The creation of state run "orphanages" to house children of at risk families. Read opening argument

Greylance, Allow me to say that this has been very enjoyable. For my first debate on debate.org, I think it's been a blast. I hope we get lots of votes, one way or the other. I like the break down of points, so I'll stick with that and add some closers of my own. I. I acquire that you are still seeking to put kids from at risk families in these institutions. However, we still face these enormous legal problems, which you never addressed: Do we do away with the foster care program? If we keep the foster care program, how do we determine where to send the child(ren)? If we are expanding our definition for "at-risk" kids, can we legally justify taking a child away from a parent, just because they are poor and their single parent works a lot? These kids are NOT raised as they would have been raised anyway with your proposal. They are raised in an entirely new and unresearched field of social development. Seems like an awful big risk to me. II. No problem. That's something I could accept. Kids have to grow up to grasp the concept of running their government. But then, remember, these kids will not be raised under the same dynamic that a) most actual politicians are and b) the majority of participants at Boys State were. Therefore, it's difficult to assume that their priorities will be justified. III. If the current system is allowing the kids to stay with their current parents, while the parents don't have the concern to engage their children in leadership activities, then there is no way that we will be able to get the kids out of the household in the first place to populate these orphanages. Second, it seems to me that the idea that gangs fight back is one more reason to put more and more leadership programs in at risk areas. Why? As you said, they deprive gangs of new recruits. Therefore, the student not only stays away from the gang, but becomes actively involved in restoring and benefiting his/her own community. These kids will have far more drive to establish a positive movement in their home town than in a farcical land we create for them. IV. Pork spending does not go away, true. You're not proposing a federal program, though. You're proposing a state program. Pork barrel spending is not near as bad at the state level. And depriving the federal government of a few billion is no big deal. To states in can be devastating. I am confused though, all these kids are going to have jobs that... pay? Where is that money coming from? In addition, even with a semi-skilled workforce, you're *never* going to make the kind of money it's going to take to keep this institution afloat. Not with all the adult personnel you'll have to hire. Jobs are great and all, but we need to make sure it's worth it. Ultimately, let's remember the choice that the voters will be making at the end of this debate. The proposed idea is very lofty. However, the legal, financial, and social repercussions are far too great in number and weight. I encourage us to look elsewhere to find solutions to this issue. As I have proposed, a plan that brings more of the leadership programs out there like Boy Scouts and JROTC into low-income, resource-deprived areas has clear alternatives to this plan, and avoids those same problems we find with the Pro's plan. Perhaps states should also increase funding for extra-curricular programs in inner-city schools. Something so simple could open up recruiting for programs like FCCLA, FBLA, NHS, etc... to millions of students that would in no other way have an opportunity to be leaders. Greylance, thanks so much. Great Debate!!!