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

GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/9/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,813 times Debate No: 22697
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




i feel that a lot of teens take advantage of the fact that they can drop out of high school and just go to a GED program and not do the same amount of work as they would in high school. i also feel that the course load is completely different


though normally a five round debate would promise to be exausting I already know from your history that you do not have the integrety to finish even two rounds of a debate.

mabye this will be a brake in trend for you though I think optimistically (and foolishly) so I accapt this debate since your its a very simple case that refutes your position.

your problem with youth being able to get a GED seems primarly because there freedom too is abused and the standards for a GED are lower than actually finishing school.

by that logic you could be in support of raising the standards that it takes to get a GED to the level it is for completeing school, or you should be ...... well thats it really, theres no other logical end to that starting point.

its actually offensive kinda (for youth) that you think they have to be put through more to treated the same way an old person is who did less to get there GED.

if a person makes the mistake of dropping out of high school, there should be no time limit on when there allowed to start turning around and getting there life back on track. what were you hopping to do making a GED only for old people? High School dropouts have to stay on welfare until they reach age....what 30 before they go get there GED so they can apply for work that requires one or a colledge that has one or a high school diploma?

I demand an answer to that question if it would please you enough to bother giving at least one response in this debate that you started.
Debate Round No. 1


FYI its not me that cant last only 2 rounds. the people ive had the debates with never write back -_-. plus i put it to 5 rounds, because it is part of an assignment i havemy point is that many find it as an easy way out. and did you see me say anything about "old people? no.... im just saying that at the end of the day, GED should not be easier than High School is. because i have had friends drop out of high school and "graduate" before me. how should that even be fair?


ohh, this is just an assignment for you. well now I'm even more certain you wont finish it. the few 'crash and burn' debates I have had in the past where they eventually did come back online months later to tell me why they quit on me, the excuse has always been 'it was just an assignment, when it was over I quite'.

well when your assignments due and over if this debate is still going on please have the curtousy to take a 5 min out of your day's to check this site until the debate is in the voting period and enter an argument when you have an argument due. Its just the right and honorable thing to do.

anyway, on to the debate........

" did you see me say anything about "old people? no...."

Yes you did infact say something about 'old people'. its in the resolution "GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country". 'those who are older' or 'old people' for short.

" im just saying that at the end of the day, GED should not be easier than High School is."
actually given the resolution and you being the pro to it your saying that GED's should be witheld as an option for those under a an certain age ('should only be for those who are older' part) with the exeption of immigrants to that rule ('should only be for......and come from another country' part).

but by this withdrawl in your position you are basically conceading this debate to me, the Con, as you have just agreed with the very case I made last round, that the standards required to get a GED should be raised to the same level as it takes to graduate high school.

so the resalution "GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country" has now been negated, no Pro arguments for that resolution have been made while I have made my con arguments to the resolution. Thus I win this debate.

Debate Round No. 2


exactly! i did not say anything about "old people", i said "older people". older is completely different from just being old. there are many people who come from other countries that come to the United States after their 20s or 30s. so you cant just assume that because i wrote the word "older", it is only applying to those who are old. plus just because i agree with you at a certain point in this debate, doesn't mean my argument can be thrown out. and i bet that if standards for GED were higher, many high school drop outs would rather not do it. that was the whole point of them dropping out of school to begin with. they hate school, hate having "a lot" of work to do, and they most likely hate authority. and to be honest if i were to have been a high school drop out, i would not have wanted to do GED if it was the same as high school. and you know that you wouldn't either


perhaps you dont feel comfertable using the term 'old people' in your rhetoric as you do with saying 'older people' (I dont understand why) but it doesnt matter, either way the pro of the resolution "GED should only be for those who are older an...." is still an exclusive status for people of a certain age to be able to get a GED.

somewhere you draw a line in age (lets say 18, but in principal it does not matter where). For those above whatever the paticular line you draw, I will refer to in this debate as the old people (even if there just one year above the line like 19) and those below it as young people. "It should only be for...." in the resolution means you want eliminate the GED as an option for those under whatever age range you set as not being 'older people'.
This means if a young 16 year old runs with bad crowd and makes the great mistake of dropping out, you would hold them to wait 2 years before there ever allowed to get there life back on track. or higher if what you count as not 'older people' is higher than 18. Our desire for the dropouts I think we can agree is to get there life turned around as fast as possible and thus if they have droped out of school we of course would be encuraging them to try an earn a GED as soon as possible. there vary livelyhood may depend on having one on there reseme and while you may be comfertable wait to get a job that requires at least a GED or High School diploma for whatever amount of time you set, they might be in a financle situation where they would be comfertable with that.

Now before you start with "oh but I'm not saying any of that....." and ".....just want the GED's to be harder" I would like to point you to the resolution one more time. we are not the Pro and Con to a debate resolution that reads "the standards needed to get a GED should be raised", we are in a debate to argue the Pro and Con sides of the resolution "GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country"

I have been looking for an oportunity to drop a related source and here I have one
Debate Round No. 3


haha really? out of all resources you use wikipedia? good choice. and yes GED should only be for those who aren't of age to be in high school anymore. i believe the cut off age is 21. so that is plenty of time to get the extra help that they need to prevent them from dropping out. teens these days are too lazy to even use the resources they have inside of their schools, so why all of a sudden use it when they have dropped out? not liking school shouldn't be a reason for any kid to drop out of school.


