The Instigator
TheYummyCod
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
luke23
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Alternatives to Public Schooling Should Not be made Illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,526 times Debate No: 38339
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (1)

 

TheYummyCod

Pro

To accept this debate, please send me a message. I won't accept people who won't give me a strong challenge in this debate, on this issue.

Note: Round 1 is Acceptance Only.

Thank you very much.


To clarify the debate resolution, Con will be debating that we should force families to accept nationalized public education without allowing alternatives to said public education in our nation.

Thank you again,

—TheYummyCod
luke23

Con

I accept this challenge with pride, and shall serve with honor and distinction.

Let's do this thing.
Debate Round No. 1
TheYummyCod

Pro


Alternatives to Public Schooling Should Not be Made Illegal.



I have the Pro position, which means that I will be debating that alternatives to public schooling should remain legal in countries where they are currently allowed.



——————————————


Definitions.


Alternatives to Public Schooling: Any educational institution, curriculum, opportunity, or education type such as homeschooling and conventional schooling; that is not included in the public school system. This includes on-the-job learning such as internships, but will not include truancy, or staying away from any educational form altogether.



Public Schooling: Any educational institution, curriculum, or opportunity, that is either funded by the state (government), and/or controlled by the state.



Illegal: Contrary to law, and/or not recognized by the state as legitimate.



Special Note: Examples from school systems in other countries may be used; but this argument is revolved around the United States public school system.




Abolishing alternatives to public schooling undermines the liberty of the individual.


“You must take personal responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances, the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself. That is something that you have charge of.” ~Jim Rohn, Entrepreneur. [1]


Ever since man was put on the earth, God has given us the responsibility to take care of ourselves. We have to be responsible to clothe, feed, and shelter ourselves; and others, when they are in need. However, most important out of said responsibilities, God has also given us the responsibility to think for ourselves. We have the responsibility to educate ourselves at a pace that we ourselves are motivated to go at, and to move forward as an individual under the guidance of God.


We have seen in history, from Adam and Eve teaching Seth, Abel, and Cain; to homeschooling today, families and the individual have the responsibility to educate ones’ self, and the liberty to be educated in a manner which we may choose. God has given us the liberty of choosing how we are educated.


By removing alternatives to public schooling, one is restricting said liberty, by removing the choice and responsibility God has granted you to educate yourself in the ways which you choose.



Abolishing alternatives to public schooling brings educational standards down.


The Common Core Standards are being implemented this year in 45 of the 50 States. According to a study by the Concerned Women for America, where they got the information directly from the people who refused to sign said standards; these standards will lower high school mathematics and science down to fifth grade requirements, and will not teach cursive. Not only that, but they will enable schools to keep tabs on students, and send information directly to the federal government on whether or not a child has skipped school to observe religious holidays. [2]


Under the condition that alternatives to public schools are abolished, this educational standard will be applied to all Americans, and drag everyone down the grave that we have dug.



Abolishing alternatives to public schooling will deteriorate society.


Since its founding, the church has always been seen as a threat to the government as long as it is not controlled by the government. You can see that regularly throughout history, for example the beginning of the church, the Romans would torture and kill early Christians. Later, during the Middle Ages, during the Renaissance, and even today, the government church has persecuted Christians.


Whereas the church is used by God, government is used by Satan. Recently, in the American public school system, government has used its influence to promote immoral practices, hand out free contraception, and encourage sexual and immoral practices.


Kids in Poland, and other nations occupied by Soviet Russia, were encouraged to have pre-marital sex, so that they would stray away from the church, and towards government. In Nazi Germany, the public school system was used to indoctrinate children into having hatred for God’s chosen people.



Public schooling deteriorates the ethics and morality inside of society when the people are subject to the Devil’s corruption through mandatory government control.



I apologize for the short and weak argument, this was typed up in a hurry.



Thank you very much,


TheYummyCod




1. http://www.brainyquote.com...


2. http://picosong.com...


3. http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...


luke23

Con

Well, I have to say after reading this argument, I am incredulous. I didn't think anyone could make some of these points with a straight face, but I'll do my best to address them with dignity and not with mockery.

I'll accept the premise God gave us responsibility. I'm a Christian, after all. But, Adam and Eve is mythology. It's a creation myth, to be taken figuratively and not literally. Science proves that it is not an accurate origin of our species. Further, it represents only a mythological starting point, and hardly an ideal as it is after the fall of man.

However the second point here, citation 2, is rather suspicious. Chiefly because it appears to be some random audio file that some random person uploaded. I could upload any claim I want and it wouldn't be evidence. Actual school policies are that religious exemptions do exist, and can be tolerated, within reason. Like, you can't miss every Tuesday and Wednesday because Bogloonianism dictates these are days for eating ice cream, or some other claim.

I'll explain why standardized education is good soon.

The third point, however, is amusing. As a history student of many years, I can tell you the persecution of the early church is more myth than material. The Romans were highly pluralistic, and the idea they brutally repressed Christians for more than a few individuals in a narrow period is a myth created later to put a face on the ideal of martyrdom. Most persecution was carried out by the Jewish authorities. I especially fail to understand how one can claim that Christians were persecuted in the Middle Ages, as society was controlled by the Church. And as to persecuted Christians today, in North Korea sure. Not so much here.

The satan + government claim is really ignorant. This Soviet claim is even worse. Searching it reveals absolutely no evidence, and my own knowledge of the USSR works against that.

Now, my argument for government control.

Right now, education varies. Some private schools produce vastly prepared youths who will go on to Yale and Wall Street or the White House, while many inner city schools have a different fate. Mediocrity at best, and the streets at worst. That's because our education is not equal.

If we believe everyone deserves the same chance (a tenant of the American dream), then we have to make sure everyone has an even start. Right away, an urban Black youth has a worse chance of everything. A suburban white youth has a better chance of success.

By standardizing government control over education, we can allot fair amounts of money, balance the student populations, devise special programs, and work out a means to correct this balance in society. But beyond that, there are beneficial reasons.

Across private schools, what is taught is not standardized. While a student in the state of Texas will be educated in a state school by state standards, private schools can and do teach incorrect things. Sometimes the material is inaccurate history, or more often science. I, myself, went to a Christian middle school for a few years. There I was taught evolution was a lie, and human anatomy was hidden from me. I never learned about the reproductive systems, or my own body. I was taught dinosaurs were wandering around with people.

As I went off to college, and talked with very intelligent experts, they showed me incontrovertible evidence that what I had been taught was wrong. Utterly and inexcusably wrong.

Now why should we tolerate our children being taught what is false? And further, why should the government recognize such improper 'education' as holding any validity?

The only course of action I see is to create a national set of standards, and hold all schools to them. If the school does not hold to them, it will gain no federal funding, no endorsements, no licenses, no permits, and any diploma it issues will have no recognition. That is only fair.

Just as a quick look, what happens when religious institutions are in charge of education? Galileo is put under house arrest for believing the Earth orbited the sun. Other contemporaries were executed for the same beliefs. And if we allow religious exemptions to actual science, then why not allow it to every group? I'm sure white supremacists could found a school and teach that the shape of a nose somehow determines intelligence.

Standards are the tool that allows us to ensure something is uniform, fair, and accurate. These are all good things. If you want to teach your child a religious belief, then take them to Church. If you want to teach them white people are the master race... Well, then you probably shouldn't have children.
Debate Round No. 2
TheYummyCod

Pro


I'd like to thank my opponent again, and apologize for the lack of argument structure in the second round.



Re-addressing Common Core


According to Government data, only 1 out of 50 prospective STEM Majors who begin undergraduate courses with Pre-Calculus or lower will earn a bachelor’s degree in a STEM area. To add to that, students who get no higher than Algebra II in high school will have a 40% chance of getting a college degree. [1]


James Milgram, professor of mathematics at Stanford University, and co-author of a study done by the Pioneer Institute (A well-respected, independent research organization) on Common Core, noted that “with the exception of a few standards in trigonometry, the math standards end after Algebra II.” [2]



So, if 1 out of 50 people who have experience in Pre-Calculus or lower will earn a bachelor’s degree in the STEM area, and only 40% of people with their highest experience in Algebra II will get a college degree at all, then by implementing a standard which denies children from getting anything higher than Algebra II will be lowering standards for the entire nation.


Even worse, by eliminating alternatives to Common Core standards, there will be no opportunities at all to succeed academically without doing so illegally, which will decrease the effectiveness of our education by a massive percentage, and deny the educational freedom that our citizens are entitled to.



