The Instigator
Mangani
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
mastajake
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Vocational Training in 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 8 votes the winner is...
mastajake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,733 times Debate No: 6231
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

Mangani

Pro

Let me define the positions, and I will await an opponent to present his/her arguments.

I will be arguing Pro. As Pro I contend that High Schools should offer more alternatives in Vocational programs, and options that concentrate on in demand jobs, especially those listed in US News as the most promising careers.

As Con you should be opposed to enhancing vocational programs in High School, or any changes that reflect our changing economy.

I await my opponent's responses.
mastajake

Con

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for proposing such an interesting debate, and I wish my opponent luck.

Lets begin...

Definitions:

Vocational - of, pertaining to, or noting instruction or guidance in an occupation or profession chosen as a career or in the choice of a career

Contentions:

1. budget Cuts

As we know there have been many budget cuts around the U.S. forcing for schools to cut down on not only teachers but programs offered at high school as well. Given thus, making the decision to offer (yes, even offer) vocational programs at the high school level would have a negative affect on the economy of the school. More core classes in high school would have to make even more cuts on their necessary items to teach the class, which is already an issue that is being struggled with. This issue would only worsen if you take more from the schools budget to make these vocational programs. Thus rendering vocational programs a bad idea at this time; because of the economies effect on schools currently.

2. Alteration of The Position of The Schools

My second point is, if what you suggest is implemented across the U.S., certain high schools are going to have narrow options secluding the students of that high school to certain occupations that may only be regional. Thus sufficing seclusion of there job which isn't always beneficial considering personal perseverances outside of regional occupation.

3. High School Can Be Premature

High school can be premature for children ranging from 14-18 to a make vocational decision. I feel that it would be better to make you vocational decision in college or trade school. Colleges and trade schools are already narrowed for the personnel applying that express an interest, as well as they provide range and professional expertise. Given that these college and trade schools are already out there, I feel vocational programs in high school would be a waste and a poor competitor to those of colleges and trade schools.

Conclusion:

Financially it would be a bad decision, as I exemplified via my first argument. Given the location, students probably wouldn't have many options and thus are left to seclusion, unless they choose otherwise, but besides the fact it is still a factor. Also high school can be premature for such decisions in which the student wouldn't know it and waste his education and risk the chance of getting into another school such as a college or trade.

I feel my debate is reasonable and sufficient ergo I excitedly await my opponents rebuttals.

Thank you

~ Mastajake
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate, and for taking the liberty of structuring it in a manner that will be simple to go back and forth in. I will respond to his contentions, and then offer my own conclusion for this round.

1. Budget Cuts
Vocational programs should be unaffected by budget cuts, in that the interested fields should be supporting them. Take for instance the Blackstone Valley Regional Vocational Technical High School in Upton, MA. They have various sponsors including Monster.com, Milford Regional Hospital, and other local business and even colleges. The school is supported by both tuition students, as well as scholarships. Because vocational programs are career oriented, the high school actually saves money because less time is given in areas that don't enhance a particular career path. The fact that vocational programs would be supported by the particular field, and the program would be structured around the field, students can be prepared better, faster, more thoroughly due to lower teacher-student ratios, and the result is a lower dropout rate, preparedness for specific career path in college, early career goal setting, networking with employers, and a steady stream of employees into in-demand fields. I am not proposing vocational programs be offered in schools where they are not currently offered (which I could, in fact, argue would be a financial benefit to the school). I am proposing that current programs be geared to in-demand jobs, particularly those listed in US News as the top jobs for 2009 and beyond, many of which are largely unknown to the general public.

2. Alteration of the position of schools
a. Nationwide Implementation
I have not suggested nationwide implementation of new programs. I would, however, support career fields reaching out to High Schools to implement programs at their expense. Many in-demand fields are growing, and will continue to grow, and will be soon enough in desperate demand for new employees. I give the example of Biomedical Equipment Technician- #2 on the list of the US News "Best Jobs for 2009", and Yahoo's list of "Recession Proof Jobs" (it was also #8 on the 2008 US News list of "Best Jobs"). A recent survey conducted by Steve Bezanson, a Certified Biomedical Equipment Technician and a professor at a college vocational program for Biomeds showed that around 1,400 Biomeds will be retiring per year over the next 15 years. With all the college programs currently in place, and at full capacity (which rarely occurs), the schools have the ability to put back into the field less than 1,000 technicians per year. There are currently 38,000 Biomedical Equipment Technicians nationwide and it is already an in-demand job. With a deficit of 400 per year over the next 15 years, it is a ripe field for new blood. Bmetsonline.com, in the same survey, showed that the vast majority of Biomeds are white males over 50. Those retiring have an average of 20-30 years experience. If the field does not go after High Schools, start advertising programs in college, and making it's voice heard the field will be in jeopardy of not being able to fill these positions. Many young people who hear about the field become ecstatic at the thought of a field that employs the highest levels of civilian technology, networking, computer architecture, pneumatics, electronics, radiology, lasers, etc. etc. etc., and the pay and ease of entering into the field makes it that much more attractive.

