The US government should increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary/secondary education - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The US government should increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary/secondary education

Opening Argument

Position: For
agsragsr 812 Pts
edited February 4 in United States
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.

The policy topic for 2017/2018 regarding US federal government funding and regulation.  
I am passionate about this topic, as I believe that our education system needs major transformation.  I believe that higher funding is warranted, but don't support higher regulations by Federal government.

Overall, I will argue for this resolution.
aarongjoecavalry
  1. The US government should increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary/secondary education

    6 votes
    1. Yes
      50.00%
    2. No
      50.00%
Live Long and Prosper



Debra AI Prediction

Against
Predicted To Win
61%
Likely
39%
Unlikely

Details +


For:

50% (22 Points)


Against:

50% (22 Points)



Votes: 3


Debate Type: Traditional Debate



Voting Format: Casual Voting

Opponent: CuriousGeorge

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 2 Hours Per Round


Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Voting


Arguments



  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    @agsr,
    I accept your challenge on this resolution.

    Let me first of all decompose the resolution, as it has too many "and/or". 
    Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.

    I will first argue that the United States federal government shouldn't substantially increase the funding for elementary and/or secondary education in the US.

    I will then argue that the United States federal government shouldn't increase regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.

    the United States federal government shouldn't substantially increase the funding for elementary and/or secondary education in the US.

    We all love idea of how our your is the future of the United States and we should improve education.  Improving education is such a noble notion, that it's like motherhood and apple pie.

    What I struggle though is why is that responsibility of the Federal Government?   
    Also, if we agree to increase the budget than how much is enough?  We will just use the same argument again after the increase is applied.  
    There needs to be a fair benchmark om federal education levels, and what problem we are trying to solve with getting US Federal Government involved vs States.

    If we increase Federal funding for this then my opponent should have burden of proof where is offseting funding coming from and why it's warranted.

    the United States federal government shouldn't increase regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.

    Federal Government shouldn't increase regulation on education, nor for anything else for that matter.
    States and local districts should be allowed to use innovate and provide excellent education experience at their own discretion.  Only minimum Federal guidelines should apply.  I really see no value in having heavy Federal standards for education.
    agsr
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    Thank you for accepting.

    Regarding "the United States federal government shouldn't increase regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States."

    As I stated in my opening argument, I Concur as well.  As a matter of fact 
    Betsy DeVos, our newly minted secretary of education, supports vouchers for alternative schools and charter schools over cleaning up the mess that our public schools have become, a plan that would likely further erode our public schools. It may be a moot point; Republicans have reportedly been working on a bill to abolish the Department of Education, anyway. A bill introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the bill the same day DeVos was confirmed. If it passes, the department created in 1980 would be abolished as of Dec. 31, 2018

    Regarding "the United States federal government shouldn't substantially increase funding for elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.", that's where I disagree.

    Our education system needs to be transformed.

    We need to acknowledge that our education system is subpar, and we are now competing in a cut-throat global talent market.  The new skillset required for our kids to be successful is very different from what we are used to.  
    We need to double down in our investment in STEM.

    We need to aggressively leverage elearning and latest advanacements in technology.

    We need to re prioritize and be smarter how we spend in-class and homework time.

    Education needs to be much more individualized, and that will be possible with latest technology advancements that need to be applied across the board.

    Since there needs to be a large overhal and investment in technology, it doesn't make sense that each state invests in education R&D, buying software, partner with startups who offer the best education experience.  That will be done much more effectively with centralized funding that should come from Federal government.

    Additionally, transition cost for going from A to B will present a large funding gap, that unless Federal Government steps in will result in large spike of local school taxes.

    So, I suggest that we let Federal Government lead an education investment, where local states and cities apply the new technology in their own way and their own pace.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • Round 2 | Position: Against
    @agsr, interesting point.  
    On one hand you are arguing that Department of Education shouldn't exist, but on the other hand you are suggesting that they direct a massive investment into Education.

    I appreciate your perspective that technological transformation maybe warranted, but I question why we want a big slow Federal machine lead anything so transformational.
    Local funding led with local innovative approaches will be more effective for this type of transformation.  

    To your contention that Federal Government should invest in R&D, I would argue against.  I support partnership with education technology companies and getting them to develop solutions, but why get Federal Government involved.  Each state has a big enough budget and has a broad enough breadth to determine their own aproach to this.  
    I might have agreed on centralized funding if the government would actually develop software, but since we are buying licenses th centralized control becomes irrelevant.
  • Round 3 | Position: For
    edited February 4
    @CuriousGeorge, thank you.  
    This debate is really getting interesting.

    While you provided an argument why Federal Government shouldn't lead such a large education transformation, you haven't addressed my point of Federal Government covering such a large financial gap, making it a tax burden for local tax payers - ultimately resulting in higher property taxes.

    Regarding your contention that centralized funding is irrelevant, I will argue that it is.  
    It will be much more cost effective for centralized contracts with each of the technology companies involved, instead of each State negotiating their own deal.  
     
    Live Long and Prosper
  • Round 3 | Position: Against
    @agsr
    there are advantages and disadvantages to centralized funding model.  While Federal Government funded initiative may save on licenses, it will be too slow and formal to make real progress.  Decisions can be much faster and nimble at local levels, and them states can learn from each other best practices.

    As far as the funding gap and impacting property taxes, this transformation will cost tax payers money regardless - at either federal or local level. 

    Nice debating with you.
  • Round 3 | Position: For
    @CuriousGeorge, nice debating with you as well.

    in summary, we both agree that

    The United States federal government shouldn't substantially increase regulations for elementary and/or secondary education in the US.

    We partially agree that
    The United States federal government shouldn't substantially increase the funding for elementary and/or secondary education in the US.
    but to my point it's important to centralize the initiative to ensure cost synergies and consistency, where you believe that local empowerment is more important.
    I also content that funding the gap with property taxes is not feasible and leveraging federal budget is more appropriate and practical.

    Good luck.
    Live Long and Prosper
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch