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

Schools should have after-school/extracurricular clubs and activities.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 1/30/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,988 times Debate No: 29703
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




Schools should have after-school clubs and activities. These are not things you remove when schools have budget cuts. These may not seem important to education, but they actually are.

Schools have a variety of after-school clubs for students to go to. This allows the students to choose which clubs they wish to attend, so they can choose clubs that they are interested in. Although lots of schools have after-school clubs like basketball, or football, which don't help you academically, they help you stay fit, considering the United States has a high percent of overweight or obese students.

There are also clubs which help you academically. For example, there could be a history club, or an astronomy club, which you can attend if you are unfamiliar with a topic. You can then learn more about that topic.


Essentially, what matters most in a school is the education, the main core classes. These classes consist of History, Math, English, and Science. More money in the schools budget need to be spent on these subjects, not ridiculous extracurriculars such as soccer. Students, if needed, can simply take a soccer class outside of school. Afterschool club money shouldn't be wasted on it. When school budgets are already bad enough, they shouldn't be wasted even more on things a student actually doesn't need.

Now, my opponent is arguing that there is a variety of after-school clubs. However, I don't really understand how this actually applies to the topic at hand nor how it supports his argument. Just because there is a 'variety' of extracurriculars doesn't mean 'extracurriculars' are supportive in the least possible way.

Now, I'd like to move on to his last point, which is that there are educational clubs. Sure, I agree, however the fact remains that it is cutting off of the school budget, and this shouldn't happen. The parents themselves should just hire a tutor or consider signing up for an educational class on a Saturday or a Sunday, which won't interfere with the child's learning in any way. This is a lot more logical and practical, yet still saves a lot of money.

There are also clubs which help you academically. For example, there could be a history club, or an astronomy club, which you can attend if you are unfamiliar with a topic. You can then learn more about that topic.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent said that signing up for an educational class outside of school will save money. This is completely false. The extracurricular activities provided by schools will be completely free of charge. These extracurricular activities also would NOT interfere with a child's education, considering it would not be during school, but after school.

Also, you pointed out that students, if needed, can take a sport, such as Soccer, outside of school. These outside-of-school sports teams will most likely cost lots of money, and many people living in the U.S. have financial concerns. Students will be more prompted to participate in sports clubs directly after school, which are free of charge, and easy to go to. So, instead of driving once a week maybe five miles away to a soccer field, you could stay after-school and just walk to the school fields. And you said that these sports extracurriculars are "ridiculous", "afterschool club money shouldn't be wasted on it", and that "When school budgets are already bad enough, they shouldn't be wasted even more on things a student actually doesn't need". I am positive that the obesity rate is high in the United States, so after-school clubs like these are very important to the health and fitness level of the student.


My opponent, in an attempt to rebut my point that getting rid of extracurriculars will save money, stated that the after-school activities are "completely free of charge". I don't understand what he is getting at here, because to my knowledge paying for the materials and the supplies will cost a couple hundred. Even for the simplest club, such as soccer, you'd still have to pay for the soccer balls, the soccer goals, snacks, drinks, and all of this will be put to waste if no one goes to the club in the first place. A couple hundred dollars down the drain, and my opponent thinks this is 'free of charge'.

Now, onto his second point, which was that it wouldn't interfere with a child's education. During the periods when the student is supposed to be learning, he instead may be distracted and thinking about the after-school activity, which would essentially be a roadblock to his education. It's quite a simple point, and the fact that my opponent fails to recognize this is concerning.

Now, onto his third point, which was an attempt to refute my point stating that students can simply take the extracurriculars outside of school. He stated that many people in the U.S. have financial problems and that it will cost a lot of money. Well, if they honestly had financial problems, do you think they would be able to go to school in the first place? This debate doesn't pertain to them, which thus renders my opponents point completely null and void. Now, addressing his concern that it will cost a lot of money, you have to prioritize here. It's either a lot of money for schools that already have low-budgets, or a family that can completely afford it. What would you choose? As a side note, he stated that it's free of charge, however, I believe I have already addressed this point so his whole argument is invaild.

Now, he brought up something about obesity, however this is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic. I'm not sure what he was trying to get at here, but obesity has nothing to do with whether afterschool clubs should be allowed. However, in an attempt to refute his less-than-understandable point, I'd like to point out that all students have the financial and physical capability of signing up for out-of-school activities or simply going to the gym to solve their 'obesity'.
Debate Round No. 2


In the previous statement written by my opponent, he stated that clubs are not free of charge, while in fact, they are. The money which will be raised to sponsor these will come directly from fundraisers, the school budget, etc. Although the students will pool in a little of their money, we can all agree that after-school club participation will cost less than classes which take place on the weekends and have nothing to do with school.

Now, onto my opponents second rebuttal. He states that after-school activities interfere with one's learning. Although this may happen, it would also happen with classes that occur over the weekend. It does not matter what the time or date of the class is, if the student's mind is on the extracurricular, and not on his school work, that is his fault. The student's mind is entirely his control.

In his third rebuttal, he talks about my point on the financial problems of families in the U.S.
Of course. Even if your family does have financial concerns, this does not take away your right of a proper education. You will always be able to go to school, despite your financial issues, but you just would not have enough money to pay for classes and sports leagues outside of school. These people have nothing to do with the nation-wide school system, so it's either give the money, or don't sign up. With schools however, it is different. They can come up with compromises and other solutions that allows you to sign up for activities, clubs, etc., even if your family does have financial concerns. This is my point exactly. A lot of families have financial concerns, and they wouldn't be able to sign up for extracurriculars outside of school, but in school, they would, considering that it is a lot cheaper.

