When we use the word "should" we imply that it must be done for all kids. The resolution does not specify which kids or how much. I take my position because the if we do this for all kids, that means those in 3rd world countries. There are millions of kids that don't get allowance. How are we to rectify that? I guess America can spend more of it's money it already doesn't have to give all kids a living wage for their allowance. That is simply not possible. We could mandate that parent give allowance but some parent are struggling to pay the bills as is. Way force them to give money to their kids who will just waste it? I hope you bring something else to the table next round.
So the central point of my opponents argument is his own opinion that kids should have allowance. He has not addressed my points or brought up any points himself. His account was made less than an hour ago from me typing this so I imagine he might be doing this for fun. But I want to take this time to talk some more. What will children do with this allowance assuming we spent all the money to get all kids one? If they are rich or middle-class, the money would be used for food or expensive toys such as video games. For the poorer, it might be a catalyst for drug use as this allowance did not change their situation and the drugs will be an outlet. The money will be wasted on toys and food, stimulating the wrong parts of the economy. This money could be used for healthcare, education, or infrastructure. But my opponent would rather have it be wasted. It is a shame this could not be a serious debate.