The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

THBT private schools should not be abolished GY

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,170 times Debate No: 13701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)




I believe that private schools should never be abolished.
My first argument is that students have the right to choose the education they receive. There is UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 that Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. This clearly shows that abolishing private schools is patently a violation of human rights. In a democratic country, including the US, parents should be able to send their children to any kind of school if they can afford to. It is like the fact that we can buy whatever we can afford. Education is no different to high income families buying expensive cars, or expensive food for that matter. If the abolishing of private schools occur, the students who can afford to go to the private schools and the students who wish to be educated in a more sophisticated manner cannot do so. As an alternative, the government should make it so that students from a low income family be given some sort of an aid, like providing them with school fees if their grades are good... People like to argue about the fact that pupils from low income families never get the chance to enter private schools, but I believe that the right solution to that is to alter and establish laws to support those with low income rather than to abolish private schools both for low&high income families' benefits.
Therefore considering the human rights private schools should never ever be abolished. Please someone debate with moi ;(


From what I can conjecture by reading your statements, you're ultimately asserting that private schools becoming abolished is a direct transgression of human rights (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Private schools are only for those who may afford it. This represents that if you're poor, you're out of luck; sorry, no sophisticated education for you! Money talks here, not intellect.

Secondly, going to a private school does not necessarily mean that the pupil will receive a higher education. Private schools only become a source of monetary collection from the upper class, which really serves no higher benefit than receive a sense of luxury and such.

Public schools have yielded excellent results from its students, and the ratio of intellectual capacity from one who went to public school to one who attended private school may very well be the same.
Debate Round No. 1


I will firstly start with the rebuttals

I surmise that you are contradicting yourself, because while you have said that you think private schools should be abolished because the lower class cannot attend such schools, you have also said that public schools are good enough and private schools don't really make a difference. If you examine closely, your premise for your former statement is that private schools are indeed, better than general public schools. However, your latter statement is a paradox to the premise of the former statement. (Am I right?)
Furthermore, if I just pinpoint on your first issue, I say that private schools are -at least -equipped with better facilities than the public ones. Also as I have mentioned in my prior argument, students going to private schools is just the same as the rich buying expensive stereos or vehicles.

My second argument on this issue is... yes, the fact that bringing down private schools will bring down the quality of schools as a whole. I, myself, have attended both private and public schools, and I have found out that private schools are better equipped with the school facilities. This is true for the vast amount of schools. The schools in England-where I have stayed for a while- show this clearly. The private schools there are small, as they do not have so much budget, since all they get is from the government. In private schools, however, the tuition fee per student is on average 12 thousand pounds in a year. That is 20 thousand dollars. That means a much larger budget for the school! WEehee! (Private boarding schools cost 21 thousand pounds a year) The public schools usually have one school field, while the private schools have at least five plus a large swimming pool. How is that? This means more convenience for the students attending the school. Yes,oppenents may induce that the low income students cannot ever attend those schools, but I think that problem should be solved in the other way. (Like making a scholarship and funding the students with high achievment) Private schools are much better equipped and therefore the government should never abolish them-they should rather try to improve the public school's facilities instead.


I'd like to thank my opponent for their well-written response.

"The private schools there are small, as they do not have so much budget, since all they get is from the government. In private schools, however, the tuition fee per student is on average 12 thousand pounds in a year."
I think you meant to say "public schools" in your first sentence :s.

Firstly, I mentioned private schools being more "sophisticated." This does not necessarily mean that they are better. Nowhere in my argument did I mention that private schools actually accompany higher education along with this higher class atmosphere.

It's true that private schools are better equipped with things, but think about it. The government funds a copious amount of money to keep these private schools running. Don't you think the money could be better spent elsewhere?

Yes, the rich may spend their money on what they wish, however private schools are not the correct place to do so. There is no academic benefits that those whom go to private schools receive. Solely going to private school because the environment is more high class and has swimming pools shows a pompous attitude, a thing our society can do without.

You also speak of private schools having swimming pools. What's the use for this? Can you get a degree off of this? Can you incorporate this swimming school into actual academics? No, no, and no. These things are not necessary; they're superfluous things that do not contribute towards academics.
Debate Round No. 2


sorry for the blunder :(

Firstly, the government does not fund the private schools. The private schools are able to run the whole system because the school fee is very expensive. This is a fact, as I have mentioned that the students have to pay a large sum of money in order to attend those schools. On the other hand, 'public schools' run themselves with the money from the government. That is the main reason they are called "PUBLIC" schools.

Secondly, what you have said about the academic benefits is not true. Private schools are able to employ teachers of better quality because they have a lot of money. This ultimately leads to a higher quality of education and as a result, students are able to go to prestigious universities. In England -sorry for such a narrow example- while many of the students (roughly abut half) in public schools choose NOT go to a universiy, nearly over 90 percent of the students in private schools choose to go. This is patently because of their grades. (GCSE, A levels) Also in Korea, none to two students from public schools manage to go to Seoul university(the best school in South Korea. It's like Harvard in America and Oxford in England) about 30 students from private schools matriculate Seoul uni.

