The Instigator
Stumpy13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OhioGary
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Is the unequal distribution of money per student in schools a violation of the 14th amendment?

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 3 votes the winner is...
OhioGary
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,991 times Debate No: 29085
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Stumpy13

Pro

TOPIC: Is the unequal distribution of money per student in schools a violation of the 14th amendment?

PRO: I will be arguing that the unequal distribution of money per student in schools is a violation of the 14th amendment.

CON: My opponent will be expected to prove that the unequal distribution of money per student in schools is not a violation of the 14th amendment.

_____________________________________

These are the terms of conduct expected in this debate. If you do not wish to and/or do not intend to follow them please refrain from participating. Thank you.

EVIDENCE: Opinions based on faith ("It's true because I think/believe it is") will not be accepted. Both sides are expected to provide valid evidence supporting their hypotheses while legitimately responding to the other party's evidence, and furthermore, if they disagree, to produce evidence supporting their counter-argument as well. "Valid" evidence in this context is any evidence that has not or cannot be scientifically, legally, logically or empirically disproven.

SCOPE: By participating in this debate both parties agree to make an effort not to extend arguments outside of the debate topic. Arguments that do so need not be responded to in order to save time and space and keep the debate relevant. In the same vein, please let's not resort to semantics unless absolutely necessary.

SOURCES: Unless you want your source ridiculed, and in an effort to keep the debate fair, please choose valid sources of information/evidence that both parties have access to. Sites such as Wikipedia that anyone can edit, and personal, subjective remarks made by bloggers / YouTube celebrities, etc., do not meet these criteria unless they draw evidence from sources that do.

COURTEOUS: Avoid swearing/name-calling please. Let's keep this mature.
_____________________________________

The debate is designed to follow this structure~

| ROUND I |
- State POV (Pro/Con)
- Agree to terms of conduct specified in this post
- DO NOT yet make arguments beyond opinion summary

| ROUND II |
- Provide summary of general arguments
- Provide evidence for general arguments
- DO NOT yet respond to opponent's arguments

| ROUND III |
- Respond to general arguments of opposing party
- Provide evidence for counter-arguments
- Free to provide fresh arguments

| ROUND IV |
- Respond to & make arguments
- Provide evidence
- Free to provide fresh arguments
- After this round, no new arguments accepted, so start wrapping it up...

| ROUND V |
- NO NEW arguments accepted
- Respond to any argument that has not previously been mutually recognized as proven to be true/false
- Don't bring back a counter-argument that both sides agree has been previously disproven
- Make closing argument / final statement
- Provide evidence
- This is the structure of the final round should a previous round be designated as such due to an unforeseen brevity in the debate.

_____________________________________

{ POINT OF VIEW }

As pro/yes to the topic: "Is the unequal distribution of money per student in schools a violation of the 14th amendment?" I will be arguing that the unequal distribution of money per student in schools IS a violation of the 14th amendment.

I believe that the money collected from taxes that is distributed to the local school district is unconstitutional because a lack of funding creates unequal oppurtunities between the students from wealthy schools and poor schools.

I look forward to an educated opposing opinion, and thank the user Imagination and GarretKadeDupre for introducing me to this style of debate presentation.
OhioGary

Con

I accept the terms of the debate.
I will argue that education funding for public schools is not a violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

I'm looking forward to an interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Stumpy13

Pro

It is important to note that since it is only four rounds now, the former round five will be combined with round four.

It is the belief that total equality, in the extreme sense, anything that people could do would be considered communism. In the 14th amendment it is said that all shall have equal protection fo the law and that the state cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The United States provides equal oppurtunity to all of it's citizens by the means of education. But is it really an equal oppurtunity?

The funding for schools and districts are based on property taxes collected from the area that feeds into the school. In school districts that are within the city, the taxes that are collected are very low as a result of poverty that is prevalent throughout the city. This results in lower funding to the schools. This recently happened to a school in Garfield Heights, Ohio. The school had to close many essential programs, such as physical education, music, and art. And better yet, the students had to be sent home for lunch because the school could not afford it. Is THIS what you call an equal oppurtunity?

This will hinder the student's first amendment right if it continues to other schools.

"Education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society. Both facets of this observation are suggestive of the substantial relationship which education bears to guarantees of our Constitution." - Thurgood Marshall

http://www.law.cornell.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
OhioGary

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate and debating a Debate.org neophyte such as myself. While I appreciate Pro’s argument, you must vote Con in this debate as Pro’s argument flies in the face of the 14th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. In addition, Pro felt that education funding had 1st Amendment issues but has not provided reasons to substantiate that viewpoint.

Proposed Resolution Is Unconstitutional Under The 14th Amendment

Before beginning a discussion of how the resolution is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, I wanted to provide an excerpt from Section I of the 14th Amendment which discusses the Equal Protection clause referenced by Pro.

Section I of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.archives.gov...

Pro argues that local school funding via property taxes denies citizens of equal protection of the laws among all states because some states collect more property taxes than other states. However, the Equal Protection Clause references enforcement of laws within a state. The 14th Amendment does not require one state to adopt and follow the laws of another state in order to ensure that all states collect the same amount of property tax revenue. Therefore, Pro’s argument that one state should have to follow school funding laws set in another state are both flawed and unconstitutional.

