The Instigator
Ange154
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

We should substanially increase funding for the Early Head Start program

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,316 times Debate No: 10403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Ange154

Pro

Con 1-If we increase funding for the EHS program now,we will expand the range of eligible kids, we will be giving kids a higher chance of graduating, after that they could possibly move on to high paying jobs that benefit the economy, or possibly the military

Con2-Military readiness is vital to preventing a global war, like I explained in my first Con, the graduating children will possibly go into the military, if we expand the range of eligible kids we are increasing the number of troops we receive, giving us a even stronger military, and decreasing hostile attacks.

Con 3- The EHS programs benefits the economy, the EHS program posses a 1-10 dollar back program, so for every dollar we put in we get 10 dollars back, we can successfully fund this program without having our economy collapse.

Con 4- EHS helps solve for poverty, If we expand our range of kids, we could give kids in poverty access to this program, thus increasing their chance of graduating High School, giving high paying jobs that could pull them out of poverty.

-Currently the EHS program need 360 million dollars in federal funding to expand eligibility Range

-My definitions-

Substanially-of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I look forward to debating my opponent
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

CLARIFICATIONS:

Early Head Start (EHS) is a federally funded community-based program for low-income families with infants and toddlers and pregnant women. It's goals are to promote healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women; to enhance the development of very young children; and to promote healthy family functioning [1].

ARGUMENTS:

1. The United States of America is supposed to be a capitalistic society. Bertrand Russel once said, "The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." In other words, it is wrong to penalize working people monetarily via taxes to help those who are less fortunate. We already have taxes that contribute towards social programs such as medicare, medicaid, unemployment, social security and welfare. Impoverished individuals can utilize those programs; expanding on another social program is unreasonable.

2. The tax payers cannot afford this program. Right now our debt is so high that we should be cutting back costs (unnecessary programs) and lowering taxes. Increasing funding for this endeavor would (a) cost the working people more money, (b) not help us work toward our goal of eliminating debt, and (c) take away money from other programs and causes that could be more useful to society, and that are more prone to support the capitalistic and democratic ideals that this country was founded upon.

3. Even if one agrees with the purpose of EHS, given the current situation in the U.S., it might not be the right time for the program to *substantially expand* as the resolution specifies. In that case, if you want to keep the program - fine - but to significantly increase its impact and thereby costs at this time would be a bad idea with negative and damaging economic repercussions. We simply don't have the money!

REBUTTAL:

1. Pro suggests that more people graduating = more high paying jobs. However, the Unemployment rate in this country is so high that the idea of a new generation entering the market place and finding jobs is highly unlikely.

2. Pro submits that the children who receive aid from EHS might go into the military; however, there is no evidence for this claim. This entire contention rests on a "maybe" scenario.

3. Pro writes that EHS benefits the economy; however, does not provide evidence that this is case. I would like to see proof that we receive $10 back for every $1 that we put into to the program. Until then, this point should not be considered.

4. Pro's fourth contention is the same exact premise as his first contention. Void it.

SOURCE:

[1] http://www.ehsnrc.org...

Back to Pro for now...
Debate Round No. 1
Ange154

Pro

Ange154 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Le sigh. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Ange154

Pro

Ange154 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

My opponent did not refute any of my arguments, but I have dismantled his. He forfeited 2/3 rounds. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Sounds like a program built upon the ruins of a similar failed program.
Posted by Ange154 7 years ago
Ange154
I hope this will be a good debate
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Ange154DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Ange154DanielleTied
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