Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Debate Points Needed

Posted by Rayan Thomas , 07 May 2013 · 229 views

Hello all, I am participating in an upcoming debate with the Topic of THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY PARENTS WHO STAY AT HOME
Now you must be thinking, "Awesome I get to stay at home and do nothing all day!" or "Stupid government, wasting my money on another Vote-buying scheme"
But whichever side of the fence you sit on, I need some points. 
I have fallen into the predicament of drawing the -very- short straw. I am arguing that we SHOULD pay those parents and that is where I need your help. The Affirmative Side has a rather tough job of fighting it out and my team and I have assembled a rather rough model.
 
MODEL (NOT THE ONE THAT WEARS THE CLOTHES YOU'RE GOING TO BUY :D)
 
-Payments for children aged 0-8 years
-Payments up to the 4th child 
-A total amount of $32,000 for 4 children (That's $32595.20 in US Dollars)
-At least 1 parent at home (Definition- About 16> hours spent at home per day)
-Applicable to Single parents, De-Facto Couples, Married and Adoptive couples (I'm excluding Foster Parents as they are already paid by the state and the agency they work for)
-Parents collect money from Centrelink 
 
FUNDING (How the bloody hell are we gonna fund this?)
 
-A 0.1% increase in GST (Goods and Services Tax)
-Slashing of the Childcare Bonus
 
Now you may be thinking, Rayan, I can't understand this, it's Australian! Well, let me explain simply.
 
GST- 10% tax on all products and services except for Bread, Milk, Fruit and Vegies
Childcare Bonus- A scheme to help encourage the Childcare Industry
Centrelink- A place were you go collect your Social Security, find a Job and wait in long queues 
 
Anything that might help?




First, I would suggest defining the argument to be just foster parents, if you can. You may lose points for such a strict definition, but you would throw your opposition off and you would make your argument exceedingly simple.

Should you not want to do so, focus on the benefits shown by having a full time parent in a child's development; I believe their are a lot of studies in regards to this and explain that, in the long term, this might actually produce a net economic benefit, as people are less likely to commit crime and are more likely to go to complete school and go to uni if they have a full time parent during their formative years.

Photo
RevolutionaryRebel
May 07 2013 11:17 AM

Protip; don't have a narrow definition pre-debate. You must be prepared to choose a definition that suits your position, and engages that of your opponent. Be flexible. That is a primary part of debating.

 

For the Affirmative, definitional points you MUST get across to ensure a competitive debate is the following:

1. You are not saying that 'all parents' that stay at home should be paid, only those that deserve it.

2. There are legitimate reasons why some parents are housebound. Obvious example would be personal health, or disabilities. Parenting is simply one of these reasons.

3. People who work from home should be treated the same as those that travel to work.

 

Note that this avoids the hard sell you describe. This may or may not be in your favour, if you find it difficult to come up with a model as you have outlined thus far.

 

I recommend comparing what you come up with to paid maternal leave schemes, or perhaps as a substitute. It does set a precedent for the value of parenting.

Photo
Rayan Thomas
May 08 2013 03:31 AM
Thanks that really helped, but I'm a bit confused Caladin. Could you elaborate on the Foster Parent Argument?

September 2014

S M T W T F S
  1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Latest Visitors

  • Photo
    Mr Director
    06 Apr 2014 - 08:27
  • Photo
    Llywelyn Fawr
    29 Jul 2013 - 14:33
  • Photo
    Eumirbago
    30 Jun 2013 - 00:53
  • Photo
    Kurdanak
    15 Jun 2013 - 21:50
  • Photo
    im317
    15 Jun 2013 - 10:39