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

High School Diploma

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 257 times Debate No: 83903
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




There is a man named bob. Bob is in high school and is failing several classes. One day, he decides to drop out, so he does. After he drops out, bob creates a plumbing business and loves every day of it. In his first year, he makes $50,000 fixing pipes in peoples homes. Bob also has a friend names Roy, who didn"t drop out of high school. Roy does great in school and graduates with flying colors. Eventually, Roy goes to collage so he will get a high paying white-collar job. After Roy graduates collage with flying colors, he is unable to find employment anywhere because all of the white-collar jobs have been taken. So now Roy is homeless and is $30,000 in debt, which he can"t pay. Roy can"t get a blue-collar job because he doesn"t know how to do anything but white-collar stuff. Eventually, Bob hires Roy for $12 an hour and Roy manages to pay off his debt.

My argument is to prove that people don"t need a fancy high school diploma to be successful in life. The Goal is that getting a high school Diploma shouldn"t mandatory. While high school is not mandatory, People are strongly urged to stay in school and graduate. The contentions are the following.

Fewer resources will be used in teaching-
the core requirements taught in high school aren"t usually needed, especially for lower skilled, blue-collar employment. Those that do need it are the white-collar jobs. Therefore, the system is creating economic waste by mandating a service that doesn"t benefit to the majority of people. If getting a high school diploma wasn"t mandatory, less people would enter high school, therefore lowering the price of education, and the extra money could be spent on things that need extra cash, such as improving infrastructure, extra cash to get rid of debt, and tax breaks.


This is a cool topic, and I'd be pleased to debate it. Assuming just accepting the open debate was fine, i'll proceed to argue why I believe education of the level equivalent to high school (colleges in my perspective; UK) is important.

Firstly, whilst your example does hold some water (many technical jobs such as plumbers do make fair amounts of cash from the go) what it looks at is a situation where there aren't any white collar jobs, but the assumption there would be more blue collar jobs. In my experience, and as far as I can tell statistic wise, the opposite is true. Blue-collar jobs typically related to specific roles (ie Electrician, Mechanic, Plumber) which are fewer in number than the majority of white-collar jobs that share required skillsets. For example there are less plumber jobs than there are office work within: ICT, Admin, Marketing for example. This comparison works, because typically the high school graduate with skills and quals related to one of those jobs will have skills that allow them to look at positions in the others too, as they are interdisciplinary (and business courses, marketing and IT all share similar tenants). A plumber, however, requires specifically a plumber. Now whilst handymen can do "a bit of everything", the kind of high quality plumbing work that commands the salary you speak of requires quite intimate knowledge of plumbing, which is not generally something someone who does "this and that" will accrue, unless they have focused exclusively on plumbing. So in truth, competition for blue collar work above the cash-in-hand handyman level is actually harsher than white collar, because the plumbers are locked into doing plumbing only, which means they all compete for the same jobs. White collar kids can look at a wider variety of jobs.
Also, maintenance work that is typically blue collar is more prone to being replaced by machinery/robotics. A lot of white collar work involves a personnel elements which means that these jobs (currently) require a human component by and large. This is another reason blue collar work at the technical level is steeped in competition; because jobs have a tendency to vanish under more efficient systems. Car manufacturing, mining, steelworking in this country (UK) all technical blue collar jobs are all but non-existent thanks to machinery which is now operated by white-collar types. In this way it makes sense to prepare kids for roles that will persist, rather than jobs that are at risk of being phased out within the next decade or so.
You also need to reconsider if you let kids drop out of high school to pursue the blue collar work you speak of, you are actually creating higher competition for those very jobs, so you will damage the situation those workers are in. Whilst the demand to be employed in these roles will soar thanks to the unqualified kids, the demand for the service will not reflect that. Also; how many mechanics or plumbers does a town actually need? In contrast to your raised point, when you actually lower the amount of kids going to college you will increase the price of their education in accordance with the laws of supply and demand. So whilst this may reduce the collective debt somewhat, it places individuals in a pricier situation. This in itself due to increased rarity increases the value of their qualifications, making their education even more superior to those without qualifications as the perception is that "not many people have this qualification, that means this individual is valuable!"
My own arguments:
Education to this level is important as human society is moving beyond a labouring society and manual skills, whilst useful, will eventually be superseded by technologies that require only the input of skilled technicians. This is not sci-fi speculation, it has happened across several previously reliable manual sectors. If a job does not require thinking, only problem solving, then it can be addressed by a machine. This makes manual working jobs at risk of being replaced. If you let children leave high school without the skills required to interact in a society that has less and less use for manual labour, you are disadvantaging them.
Whilst this system is far from perfect (graduates do face competition for jobs) it is preferable making high school a choice-only thing. Only in a society that aspires to keep low-skilled jobs and thus maintain a status-quo of production (unlikely) is such an approach best. What should be the case is our education system perhaps made more flexible in what is taught, but making it an option is not ideal because this creates too much hardship for those who opt out, as they all fight each other for the same, gradually decreasing pool of jobs.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent, BoomtheBear, for accepting this debate. Since this is the finale of the debate, I will attempt to prove my point with the rest of my debate. The following are my reasons and contentions.

The majority of knowledge is taught from kindergarten to 8th grade-
Skills like as science, history, reading, math, and government are already taught. Students have to spend at least 8 or more years to learn the skills that are only needed in the U.S. And those who do decide to go will get better education because those that don"t need higher education will not attend high school, so those that want to learn will not have to deal with students who disrupt classes, or cause the lower educational standards since those students that do not care about high school education don"t study or pay attention. To prove this, nations like China have superior high schools since it"s not mandated.

And in these statements, I believe that there is an effect on not only the students, but on the school faculty as well. Government immersion is a big player in the educational job. Teachers/professors have to find a sensitive balance in getting required government rules and finding the specific needs of each child in their classroom. Big government immersion only strengthens the problem. Teachers will be given an extreme non-linear set of rules and expected to make each child come out with the same exact academic performance, despite the fact that everyone"s unique. The most non-linear requirements of the Common Core and its test-based standards makes it all the harder for teachers/professors to modify their classroom needs and will only makes students good test-takers instead of the educated individuals that everyone expects" a problem that will only grow without removing or changing the Common Core system.

To prove this, a survey conducted by John M. Bridgeland, John J. DiIulio, Jr., and Karen Burke Morison cited a number of reasons why students decided to drop out of high school. Though the individual reasons greatly varied, several of them have very similar thoughts. 47% of dropouts have said that classes were uninteresting, 65% reported frequently missing class and 81% said that their education should have been more relevant to real world jobs. Simply mandating graduation for these students won"t produce positive results. According to this survey, 32% had been held back repeatedly before dropping out. Before taking the major step of mandating high school graduation, it would be logical to look for new ways to engage students and make their education relevant to their careers

Works Cited:
"Should High School Graduation Be Mandatory? -

"Curent High School Education Should Not Be Mandatory."

"International Test Scores."

"Why should you earn your high school diploma -"

And now that I have shown my reasons, I will let BoomtheBear take his turn. Good luck and merry Christmas.


BoomTheBear forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.