The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points

Childcare should be free

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 60348
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




1. If childcare was made free a lot more children would attend as shown by our first speaker. And as a consequence when children are exposed to a large number of other children for some time it provides the opportunity for infectious diseases to spread.
According to the National Health and Medical Research Council, "The typical daycare center...spreads far more infection and communicable disease than than any other institution ."

Therefore if more children attend the incidence of childhood diseases will inevitably arise. More illness, means more parents will need to take time off of work to look after the child. Constant absences can affect the workplace and the job security of the adult. More illness, can also mean more communicable diseases will be spread throughout the community.

3. Another important point regarding the social implications of free child care is that social skills in children will diminish because parents won't have the time to teach them. For example in Norway and Sweden, where 92 per cent of all children attend childcare, they are now experiencing huge social issues, which have been attributed to a lack of parental guidance.

They are seeing unprecedented levels of youth violence, suicide and depression; stressed parents; lower quality parental relationships; high divorce rates and high absenteeism from paid work.


Thanks for the debate! Wish it had more rounds but it should be fun none-the-less. Because the debate is only two rounds long, I will hold my rebuttals for the second round. In addition, I will not address your rebuttals in the second round for the sake of fairness. Good luck!

1. A system with free childcare allows the parents to hold full-time jobs and even continue a small life outside of their child. While it is important for adults to have children, having them creates a massive economic and social burden on the parents. The cost of maintaining a kid is exponential and requires a lot of time. Because of the high time requirement, it is fairly common for one parent to quit their job and stay at home. This means there are even less available funds within the family creating even more financial stress. In addition, the parents often devote almost all, if not the entirety of their time to their child to help it grow severing them from any social life making them less functional because they are no longer fulfilling a basic human need of interaction with others. A single impact can be drawn from these two sub-points: the lack of free childcare creates parents in bad social and economic situations which is a drain on society.

2. Childcare is too expensive otherwise. This service can often run around $10,000 to $15,000 a year for just one kid. This is a huge amount and often unbearable for families and single parents. The middle class is shrinking everyday and the upper class will be available to afford it no matter what leaving the lower class for discussion. The amount listed above is an exponentially high number for a family that is lucky to even make $40,000 a year not to mention the lower earning ability of single parents. The impact of this point is more and more kids won't be in childcare which leads me to my third point.

3. Childcare is a dependable stimulant for children. I mean this in two ways. The first is the social aspect for the child. There are often many other children in attendance allowing for it to start developing social skills at a very early age. Kids and adults in the future will have better communication skills as a result of this. Secondly, childcare centers often provide educational stimulants for the child in the form of books, toys, and more. All children will have a significant head start allowing teachers to take on tougher curriculum at a younger age ultimately creating a more intelligent society.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Some people do not want to go to work after having a baby they want to stay home and care for the child. Free childcare would mean that it would pressure mothers to go back to work

I propose that: rather than have a free system it would be far better to stay with our current system where childcare is subsidised according to the amount the family earns. This would be a progressive system, in the same way that Australia"s tax system is. This is a much fairer system and not open to as much abuse as a free for all option. It means that it is available to everyone but at a cost that is reasonable and affordable.

My first point is about the huge cost of making childcare free

If the government provides something for free, someone has to pay for it. Consequently taxes increase which means everyone who earns money has to pay for the free child care. Even those people who will never have children will be contributing towards the free care.
Added to this when a government chooses to subsidise a service it often means other services suffer, and therefore it would be likely that important departments, such as health and education suffer.

There is another flow on from the increased taxes to pay for the free child care; it will stop many new businesses from forming and will force marginal ones to close down, causing job losses. Higher taxes will mean less business activity will result and there will be lower productivity.

My second point is that Free is often abused
Making a service free can cause many problems. According to a paper published by Cambridge University, "people overreact to free products, consumers take much more of a product when it is free than they buy of the product even when it has a very low price".
Making childcare free may cause people who do not really need the service to use and abuse it because it is free.

This will then result in overcrowding and put an added strain on the service. And of course this would lead to a need for more centres, resulting in additional costs. If the system becomes overflowed then everyone will end up worse off because the service will become inefficient and the quality will decline.


I will now present my rebuttals to con's case and tell the voters why I have won the debate. Again, in the name of fairness, I will not address any points brought up in the second round by con.

Rebuttal to Con 1. In the first sentence of the negation's first contention, they mention a "first speaker" that is apparently providing a fact that free childcare means there will be more children in childcare. However, simply addressing an imaginary person doesn't grant factual power to con's first sentence. In fact I see no evidence at all to support that there will be more children in childcare if it is free. This alone defeats con's contention. That being said, even if the voter decides they were correct in assuming their will be more children, this point is easily defeated by simply pointing out the slippery slope that con is attempting to push us down. First, there is no proof that increased attendance in childcare facilities will increase infection rates on an individual rate or on a grand scale. Even if they did, my opponent is advocating for stay-at-home parents as I pointed out in my first contention. If this is the case, then there is a parent home already to take care of a sick child which means no one needs to take time off of work. No threat to job security. It should also be realized that in most cases the parents are immune to diseases that children get. There is no proof or reason that free childcare would lead to more disease in the community not to mention the lack of a link between these two things from my opponent.

Rebuttal to Con 2 (labeled 3). In this article from the Globe and Mail, Dr. Krashinsky, an economist at the University of Toronto, lists the many benefits that Norway gains from having their childcare system He says that a study found that the payoff for the system was 2:1 meaning very every dollar spent, they earned two. In this paper written by Dr. Lamb, the only time child care has a negative effect on the child's behavior is if the care provided was of exceptionally poor quality Assuming this effort would be government funded, these jobs would more than likely require education and training not unlike a teacher's. The likeliness of poor quality providers would actually be lower than they are in Con's world making most of Con's contention a point against himself.

With my opponents two points successfully rebutted, let me outline the debate for the voters and why you should vote Pro. We must simply look at the impacts that both sides have provided and weigh them against each other. As you saw in the first round, I have listed major impacts for each of my contentions that simply cannot be refuted. My opponent on the other hand has given weak impacts that are only linked to their original case by logical fallacies and statements that con would have you believe are fact but simply are not.
For further evidence I will provide a comparison of both cases: what happens if you vote con or pro. In a con world where childcare is not provided for free we are left with children who start with a disadvantage and parents who are strained in every aspect of their life. In a pro world, children are given equal opportunity and the world is allowed to keep moving even through a child birth.

For these reasons and more, I believe Pro has won this debate.

Thanks for the debate and good luck in the future!
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Nothing in life is, or should be, "free" .
Everything has to be paid for, one way or another.
$ Stolen From the taxpayers etc. , Belongs To the taxpayers, etc.
It can't be spent, given away, used to pay for schools, child care, etc. , invested in infrastructure, etc.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
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: Pro's cost, employment, and dollar in-out arguments were strong enough to affirm.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
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: Pro takes the lead in R1 and holds onto it with more extensive logical analysis and better warrants. In both of the major arguments proffered by Con, I don't see any evidence (you should at least post a link, since you obviously got this information from somewhere), I see little in the way of internal links, and when we do get down to the impact level, there's usually large dearths of information on how A leads to B. If you want examples, I'll be happy to provide. Pro's case isn't perfect either, especially since it too lacks evidence, but he places enough logical support into his arguments and spends enough time on the impact level to convince me that these are far more likely. Con's R2 arguments, while intriguing, are brand new in the final round, and thus I disregard them. I also get a lot of rebuttal from Pro in R2 that makes some very reasonable points, while Con's rebuttal is short, introduces a counter plan one round too late, and never actually rebuts. Hence, I vote Pro.