CreateDebate


Debate Info

16
21
Yes No
Debate Score:37
Arguments:34
Total Votes:49
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (15)
 
 No (17)

Debate Creator

Elvira(3446) pic



Should the government fund extra-curricular activities for children?

Should the government fund extra-curricular activities for children? For example, music lessons. These are really expensive, so it's more difficult for a child from a low-income family to learn to play an instrument than a child from a wealthy family. They may have fewer lessons a week, or none at all. 

Yes

Side Score: 16
VS.

No

Side Score: 21
1 point

It could improve the economy as significantly more people are likely to be successful in fields such as music and less-mainstream sports.

Side: Yes
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

And how is that, exactly? There are plenty of gifted artists and athletes already. The issue is not talent. The issue is the utter lack of job prospects even for highly talented and trained professionals, let alone those starting out in the arts or athletics. You can have all the talent and training in the world, but if the economic system is broken then the odds are you will not get very far.

Side: No
1 point

The government should fund a lot of things that it used to: education, science, space exploration, higher education, jobs, and other things that people and the nation benefit from.

Side: Yes

Yes because kids who stay busy are less likely to commit a crime. .

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Clarified
2 points

Do you seriously believe that is the primary reason why children should do extra-curricular activities?

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

Downvoting all my arguments. Can't handle someone who calls you out can you.

Side: No
1 point

Thats what you get for lying about me multiple times. I will not tolerate your behavior.

Side: Yes

Only for kids who have a low income or who are disabled. If a kid is autistic or has cancer, etc, and his or her family has a low income, I'm fine with that. Funding for the unfortunate kids would probably help create more equal opportunity in the US.

Side: Yes
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

Alternatively, we could actually address the growing income disparity and poverty in the U.S. instead of throwing band-aids at it.

Side: Yes
1 point

By providing activities to children, the government would create a generation with the skills needed for the life of work.

Side: Yes
1 point

I think it's beneficial for young children to be exposed to music and art, and other such activities. However, It would be simpler for public schools to offer these subjects as part of the curriculum, and extend the school day to accommodate, rather than paying private coaches and instructors to provide these services. But that's a question of organization, and not the core question of whether impoverished students should receive access to these activities.

I also agree that keeping such children busy can reduce crime.

Side: Yes
1 point

The government should ensure a basic socio-economic framework in which extra-curricular opportunities are accessible to people by their own prerogative. If you want to throw a band-aid at the problem, then this would be one.

Side: No
1 point

No. Not music lessons: not anything. The Government is best to keep out of the daily lives of each member of its populace. The odd person may ultimately make an economic contribution via tax-sponsored music skills, but how many more millions will no doubt go to nought: to unmotivated students, to misappropriated funding and any number of unnecessary expenses, or just to downright untalented youngsters. If the child has the passion, let it go and learn on its own accord, not burden even more greatly an already tremendously burdened economy.

Side: No
Jace(5222) Disputed
2 points

Your underlying assumption being that traditionally construed economic pay-off is the primary (if not exclusive) criterion for determining the merit of a policy.

Side: No
Evolux(36) Disputed
1 point

That is the heart of my argument, yes. As a nation we simply cannot afford it; perhaps if we cut back on our military and billion other expenses we could afford to help out every last child in the country to have access to music/sport/whathaveyou lessons. When you consider that 1/4 of the country is under 20, and even the number of teachers that would be needed to service some 75,000,000ish youngsters, do you really think it is an economically viable practice to begin, precedent to set? We already pay for curricular activities; let's leave extra-curricular activities to the people who desire them.

For the rest of us, there's sandlots, libraries, and YouTube.

Side: Yes
1 point

It wouldn't be fair to people who didn't get these benefits as children.

Side: No
1 point

It won't be as bad as Social Security where it is unfair to the people paying into today who won't receive anything years from now.

Side: No
ghostheadX(1105) Disputed
1 point

Alright, that's a terrible argument. Here's why:

Let's look at crime laws. If you break a law before the law changes, you stay in jail, even when it becomes legal. Doesn't that break your argument? If you think it doesn't, let me explain.

The education system has to change. We didn't have NEARLY the same STEM program we have today, when 1970 was around. But guess what, things changed. Science and Technology became more important. When society changes, I think that means that we have to change our strategies on education, to create equal opportunity.

Also, not everything is perfectly fair. Sorry.

Side: Yes
1 point

The government should not fund extra-curricular activities for children. The question is why should they and what is the point? Unless the US is not in debt (but they are in debt of almost 20 trillion dollars) and have nothing better to put their money into, then they could waste it on extra-curricular activities. What are the benefits of extra-curricular activities such as music lessons? It is rare for a child to become a huge money making musician. How about extra-curricular basketball; when was the last time a kid who went to these activities became a famous/money making player. Usually the kids who become famous out of these activities do it in their spare time at home or outside without the help of these extra-curricular activities. Why should the taxes people pay, be put into useless extra-curricular activities. If the government really wants to waste money, rather then wasting money on this, let the government waste money on a better education system (which most kids will actually need to make money in the future).

Side: No
ghostheadX(1105) Disputed
1 point

Extracurriculars can be educational? How about they spend it on learning PROGRAMMING AND COMPUTERS!? DUH!? You thinks kids wouldn't learn from that?

How about all of those ignored biotech projects that are going to spark our future? What about that huh?

Side: Yes

But I'll agree that we should be able to pay off our debt. But let's be honest. That's just the republicans who refuse to raise taxes on the rich and, as liberal as I am, the democrats who are so obsessed with health care. I think we can keep the health or taxes, but not both. Neither would be our best bet at paying off our debt.

Side: No