Lastly, swimming pools are a choice of the school so if they have the budget, there is no stopping them! Plus, good exercise leads to higher concentration.:)

Now on to my last argument. (Actually this was going to be about the Nation's competence)
As I have mentioned above, the quality of the teachers goes up. Why? Well it's simple. The school (private school, I am talking about) would obviously want to attract more students to the school, because well, it's their way to survive. So they would try their best to bring in the best teachers. Because the better the teachers, the better the classes, the better the education, and better the education, more parents would want to send their children to that specific school So the quality of education in private schools in long term is likely to go up because private schools compete with each other, too. Good education equals a nation's competence. The better educated the students are, they are likely to contribute to the country when they are grown up.

With all these arguments in hand, I firmly propose that private schools should never be abolished and should continue to exist for the country's prosper.


Thank you.

"Private schools are a means for the ones who can afford it to get a better education" is essentially what you're saying, I believe.

If this holds true, then the people who are less fortunate and are forced into public schools are doomed to a lower education and therefore, a lower success rate in life. The people in private schools are mostly already wealthy (or atleast have money to afford it) so they'll be fine in life, tons better than the ones who apparently receive a lower education.

This is why I'm saying the level of education in public and private schools are about equal. If given the initiative, the kids in public schools can do EXCELLENTLY. If what you're saying about having better teachers in private schools is also true, then why should the ones who can afford it only receive this? Why are we not focused on bettering the public schools system? That's where the majority of our adolescents and teens go today; why are we focused on maintaining a system of monetary showcasing rather than attempting to better our public schools for the ones that are least-likely to go to college, due to the fact that they aren't receiving a better education?

I go to a public school in a small town, and the only foreign language we have is Spanish. We don't have as many electives as others due to our budgeting and such.

Yes, good education does benefit the nation greatly. Think of how we can improve the public school system tenfold by pushing our focus to them instead of private schools.

Yes, the rich may send their kids to private schools should they wish. This only furthers the social class gap that we already have in our nations. The wealthy get wealthier, everyone else is in a slump. The quality and atmosphere of schools should not be better or worse depending on your financial status, rather it should be equal.

There are people struggling for money, many of them being mothers and fathers. They would feel so much more worse knowing they cannot send their kids to private school. Why should they get the short end of the stick? Just because they can't afford it?

Education is so important, as you've outlined already. Then why are we not focusing on bettering public schools instead? There are many more who go to public schools rather than private ones. They are the majority of our nations.

I'd like to thank my opponent for an extremely interesting debate. I thank voters and any spectators that viewed this debate in advance.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by lovelife 5 years ago
Agree before/after, and convincing arguments explains itself. I agreed with pro but con made some good points, pro didn't, and my opinion changed.
I tend to only vote conduct when name calling, forfeiting, etc happens, and it didn't.
I noticed a typo by pro in round 3 "roughly abut half" I don't run spell check, and I'm not a grammar nazi, I only vote on this if something catches my attention and draws my attention from reading it.
Neither used any sources, pro could have cited sources for the cost of private schools or some kind of proof that the teachers are "better", or even a converter from pounds to dollars.
Con could have sourced something about lower earning families don't succeed as much, which creates even further poverty, and as the rich receive more and more money, it has to come from somewhere, which furthers the rich to poor gap. From that he could have sourced how the happiest countries have the lowest gaps of rich and poor, and/or how that violates equal opportunities.

Some additional arguments on could have used involve some of what I said above, plus if the rich went to public schools only they could afford to donate to the public schools, giving them better play area, pay teachers more, better maintained, and ensure that all students, whether they can afford it or not, receive a better education, in a better environment.

Pro could have argued how rich kids can go to country club, private pools, while poor people have to go to public swimming pools, unless they are lucky enough to have a rich friend, and then equate that education, as an example.
He could also argue that if rich kids went to public schools class size would increase, which decreases learning potential of all. And how rich kids would drag down the test scores, shutting down more schools. :p
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
I read the debate and voted pigfish. Hound almost seemed to be splitting hairs. He states that public schools are just as good as private schools, yet at the same time states that private schools causes a social gap between the rich and the poor. It's only a lose lose situation. If public schools are bad, then it would be wrong not to give the alternative of a better education. If public schools are good,there's no reason to ban private schools since one has the right to do what one wants with his or her money.

My own stance on private vs. public education. I have never attended a private school. However, it appears as if they get a "better" education. Yet, at the same time, in terms of marketability, it doesn't make that much of a difference whether you attend a good school or not. If you go to a mediocre school, it's easier to get better grades and stand out from the individuals. However, the main exception occurs if you are the brightest of the brightest. If you can go to a private school, AND stand out as an individual, then a private education might be best for you.
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
A school that teaches people to only bake cookies and draw is well above the standards of an average American public school.
Posted by Itsallovernow 5 years ago
You need to revise your first statement. Someone could argue that a curriculum may not be a legitimate education. For example, if they only bake cookies and draw. Idk the stipulations, but I'm just saying....
Posted by Dave_82 5 years ago
I only halfway disagree. I think that faith based private schools should be abolished, but not general non-religious ones. If you want to debate about those private schools, let me know and I will accept the challenge, but if you are focused simply on all private schools then we are in agreement on all but the faith based ones
Posted by adealornodeal 5 years ago
THBT is "This House Believes That". Out of curiousity, I'm wondering if pigfish is from Ireland; I have a friend who lives there and is involved in debate, and recently this was the resolution he had to debate. It's an interesting resolution, this should be a fascinating debate.
Posted by salve 5 years ago
"This house believes that", I think.
Posted by governments_kill 5 years ago
I'm thinking about taking this. What does the TBHT in the proposal stand for?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lovelife 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
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:30 
Vote Placed by OrionsGambit 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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