Re-addressing the persecution of Christians


From Nero to the Edict of Milan, Christians have experienced 129 years of extreme persecution in Rome. According to the Roman Historian Tacitus:



“Besides being put to death they [the Christians] were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beast and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even toward men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual.” [3]



Addressing your claim on the Middle Ages, remember that it was the government that controlled the “church”. When I talk about persecution of Christians in the Middle Ages, I’m talking about the persecution of Christians, not specifically the persecution of the “church”.



To note specifically, remember the persecution of the Cathars in the 1200s, where over a million Christians died from persecution of the government-controlled Catholic church [4]. Again, the martyrdom of Martin Luther and William Tyndale, the persecution of evangelical Christians as ‘heretics’ during the 15th, 16th, and 17th Century. You can’t say that Christians weren’t persecuted because the ‘church’ was influenced by the government.



Rebuttals.


————



“I'll accept the premise God gave us responsibility. I'm a Christian, after all. But, Adam and Eve is mythology. It's a creation myth, to be taken figuratively and not literally. Science proves that it is not an accurate origin of our species.”



— That is a non sequitur argument. You accept my premise, that’s what matters. You have not provided a source nor evidence for Adam and Eve being mythology, so it is accepted as true until you can provide evidence that “science proves that it is not an accurate origin of our species”.



“However the second point here, citation 2, is rather suspicious. Chiefly because it appears to be some random audio file that some random person uploaded. I could upload any claim I want and it wouldn't be evidence.”



—Like how you’re doing now. Look to ‘Re-addressing Common Core’ for a reenforcement of my points.



“As a history student of many years, I can tell you the persecution of the early church is more myth than material. The Romans were highly pluralistic, and the idea they brutally repressed Christians … is a myth created later to put a face on the ideal of martyrdom.”


“…society was controlled by the Church [in the Middle Ages].”



—I address this in ‘Re-addressing the Persecution of Christians’.



“If we believe everyone deserves the same chance (a tenant of the American dream), then we have to make sure everyone has an even start. Right away, an urban Black youth has a worse chance of everything. A suburban white youth has a better chance of success.


By standardizing government control over education, we can allot fair amounts of money, balance the student populations, devise special programs, and work out a means to correct this balance in society.”



—There are two ways we can look at this. First, we have to remember that by standardizing government control over education, because of the Common Core Standards, it will actually lower the standards, and though it will be specifically standardized, it will deny people who want to work for higher education, the right to do so. In fact, it will force standards to be lowered instead of allowing it to be raised.


Second, you have to remember that you’re talking about and how it relates to the argument. What you’re putting forward as a solution to your claim (not a problem, no evidence has been presented), is something that can be done without abolishing alternatives to public schooling. You can standardize your schools without abolishing alternatives to public schooling. Therefore your argument is non sequitur.



“Across private schools, what is taught is not standardized…”



—You must remember that public schools have the same risk as private schools to being false. Remember Nazi Germany? Public schools there were teaching anti-semitism. Your argument against private schools apply to public schools, and therefore is not valid.



Going to have to make small points because I’m running out of characters.



“Now why should we tolerate our children being taught what is false? And further, why should the government recognize such improper 'education' as holding any validity?”



—You’re making an argument for alternatives to public schooling. We as homeschoolers and private schoolers recognize that many things taught in the public schools, such as global warming and how FDR “fixed” the Great Depression, as false. Why should we tolerate our children being taught what is false? It’s an argument against forced public schooling, not for.



“I'm sure white supremacists could found a school and teach that the shape of a nose somehow determines intelligence.”



—I’m sure they could. Where and when in history did white supremacists control a school system? It’s on the top of my head… Oh yes! Nazi Germany! But was it private schooling? No. It was public schooling. In fact, I’m sure that if there had been private schools legalized in Germany at the time, there wouldn’t have been as many people indoctrinated by said white supremacists.


This goes back to my point that we have a moral obligation to allow alternative forms of education to prevent the indoctrination of our children.



I therefore conclude a systematic rebuttal of my opponent’s argument.



Thank you,


TheYummyCod





Sources:


1. STEM in Postsecondary Education, 2012, NCES 2013152 (see, especially, Tables 2, 4, 7, and 12).


2. http://pioneerinstitute.org...


3. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, eds., Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd. ed. (Oxford UP, 1999), p. 2.


