsuit part). It is also the basis for the fast food industry. An entire industry that does not provide nutritious or good quality food, but food that is meant only to be appealing and arguably addictive. Therefore, it should be rejected that private schools will necessarily attempt a higher quality of education if a lower quality of education offers greater profit.
What's more, my opponent says that the purpose of the private school system is to satisfy the consumer (i.e. the parent) not the child. This only works towards a more effective education system, if we accept that parents always both want and know what's best for their child. I am sure that anyone who has had a parent will know that this is most definitely not always the case. A parent may want a child to be a doctor and they may want to be a painter. With private schools children's freedom is limited to their economic capacity, whereas a public system whose standards are created by experts in the field, may be flawed, but offers training in all subjects and offers children the ability to be involved in their own education, while still affording an important role to the parents.
My opponent goes onto state that a quality service in this case is job training for the child's chosen job, but this has been shown to be contradictory, one because "job training" is not included in the definition of education and two because it is the parent's ideal job for their children not the child's ideal job that the school is catering to.

"Thirdly, along with the maximization of profit comes competitive wages. In order for businesses to succeed, they must have not just hard working employees, but "smart" working employees (they must be effective in helping the business succeed). Many factors contribute to obtaining hard working employees, one of which is employee wage. In order for an employee to stay working at a business in a relatively free market, it is generally not possible for that employee to get a similar job elsewhere that offers a higher wage. This forces the business to offer a competitively high wage, which the employee agrees on. Higher wages, in this instance, means teachers make a decently high amount of money. Although, competitive wages also result in an upper wage boundary. Higher wages result in a higher price to the consumer, and is therefore also limited in a relatively free market. Teachers will end up being paid what they agree is a "fair" wage; a wage that is not too high or not too low."

The definition of a teacher's "productivity" is drastically different in a private versus public system. In a public system, the teacher's only measurement is how effectively his or her children learn, in a private school system, the measurement is how can a teacher minimize the number of hours she or he spends with their students and maximize the appearance of success so as to satisfy both present and potential future clients. This promotes inflated marks for the worst students and streamlined subject matter that makes it as mechanistic as possible to teach (comparative advantage). This may lead to a productive businss, but is certainly not effective education.

Conclusion: My opponent makes the faulty assumption that providing the best possible service is the best way to generate profit. While I accept that it is one business model, because there are other business models demonstrated in everything from the car to the dollar store industry, it becomes unacceptable to say that privatization would necessarily make the education system more effective. Even this major flaw becomes irrelevant, when we consider that privatization runs categorically counter to the purposes of education accepted for this debate, namely to train reasonable minds. Popularity rather than rationality would govern a private school system thus, at the most fundamental level undermining its effectiveness.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://www.nizkor.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Fresh

Pro







I appreciate the thoughtful response. I would like to further define my use of the term "unfair subsidies" with an explanation. The word "unfair" is used in order to demonstrate the affects of subsidizations in a relatively free market. The main purpose of a relatively free market is for there to exist perfect competition, or close to it. When a governing force gives money and/or loans to one company and not another, it effectively diminishes the whole point of a free market. Therefore, the term "unfair subsidies" is used when a company(s) is given a competitive advantage over the rest, as a result of political ties.

Regarding accessibility, if 100% of the public has access to "free" education, and this education proves itself to be useless, accessibility means nothing. When I mentioned that private schools allow for nearly everyone to afford education, I was referring to access to helpful and effective education. (1) Currently, residents of poor areas in America are forced to attend their local public school. Public schools in poor areas are extremely ineffective, and dropout rates are sky high. To elaborate on this point, in a relatively free market, educational donators would be plentiful. Private scholarships, loans, and grants would be abundant. Therefore, accessibility is neither a problem in public or private education. Although, accessibility is irrelevant pertaining to public schools when quality is sub-par.

Regarding the Ford Pinto, opportunity cost must be evaluated. Whether Ford made a good business decision or not is shown through their success or failure. The cost of adding the safety item to the car must be compared to the result, in profit from sales, of adding the safety item. If the safety item was indeed relatively cheap to add, while being greatly beneficial in safety ratings (which leads to sales), it would be a bad business decision to not include this item. Safety is one factor that contributes to marketing the vehicle, and if the vehicle is shown to be unsafe, it will hurt the company greatly.

Regarding fast food and the "dollar store" model, there is obviously a demand for it. For example, consumers get to choose between expensive nutritious food, and cheap non-nutritious food. As a result, there exists a wide variety of food, both nutritious and non-nutritious. That being said, fast food companies do have an incentive to provide food that is not dangerous to eat. When someone supposedly dies or exposes a sub-par quality aspect of a specific restaurant's food, that restaurant suffers great losses. In a relatively free market, restaurants must be honest and reveal appropriate nutrition facts if they wish to not loose customers and go out of business.

The point that public schools would offer a wider variety of options to the students than private schools would in a relatively free market is a fallacy. There would be a demand for lower-level private schools to offer a wide variety of classes in order for the student to choose what interests him/her the most. Underage students do actually play a role in deciding what classes, interests, and professions they wish to pursue.

