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

The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,222 times Debate No: 19328
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




First round will be for acceptance, while the last four will be arguments. The time to argue is 72 hours, while the argument max is 8,000.

The format will be as such:

Resolution: The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

Stance of debating party.

Contention 1:
Evidence and Body

Contention 2, etc

When providing evidence, please cite sources and leave links at the bottom of the paragraph so that I know which link is for which statistic or piece of evidence.

Seeing as the site does not allow for a random selection of sides, I choose con. I hope for a challenge soon and that my terms are best-suited to both debating parties.

Again, the first round is for agreement to terms.


i accept! con may state her case!
Debate Round No. 1


I thanks my opponent for their acceptance of this debate!

Now, I will begin:

Contention #1: Being assisted or being given money by the government forces the receiving party to be more influenced by the government.
Private schools are able to practice religiously within their walls because they lack the involvement of the government, while public schools cannot because the government pays for the school's funding. If the government were to give money to private schools, students would have no need to pay tuition and private schools would cease to exist, leading to my second contention.

Contention #2: Funding from the government would make the private schools public schools.
Private schools can celebrate any holiday they want without the government getting involved, while public schools can't, and that is part of their charm as well as their ability to teach religion or higher level curriculums. However, if the government funds the school, it would be subject to the rules the government imposes upon the public schools, in turn making it a public school. The destruction of a private system of education would outrage many people, but also take away the democratic republic we United States citizens pride ourselves in having.

Contention #3: Doing so would take away money from the current public schools and also other areas in need of funding whereas the private schools are not.

Private schools are self-sufficient. They can provide for themselves through tuition and sponsorship from alumni, while the public schools can't—this isn't to say a public school can't fundraise; they don't have to. The reason why the private schools must do so is because they choose to do something differently—nonconforming—to what the government wants of public schools. Choosing to stop making their own money and instead take it from the government would strip them of all of their rights to nonconformity. A Catholic school could no longer be called a Catholic school because the outward practice of Catholicism would not be allowed there.

My opponent may now provide their arguments. Further evidence and research will be provided as needed. Best of luck!


Contention #1: Private schools being assisted in finances doesn't mean that they will be influenced by the government. The government just helps them a little in finances without government inside the schools. They can do whatever they want with only assistance from the government.
Contention #2: No, as my 1st contention, there is only assistance and funds. That's all. They can still do whatever they want without anybody interfering with anything. The only thing is some funds and assistance from the government but the government doesn't actually do anything towards the private school system except funding or assisting with money.
Contention #3: Public schools are not exactly self-sufficient, they need money and many close. You are right but we would use more money on education!

Resolution Affirmed!
Debate Round No. 2


I will now address my opponent's points.

#1: My opponent says that assisting with funds does not mean a school would have government involvement in the school. However, the government's involvement in something typically means that they will impose their rules on something. Again, providing funds would make it a public school.

#2: My first answer extends to my opponent's second point.

#3: I agree. Public schools are not self-sufficient, and that's why they need the government's assistance. But private schools are, and they have to be in order to stay open with the same rules and regulations they wish to have.


Contention #1: Providing or assisting funds for schools does not mean it's a public school. It's only a public school if it means that the not only provide funds but also doing what the government wants. Funding does not mean that the government has power over private schools.
Contention #2: My first point addresses this point.
Contention #3: Private schools are not self-sufficient either, (sorry about the mix-up but public schools too), they need money and many close and hve lacks of money. They can do whatever they want while the government just gives money to the private school.
My Argument:
Contention #1: The government assisting funds helps private schools become better.
Assistance in funds means that the private schools have not only a larger probability of being able not to close but also more money to do things like more field trips and bigger salaries which makes the teachers more willing to teach. It really depends how the school uses the money but it still helps.
Contention #2: Private schools make the government more active in Education.
Seeing the government more active in Education because of assisting private schools, makes the chances of the Department of Education surviving better Many people running for office and of the population say the Department of Education should be gone because it's not helping the schools. If assisting funds help private schools, more people won't want the Department of Education gone because it actually helps.
Contention #3: More private schools will come into existence.
People who want to build private schools will see that if they can make a private school and many people are interested in a new rivate school, there is more of a chance that that private school will be built because the government assists them in funds to help the school survive. I believe that private schools will be populated much more if the government assists in funds. Resolution Affirmed!
Debate Round No. 3