4. http://necrometrics.com...


luke23

Con

Where to even begin with this? I think I'll start by saying your use of the term 'non sequitur' is incorrect. It literally means 'does not follow,' which would be applicable only to apply to something irrelevant, when what I address does follow exactly what you stated. But, on to substance.

The common core proposal you're discussing is utterly irrelevant. It's more of the politician-led drivel that causes difficulty for teachers. Further it has absolutely nothing to do with alternative means of education.

Similarly persecution of Christians is off-topic, but you are still absolutely wrong. Here's an interview with a Professor at Notre Dame who expresses the views of actual historians and real religious scholars.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com...

Now, back on topic, where I hope to remain.

"There are two ways we can look at this. First, we have to remember that by standardizing government control over education, because of the Common Core Standards, it will actually lower the standards, and though it will be specifically standardized, it will deny people who want to work for higher education, the right to do so. In fact, it will force standards to be lowered instead of allowing it to be raised.

Second, you have to remember that you"re talking about and how it relates to the argument. What you"re putting forward as a solution to your claim (not a problem, no evidence has been presented), is something that can be done without abolishing alternatives to public schooling. You can standardize your schools without abolishing alternatives to public schooling. Therefore your argument is non sequitur."

Your fundamental problem is equating the current core standards proposal with public schools in general. The fact is, any core material proposed by people besides educators will have flaws and will be problematic. That has nothing to do with prohibiting other forms of schooling.

As to your argument that it doesn't abolish alternatives, it seems simple to me that if the state sets the curriculum and it must be followed, if the state sets the rules and they must be followed, then the school is operating as an agent of the state, and is therefore not a private school. Simple enough yes?

"Public schools have the same risk as private schools to being false."

No. They really don't. The fact is that if any Tom, Dick, and Harry can set up a school, that will result in far more problems than a curriculum devised by the Department of Education.

"You"re making an argument for alternatives to public schooling. We as homeschoolers and private schoolers recognize that many things taught in the public schools, such as global warming and how FDR "fixed" the Great Depression, as false. Why should we tolerate our children being taught what is false? It"s an argument against forced public schooling, not for."

If you think Global Warming isn't real or that FDR didn't succeed economically, then you've proved my point that private education and homeschools are not adequate to instruct children. These are facts recognized by scientists and by historians. That is why they are codified in textbooks.

You really seem to have a fetish over Nazi Germany. It pops up every other paragraph.

Here's some other points for you to chew over.

Against Homeschooling.

In a home-school program, there is no administrator there to evaluate teaching performance or ensure standards are being met. There are no real guides to evaluate the child's progress. Further, without any easy methods of supervision or access to Counseling, any kind of abuse is much harder to determine.

This argument applies against both home and private schooling.

It is an aspect of human nature to force itself into small groups of similar people. We refer to this as de facto segregation. Now if you open up an evangelical christian school, who will join? I guarantee almost all white, christian, conservative children. A homogeneous group of students who do not serve to expose children to other cultures or backgrounds. Now with home-school, the result is even worse. These children do not leave their families, and do not learn social interaction.

What should be done?

The government should take exclusive control over K-12 Education, and allocate funding based on need. Further, once in middle school there needs to be a point where aptitude tests are taken and it determines possible career paths. Students should have the option to enter a trade school to learn professional skills or artisan skills, or to proceed on to college for humanities, or college for science, technology, and engineering. The current assumption, made by politicians, is that everyone should go to college.

Not everyone should go to college. That is not the recipe for national success. All that does is reinforce the idea that some people, ie doctors and lawyers, are more valuable than others. This is a dangerous thought, both for treating human beings unequally, and for the fact that it promotes a catastrophic idea that has already caused problems. With more and more people going to college, a Bachelor's Degree is becoming more and more worthless. Increasingly, higher degrees are becoming necessary.

Re-evaluating our educational structure, and turning it into a state-run system that promotes real-life education under the premise that all children are not interchangeable is the first step towards success. And in order to do that, we must level the playing field.

If there are institutions out there like the one I attended middle school for, where biology is incorrectly taught, where mythology is taught as fact, then I believe they need to be shut down so those children can receive a real education.

Now that I have some extra characters, I want to deal with another objectionable point you made.

"You have not provided a source nor evidence for Adam and Eve being mythology, "

The Earth is 4.54x10^9 years old. http://www.sciencedirect.com...

It takes 160 people to start a society and not have everyone turn into an inbred hemophiliac like the Hapsburg family. http://www.newscientist.com...

