The Instigator
Logician
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Yvette
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Impromptu!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Yvette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,286 times Debate No: 12282
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Logician

Pro

As per other impromptu debates, in round 1 my opponent will choose to debate either Pro or Con of one of the choices that I have provided below, and then proceed to provide me with three choices to debate in return. In round 2, we will then provide our cases. There will be no rebuttal. Points should be provided based on who voters believe presented the best case.

So without further ado, my opponent's choices are:

1) The government should not endorse national or state lottery games.

2) The Blackberry is superior to the iPhone.

3) Latin and Ancient Greek should be taught in schools before other foreign languages.
Yvette

Con

First let me say this is one of my first debates (my first actual debate not having gotten a response yet) and my first Impromptu debate. So apologies ahead of time if I break some taboo or do a poor job at providing debate topics. It sounds like a fun idea and here's to an enjoyable time for both of us. :)

I would like to argue PRO for option 1, that is, I support the resolution that the government should not endorse national or state lottery games.

My opponent's choices are:

1) ESL (English As A Second Language) students should not be separated from normal classrooms.

2) Cats are superior to dogs.

3) Loud noises which cause distress are a form of violence.
Debate Round No. 1
Logician

Pro

I'd like to thank Yvette for three intriguing debate topics. I will argue the PRO side for topic 1, namely that ESL (English as a Second Language) students should not be separated from normal classrooms. I assume that this means classrooms otherwise filled with what I shall call English as a Native Language (ENL) students. I will also assume, hopefully uncontroversially, that this context involves people emigrating either permanently or semi-permanently from a non-English speaking country to an English-speaking one.

Onwards, then, to my case. There are two such types of ESL students. The first type is someone who has been learning English from a fairly young age - say, elementary/primary or high school/secondary school level - but is still, for fairly obvious reasons, not quite there yet by virtue of not being immersed in the language. The second type is an immigrant / refugee who, by virtue perhaps of the unexpected and sudden nature of their departure from their home country, has not learnt English to this standard. I contend that both of these types will benefit from merged classrooms, and that for neither circumstance are ENL students harmed by merged classrooms. Whilst the reasons for both types are interconnected, they are in places distinctly different, and accordingly I will deal with them separately.

LONG-TIME LEARNERS:

The benefits to the students are clear: through immersion in English they will be able to up their knowledge and fluency in English immeasurably: being around English-speaking people on a daily basis gives you a much richer understanding of how English is actually used in real life - colloquial expressions, metaphors, idioms, etc. By contrast, setting them aside with other ESL students will limit their exposure to "academic English", which is more focused on memorisation of grammar and vocabulary than it is on real-life experience of the language.

Nor are ENL students are not harmed by this approach, as these ESL students are proficient enough in the language to avoid even the question that they may drag down

IMMIGRANTS / REFUGEES WITH LITTLE TO NO PRE-EXISTING KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH:

The points above about language immersion stand also for these students. That is the best way for someone to learn the English language. But this takes on an ever deeper meaning with this type of learner, for here they have a positive duty to learn English: if you aim to live in a country permanently / for a long period of time, it is both an act of politeness to your new country, and part of becoming an everyday citizen of the country, to learn the language. After all, it would be prohibitively expensive and time-wasting for the government to provide official documentation in every single language of the world. It should only be necessary to do so in the predominant languages of that area. For some areas of the US, this could potentially be an argument for state provision of materials in Spanish - and the same applies for Scottish and Welsh within the relevant parts of the UK - but apart from this why should governments in English-speaking countries be expected to provide materials in non-English language?

Now granted, the ESL students' lack of ability in English does raise at least the question of harms on ENL students, unlike in the last section. But in actuality, this need not be enough of a problem to warrant negating this motion: as, for all practical purposes, ENL students who are less intelligent than other ENL students would be just as limiting a factor on fellow students' progress than would such ESL students. In both instances, the comparatively slow progress is due to intelligence not being shown, and the teacher's attention being diverted accordingly - it is functionally irrelevant precisely why this intelligence is not being shown, whether it being because it doesn't exist, the teaching methods are unsuited to the student, or because language barriers are stopping it from coming through.

Accordingly, there is a very good argument here for separating students according to their progress in a given subject - this is sometimes known as putting them in "sets" or "grouping them" - but this separation should be language-blind, and apply just as much to ENL students as it does to ESL students.

CONCLUSION:

For all of the reasons mentioned both for long-term learners and for more recent learners - most likely down to family immigration or being refugees - we should not separate ESL students from ENL ones. Keeping them together can be a great benefit to the ESL students, and does not unduly affect ENL students in any way. Although severe language barriers would almost certainly lead to slower progress through schoolwork, the problems that this cause apply just as much to under-achieving ENL students as it does to non-English-speaking ESL students. Dealing with this problem need not extend to the separation of ENL and ESL students.

Therefore, the motion should be supported. Thank you :-)
Yvette

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun little exercise and wish them the best of luck. I apologize for the long argument. My position is this: the government should not endorse national or state lotteries, which are run by many state governments for extra revenue.

