The Instigator
MrChandler
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheConservativeLiberal
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Free Education

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
TheConservativeLiberal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 33373
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

MrChandler

Pro

Radical Free Education:

There was a debate that was instigated by 2 individuals roughly in January of Last year. I would like to re open this debate.

Free Education:

In matters of Retrospect I have been thinking about our "System" as it stands currently:

Topicality: Thus the form of the human civilization to take president in letting humanity achieve free education.

Inherency:
1) Economics: We the people of this planet we call home. Pronounce that humans be given the "opportunity" of free education. By, given declarative clause. Let me clarify in Solvency.

2) Economics (A): Any and ALL suspension of money shall cease. Thus, all education will be given example by Teachers, Entrepreneurs, Students who readily want the education. Any and all forms of payment be made by barter system. Let me further clarify. Students can learn real life applications by being taught the foundations of maintaining building codes, electrical systems, lighting, food processing, and further retail management. Thus in return with being taught hands on systems. The person in question can further implement skill sets to of their own choosing. Thus ceasing all strains or limited job placements because of lack of funding.

3) Economics (B): Teachers, faculty, and all servicing members be given status quo of necessary living arrangements. And other function to sustain and live comfortably. After all, they are our educators, our mentors, our embodiment of human culture to pass on to the next generation of children. This is not to say without impeachment or other infringements. These issues can be clarified later if this issue is called upon (Free Education: Economics)*.

Harms:

1) Radical movement(s) can dissuade many to all newcomers to education. This is not limited to all human profile(s) of an individual.

2) One form of education. Let me clarify: No school or college can represent any *biased* viewing of one particular education. "Just because you went to an Ivy League college does not mean the Community college should be teaching things differently.* Education should be the same throughout all of the world. This is not to say education can not be improved or studied further.

Significancy:

1) Create a world where increase job opportunity is NOT Limited by education. Rather job opportunity is limited by experience. Thus creating a better demand for education:

2) Improving education is paramount in all fields of studies.

Solvency:

This type of system is implements because money will always fail. Countries will fall, states, and corporations will fall. The only thing to remain constant is our perception of linear time. So sustaining a free education system should be implemented for future generations. Not because of morality. But, because this insures our best survival of our species. Funding by barter system or implementing even a better non currency economics would be ideal.

*But then again I'm all up for a non materialistic type of *living*. Please see Economics of Star Trek.*
TheConservativeLiberal

Con

Hello, first I would like to clarify what you mean. I am expecting that by free education that you mean the government is paying for the education (not the teachers teaching for free). This means you are giving all the power to the government in terms of education (see below for more on that). Essentially your idea of "free education" is physically impossible because you are paying it with your taxes.
However, you probably mean that anyone can show up to a school and be let in without having to pay...

Also, I would like to know how many years of education you want to be free? For example, do you want all colleges to be free, every high school, and every elementary school to be free? So that the government is providing all the education for a student up to like 25 years old?


I believe everyone should have an education. However, it being free is not only impossible in a technical sense, but unrealistic in the US. First, this would raise taxes significantly. No one wants to pay more taxes, and this would give the government control of education. This would make such a big problem. You are giving the government control of what is taught to our students. They can make the information biased as much as they would like. If you are a high school student, as I am, you will see that the government's interference in school is already making a horrible dent. Standards have to be met and they just make the teachers stressed and not teaching as well/what they want.
Giving the government more power is the problem. Who are they to say what we learn? And if not the government, who gets to decide? The schools? Certainly not if the government is the one funding them.

Finally, I would like to bring up this word called capitalism. If the government stayed out of education, our education system would improve and prosper. The bad schools (the expensive and disliked running of the school) would "go out of business". The good schools would then prosper, growing and making our education system better off because of the better content and lower prices. However, what you proposed would make the content biased and the prices higher. There is a reason our society was set up as a capitalist economy....