b. Secluding students to regional occupations
No one would force students into vocational programs, but the thought of being able to enter a field directly after High School, and help with college tuition while working within the field and gaining experience should be a plus to most students who are not currently offered those opportunities. Regional jobs would be, for instance, IBM, HP, Silicon Graphics and others on the West Coast, alternative energy, wind power, agriculture, and healthcare in the Midwest, auto manufacturing, deep sea exploration, healthcare, agriculture, geography (for oil drilling, etc.), and other fields in the South, and a Myriad of fields in the Northeast- JUST to name a few. Healthcare, for instance, is not regional- it is nationwide. Electronics and other technologies is not regional- it is nationwide.

3. High School can be premature
Many of the best athletes- football, baseball, basketball, swimming, gymnastics, boxing, etc. start at even lower ages, and do it for the rest of their life. Indeed the vast majority of professional athletes have been in their "career field" the vast majority of their- if not at least throughout High School. MANY students enter college with a major. Their major is career oriented because most students who go to college already know what they want to be. Vocational programs are supported and promoted by colleges because it prepares students for their majors. Even the military takes part in "vocational preparation" through ROTC which prepares "children" for military life. Many ROTC cadets do end up spending their careers in the military, and as with athletes, many career military personnel started at a very early age- if at least throughout High School. Vocational programs would not limit students, rather they would expose students to fields they may not have known they would like. With options- as with the school I mentioned in the first paragraph- as great as 15 different vocational programs, students will be more knowledgeable of their options, and thus make more informed decision that may impact the rest of their lives. High School is, in fact, the point where children SHOULD become adults, and the law reflects this notion (at 18 you are legally an adult).

Conclusion:
US News lists 30 Best Careers for 2009. Many are largely unknown to students in High School, and allow for early preparation and easy entry into the field: Biomedical Equipment Technician, Firefighter, Optometrist, Pharmacist, Physician's Assistant, Systems Analyst, Health Policy Specialist, etc. There are many other in-demand jobs listed on other websites, and even recession proof jobs. Vocational High School Programs- save for the few which offer upwards of 15 options- currently concentrate on fields such as woodshop, upholstery, cosmetology, autoshop, architecture, carpentry, and other jobs that are not in high demand, but used to be in the 70's and 80's. I think it is high time vocational programs catch up, and start offering what will serve the students in the long run.

When I was in High School there were about 50 students enrolled in my school district's vocational high school program (from my high school), and about another 450 attended the school for about 4 hours a day in conjunction with their regular High School curriculum. Many were proud to be able to fix a car, re-upholster the back seat, design a cabinet, do your hair and makeup, or bake you a cake (the last one is still a great option, in my opinion). I was interested in electronics, as my father ran a business installing car stereos and alarms, and was always using inventive ways to make his customer's happy. I was not offered electronics in High School, though I know it may be offered now. I decided to follow this vice, and joined the Army as an Electronic Warfare Systems Repair Tech (yes, when I was 18), and after a year I wanted to expand this knowledge and became a Biomedical Equipment Technician. Since the age of 23, when I left the Army, I have consistently been paid more than any of my parents, siblings, or High School buddies. I have trained uneducated people right off the street, and they have gone on to be as successful as myself. It is not a difficult field, but the training and exposure is vital. I know that if I had the opportunity to learn electronics in HS I would only be that much better, and I firmly believe that expanding vocational programs and concentrating on in-demand fields will be beneficial for all
mastajake

Con

First of all I would like to thank my opponent for responding so quickly with a diligent response on his half.

Now for the debate!

