Equalization of funding is desirable for Texas public school

Those are almost the same thing...


You heard? You might want to get a source next time, because everything you hear isn't necessarily true and stuff.


Isn't that all the more reason to help them?

no theres no point in doing so. noone helped oprah and shes a billionaire lack of money is an excuse for the weak in mind.

and whatever about my srouce for my information disprove me and i'll accept iot but i dont just make things up i relay what i hear only if it comes from a news source but whatever

wouldn't you want to pay teachers in poor districs more, If, as you say, they get to put up with the "bad kids?"

whatsername i know my v and c are alomst the same thing i tried to get something that noone could tear apart if anyone has a better v or c that you can help me with id be much abliged

Neg arguments
help can anyone help me on the neg arguments I need them ASAP

Teach us that wealth is not elegance, that profusion is not magnificence, that splendor is not beauty.
Author: Benjamin Disraeli

Neither "property" nor the value of property is a physical thing. Property is a set of defined options...It is that set of options which has economic value...It is the options, and not the physical things, which are the "property" - economically as well as legally...But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving the physical objects untouched.
Author: Thomas Sowell

Property rights are not the rights of property; they are the rights of humans with regard to property. They are a particular kind of human right.
Author: David Friedman

John Adams: The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

Samuel Adams: Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.

Alabama, Declaration of Rights Article I Section 35: That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.

Walter Lippmann: Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark.

John Locke: Government has no other end than the preservation of property


well....does that help? Golly, ya bunch of whiners I am working on mine now.

<applause for hyper>

think about it if every teacher was paid the same wouldnt they still want to go to the school with the better kids (which is generally the ones that happen to have more money) and you cant just pay the teachers in the poor schools more money cause then that's counterproductive if you're gonan try and justify justice for instance.

not necessarily

the teachers in the property poor districts are not there because of the money, ya know. Some teachers genuinely want to help kids, good or bad. These teachers deserve to be payed just as much as any other teacher (if not more, but that would be a bad case, and is not on topic) It is not the fault of the teachers or kids that their school district is property poor. Who do you blame it on? The rich people, who don't want to move their because it is property poor in the first place, and they don't want their kid there? Some people don't have that option.

Equity is probably going to be a common argument, so if you're looking for something that isn't going to be "torn apart," I wouldn't run that. Even if it weren't, your value shouldn't be the definition of your criterion.


Most people aren't that fortunate and aren't in the same situation that Oprah is in.


Show me a source and I'll disprove it. I don't need to disprove something if it is false in the first place.

i agree hyper, teachers in the poorer districts are usually there for the sake of the students. why would someone want to teach bad kids for less money? they can choose where they apply, or at least i assume they can, but ya never know what happens in the teacher world. i was thinking about this the other day, and just read an article on the guardians site about how ethnic kids, in england, are doing worse as they go into secondary school b/c of their economic situation.

"Parents felt that the system disadvantaged black and Muslim boys, while single parents felt a lack of support from primary schools in providing essential information regarding school choices and applications."
http://www.education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1434697,00.html

i havent read the whole article or looked at the findings of the report it focuses on, but basically it justifies the aff args. that minorities get a worse education b/c of being a minority.

hyper so so sorry it took me a long time to reply... I liked the Democracy idea, i never showed my coach... but i debated democracy at harvard and I like the ideas so i am going to use them.. if you dont mind... any ways....

thanks so much!!!

your welcome, of course, so, how did you do?

I have to write a case tonight and would anyone like to give me an example of an AFF case? outline, all that? I am extremely new to LD haven't even looked at it and my coach is making all of the debate team write a AFF case without any help! lola so if someone could give me an outline or something i would appreciate it greatly

Hey, I am going to regionals! I got 2nd at district. My team went 1,2,3. 1 and 3 had two tournaments on this topic under their belt, so I am happy. Anywayz, me and 1 are from the same team, and still debated for placing, so it was alittle unfair, cause we knew arguments for eachothers cases, and we both knew the judge, since he had just graduated from our school. The only reason that happened is because we were both going to regionals anywayz, so it didn't really matter. I can't wait, though. Anyways, just though i would share.

cioa

Congratumalations, kiddo.

hey, i'm new to a2k, obviously, but i'm not new in debate. i have to argue this topic tuesday, and i'm on spring break. i won't be able to get together with my coach before i argue. On my aff case, i'm fine. but i'm definitely having trouble with my neg. i mean, shouldn't everyone have the same amount and depth of education? anyway, any help offered would be great ! thanks

Sure, everyone should be able to have the same amount and depth of education, but equalizing funding doesn't really do that. By equalizing funding, your still ignoring schools that NEED more money, what about their education? I think equalizing funding doesn't quite solve the problem.

By the way, does anyone have any REALLY good cards that they've found helpful in rounds? I'm debating in a week and need assistance with good cards. I haven't clicked on every link in this forum nor have I read EVERYTHING in it, so bear with me if you already have.

until next time...

look at it this way, eqialization doesnt actually mean that all the schools are going to receive more money. in fact equalization could be argued to lower the amount of funding for districts statewide. unless the state legislature is able to come up with enough money to bring all districts up to the same amount of funding that richer districts have, the richer districts will lose money. if the affirmative argues how money is linked to performance then this is an excellent trap. make the point that lowering all the districts to the same standard is lowering the academic expectations of students in the state. Then, if you want, move into talking about how this can harm the technological and medical fields in the country. nations that have high academic success will be able to dominate the fields and we'll cease to be numero uno.
another good arguement is that equalization doesnt equal better academic performance. if we wish to increase the academic quality in the state then we could make a tougher curriculum and decrease the use of standardized tests that district from real life education. when we equalize it doesnt neccessarily mean that the money received will go to academics and technology/service programs; the money may go towards new football uniforms, new trash cans, new playground equipment, etc...

i dunno, i too have to debate this tuesday, but i havent thought about it since before TFA state.

Ok bear with me:
I've never done anything WHATSOEVER related to debate before now, and I need to write my whole AFF and NEG cases for this LD hopefully by tomorrow, because the debate is a week from today and I won't have much time on weekdays to work on it. Though I'll try to login throughout the week to check out your comments on what I'm about to write.

-AFF-
Do not focus whatsoever on the means of funding the schools. That is irrelevant to whether or not equilization is desirable.

Main argument overview: Equilization of funding is desirable because it will provide the equal opportunity of education ensured by the rights protected by the United States government. (when actually spoken, sounds too drawn out. I'll try to word it more convincingly)

Main points:
1-All citizens have the right to an equal opportunity of education.
2-Equilization will provide an equal, or more equal then as of now, educational opportunity.
3-It is unjust to refuse an equal education to all students, and justice is what is desirable.

I wrote out a paragraph of explanation and support for each point, but I guess it would be unwise to just post it all up here. Please give me any advice possible on improving these points or what kind of support I should use.