The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/21/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 92967
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Short debate with 2000 characters max.

The nominated judges are: Wylted, Ragnar, bladerunner060, YYW, whiteflame, lannan13 and Blade-of-Truth.

In this debate, 'we' is defined as parents of children in DEVELOPING countries, not first world countries. Not US, UK, Germany, Australia, France etc. Countries which come to mind include Turkey, Malaysia, South Africa and indeed many, many others. In these countries, there is a big dilemma on whether young people should aim for job stability or pursue their passion.

Please, please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. Do not forfeit rounds.


Looking forward to a good debate. Thank you!


Thank you for providing an interesting topic for this debate and I look forward on hearing your side of the argument.

I accept this debate in order to highlight the importance of following one"s passion. To suggest that an entire generation of youth must sacrifice their passions to serve their developing country, seems to be a very difficult claim to prove; rather repressive, if not tyrannical.

PASSION: a strong feeling of enthusiasm or excitement for something or about doing something. Via Webster"s dictionary.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate and to the judges for accepting nomination.

I strongly believe that in developing countries, as parents we should encourage our children to pursue education and opportunities with the primary goal of a good job instead of 'doing what they love'.

My first argument is that children can be very enthusiastic about anything. Indeed, some of our hobbies and interests started when we were kids and we can't really explain why we enjoy them. That is the magic of childhood. However, children should not be taught to put their supposed 'passions' as main priority. The main reason being they are still young and fickle. What seemed awesome today might seem dull and boring the next. They should be allowed to discover but not to actually make passion the main fuel for ambition.

My sec. argument is that in developing countries there are very few opportunities for hobby industries. You may be able to live by monetizing your hobby if you live in the America or in the UK, but the fact is in developing countries 'fringe' industries cannot succeed because the market is very small. In Australia, for example, you can be a cleaner and still have a substantial income with time on the side to pursue other things because the economy is good and the minimum wage is high. Sadly, this is not the case in developing countries.

Thus, we would tell our kids to focus on a good, high-income job first. This does not mean we want them to become employees their whole life. We would instill business-mindedness in them. But to collect principle to start businesses which monetize their interests you need to have a good paying job first.

Thirdly, this is not tyrannical or unethical in any way. It is simply being realistic. The fact of life is that passions sometimes cannot bring you the success you want. The importance of education and a good job is acknowledged even in first world countries like Australia and US because income creates oppurtunities.


My Opponent claims that parents should encourage our children to sacrifice their passions to secure a high paying job but admits that passions can correlate with a high earning potential. Furthermore, what is the "good" that comes from a high earning career that cannot come from a mid-earning career, or even that of a low level earning career? I suggest very little difference.
My opponent continues his claims by stating that Children shouldn"t be taught to follow their passions because they are not "mature" enough to understand what the world is truly about. It is not our job as parents to strip their passions but to encourage and direct their passions. We encourage their curiosity, develop their critical thinking skills, and hope that they make the right decision.

"My sec. argument is that in developing countries there are very few opportunities for hobby industries."
Who said following your passion is automatically is aligned with a hobby industry? Many children from a young age understand and then follow that passion in a particular academia or industry etc.. Stating that following your passion lands you in a hobby industry with low income and no career stability is a fallacious statement and should need no further explanation.

"Thirdly, this is not tyrannical or unethical in any way. It is simply being realistic. The fact of life is that passions sometimes cannot bring you the success you want."
Assumptions made by opponent:
Children will not follow their passions if instructed not too; Sacrificing passion would provide a better outcome; There is a market for high income jobs in developing countries.
And fails to realize:
Children in most developing countries are improperly nourished, denied the right to education, and are vastly illiterate. What he thinks is the most realistic route is actually the least.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent tries to cower himself behind statements like "Just because you are going for high pay, doesn't mean you don't have a passion for it." or "Just because you tell them not to, doesn't mean children won't follow their passion." Yeah, no kidding. But to me, in a short debate like this, my opponent shouldn't be playing the 'sit on the fence' game. This is an "income vs passion" issue and while I definitely understand that income and passion can be aligned, I feel that it is understood that we are not talking about these cases. We are talking about either high income and low passion against high passion and low income. To be fair, this is certainly the case in many developing countries. In India for example, thousands and thousands of students enrol in Engineering because it is one of the best industries to improve their quality of life in a nation with severe misdistribution of wealth. In Malaysia, the top industries are Engineering, Medicine, Law, you name it. And while OF COURSE many students do have a liking for what they are studying, the main reason they are in it is because they want to have high paying jobs.

