The Instigator
darkkermit
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

Curent high school education should not be mandatory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 8/26/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 18,939 times Debate No: 12832
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (15)

 

darkkermit

Pro

In this debate I am neither trying to prove that high school education is unnecessary nor that high school education should not be free. I am also referring to American high school education (only because I know very little about foreign education)

My resolution is that the current high school education should not be mandatory. While technically, high school education is not mandatory, one is required to stay in school until 16, the age most people are in high school. My contentions are the following.

C1: It will free up economic resources.

The core requirements taught in high school: literature, science, higher mathematics (ex: Algebra), and history are rarely necessary, especially for blue collar jobs and lower skilled jobs (ex: cashier). Those that need it are usually white collar workers. Therefore, society is creating economic waste by providing a service that has little benefit to the majority of people.

If high school education was not mandatory, less people would enter high school, therefore lowering expenses on education, and tax money could be used for other purposes (ex: financial aid for higher education, improving infrastructure, and surplus spending to pay off the debt) or tax breaks.

C2: Most necessary information is taught through K-8.

Skills such as reading, writing, basic math (arithmetic, basic probability, pre-algebra), basic science, American history and government are already taught. Students are given 8 or more years (depending if one goes to kindergarten or stays back) to learn these skills that are necessary in the United States.

C3: It will improve high school education

Since those that do not want a high school education will not be required to attend high school, those that want to learn will not have to deal with students who disrupt classes, or cause the lower standard of education since these students that do not care about high school education do not study, pay attention, and/or skips school. For example countries like China have better high schools since high school is not required. Also higher education, which is not mandatory, in the United States is considered vastly superior to high school education.

C4: Mandatory high school education directly infringes on the freedom of others

You are requiring people to spend at least six hours a day a facility. Not only that but one's freedom's are infringed. Prison, military, and school are the only three places where one's freedom of speech is severely hindered. Also one is required to do activities one does not want to do (ex: public speaking, tests or doing projects). Also one can be punished (receive detention) for almost any reason a teacher wishes.
XStrikeX

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and would quickly like to proceed to my refutations and arguments. My arguments are most likely to be included in my refutations, though. However, I will restate them to make them clearer.
Seeing as my opponent has not opened with any definitions, I will define a few words.

Current: modern and at this time
Education: knowledge acquired by learning and instruction
Mandatory: required by law or rule

Refutations

1. "The core requirements taught in high school: literature, science, higher mathematics (ex: Algebra), and history are rarely necessary, especially for blue collar jobs and lower skilled jobs (ex: cashier). Those that need it are usually white collar workers. Therefore, society is creating economic waste by providing a service that has little benefit to the majority of people."

I have to completely disagree. How is science and mathematics not important? These two extremely important subjects have funded society as we know it today. Without these two things, we would not have technology such as computers, televisions, satellites, cell phones, and many other items! Literature inspires people to create pieces of writing that one day may produce great works of art. Literature encourages writers to produce new ideas, include new themes, and new developed characters. You can't say that books such as The Iliad, War and Peace, and Moby Dick came out of nowhere. They certainly had influence and must have had encouragement to weave such wonderful stories that people enjoy. History lectures produce historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists that search for answers as to why certain empires fell, so that we can avoid those errors. We can learn about our history and what happened and why we exist. In every class, you have those who are not that dedicated to learning, and those people take lower skilled jobs.

"If high school education was not mandatory, less people would enter high school, therefore lowering expenses on education, and tax money could be used for other purposes..."

Maybe so, but this is a very small benefit compared to the huge benefit that high school currently produces. As I previously stated, those who get out of high school usually go to college and further their studies. Some become extremely successful and make plenty of money for the economy.

"Mandatory high school education directly infringes on the freedom of others. You are requiring people to spend at least six hours a day a facility. Not only that but one's freedom's are infringed."

This is absurd. An completely free society is a chaotic one. Everyone would do whatever they'd like and commit crimes, with no punishment involved. You yourself said prison, military, and school are where freedom of speech is severely hindered. This is untrue, but, using your OWN argument as support, then why don't we ban all of them? Crime doers can run amok in the streets, spreading more crime. We would have no military to defend our country. No one would learn because all schools are banned. Why don't we kill every single parent because they don't let their child do whatever he/she wants? In every society, there are limitations to freedom and those limitations are a good thing.

"Since those that do not want a high school education will not be required to attend high school, those that want to learn will not have to deal with students who disrupt classes, or cause the lower standard of education since these students that do not care about high school education do not study, pay attention, and/or skips school."

This statement basically suggests that we should completely not focus on our friends and family that do poor in school and let them drop out and possibly resort to a life of crime. No, everyone needs to stay in school. Even if you have the worst, most ignorant, and most horrible student in the world, he or she will learn something when they come out of school. If the child is disobedient, then the teacher needs to have a talk with him.

"For example countries like China have better high schools since high school is not required."

This does not necessarily mean that it is due to people dropping out of high school. It could be due to many other factors, such as the Chinese not having a long summer break, or staying in school more. And plus, this point is illogical and has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Why are high schools better when attendance to high school is not forced? How does that make sense?

Seeing as my opponent's points are refuted, I will move onto my own arguments.