- I am going to provide the readers with some of my personal summaries but please keep in mind these are my own PERSONAL summaries of his arguments/rebuttals, given thus I greatly encourage you to summarize for yourself

Summaries/Rebuttals:

1. Budget cuts:
My opponent has not necessarily addressed my issue in full, for there is still a financial issue pending for such actions to enhance or create vocational programs. Although he has provided a hefty way to evade the issue, it is very rarely applicable given regional benefits. I still propose that budget cuts are a good reason to see vocational programs as unfavorable as of current.

2.Alteration of the positions of schools
My opponent says "I would, however, support career fields reaching out to High Schools to implement programs at their expense." I would as well but you see the expense is what I proposed as an issue making it unfavorable and regional. Also given the financial position of most schools 'expense' is a big issue even if the career fields express this desired interest upon the school it is hard to believe that they would pay for everything and unless they did the schools expense is at harm to possible financial loss. My opponent says "If the field does not go after High Schools, start advertising programs in college, and making it's voice heard the field will be in jeopardy of not being able to fill these positions.". You said the major problem with the biomedical field your self "advertising", in this case I agree, advertising would be key to furthering the field of this occupation. But to go after high schools is not what they should be doing, they should advertise to the countless number of unemployed to take up such positions.

b. secluding students to regional occupations
"No one would force students into vocational programs" my opponent says, this I know, that isn't what I was meaning to get across. By saying that students would be secluded to regional occupations I meant just that, but let me substantiate to clear up any confusion. To say it in better words what I meant to say is they are secluded to there regional selection of occupations. Even my opponent agrees with me here as you see by the fallowing statement "Regional jobs would be, for instance, IBM, HP, Silicon Graphics and others on the West Coast, alternative energy, wind power, agriculture, and healthcare in the Midwest, auto manufacturing, deep sea exploration, healthcare, agriculture, geography (for oil drilling, etc.), and other fields in the South, and a Myriad of fields in the Northeast- JUST to name a few.". Seclusion is still a factor whether it is inclusive or not, it can still be unbeneficial for the student which is my point, that is yet to be negated.

3.High School can be premature
My opponent says "Many of the best athletes- football, baseball, basketball, swimming, gymnastics, boxing, etc. start at even lower ages, and do it for the rest of their life." I would contend the fact that becoming a professional in such things as sports is very rare given the amount of people who desire to make it, and make it, and those who as well desire to make it but don't. The ratio is vastly outnumbered. A lot of people do not make it into their desired positions with sports if they aim for the professional route, and soon give up on such aspirations which only supports my statement that ' high school can be premature'. Sports is a bad example on your half only because of the success rate but I still contend either way it CAN be premature. Sure it would expose certain fields but that doesn't fix the fact that the decisions of pursuing such field can be premature and many times will be. My opponent says "High School is, in fact, the point where children SHOULD become adults, and the law reflects this notion (at 18 you are legally an adult).". We are not 18 all the way through high school, I know this is a given, but it seems to be that you aren't considering this hence your statement. You also say "SHOULD" meaning as this is a suggestive opinion, and since you provided yours, I shall provide mine, I feel children should become adults in college were in actuality they are often times sent on there own to live and prove them self worthy of being an adult by sustaining themselves thus worthy of mature decision.

Conclusion:
There still are my contentions left to be negated. At most my opponent has compensated for the problems deeming vocational programs unfavorable, but still they are left for negation in which would make my contentions unreasonable, but this is yet to happen. Budget cuts are still an issue for the schools economic success. Regional seclusion is inevitable if vocational programs are implemented as proposed thus being a issue in which you can consider vocational programs unfavorable. 'High school' I still consider premature given its tendencies and the tendencies of mind alteration later in life at a mature stage. Overall, some negation is yet to be made, not compensation.

I thank the readers of this debate and I would like you (the readers) to note, if not already, my opponent has provided sufficient sources.
(links are in the comments)

I feel this round of debate is adequate ergo I await my opponents response

~Mastajake
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Pro

My opponent seems to have completely ignored my R2 arguments, but I will clarify nonetheless.

1. Budget Cuts: My opponent implies that I have not addressed the issue in full. I did address the issue. I pointed out that my opponent brought up an issue that does not affect vocational programs the way he implied because many are sponsored by the industries they promote, charge tuition, etc. I presented sources supporting this argument, but my opponent has presented no sources citing these hypothetical budget cuts. The other part of his statement applies to new vocational programs in high schools that do not currently have them. I first stated that I have not argued for NEW programs where there are none, rather enhancements to programs already in place. BUT I also pointed out that vocational programs may offer financial relief to schools in distress because of the sponsoring and tuition options.

