The Instigator
Lordknukle
Pro (for)
Tied
13 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Tied
13 Points

Should teachers get higher salaries?

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Started: 8/20/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,701 times Debate No: 17978
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

Lordknukle

Pro

Round 1: Intro (No cases to be introduced)
Round 2: Body
Round 3: C/E
Round 4: Conclusion

Should teachers get higher salaries?
I will be agruing for the increase of teacher salaries.
My opponent will be arguing against the increase of teacher salaries.

Trolls and Experienced debaters need not apply.
shift4101

Con

I accept. This is technically my first debate, so if I make any mistakes I hope my opponent and audience is swift in correcting them.

I am left to assume that by "teacher" you are refusing to those employed in the K-12 public schooling system within the United States. If I assume incorrectly, feel free to correct me and provide a more accurate definition of what "teacher" refers to. Other than that, I look forward to an interesting debate and wish the both of us luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Lordknukle

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I hope that it will be interesting as well as informative.

First, I would like to start off by saying that teachers need higher salaries. They are the backbone of our modern civilization. Without them, society will destabilize.

Right now, I will investigate the current state of teacher salaries.

Current Teacher Salaries

Unfortunately, teachers, one of the most important group of people in our society have a relatively low pay compared to other medium class jobs. According to Education World (1), California has the highest teacher salary average at $55 000 per year. On the other hand, South Dakota had the lowest average teacher salary at $32 000 per year. With this salary you can live kind of comfortably, but such important jobs require higher pay.
The average factory worker salary is about $36 000 (2). That is higher than the average salary of a teacher in South Dakota. But consider this: factory workers do not need an education to work at their jobs. You can go to GM right out of high school and start earning more than a teacher with no degree. Teachers on the other hand require a 4-year college program, equivalent to a Bachelors. With that four year program, you can get a Bachelors in economics and make hundreds of thousands a year in the finance sector.
Teachers salaries are not a representation of how important the education field has become in our society. This leads me to my next topic:

Importance of Teachers in Society

Teachers are by far the single most important profession field in the world. They teach students how to think, how to do math, how to read, how to write, and hundreds of other important life skills. However, what would happen if they didn't exist? We would turn into a country like Somalia, one of the least educated countries in the world(3). This would be the downfall of our modern civilization. Could people create renewable fission energy without education? No. Would government officials be able to make correct decisions for the benefit of the people? No. If we wont be able to learn about our history, then what's to say that history won't repeat itself? Perhaps another Holocaust or genocide. Education shapes our lives positively in every way. And for such an important job, teachers get paid the equivalent of factory works. While CEOs earn over 300 times that of teachers(4). Is this fair for such a hard working profession? That for the reader to decide but I believe that the answer is quite obvious.

Proposed Change to Teacher Salaries

The question isn't if teachers should get higher salaries, but how much higher? If we increase pay then the field will become more competitive, therefore only the best teachers will teach children. But for that to happen salaries need to be increased. I believe a 200% pay increase is fair. Teachers salaries will then be about $80 000. As I previously stated, the profession will become competitive resulting in the best teachers teaching the new generation.


To recap, teachers are an underpaid profession that deserves more money. They are key to our current and future society. Without them, we would fall into chaos. I urge you to vote pro and perhaps down the road, our voices will be heard. I wish my fellow debater the best of luck in his argument.



shift4101

Con

I apologize how long it took for me to reply, and the general quality of my reply. My computer crashed before I could conclude my inital reply, and I lost everything. Sadface.

I do not feel like writing it again, so I will just make a point list.


    • Teachers make 30$ an hour, as compared to the factory workers who actually make minimum wage-20$ an hour. They only make the same yearly because teachers do not work nearly as long.

    • Teachers have the longest vacation time and lowest work hours of almost any profession.

    • Teachers generally follow a set of things to go over and give simple expinations to their students.

    • If teachers care about earning money, they are free to apply at a private school, where they will make more money.

    • My opponent is tossing around the word teacher loosely; If I tought my neighbor how to play catch I would become a teacher, and then invaluable to society.

    • Jobs that center around the economy tend to make more money [i.e. CEOs]

    • My opponent implies "teachers" and "education" are hand in hand. There are plenty of online schools where thousands of students attend and yet a fraction of teachers are required to handle them.

    • The arguments my opponent makes in the section 'Importance of Teachers in Society' are absurd. He somehow connects this debate with the third world country Somalia and the Holocaust. This argument is invalid, and would be tossed out by a real judge.

    • He also makes a claim that Education is positive in every way. Perhaps omniscience is positive in everyway, but if we cannot understand what we know it is bound to harm us more than help.