Arguments

1. High school has a huge benefit. High school is the bridge to college. Without high school, kids will fail to learn necessary material such as math, science, history, and writing. You're missing four years of school. Think how much education and how much intelligence you will gain from those four years. Sure, you may not have as much freedom, but school is not a consequence. There are many people all over the world who yearn to go to school, but can't because they need to help their families make money. They don't see school as a bad thing, they desperately want to go there.

2. High school is the first step to your career job. Due to all the subjects involved in this type of school, 16 year olds begin to see they enjoy a particular subject, for example math. That leads to college, where the young adult begins to try a degree in that very subject. And in the end, it produces a fine, intelligent young adult that can further technology in the world and then pass that knowledge onto future mathematicians. Or, if you invest more research, study hours, and time in economics, then you can become a major businessman who helps the economy. And what if you study government? You could very well be a mayor, senator, governor, congressman, or even possibly, the next President of the United States.

For these reasons, high school should stay mandatory.
I await my opponent's response and would once again like to thank him for starting this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
darkkermit

Pro

I accept all of Con's definitions.

C1: "Maybe so, but this is a very small benefit compared to the huge benefit that high school currently produces. As I previously stated, those who get out of high school usually go to college and further their studies. Some become extremely successful and make plenty of money for the economy."

They do not provide plenty of money for the economy, unless these people are somehow counterfeiters (a felony which one should not promote) or work for the Federal Reserve. Rather they either provide goods or services that benefit society, find ways to reduce prices of goods or services, or fund the two (ex: financial advisors or bankers). I'd also note that t Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg (founders of facebook) are college drop outs yet provided goods (Microsoft and facebook) that are used widely today. Also, those that provide goods and services that benefit society, also receive money for themselves, so these people have self-interest to go to either high school or college.
Even though college is not mandatory, many people still attend college due to the likelihood of higher paying jobs in the future.

C1/2: "I have to completely disagree. How is science and mathematics not important? These two extremely important subjects have funded society as we know it today"

In my opening topic I did not state that high school is not useful. I stated that high school should not be mandatory. I understand that these subjects are important to medical doctors, engineers, scientists, writers, etc. You even state yourself: "In every class, you have those who are not that dedicated to learning, and those people take lower skilled jobs". That is the point. Jobs like janitors, construction workers, drivers, garbage collectors, mailman and cashiers do not have to learn this information. Even service industry jobs such as chiefs, hair/nail stylists, actors, entertainers and musicians still do not have to learn this information. Even if every single person in the world got a PhD, there would still be people working in these fields, because there will always be a demand for them. We will always need the janitor and garbage crew to help keep civilization clean. We will always need drivers for buses, construction workers to create new houses, roads, and other infrastructure. We will always need drivers to transport us from one place to another if one does not have access to a car. These people should not have to waste their time and effort in high school.

C3: "This statement basically suggests that we should completely not focus on our friends and families that do poor in school and let them drop out and possibly resort to a life of crime."

Why would dropping out of school lead to a life of crime?

Should I help somebody go to the Justin Bieber concert, if one does not want to go to it? Should I help someone to have sex, if one does not want to have sex? Should I help someone go to school who doesn't want to? No, because the person does not WANT help, and by helping the person, you are creating more harm in the process.

"Why are high schools better when attendance to high school is not forced? How does that make sense?"

If you take notice here: http://4brevard.com... notice that the countries that perform better than the United States at the very least have a division in high school, between vocational school and preparation for college tracks. Also, explain why American universities are considered to be the best in the world while our high schools are mediocre? My mother, an ex-high school teacher hated the atmosphere since her job was mostly to control the class and found it difficult to teach anything. However, she went to become a math professor and did not have the same problems she did with high school students. So not only does requiring students to be in high school cause disruptions in class which makes learning difficult, but it also causes competent teachers to leave the system.

C4: "This is absurd. A completely free society is a chaotic one. Everyone would do whatever they'd like and commit crimes, with no punishment involved" "You yourself said prison, military, and school are where freedom of speech is severely hindered. This is untrue"

This rebuttal is absurd, since it assumes that this resolution creates a chaotic society. Murder, rape trespassing, slander, and stealing will still be illegal. The bases of which society's laws are based on are "social contract" which states that the government should be designed to protect our rights that would be infringed upon in anarchy (ex: life and property). As far as I'm concerned, I do not see how not going to school is harming anyone else in the world.
Also freedom of speech in school is prohibited if it is offensive, disruptive, or impairs the educational mission. For example, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier issues in the school newspaper could not address teen pregnancy or divorce. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Rebuttals
R1: "1. High school has a huge benefit. High school is the bridge to college."

Contentions 1 and 2 basically talk about this and I do not want to repeat myself. However, I will note that I did not say that high school does not have a benefit, but it doesn't benefit everyone, and thus should not be mandatory.

R2: 2. "High school is the first step to your career job. Due to all the subjects involved in this type of school, 16 year olds begin to see they enjoy a particular subject, for example math. That leads to college, where the young adult begins to try a degree in that very subject."

The top paying undergraduate degrees are in engineering, physics, computer science and economics. http://www.payscale.com.... With the exception of physics, these subjects are not required in high school, and engineering classes are rarely even offered in high school. Also note how at the very bottom of the list: English, Literature, and Humanities, core subjects in high school, are lower paying salaries. Also note that the cores are also taught from K-8, so that one can develop an interest in them at a younger age. I also do not understand why one cannot discover their passion on their own, rather than have school discover them for you. If one truly enjoys something, it should not require school for someone to pursuit or find their passion. I find this method a lot better than cramming the material down their throats (this is an expression, not a literate meaning) and stressing people out with exams and annoying projects, thus ruining one's joy for the subject.