Principles of evolution are clearly observable. People are taller now than 200 years ago, we eat differently, etc. These are evolutionary steps. If you don't believe in evolution as the means through which we became what we are today, then please find a nearby community college and take a biology course.

When we look at all these sources, we can see the idea that 6,000 years ago two human beings formed all society is pure myth.

Even the Roman Catholic Church agrees it's myth.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au...
Debate Round No. 3
TheYummyCod

Pro

I suppose I’ll begin with quick rebuttals, and then focus on my closing argument.

The common core proposal you're discussing is utterly irrelevant.”

—It has everything to do with it. Abolishing alternatives to public schooling will ultimately force everyone to adhere to these standards. Remember the terms and definitions at the beginning of the debate. Alternatives to public schooling means alternative curriculums, too. And the debate revolves around the American public school system.

You cannot make valid points which claim that nationalizing education will raise our standards and provide people with better education without considering Common Core Standards.

“Here's an interview with a Professor at Notre Dame...”

—Sources cannot be used as an argument by themselves. My point is acknowledged as fact until an opposing argument backed up with evidence is presented.

“Your fundamental problem is equating the current core...”

—I disagree with your claim that this has nothing to do with the argument.

First, as I have already said, prohibiting alternatives to public schooling will ultimately force every child in America onto the Common Core Standards. It has everything to do with this debate.

Second, You seem to have trouble recognizing that children will be forced upon a standard that will ultimately lead to massive lowering of educational quality in America. I have shown this in my previous evidence, and it is fact by your dismissal of it.

“As to your argument that it doesn't abolish alternatives...”

—My argument was that you can standardize your public schools without abolishing alternatives to said public schools.

Now, what you’re saying about the State setting curriculum and rules go back to the Common Core Standards. You can’t give people better education by completely nationalizing education, at least while there are standards being implemented that will lower our standards to such a low point that you are not even allowed to study past Algebra II.

“No. They really don't. The fact is that if any Tom, Dick, and Harry can set up a school, that will result in far more problems than a curriculum devised by the Department of Education.”

—You have to remember that currently Tom, Dick, and Harry’s schools outperform the Department of Education by a large amount, according to the student average ACT and SAT scores of public and private schools [1]. I don’t see how you can ignore the evidence that I have presented which show that the Common Core Standards will lower the standards of public schools to an extremely low point. While said standards are being implemented, you cannot truthfully claim that government-enforced curriculum will be better than what is being taught in private schools.

“If you think Global Warming isn't real or that FDR didn't...”

—This is an ad hominem fallacy. Don’t attack my personal beliefs for the sake of your argument.

There is something in the Constitution called the First Amendment. By abolishing alternatives to public school curricula, we are subscribing American children to one way of thought. When you tell me that I can’t say what I want to say, that I can’t teach, speak, and communicate in the ways that I want to do, because it violates your own personal beliefs, it is violating my own freedom to express my opinion, my freedom of speech.

Freedom of the press is pretty much in context with this -- we have the freedom to publish what we want, no matter how untruthful or slanderous. We have the freedom to publish what we wish, and if you view it as false, then we have no fear of you taking it away from us while we view it as truth.

“You really seem to have a fetish over Nazi Germany.”

—Does this qualify as ad hominem? Attack the substance, not the opponent. My point has been validated by his dismissal.

“In a home-school program, there is no administrator there to…”

—This section was written out of ignorance, and based on stereotypes which are not fortified by facts. As a home-schooler myself, it makes my blood boil. This was a harsh and desperate attack on home-schooled and privately schooled children. I’ll make a few quick points.

1. Because of the increased free time for extracurricular activities, and the motivation to seek out friends, most home-schooled children get more social interaction with the outside world than most public-schooled children. The Discovery Institute released a report on homeschooling at the turn of the century. Though a progressive-leaning organization, they note that home-schooled families are more active in civic affairs than public schooled families. It is better for social skills to seek out friends of your own, than be thrown together with 20 to 30 children in a classroom, where peer pressure is enormous. [2]

2. My opponent tries to make a claim that grouping together white, Conservative, Christian children together has a negative impact on society, which is racist.

3. If it’s human nature to force itself into smaller groups, then obviously you would be having the same problem of de facto segregation in public schools. Your argument cancels itself out, because you can’t have segregation being human nature, while public schools remain a solution to segregation.