FACTS
About one-third of lottery winners go bankrupt, while debt is a general problem for all lottery winners. [1] [8]

The full value of money won by lottery winners is only given if the winner accepts a series of annual payments, where inflation lowers the value of the prize. The only other option is to accept a very reduced sum. Taxes on the prize reduce the amount won further. [1]

The poor make up the vast majority (80%) of lottery players--a household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, about 9 percent of all its income. [1] [4]

A sampling of the odds from the Powerball which supports the revenues of 21 states: Only one in 195,249,054 wins the grand prize. The odds remain terrible all the way down to the lowest prize available--one would have to pay 62 times to win $3, statistically. [2]

States earned about $115 in revenue from Powerball. [3]

When lottery revenue is used to fund specific programs, the programs do not actually receive more money and only have their funding replaced. In the long run, they receive less funding. [3]

Lottery revenue, in addition to funding specific programs, is used to lower how much homeowners have to pay in property taxes--a "voluntary tax". [1]

MISLEADING
The allure of the lottery is a false promise. I remind my audience of the extremely low odds of winning, yet the same company which had those odds proclaims: "There were no jackpot winners Saturday, but 724,959 players across the nation won more than $6.9 million in prizes in America's Game." Statements like these are common but are incredibly misleading--on average all of those 724,959 people won only $9--nine dollars!--each. This is a form of state revenue which relies on misleading people.

WINNERS LOSE
It seems nobody comes out of this worse than the winners themselves. It's been shown that people are simply very bad at dealing with suddenly becoming wealthy. One-third of them file for bankruptcy in five years. Most suffer from social anomie, meaning they suddenly stop thinking about social norms and rules and end up destroying their lives legally and emotionally. Winners attest to being constantly harassed for money by everyone from family members to strangers expecting them to pay their bills. Another form of harassment is in frivolous lawsuits intended to get out-of-court settlements--the same kind of lawsuits that big corporations often get, except that corporations have regular income and lottery winners only think they do. Most winners end up in a great deal of debt even if they avoid the worst of the riches to ruin story.

POINTLESS
The net gain isn't much to brag about. As mentioned in the facts above, 9% of the income of those with income under $13,000 is lost to the lottery. This group makes up the vast majority of lottery income, and generally states get about a third of a lottery's profit.

Meaning, a household making $10,000 has lost $900 and the state gets about $300 (if we're going to be very careful and not overstate anything, which I intend to do). Forgetting sales tax, that means along with $1000 in income tax the state gets $1300 out of this extremely poor tax bracket.

If the state is truly desperate enough to squeeze money out of the nation's poorest, however, an increase of 5% in the amount this person is taxed would—with the lottery out of the picture—give the state the same $1500 total without the impoverished losing that extra $400 that went to private industry.

The state has more money, the household has more money, and there is no risk of an innocent person suffering from any terrible effects. And as mentioned in the facts, the revenue gained by the lottery system is used as an easy solution and could be considered worth less than conventionally gained revenue.

This is of course, despite the size of the paragraph (correction: I've broken this down, but wasn't sure how else to refer to it all...just visualize it as a big scary paragraph, and silently thank me) a big simplification. My point is illustrated, however--the government makes less with this system.

UNFAIR
Most people recognize that even if lottery prizes didn't cause all sorts of problems, the winners don't deserve to be multi-millionaires simply for getting lucky. This isn't fair. Some might argue that risk and reward is simply part of capitalism, however a government should encourage citizens to work hard. A government should not endorse and even run something which perpetuates a mentality that one doesn't have to work hard to get rich.

CONCLUSION
The bottom line is, nobody wins but the lottery companies. As there is no reason outside of political posturing to use lotteries for state revenue, and many compelling reasons to end the practice altogether, the only clear answer is that the state has no business in the lottery business.

SOURCES
1) http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com...
2) http://www.powerball.com...
3) http://abcnews.go.com...
4) http://scienceblogs.com...
5) http://www.karemar.com...
6) https://docs.google.com...
7) https://docs.google.com...
8) http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
Wow! Great debate you two. I enjoyed this debate more than usual. Plus I learned quite a bit. Very entertaining to read and you both made great cases.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Huge apologies for the long argument. As an ex-journalism major I am embarrassed for not being able to cut it down further. >_>

Thank you for the fun debate and good luck. :)
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Whoohoo! My turn! Been chomping at the bit, yay. :)

Go you for choosing Pro ESL-merging. I actually wrote that with the "keep non-english speakers out of the classroom!" sort of racist mentality that I notice is common in America and expected a pro or con of that to focus on the English speaking students. I imagine Britain is different, but very pleasantly surprised that for once the white kids aren't the only ones whose interests are kept in mind. Major kudos, I mean that.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Yup, the options were perfect that you gave me. A good mix of options and nothing too hard or easy. Look forward to it!
Posted by Logician 6 years ago
Logician
@Grape - which side of Option 3 would you have wanted to argue? Because dependent on whether we disagree, I'd be happy to set up a debate on that specific topic...
Posted by Logician 6 years ago
Logician
If you are able to make a link from the motion to a certain line of argument, then you are free to make whatever arguments you so desire.

And don't worry about the motions you gave me - they're sufficiently challenging that I'm taking some time out to think through various lines of approach, but not too difficult that the prospect seems insurmountable. I hope that the same is true with my motions :-)
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Logician, could I get a clarification? I'm happy to argue option 1 either way, but it'd be helpful to clarify if you meant to infer that option 1 was about the state getting revenue directly from lotteries (ie not just from taxing them). Best of luck, and I really hope I didn't give anything too difficult or too easy.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
I'm so sorry Grape! :<

If you like I can make it up to you with an Impromptu debate at a convenient time for you. :)
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Ninja'd 0_o
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Just to clarify, I can take Pro or Con for any of those? If I wasn't insanely busy this week I'd take this. Someone will probably take it before Thursday but if not I will. I like topic 3 a lot.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 6 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
LogicianYvetteTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
LogicianYvetteTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
LogicianYvetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
LogicianYvetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00