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
MrChandler

Pro

Actually let me clarify the misinterpretation. I am talking about a non capitalistic economy. More specifically I am talking about Parecon; which stands for Participatory Economics which is a vision for an alternative way to operate an economy. Please look up Micheal Albert and Robin Hahnel in the 1980's to early 1990's if you are curious to Parecon.

As far as which grades would be effected. I am talking about all education. From Pre-k to PhD.

Now to get to your point of biased education. Yes, all education has been biased. Yes, we have the technology and will to change this biased system of education to a non biased view of education. Does this mean every ounce of education will be unbiased. One day I would hypothesize it would be.

Now to get to your main point. The reason of current capitalism. To me, it was set up because the barter system was and did need to be changed. However, humanity needs to think over capitalism. It sparks too much ill content. And even biased working atmosphere. It is severally outdated and not even popular among scientist, teachers, military and others. *(After all the teacher who taught you how to write **should** be worth more than the person who plays football just to "entertain" you for a few hours.)*

With this type of Economics in mind. Do you think you can breach that type of education?
TheConservativeLiberal

Con

This is basically summing up the Participatory Economics you have mentioned, straight from Wikipedia. "Proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalist market economies and also an alternative to centrally planned state-socialism, it is described as "an anarchistic economic vision", and is a form of socialism, since in a parecon the means of production are owned in common."

Here is the problem; Anarchism and socialism. There is a reason why every single nation before us who have had socialism and anarchism has failed. First, you are assuming the people can run the economy, without the government. There always needs to be a leader in the society, and there will always be one. That leader will take power away from the people, and your anarchistic economy will never work. Furthermore, how will the people somehow set all restrictions on the economy and make it so a teacher is paid more than a basketball player? There is a reason for capitalism.

I don't think that you are right that capitalism is just an ill type of economy. It works because it provides an incentive for people to work harder. The government just needs to restrict capitalism a little more to make it so that moral work is rewarded more than peoples work with bad morals.

Getting back to education.... Everything is biased, because people choose what to include and leave out in their teaching. So technically, education is always going to be biased.

Participatory planning never works, and that is what is proposed. Even if you could establish a socialist anarchy, the planning would not work out well. When planning for the type of education everyone would have, it would have to be equal for everyone. If we were to have a capitalist education system, the best schools would prevail because of their best educational content and low prices.
Debate Round No. 2
MrChandler

Pro

MrChandler forfeited this round.
TheConservativeLiberal

Con

TheConservativeLiberal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MrChandler

Pro

MrChandler forfeited this round.
TheConservativeLiberal

Con

This is basically summing up the Participatory Economics you have mentioned, straight from Wikipedia. "Proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalist market economies and also an alternative to centrally planned state-socialism, it is described as "an anarchistic economic vision", and is a form of socialism, since in a parecon the means of production are owned in common."

Here is the problem; Anarchism and socialism. There is a reason why every single nation before us who have had socialism and anarchism has failed. First, you are assuming the people can run the economy, without the government. There always needs to be a leader in the society, and there will always be one. That leader will take power away from the people, and your anarchistic economy will never work. Furthermore, how will the people somehow set all restrictions on the economy and make it so a teacher is paid more than a basketball player? There is a reason for capitalism.

I don't think that you are right that capitalism is just an ill type of economy. It works because it provides an incentive for people to work harder. The government just needs to restrict capitalism a little more to make it so that moral work is rewarded more than peoples work with bad morals.

Getting back to education.... Everything is biased, because people choose what to include and leave out in their teaching. So technically, education is always going to be biased.

Participatory planning never works, and that is what is proposed. Even if you could establish a socialist anarchy, the planning would not work out well. When planning for the type of education everyone would have, it would have to be equal for everyone. If we were to have a capitalist education system, the best schools would prevail because of their best educational content and low prices.
Debate Round No. 4
MrChandler

Pro

MrChandler forfeited this round.
TheConservativeLiberal

Con

You didn't bring up any new points so I think I win by default.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MrChandlerTheConservativeLiberalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF