The Instigator
wishwasher12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emmarie
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Should education for lower income/lower class be equal to those with higher income/high class?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Emmarie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 88292
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

wishwasher12

Con

No, since those who have higher class/higher income were able to get the money to pay for it. This is because their parents worked hard for the money to get a good education for their children. People with lower income/lower class did not work hard enough to get a good education in the first place. If they did, there would easily be many scholarships and financial aid to help them.
Emmarie

Pro

Education for lower income individuals should be equal to those with higher income. My opponent never stated in his resolution the definition of education, so I will define education as; http://www.dictionary.com...
noun
1.
the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of
reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for
mature life.

The Declaration of Independence includes the idea that we are, " “endowed…with certain unalienable Rights…among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Without an education these unalienable rights are nearly impossible to achieve.

Amendment IX of the Constitution as explained by The Rutherfort Institute's online page states that, "In sum, the Ninth Amendment serves as a meaningful check on federal power and a significant guarantee of individual liberty."

Individual liberty means that not only members of the upper class should have education. In order to be able to pursue happiness, education should be offered regardless of income or class.
Debate Round No. 1
wishwasher12

Con

No, since those who have higher class/higher income were able to get the money to pay for it. This is because their parents worked hard for the money to get a good education for their children. People with lower income/lower class did not work hard enough to get a good education in the first place. If they did, there would easily be many scholarships and financial aid to help them.
Emmarie

Pro

My opponent erred by copying and pasting his claim from round 1 into the round 2 section. I erred in attempting to state why I disagree with the resolution, rather than resolving the definitions of the resolution itself. My opponent's claims cannot be addressed until we have defined income/class.

My claim is that parental wealth should not determine education equality of an individual. I stated my definition of education in round 1 which my opponent has not refuted. I also stated the reasons why I believe that education for lower income
individuals should be equal to those with higher incomes. I'd like to correct myself before I grasp at any more straws by continuing fruitless explanations of why I disagree with the resolution and turn my focus back to the resolution itself.


The resolution needs clarification and is on my opponent to define because the sentence structure of the resolution is not parallel and fails to define income/class. What defines lower income/lower class needs to be established. What defines higher income/high (er) (high is not parallel to lower) needs to be established, before I present my arguments or any rebuttals of my opponent's claim.

I will briefly address the grammatical quality of pro's claims. Sentence 1,2,and 4 are fragments.

Hopefully. in round 3 we can return to arguments and rebuttals pertaining to the resolution once it has been defined and agreed upon.





Debate Round No. 2
wishwasher12

Con

wishwasher12 forfeited this round.
Emmarie

Pro

Note that my Pro has forfeited another round. As I stated in round 2, Pro needs to define lower income/lower class. What defines higher income/high(er) (high is not parallel to lower) needs to be established, before I present my arguments or any rebuttals of my opponent's claim.


Before I can argue against pro’s claims, or expand on my counter claims, these points need clarification and sources.


“No, since those who have higher class/higher income were able to get the money to pay for it. This is because their parents worked hard for the money to get a good education for their children.”

This statement is an opinion and hasn’t been proven. No sources have been provided for :

  1. Higher income = higher class

  2. Higher Income is due to working “hard”

  3. No definition is provided for what constitutes hard work vs. efficient work

  4. Obtaining money to provide an education for their children was the only motivator for working hard.

“ People with lower income/lower class did not work hard enough to get a good education in the first place. If they did, there would easily be many scholarships and financial aid to help them.”

This statement is an opinion and hasn’t been proven. No sources have been provided for :

  1. Lower income = lower class

  2. Lower income is due to not working hard enough

  3. No definition is provided for what constitutes hard work vs. efficient work

  4. This statement contradicts itself, by stating that hard work = high income = financial aid and scholarship availability. The purpose of financial aid and scholarships, is to assist students whose parents are unable to afford it.


In round 1 of this debate I immediately started grasping at straws since pro’s resolution statement and claims were so poorly worded and defined. Rather than point out the errors, I began to formulate a counter-claim, to which I cited sources. I hope the judges will consider my self correction, when voting on this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
wishwasher12

Con

wishwasher12 forfeited this round.
Emmarie

Pro

I will return to some of the arguments against this resolution since pro has not engaged in any dialog. I did considerable work in my attempt to grasp at straws before I knew that my opponent wasn’t even going to make any attempt to discuss his resolution. I will present my findings, and should he return to define the questions I have proposed in R3 or define claims in his resolution and paragraph, I will rebutt them in my closing round. This is not the norm for debate ettiquette but it is my only option seeing that my opponent has not engaged in dialog.


My opponent has forfeited another round, but I will negate his claim that education should not be equal in regards to income or perceived class. I will also argue against the ideas that people work hard for money, only for the purpose of giving their kids a good education. I will continue explaining my negation of this resolution, by explaining how the issue of the educational needs of all peoples; - low income or high income; privileged because of parents work ethic, or privileged because of inheritance: under privileged despite parents work ethic, or underprivileged due to parental ineptitude, - relates to the larger ideology of what both The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution inherently intend for inhabitants of our regions to have, to allow individuals the opportunity to obtain the unalienable rights that the writers of the these documents framed.


Why is a discussion about the rights of any individual to be equally educated, regardless of income related to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It is because ideas about liberty to pursue happiness in life are some of the ideas that this Nation was founded on. The writings were meant to preserve and expand on those ideas, and it is why our Nation has made great advances in securing rights for individuals and members of groups that did not possess these rights during this Nation's founding. If the ideas about unalienable rights, that Amendment IX, however vaguely addresses, is applied to the need for equality in education, then all individuals would be more embodied to pursue happiness.


My citing of the Declaration of Independence mention of “unalienable rights” is to show that the framers of this important historical document, had an expectation of what conditions would make life more agreeable, than the conditions that they were exposed to under the government that they sought independence from. The mention of these rights in this document did not specifically include education, but the wording implied that liberty is directly related to life and the pursuit of happiness. If we apply these concepts to our modern conditions of life and the pursuit of happiness, we can see how lacking an equal education, can prevent an individual from being able to pursue happiness - or enjoy liberty. The Declaration of Independence is however, not Our Constitution. We need to examine Amendment IX of the Constitution, to comprehend it’s relation to the rights mentioned in the constitution. http://www.ushistory.org...



Now I will show how ideas about government by the framers of the Declaration apply to Amendment IX of the constitution.

“In response,(to opponents of ratification who wanted a bill of rights) supporters of the Constitution (“Federalists”) such as James Wilson argued that a bill of rights could be dangerous. Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered. And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated. Nevertheless, because the Anti-federalist demand for a bill of rights resonated with the public, Federalists like James Madison countered with a pledge to offer amendments after the Constitution’s ratification.


Madison addressed the house to take up the issue of amendments,"In a now famous and much-analyzed speech, he introduced a list of amendments that he proposed be inserted within the text of the Constitution so as literally to “amend” or change it. For example, he proposed that “there be prefixed” to the Constitution a declaration that “Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”” http://constitutioncenter.org...


The ideas about Government that are were expressed in The Declaration, were further expanded on in the Constitution. Amendment IX, has been disputed concerning its meaning by scholars and lawyers, but it’s origin isn’t in dispute. The reason for the ninth amendment is to insure us rights, that are not directly stated in the Bill of Rights.


During the framing of The Constitution Federalists argued against a Bill of Rights because it would make it possible to presume that any rights not stated, imply that all those rights not listed were surrendered. (James Wilson) Anti-federalists were in favor of a Bill of Rights and complained during the ratification debates about its lacking. James Madison wanted to include a prefix to the constitution that addressed both rights, (similar to those that I quoted from the Declaration) and the limitation of an expansive power of government that could threaten those rights. This is the prefix that he proposed:

“Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety,”


Madison also had other ideas about directly protecting the rights of individuals that were disputed while framing the Constitution. The specific proposals he authored were dropped and the ninth amendment was re-written as it stands today:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

If one were to interpret the text by simply making the sentence parallel, it would read as such,

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (other rights) retained by the people,”

(my add in parenthesis to replace others) making both Madison's and Barnette's ideas probable. An anti-federalist could have worded this ninth as it stands, to make it more difficult to interpret and apply to rights of individuals or rights of the government. I propose, that it is possible to more clearly understand it’s meaning, by omitting as “s” and adding one word, (my addition in italics) The sentence structure implies that other”s” is referring to rights.