2. Alteration of the positions of schools: My opponent presents a false dilemma. He says that if interested industries offer to cover the expense of enhancing a program to reflect the field it will be a greater expense on the High School. That is untrue, and I have already shown how the opposite is true- besides the logical conclusion that time with industry professionals at the expense of a sponsoring company would mean time away from teachers and school resources, resulting in LESS expense for the school. My opponent presents an obvious option as an alternative, but it is not an alternative- merely an option that would enhance the goal of the industry (regarding advertising). Furthermore, you can't just "go after" unemployed individuals who aren't qualified for the positions. Presenting the field to young minds ensures a supply of young techs better prepared to cover the growing technology and demand within this field (biomedical) and others. My opponent, again, presents the "regional issue", but does not elaborate. I have not presented any regional options, rather options presented by US News as top jobs for 2009, Yahoo's "Recession Proof jobs list", jobs with advancing technologies, and careers that reflect our changing economy (like alternative/renewable energy). The "regional issue" is another false dilemma, a logical fallacy, because it is non-existent in the options I present, and he has not elaborated on this hypothetical regional issue.

On the B. point- yes, I pointed out some companies and fields that would be regional, BUT they overlap. I was merely emphasizing strengths and advantages that a region would have- an issue that would remain unresolved WITHOUT enhancing vocational programs. Because a region has a strength, this does not mean those strengths are the only options for students. Again, that is a causal fallacy. In nearly every region I mentioned healthcare, some kind of alternative energy, agriculture, and one or two regional strengths. My opponent has yet to identify any regional fields that any students in any region would be limited to under an enhanced vocational program, and how that would be detrimental to a student wishing to pursue that field.

3. High School can be premature: My opponent's rarity argument does not negate my "early choices" argument, and it does not reinforce his "premature" argument. He contends that giving up the sport supports his statement, but it does not. Those who give up the sport in college sometimes get to college on a scholarship for the sport, and end up pursuing the major they chose to educate themselves in. It was this early choice, however, that got them there. My opponent's contention of High School prematurity is full of variations that cannot allow this contention to stand as a logical argument. I know three year olds who are master percussionists, and old men who don't have any skills. Prematurity is relative, and this argument does not stand. Note that EVERY student who reaches the age of 18 (in the US) is legally an adult, regardless of maturity.

My opponent has presented redundancy in Round 3. He did not understand certain points I made, did not accept others based on assumptions, and presented false dilemmas. He has presented no arguments against enhancing established vocational programs- only arguments against establishing new ones, which may not even be valid.

Vocational programs have been proven to improve retention due to enhanced interest in completing training specifically chose by the student. Students are exposed to trusted, reliable information about the characteristics and actions that are necessary to be successful in the labor market. Work-based programs mostly benefit students at risk of dropping out, or students disenchanted with the educational system. It has been argued that dropout rates adversely affect the economy, and that vocational programs are a strong remedy because they lower dropout rates AND prepare students for the workforce, as well as improve college attendance and retention. (http://www.ericdigests.org...) (http://www.allacademic.com...)

Vocational programs have been proven through research to help people avoid unemployment and unskilled work (Arum and Shavit 1995). Given our changing economy, this is invaluable to students who cannot afford college. These programs can prepare students for positions in which the company will pay for continuing education through tuition reimbursement, and offer incentives for promotion.

I urge the readers (and my opponent) to read the following article regarding the effects of vocational training, industry grants, student retention and preparedness for a changing workforce, etc.

http://www.houstonpress.com...

Thank you.
mastajake

Con

Fellow debaters and readers I am sorry but I am not going to be able to give a lengthy explanation for this round because I have some other priority's that I must commit to right now. Once again I am very apologetic about my circumstance.

But I do have a few short things to say about my opponents most recent rebuttals. He still has NOT negated my arguments, all he has done is COMPENSATED so far (i.e.)"Vocational programs should be unaffected by budget cuts, in that the interested fields should be supporting them.". He has used the word "should" a lot, which is only compensation and suggestion. My arguments are still firm for they still need to be negated with something other than an indefinite reason or compensation, against my arguments.

Again sorry about my circumstances but I hope you have considered that I have left a little bit for my opponent to go off of, which includes my previous debate to be negated, without mere compensation and 'if-ness'.

