would this help or hinder the country?(UK)
Debate Rounds (3)
Here is an idea, that so far, no one has been able to argue why it would not benefit those involved or the country as a whole.
It may sound extreme when you read the first couple of lines, but if you can persevere and take in the whole thing, then it may allow for a rather interesting debate.
For all sixteen year olds not going into further education, college or university or any school leavers not starting an apprenticeship, then they should perhaps be enlisted into a junior service of the armed forces.
This junior services would not be part of the professional forces and therefore would not be deployed overseas, but these youngsters can be trained in the same military manner to instil a level of discipline, self respect, team work and pride in themselves which is lacking in many sixteen to twenty year olds who have left school with no qualifications and very little prospects of achieving well paid jobs.
How much would it cost the state to pay dole money per youth from the age of 16 to 20? And how much would the same youth contribute to the state over the same time period.
In the government"s view of, not contributed then no welfare, then at least anyone having completed their time in a junior service/new reformed national service would have contributed towards the state and be entitled to benefit while looking for a job.
Those people who progressed on to further education would only need to serve a period of one year (likely to be university leavers)
People coming into the country without a job to go to would have to serve in the way.
Much of the street crime committed today is carried out by gangs of youths aged between sixteen and twenty whether its underage drinking leading to fights in the streets or burglary to support drug habits, car theft due to joy riders to underage pregnancies and wilful vandalism. Etc.
(In an effort not to tar everyone with the same brush, these are examples of the problems that exists that the government has had little effect over for many years.)
Many teenagers say boredom was the root to a lot of their misbehaviour but if they were part of the junior service then they would be off the streets and kept busy by furthering their military education
Their time spent in the junior service can be of massive benefit to them and the state:
After an initial period of military training (six month followed by six months pre-trade training before starting a three years apprenticeship)
They can be given a variety of trade training which may lead to a qualification (plumbing, carpentry, electrician, mechanic, nurse, fire-fighter etc) giving them better chances of gaining a job and a career when their time comes to leave the junior service.
They would have a better level of life skills, more mature, fitter & healthier, self-disciplined, self-motivated to find employment rather than live on a lower income the dole would provide.
After completing their
Mandatory service in society has proved beneficial to the nations of Switzerland and Israel. I come from America the last time our country performed a draft was near 50 years ago during the Vietnam conflict. In doing so a whole generation was lost and many service members returned home drug addicted and with STD's. granted that's kind of a whole different debate but that's the worst case scenario whenever I hear draft.
Now I don't know how the youth is in the U.K I guess by your comments you are as well starting to have troubles with your post 9/11 generation era as well. we call our generation the Me Me Me generation, where our youth feels that they are simply entitled to what have or should have instead of earning it.
You feel by making a military conducted mandatory service for those who did not choose to not either acquire a job or further themselves in college in the U.K will contain the problem or the delinquent youth. I'm also assuming in the U.K 16 is the year mandatory education ends. you can do that sure but things to consider that may backfire and here's why in your country I'm opposing it and I will make my point.
for FY 2018 we will say that 100% the mandatory conscription for floating youths as we will call it and the graduating population has broken down into the following demographics...
40% of graduates to college or continuation school
20% immediately enter the work force
3% leave the nation for overseas jobs
66.5% undecided (our floater as we will call them)
for a little over half the population of each graduating class your nation will have to provide them with training, uniforms and defiantly have to pay their asses because lord knows those kids aren't going to go quietly as is. for however long until they are either kicked out of the programs for whatever reason. then what happens when they become adults that two years down the drain because you didn't want them to bug you guys or get in trouble.
I feel today's youth is kinda on the Fritz but it also depends on which group you look at. To be frank a lot of that starts at the house and a mandatory program forcing them to work could actually bring your trashy youth to our country and I'm not cool with that.
Roystan forfeited this round.
Roystan forfeited this round.
stainless67 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.