“Re-evaluating our educational structure...”

—You can level the playing field, and re-evaluate our educational structure, without abolishing alternatives. The only way you can truly level the playing field is open up the educational system to new opportunities. We cannot have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ system, otherwise there will be no success.

Public schools in America have been holding children back, by forcing kids to stay at the pace of the class. By allowing alternatives to public schooling, we can allow children who want to work for higher education, to do so by themselves, instead of being forced to stay back for the sake of the class.

“...I believe they need to be shut down so those children can receive a real education.”

—How would children receive a better education by schools being shut down? Data I have presented has clearly shown that by global standards, people in private schools get better education than people in public schools.

“If you don't believe in evolution as the means through which we became what we are today, then...”

—Ad hominem much? Also, you’re making an argument for microevolution, not macroevolution.

—I’d like to note to my opponent quickly that sources cannot be used as arguments. You make that mistake many times, and I ask voters to take that into consideration when voting.



Summary of my Arguments
—By abolishing all alternatives to public school curricula, it abolishes our freedom of the press.
—Removing alternatives to public schooling would immediately lower standards, because of the Common Core standards being implemented already, and because privately schooled and home-schooled children get better education already.
—Historically, public schools run a higher risk of indoctrinating children to a mindset than private schools. This has been acknowledged by my opponent as fact, by his failure to address it.
—The right to educate one's self in the beliefs that he holds has been accepted as a premise by my opponent; therefore abolishing alternatives to public schooling becomes a violation of said right.
—Public schools can be fixed without violating freedom of the press by abolishing alternatives to public schooling.
—Because it was not addressed directly, and my points are accepted by my opponent, it is accepted that abolishing alternatives to public schooling will deteriorate society.

I'd like to note to voters that logical fallacies were used in my opponent's arguments, and I expect them to be addressed in your votes.

Thank you,

TheYummyCod

1. http://www.daytondailynews.com...

2. http://www.discovery.org...

luke23

Con

It's hard to concisely respond to all of your fail in this small space. But I will do my best to debunk everything you typed, as the fact that anyone might believe it is terrifying.

"Abolishing alternatives to public schooling will ultimately force everyone to adhere to these standards."

In what universe? How do you even begin to imagine that one proposal from the 2010s, out of all the proposals in the world, out of all the educational ideas, would somehow be 'the only way' in a technocratic step to improve Public Education? Such a decree with absolute certainty is absurd, as nothing is ever that certain in reality. Period.

"Sources cannot be used as an argument by themselves. "

Go read the article, there's no excuse not to, as it contains all the argument I want you to see. Particularly since it's a tangential issue without any real importance beyond broadening your narrow perception of history.

"Second, You seem to have trouble recognizing that children will be forced upon a standard that will ultimately lead to massive lowering of educational quality in America."

Again, my point from before stands. This proposed standard is one out of many, and not the be-all and end-all of our human existence. Your next point also relies on the same deluded fallacy, that somehow I want to use the proposal I have repeatedly denounced, or that I must, when I have laid out an entirely different proposal. I'm not even sure where such an idea would come from.

"You have to remember that currently Tom, Dick, and Harry"s schools outperform the Department of Education by a large amount..."

Some of them do work. That's because they cluster wealthy parents together and have extreme funding to provide better facilities than anyone else, and so they promote societal inequality. However, others do not work. Others teach mythology as fact and Science as lies.

"This is an ad hominem fallacy. Don"t attack my personal beliefs for the sake of your argument."

Actually it's a perfectly legitimate issue. The fact that you, an admitted homeschooler, were given incorrect instruction and now believe myths proves that such a system fails to provide actual education in science.

"There is something in the Constitution called the First Amendment."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's see, are we establishing state religion? No. Prohibiting free exercise? No, you can still go to church and Sunday school whenever. Freedom of speech? Well, as already demonstrated, that has limits. Fire in a crowded theater, threatening violence, and to me, indoctrinating children against Science. As to freedom of the press and peaceable assembly, you're welcome to print whatever books you want, and study whatever you want, on your own time. But there's absolutely no harm done to the First Amendment.

