school vouchers.

Thanks for the challenge, Numa. - - - - 1. Re: Government funding private schools violates the 1st Amendment. I agree. Since when does being Pro School Vouchers warrant the opinion that the government should necessarily fund private education? This question alone dismantles much of your first argument. Moreover, I can use your "hypocrite" argument right back against you: If you don't want your tax dollars being spent on things irrelevant to you, why should the tax dollars of others be spent on things irrelevant to them? Surely your response would be that public schools affect the community and not just the individuals. That's fine, but now you have to prove that a public education system would definitely not exist with the implementation of vouchers, and that if they did, these public institutions would be inferior. We'll take it from there. Additionally, if the only goals of public schools are to teach reading and writing and prevent illiteracy, Pro has the burden of stating why these things couldn't be taught elsewhere (at home, at free public gatherings or other groups, etc.). Pro must also prove that all private schools will be unaffordable to a majority. Plus, even if there are a few elite private schools as a result of these vouchers, these schools already exist; applying school vouchers would simply be a more fair way of allocating funds and limiting government spending by an inefficient bureaucracy. Back to ye on this issue. 2. Re: Vouchers take away funds from already under-funded public schools. As I've pointed out, discrepancies in the value of education systems (superior vs. inferior) already exists and will always exist as a result of capitalism and the rights of people to send their children to whatever schools they please (are willing and able to pay for). To deny Americans this right would be institutionalizing Communism. She notes that the government should be trying to "fix" the education system, presumably by putting more money into schools. That's fine, but why not tax the people who are BENEFITING from (their children) attending these schools in particular? The people who agree that diversity in/and public schools should exist ought to be the ones paying to keep them afloat, no? Keep in mind that not all of the people who can afford to send their children to private school necessarily do. In addition to private schools often costing more money, many parents WANT to send their children to a diverse school or a non-secular institution that only teaches "public" or rather "PC" concepts. For instance, if my parents are liberal atheists and wouldn't want me learning about God in school, or being forced to use God's name while pledging my allegiance to the flag (if they even thought I should pledge at all), they may want me to attend public school where this is policy instead of a parochial or private school, even if they could afford it. Further, Con is ignoring the possibility that certain private schools may actually be CHEAPER to run than some public schools that exist today; executive school boards would be forced to "cut the fluff" i.e. unnecessary programs or other requirements and instead focus on straight education; leave unnecessary social groups for the private sphere. Also, Con is ignoring the possibility that some low-income families might be struggling as a result of the tax burden being imposed on them. Perhaps a family would rather their children attend a school with a minimal budget in order to be able to afford basic survival needs like clothing and shelter. In an economic crisis like the one we're in, it should be obvious that people need to cut-back on spending and learn to be conservative until we can actually afford the means that we're living by. 3. Re: Private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight; thus, they may not act responsibly. Again, I fail to see how this is even relevant to the existence of School Vouchers. My opponent suggests that, "Parents could be paying a lot of money for a school that does not comply with adequate academic standards." That's stupid. Why would people pay money to an inadequate institution? If their school was inferior to others, they would simply pay for their child to attend a different school. Competition amongst these schools for student attendance (and prestige... and probably money) would increase academic standards and performance amongst instructors, owners, etc. To use my opponent's own fire against her, to argue this point of mine would require that Con oppose Capitalism; it is proven that Capitalism is the best incentive for both performance and innovation. To combat my opponents other points regarding a minor's right to choose his or her school and/or practice of religion, I offer the argument that Con is simply stating unrealistic ideals. A minor's rights are obviously limited, and what next ~ Is Con going to suggest that the government start interfering on how parents raise their children? Hah. A minor may choose not to believe in a certain faith that their parents do, and once they turn 18, they no longer have to abide by their parent's rules to take part in particular religious rituals, etc. (if their parents insist that they do regardless of their child's beliefs). Similarly, if a parent imposes a 'bed time' on their child, the child doesn't HAVE to abide by that restriction once they turn 18 (if they choose to separate themselves from their parents' rule, which is a choice they do have). Technically speaking, a minor can choose this before 18, but I digress -- I don't want to deter too far away from the original argument. The point is, this contention strays from the concept of School Vouchers to begin with. Additionally, I don't see how more parental involvement would be HARMFUL to the schooling system. If anything, the parents themselves who are PAYING for their child's education would take a greater role in the education process and possibly/probably improve their child's experience. It would also be a greater exercise of the democratic rights this nation was founded on. Oh, and less middle men in the bureaucracy of the failing education would = saving money would = more money pumped back into the economy, etc. 4. Re: Private schools can discriminate in selecting students. Con says, "Public schools must exist to prevent rule by a small minority." Newsflash: This separation already exists. The only difference is that by implementing School Vouchers, we would #1 be a more democratic nation by upholding the rights of individual citizens, and #2 be acting responsibly by offering a sense of competition (and thereby catalyst for prosperity) to the failing education system. Con notes that, "Public schools provide equal opportunity for all regardless of class, race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc." I agree - but why can't Private Schools do this as well? Additionally, once again Con has failed to prove that Public Schools wouldn't exist, and that if they did, they would be inferior. Until then, these points are irrelevant. And finally, regarding the concept of Utilitarianism and School Vouchers, I won't even delve into the realm of arguing the ethics of this philosophic ideology in general. Instead, I challenge my opponent to prove that avoiding School Vouchers is actually upholding Utilitarianism, when I have argued the points of why the implementation of vouchers would actually stimulate the greatest results for the greater good of people via competition. Further, who decides what is and isn't of value in this debate? To me, upholding our RIGHTS may be of a greater value then, say, monetary goods or academic achievement comparisons. 6. Summary - My basic principles for the stance of Pro have been: 1) Freedom of Choice 2) Competition 3) Rights/Taxes 4) Rights/Religion vs. Science in school, etc. 5) An increase in private schooling will actually INCREASE diversity 6) Utilitarianism