The Instigator
ant981228
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
randolph7
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The US should Ensure Access to Quality Education For Everyone

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 17767
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

ant981228

Pro

You are all straight A students, I'm sure. You may or may not work hard to achieve this; that's irrelevant. The fact is that no matter how hard you work, education levels are almost always determined only by how rich you are. Suppose your had little money. You are very smart, but due to your family's financial situation, you are forced to attend a public school. Enter the Fool, as we will call him. His family is rich, and can afford to send him places you yourself can't go. Instead of going to a public school, he is sent to a private boarding school in Switzerland. He promptly starts bullying, abusing his rights, and not learning a bit; he can do this with little consequences, because his parents are major benefactors to the school board. After all, if we see what the board is thinking, we would simply see... ka-ching!
-Criteria) Equal potential for learning for everyone
Equal consequences for everyone
Equal rewards for everyone
-Thesis Pro) The US ought to ensure student access to a quality education.
A) Those who are rich and fools can pay for a private school, whereas some genius born to a poor family may not have such privileges. This is unfair because genius' abilities should be nurtured, not the rich fool's. The fool needs to get through lower classes before going to higher.
B) There is significant racial segregation in many public schools at lunch etc; according to a teenager's experiences summarized at http://thisibelieve.org... 2011, segregation will be decreased because everyone has the same knowledge.
C) Your education depends on your knowledge. Edu should follow CDC (Credit by Demonstrated Competence.) http://www.cod.edu... 2011 This is equal education... when the same knowledge related system determines placement.
Clearly, the US ought to ensure student access to a quality education, because those who are rich can afford better edu. than poor otherwise, because this would ultimately eliminate racial segregation, and finally, because advancement in a certain subject should depend solely on individual knowledge of it. If you were poor and smart, would you like some theoretical rich idiot to take your education?
randolph7

Con

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of debating this topic with you.

My opponent starts out with:
You are all straight A students, I'm sure. You may or may not work hard to achieve this; that's irrelevant. The fact is that no matter how hard you work, education levels are almost always determined only by how rich you are.

I didn’t know you would know our academic records. Now, I’m a little paranoid j/k.

The quoted argument above is completely absurd. Let’s imagine a world where everyone is “rich” and can send their kids wherever they desire to obtain the world’s best education. Even in such a utopia those who refuse to learn, to put in the time and effort required, would not higher education levels; such fools would fail. I don’t think effort is at all irrelevant to how far someone goes in their education. A total lack of effort wouldn’t result in an education but rather a waste of time and money.

You say education levels are “almost always” determined by wealth. So, in what circumstances isn’t it determined by how rich you are? You’re not exactly consistent on this point.

Next pro argues:
Suppose your had little money. You are very smart, but due to your family's financial situation, you are forced to attend a public school. Enter the Fool, as we will call him. His family is rich, and can afford to send him places you yourself can't go. Instead of going to a public school, he is sent to a private boarding school in Switzerland. He promptly starts bullying, abusing his rights, and not learning a bit; he can do this with little consequences, because his parents are major benefactors to the school board. After all, if we see what the board is thinking, we would simply see... ka-ching!

I don’t see how the rich getting a good education bars the non-rich from also achieving that goal. True, it may not be as easy to obtain but nothing worth attaining is. This argument is little more than jealousy; if the poor placed as much effort in finding ways to educate themselves as they do whining about their circumstances perhaps education levels would be equal.

Your resolution is to ensure access to quality education for everyone. How would this goal be attained? Would you prevent rich people from higher education goals or subsidize the poor to be on equal footing? What exactly are you proposing?

I don’t see how racial de-segregation reaches your goal. St. Louis is one of the most de-segregated public school system (still using busing) and yet the education outcomes are still poor in the city. The only part of your conclusion I agree with is that Education is related to knowledge.

Conclusion:
The 10th amendment states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power over education nor the responsibility to ensure it for all Americans. So on the Constitutional level, I’d have to argue that, no, the US (Federal) should not ensure access to quality education and that it would be the states responsibility or even more important the individual’s.