Ergo I await my opponents response

~Mastajake
Debate Round No. 3
Mangani

Pro

I can go back and forth indefinitely about budget cuts, but given that my opponent has not elaborated I will not. Am I supposed to fill in the blanks on a subject I did not bring up? If I believe, supported by the sources I have cited and provided, that #1- vocational programs are unaffected by the hypothetical budget cuts my opponent mentions (hypothetical because he has not cited one example of tax cuts affecting vocational programs, and how they will affect them), #2- that vocational programs are a remedy to any "hypothetical" budget cuts, and #3- vocational programs are economically beneficial to schools, then it is up to my opponent to make this topic relevant to the argument. I think it is manipulative that he would keep pressing the issue as if I have neglected something he has made relevant. The fact of the matter is he has only mentioned budget cuts, but simply mentioning budget cuts does not make them a reality. My opponent must reference which budget cuts he is referring to, and how they negatively impact vocational programs. My sources suggest enhancements to vocational programs would be one of the results of budget cuts, or at least a solution that schools would look to in order to alleviate issues with traditional curricula.

My opponent says I have not negated his argument, and have only compensated for his argument. Unfortunately he is limiting me to compensating for a hypothetical situation that he has not made clear to me. I cannot negate hypothetical budget cuts, I can only state how I feel vocational programs are unaffected, and how vocational programs can provide relief for schools affected by budget cuts.

My opponent claims that I use the word "should" a lot. I have claimed vocational programs should be unaffected by budget cuts. I said "should" because I cannot make an affirmation regarding a hypothetical situation. I can only make a hypothetical judgment of the outcome "should" the situation arise. I am also presenting a policy recommendation. When you present a case for a policy recommendation, it is customary to present an evaluative- in this case, "should". This entire debate is about what "should" happen, and therefore attempting to prevent me from using the word, or suggesting that I am over using it is as unrealistic as suggesting that I shouldn't argue my case. I have presented many facts supporting my case, and sources supporting those facts. I understand my opponent does not have time to present his case, but he should not resort to attempting to manipulate the readers' understanding of what I am arguing.

I hope that my opponent's final round presents something other than a hypothetical case unfounded by facts, or that at least he doesn't try to manipulate the readers into ignoring my arguments.

Thank you.
mastajake

Con

I am sorry once again fellow debaters and readers that I was unable to give a lengthy response in my last debate.

Now to debate..

Rebuttals/Summaries:

"I can go back and forth indefinitely about budget cuts, but given that my opponent has not elaborated I will not."
- I have elaborated on the topic and given reason to why I think it is a considerable factor against your premise. Which is noted in round two and so forth.
"#1- vocational programs are unaffected by the hypothetical budget cuts my opponent mentions (hypothetical because he has not cited one example of tax cuts affecting vocational programs, and how they will affect them),"
- My apologies, but no need for the aggressiveness, here are just a few links with information on the budget cut (to irradiate the idea )
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
- http://www.examiner.com...
- http://blogs.newsobserver.com...

Given that Budget cuts are no longer hypothetical (which was a little irrational to deem so in the first place) and given that regional support would vary , it would be a good idea for 'now' to suggest that vocational programs would be unfavorable due to accumulative 'IF-ness' on the economic situation.

"My opponent says I have not negated his argument, and have only compensated for his argument."
- solve my economic situation completely or disprove its existence and you would have negated, but you didn't. Vocational programs does not solve the budget cut crises, it merely compensates for it, given that budget cuts are the same even if vocational enhancement is implemented.

"I hope that my opponent's final round presents something other than a hypothetical case unfounded by facts, or that at least he doesn't try to manipulate the readers into ignoring my arguments."

- The Vietnam war happened, this would be considered a prerequisite of knowledge. If you didn't know about it, you should precariously look it up for yourself rather than taking my word for it, or rather than deeming it hypothetical and unfounded. Apply this to my 'so apparent' hypothetical budget cuts. And as for me manipulating, lets be honest, this is a debate. One in which I should try my best to be persuasive about my side, as so should you. NOT manipulation, BUT persuasion. So I beg to differ about your remarks, which are spurious and manipulative themselves.

As for my other two contentions, I will concede my opponents rebuttals after his final attempt to disprove my contentions, which he has yet to do so. But I will leave this for the readers to figure considering it isn't that hard. As well as I expect my opponent to dismiss his personal remarks. Lets keep this one civil.

Thank You

~Mastajake
Debate Round No. 4
Mangani

Pro

Mangani forfeited this round.
mastajake

Con

So, my opponent has forfeited his final round of debate and was not able to negate any of my contentions fully.

