EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1323

That we should pay additional benefits to families on welfare according to their child's performance in school

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
5 points
JudgementJudgement (PRO)
Best of luck Logician.

Lets start with a bang. With the facts.

-Students with parents who are involved in their school tend to have fewer behavioral problems and better academic performance.
-Home learning activities are perhaps the wisest investment of school dollars and effort to produce long-lasting academic gains.

Now lets look at TIPS (Teachers Involving Parents in Schoolwork).
TIPS provides schools with a good way to welcome parents to participate in their child's education.
Interactive assignments are designed so that students talk with someone at home about something interesting that they are learning in class,
parents then provide motivation, encouragement, and celebration.

In a study of adding the TIPS program to two Baltimore middle schools, it was found that parent involvement boosted nearly 700 sixth and eighth grade students. As well as those students who were doing the TIPS homework begun showing better grades.

So what does this have to do with paying additional benefits to families on welfare when their children perform well in school?
Well, this will push almost every parent to pay closer attention to what their children are doing in school.
The facts prove that children whose parents are involved with school work and homework achieve better then what they would without any help.
So rewarding the families when their children perform higher will persuade them to encourage, assist and keep and eye on their childrens school life. This will not only mean an increase in results all around, but also a better future for our children.


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-11-13 02:58:19
| Speak Round
The LogicianThe Logician (CON)
At the outset, it must be noted that the proposition has made a grievous error in the fundamental interpretation of the motion which specifically mentions additional benefits to parents on the basis of their child's performance and not the vague issue of parental involvement in school life. Hence, the entire argument for the motion is flawed and irrelevant.

I apologize for forfeiting the first round of the debate. This was due to missing the deadline and not because the argument was conceded.

Firstly, the very concept of a school is to develop the future generations of society by inculcating traits, providing knowledge, recognising skills, etc.
This means that it is the duty of the school to bring out the best in every child by treating them equally and make their performances commendable. Hence, creating a bias for pupils on the basis of their performance defeats the very purpose of schooling and the education system.
All the pupils of the school must be given the same amount of attention and rather than looking at their performances to determine the schooling, their schooling should determine their performances.
 
Secondly, additional benefits can psychologically and socially hamper the childrens' growth;  a child who is not able to perform well enough to receive additional benefits might find himself put on a different level than his peers; leading to depression and ruined performance. Also, a competitive environment is created which leads to social gaps, animosity, etc. between companions at a very fundamental stage of life which is extremely unhealthy.

Also, parents shall desire the additional benefits and pressurise their children to work harder and perform well enough. This is obviously detrimental to the child's psychology and development.
 Children shall be trained to have a mindset centred around gaining additional benefits rather than bettering their skills for the long term. A wrongly adopted perspective brings down the productivity of the one concerned which is yet another social liability.

Thirdly, the
performances of children are often determined by their parents’ abilities and
resources to nurture the child.
 
Hence, should the child perform well because
his/her parents have the means to allow the same, they are in no need of
additional benefits.
Should the child’s parents have financial ability to
provide extra lessons to the child or are themselves well educated and can prepare/educate
the child personally, there is no need for such additional benefits to the
parents.

Moving on to the other side of the table; additional benefits on poor performances are equally hazardous and irrational for various reasons.
Firstly, should a child and his/her parents be provided benefits for the same's under performance, the consciousness of the lack of ability shall instil a social insecurity due to the feeling that 'others are better' or 'I am/my child is not good enough', etc. 
Secondly, should the poor performance be attributed to lack of parental involvement or personal indiscipline of the child, it is pointless providing any such benefits.
Also, it must be noted that since there are numerous cases in almost every school throughout the globe of poor performances, additional benefits are logistically impractical.

The concept of additional benefits is found in higher educational set-ups; universities and colleges in the form of scholarships. Here, the pupils are in a matured and able state, as they have gone through the schooling process before coming across the same.

However, having additional benefits granted to parents on the basis of their child's performance in school is fraught with irrationality and senselessness.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-11-20 12:35:44
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-11-28 02:30:25
brandon.the.debaterJudge: brandon.the.debater
Win awarded to: The Logician
Reasoning:
Hello, and before I start my reasoning I would like to congratulate all that took part of this debate. Although my ultimate decision was The Logician, it was very difficult to make a clear decision. Once again, great job to both debaters.
Now, this debate is obviously, at least in my opinion, inclined towards the Pro, although Con still had a solid case. First, Judgement started this debate with a case that was easy to understand but was not a very good case, for there was much more that could have been argued on their part. Then, unfortunately, the problem is that The Logician forfeited this round, and when it is the first round I tend to understand the difficulties that may be facing, so this was not such a heavy thing that prevented me from voting for The Logician. Due to this, Judgement wrote nothing down on the second round, and The Logician provided an excellent case that was easy to understand and bold in places to emphasize. This truly persuaded me to vote con regardless of forfeits, and since both forfeited the end that was my decision.

Feedback:
Judgement -
Fabulous job, you started the debate with great impact. This was easy to read and understand. Now, try to describe more, add more, cause the pro had several arguments you could have touched, didn't convince me that much. If your opponent forfeits call them out by saying, "My opponent forfeited, henceforth I have won the debate!" This would be true since forfeiting basically means you have nothing to say, you give up, and you are weak by giving the other person the win. After your opponent does something, say that although this is forgiven it is still true that they were weak and I overrule, but since you forfeited, like I said, this was the last round, so you basically gave The Logician the win.

The Logician -
Good job! Work on time management since you forfeited your first round, and I completely understand. Your case was really the winner of this debate, that bolding and that clear writing was perfect!
0 comments on this judgement
2016-12-03 03:34:21
dsjpk5Judge: dsjpk5
Win awarded to: The Logician

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29