Ensuring access to quality education for everyone in the US would be prohibitively expensive. If history has taught us anything, it’s that when we try to ensure equality we end up with everyone brought down to the lowest common denominator.

I look forward to your reply.

Sources:

[1] http://www.archives.gov...

Debate Round No. 1
ant981228

Pro

"Even in such a utopia those who refuse to learn, to put in the time and effort required, would not higher education levels; such fools would fail. I don't think effort is at all irrelevant to how far someone goes in their education. A total lack of effort wouldn't result in an education but rather a waste of time and money."

Firstly, I would ask my opponent to clarify the above statement; I belive you have contradicted yourself... correct me if I'm wrong.

"I don't see how the rich getting a good education bars the non-rich from also achieving that goal. True, it may not be as easy to obtain but nothing worth attaining is. This argument is little more than jealousy; if the poor placed as much effort in finding ways to educate themselves as they do whining about their circumstances perhaps education levels would be equal."

The fact that the rich are getting a good education doesn't bar the non-rich from doing so, but that's not the point. The idea is that it is simply unfair that the non-rich are not able to attend the same institutions as the rich. According to http://privateschool.about.com..., 2011, Le Rosey, the best school in Switzerland, costs a hefty $85,000 for admission. No matter how hard working, where do you propose the poor get that kind of money? Even if they amassed all of their enormous "whining" energy, they still would have difficulty amassing tuition for a good school.

My opponent inquires about my precise proposition regarding how to make education equal. I propose that it be illegal to be transferred to any higher educational institution before you demonstrate exemplary performance in government and/or public institutions. After this goal is attained, there are two possible courses of action; firstly, if you are rich, you would then be allowed to transfer to a more advanced institution, payed for with the family's money. Alternately, you could stay in the public system. If you are non-rich, you would receive a full government scholarship that would cover tuition as well as basic tuition costs.

"I don't see how racial de-segregation reaches your goal. St. Louis is one of the most de-segregated public school system (still using busing) and yet the education outcomes are still poor in the city. The only part of your conclusion I agree with is that Education is related to knowledge."

Education is related to de-segregation. Earlier in our history, the federal government had desegregated education. Why? If segregation had nothing to do with education, why would the government intervene in this respect?

"You say education levels are "almost always" determined by wealth. So, in what circumstances isn't it determined by how rich you are? You're not exactly consistent on this point."

There are no circumstances lacking anomalies. In this event, one might be if a family was rich but unable or unwilling to send their child to a higher institution.

"The 10th amendment states that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power over education nor the responsibility to ensure it for all Americans. So on the Constitutional level, I'd have to argue that, no, the US (Federal) should not ensure access to quality education and that it would be the states responsibility or even more important the individual's."

I concede this point. However, as educational reform is necessary, the states should respond in accordance to this policy. Also, the tenth amendment states that the freedoms are reserved by "...the people." I think you would agree that the majority of the US population fit the non-rich category. If it is the will of the people, or if it benefits the people, it should be passed into federal law.

CONCLUSION
I propose to make education good and equal for everyone because the current system is unfair and squanders a lot of potential. How would you feel if you were the poor one? How would you feel if your potential was squandered because people thought that you should "stop whining?"

Thank you. I am waiting eagerly for your response.
ant981228
randolph7

Con

“Firstly, I would ask my opponent to clarify the above statement; I belive you have contradicted yourself... correct me if I'm wrong.”

Let me clarify then. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor but rather how hard you work that determines your outcome in life. And that even if all students were equal in wealth the key determinant for their success would be effort and of course natural ability. Wealth alone is not enough to succeed in education or life in general.


“Even if they amassed all of their enormous "whining" energy, they still would have difficulty amassing tuition for a good school.”

Of course, but life isn’t fair. I would say that an egalitarian life would be boring and de-motivational. If everything was fair and everyone was equal then what would be the point in striving to do your best or trying to overcome your circumstances? Not everyone sits there content to complain about their circumstances and actually do something to achieve their goals, here’s some examples:

http://www.horatioalger.com...

http://www.horatioalger.com...