Regarding the measurement of teachers' productivity in public and private schools, this measurement is taken from actual results from the teachers in private schools. The goal is not just to give the appearance of success, but actually show it without deceiving or lying. A deceiving private school would immediately loose business in a relatively free market. In contrast, the measurement of teachers' productivity in public schools is quite different. Public teachers are extremely hard to fire; therefore, their incentive to provide results is meager. Furthermore, public schools do not have to worry about going out of business from other competition. This also contributes to the lack of incentives for public schools to perform efficiently. Refer to the flow chart below to read how incredibly long and difficult it is to fire a public teacher.
http://www.decimation.com...

Furthermore, I would like to provide charts and statistics to support my claim. Although our currenty education market is extremely far from a relatively free market, private schools are still able to out-perform public schools in both cost and quality.

When the cost of public and private schools are compared, there is a significant difference. Although many people think of public school as "free," the actual cost (paid by taxes and debt) is very large. Throughout time, public school spending has been approximately twice the amount of private school spending. This is a direct result of a lack of competition.
(2) http://i.imgur.com...

Furthermore, the quality (shown by actual results) is shown to be significantly higher in private schools than public schools. The chart below shows just one example of private schools scoring higher on every part of the ACT than public schools. Private schools have a significant incentive to provide positive results like these, in order to stay in business.
(3) http://i.imgur.com...

Lastly, I would like to relate this issue to monetary policy. The chart below shows public school spending over time.
(4) http://i.imgur.com...;
America's national debt has surpassed the USA GDP. Thanks to the national government getting involved/overspending in countless sectors of our economy (including education), America is bankrupt. Our government can spend indefinitely, and can request freshly printed Federal Reserve Notes to fund the spending-sprees whenever they wish. When taxes, printing money (devaluing the dollar, "invisible tax"), and borrowing from other countries is evaluated, we can conclude that America is living beyond its means, and the debt "bubble" is bound to pop in the near future. The education sector of our economy, like any other sector, needs to be privatized in order to yield higher-quality results, pay off our debt, and not go into an economic collapse. (5) The US Dept. of Education was recently formed in 1979, and has no incentive to spend money efficiently. There is no reason for our national government to be involved in education, and it directly conflicts with the powers granted in our constitution. Similarly, the state governments are overspending, and the same affects reside.

In conclusion, competition provides incentives for schools to be effective in their results and efficient in their spending. Publicizing our schools destroys these incentives, and is the reason why America is so behind in education, when compared to other countries. Evaluating our current educational system yields this conclusion: public schools over-spend and under-perform, while private schools do not. Therefore, privatizing our educational system completely would be exceedingly more effective.



(1) http://www.city-data.com...
(2) http://mhodges701.home.comcast.net...
(3) http://www.freedomkentucky.org...
(4) http://stoneglasgow.blogspot.com...;
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...;

CGBSpender

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate; it proved to be as interesting as it promised.

Firstly, regarding the "unfair subsidies", I will just say in passing that there are reasons besides "political ties" to award a company additional funds. If political ties are the only reason for the subsidy, it should be admitted that this is considered wrong even in a strongly public system. Otherwise, it is only an additional dimension to the competition provide whatever characteristics are necessary for an application for such a govern subsidy.

"Regarding accessibility, if 100% of the public has access to "free" education, and this education proves itself to be useless, accessibility means nothing. When I mentioned that private schools allow for nearly everyone to afford education, I was referring to access to helpful and effective education. (1) Currently, residents of poor areas in America are forced to attend their local public school. Public schools in poor areas are extremely ineffective, and dropout rates are sky high."

It should be pointed out that never was it said that in a public education system is education "free", but that doesn't mean it isn't available to all. Secondly, my opponent offers one example of a failing school and states that this is somehow a necessary characteristic of any not-completely privatized educatio system. Con is not defending the current system, there are certainly flaws with it, Con is attemting to show that privatization does not guarentee any increase in effectiveness. Pro ignores the fact that this area is also much below the national average, which would seem to suggest a failing on the local front and the need for state or national intervention, which later pro says is unnecessary.

Pro also states that people are somehow "forced" be in subpar schools, however they all have the option of going to a different public school, if they do not it only follows this is because the demand is not there. Pro also ignores the many socio-economic reasons for these "sky high" drop out rates including but not limited to "Socioeconomic class, time spent in the U.S., the presence of print and family factors. Students in wealthier families drop out less, those who have been here longer and who live in a more print-rich environment drop out less, those who live with both parents, and whose parents monitor school work, drop out less, and those who do not become teen parents drop out less." (1)
None of these issues are addressed by privatization and so Pro's argument-- that exclusively in a public system, schooling fails the poor--is at best a gross over-simplification.

"in a relatively free market, educational donators would be plentiful. Private scholarships, loans, and grants would be abundant. Therefore, accessibility is neither a problem in public or private education."

This claim is unsubstantiated and unsupportable, given such, it should be completely rejected.

"Regarding the Ford Pinto, opportunity cost must be evaluated. Whether Ford made a good business decision or not is shown through their success or failure..."

My opponent misses the point. For Ford, it was a good business decision (as they are still around), but it shows that good business decisions don't always mean good quality for the consumer. It did hurt the company greatly, as they expected, but not enough to justify them making a better car.