I have provided reasonable, real facts, of why vocational enhancements and implementation would not be favorable. So if you could, vote accordingly (CON).

1. Budget Cuts

2. Alteration of the Positions of the School

3. High School Can Be Premature

These are all valid reasons of why you should considerably vote con. As I have substantiated in prior debate these are formidable reasons as well.

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate and the readers for fallowing along as well.

I feel my debate is justified and reasonable.

~Mastajake
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BeatmasterKevin 8 years ago
BeatmasterKevin
sorry man, dont mean disrespekt abortions just a very personal issue and like im kinda sensitive about it know what im sayin
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
Im just trying to help man as you can see I am just trying to give some advice, I am not 'frontin'.

sure I am young and have some to learn....But that isn't going to stop me from challenging not only mine, but others intellect.

"like dude, dont even know what ur sayin like if yor gonna convice people sh*t gots 2 be REAL rite?"
- LOL um... sorry I don't meet your standards. I am pretty sure I know what I am saying as well, sorry to here that you don't understand.

I don't really see that I am disrespecting you, but hey I respect you and you respect me --- no more false accusations, yeah? its bugging me
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Yet you persist with the comments. Your logic is irrelevant to the topic, and therefore moot.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
I don't think you have the mental ability to accept what I am saying, that is why you keep sufficing my LOGICAL knowledge as moot.

Any way, the debate is over, and I don't wish to carry on in the comments.

~Mastajake
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
No. The enhancements I specified were industry supported, as well as supported by local institutions of higher learning. I gave various examples of how vocational programs can ease the strain of budget cuts- should the school be affected by any. You gave no examples of how all schools would be affected by budget cuts that would prevent them from enhancing existing vocational programs. If a school is so negatively affected by budget cuts, then it shouldn't even be considered. My suggestion was not for every single school in America, rather a suggestion of what "should" be done. You have still failed to show how budget cuts would negatively affect programs that positively affect a school's budget. Your point is contradictory to logic.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
OK if you were to understand my debate for one, I wouldn't be needing to substantiate for you, again.

1. Budgets cuts affect schools

2. Vocational programs are a part of schools not a separate

3. Schools finance their programs within the school (meaning vocational as well)

4. Not all schools have or are able to get regional support

5. Thus sufficing the school to finance it, leaving budget cuts completely relevant

So there, is that a good enough demonstration of how budget cuts negatively affect existing vocational programs, I think it is.

"Your point is moot because you merely mentioned budget cuts."
-I put the math in front of you, solve for yourself. Just as I did.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
The budget cuts at your school cannot affect your vocational program negatively, and if anything, the vocational program in your school eases the strain of budget cuts. Your argument is that budget cuts prevent enhancements to vocational programs that reflect our changing economy- this is a contradiction in and of itself because the budget cuts are a result of our changing economy. Vocational programs ease the strain of budget cuts, and I showed this- you did not. Your point is moot because you merely mentioned budget cuts. You did not demonstrate how budget cuts negatively affect existing vocational programs.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
Wow.budget cuts for instance effect schools all around California including my school. And guess what my school has vocational programs, oh and guess what else the budget cuts are murdering us, vocational programs are not helping out my school.

"The debate wasn't about budget cuts"
- budget cuts was a mere contention of mine that was an argument against the res. You know that.

You are discarding my side of the case as moot, and that is fine, but if you were to actually consider anything I say (like a mature adult would) you might understand.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
The debate wasn't about budget cuts, rather whether or not existing vocational programs should be enhanced and/or expanded to reflect the current economy. You presented not one argument opposing this position, and instead your entire position was based on a strawman. Schools that don't have vocational programs would benefit from them if they have budget cuts, and existing vocational programs in schools experiencing budget cuts would be unaffected if my proposed enhancements were implemented. Your point is moot.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
My opponents below comments seems to neglect what my budget cuts truly referred to, which was the schools positions not the vocational programs.

Thus sufficing my resources as legitimate. But please if you would like view my sources, do so for yourself rather than taking his word for it.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by mhuisenga 8 years ago
mhuisenga
ManganimastajakeTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
ManganimastajakeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
ManganimastajakeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by xylosma 8 years ago
xylosma
ManganimastajakeTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by jess_ily 8 years ago
jess_ily
ManganimastajakeTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Rawlsfulcopter 8 years ago
Rawlsfulcopter
ManganimastajakeTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
ManganimastajakeTied
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 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
ManganimastajakeTied
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:07