I copied and pasted my edited quote into the google search engine, to see if anyone else had attempted to interpret the ninth amendment with my changes, and found nothing. I checked to make sure I wasn’t plagiarizing anyone who may have previously done this.


One of four rival interpretations, since the 1980's, "Randy Barnett maintained that the Amendment referred to the natural liberty rights of the people as individuals, which are also referred to in the Declaration of Independence, state bills of rights, and Madison’s proposed addition to the Preamble.." it is with this definition that to me, holds the most validity, since it seems to be the most closely in proximity as Madison's plea to the House.


This is my argument in regards to the resolution.

First, the definition of education, that I provided, “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life,” applies to the rights and needs of any individual regardless of their economic or social class, negating my opponents claim that education should be afforded only to those whose parents can pay. http://www.dictionary.com...


Equal opportunity for education, does not negate the need to work, nor to apply learned knowledge towards immediate and future goals. Equal opportunity for education simply ensures that everyone is given the same access to knowledge, that can prepare one for mature life. Therefore; In order for work to become most profitable, certain knowledge is needed to prepare one to work in a skilled manner. Education serves this purpose. Limiting access to only those who can afford to pay for that knowledge, is an arbitrary way of ensuring privilege remains unattainable to lower income persons. Whether it be through the employment efforts resulting in economic success, or through the inherited wealth of their parents, these students are able to obtain knowledge based on their parents ability to pay, not through any other merit. I understand my opponents claim to be that prosperity, as far as the ability for parents to pay for the education of their offspring, is the only factor that should determine whether a person has a right to acquire knowledge. (see above education definition in bold) My counter argument is based on his claim,


““No, since those who have higher class/higher income were able to get the money to pay for it. This is because their parents worked hard for the money to get a good education for their children. People with lower income/lower class did not work hard enough to get a good education in the first place. If they did, there would easily be many scholarships and financial aid to help them.”


Not having dialog has made it impossible to present my counter argument in a way that makes sense. I hope the information I provided will show the effort I put into grasping at straws but compiling enough information to disprove Pro’s resolution.

I thank, in advance, any judge who takes the time to read this.



Debate Round No. 4
wishwasher12

Con

wishwasher12 forfeited this round.
Emmarie

Pro

thanks to anyone who reads this debate - please vote for me at least for conduct.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kilk1 11 months ago
Kilk1
@Emmarie Hello. I hope it's okay that I'm replying here. I replied to your comment on the debate "The Bible teaches that certain dances are sinful":

http://tinyurl.com...

Also, I just found out that you joined DDO about a week ago. Welcome!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Overhead 10 months ago
Overhead
wishwasher12EmmarieTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: CON FF 3 rounds and R2 was a repeat of R1. Sources: Only Pro used sources. For argument CON only offers opinion, which they never get around to supporting. PRO successfully pokes holes in this argument and even turns CON's arguments against him, for instance pointing out in R3 that CON cannot simultaneously claim that people who work hard have high incomes and that poor people (therefore with low incomes) who work hard exist. CON has done this with their reference to poor working hard people (or the children thereof, that's left unclear) getting scholarships.
Vote Placed by Death23 10 months ago
Death23
wishwasher12EmmarieTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Hayd 10 months ago
Hayd
wishwasher12EmmarieTied
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: conduct to pro for con forfeiting. Pro's negating rebuttals are dropped by Con thus the rebuttals are valued. Con's arguments are entirely negated, thus Pro wins by default.