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

should kids be paid to go to school

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: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 751 times Debate No: 76870
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Now I know all kids are thinking yes but adults no that's ridiculous but if us kids were paid for going to school then we would be able to buy supplies for school (books,pens,pencils,notebooks ect.) and some kids would be able to live in a nicer home or buy things that they want but can't have like a skateboard or something like that who ever is con is probably right we shouldn't due to loss of trees and then having to have money given to every kid in the world. But if we all did we would be able to travel more and go places give money to school for fundraisers and to have more books in library's and better classrooms for the students. I know it would be hard to do and accomplish but just imagine getting paid to go to school and then having a wonderful school were you can afford anything like bigger gyms or bigger school for instance there are some schools that are very small like some preschools are so small that not many kids can go to that preschool or like elementary school at some of them you have share a classroom nowadays there are pods and floors but those floors and pods cost a lot but if kids were paid then you can make that school bigger and better.


There were no conditions set, so I will start my round one with arguments.

Against: Kids should be paid to go to school.
You didn't include who's going to pay them whether the government or the school, but here are my arguments.

1. Kids shouldn't be paid to go to school, the better solution would be making education on all levels free. Primary education in most countries is already free, there are also some countries where college education is already free.

2. If you're referring to preschoolers, elementary students, and high school students when you say "kids". And they should be paid so that they can buy school supplies. That is the parents' responsibilities.

3. You're saying that kids should be paid, so that they can buy things that they want. There is a huge difference in "want" and "need". The "needs" should be provided by the parents, and the "wants" is something they should work for. If you want something; don't beg for it, earn it.

4. If kids get paid to go to school, they will have a source of money. Money is a powerful thing, and giving kids money would most likely lead to terrible things. Illegal drugs, and alcohol would be easily obtained (it is already easy) by teenagers if they have enough money to pay someone to buy it for them.

5. If kids get paid to go to school, some terrible parents would abuse their kids to extort money from them. This would result to more child violence. It would be like their parents live off of their kids' money. They will have them go to school so that they can bring in money.

6. If kids get paid to go to school, they will stop wanting to work. It is quite ironic. We study to get degrees, and apply them into the real world (to work). But if we're getting paid to go to school, we wouldn't want to work anymore.

7. People go to school because they want to learn or to get a better job. If kids get paid to go to school, some kids(especially teenagers) will just do it for the money, not for the sake of learning.

8. For the kids that doesn't have parents or have parents with low income, there are a lot of organizations(Bill Gates foundation for example) that's already helping them get to school and to provide their needs. So not paying kids to go to school shouldn't be a problem.

9. Paying kids to go to school would nullify scholarships. The kids on scholarship study hard to maintain their grades so that their scholarship won't get revoked. Most kids these days doesn't even have the thirst for knowledge already, and paying them would just make it worse.

I believe I've already stated adequate reasons to why kids shouldn't be paid to go to school.

Your turn PRO.

Debate Round No. 1


you make a good statement as i said i do agree with con i left out that the government pays the children in Pre-10th but the government would let them have a student bank account like for lunches you have a school lunch account so you can purchase lunch or something extra, but the catch is that a student can only take $20 out of the account for his or her needs. So basically there would be a student bank. Now one thing that is bad about it is loss of trees. Many environment friendly people such as myself would be against this. but if we grow more trees before we cut the other ones down we will have a unlimited amount of trees for the paper which is for the money. I am just free flowing it I have no resources but i will in the next round. I do agree con it is the parents responsibility to pay for the students school supplies but if the student experience this kind of responsibility they will grow up to be very mature and responsible in the future as adults. So many people think this is a bad idea I do to but just think about a world were parents get paid for them not their children. the kids could provide for themselves. Then we would stop nagging our parents for stuff. Like candy,soda,clothes,books,treats and stuff. I do respect your opinion CON, you give a good argument and helpful resources to help support you argument. I do agree but this just a fun topic to debate on. This one is just random.



PRO stated that they should have a student bank account, and that students can only take out $20 for his/her needs. $20/week? $20/day? $20 for his/her needs? As I stated at round 1 that the needs are the parents' responsibilities, and orphans or kids with less fortunate parents have a lot of organizations that would help them. There's a huge difference between "wants" and "needs".

PRO stated about the loss of trees to make money. And this is against PRO's case.

PRO stated that if kids get paid to go to school so that they buy school supplies for themselves would make them grow up to be more mature and responsible. I disagree with this one. They'd be spending money they didn't earn, might as well call it "easy money". This won't make them more mature and responsible, it's just spoiling them. If they're not paid to go to school, they'd work to buy what they "want" if they're parents doesn't want to spoil them much. And that would be making them more mature and responsible. If they worked to buy what they "want" instead of asking their parents for everything.

PRO stated that if kids could provide for themselves, they would stop nagging at their parents for stuff(Candy, soda, clothes, books, treats). Again, this would be spoiling them. Kids should learn to be satisfied with what they have, and stop begging for their parents to buy them stuffs they "want". Parents should be able to provide their kids clothes. Candy, treats, and soda are basically something that the kid "wants", they're not a necessity. Books? As long as they're educational books, I don't see any reason for the parents to not buy them. And if the parents are not able to buy the certain book the kid wants, I say it again, kids should learn to appreciate what they have. There are a lot of public libraries everywhere where you can find good books, and read them for free.

PRO hasn't refuted any of my arguments, and I've countered all of PRO's arguments.

Your turn PRO.
Debate Round No. 2


I am sorry i have been busy cuz my moms car is terrible i have to deal with house stuff like rent and phone bills and stuff. My life sucks and i suck at debating


Don't be sorry. And if your life sucks at the moment, that means it will only get better. Thank you for this debate!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.