debate... need help... topic is national service?

Question

ok so here it is straight from the official place:


Topic: National Service

Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

so basically the argument is over whether the gov. should est. a policy increasing the # of ppl serving right? (correct me if im wrong)


so as of right now im on the con side. i need help backing up why the gov. should not est. a policy like that. what do you think? how would you back that up?

im not saying i dont want to and im not asking for reasons not to serve... its strictly for debate... the question is not asking for reasons not to serve but anything to back up why the gov. should not est. a policy increasing the # of ppl serving like draft

Answer 1

The best reason for not having forced service is that most people are not fit for the work. Some people are ready for a college education, others are ready to learn a trade. By forcing service, they would not be allowed to follow their callings. Also, by forcing service, the country, and therefor taxpayers, would have to pay for unskilled, unwilling workers which have very little ability to produce. By having a volunteer national service, only those who are motivated to serve do so, and they do it the best they can because it was their choice to do so.

Answer 2

That is a difficult side to uphold. Any lawyers out there??? Scrooge??? Ok, I guess I'll put on the devil's advocate hat...

I served 2 years in Americorps and I think the only negative side that I saw in my particular situation is where a single mother of 5 chose to do a year of Americorps. Sounds very noble right? Well it would be if Americorps provided good health benefits and pay to help take care of those 5 children. It just seemed sad to me that someone would be willing to be paid $8795 (then) for 11 months of work to support her and her 5 children, when a job at WalMart or McDonalds would have done much more for them. The educational stipend may have been able to help her get through school, but trying to position herself to make a better life for her and her children had high short term costs.

Increasing the number of people for these programs may decrease the selectivity. It's the old, "get what you can". Say a small town non profit has a grant for 5 people to come work there, but they only find 3 qualified for the positions. Desperate to not lose the grant, they go all out trying to find ANYONE to take the job, and what they get are 2 people that have no interest in the program, just want the deferred interest on their student loans and something to put on their resume. Those 2 people could hinder the entire program.

I know it's a stretch, I personally think the world of the program. I was an excellent foundation to my career and taught me more than 4 years of higher education ever could.

Good luck on the debate, it sounds very interesting.

Answer 3

I think this is a wonderful Idea.
It should be required for ages 13-15 for social sutdies credits for school. And with two additional years for college funds assistance from 16-18. A program to teach and reward the student and their society.

I can't think of a good reason NOT TOO.
Many civilized countries already have these in place and it is well worth the time and money. The education they recieve will help them the rest of their lives.

This is a pivotable age and to focus them on a great cause, is a huge untapped resource we need for American growth.

Do you know how to survive? Can you do first aid? Do you what happens to Senior or sick people when they have no money? Can you spend 5 hours a week learning a new trade?

I'm all for it. I want you here at HOME- learning how to be better citizens and humans. We are so selfish here in America. When was the lasttime you "gave" freely to help cut a seniors yard or baby sit for a single working mother? Honestly? Can you say you have ever?

Answer 4

To establish such a policy the Government would need a carrot or a stick. That means they would have to either set up a draft or substantially increase the salaries and benefits for people who served.

Drafting people for anything but the armed services would result in surly non-volunteers. The Army can deal with people who don't want to be there; they get another 100 push-ups and the drill sergeant belts them when the captain isn't looking. When they go to their post, their squad mates and NCO's will help keep them in line. Any of the "Corps" volunteers you listed have to work cheerfully, without much direct supervision. Putting a draftee in a school 200 miles upriver and expecting him/her to do a good job is asking for failure.

If the government increases the pay and benefits, our taxes will go up.

Answer 5

hey its me Divo Anna :-)
iam gonna do what you.ve told me to do at the wedding
i will have a good time now i know you need answers on this umm i don't even know what this is about GIRL lol
but. i wish you had a e-mail. but Keep in touch i will askkkss more qustions. Later on maybe tomarrow this is fun asking your peps. ok.

oh by the way download this song its old tho but its me everyword its me.

don't get around much anymore - john stevens

and check how cute this john guy is but lol john gotti is way hotter but lets not get in to guy talk . ok . people

answer her little question.
Merci beaucoup? dame`
amour Divo - Anna

translate thank you very much ? women love Divo Anna,

:-D

Answer 6

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS ILLEGAL! READ THE CONSTITUTION!