    • California, along with most states, spend more than 50% of their GF on K-12 public schools alone. A 200% increase would require them to raise that percent to above 60%.


To conclude, let me say that being a teacher does not require a degree in "teaching". Almost anyone with a bachelors degree can become a teacher after a few sheets of paperwork and possibly a background check. The abundance of canidates would remove any competition for the jobs. Let private schools worry about quality; it is not the states responsibility.
Debate Round No. 2
Lordknukle

Pro

NOTE: I forgot my sources for Round 2. Here they are:
(1)http://www.educationworld.net......
(2)http://www.simplyhired.com......
(3)http://www.economist.com......
(4) http://blogs.hbr.org......


Thank you for your informative rebuttal. However, I would like to point out that the rules state that in Round 2, the debaters shall make their case. However, instead of making your case, you decided to criticize my statement. This is due in Round 3 as Cross- Examination.

This being the C/E round, I will make criticism of your work.

I would like to note that when I state the word "teacher", I mean a person who educates students in a school setting.

"Teachers have the longest vacation time and lowest work hours of almost any profession."

I have to fully disagree with this sentence. First of all, I will assume that the vacation time that you are talking about is summer break. Summer break is about two months long. However, it is an unpaid vacation time for most teachers, unless they have a summer school contract. As a result, most teachers work other jobs during the summer time to compensate for their relatively low pay.

"Teachers generally follow a set of things to go over and give simple expinations to their students."

The majority of jobs are fairly repetitive. Some of these jobs include:
Accounting- Creating tax returns over and over
Investment Banking- Pitching deals to willing buyers over and over
Cashiers- Scanning products over and over

Your statement does not prove anything as the majority of the jobs in our market place require repetitiveness.

"My opponent is tossing around the word teacher loosely; If I tought my neighbor how to play catch I would become a teacher, and then invaluable to society."

If I ask somebody on the street, what the word teacher means, they will surely agree that it applies to a person in an educational setting. This statement is completely irrelevant to my argument. You are wandering off the main points of this subject.


"Jobs that center around the economy tend to make more money [i.e. CEOs]"

Yes, that is true but why should a person who keeps a single company stable be paid 300 times more than the educator who creates the future world and company leaders. The CEO had to get his knowledge from somewhere, in this case being the educator.


"My opponent implies "teachers" and "education" are hand in hand. There are plenty of online schools where thousands of students attend and yet a fraction of teachers are required to handle them."

According to Google Define (2) a teacher is "Noun: A person who teaches, esp. in a school." According to this definition, teacher and education go hand in hand. School is also defined as "Noun: An institution for educating children." (3). So putting these definitions together, a teacher is a person who teaches in a school which is used for education of children. This consequently negates your argument.


"The arguments my opponent makes in the section 'Importance of Teachers in Society' are absurd. He somehow connects this debate with the third world country Somalia and the Holocaust. This argument is invalid, and would be tossed out by a real judge."

How would you know if it would be tossed out by a real judge? Are you a judge? Is so, then prove it. This paragraph greatly relates with the importantance of teaching because it mentions what can happen if the education system doesn't exist (Somalia), and how historic events can repeat themselves if there is no education (Holocaust.)

"Let private schools worry about quality; it is not the states responsibility."

I agree that private school should have better education, but according to the rest of your paragraph, you imply that only they should worry about quality. Therefore, you are saying that people in public schools should get the lowest quality education. This is not fair to the people who can not afford a private school. If a person pays for something they should get better quality, but the person who doesn't pay should get medium quality. Not bad quality.

Conlusion:
My opponent made some nice cross examination of my work, however it was in the wrong round. I urge you to agree with pro that teachers need higher salaries. I am looking forward to my fellow debater's criticism or body.


Sources:

(1)http://answers.yahoo.com...

(2) http://www.google.ca...

(3http://www.google.ca...

shift4101

Con

I apologize for disobeying the rules, in a bout of frustration I possibly over looked them. Vote pro on conduct. Considering I do have the final word, I will re post my criticism's with (hopefully) better format and accuracy, to make the conclusion of this debate more fair.

"Unfortunately, teachers, one of the most important group of people in our society have a relatively low pay compared to other medium class jobs."

With a little thinking, almost everyone can conclude that this is untrue. Our society has a very, very expensive defense system that protects it from invading armies and terrorists. Without this system, composed of soldiers, officers, and the Executive Branch of our government, nothing would prevent us from fighting on our home front. What does AP English III do for someone when the front lines are 3 miles away? And army privates only make 17,600$ a year. [1] My opponents statement revolves around the fact that society can exist, regardless of condition. If I may guess my opponents countering argument, he might possibly say "Without teachers, our defense system would not be nearly as complex; seeing as nobody would know how to make the weapons work!" Now, I have never heard of a high school student rushing off immediately to start fixing Air Craft Carriers. That kind of work requires a college education.

"The average factory worker salary is about $36 000 (2). That is higher than the average salary of a teacher in South Dakota. But consider this: factory workers do not need an education to work at their jobs."

Except some factory workers get absolutely no vacation time and most work longer hours. And consider this: Factory workers work with their hands, while teachers work with books, SMART Boards, Computers, and other devices that the State pays for. Instead of paying the teachers more money, they think that the conditions in which a student receives his education are more important, and I completely agree with them.

"Teachers are by far the single most important profession field in the world. They teach students how to think, how to do math, how to read, how to write, and hundreds of other important life skills."

If you have attended a high school level class recently, you may notice it is filled with teachers trying to explain to their students how the material they are learning is relevant to their lives. And most of it is not relevant, if they follow a different career path.

"However, what would happen if they didn't exist? We would turn into a country like Somalia, one of the least educated countries in the world(3). This would be the downfall of our modern civilization. Could people create renewable fission energy without education? No. Would government officials be able to make correct decisions for the benefit of the people? No. If we wont be able to learn about our history, then what's to say that history won't repeat itself? Perhaps another Holocaust or genocide."

My opponent has posted this irrelevant rambling in hopes it would provide something to make his argument seem stronger. However, this topic is not about if teachers exist. If the topic was called "Should teachers exist?" I would be Pro. It is about how much money they should be paid, which I believe is fair for the amount of work they do and the overall difficulty of their work. My opponents statement here should be disregarded by any third party reader.

"While CEOs earn over 300 times that of teachers(4). Is this fair for such a hard working profession? That for the reader to decide but I believe that the answer is quite obvious."

This is true because our failed economy. This does not mean the only logical solution is to boost the salaries of teachers, just so they can enjoy more luxuries. With this argument, my opponent also assumes that the people who benefit mankind the most should be paid the most money, which is obviously not the case in almost all aspects of Earthly life.

"If we increase pay then the field will become more competitive, therefore only the best teachers will teach children."

How so? People do not need to graduate in a degree in teaching to become a teacher. Anyone with a bachelors degree can become one by filling out a few sheets of paperwork and possibly a background check. Such an abundance of professionals will take out any competitive aspects my opponents pointed out. So I will say again, let private schools worry about teacher quality, and let public schools worry about educational quality.

Conclusion
Obviously there are plenty of problems with our schooling sytem and our economy, but I fail to see any benefit in increasing teacher salaries by 200% except to provide an even more comfortable life for educational faculty.

(1) http://www.goarmy.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Lordknukle

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

Before my final conclusion, I would like to make some last points about my opponents arguments:

- Notice that in Round 2 he did not back up any of his facts with sources. Therefore, everything that he wrote in Round 2 can be attributed as a lie due to lack of proof.

- Teachers are in fact the most important group in society. My opponent has to understand that without teachers, there would be no schools, or universities. Therefore, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE MOST COMPLEX JOBS THAT OUR SOCIETY REQUIRES. Since they are so important, they deserve a pay raise.

- My opponent can not get into his head that summer break is not a vacation for most teachers. It is an unpaid break (1). Therefore, nearly all teachers work another job during the summer.

- What teachers teach is greatly relevant to future life. Want to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, businessman, financier, or one of countless other jobs? You need an education from a teacher.

-
My opponent also can not seem to understand the Somalia and Holocaust paragraph. It is a simple piece of writing regarding what will happen to society if teachers do not exist.

- Increasing pay will result in increased competitiveness. There are a set amount of teachers that a school needs. If they get too many applications, they will start rejecting teachers. If a pay raise occurs, school will get many applications from people with different degrees. They will screen the teachers and only the best will be allowed into the school.


Conclusion:

Teachers are an extremely important part of society. They educate the future world leaders. Without them, people would not be able to perform almost any well paying job. They are a key part of our lifestyles. Because of this, they deserve to get more money for their hard work and effort. More money will also increase competitiveness, therefore resulting in only the best teachers teaching the students.


I urge you to VOTE PRO.

Thank you for this wonderful debate.








(1) http://www.thenews.com.pk...


shift4101

Con

And thank you for this debate.

I would like to point out that a majority of my opponents arguments are incredibly off topic; this debate is not whether teachers should exist or not. This is about whether they should be paid more. And my opponent has only offered but one actual reply that has to do with the topic, about adding a competitive force in the workplace of teachers, but that only shows the general lack of understanding under what pretences teachers are hired. (1)

-Since neither side has defined "Vacation" in this debate, I will finally conclude that teachers have the most time off of almost any occupation. Whether they chose to work or enjoy themselves during that period is up to them, and how much money they require to support themselves or their families.