For example, I used to hate writing persuasive essays in high school. However, after learning about the rules of logic and logic fallacies in my spare time, I became interested in debates. However, I still became unsatisfied since I learned that persuasive writing offers no option for someone to make a rebuttal and if debating with somebody, the person will rarely accept defeat and ends with bad conduct, ending in no real winners. However, at debate.org I can enter a non-hostile environment, where good conduct is required, people can give feedback on debating, and I can enter into challenging debates that make me think. It is through this, not from high school, that I learn to enjoy debating, which can result in me becoming a lawyer, lobbyist or politician.
XStrikeX

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

Refutations

"Rather they either provide goods or services that benefit society, find ways to reduce prices of goods or services, or fund the two... Also, those that provide goods and services that benefit society, also receive money for themselves, so these people have self-interest to go to either high school or college."

It would seem that my opponent completely agrees with me here. People who graduate from high school continue on to college to pursue an academic subject they enjoy. Then they graduate from college or learn a large amount of knowledge and then start their career. To get a job, you must attend high school. No one hires a 14 or 15 year old fresh from middle school. There must be very little experience or intelligence in that person if he drops out of school after middle school. My opponent has let up on this point, so I must say that one of my most solid arguments is that going to high school later benefits society.

"In my opening topic I did not state that high school is not useful. I stated that high school should not be mandatory."

So since it is useful, shouldn't it be mandatory? I don't understand the argument here.

"Jobs like janitors, construction workers, drivers, garbage collectors, mailman and cashiers do not have to learn this information. Even service industry jobs such as chiefs, hair/nail stylists, actors, entertainers and musicians still do not have to learn this information."

This is wrong. Just because you think someone isn't going to make it far in life, we should simply abandon them? And just let them fail in society? In high school, there are things you learn about government such as social security, Medicaid, and other important subjects. Imagine if a large amount of our world was run by eighth grade graduates. They simply do not understand enough about the economy, international relations, and society to run government. In America, people vote for who they want as the president. What if these people vote for the most ignorant candidate? And he eventually becomes our president? We need to have these people go to high school so that they can learn about society and so they can live comfortably on their own. As I previously stated, no one would offer a job to a middle school graduate. So all those occupations you previously listed, won't exist because no one is hiring an eighth grader.

"Why would dropping out of school lead to a life of crime?"

How else do you make money? Without education, you will do bad things to get money. No one hires a middle schooler.

"Should I help somebody go to the Justin Bieber concert, if one does not want to go to it? Should I help someone to have sex, if one does not want to have sex? Should I help someone go to school who doesn't want to?"

Yes, indeed, you should. Because there is a benefit in that action. There is not benefit in taking someone to a horrible Justin Bieber (shudder) concert and the second inappropriate action doesn't do anything at all. That's rape, which is illegal.

"If you take notice here: http://4brevard.com...... notice that the countries that perform better than the United States at the very least have a division in high school, between vocational school and preparation for college tracks. Also, explain why American universities are considered to be the best in the world while our high schools are mediocre?"

This is very interesting. Because, in that exact website, when you look under "Causes for Failure," you will find the answer. How peculiar that it says that "the biggest deficits are found at the middle school level." That's the school right before high school! The greatest weakness is at middle school. You even said that countries that perform better HAVE a division in high school. So high school clearly is important to do well in education. Why the US has the best universities but poor high schools is irrelevant to this topic.

"This rebuttal is absurd, since it assumes that this resolution creates a chaotic society. Murder, rape trespassing, slander, and stealing will still be illegal."

Let me remind you what I had refuted. I refuted the idea that school infringes on the freedom of others. There are many things in society that infringe upon the freedom of people. So should we eliminate all these things because of lack of freedom? No, because then people could do whatever they want and they can commit crimes and most people will. Don't laws restrict freedom? I guess they do, so we should eliminate them! No, that's the completely wrong idea. Why not get rid of school completely because it restricts freedom? My main refutation is that just because something restricts an amount of freedom doesn't mean you should get rid of it. School is not a jail sentence, it is a privilege to go to school.

"As far as I'm concerned, I do not see how not going to school is harming anyone else in the world."

As far as I'm concerned, I do not see how going to school will harm anyone in the world. And plus, you get the benefits, too.

"I also do not understand why one cannot discover their passion on their own, rather than have school discover them for you."

Do you see American children running around with textbooks on their free time? No, we have schools to teach children because children would not want to learn things themselves and would rather just play a video game or have fun with friends. High school is mandatory for the exact same reason. School is there to help someone realize that they enjoy a particular subject. Without school, do you think we would have engineers, physicists, or government officials? Not at all. K-8 subjects are simply the pre-form of bigger topics such as physics and engineering. Without math, you wouldn't understand any of this. Without history, you can't understand government very well.

"I also do not understand why one cannot discover their passion on their own, rather than have school discover them for you. If one truly enjoys something, it should not require school for someone to pursuit or find their passion."

One will not find the answer by him/herself. No one truly enjoys studying, especially for the first time. School helps people learn something they enjoy and in college, they can invest more time in.

