The Instigator
Vunik
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheResistance
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should there be vocational education for children,right after they complete high school?

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...
TheResistance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 86092
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Vunik

Pro

I am for vocational education after High school because,Children these days are highly intellectual and know what they want from their lives.I think we can do away with senior secondary education that is theoretical and give the students practical knowledge that will really come of use in their respective fields. Vocational education saves up two years of a student's life and gives them a strong foothold when they enter their respective careers,for ex;Someone wants to become a journalist,I think they should work under a senior journalist,freelance and gain a lot of experience which will surely help them have an upper hand among their colleagues who have finally ended up there by having engineering degrees or something that does not relate to the profession.I finally conclude that vocational training is best for a country that wants to have a good work force because there will be many passionate individuals working in the fields they want and will love their work.
TheResistance

Con

Rebuttals, "Children these days are highly intellectual and know what they want"
Not true, as stated by:
Larcher, 12
[This is because] the Prefrontal Cortex is not fully developed until the 20"s. It is considered the seat of the "rational" brain.
Thus, my opponent has no evidence stating they do, and since the prefrontal cortex, which is the decision making part isn't developed, thus they can't make decisions.
Basically, my opponent is saying vocational education is effective, which isn't true, as explained:
Luzer, 11
Now College Guide has pointed out before that there"s something very wrong with vocational education in America. One doesn"t need to go to college, but vocational, technical education is so bad in America that it"s actually quite difficult to get into a track for a high-wage, high-skill vocational career.
Thus, vocational education is bad; it is difficult to get into.
Basically, my opponent has stated personal views instead of real evidence, all his points are dropped.
Debate Round No. 1
Vunik

Pro

Vunik forfeited this round.
TheResistance

Con

My opponent forfeited, so please vote con. In addition, I extend all of my arguments.
wiseGEEK
One of the negative aspects of vocational training and education is it that it may limit future employment and career opportunities.
My opponent says it does benefit, but again, I've disproved his point. Count that as a win for me.
Secondly, the he only provides benefits of a workforce, with no evidence. Thus his claims automatically falls.
I've proven that vocational education would limit future employment and career opportunities would decrease thus it falls.
My opponent forfeited, and I've won on major areas.
-Children making choices effectively(won because of PFC)
-Vocational Education doing good(I won because it is difficult)
-Future(I won because it limits)
Vote Con

~TheResistance
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheResistance 1 year ago
TheResistance
yeah

Sadly, this debate was only 1k characters; so I didn't put up the best I could
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

This debate was surprisingly close. Pro argues that children are "highly intellectual," therefore are rationally equipped to deal with vocational education sans theoretical education. It's clear that Pro is advocating for significantly less theoretical education, replaced with vocational education. The only actual benefit Pro argues is that vocational education would embolden the workforce of the nation.

Con's R1 isn't strong, because Con doesn't give me much offense either. All Con argues is that the current system of vocational education in the US is bad, but it seems that his card indicates the status quo which *does not have much vocational education* is bad. Pro is trying to solve that, so Con seems to be contradicting himself. Con refutes Pro's assertions that students are intellectually capable of it, thus turning it and getting Con some level of offense. But Con's stronger offense comes in R2, when he proves that vocational training would limit future employment, because the employers want theoretical education -- justified by rhetoric since that's why vocational education after high school is limited.

I have Pro's small offense that vocational education would embolden the nation's workforce against Con's two-fold offense, that students aren't intellectually capable and that employment reduces. The latter outweighs the workforce offense because it would actually weaken the workforce via unemployment. The turn merely makes Con's case stronger.

Clear win for Con.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@whiteflame

How do you reach the conclusion "the burden's on Pro"? Con has an equal burden to prove that vocational education is a net harm, or worse than the alternatives, given that the resolution is an *ought* not an *is.*
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
VunikTheResistanceTied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
VunikTheResistanceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
VunikTheResistanceTied
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: This is much closer than it should have been, given the forfeit. Con really does more to mitigate Pro's arguments than he does explaining why the alternatives are better, arguing that high schoolers are essentially incapable of making rational decisions (which doesn't tell me why vocational education shouldn't be available to them), and that vocational education is far from perfect in this country (which only tells me that the benefits that Pro states aren't going to be great for those seeking high earning jobs). That's not to mention that the sources aren't anything I can check, and I'm not sure what's quoted and what's not. The only reason why this is going Con is because Pro doesn't give me a good reason to believe that the experience provided by vocational education is better than the potential alternatives. Since the burden's on Pro, that failure leaves me no choice but to vote Con. Conduct to Con for the forfeit.