-This argument refers to those employed in the K-12 public schooling system within the United States. Nobody can become a doctor, lawyer, or scientist without first a more advanced degree from a college, which is not within the bounds of state funding, and thus unimportant in this argument.

-To the issue of importance, let it be known that Plastic surgeons make much more than family or ER doctors. Why? Because if people want to change their bodies (Demand), then surgeons will learn how to and deliver the goods (Supply). But which is more important? Definately the ER doctors. (2) Thus, being important really has nothing to do with salary in our economy, and making my opponents argument based off a form of socialism.

Conclusion


My opponent did not offer anything that should sway the opinion of those opposing his views. Other than repeating throughout his argument that teachers are important, which we both can agree, he has offered no other reason to increase their pay that will legitimately have an effect on their practice.

(1) http://www.post-gazette.com...;

(2) http://careers.stateuniversity.com...
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
There not that bad lol
Posted by bossyburrito 1 year ago
bossyburrito
This is featured on Juggle's website.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro has the burden of proof, so Con does not need to make a case. He only needs to argue that a 200% pay increase is not justified.

The 200% pay increase is ridiculous. Salaries ought to be determined by supply and demand, not by somebody's idea of what ought to be rewarded. The pay comes from property taxes, which would be a disaster.

Con didn't argue supply and demand, but he did well enough to win arguments based on comparative merits.
Posted by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
Yes, a convincing argument is more important than conduct hence 3 points for debate vs 1 point for conduct. However, conduct is not to be thrown out the window. What is the point of having a debate with no rules?

Also, if it were that obvious that you are a better debater, than the votes would have shown like wise
Posted by shift4101 2 years ago
shift4101
I didn't need to. I thought it was obvious that you needed to supply proof to change my ideals, the same ideals states currently agree with. You had no argument. I don't understand why I'm losing this, other than people are more interested in conduct rather than the point of the debate.

In other words; this should be NO CONTEST. Christ.
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
the voters will be the judge of that, not you.
Posted by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
My opponent did not make a main case, only rebuttals to my case.

Vote PRO!
Posted by marcuscato 2 years ago
marcuscato
Who did you agree with before the debate?Con
Who did you agree with after the debate?Con
Who had better conduct? Tied
Who had better spelling and grammar?Tied
Who made more convincing arguments?Con
Who used the most reliable sources? Pro

RFD: Con effectively rebutted pro, the debate is not about whether teachers are important but that they should be paid more than they are being paid now.

I am not allowed to do a proper vote.
Posted by CD-Host 2 years ago
CD-Host
shift --

In the future you might want to construct your response off line in something like textpad and then post to debate.org.
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
Well, when you do that, it makes me skeptical as to wether you really referred to that source. Its easy to make up facts and then source a website relevant to the topic that didn't actually give you those "facts".
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by marcuscato 2 years ago
marcuscato
Lordknukleshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I can vote now. Read comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
Lordknukleshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a tough debate to judge. The 200 pay increase is ridiculous. Salaries are determined by supply and demand, and there is no shortage of teachers. However, Con never made the obvious supply-and-demand argument, but played the game of discussing the merits relative to factory workers. I think Con had the edge in that.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 2 years ago
Rockylightning
Lordknukleshift4101Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con, instead of typing out arguments, listed bullet points which served as refutations and contentions. Grammar: Equal. Arguments: Both sides presented good arguments, but I believe pro's refutations held more water, and con often avoided pro's accusations with red herrings. Sources was close, it'a tie.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 2 years ago
CD-Host
Lordknukleshift4101Tied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Rule lawyering with a newbie when he is fine is questionable. His offer to sacrifice conduct was excellent, so I granted conduct to con. Cross-X btw is questioning not critiquing. Con had the tougher position and argued it well in particular the connection with spending. Almost all sources were from Pro.
Vote Placed by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
Lordknukleshift4101Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro consistently attempted to use appeal to emotion to bolster his argument - a logical fallacy. Moreover, Con was correct in pointing out that importance to society is not parallel with salary. Pros argument was redundant and often sidetracked. Furthermore, the absence of a source does not nullify the statement, especially when many of Con's stated facts were common knowledge. By that logic, most of Pro's argument would be invalid. As for conduct, Con did not adhere to the terms of acceptance.
Vote Placed by freedomsquared 2 years ago
freedomsquared
Lordknukleshift4101Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I would be lying if I said this was the best debate I've ever seen, but I'll give the debaters a pass as they are both still inexperienced. I gave a tie in arguments because of this. Conduct goes to PRO because CON did not follow the rules of this debate. Sources also go to PRO as CON made some unsubstantiated statements.