My response to your last paragraph:
Persuasive essays are much like debating. You're trying to make convincing arguments. I don't see the difference between a debate in real life to a debate.org one. Good conduct is required in real life and online in debates. It's odd that you cite yourself and your mother.

Arguments

Going to high school helps the average American's earnings. According to "By the Numbers," the average hourly earnings of an American high school drop out decreased from about $13 to about $10. However, since the 1970s, it has been found that those who earned an advanced degree received an increase of 20% in earnings. If you go to high school and then move onto college instead of dropping out, you will receive benefits, namely money, and everyone loves money [1].

Benefits of high school:
1. Reasonable education
2. A job
3. More money (from job)
4. More informed about society and know how government works

What I am arguing is that high school is beneficial to people and therefore, students should attend.

Source:
1. http://www.boisestate.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
darkkermit

Pro

I will add a contention, which really isn't new, but wasn't made clear in C1 and C2, so it is contention 5 (also a rebuttal on CON's 1st and some of 2nd argument in round 1):
C5) Not everyone benefits from education.

Rebutting CON's first argument/Proof of C5) "People who graduate from high school continue on to college to pursue an academic subject they enjoy."

This is not the point. People who perform well in academics will pursue a high school education, not because it is mandatory, but because it will benefit him or her. Even if it was possible that everyone benefits from high school then everyone would go to high school, even if it was not mandatory so there's no point of making it mandatory in the first place. It's like making a law that requires everyone to eat. We do not make rules or laws that require everyone to eat food, since eating food benefit.

However, there are many reasons not to pursue to pursue a high school education. The person might has job opportunities (ex: A rising actor/actress or musician that does not have time to pursue a high school education), wants to focus on other job skills not offered in high school, wants a simpler life, or finds school to be difficult. CON makes the fallacy of composition: "What is good for the part is good for the whole". Rather high school does not benefit everyone, only those that wish to pursue a job that requires book smarts.
"Just because you think someone isn't going to make it far in life, we should simply abandon them?"
This seems to be an appeal to emotion. It is only failing in society because you think it is failing in society. Maybe someone would rather be a janitor working an easy job than work in a stressful job that he or she hates. And even if everyone had a doctorate degree, someone would still have to be a janitor.

"you will receive benefits, namely money, and everyone loves money"

Then how do you explain how a song that says "f*** your money" is highly liked song with over 4 million views?[2]

Proof of C3) "This is very interesting. Because, in that exact website, when you look under "Causes for Failure," you will find the answer…….."

It's a big contrast that US high schools are far worse than US universities. One reason US universities are better is because they are optional. So what if middle schools are also weak as well? How does that invalidate my claim in anyway? This is just a red herring argument. Yes those that have a division in high school perform better, which is why I stated "CURRENT high school should not be mandatory". High schools in the United States do not have this division. The source stated that a major problem is that there are not enough science high school teachers that have a good background in science. An atmosphere without disruptive students who do not want to learn, paying these teachers more and a smaller supply of teachers will cause a larger percentile of high school teachers to have a better background in science.

Proof of C4) "There are many things in society that infringe upon the freedom of people. So should we eliminate all these things because of lack of freedom?"

Only because these things infringe upon other people's freedoms or harms others. Again education does neither. A society that infringes upon many freedoms for unnecessary reason is a tyrant.

"Yes, indeed, you should. Because there is a benefit in that action. There is not benefit in taking someone to a horrible Justin Bieber (shudder) concert and the second inappropriate action doesn't do anything at all."

However sex and music both have benefits. People are even willing to pay to see a Justin Bieber concert or pay for sex. [3][4]. However forcing someone to do either one of these actions would be a serious infringement on one's rights, just like making school mandatory.

"As far as I'm concerned, I do not see how going to school will harm anyone in the world"

Over Six hours of having your speaking privileges revoked, doing stuff when you would rather be doing other stuff might be considered harmful to some.

Rebuttal of second argument of CON from round 1)
"How else do you make money? Without education, you will do bad things to get money. No one hires a middle schooler."
Only if you're basing things on age, not education, since there are child labor laws. However there though there are still jobs around. For example child actors, babysitters, caddies, lawn mowers, etc. As one's age increases one can get higher paying jobs (with added job experience to the resume). I did list the various jobs one can receive without a high school diploma (ex: construction worker, driver, hair stylist, entertainer, chef) which there will always be a demand for, so yes people are willing to hire those without a high school education. It is true that statistically (although not a deciding factor) those without an education are more likely to commit crimes. However even if everyone had a PhD, jobs that do not require an education (or a traditional education) will still exist and someone will have to take these job. There will always be jobs that pay better than others, creating income inequality, creating those with less envious of the rich style, creating one reason for crime. Also, based on your logic actually, why not require everyone to get a doctorate since those with doctorate degrees live a more "successful" life?
Also there are other factors besides poverty that causes crime. Drug addiction, heredity, gender, peers, and parenting also play much larger roles. [5]The point is you can't pre-determine whether one will be a criminal or not just by their education level alone.

