Compulsory education is a form of kidnapping designed to train children to accept the class hierarch
Debate Rounds (3)
PRO feels the argument has been made, so I will address it.
The Argument...So Far
PRO's argument so far is basically this:
P1: Mandatory education teaches students to accept the status quo.
P2: Mandatory education teaches students to sell their labor.
P3: Mandatory education breaks up the structure of families.
C: Mandatory education is kidnapping.
Evidence, or, Lack Thereof
I would like to start by pointing out that PRO has not offered any evidence in support of the premises to his/her argument. At this point, they are bald assertions that can be dismissed. I see no reason to argue against them, as I do not carry that burden.
Does Not Follow
Even if we accept PRO's premises, which I do not, the conclusion does not follow. Kidnapping is defined as the illegal seizure of another person by force or fraud . This is not a description of the education system, so even if PRO can demonstrate the premises, the conclusion does not follow.
: required by a law or rule
: having the power of forcing someone to do something
Full Definition of COMPULSORY
1: mandatory, enforced
2: coercive, compelling
Key word being enforced
I would ask that MrJosh to provide some premise as to his rebuttal.
I thank PRO for his comments this round. I have only two points with which to conclude.
PRO correctly defines "compulsory," but fails to see that it doesn't make mandatory school kidnapping. As I mentioned in the previous round, kidnapping is, by definition, an ILLEGAL seizure of a person . If the laws of a particular jurisdiction provide for compulsory schooling, than it is completely legal, and cannot be considered kidnapping. This point alone sinks PRO's case.
Still Doesn't Follow
As I pointed out in the previous round, even if we accept PRO's premises, which he has not supported with evidence, they do not lead to the claimed conclusion. PRO has not addressed this point, and it stands.
PRO made an initial claim in setting up this debate. He failed to meet this burden by providing evidence for his claims, or even a valid argument. I had no burden, and carried no requirement to debunk PRO's claims.
Finally, I would like to thank PRO for setting up this debate; it has been enjoyable.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Valladarex 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively explained that compulsory education isn't equivalent to kidnapping, as kidnapping is illegal and the government legally forces kids to go to school. Pro provides no evidence-based arguments for his case.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.