I would like to remind my opponent that I never said we are crushing the passion of children. I agree that we should develop their curiosity etc. And part of that is to encourage them to pursue high paying jobs to improve quality of life so they can have more time on their hobbies and interests.

This is especially true when more and more kids insist that their 'passion' is becoming the next music superstar or football athlete. People keep telling them to 'follow your dreams' and 'you can do it!'. While we should seriously assist them in developing these skills, it is no good to fuel their imagination when the truth is they don't really have talent in these things. If they are really good at it, then there is NOTHING WRONG with pursuing it because that is job stability as well which falls under what I agree on. But not when they are just average.


"This is an "income vs passion" issue"; "cower himself behind statements";

Yet, you fail to identify the "good" that could only come from a high income job.

You fail to identify how your position is the most realistic situation

My opponent assumes that there is a market for high income jobs, which in fact there isn"t.

My opponent did not answer how a country filled with vastly illiterate and improperly nourished children that are at large still denied the right to education are supposed to acquire these high income jobs.

My opponent strictly claims that this is a debate about "income vs passion".
Then within the same round claims that this debate is about "We are talking about either high income and low passion against high passion and low income".

To further highlight is own confusion, his opening debate claim was "there is a big dilemma on whether young people should aim for job stability or pursue their passion."

"In India for example, thousands and thousands of students enroll in Engineering because it is one of the best industries to improve their quality of life in a nation with severe misdistribution of wealth"

I would like to point out that that my opponent decided to pick a country that is the 4th in military fire power within the world but is "Technically" considered a developing nation but is a very high income nation. My opponent seeks information from one country and unfairly correlates this information with all other developing.

This claim is fallacious in nature and shows the lack of due process and research from my opponent. Further, my opponent did not include factual evidence, nor were links provided to provide credibility for his claims.

"while I definitely understand that income and passion can be aligned", This is an "income vs passion" issue". "We are talking about either high income and low passion against high passion and low income"
You seemed confused and flop a a lot, not to mention you dodge answering most of the issues.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent seems to be too busy highlighting how 'confused' I am.

He fails to put forth any substantial arguments, preferring instead to merely 'rebut' my arguments.

His core rant is that these countries have high illiteracy and malnourished children. I don't know how he makes this link to pursuing your passions. It is the very fact that there is not much opportunity for fringe industries that make it more beneficial to pursue something which can actually put money into your pocket instead of trying to draw the next Mona Lisa or to be the next Cristiano Ronaldo just because the kid said he likes painting or playing soccer in the evenings. In poor families, how can you expect kids to gain access to quality tutoring in sectors like sports and entertainment? There are practically no opportunities to develop your skills in these. But more often than not, you can at least aim to do well in school and move on from there.

He definitely has never lived in developing countries. He's idea of developing countries is more like that of African children you see in charity ads. If you have spent some time in Malaysia or Indonesia or Argentina maybe you could understand better what I am trying to put across. Kids there are not starving. They are generally not denied the right to education.

Even if you are talking about developing countries where there is political instability or poor governance, my argument still applies. Kids should attend and aim to do well in school, and then to pursue jobs which can best provide for their livelihood.

Whether those jobs actually exist or not, I feel is outside the scope of this debate. This is not a debate about which social policy to implement first.

He never tackled what I said about the importance of having a job to pay expenses while still having time for your hobbies and interests. His mentality is that these kids are poor so roam free and somehow luck will improve your quality of life.

In my opinion, you are the one confused.


Again you refuse to prove your claims. I do not see why I should remind you that the burden of proof lays primarily within your domain.
1) You do not provide any support on why a high income job is more "good" than a middle or low income job. In developing nations, the "needs" and required income are drastically less and therefor the income "needed" to survive is less. In fact, in developing nations the income needed to "survive" and meet an objectively filling live (not base on materialistic ideologies) is easily attainable. Proving that a high income job isn't necessary. Refuting your claim.

2) You admitted that passion doesn't need to be sacrificed to earn a high income job, even though yo clearly stated at the beginning that its one or the other. You contradict your own claim.

3) You clearly identified your position at the beginning of the argument that this was a "Income vs passion". Yet, you continually change your stand point within in the debate. At the end of the debate it is now, "Kids should attend and aim to do well in school, and then to pursue jobs which can best provide for their livelihood". You must clearly identify your position from the start of the debate for your argument to hold and merit and ground within the dialogue, which you
failed to do so.