Proposed Resolution Is Unconstitutional Under The 10th Amendment

Pro argues, “The United States provides equal oppurtunity[sic] to all of it's citizens by the means of education.”

The 10th Amendment states that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. http://www.archives.gov...


Education laws are not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution; therefore, regulation of schools, including school funding, is reserved to the States. State & municipal governments collect both property & income taxes for school funding. The Federal government does not collect these taxes. In Ohio, local school districts must choose how they should raise revenue as well as how much revenue they should raise and from what sources.

In any event, the Federal government does not regulate education laws per the US Constitution. Pro’s argument, as a whole, violates the 10th Amendment and should be refused.

No Support For Alleged 1st Amendment Issues With Education Funding

Pro concludes by stating how education funding “will hinder the student's first amendment right if it continues to other schools.” Pro does not make an argument for how a student’s 1st Amendment rights are infringed. Such an argument is unfounded until or unless Pro can provide an argument supporting this assertion. Until such time occurs, Pro has not met the burden of proof.

In conclusion, Pro’s argument fails on various Constitutional standards. Pro had an opportunity to argue this point against the 14th Amendment. Pro was not able to do so. Pro had an opportunity to argue this point against the 10th Amendment. Pro was not able to do so. Pro had an opportunity to argue this point against the 1st Amendment. Pro was not able to do so.

Pro has not met the burden of proof for this debate and I respectfully request a vote for Con in this debate.

Debate Round No. 2
Stumpy13

Pro

Stumpy13 forfeited this round.
OhioGary

Con

As Pro has not provided additional arguments in this round, I have nothing to disprove.

Additionally, I have no additional arguments to make other than what I said before:

Pro's argument is unconstitutional on the 14th Amendment because the 14th Amendment requires states to enforce state laws equally within a state. The 14th Amendment does not require one state to adopt the laws of another state.

Pro's argument is unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment because the US Constitution does not grant the regulation of schools to the Federal government; therefore, this authority rests with the individual States.

Pro did not provide an argument to support why the 1st Amendment infringement applied in the opening argument and did not provide an argument in the prior round. Per the terms of the debate, this argument cannot be brought

For these reasons I ask for a Con vote in all categories.

Again, I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to concluding remarks in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
Stumpy13

Pro

Stumpy13 forfeited this round.
OhioGary

Con

I thank my opponent for his opening round comments.

After two rounds of discussion, Pro has not provided new information about the assertion that education funding violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. As I have already mentioned, the 14th Amendment requires states to enforce their own state laws equally among citizens. The 14th Amendment does not require one state to adopt another state's laws. Additionally, the 10th Amendment limits the Federal government's authority for education regulation as this is not an enumerated power. Finally, Pro stated in opening arguments that a student's 1st Amendment rights are violated but provided no additional clarification as to how these rights would be violated after having two rounds to respond.

Pro has not met the burden of proof for this debate and I respectfully request a vote for Con in all categories.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
I don't know what happened. Hope Stumpy is ok and I'm looking forward to debating him in the future.
Posted by malcolmxy 4 years ago
malcolmxy
you used my 1st amendment argument. cool. I just skimmed it because I want to wait to read it until dude has a chance to refute it a couple rounds so I don't bias myself via my massive ego, but still, cool.
Posted by malcolmxy 4 years ago
malcolmxy
you used my 1st amendment argument. cool. I just skimmed it because I want to wait to read it until dude has a chance to refute it a couple rounds so I don't bias myself via my massive ego, but still, cool.
Posted by Aned 4 years ago
Aned
The state could collect those taxes and split them up equally among all schools; then no child would be left behind. Sometimes we are too patriotic, but other times we just screw one another up, especially children.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
I'll bite. Looking forward to the debate!
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
i agreewith contra the post still reflects 5 rounds isthere a new round outline?
Posted by Stumpy13 4 years ago
Stumpy13
Done:)
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
I would join if this debate was limited to less than 5 rounds, 4 rounds and up tends to be a long read which reduces voting on those types of debates.
Posted by Imagination 4 years ago
Imagination
Heh, at first this was a bit creepy, I was worried someone'd hijacked my account xD
Posted by malcolmxy 4 years ago
malcolmxy
The better argument is a 1st amendment violation.

I get that you're going to cite Brown v Board of Education and Reed v. Reed, perhaps among others, to support your equal protection position, but those decisions were meant to enforce laws already in existence, or dissolve laws which so obviously violated the concept of equal protection under the law.

School funds are based on geography, and there is nothing inherently illegal about that, and the courts have said as much on more occasions than I care to mention.

With a 1st amendment argument, the courts have established that money = speech. Education is an investment. The less money spent means the lesser the investment and the lesser maturity value of the investment. Thus, when children reach the age of maturity, they begin their adulthood (when their rights truly kick in) with a lesser capacity for speech than others.

That's a restriction to speech based on legislative action, and a plausible constitutional violation.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
Stumpy13OhioGaryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Stumpy13OhioGaryTied
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: Another "set it and forget it" debate. Arguments and conduct to Con, no other points awarded. Pro, if you want to win you have to actually come back to defend your position. At least in this case, Pro came back long enough for opening arguments, which is better than most "set and forget" debates.
Vote Placed by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
Stumpy13OhioGaryTied
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: forfeit