"Do you see American children running around with textbooks on their free time?......... children would not want to learn things themselves"

Do you see an industry that profits off of selling non-fiction books? Yes. How do "math camps" or "science camps" exist if only these schools can show people subjects he/she will enjoys? How do museums exist if nobody is willing to learn themselves? How many people exist that have ONLY learned information from school? Very few, if any. People are naturally curious and want to explore, so it would be natural for people to stumble across a field they enjoy. There are people who build things or computer whizzes who learn about computer for their own interest and go on to become future engineers or computer scientists. Even for the video game enthusiastic, maybe he/she might find it interesting to make a game like this, and thus the person created an interest in computer science. And as I stated before, most subjects in school are not geared towards helping one find a career, since most careers require one to know other information not taught in high school.

Rebuttal of a new argument from CON)

"In America, people vote for who they want as the president. What if these people vote for the most ignorant candidate? And he eventually becomes our president?"

The less educated make up a smaller voting population. [6] Since money contributions are very important for elections, those with the most money have a larger impact on who wins an election.
From Wikipedia: "One of the most important aspects of the major American political campaign is the ability to raise large sums of money, especially early on in the race." [7]
It should not be difficult for someone to determine if someone is an ignorant president (especially since negative campaigning would make an ignorant president clearly visible). Even very educated people have different political views on abortion, military action, social security, drug criminalization or gun rights, so even the educated do not know the overall the best policy.
The government could actually use education for propaganda purposes causing people to make ill-based choices.

"It's odd that you cite yourself and your mother."
Do you consider these personal experiences invalid sources?
XStrikeX

Con

I thank my opponent for his response as we near the end.
I have noticed my opponent has placed his sources in the comments due to lack of characters. I'm not quite sure that is legal, but I suppose the audience can decide on that. I will move on to my refutations now.

Refutations

"Even if it was possible that everyone benefits from high school then everyone would go to high school, even if it was not mandatory so there's no point of making it mandatory in the first place."

There are many teenagers who are lazy and would rather hang out with friends. We need to force them to go to school so they can benefit from it. They can learn new things and become educated members of society, rather than people who have very little knowledge about the world, government, economy, and society.

"The person might has job opportunities (ex: A rising actor/actress or musician that does not have time to pursue a high school education), wants to focus on other job skills not offered in high school, wants a simpler life, or finds school to be difficult."

Job opportunities? High school has extra classes such as drama or music. What about colleges such as Julliard that have been known to produce excellent musicians? What about Purchase College that was ranked top in the US for its acting and drama curriculum? You must go to high school in order to move onto college and if you want to be the best at something, you have to go to high school. Hence, more benefits come from high school instead of dropping out before.

"Maybe someone would rather be a janitor working an easy job than work in a stressful job that he or she hates. And even if everyone had a doctorate degree, someone would still have to be a janitor."

Seriously, who would prefer to be a janitor? It's a horrible, smelly job with low pay. I'm sure everyone wants to be employed at a higher level and make more money. It may be true that there still will be janitors, but don't you feel you accomplished something after passing high school and possibly college? You must have learned things from all those years that make you an educated member of society, unlike some other people.

"Then how do you explain how a song that says "f*** your money" is highly liked song with over 4 million views?"

How can you refute a point by using a song? The reason why it is consistently viewed is probably due to the opinion that it is a good song. My opponent has not refuted this argument substantially enough and so, if you graduate from high school, you will make more money.

"It's a big contrast that US high schools are far worse than US universities. One reason US universities are better is because they are optional."

How does that make any sense at all? You never clearly stated the reason why an option helps people perform better. Please clarify this argument.

"So what if middle schools are also weak as well? How does that invalidate my claim in anyway?"

Here is the reason why. Middle school is mandatory. PRO has stated that schools do better when they are optional. Those who don't want to go to high school drop out after middle school, but middle school provides poor education. They will be uneducated and need to learn more before they can live on their own and handle responsibilities with money and family.

"Only because these things infringe upon other people's freedoms or harms others. Again education does neither. A society that infringes upon many freedoms for unnecessary reason is a tyrant."

So this argument is no longer valid, seeing as you said education does not infringe upon freedom or harm others. So, school does not hurt people in any way.

"However forcing someone to do either one of these actions would be a serious infringement on one's rights, just like making school mandatory."

First off, you never stated any benefit of forcing someone to a horrible Justin Bieber concert and you never stated benefits for rape. There is no benefit. School has benefit, you must agree with me. You learn new things and you can live on your own with reasonable pay and a good job. Our forefathers wanted us to go to school and learn so our society wouldn't become ignorant.

"Over Six hours of having your speaking privileges revoked, doing stuff when you would rather be doing other stuff might be considered harmful to some."

Over six hours of peaceful learning and fun on the playground and seeing and making friends is not punishment. My opponent has already gone back on his point that privileges are revoked or infringed upon two refutations ago.

"However there though there are still jobs around. For example child actors, babysitters, caddies, lawn mowers, etc."

And have you not noticed there are very few child actors and kid caddies and babysitters don't make a lot of money nor lawn mowers as a kid?

"As one's age increases one can get higher paying jobs."

No, one cannot. If you look at someone's application and it says middle school graduate, would you ever be hired to become, say, a businessman? Never.

"I did list the various jobs one can receive without a high school diploma (ex: construction worker, driver, hair stylist, entertainer, chef)..."

If you want to become a top-notch chef, you go to special colleges. Hair stylists as well. Construction workers need high school diplomas [1]. Entertainers need to go to school if they want to make a living. Sure, taxi cab drivers don't need education except a driving education, but don't you see many people begging to be taxi drivers do you? Everyone wants to be successful in life. Those who can't focus get those jobs, not because they want to. You see taxi drivers waiting in long lines to pick people up, but no one wants a ride.

