Money From The Military Should Be Diverted To Schooling
Debate Rounds (5)
1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I do not believe that the education system should recieve public funds from any other government institution for multiple reasons.
Let me first begin with the fact that the United States already spends the most on each student for education.The costs amount to around $12,000 per student in elementary and secondary schooling. According to data collected from the CIA World Factbook in 2014, the United States ranked 45th out of all the countries in the world in literacy.
Below is a chart documentating USFG spending on education:
As you see here, despite massive increases of government spending on education, you can clearly see that skills in reading, math and science have been stagnent with no significant improvement. In fact on the world stage, we are actually slipping.
Between 2009 to 2012 our standing on the world stage has dropped:
25th to 31st in Math
20th to 24th in Science
11th to 21st in Reading
At least with the military, when we spend the most on our armed forces, we are ranked on top as the world's strongest military. 
From this data, we can come to the conclusion that military spending is more efficient than education spending. If the US Department of Education cleans up its act and we see our education improve on the same budget they are on now, we may consider investing more to expand a working program. However, with the current state of things it is unwise to cut military spending and use it for education.
Now, we have to question what is a more worthy cause, education or military. To put it simply, education is a far better cause. Education will lead to further economic advances, better lives, and an ability to improve the military. Education will improve the status quo. Military, however, will only maintain the status quo. The status quo isn't really that great. Therefore, we would be wise to put more money into improving the status quo. We don't have to divert much from our military spending. We could make that diversion not hurt our military. All we need to do is divert and allocate funds, and we will see a positive future begin to bloom.
"In order to make a more productive nation economically, and therefore capable of devoting the same amount of money, but on a lower percentage, to the military, we should invest in education, at least temporarily, by diverting excess funds from the military."
The main thing wrong with this entire argument alone is that this is only a bare assertion without evidence that investing even more money into the education system would make our nation more productive economocally
Pro's argues that in Round 3 that the education system is broken because most of the funding goes to well-off schools. While this is true, it is completely irrelevent to your conclusion that the education fund needs more funding. More funds can be allocated to the poorer without increasing the federal budget for the Department of Education. Looking back at my graphy in the previous round, with that much money being poured into the Department of Education, surely the poorer schools would have received some of this funding.
Pro's arguments about how education is more important to military are completely unfounded. His/her arguments lack any evidence backing anything Pro says about how education is more important than the militay. I have provided reasons as to why the military is more efficient with its funds than the Department of Education therefore better deserves the funding it recieves. Pro had no response to my statement. Because of Pro not meeting the burden he/she needs to make the argument hold weight, I do not need to negate the argument.
My opponent argues that my point is irrelevant because "with that much money being poured into the Department of Education, surely the poorer schools would have received some of this funding." This is true. Otherwise, there wouldn't be schools to worry about. This doesn't mean that my argument is invalid, all it means is that we can confirm that schools exist. Money still goes to already successful programs, programs that have an obvious divide along economic class lines.
Diverting funding will solve the allocation issue. As is found in the military, liberal funds means liberal spending. The United States military has over 3x the amount of money put into it than the second ranking, China . Clearly, we put a lot of money into our military. To compare the U.S. to China again, we have 4x as many aircraft, of any type, than China . For the purpose of home security, we are more than adequate, and we spend our money very liberally. Ergo, if the same kind of attention was given to education, more spending would be done on lower income schools. While spending would go to higher income schools, they only need so much.
Education as a Cause:
Education leads to a better functioning economy and better working conditions for workers . The U.S.A. is already as safe as it can get from outside influences because our military, as my opponent has mentioned, is the best military in the world. So, I have to ask my opponent one question. When you say "the military is more efficient with its funds than the Department of Education therefore better deserves the funding it recieves.", I would ask you one question. Would you have a doctor heal the healthy? No, you wouldn't. You would have him go and help the sick. As you have pointed out in your original argument, our education system is in trouble. It is falling behind. That's why I say we should move money from a program that is healthy, vibrant, and, most importantly, stable. The military will be just fine while our education system gets a boost.
Diverting money from the military to education is a win-win situation. There are no downsides in moving money from the military, but there are plenty of upsides in moving money to education. This plan will help our economy, our working conditions, our status worldwide, and it will bring America back to its once promised ideal. America will be a land of opportunity.
NothingSpecial99 forfeited this round.
Because this is the final round, I will sumerize why my opponent fails to prove that military spending hould be diverted to education.
The Burden is on Pro to prove that military spending should be diverted to education. What Pro has only provided is how much money is being poured into the military. I have shown that pouring more funding into the Department of Education won't help the issue as the United already spends the most per student. Despite the fact that with current trends, our education spending has increased exponentially, test scores have stagnated and we have dropped in the world rankings in various subjects. Because we spend more than all the other nations on education, adequate funding is not the issue here. While Pro is probably right in the fact that more funds are diverted to higher-end schools than poorer schools, he/she has failed to prove that the poorer schools must be funded more by pouring military dollars into the Department of Education. Like I have said in previous arguments, with the more than adequate funds the Department of Education has, it could easily reallocate its funds to the poorer schools or reform its infrastructure.
Because I have negated Pro's argument, Pro fails to meet the burden that military spending should be diverted to schooling.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by someloser 5 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Both behaved courteously, but Con's forfeit gives the point to Pro. Spelling and grammar: Both did well Arguments: Narrowly goes to Con. Con sufficiently rebutted Pro's R2 argument. While Pro did refute Con's argument that funding had no effect on educational performance, Con did point out that a reallocation of existing funds within the education system could suffice. Sources: While approximately matched in amount, Con cited primary sources, as opposed to Pro (who cited a book and Wikipedia at one point)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.