Now, onto his fourth rebuttal. In this rebuttal, he talks about me bringing up the issue of obesity in the United States. In this rebuttal, he states exactly this: "I'd like to point out that all students have the financial and physical capability of signing up for out-of-school activities or simply going to the gym to solve their 'obesity'."
Yes. You are correct, but some families do NOT have the financial and physical capability to do these things. You can participate in physical after-school club and activities even with financial concerns.


In my opponents first attempted refutation, he states two things. First, that clubs are free of charge. However, he has never provided sufficient reasoning or evidence as to WHY or HOW clubs could indeed be 'free', while I have, so his point is thus invalid. I'd also like to point out that in this world, nothing is free. Money buys everything, and you honestly can't just think something could be free. His second affirmation was that this will come from 'fundraisers' and 'school budgets'. However, the money from fundraisers always go to education first, not extracurriculars. In the priority list, education is always first. Also, school budgets are so low that they won't be able to afford extracurriculars, which is literally stated in the topic itself. So, his second claim is also null and void. Also, I'd like to state that this is either money taken from the school's funding for textbooks and teachers salary, or money that comes from a family that can actually afford it. According to USA Today, 78% of all schools have already had to cut extracurricular activities because it was too costly and that it takes away from a students actual education, such as it causes the inability to buy textbooks. Put it this way: would you rather take money from a poor person, or a rich person? In this case, the poor person is the school budget, and the rich person is the family that can afford to send their children to school.

Now, I'd like to address his second refutation, which was that students would get distracted even with classes over the weekend. This is actually supporting my side, because he is actually acknowledging that extracurriculars are malefactors to a students education as it will 'distract them'. So, his point is thus not only invalid it's supporting the opposition's case. Just as a side note, I'd like to state that according to a survey done by CNN, 86% of all students are distracted by their extracurricular activities, so this also proves my point in saying that children find this as a distraction.

In his third rebuttal, he talks about the fact that families with financial concerns doesn't lose the right to a proper education. First of all, I never said it did take away the right to an education. Second of all, all I stated was that if a family had financial concerns, they wouldn't be able to send their children to school in the FIRST place because they can't afford it! So, not only is this point irrelevant to the topic at hand, my opponents failed attempt to bring this up is invalid.

Finally, I'd like to address is final point. In this rebuttal, he refutes that some families won't have the financial or physical capability to solve their 'obesity'. However, I'd first like to state that obesity at hand doesn't have anything to do with extracurriculars. Also, as I already addressed before, if a student has financial concerns he wouldn't have the money to pay for school IN THE FIRST PLACE. So, this debate doesn't actually apply to them whatsoever. bringing up the issue of obesity in the United States. If a child is obese, it is not the schools concern or responsibility to solve it, it is actually the student's parents. Obesity has nothing to do with extracurriculars OR after-school activities.

Now, I'd like to state why I think the opposition has won. We have stronger logic and reasoning, we have valid sources and evidence while my opponent has actually provided none whatsoever, and we have refuted all of my opponents points. So, cast your vote for the opposition!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Evan_KKT 3 years ago
Well, I think that after school program has to be need.
Some of students don't satisfy with their life because they study all the times
some of them want to do other things as well as study.
They can learn and spend time on what they want to do so that they feel happy.
they also can find who they are and what they like by doing activities.
And on top of that, Private education will disappear.
Posted by AsselyaZhax 3 years ago
AigerimMur, of course, it depends on personality. Someone can combine study with pleasure, someone not. These activities are normally run after school hours but they can also take place on the weekend. Taking part in activities can make students more sociable and help them gain interpersonal and communication skills which are essential for their future.
Posted by AigerimMur 3 years ago
AsselyaZhax, I disagree with you. In my opinion schools shouldn't have extracurricular clubs. Because children must pay their attention on education, an these club only taking excess time. Students could spending time in extracurricular clubs on holidays.For example, personally I tried to study and get excellent marks, also I go to after school tennis club. So, I can't сombine my studying and my hobby, but in the end I was tired too much.
Posted by AsselyaZhax 3 years ago
Many students choose to do after school extracurricular activities to keep them afloat. Academic clubs, student government, performing arts and other after school extracurricular activities have many benefits such as character building and enhancing social skills. After school, extracurricular activities also help students achieve their professional and academic goals. If every school in Kazakhstan has such kind of activities, pupils will happy to go to school. That is mean that children will try not to miss classes, as will tend to go to different extracurricular clubs.
Posted by AsselyaZhax 3 years ago
Personally, I think that schools should have after-school clubs, because I studied in private school and in my school pupils have to visit after-school lessons. It is really help to understand some materials that you did not understand in class. According to my own experience I know that using after school lessons my knowledge was increased a lot. In relation to activities after schools, I think that it is really useful for kids. Again, I go back to my school, there are a lot of different sport programs, art and music extra lessons. Despite the fact that the children studied diligently, after school they can go to karate and it is very good for their health, children are eager to go to school.
Posted by mayzz 3 years ago
In Japan, almost all schools have after-school clubs. Public schools are focus on the after-school clubs. Because public school is a symbol of the town and people living in the town think after-school clubs to be preferable. Additionally, they think that school children can train the mind and body by the club activities. Therefore, many Japanese think that schools should spend money to the clubs and give opportunities to all students at low cost. In Japan, many people think that schools should have the after-school clubs and the activities.
Posted by Parksterthejenkins 3 years ago
I'll be honest & say that I was too lazy to read the entire debate. BUT! I will say that it has been proven that kids who participate in after-school/extracurricular clubs have better grades...
Posted by mike374040 3 years ago
@esp714 Yep. Argue with anyone you want :)
Posted by esp714 3 years ago
Yep, and since I'm kind of new here, do I just argue with random people about stuff? Friend me :)
Posted by mike374040 3 years ago
@esp714 thank you. :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.