#1: The government doesn't typically stick their noses in things unless they will gain something, in this case power and involvement, by doing so. When a government invests money in building a park for children to play at, they instill rules and say what can be done and what can't: curfew, loitering, etc. The same goes for a private school; they will want something. It's like when someone donates money to have a bench built and as a reward they get their name on a plaque on the side.

#2: ^

#3: My opponent states here that private schools are not self-sufficient and that they would be able to do whatever they want because the government gives them money. Both parts of this statement are false. Private schools must make their own money through tuition, donations of alumni, etc, meaning they are indeed self-sufficient. Secondly, the government has control in things because they give money. The whole reason why private schools are private is because they are independent of the government and provide for themselves.

C#1: My opponent states this helps private schools become better. Again, since the said private school would become a public school in the process, this statement is void.

C#2: I ask my opponent elaborate and be clearer on this point.

C#3: My opponent says this assistance in funding would make more private schools available, while I believe the opposite. With the government having to support both public and private schools, there will be fewer private schools if not the same amount as when they had to provide completely for themselves. Also, one of the features of private education is tuition, and if the students don't have to pay it, again, the school is not private, and government funding would defeat the purpose of tuition.


#1- This debate is "Should the government give money to private schools?", not "Why would the government give private schools money if they already did". But in any case I still disagree but this is about "Should" not "Why". The government doesn't have to give money so it can receive something. Take for example Michelle Obama's nutrition program. What does Michelle Obama gain by helping the children? Nothing except a good reputation just like if the government gave funds to private schools. They would also get a very bad reputation if they took away private schools. Just because the government gives funds to private schools doesn't mean it wants to gain something and if they were to gain anything, a good reputation because the government is helping others. Voters-Two Sides: Should-Why & No Gain Except Reputation.
#2- Look above.
#3-The private schools will make their own money but they will be assisted in funds. I've seen many private schools close down which would lessen so many private schools. They are independent except funding.
#1-The private schools would become better because they would have much more funds and they would not be public schools so they would become much better.
#2-Many people including people who are running for president feel that the Department of Education should be destroyed because it doesn't help anybody. If the Department of Education helps private schools become better, more people will want the Department of Education to stay so it will have a much better chance of surviving.
#3-The government will only assist funds in private schools, and the private schools will still try to fund for themselves so the students will pay tuition. It will be the same as before except more money. More private schools will be built because the people who wanted to build private schools will have the government giving money to not close down so more people will think that if they can build a private school which may not be successful but will be able to stay alive because the government is helping them even if the students are not a lot.
Debate Round No. 4


WriterSelbe forfeited this round.


Wow! I was already prepared for another argument. I will extend my arguments! I win because I've refuted every one of her points and mine still stand. Conduct because she forfeited.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
you havent used my tips
Posted by Viper-King 6 years ago
they can expel the student and the student has to check the rules of district and go to another p.bilc. school or private school
Posted by WriterSelbe 6 years ago
No, the difference is a public school technically can't expell a student unless they want to pay for their enrollment in a different school because of government involvement, but because of the government's lack of influence in a private school, they can expell without being obligated to pay to get rid of the child...

So, I pretty much just gave whoever accepts a point if they want to use it.
Posted by Kethen 6 years ago
"The government should provide money for private schools from their funds."
Why would the government need to provide private schools with money from their own funds?
Also if anyone takes this on you are sure to win. If you mean what I think you mean the government giving them money would make them a public school
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 6 years ago
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to PRO b/c of the forfeit...And 'convincing arguments' goes to PRO too b/c he refuted CON's arguments and his still stood. I gave 3 points to CON, just cause i think overall her arguments were going the right way.... If only she didn't forfeit..>.