“My opponent inquires about my precise proposition regarding how to make education equal. I propose that it be illegal to be transferred to any higher educational institution before you demonstrate exemplary performance in government and/or public institutions. After this goal is attained, there are two possible courses of action; firstly, if you are rich, you would then be allowed to transfer to a more advanced institution, payed for with the family's money. Alternately, you could stay in the public system. If you are non-rich, you would receive a full government scholarship that would cover tuition as well as basic tuition costs.”

I’m assuming here that your proposal is covering post-secondary education, i.e. University. It seems that what you’re saying is that everyone must attend public primary education. And, that before attending University the student must demonstrate exemplary performance in public school. Then the non-rich would get a scholarship to attend the University of their choice.

I hope I didn’t mangle the proposal too badly. So, given that what I think you mean is what you mean then the non-rich already are offered scholarships, grants, and loans to attend University and is even a part of some Universities’ diversity goals. Much like desegregation, schools see diverse economic backgrounds as benefit to the overall educational environment. It would seem, then, that the only difference between your proposal and current reality is that in order to get into University students would have to be exemplary. I would argue that even C students should be afforded the opportunity since C students may have the ability but not the drive in primary education but could be driven to excel in post-secondary.


“Education is related to de-segregation. Earlier in our history, the federal government had desegregated education. Why? If segregation had nothing to do with education, why would the government intervene in this respect?”

We both know why the government intervened – there was a huge disparity in quality of education between the segregated schools and segregation was just wrong. I’m not even arguing that it shouldn’t have been done. What I’m saying is the law of diminishing returns becomes apparent after 40+ years. Are you proposing further desegregation? And if so, how would this significantly impact educational outcomes?


“I concede this point. However, as educational reform is necessary, the states should respond in accordance to this policy. Also, the tenth amendment states that the freedoms are reserved by "...the people." I think you would agree that the majority of the US population fit the non-rich category. If it is the will of the people, or if it benefits the people, it should be passed into federal law.”

Which is it? You say the states should respond but that it should be passed into federal law.

This is precisely why Alexander Tytler, in the 18th century said, “"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." Just because the majority thinks everything should be free, fair and equal does not make it right or affordable.


CONCLUSION

Equality in wealth is not only unattainable but undesirable. In order to achieve this end would require depriving others of their wealth which is antithetical to fairness and equality. I would offer that equal opportunity should exist as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence but using the Federal treasury to do so is the wrong approach. Your station in life is influenced by external forces but your path is ultimately in your own hands.

Thank you. I am waiting eagerly for your response.
Debate Round No. 2
ant981228

Pro

ant981228 forfeited this round.
randolph7

Con

I extend all arguments to the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
ant981228

Pro

I apologize for my absence in the previous round and thank my opponent for his courtesy.

"Let me clarify then. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor but rather how hard you work that determines your outcome in life. And that even if all students were equal in wealth the key determinant for their success would be effort and of course natural ability. Wealth alone is not enough to succeed in education or life in general."

I do not agree. There are many hard-working families that remain poor for generations. Besides; how do you expect to work hard and get a job if you do not have an education and evidence that you will be proficient at this job? The rich will be afforded this chance with their fancy degrees, whereas the poor would not. This is the inherent problem with the current system. While I agree that wealth alone is not enough to succeed, those who are wealthy have a significantly greater potential for success than the poor.

"Of course, but life isn't fair. I would say that an egalitarian life would be boring and de-motivational. If everything was fair and everyone was equal then what would be the point in striving to do your best or trying to overcome your circumstances? Not everyone sits there content to complain about their circumstances and actually do something to achieve their goals."