"Do you see an industry that profits off of selling non-fiction books? Yes."

Those are because of schools. Schools buy the books, get children interested, and then children take it on their own. School is very important for this reason.

"People are naturally curious and want to explore, so it would be natural for people to stumble across a field they enjoy."

Without school, children would never even have heard of certain subjects. High school broadens that expanse even more to other fields of knowledge that children enjoy. People only take interest after they've heard of something. Museums exist because children become interested in something, say space, after school. Math camps and science camps exist because children want to broaden their skills, or maybe their parents want them to.

"The less educated make up a smaller voting population."

There will be a larger, uneducated voting population when people decide to drop out of optional high school.
Uneducated people (especially middle school children) would not know about subjects such as abortion, the military, social security, and gun rights. How would a middle school educated adult know who to vote for?

"Do you consider these personal experiences invalid sources?"

Well, yes, due to the fact that a personal experience can be changed just to suit the bill, so to speak, or to fit your argument.

Arguments

1. High school has benefits.
2. Educated people come out of high school.
3. High school people move to college who help society with new technology.
4. Educated people can take over government unlike others.
5. Middle school education is not enough to help society and the world.

I await my opponent's response.

Source:
1. http://www.bls.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
darkkermit

Pro

Thanks to CON for a great debate.

A summary of my arguments below for the final round.

C1: It will free up economic resources.
CON does not deny that not making high school mandatory will free up economic resources. He has also yet to show how those that those with a job that does not require formal education will benefit from a high school education. Even those jobs that "require" a high school diploma, can use the equivalent GED instead, which is simply just a test that does not require four years of schooling. Thus mandatory high school wastes both the tax payer's resources (taxes could be used for other sources) and the student's (he/she could spend his/her time doing something else).

C2: Most necessary information is taught through K-8
CON has never denied that a person with a K-8 education cannot function properly in the United States. However, CON does not think someone with a K-8 education can get. However, I have shown numerous jobs that do not require a high school diploma which I have explained, and can be found here [1] and here [2]. CON does not find those jobs to be "good" jobs which are subjective. However, they do exist and will still exist even if everyone had a PhD, which CON has not denied. CON has argued that those that are not educated will not be able to vote "properly". However, since voting is not mandatory, therefore voting is not "necessary".

C3: It will improve high school education
CON has not really made a good rebuttal against this but instead has used red herring arguments (Ex; Stating that middle school education is a problem). He states that my reasoning is poor, but I will explain my reasoning as clear as possible:
(a)High school students who do not want to learn do the following: cause disruptions, do not listen, skip school and/or do not study. These disruptions cause high school teachers to focus more on controlling these students then actually teaching. Also, since these students do not listen or study, the teacher is forced to go over material at a slower and "dumb down" the curriculum so these students will pass.
(b)High school teachers do not like these students. This is something that has been observed (Teachers complain constantly complain about them and for rational reasons). So here's what these teachers do, they quit. Therefore, by requiring these students that do not want education to stay, you are lowering the supply of competent teachers.
(c)Less students, means fewer teachers. Less teachers means the proportion of unqualified teachers can be reduced. Since the demand for science teachers with an undergraduate degree in science far exceeds the supply, by reducing the supply, this shortage can be reduced or eliminated.
(d)If there are fewer students that do not want a high school education, then high school teachers could get paid more, since less disruptive students would cut cost of education, especially for disciplinary actions. Paying teachers more would increase the supply of qualified teacher.
(e)The actions described above have been observed in other countries.
Likewise CON has not provided any alternative theories why college education is much better in the united states than high school education, despite the main difference between high school and college education in the US is that one is mandatory (for the most part) while the other is not.

C4: Mandatory high school education directly infringes on the freedom of others
CON does not deny this statement. However CON believes that some freedom should be infringed, even though social contract theory states that freedoms should only be infringed if it infringes on others rights. CON does not disagree with social contract theory yet making high school mandatory is a direct violation of social contract theory since not going to high school does not infringe on the rights of others.
My opponent also agrees that forcing someone to go to a Justin Bieber concert or have sex is immoral. However like education
(a)Sex and music have their benefit, as cited earlier
(b) Some people are willing to even pay for it, so there's obviously a benefit
Yet, like education, it does not benefit everyone, and infringes on other's right. CON also uses an appeal to emotion, that our forefather would want us all to have an education, with no substance to support that claim.

Now my opponent's main arguments:

"1. High school has benefits."
A.It does not benefit everyone
This has been my opponent's number one assertion in the debate. My opponent appears to believe that everybody loves money and that nobody wants a job working as either a driver or a janitor. However there is:
(a) A whole anti-consumer movement, cited, so not everybody loves money, or at the very least do not want a stressful job. This is more than enough evidence that not everyone likes money. Lyrics also an important part of a song (why else have lyrics in the first place) and Papa Roach's message of rejecting consumerism is clear.
(b)Notice the occupation with the highest suicide. Not the janitor, but medical doctors, the highest educated and paid occupation.
http://www.edubook.com...
(c)As stated in contention 1, high school does not benefit everyone, since not everyone obtains a job that involves traditional education. CON has yet to prove that every job requires a high school diploma and that these jobs will still exist even after college. CON states that there are schools that there are colleges that offer music programs and actor programs, yet most of the famous actor/actresses and musicians do not attend these programs.
Clearly it does not benefit everyone.
B.If it benefits someone, he/she can enter voluntarily.
Also, CON believes that if school benefits us, then people will not voluntarily enter. I reject this premise since it is illogical. Even if a person makes the decision to not attend high school the person can make the following thought process, and return to high school.
Thought process:
(a)I either cannot find a job or hate my job
(b)If I get an education, I can find a job or get a new job
(c)Person gets a high school degree
Also notice how after high school, many people enter higher education or college even though it is not required.

