The Instigator
mostafa_502
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
DynEco
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

should students be paid?

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 397 times Debate No: 88012
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

mostafa_502

Con

Students should be paid because we must spend 6 hours of our lives away from our family to listen annoying and difficult people yell if we talk or do something wrong. Then they embarrass us and we find it hard to give them the respect of our attention. If students were paid the would be paid to work well and deal with the yelling and annoyance of our bosses teachers. Because is that not what a real job is like. Students should be rewarded for their patience with that individual. thank you guys!
DynEco

Pro

Seems the roles are flipped, con is arguing that students SHOULD be paid, and I argue they SHOULD NOT be paid. Procedural issues differ from substantive ones. Students already get "paid" in knowledge for their time investment. They trade time (and tears) to benefit from education which increases their future wages, despite less than ideal/effective methods. Patience and social skills are expected from employees so this is just early practice. Difficulty doesn't oblige extra economic incentives.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Alanna.Kologey 8 months ago
Alanna.Kologey
Con did you forget you are so suppose to be against students being paid to go to school?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 8 months ago
famousdebater
mostafa_502DynEcoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof is shared in this instance due to the evident normative resolution. Con must prove that students shouldn't be paid. Pro must prove that they should. Con argued against his burden by arguing the position contrary to his. Due to the fact that Pro pointed this out it was an evident victory for him without the posting of his round since Con had fulfilled Pro's burden for him. Con fulfills Pro's burden of proof for him. Ergo, Pro wins by default.
Vote Placed by Hayd 8 months ago
Hayd
mostafa_502DynEcoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons main argument is that being paid will help students deal with being yelled at and being annoyed; and that this will reward us for our patience. Pri argues that students already get paid in knowledge, that in turn gives them better wages. Pro also argues that difficulty does not necessitate economic incentives. In the end, the only reason I am given that students should not have wages in that we shouldn't, which is bare assertion fallacy. Pro's side is that we get awarded knowledge for our education but does not show me why extra money won't help at all. So basically, we could get all of the benefits that Pro mentioned, and still accept Con's proposition. Thus, since Pro gives me no reasoning against the motion except for bare assertions (google it), Con wins. PM me if you have any questions.