I agree that equality for all would be a boring situation. I am only proposing an equal education. An equal education does not mean equal success, equal personality, and equal viewpoint. The fact is, you would still have to work in order to succeed, still have to apply what you learned with your education in your job. You talk about how not everyone is "content to complain," and instead "actually do something." You gave me two success stories. There are three hundred million Americans in this country, and the number is growing. I think that the proof of two people's successes doesn't prove that the current system is fine. Besides, I looked at http://www.horatioalger.com......
http://www.horatioalger.com......
and notice how the articles seem to contain numerous phrases like: "Call it fate or destiny, but," or "Because of the Horatio Alger scholarship," or exaggerations of hardship such as "My childhood was without my real father... I suppose I would have turned out differently if I had a "dad" but, thinking about it now, I don't know how I would be a better person."

" I hope I didn't mangle the proposal too badly. So, given that what I think you mean is what you mean then the non-rich already are offered scholarships, grants, and loans to attend University and is even a part of some Universities' diversity goals. Much like desegregation, schools see diverse economic backgrounds as benefit to the overall educational environment. It would seem, then, that the only difference between your proposal and current reality is that in order to get into University students would have to be exemplary. I would argue that even C students should be afforded the opportunity since C students may have the ability but not the drive in primary education but could be driven to excel in post-secondary. "

Sorry, but you did mangle my proposal. I apologize for not making my proposal clear. My proposal was that the rich be required to excel in public primary and public secondary education before attending private primary and secondary education institutions. However, I suppose that this could be extended to universities, that you have to succeed in public primary and secondary before attending a private university. The poor and middle class would receive scholarships for attending private primary and secondary institutions: scholarships financed by an increase of taxes for the rich. I apologize for not defining rich in my initial statement. Rich are those abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds, according to dictionary.com. In other words, those who can easily finance their child's education are rich. Those who cannot do so are classified as non-rich.
You refer to the fact that C students who are maybe not so driven in public primary and secondary may be more driven in post-secondary. I ask: why would this be the case? At any rate, even in the current system, if you are C student you wouldn't get into Harvard, or MIT.

"We both know why the government intervened – there was a huge disparity in quality of education between the segregated schools and segregation was just wrong. I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't have been done. What I'm saying is the law of diminishing returns becomes apparent after 40+ years. Are you proposing further desegregation? And if so, how would this significantly impact educational outcomes?"

You discuss that segregation is "just wrong." I won't argue, but why do you suppose that is the case? Perhaps words like equality, fairness, and life quality figure in the argument that segregation is, as you say, "just wrong?" The reason we all think that segregation is wrong is because we believe in the fact that all people should be afforded equal quality of life. Quality of life correlates directly to the quality of education. Besides; by disagreeing, aren't you segregating the rich from the poor? Isn't this, as you say, "just wrong?"

"Which is it? You say the states should respond but that it should be passed into federal law.

This is precisely why Alexander Tytler, in the 18th century said, ""A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." Just because the majority thinks everything should be free, fair and equal does not make it right or affordable."

I apologize for my earlier ambiguity; people and/or states and/or the federal government can ensure that this proposition prevails. The people can ensure it because although I agree whole-heartedly with Alexander Tytler, his statements do not form a basis for us to suddenly trash the constitution. The states can ensure it because they are the ones responsible for education, and the federal government can ensure it by providing a financial incentive to the states.

"Equality in wealth is not only unattainable but undesirable. In order to achieve this end would require depriving others of their wealth which is antithetical to fairness and equality. I would offer that equal opportunity should exist as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence but using the Federal treasury to do so is the wrong approach. Your station in life is influenced by external forces but your path is ultimately in your own hands."

First, I am not proposing equality in wealth. Secondly, I am not, as I clarified above, proposing to use the federal treasury to enact these changes.

CONCLUSION
I maintain that the US should ensure quality education for everyone because not only are these changes realistic, but not enacting these changes would be siding with the segregation that, as my opponent pointed out, is just wrong.

Thank you again for your courtesy. I await your response.
ant981228
randolph7

Con

Effort is a key determinate in educational outcome

You agree that wealth is not the sole determinant but I was refuting your earlier argument that no matter how hard you work that education levels are determined by how “rich” one is. A recent study finds that although poverty makes one less likely to ever attend college, still 53% of those who had ever experienced poverty during childhood attended college [1]. For nearly half of these non-rich to attend college they must have been afforded that chance in some way. Private primary education schools as well as Universities offer generous scholarships, grants, loans to go to these schools. The non-rich already have the access to quality education if private schooling/University is what you consider “quality education”.