"2. You will find a subject that you will enjoy in high school which leads to college"
Also, CON believes that it is through high school education that you will discover subjects, learn to enjoy these subjects, and this will lead to a job. I reject the notation. These subjects are already taught from K-8, many subjects for certain jobs are not taught or required in high school. I also have given many examples of how one can develop an interest in a career without the aid of high school. Also, notice how in Round 3, CON keeps on stating "children" would never have heard of these subjects, "children" become interested in something. High school students are TEENAGERS, not children. If high school students become interested in these subjects before high school, then this argument is negated.

"3. More informed about society and know how government works"
CON states that the uneducated will not know how to vote "properly". However, the ill-informed will not care about voting, bad politicians will be exposed through negative campaigning, and it is not difficult to go on the internet and do a web search to learn terms you do not understand. If one knows how to read and write, then one can educate himself/herself about matters not learned in school.
One does not have to learn everything from school, because he or she can find help guides or do a web search for information he/she needs to know. Even those with college educations do not know everything about how everything works so he/she can look up information him or herself.

[1]http://www.ehow.com...
[2]http://careerplanning.about.com...
XStrikeX

Con

I thank my opponent for this great debate.
I will refute all of my opponent's points and conclude the basis of my main argument.

Refutation of Pro Arguments

"It will free up economic resources."

No, I will disagree with this. High schools produce intelligent young adults that move on to college where they further continue their studies. These studies encourage them to perhaps create a new invention, one beneficial to society. What if the next economics major solves future economic crises? What if a government student creates international peace and peaceful relations between the US and the Middle East? This certainly could happen, and high school to college students have changed the world. You need to attend high school to attend college and future stars could be made. My opponent has cited that the jobs that require a high school diploma can take the GED to prove their worth. However, the General Education Development Test is for ages 18 and older [1]. And that is for a reason. Generally, 18 year olds are high school graduates. You require that specific knowledge to pass the test. Passing the test means that you will receive "the California High School Equivalency Certificate." According to my opponent's argument, why not just eliminate school entirely if it "wastes" taxpayers' money? Because school IS beneficial. For people's lives, job, and for society. Not only will society be helped, but it will also become more intelligent if people continue to high school.

"Most necessary information is taught through K-8."

I do deny this. Most necessary information is certainly not taught from kindergarten through the eighth grade. People cannot function properly with an eighth grade education. You think an eighth grader can live by himself? Can he get a job? Can he save money? No, that person needs to mature. Even if he is 50, he still has the mind of an eighth grader. What about college? My opponent seems to be denying that college is a very important factor in intelligence. Since we can certainly deny that through elementary school, you don't learn enough, we only have middle school to look at. In middle school you learn basic algebra, no advanced math, grammar, relatively brief history, not necessarily "good" writing, and other skills. High school takes all those subjects to the next step and increases intelligence and knowledge of the society.

"High school students who do not want to learn do the following: cause disruptions, do not listen, skip school and/or do not study."

So that means we don't allow them to get any better. We still need them to learn things. If they don't listen and disrupt things, then they're going to do that for the rest of their life. They can't get jobs or live by themselves. School also is an essential part to teach you about how you speak to people and how you should behave. Eighth graders are certainly not mature enough. We need to teach them that maturity so they can succeed in life, socially and educationally.

"High school teachers do not like these students. This is something that has been observed (Teachers complain constantly complain about them and for rational reasons). So here's what these teachers do, they quit."

I have never heard of a teacher quitting due to a pesky student. If the teacher really wants the job and is smart, she would keep it. It is very hard to get a job these days and that teacher is very lucky. My opponent has never cited a source for this claim and I highly doubt it is likely.

"Less students, means fewer teachers."

But, less students in class also means fewer teachers in the future. We need teachers to teach everybody, even if they are good or bad. To be a teacher, you need to pass certification requirements. It's not as easy as you think to be an official teacher. Most are required to have a bachelor's degree from college [2]. And the only way to get that is to go to high school and graduate.

"If there are fewer students that do not want a high school education, then high school teachers could get paid more, since less disruptive students would cut cost of education."

How does this make sense? Why do disruptive students cut the cost of education? My opponent has never explained this so this argument can be ignored.

"The actions described above have been observed in other countries."

My opponent has supported this claim by stating that college education is better in the US than high school because high school is mandatory and college is optional. Just because something is mandatory does not mean it is worse than an optional thing. For example, in China, middle school is mandatory. I am not sure about high school. But, this mandatory middle school education has been proven to be better than middle school education in the US. However, it is proven that the US has the best colleges, whereas Chinese education goes down. Both are optional. But different scenarios happen. Certainly, there must be a real reason.

"Mandatory high school education directly infringes on the freedom of others."