I think I am going to start a debate one day on appropriate and innappropriate times to critisize a wikipidia link. If I am using it to back up a claim or a statistic, its open for critisizem do to how easy it is for the site to be edited to say what you want it to say. If I link it to define or explain something though, then it is not open up to critisesm. example: I look for a good link that seems to suffiently define DNA wich I need done for a debate opening round. Wiki is one of the first comprehensive ones that shows up on google and the page seems to satisfy defining the term I wanted to argue. That would be okay. Here I linked it looking for a suffenent explination on the concept of the role the resolution plays in a debate. for the moment the page on resolutions was not edited to say anything silly and it contained all that I wanted you to read.

It seems you have finally gotten around to confessing you want to cut people off before a certain age, 21, and make them wait until those years pass to get there GED.

You said " so that is plenty of time to get the extra help that they need to prevent them from dropping out". Somewhere along the lines you forgot to put the logic explaining this statement. are we now talking about those yet to drop-out? because I have to tell you, times got nothing to do with whats needed to keep that from happening.

but in any case this doesnt address what to do with the ones WHO DO DROP OUT. no amount of social programs and welfare or church ministries are going to make drop outs flat out dissapear. so for the ones that Droped out now what for them? lets say a 16 year old droped out. yeah your changing the G.E.D. age requirement discuraged him some from dropping out but it ultimately did not stop him. it was not some clever easy way out plan for this paticular guy anyway to drop out, he was just striken with such drepressed apathy that he just quit careing a droped out.

now this 16 year old eventually turns around though before the years end. while his drug addled parents are not worth anything he did have one good grandparent who took notice of his drop out decision and worked hard at getting help for him to turn his life around. by the time he gets over his depression at 17 years old he starts to look to do something about reversing the drop-out problem he made for himself. he cant go back to school, so whats left for him. nothing except to do the next best thing and get his G.E.D. But with your system he's locked out from doing so for another 4 years!

and why do you want to lock out a kid in that situation from doing all there is to do in fixing his situation? to send a arbatrary message to kids who are still in school to think twice before dropping out, as if thinking had much to do with the desicion to do that.

The problem with your system is that it's judgmental, mean-spirited and aimed at not helping but punishing. at the very most the only desired objective in using it is to 'discurage' the high school drop-outs wich given your definition for why they are dropping out would be just as 'discuraged' by merely raising the standards of what it takes to earn a G.E.D. No need for banning drop-outs from getting back on the right road until they are 21.
Debate Round No. 4


no way is it "mean spirited". mean spirited would be like saying " GED programs should be eliminated completely." plus not every kid has a sad story to fall on. some kids are just bad and lazy. they don't want to go to school so they just take the easy way out. and I'm not even trying to be judgmental. that's just how things are. if i wanted to punish, i would make it much harder for them to finish compared to someone who had no choice but to take their GED. and yes, unfortunately there are those who drop out of school due to family issues as the one you mentioned.

and im not sure if you notice your typos but:


well it was nice debating with you.


Thank you very much for honoring me with finishing this debate with me.

and yes...I'm aware I make typos.

"I'm not being mean spirited or trying to punish"
Interesting while you strait up deny thats the purpose behind disqualifying young people from being able to get there G.E.D. if they drop out of high school you dont actually offer an alternative reason behind doing this. the most you have said all debate is "they just shouldnt" which is in effect just saying 'because I said so'

you cant give a reason though because there is no productive purpose to your plan besides a punishing effect to hold G.E.Ds away from drop-outs until there 'old enough' in your eyes to fix there lives.

"not all have sad story's....but yes, unfortunately there are those....."
the only justification you have given all debate has been based on the fact that there are those who abuse the current system because they are lazy and dont like school. I point out the existence of cases that are not like that you did not deny there are cases out there yet you still just chose to brush the point aside without even giving a explination. Had you said something like "the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few" that would have been one thing, but you did not even give that. you bascially just admited "yes I am screwing over those out there whos life circumstances drove them to drop out, but as long as we can force the lazy people too go to school I dont care."

So in conclusion G.E.D.'s should not be changed to be just for old people (21 and over) as doing this would....

...not be productive
...cause needless harm
...serves no purpose but an emotional one for yourself
....and causes absolutely no good.

now to that last one you might be thinking "but it would remove an easy out for the lazy people, thats a good". But is it? It may make you feel like things are fairer personally, but you fundamentally cant help people who just dont want to help themselves, and if you manage to successfully hold them inside the school its still not going to change that truth.

You approach this whole issue with the wrong people to consider when deciding the policy on this. you have looked at this issue thinking first and only of the students who are not yet but could become drop-outs. But the people who deserve your attention first in this issue are those who being a drop out is already a done deal for, the desion was made and now they are discovering there are new sets of choices they need to make about the rest of there lives.

with there best intrest at heart, ask yourself how does this help them, and if it does not help them, is it even helping you? with there best intrest at heart, ask yourself since they droped out in past already, now that they cant go back to high school what is it I want them to do first? does it help them on any level to make them wait until there 21 to do that thing they should do first?
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 6 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: Con debunked all of Pros arguments. Con used a source so Con get's sources as well...
Vote Placed by imabench 6 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 had barely any arguments and the con debunked all of the ones she did give. arguments to con sources to the con (pro didnt use any) spelling to the pro but devoting more of her argument to point out spelling mistakes is a really d*ckish move on the pro's part...