True, two people’s successes doesn’t prove anything other than it is indeed possible to overcome circumstances.

Sorry, but you did mangle my proposal. I apologize for not making my proposal clear. My proposal was that the rich be required to excel in public primary and public secondary education before attending private primary and secondary education institutions. However, I suppose that this could be extended to universities, that you have to succeed in public primary and secondary before attending a private university. The poor and middle class would receive scholarships for attending private primary and secondary institutions: scholarships financed by an increase of taxes for the rich. I apologize for not defining rich in my initial statement. Rich are those abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds, according to dictionary.com. In other words, those who can easily finance their child's education are rich. Those who cannot do so are classified as non-rich.

I’m sorry for mangling your proposal. I still don’t see how your proposal solves access to quality education. You have not defined quality education other than by assuming private schools do this. In order for your proposal to prove your resolution you would need to show that private schools are quality education. Otherwise you are only arguing that the non-rich should be given money to go to private schools not that they should be given money for a quality education.

You refer to the fact that C students who are maybe not so driven in public primary and secondary may be more driven in post-secondary. I ask: why would this be the case? At any rate, even in the current system, if you are C student you wouldn't get into Harvard, or MIT.

I didn’t say they would be more driven in post-secondary only that they might. But this is moot now that you’ve clarified your proposal.

You discuss that segregation is "just wrong." I won't argue, but why do you suppose that is the case? Perhaps words like equality, fairness, and life quality figure in the argument that segregation is, as you say, "just wrong?" The reason we all think that segregation is wrong is because we believe in the fact that all people should be afforded equal quality of life. Quality of life correlates directly to the quality of education. Besides; by disagreeing, aren't you segregating the rich from the poor? Isn't this, as you say, "just wrong?"

You still haven’t proven private education is quality education.

I apologize for my earlier ambiguity; people and/or states and/or the federal government can ensure that this proposition prevails. The people can ensure it because although I agree whole-heartedly with Alexander Tytler, his statements do not form a basis for us to suddenly trash the constitution. The states can ensure it because they are the ones responsible for education, and the federal government can ensure it by providing a financial incentive to the states.

Okay since you make this argument, where is the constitutional authority for the Federal government to provide financial incentives to the states for education? What form would these incentives take? Which of the enumerated powers are you referring to (Art I, Section 8 US Constitution)?

First, I am not proposing equality in wealth. Secondly, I am not, as I clarified above, proposing to use the federal treasury to enact these changes.

If the Federal government ensures this proposition with financial incentives, then where does the money come from if not from the federal treasury?

CONCLUSION
Comparing segregation to wealth disparity is not only a false analogy by somewhat offensive. The analogy fails because there are many reasons for wealth disparity but segregation was based on skin color alone.

Thank you for the debate. I look forward to your closing.

[1] http://paa2009.princeton.edu...

Debate Round No. 4
ant981228

Pro

"53% of those who had ever experienced poverty during childhood attended college [1]."
--Fair enough, what about the other 47%? You could say that they should work harder, but in that case they would already know that, work harder, and attend college. Please don't take offence, but what are the chances that one person could come up with something that 47% of those who experienced poverty during childhood couldn't? You seem to be operating under the assumption that those who are poor are less intelligent. The fact that this is false is the reason one might intervene in the first place.

"You have not defined quality education other than by assuming private schools do this. In order for your proposal to prove your resolution you would need to show that private schools are quality education."
--"Environments that are healthy, safe, protective and gender-sensitive, and provide
adequate resources and facilities;
� Content that is reflected in relevant curricula and materials for the acquisition of
basic skills, especially in the areas of literacy, numeracy and skills for life, and
knowledge in such areas as gender, health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS prevention and
peace.
� Processes through which trained teachers use child-centred teaching approaches in
well-managed classrooms and schools and skilful assessment to facilitate learning
and reduce disparities.
� Outcomes that encompass knowledge, skills and attitudes, and are linked to
national goals for education and positive participation in society."
This is Unicef's definition of quality education, found at http://www.unicef.org.... I would also like to add to that definition that every participant's learning is calibrated for them to reach their full potential, for instance if someone had a gift in observation their scientific side would be developed, and if someone were particularly musical then their musical side would be developed.