"Regarding fast food and the "dollar store" model, there is obviously a demand for it. For example, consumers get to choose between expensive nutritious food, and cheap non-nutritious food... In a relatively free market, restaurants must be honest and reveal appropriate nutrition facts if they wish to not loose customers and go out of business."

Yes, there is high demand for these products, that only goes to show that there can be high demand for a poor quality product. Just because the product cannot kill you does not make it good quality. There is no reason this principle wouldn't extend to education. My opponent doesn't seem to realize that the food companies did not release the nutritional facts until it became formal regulation. "The label was mandated for most food products under the provisions of the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), per the recommendations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." (2)

"The point that public schools would offer a wider variety of options to the students than private schools would in a relatively free market is a fallacy. There would be a demand for lower-level private schools to offer a wide variety of classes in order for the student to choose what interests him/her the most. Underage students do actually play a role in deciding what classes, interests, and professions they wish to pursue."

In a public school system, the students necessarily play a role because the system is meant for their good. In a private system, the only required roles are that of the supplier and the consumer. The consumer, after being given a choice, was specifically stated to be the parents. Again, I am not saying that the children would never have a role. I am saying that if they did have a role it would only be insofar as the parents allowed them to.This means that they have no formal role and are entirely at the whim of their parents because their parents have economic control.

"Regarding the measurement of teachers' productivity in public and private schools, this measurement is taken from actual results from the teachers in private schools. The goal is not just to give the appearance of success, but actually show it without deceiving or lying. A deceiving private school would immediately loose business in a relatively free market. In contrast, the measurement of teachers' productivity in public schools is quite different. Public teachers are extremely hard to fire; therefore, their incentive to provide results is meager. Furthermore, public schools do not have to worry about going out of business from other competition. This also contributes to the lack of incentives for public schools to perform efficiently. Refer to the flow chart below to read how incredibly long and difficult it is to fire a public teacher."

It has already been shown that a private business is under no obligation to be honest if it is more profitable not to be honest. My opponent saying that any private school that only goes for the appearance of success will lose business is groundfless speculation. It is entirely counterfactual when one thinks of how long tobacco companies knew their product could cause cancer and did not reveal it to the public.
The argument that teachers have no incentive to be efficient neglects the fact that a) efficiency isn't the goal of education and b) there are non-economic motivators (3) (See intrinsic motivation).

Regarding your proof that private schools are cheaper, I have never denied this but "to be cheaper" is not included in the purposes of education so itdoes not mean education is more effective when private. Regarding your ACT measuement, that only measures one narrow college-bound life path.

In conclusion, an effective business and effective education are two different things. While they might be compatible sometimes, on the whole there is no guarentee that this would be the case. The only way to guarentee a disinterested service that prepares children in a genuine manner is to keep education public. Con is affirmed.

(1) http://www.ncela.gwu.edu...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Fresh 5 years ago
Fresh
wow didn't realize this site was so infested with Keynesian authoritarians who support corporatism and centralization. baaaah
Posted by rodimusprime 5 years ago
rodimusprime
That is true, but only in the 21st century has a global economy on this scale existed. The fact that global corporatism solidified even more of the wealth to an even smaller percentage of people should be proof that privitization is not only wrong for a majority, it most certainly does not work for education. It only reinforces the alarming failures on a massive scale. I cannot say either ethically or logically privitization works on a large scale in any system, but especially if the goal is to have a more educated sovreign nation. On the other hand, if the goal is for the few to continue dominance, then this is a question of keeping a status quoe that will, in essence, destroy humanity itself. A cancer in the body of the world, or a virus infecting the network of single organisms trying to reach a similar goal, survival.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
rodimusprime it is hardly a 21st century idea, education used to be totally privatized, you could call public education a 20th century idea.
Posted by rodimusprime 5 years ago
rodimusprime
The privitazation of the education system is one of the most economically irrational arguments of the 21st century. THe fact is that you can tell someone to move from the ghetto but without economic means to do so it creates further disinfranchisement in an already failing system. Note also that private schools are failing according to world standards as well. The free market is not the all mighty answer.... social reform is.
Posted by jpbuddypal 5 years ago
jpbuddypal
well education and a business can be linked together by this privatized ideas, if a school has a higher education standard/rate then another school, then families will move their kids from the lower school to the higher school, which in turn forces the lower school to bring in new teachers who will give the children a better education
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
I agree, though my argument for it is not the strongest yet.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
FreshCGBSpenderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ive went from public school to private school, the idea that competition will make education better is laughable. private education schools only recruit those who are the smartest and only want to be superior to other schools, they often do that by dropping students who hurt their numbers rather than try to fix them. both sides used a good amount of sources, conduct was good, so was the grammar, but arguments went to Con
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
FreshCGBSpenderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument in many respects fails to consider the practical consequences of his contentions while Con provided adequate refutations. Both sides would have benefited from more clear contentions and objectives, to make it easier for the readers to follow the overall concept of each participant’s argument.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
FreshCGBSpenderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were much more sensible.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
FreshCGBSpenderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con negated sucessfuly