Vocational Training in High School

Now for the debate! - I am going to provide the readers with some of my personal summaries but please keep in mind these are my own PERSONAL summaries of his arguments/rebuttals, given thus I greatly encourage you to summarize for yourself Summaries/Rebuttals: 1. Budget cuts: My opponent has not necessarily addressed my issue in full, for there is still a financial issue pending for such actions to enhance or create vocational programs. Although he has provided a hefty way to evade the issue, it is very rarely applicable given regional benefits. I still propose that budget cuts are a good reason to see vocational programs as unfavorable as of current. 2. Alteration of the positions of schools My opponent says "I would, however, support career fields reaching out to High Schools to implement programs at their expense. " I would as well but you see the expense is what I proposed as an issue making it unfavorable and regional. Also given the financial position of most schools 'expense' is a big issue even if the career fields express this desired interest upon the school it is hard to believe that they would pay for everything and unless they did the schools expense is at harm to possible financial loss. My opponent says "If the field does not go after High Schools, start advertising programs in college, and making it's voice heard the field will be in jeopardy of not being able to fill these positions. ". You said the major problem with the biomedical field your self "advertising", in this case I agree, advertising would be key to furthering the field of this occupation. But to go after high schools is not what they should be doing, they should advertise to the countless number of unemployed to take up such positions. b. secluding students to regional occupations "No one would force students into vocational programs" my opponent says, this I know, that isn't what I was meaning to get across. By saying that students would be secluded to regional occupations I meant just that, but let me substantiate to clear up any confusion. To say it in better words what I meant to say is they are secluded to there regional selection of occupations. Even my opponent agrees with me here as you see by the fallowing statement "Regional jobs would be, for instance, IBM, HP, Silicon Graphics and others on the West Coast, alternative energy, wind power, agriculture, and healthcare in the Midwest, auto manufacturing, deep sea exploration, healthcare, agriculture, geography (for oil drilling, etc. ), and other fields in the South, and a Myriad of fields in the Northeast- JUST to name a few. ". Seclusion is still a factor whether it is inclusive or not, it can still be unbeneficial for the student which is my point, that is yet to be negated. 3. High School can be premature My opponent says "Many of the best athletes- football, baseball, basketball, swimming, gymnastics, boxing, etc. start at even lower ages, and do it for the rest of their life. " I would contend the fact that becoming a professional in such things as sports is very rare given the amount of people who desire to make it, and make it, and those who as well desire to make it but don't. The ratio is vastly outnumbered. A lot of people do not make it into their desired positions with sports if they aim for the professional route, and soon give up on such aspirations which only supports my statement that ' high school can be premature'. Sports is a bad example on your half only because of the success rate but I still contend either way it CAN be premature. Sure it would expose certain fields but that doesn't fix the fact that the decisions of pursuing such field can be premature and many times will be. My opponent says "High School is, in fact, the point where children SHOULD become adults, and the law reflects this notion (at 18 you are legally an adult). ". We are not 18 all the way through high school, I know this is a given, but it seems to be that you aren't considering this hence your statement. You also say "SHOULD" meaning as this is a suggestive opinion, and since you provided yours, I shall provide mine, I feel children should become adults in college were in actuality they are often times sent on there own to live and prove them self worthy of being an adult by sustaining themselves thus worthy of mature decision. Conclusion: There still are my contentions left to be negated. At most my opponent has compensated for the problems deeming vocational programs unfavorable, but still they are left for negation in which would make my contentions unreasonable, but this is yet to happen. Budget cuts are still an issue for the schools economic success. Regional seclusion is inevitable if vocational programs are implemented as proposed thus being a issue in which you can consider vocational programs unfavorable. 'High school' I still consider premature given its tendencies and the tendencies of mind alteration later in life at a mature stage. Overall, some negation is yet to be made, not compensation. I thank the readers of this debate and I would like you (the readers) to note, if not already, my opponent has provided sufficient sources. (links are in the comments) I feel this round of debate is adequate ergo I await my opponents response ~Mastajake