"I didn't say they would be more driven in post-secondary only that they might. But this is moot now that you've clarified your proposal."
--As you say.

"You still haven't proven private education is quality education."
--I cannot, of course, prove that all private education is quality education. To do that I would have to analyse the success and the trends of every single private school in the world. Although this isn't conclusive, consider this; why do people stay at private schools rather than going to a free public school? Clearly, there is something that 5,488,000 children and their families find there that they don't find in public schools, the number coming from http://www.capenet.org....
From the same website, a full 55% of parents sending their children to public want to send them to private.

"Okay since you make this argument, where is the constitutional authority for the Federal government to provide financial incentives to the states for education? What form would these incentives take? Which of the enumerated powers are you referring to (Art I, Section 8 US Constitution)?"
--I did not find one. However, according to the Illinois State Board of Education, "The laws of Illinois and the United States guarantee all students in Illinois access to a quality education." According to http://www.usconstitution.net..., 2010, quality education is NOT guaranteed by the constitution, and looking at the aforementioned enumerated powers, I did not find anything enabling the government to "guarantee all students in Illinois access to a quality education." In fact, they seem to have no authorization to give the state any money for education. Hmmm...
--I maintain that the states and people are still able to ensure quality education.

"If the Federal government ensures this proposition with financial incentives, then where does the money come from if not from the federal treasury?"
I clarified that the money would come from those we defined as rich.

"Comparing segregation to wealth disparity is not only a false analogy by somewhat offensive. The analogy fails because there are many reasons for wealth disparity but segregation was based on skin color alone."

I'll counter this argument from the point of view of a white slave-owner. 'Your argument that there are many reasons behind wealth disparity and not behind segregation based on skin color is not only false, but "somewhat offensive." It is obvious that God made these people inferior and to work for us. It is only natural that we enslave them for this reason. Why should we even give them an education?' Don't get the idea that I share this view, but for someone who does this would be perfectly natural. I apologize if my argument was offensive, but I will not withdraw it. Even without the above reasoning, according to www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcpr/workingpapers/wpfiles/fairl, the clearest instance of white families leaving public schools is with concentrations of poor black schoolchildren. This is evidence of a clear relationship. In addition, a large percentage of public school attendees are white. Finally, in either case, we are deciding on a human's rights based on the human's superficial qualities: in one case we judge based on skin color, in another based on how much a person has; this is no basis for deciding access to a quality education.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the poor can be as intelligent and as deserving as any rich. Many of the poor make an honest effort to get a quality education... and fail. Do you want to deprive the poor of the right to a quality education?
Do you want to suddenly remove any chance of a good quarter of our population to further the interests of society and government? With this question, I rest my case.

Thanks for the debate!
randolph7

Con

Resolution: The US should Ensure Access to Quality Education for Everyone

I’d like to thank my opponent for debating this topic with me. I don’t think my opponent has successfully argued for the resolution, “The US should Ensure Access to Quality Education For Everyone”. There certainly is a lot of appeal to emotion regarding the fairness of the rich getting private education but not much in the way of why the US should ensure this. Pro concedes that the US Constitution doesn’t allow for the US to meddle in education. Sure, the states perhaps should ensure access but this not the argument that Pro initially makes. You can see the gradual concession below:

Round 2: “If it is the will of the people, or if it benefits the people, it should be passed into federal law.”


Round 4: “The states can ensure it because they are the ones responsible for education, and the federal government can ensure it by providing a financial incentive to the states.”


Round 5: “In fact, they seem to have no authorization to give the state any money for education. Hmmm... I maintain that the states and people are still able to ensure quality education.”


