Students who drop out of high school should be forced to work in factories
I affirm the resolution.
Currently, the drop out rate is around 8%. There is a problem that needs to be dealt with. These kids would be given multiple chances to graduate, but if they make the conscious decision to drop out, they will be punished by being forced to work in factories for an unset amount of time, presumably not life-long but not short. Drop outs hurt the economy immensely. Unless high schools are able to graduate their students at higher rates, more than 12 million students will drop out during the course of the next decade. The result will be a loss to the nation of $3 trillion. (http://www.all4ed.org...) The way to address the problem is to give kids an immense incentive to graduate. Even though kids earn much less as drop outs, they still continue to drop out. This gives kids a huge reason to graduate, helping our economy and education. But if they do go to these factories, instead of losing our country money, they are now financially productive for the nation, rather than its burden. It wouldn't be inhumane because it's just a factory and it wouldn't be lifelong. It would just be to pay off their future debt.
I stand in affirmation.
The focus of this debate is not whether dropping out is good or bad, but if these dropouts should be put in factories. This is a tall order for pro because it conflicts with civil liberties. Dropping out is not a criminal offense; therefore, there is no way pro's plan could be implemented from a legal standpoint.
"There is no way pro's plan could be implemented from a legal standpoint. "
Though I agree that it probably won't be passed, the resolution states "should." In essence we can debate anything with should, and the debate should focus on the merits of the resolved not necessarily the implementation. We should focus on whether it would have a positive benefit or not, not whether it would be implemented.
"Many people who work in low-paying jobs (factories or retail) are already high school dropouts ; therefore, why would forcing them to be what they were already most likely going to be change anything"
I agree. Many people who work in low-paying job are already high school dropouts, but most high school dropouts do not live in factories. This would change things as my opponent misses the fact most high school students work low wage jobs and end up becoming homeless or burdens of taxpayers. That's why by the end of the decade, high school drop-outs will cost America 3 billion dollars. If such a plan were implemented, it would turn the taxpayer's burden into a taxpayer.
"The social isolation that pro's plan would cause may even negate any benefits made by a decrease in the prison population. Poor people are still imprisoned in the US!"
Social isolation? These people wouldn't be isolated out of society, but just forced to work in factories. Also, prisons cost America A TON of money. Americans spend $60 billion a year to imprison 2.2 million people. (http://www.commondreams.org...) If this would decrease the prison population it would be a good thing. According to my opponent's logic, they would be less likely to go to jail due to the fact they wouldn't commit crimes. This would be a great thing. Also, it would gain tons and tons of money as instead of costing $60 billion, they would now be making money.
Overall you need to vote AFF as I present the greatest impacts.
Factories would save tons of money as instead of drop outs relying on government aid, they would make money by creating goods to sell to other countries or people (helping our GDP and citizen's buying power) with cheap labor. It all makes sense.
Our education system has been failing. Kids have no incentive to graduate and learn. Now they will as they will have to work hard manual labor if they don't graduate.
Thank you. Vote Affirmative.
"In essence we can debate anything with should, and the debate should focus on the merits of the resolved not necessarily the implementation. We should focus on whether it would have a positive benefit or not, not whether it would be implemented."
When we say should, it is true that anything can be debated, but it is not true that it is worth debating. Why would you debate your stance if it cannot legally be implemented? The merits are only important if they can be situated in reality.
"This would change things as my opponent misses the fact most high school students work low wage jobs and end up becoming homeless or burdens of taxpayers. That's why by the end of the decade, high school drop-outs will cost America 3 billion dollars. If such a plan were implemented, it would turn the taxpayer's burden into a taxpayer."
You have not shown how your plan will reverse the current problem (part of implementing your plan), and you are assuming the very thing you are attempting to argue.
"Social isolation? These people wouldn't be isolated out of society, but just forced to work in factories."
Many people would become socially isolated if they were forced to work in a factory. Social isolation is significant cause to juvenile delinquency .
Pro has the onus to prove that his plan would actually work, and he has failed so far in demonstrating how his plan would work. How would keeping dropouts poor (working in low-paying factories) benefit society and fix the problem? So far, he has only assumed that it would work. I am not disputing the fact that dropouts constitute most the prison population. I am disputing that pro's plan will actually keep kids in school. Kids know this stuff already. They are told every day that they will end up in jail or a low-paying job if they do not graduate. They are essentially forced into these conditions already, so why would forcing them into a situation that they are already forced into make a difference? If they are not scared of prison, then why would they be scared of factory labor? Besides, most prisoners come from the working class .
liljohnny818 forfeited this round.
Pro never distinguished how his plan would actually be distinct from what occurs today: dropouts are already vulnerable to low-wage jobs and imprisonment. His plan is essentially to enforce what already occurs, and he never demonstrated how we would keep dropouts in the factories.
Pro never explained how his plan would create tax revenue. Dropouts would be cheap labor; therefore, they would pay very little in taxes because they would not make enough to pay a significant amount in taxes. (Not that I support prison labor, but prisons also produce extremely cheap labor).