Topic: We should subsidize vocational education

Argument: is absolutely mandatory for all governments to subsidize vocation education as a help for people who trying to gain some qualification for the jobs.

Argument: it does not make economic growth any better

Argument: it is unfair to only subsidize vocational education. achieving a more advanced education is very expensive and it would also need to be subsidized.

Argument: it may create a two tier system were the wealthy choose formal education and the poor feel the only option is vocational training, it may be better to help poorer students to attend university.

Argument: it should not be subsidized any more than any other form of education

Argument: like other forms of higher education, if people want to attend vocational schools, they should find a way to pay for it themselves.

Argument: Many of the careers offered at vocational schools provide essential services to the community.

Argument: many people can improve their lives with this education

Argument: many trade skills are overcrowded as it is, and this would overload the market

Argument: most adults will not finish the program as they have kids or work, and so the money would be a waste.

Argument: most vocational jobs will be automated in the future so it is not wise to spend money to subsidize traditional vocational education

Argument: no education system should be subsidized because we could have an indoctrination center and not education centers.

Argument: our workforce is too focused on white collar jobs and we need hands on dirty work to keep america running

Argument: Over time, the technical skills acquired in vocational education become obsolete, leaving an individual without any marketable skills.

Argument: people are responsible to pay for their own education

Argument: people can find their own way to pay for this education

Argument: people should pay for vocational education in the same way that they pay for a university education.

Argument: prioritising one area over another creates imbalances - supply and demand should be the dictating factor, and if there is enough demand for the skills vocational education provides, people will self-fund.

Argument: providing vocational education to individuals not suited for traditional college will help them become productive members of society.

Argument: schools ought to be required to provide vocational training

Argument: Since most vocational programs take two years or less to complete, the job market can become saturated with people who all have the same skills and training. Many graduates will not be able to find employment.

Argument: subsidies are unjust unless they are beneficial to all, not just a select few in certain fields.

Argument: subsidies for vocational education would help solve the problem of skills shortages in many trades

Argument: subsidies for vocational training don't work because they don't increase the demand for the courses offered

Argument: subsidising vocation education would give a broader range of subjects open to those who may not be as academically well placed as others, to follow an equally useful educational path.