"This section was written out of ignorance"

Actually, several of my friends in high school were homeschooled and this opinion is drawn from their experience and my experience with them. A friend, who I will call Dave, was homeschooled. I knew him from church, where he came to the youth group. He was just socially awkward on the whole, and had a very hard time. He and I both attributed this to staying at home so often and not going out and interacting with other, very different, people. So maybe your experience at socialization was successful, but that hardly means that everyone will succeed, as you seem to believe. And also you completely ignore my comment about lack of administration, maybe I should consider that an endorsement coming from you.

"it makes my blood boil."

I'd watch that temper if I were you.

As to your points 2 and 3, I'd argue any group isolating itself has a negative impact on society. White conservatives merely seem to cause more trouble when they isolate. And you seemed to have missed the memo that our schools are no longer segregated. You might sit at the lunch table with the other white kids, but you will see, work with, and interact with students of other ethnic backgrounds.

"The only way you can truly level the playing field is open up the educational system to new opportunities. We cannot have a "one-size-fits-all" system, otherwise there will be no success."

You fail to see that the nationalized system itself is adaptable based on localized needs due to access to deep amounts of federal funding, and in my system, the presence of a dedicated administration. 'New Opportunities' might sound good, but the fact is, someone has to pay for it. When it's the government, it's public school, and when it's parents, it becomes exclusive to those who can afford it, and again it divides society.

The individual argument came a bit late from you, but I'll debunk it here too. Children need to be taught that they are a community, and not just individuals. This is why group work is so important and teams are so important. One of the most important skills a child can learn in school is how to work with others. They will use it in life. If we instill them in the Ayn Rand Capitalist Wet Dream, then we teach them not to look to each other for help, but as competitors and enemies, and we promote a regressive ideal of human nature that turns us into clannish little fear-machines.

"How would children receive a better education by schools being shut down?"

Well first off, they wouldn't be shut down. They'd be taken over by the state and run according to state standards. And your global scale reflects the massive amount of students in Subsaharan Africa with a chalk board two desks and no roof. But to answer your question in more detail,

http://gawker.com...

FYI, Warren Buffet is on my side. I'd say he's a pretty smart guy too.

"Ad hominem much? Also, you"re making an argument for microevolution, not macroevolution."

If you trot out anti-science bull, prepare to get called on it. No free passes sir. And I suggest you go review evolutionary theory, because 'microevolution' is the only kind. No one is telling you that you evolved from a chimp.

"Historically, public schools run a higher risk of indoctrinating children to a mindset than private schools. This has been acknowledged by my opponent as fact, by his failure to address it."

That's amusing. You see, I'd ignored it as nonsensical rambling under Godwin's law. Also, the last time I checked, not commenting was not analogous to commenting. So sure, public education would be bad. If we were living in a racist and fascist dictatorship. We aren't.

"Because it was not addressed directly, and my points are accepted by my opponent, it is accepted that abolishing alternatives to public schooling will deteriorate society."

I accept none of your points, and have illustrated improvements in society.

The benefits:
1. Place a proper and uniform emphasis on Science, so we no longer have pundits ranting about how evolution is a 'lie' or global warming isn't real. Wipe out such ignorance with knowledge.
2. Work towards societal equality by reducing the unfair advantages wealth confers to education.
3. Reallocate societal resources away from serving the wealthy and to serving all Americans.
4. Creates a system where multiple career advancements can be made.
5. Teaches children to socialize.
6. Cuts down racial barriers and promotes diversity and tolerance.
7. Allows anyone to study what they want, on their own time, and keeps myth out of the classroom.

A quick word to voters. If you believe in equality, science, reason, and diversity, then you should probably endorse my argument. But, here's what you should do. Whatever you want. Vote however your conscience dictates. Go for it.
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
CONCLUSION

This debate was painful to read. PRO's opening was exceptionally weak - outside of his first point, the rest was trash, irrelevant to the resolution, and distracting.

PRO used sources far more effectively than CON, outside of the one recording. Because of the recording I will keep sources neutral.

CON was rather insulting, but given how exceptionally weak PRO's opening of this debate was, and how much of it dealt with ridiculously obtuse issues such as the history of Christianity and that the Government is an Agent of Satan, I will keep conduct neutral.

On arguments, I found that as the debate progressed, PRO's arguments were more in line with the resolution. While I did not read the Discovery Institute article in its entirely, I found PRO's gist was largely accurate, which then refutes all of CON's contentions effectively, as CON simply did not source but instead relied upon personal anecdote.

