06 Mar 13, 08:53PM
If the question is precisely "If there should be an equal, excellent, and state-funded public education", I think you are approaching it incorrectly.
When we discuss whether it should be or not, I think that changeable feasibility concerns can't be part of the discussion. As far as actual impossibilities, I don't know (e.g. For "Should there be a unicorn at the Berlin zoo?", is "No, because unicorns don't exist" a valid argument?).
Here's an analogous scenario which may help clarify what I mean:
Question: "Should #M|A#Wolf complete and turn in his persuasive essay?"
Answer: "No, #M|A#Wolf is lazy and even if he tried, he would fail."
That answer is not answering the given question. The question doesn't ask "Can #M|A#Wolf. . ." or "Should #M|A#Wolf try to complete. . .". Defending the negative requires explaining why it would be better for #M|A#Wolf to not complete and turn in the essay.
Similarly, in the essay you have to write, defending the negative requires explaining why it would be better for Mexico to not have "equal, excellent, and state-funded public education". The feasibility of that is assumed in the question.
Here's a way to alter your argument to fix this problem:
Argue that while raising the level of public education to that of private education is possible, the cost will be greatly increased by corruption such that it is not worth it. You will have to figure out how to quantify and compare these costs and benefits of raising/not raising public education.
Other arguments for the negative:
- quibble over the meaning of 'equal' - does that mean equal coverage as well? Is school required up to a certain age in Mexico? How would that work if we make public 'equal' to private education? How about geographic coverage? How about acceptance exams?
I can't think of anything else good right now. However, the exact wording of the prompt you were given would be very helpful and you should examine it more closely to figure out precisely what it means before you continue answering it.
When we discuss whether it should be or not, I think that changeable feasibility concerns can't be part of the discussion. As far as actual impossibilities, I don't know (e.g. For "Should there be a unicorn at the Berlin zoo?", is "No, because unicorns don't exist" a valid argument?).
Here's an analogous scenario which may help clarify what I mean:
Question: "Should #M|A#Wolf complete and turn in his persuasive essay?"
Answer: "No, #M|A#Wolf is lazy and even if he tried, he would fail."
That answer is not answering the given question. The question doesn't ask "Can #M|A#Wolf. . ." or "Should #M|A#Wolf try to complete. . .". Defending the negative requires explaining why it would be better for #M|A#Wolf to not complete and turn in the essay.
Similarly, in the essay you have to write, defending the negative requires explaining why it would be better for Mexico to not have "equal, excellent, and state-funded public education". The feasibility of that is assumed in the question.
Here's a way to alter your argument to fix this problem:
Argue that while raising the level of public education to that of private education is possible, the cost will be greatly increased by corruption such that it is not worth it. You will have to figure out how to quantify and compare these costs and benefits of raising/not raising public education.
Other arguments for the negative:
- quibble over the meaning of 'equal' - does that mean equal coverage as well? Is school required up to a certain age in Mexico? How would that work if we make public 'equal' to private education? How about geographic coverage? How about acceptance exams?
I can't think of anything else good right now. However, the exact wording of the prompt you were given would be very helpful and you should examine it more closely to figure out precisely what it means before you continue answering it.