This point has already been shot down. By me and my opponent. "Only because these things infringe upon other people's freedoms or harms others. Again education does neither." Education does not infringe upon people's freedom or harm people, according to me AND my opponent. This point has been lost and should be ignored.

"It [high school] does not benefit everyone."

My opponent only focused on the money part of this. But high school makes everyone more intelligent and aware of society and our present day.

"Notice the occupation with the highest suicide. Not the janitor, but medical doctors, the highest educated and paid occupation."

This is due to stress. What's important about this? There are other less stressful jobs that require college degrees that make a good amount of money.

"If it benefits someone, he/she can enter voluntarily."

It's beneficial to everyone and lazy kids won't realize it. They'll just ditch school. We should keep it mandatory because it IS beneficial to their intelligence as I have proven.

"Also, CON believes that it is through high school education that you will discover subjects, learn to enjoy these subjects, and this will lead to a job. I reject the notation."

High school students choose which classes they take. If they get interested before, then they'll go farther. High school curriculum takes it farther and sparks interest in newer topics.

"One does not have to learn everything from school, because he or she can find help guides or do a web search for information he/she needs to know."

You can't learn everything from a "help guide." In school, you have real scenarios with real people. It's more effective. You learn how to function in society, take care of yourself, and you become informed of the real world.

Main Argument/Conclusion

High school is beneficial to EVERYONE. High school will teach all teenagers important material and how to live their lives. You can get only get jobs with a high school/college degree, not a middle school one. They will make money and live on their own comfortably. High school encourages people to go to college and thus, new technology can be developed by intelligent people. My opponent's argument that it will help the economy, improve high school education, main information is already taught, and that it will infringe upon freedom have been refuted. School teaches students how to behave in society and how to behave well to each other. High school is a critical and essential part of every student's career and life. For these reasons, high school should stay mandatory. Please vote PRO!

Sources:
1. http://www.cde.ca.gov...
2. http://www.teacherscount.org...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xxslasherxx2 1 year ago
xxslasherxx2
I agree that high school education shouldnt be mandatory... Elementary and Middle school should be because you need at least some education but high school isnt necessary and with the SATs and College prep and your ACR's and even entry exams its to tough and i believe is education was a choice and not something your forced to do, more kids would show up and the schools would save money... i go pro for this
Posted by Switchlapse 2 years ago
Switchlapse
Why not let if fly?????
Posted by TheAlmighty 3 years ago
TheAlmighty
Heh heh, Max is winning a debate.
Posted by Rodriguez47 3 years ago
Rodriguez47
For a more successful school system we need to re-enable tracking (specifying & organizing students through test scores; such as 90-100% get to be in a class because they seem to learn at a faster pace then the lower scores.) Currently considered discriminating which i find to be larger B.S. than an the actual Bull. If you prove you can't handle moving at such a pace then be with people in which is you pace.

Just my Opinion.

And yes school MUST be mandatory. Adolescents nowadays are too stupid to decide for themselves.
Posted by darkkermit 3 years ago
darkkermit
Wow, not only are you willing to debate stalk me, but your still on that Marda?
Posted by Marda 3 years ago
Marda
u should not debate this man he uses ninja trickery to win
Posted by darkkermit 3 years ago
darkkermit
Hey sorry I ran out of room for posting sources but here they are.:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]
[3]http://www.webmd.com...
[4]http://www.askmen.com...
[5] http://law.jrank.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've seen this done before so I don't think this invalid, although I'm sorry if your not supposed to. I ended up having to cut my arguments by over 500 words and was having trouble getting rid of more words.
Posted by Natalija 3 years ago
Natalija
Here you have mandatory elementary/primary school (8 years long) and after that everyone who wants to continue education have to pass entry exam (2 subjects - Serbian language and Maths) for high school. There is two types of high school, Gymnasium (Grammar school; I found this definition in dictionary so I hope you understand) and vocational schools. After Gymnasium you have to go to University (you can't do anything only with Gymnasium, except cleaning toilets) but after vocational school which can be 3 or 4 years long you can find job and you can also go to University... For University again you have to pass entry exam... All this schools are free...
Posted by darkkermit 3 years ago
darkkermit
Yea, I looked at your country's education system on wikipedia. It states it has vocational schools but without the option of continuing education. In America, vocational schools are rare (especially in smaller communities) at the high school level and there are no entry exams in high school (a person could in theory take higher level classes even if he/she were not very bright). I actually took mostly average classes (college prep) in the beginning of high school, but ending up taking mostly Advanced placement courses my last year of high school (classes that counted for college credit, considered the most difficult classes in high school).

It's usually either after someone either drops out of high school or finishes high school that hey enter a vocational school (called continuing education, a lot of them exist w/ a lot of TV advertisement too).
Posted by Natalija 3 years ago
Natalija
In my country high school is not mandatory but almost everyone is going in high school because it's very hard to find job with elementary/primary school...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by iholland95 2 years ago
iholland95
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Palin2012 3 years ago
Palin2012
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 3 years ago
XStrikeX
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Quollgirl 3 years ago
Quollgirl
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Abreil 3 years ago
Abreil
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by maya.earl 3 years ago
maya.earl
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by shadow835 3 years ago
shadow835
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Zealotical 3 years ago
Zealotical
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by debatefreak22 3 years ago
debatefreak22
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 3 years ago
Rodriguez47
darkkermitXStrikeXTied
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 
Research this debate: United States