The states are not the US and it was clear his original intent was for policy to be set at the Federal level. So, in this respect pro concedes the resolution and agrees with my position.


But even if Pro hadn’t conceded the resolution, pro’s premises don’t necessarily support his conclusion.



P1) No matter how hard you work education levels determined by how rich you are

While the ability to pay has an impact on education, 53% of those who were poor at sometime in their lives went on to college. There are multiple ways for the non-rich to get to college: scholarships, grants and loans. The government, private scholarships and even the schools themselves offer financial aid to try to even the playing field. The reason 47% of the poor don’t make it to college? There’s no way to be certain but some of it probably has to do with cultural reasons such as a higher value placed on working than education, etc.

I think the claim that I assume the poor are less intelligent is a red herring. I want all Americans to succeed and I think Pro and I just disagree on the way to get there. Clearly, if some non-rich attain higher education, then there is more at play then simply how much money one has. If wealth is not the only determinant of education levels then this premise cannot be true.



P2) Racial segregation will be decreased with everyone having the same knowledge


Opportunities denied to blacks due to racial segregation is completely different than segregation due to income. Blacks were forcibly oppressed during segregation and not allowed any opportunity to succeed. Not having money for private education is a barrier but not an insurmountable one and certainly not banned by law as was the case during racial segregation.

Pro’s premise changed during the debate from racial segregation to economic segregation. Even if the two were somehow synonymous, economic segregation does not necessarily mean a better education. Being from the Chicago area, I’m sure Pro is aware that there are quite a number of high quality public institutions and that some are even better than private schools. In the same website Pro gets their private school statistics from it says that 85% of rich families send their children to public school. The fact that the rich can send their kids to private school but don’t doesn’t strike me as a ringing endorsement of private schools as superior.

Even if private school were somehow proven superior doesn’t mean that the US (Federal government) should implement a voucher program.



P3) Educational placement should be according to ability

I agree with Pro here that educational placement should be according to ability. But Pro’s proposal seems to indicate that all the rich and non-rich who are smart enough will go to private school. If we assume that private school is quality education and all the smart kids left then public schools would be full of “children left behind” in poorly performing schools. This would negate the resolution in that not every child would have access to quality education.


Conclusion:
The burden of proof was on Pro to prove that the US should ensure access to quality education for everyone. Pro conceded that the US, as in the Federal government, should not ensure access to quality education for everyone. Also, pro’s arguments do not seem to support the resolution.

As a libertarian, I agree with Pro that it is the states and not the US that should ensure quality education. Private schools may be a part of the solution but I think that there is inherently anything superior about private schools than public ones. Perhaps, the solution is for the states to improve their public schools. Pro seemingly hasn’t even considered this option.

I’d like to thank my opponent for the debate and look forward to seeing more of them on DDO!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
Thanks you too. We should have both left out some of the emotional statements but we're both new it'll get better :)
Posted by ant981228 5 years ago
ant981228
Nice job, randolph!
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
Thanks ant for the debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
ant981228randolph7Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to massvotebomber
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 5 years ago
MassDebator255
ant981228randolph7Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Randolph your arguments suck.
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
ant981228randolph7Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was making the point that their ought to be equality of opportunity in education and Con responded by saying that "life isn't fair, get used to it" and "if the poor placed as much effort in finding ways to educate themselves as they do whining about their circumstances perhaps education levels would be equal" which is hardly likely to win many hearts and minds!
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
ant981228randolph7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ant981128 made some tactical mistakes (esp. not defining what 'quality education' or 'rich' meant in the beginning of the debate, which costs him a point for conduct) and was successfully refuted by randolph7, who noted the weaknesses in his case. Ant981228, I commend you for your effort, but you, as randolph7 stated, never fulfilled the burden of proof that you consigned to yourself by instigating this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
ant981228randolph7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a Long debate. Tip:Don't do five round unless its a really good topic. I feel like Pro was begging the question a bit much in his speech and trying to make a case from the emotional side. But either way It was an actual good debate and I'm glad i took the time out to read it.