As it stands, I was dissatisfied with both sides. Far too much of PRO's argumentation was so irrelevant to the resolution as to be insulting to this particular reader. CON's refutations of the sections of PRO's arguments that were indeed relevant to this debate either 1) did not refute the resolution directly, or 2) not adequately sourced.

I also went to a private school for a significant portion of my own education, and can confidently say that it prepared me well to excel at a top-tier public school shortly after.

Finally, I do believe that PRO is simply defending the status quo, which then places burden of proof on CON. I found that although CON did not meet burden, far too much of PRO's argumentation was insulting to my intelligence.

For this, I will leave arguments a tie as well. No score.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
7) CON: "Here's an interview with a Professor at Notre Dame who expresses the views of actual historians and real religious scholars."

You need to actually make the argument. Sources are not substitutes for argumentation.

8) CON: "If you think Global Warming isn't real or that FDR didn't succeed economically, then you've proved my point that private education and homeschools are not adequate to instruct children."

This argument, although an ad hominem, is unfortunately compelling.

9) PRO: "You have to remember that currently Tom, Dick, and Harry"s schools outperform the Department of Education by a large amount, according to the student average ACT and SAT scores of public and private schools"

The source is far too specific. Had it not been so, this would have been a slam dunk for the resolution.

10) PRO: "Public schools in America have been holding children back, by forcing kids to stay at the pace of the class."

This is ridiculous. Most public schools have honors and AP programs.

11) CON: "It's hard to concisely respond to all of your fail in this small space."

I will reverse my conduct vote, and give it to PRO.

(conclusion next)
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
Opening argument, or round 2 argument*
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
Thanks for the help. I already understand the major issues with my Round 1 argument, but it's good to hear it from you.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Disclosure: I was asked to review this debate by YummyCod.

I will inform both parties that my RFD is my conclusion - my other comments are more or less stream of consciousness ramblings that help to track my thoughts on the debate in order to reach a more substantive, defensible, and relevant conclusion. If there is anything materially mistaken in my comments that affect my RFD (such as decrying lack of sources when sources are actually present), by all means point that out to me - I consider my RFDs to be the starting point of a discussion, and not set in stone. At any rate, I welcome constructive feedback on anything I write.

---

1) Definitions should be in round #1, by the instigator. Otherwise, they are debatable.

2) PRO's 2nd source is an 80 minute audio recording. This is unethical, as it allows PRO to insert 80 minutes of argumentation that he may or may not have fit into the debate proper. Conduct CON.

3) PRO: "Whereas the church is used by God, government is used by Satan. "

This is unreasonably biased.

4) While I found CON's rebuttal to be quite reasonable and fair, he does not address PRO's first point about liberty, which I found to be PRO's strongest argument. Furthermore, CON does not firmly negate the resolution. He makes it clear that " If the school does not hold to them, it will gain no federal funding, no endorsements, no licenses, no permits, and any diploma it issues will have no recognition," which while eminently reasonable, does not refute the resolution.

5) I don't understand how PRO can assert that Common Core results in "implementing a standard which denies children from getting anything higher than Algebra II." It's a minimum standard, not an exact target.

6) PRO's dwelling on anarchism and Christianity is distracting, irrelevant, and somewhat offensive. PRO's round #3 rebuttal was of a better quality.

(con't)
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
You are probably misunderstanding what I am saying*
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
You might misunderstand what I'm saying.

Alternatives to Public Schooling: Any educational institution, curriculum, opportunity, or education type such as homeschooling and conventional schooling; that is not included in the public school system. This includes on-the-job learning such as internships, but will not include truancy, or staying away from any educational form altogether.

Illegal: Contrary to law, and/or not recognized by the state as legitimate.

So, you're debating that any curriculum that is not included in the public school system must become illegal, or contrary to law.

Therefore, when you say that abolishing alternatives will still allow people to "study what they want, on their own time, " you are either denying the definitions, or conceding to my arguments.

Get it now? I apologize if it wasn't made clear.
Posted by luke23 3 years ago
luke23
I was in full accordance with your definitions. You really are just complaining now. I'm done talking with you.
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
I apologize if I hadn't made the rules clear enough, but they were accepted regardless.
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
I'm disappointed that you say that. The debate terms are specified in 'Definitions', which defines how terms are to be used, and clarifies the debate topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
TheYummyCodluke23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Terrible debate. Please do not lead like this in the future.