The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JuliusMaxims
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Poor schoolchildren should clean up after rich schoolchildren or go hungry

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/7/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 981 times Debate No: 54221
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

brian_eggleston

Con

The following conversation could soon take place in publically-funded school playgrounds in Britain if they adopt the American system of humiliating kids who are entitled to free school meals by forcing them to clean up after the rich kids.

Teacher: I say, you there. Yes you, you nauseating little peasant. You're the girl who gets free school meals, aren't you?

Little girl: Yes, sir.

Teacher: Your sort make me sick, you scrounging little urchin. Who do you think pays for your school meals? The school dinner fairy? No, it's the taxpayers, isn't it?

Little girl: Yes, sir, but my daddy used to pay tax until he was crippled when the asbestos mine he was working in collapsed and crushed his arms.

Teacher: So? He could still get a job as grape-treader, couldn't he?

Little girl: Well, no, sir. When he threatened to sue the mine owners they sent some thugs round to our house and they smashed his kneecaps in with a sledgehammer. Now he can't walk.

Teacher: But he can lie down, so he could still get a job as a draught-excluder in a posh house, couldn't he? The fact is he's a indolent, work-shy layabout just like you. Why haven't you got a job, you idle little prole?

Little girl: I'm only seven, sir.

Teacher: That's no excuse, you snivelling little oik. The American Republican congressman Jack King quite rightly said there"s no such thing as a free lunch and that poor kids should be made to clean up after the rich kids at school. Now, you pre-pubescent pleb, that rich boy over there has dropped the wrapper of his Charbonnel et Walker Marc de Champagne chocolate bar on the floor in front of him, go over and pick it up and, while you're down there, you can lick his shoes clean, which is all scum like you are fit for, you impoverished little imp.

Little girl: But, sir, that's not fair!

Teacher: Life's not fair. If you don't like it, go out and get a job and pay for your own school dinners. There are plenty of paedos out there who would pay good money for a bit of underage she-meat, why don't you go on the game? Because you're too damned lazy, that's why, you indolent little slapper.

Now I understand there may well be an economic case for the Republican system of getting poor kids to clean the schools and using the money saved on janitors to give tax cuts to the rich, but this system marginalises kids from poorer backgrounds, sapping their self-confidence, and it also means they waste valuable time that could be better spent doing homework or playing sport.

Call me a socialist, I don't mind, but I believe that all children in publically-funded schools should be treated equally and with dignity and respect, regardless of their parents' financial status, and it is certainly wrong to punish poor kids for being underprivileged by making them clean up after the rich kids.

Thank you.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
JuliusMaxims

Pro

Preface:

I had to think for a while before taking this one up, my socialist style economic views doing battle against my Authoritarian right wing social values.


Rebuttals:

"The following conversation could soon take place in publicly-funded school playgrounds in Britain if they adopt the American system of humiliating kids who are entitled to free school meals by forcing them to clean up after the rich kids."

The premise of this statement is false, American public schools do not participate in any such program, and while this does not specifically pertain the debate at hand the statement is false nevertheless.

"... Long winded made up story"

By inventing incredibly false and abusive arguments you are attempting to falsely demonize based solely on your imagination and turn the audience against my position by associating unsubstantiated cruelness with it.

" Now I understand there may well be an economic case for the Republican system of getting poor kids to clean the schools and using the money saved on janitors to give tax cuts to the rich, but this system marginalizes kids from poorer backgrounds, sapping their self-confidence, and it also means they waste valuable time that could be better spent doing homework or playing sport."

Another blatant straw man argument, nowhere in the premise of this argument is giving tax breaks to the rich included.

I see no reason to believe that cleaning a cafeteria would sap the self confidence of those from lower economic backgrounds. In the armed forces enlisted men often find themselves cleaning up after their officers, however this does not damage the self confidence of the enlisted man, instead it brings him and his fellow soldiers closer together.

Cleaning a cafeteria would take a negligible amount of time, especially with the availability of dozens of students. At most it would take around half an hour to clean the lunch room, leaving ample time for homework and after school activities.

"Call me a socialist, I don't mind, but I believe that all children in publicly-funded schools should be treated equally and with dignity and respect, regardless of their parents' financial status, and it is certainly wrong to punish poor kids for being underprivileged by making them clean up after the rich kids."

The problem with your argument is that they are not equal, based on the fact that they are economically less well off they are less likely to graduate from college and get a white collar job. [1] Due to this fact those who do manage to get jobs will not be on an equal playing field as those wealthy students who have gone on and graduated from an Ivy league university. By having them learn work ethics at a young age and teaching them applicable labor skills they are more likely to get jobs that they can use to ensure that their children are better off, thus breaking the poverty cycle.

Argument:


Because they come from lower class households these children's parents most likely contribute less to the nation economically and with taxes than the parents of richer children. Everyone has a place in society, those better off tend to occupy higher positions in society such as CEOs and Managers. However everyone must contribute if the society is to run smoothly and in order to prepare lower class children for their place in society they should be taught useful skills for that position. For example, the child of some Rothschild banker will never need to know how to mop a floor, and their time would be better utilized by learning high finance, on the flip side the son of an inner city mother with 9 children and no husband is much less likely to have need of a degree from Harvard. Instead he should be taught practical skills that he can use to ensure that his children have a better chance than he did.

In addition money could be saved by cutting back on custodial staff, this money could be used for vocational programs that teach practical skills to those destined for blue collar careers. In addition funds saved from these cuts could be re-directed to social programs to help lower class youth. In effect these kids would be working to better their neighborhoods and lives.