In any formal debate, your argument would be dismissed. The members within this forum ought to do the same, purely based on your lack of foundation of your debate and inconsistencies or at least not be reinvited

4) "Whether those jobs actually exist or not, I feel is outside the scope of this debate"
Uh, what? This is exactly a part of your claim. Children should put their passions aside to secure high paying jobs... but then say that the existence of the jobs are outside of the debate? You introduced the very topic... Showing that your argument is fallacious and holds no merit.

If jobs don't exist, how can you rightfully claim that passions should be sacrificed for.... In fact, nothing?
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago

It was up to you to answer the question of what pursuing their passion materializes as. That was your case, the thing you were defending. You chose to argue instead that he didn't know what was going on, even though he made clear exactly what this debate was about and why. Admittedly, it could have been made clearer earlier, but the idea that you were discussing a binary was clear from the outset.

I don't see him editing his stance. I see him explaining how his stance fits the topic. The stance is pretty continuous throughout the debate, and I don't agree with your interpretation of what you think he changed.

Both of you confused job stability with a high paying job, the former of which was in the topic. I don't disagree that the idea of getting a high paying job in some third world nations is ridiculous, but then so is the idea of following one's passion. I don't see that as a reason to vote for either side.

And I think he made it quite clear that he wasn't arguing that anyone should ditch their passions. It was pretty clear to me that he was arguing for a system where, if someone has the option, one should choose the position that ensures them the most financial stability rather than facilitating their passions.

"Good thing you cant vote because you lack in depth analysis."

It wasn't meant to be in depth. My time is short, and I rarely have time to vote on any debates these days. I was asked to vote, and thus I read the debate and attempted to post a vote. I didn't want to waste the effort, so I posted it here. If you'd rather, I could provide an in-depth analysis, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're looking for.
Posted by Ubermensch-Tsoa 3 months ago
Posted by TheShadeM 3 months ago
You should accept your defeat and look at how you can improve.

I have also lost debates where I think I did a good job.

After a debate, it is no use bringing things up. I admit that you may be right, but your arguments are not 100% solid either. So just enjoy the debate, accept that different people see things differently and move on with another debate. Cheers
Posted by Ubermensch-Tsoa 3 months ago
Oh, I'm relaxed. Just pointing out things he decided not too.
Posted by TheShadeM 3 months ago
Relax man. It's just a small debate. Most decisions are extremely subjective. No need to feel dissapointed.

Anyway, I would like to thank you for a good debate.
Posted by Ubermensch-Tsoa 3 months ago
@whiteflame, but i did ask "what pursuing their passion materializes as" but he refused to answer. You fail to mention how he continuously edits his stance to fully attack. Good thing you cant vote because you lack in depth analysis. Not to mention, he tries to say that children in 3rd world countries should seek high paying job, yet refuses to answer how unrealistic his suggestion is.

Even though children in 3rd world countries are at large illiterate, they should ditch their passions to pursue jobs that don't exist with education they cant get. For this non-existing jobs are more valuable than their own passions... Not to mention all the contradictions he had.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
Well, for some reason, I can't vote on this debate. I was nominated to judge it, so I'm not sure what's up, but here's my RFD nonetheless. If either of you want clarification, I'd be happy to provide it.

Both sides are missing so many opportunities in the debate. Pro has a better idea of what the debate is about, but both sides confuse job stability with high earning jobs. Pro eventually presents examples of jobs that earn a lot and are probably stable, and since Con doesn't contradict him, that's the basis for my determining what job stability means. Con also doesn't contradict Pro when he evaluates what pursuing their passion materializes as. It's not particularly clear what that means even then, and frankly, I'm not buying Pro's analysis, but without any response from Con, I have to accept that perspective. So, here's what I have: Pro presents lucrative jobs as beneficial to students by providing the means to access opportunities, improving themselves and their knowledge. The only harm I see to that is that it's tyrannical and repressive, but that's an assertion without explanation. Pro shows that all the benefits Con cites for pursuing passions are non-unique. As such, I vote Pro.
Posted by TheShadeM 4 months ago
No problem lannan13. Thanks for always judging these debates and giving your feedback. Really appreciate it,
Posted by lannan13 4 months ago
Thanks for the nomination.
No votes have been placed for this debate.