[1]http://www.coveringpoverty.org...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Con

I would like to thank JuliusMaxims for accepting this challenge and who, despite asserting his left-wing credentials, does a reasonable impression of a Republican / Tory politician. Might I politely suggest, however, that in the next round he makes his performance even more convincing by expressing some bitterly cruel and totally heartless political opinions that demonise the poor and places the blame for their misfortunes at their own feet?

Moving on to my opponent's argument, he rightly observed that children from better-off families are already far more likely to end up in with professional jobs while kids from financially-deprived backgrounds are more likely to end up as manual workers.

Indeed, his opinions echo those expressed by His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland (to give him his full title) who wrote: "What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities? This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability. It is a result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically engineered to contradict the lessons of history."

Defending these remarks, the Prince said: "In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities." On this point I agree with His Royal Highness, although it should be noted that their achievements, at least in capitalist societies, are not equally respected or financially-rewarded.

The extreme right-wing former British dictator, Margaret "the milk-snatcher" Thatcher, wouldn't have agreed with the Prince though. This is the Tory tyrant who famously said "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure." If you are wondering, by the way, how this deceased despot acquired her "milk-snatcher" moniker, the answer is that before she was installed as Britain's most despised leader, she was put in charge of education and one of the first things she did was take the kids' free school milk off them. [2]

If she were a Republican politician in America, she wouldn't have stolen their milk, though, she would have made them either pay for it or work for it instead, just as my opponent suggests would be a reasonable demand, even though this would separate the kids into two groups: "the haves" able to afford school refreshments; and "the have-nots" who would have to perform humiliating chores for them.

Surely we should be striving to provide children with the equality of opportunity to reach their full potential, regardless of the family backgrounds? That way, children will grow up and prosper in life according to their merit rather than their parents' bank balance.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.wsws.org...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com...
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
JuliusMaxims

Pro

Preface;

Ha, thanks I'll take that into account next time.

Rebuttals:

"Defending these remarks, the Prince said: "In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities." On this point I agree with His Royal Highness, although it should be noted that their achievements, at least in capitalist societies, are not equally respected or financially-rewarded"

To this point I agree, not everyone is capable of being a nuclear physicist and it would be foolish to suggest that they were. Neither should a bricklayer be given the same wage as a nuclear physicist despite deserving respect for the job he does.

"The extreme right-wing former British dictator, Margaret "the milk-snatcher" Thatcher, wouldn't have agreed with the Prince though. This is the Tory tyrant who famously said "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure." If you are wondering, by the way, how this deceased despot acquired her "milk-snatcher" moniker, the answer is that before she was installed as Britain's most despised leader, she was put in charge of education and one of the first things she did was take the kids' free school milk off them.

If she were a Republican politician in America, she wouldn't have stolen their milk, though, she would have made them either pay for it or work for it instead, just as my opponent suggests would be a reasonable demand, even though this would separate the kids into two groups: "the haves" able to afford school refreshments; and "the have-nots" who would have to perform humiliating chores for them."

Actually we do have to pay for our milk here in the U.S. but those who can't afford are eligible for financial assistance. I find it beneficial for children to learn that they won't have things handed to them, there is no free lunch in college, no free lunch in life unless you plan on being homeless or on welfare which might very well happen if children are not exposed to having to work for what they have.

"Surely we should be striving to provide children with the equality of opportunity to reach their full potential, regardless of the family backgrounds? That way, children will grow up and prosper in life according to their merit rather than their parents' bank balance."

Of course, some of the world's greatest leaders have come from less than Rockefeller families. However introducing children to work does not take away any of their opportunities, in fact the work experience might help them score entry level jobs that would be difficult to obtain without anything to put on a resume. Not only would the experience help build up their credentials but it would also build up their character and work ethic, tools that the gifted can use to propel themselves to the top.

Conclusion:

Making poor children clean up after the rich will give them advantages in work ethics, credentials, and character building while alleviating financial stress on the system which will allow more funds to go to public services. At the same time there are little to no drawbacks.


Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JuliusMaxims 3 years ago
JuliusMaxims
Multicultural socialism is indeed the "lazy man's economics" however National Socialism is a completely different case.
Posted by brandan 3 years ago
brandan
There is no such thing as equality in capitalism, thats just what makes it work, some people must fall behind so we can all be ahead, Socialist views are WAY out of proportion on realistic expectations of a human, its the lazy mans economics. Socialism will never work
Posted by RebeccaJade 3 years ago
RebeccaJade
I also believe that children within today school environment should all be treated equally, no matter what their parents work status is. People need to learn to be respectful towards one another and to gain respesct, you need to give respect. By allowing teachers to treat children poorly due to their parents work status is going to make the social economy rude and unpolite. As I mentioned prevouisly, all students should be treated fairly whether their parents have a job or not.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
lol!
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
I was really hoping to see you on Pro for this!! Although it looks like others would have beaten me to it anyways, lol. Best of luck to whoever takes Pro.

P.S. - Your resolutions are the most entertaining out of any other member here. Good Day, Sir!!
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
Damn, you're not pro? You've gone soft.
Posted by Comrade_Silly_Otter 3 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Was going to join, then I saw you where Con, :P

Hello Socialist Comrade o/
Posted by BasicLogic 3 years ago
BasicLogic
Lol, that conversation
No votes have been placed for this debate.