The Instigator
dvhoose
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
Bricheze
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Education should be a privilege, not a right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 13 votes the winner is...
Bricheze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 43,915 times Debate No: 6562
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (63)
Votes (13)

 

dvhoose

Pro

Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment and thank my opponent, whoever he/she should be, and I wish you the best of luck.

With that said, my position is pretty simple: I believe that the "free and public education" all Americans have a right to should become a privilege instead of a right.

Article XII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) states that:

"Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.

Likewise every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society.

The right to an education includes the right to equality of opportunity in every case, in accordance with natural talents, merit and the desire to utilize the resources that the state or the community is in a position to provide.

Every person has the right to receive, free, at least a primary education."

However, education has become a mandate. Don't go to school and see how long it takes before a truant officer comes knocking. Education is the only "right" like that. If I don't exercise my right to free speech, nothing happens to me, but if I choose not to go to school, my parents get a fine? Does that seem consistent?

I'd also like to call attention to the atmosphere in schools. A large portion of time is spent dealing with students who don't want to attend school, keeping them focused, on task, and in line. With several teachers as family members, I know that there are certain students teachers wish wouldn't show up to school, simply because they're a distraction and nothing ever gets done when they're around. Being a student, I know several others who wish not only to be out of school (does anyone actually love school?) but wish to disrupt everything they can. If I have to go to school, I might as well get something out of it.

It's no secret that America doesn't do as well academically as, say, Japan (and I'm not advocating that the U.S. do anything as severe as the Japanese do). Not to say that the Japanese don't have bad students and America doesn't have good students, but overall, Japan has a better education system that America does. By making education a privilege instead of a right, schools eliminate the distractions, allowing a curriculum to become more advanced, which, in turn, leads to a more intelligent population to those who make an effort to stay involved in the school system.

Parental involvement will also increase with a penalty for failing to make the mark. If a parent realizes that their child won't be able to do much without an education that doesn't have to exist, pressure will come from parents for their children to excel. Suddenly, the child/student isn't always right. There may actually be some merit to what a teacher has to say, contrary to today's belief. The "entitlement generation" believes that everything should just be given to them because they're "perfect", a fact which simply isn't true and promotes the further lack of education in our society.

The fine details of when students would begin to be analyzed for the continuation of their studies (or lack thereof) shouldn't play a role in this debate, as the debate is only over whether this is a good idea or not.

My major arguments this round, then, are:
1) Education has become a mandate
2) Many students take education for granted
3) This leads to a regression in society
4) Parents will get involved when education has the potential to be taken away
5) Making education a privilege will solve many of the problems with the education system
6) This debate is only on whether this is a good idea or not.

With that, I'll open this up to my opponent, but first, a quick word to the judges.

I ask that you vote purely upon the credentials of the debate, and not on personal opinion. I ask that you leave any personal knowledge out of your reason for judging. Finally, when deciding who you will vote for, if you could leave a reason for decision in the comment section, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

For these reasons, you can Affirm.
Bricheze

Con

Should schooling, at least to a certain degree, be mandatory?

Yes, it should. Let me explain why.

As it stands, in most states, you are required to attend school until the age of 16. Either then simply giving young people basic knowledge, there are other reasons for schooling:

1. Younger children, mostly coming from broken homes, do not understand the importance of an education. Their parents often do not care to explain the weight of a decision to quit school at an early age and if they drop out of school in an early age, or never go in the first place, it will never be explained to them and they will not understand until it is far to late and they are stuck working in a drive through for the rest of their lives.

Even most younger children coming from good homes will not understand what an education will do for them in the future and until they are old enough to understand, they should be kept in school. Think about it, when you were a child, did you understand that without school you would probably end up in a dead-end job?

Most children think school is a boring place the parents send them and that they would so much rather be home playing video games and hanging out with their friends. They don't know that schooling is muchly needed, and without parents to force them to go or to explain to them why to go, many children would be doomed to drop out and never return.

2. Schools are used to discover abuse. Children who are abused are most often discovered by their schools. If they are allowed to drop out or even forced to drop out by their abusive parents, how many child abuse cases would go undiscovered?

3. A basic understanding of morals and discipline is taught by the schools. Without this, the crime rate will surely go up. If a family doesn't teach their children and the school isn't allowed to teach the children, many more children will grow up without an understanding of discipline and what is right or wrong. Without basic moral belief, many children are doomed to a life of crime and a psychopathic personality. It is important to have schools teach children this, so they can grow up to be good American citizens.

4. It is selfish to force children who do not understand why an education is important out of school before they are capable of understanding. Just because they are disturbing you now, it does not mean they won't grow up to be more responsible and understanding. And if they still dislike school at age 16, they can drop out.

On to my opponents arguments:

"1) Education has become a mandate"

Yes it has, and it is important that education is mandated to at least a certain age. So that way we can be certain the students at hand understand why education is important.

"2) Many students take education for granted"

This is true and it is because many students don't understand the importance of an education quite yet. It is selfish to say 'That kid is annoying, we should kick him out because he is young, foolish, doesn't understand the importance of education, and is disturbing my studies'

What you lack in understanding is that children are just not capable of making the decision to drop out or to be kicked out yet. It isn't until they are older that they are able to do this with an understanding of the repercussions. As far as the argument that goes, 'Disturbances should be removed, no matter the age' I know of many children that acted out in grade school and even Jr. High, that calmed down as they grew older, and become very intellectual students winning scholarships and completing college.

"3) This leads to a regression in society"

The reason why other societies are more advanced in education, is because they have much stricter rules. I highly doubt your or I would be capable of performing up to their level of expectation. Most students spend all of their time in school or studying, otherwise they can not possibly pass the difficult curriculum, their families can not afford their education and they are forced to drop out because of a lack in funds, many incredibly smart students are forced to drop out based on their yearly testing, and the competition is steep. You not only have to be willing to work incredibly hard, you must also be born into a family that values education and holds enough funds to send you to the basics of education, and you have to be born with gifted intelligence. Although the economy might seem better in other countries, their lifestyles and education systems are much more difficult. Do you truly want an education system similar to this, where only the very bright, lucky, and rich succeed?

This education system is also why other countries are less advanced. They have many capable people that never finished school, who do mind numbing jobs instead of jobs that they could of done (Science, research, etc.) and so they use their masses of unintellegent no longer capable people to do grunt work to make imports for the US. they have job shortages in many important fields, such as medically and scientifically. They might have a good economy, but most people are poor and their is a larger space between the rich and the poor then there is here.

So is it true that other countries do better academically then us? Well, it is true that the few students that make it through the education systems tend to have much more knowledge then our students, it isn't true that their education system is better. You see, they grant a few lucky students a pass, and then give the majority a fail, while we give the majority a pass, and a few idiotic students a fail.

You do realize, that currently, the US is dominant in the world, correct? This might have something to do with our education system...

"4) Parents will get involved when education has the potential to be taken away"

Not if the parents never cared in the first place. Then intelligent and capable children will be wasted. In fact it might even promote parents to care even less about their children, if they no longer believe their child has any future, why should they care about feeding, clothing, and giving them a safe place to stay?

"5) Making education a privilege will solve many of the problems with the education system"

And it will cause many more problems. It will allow children to do far more poorly then they ever would have done if they would have been allowed to continue their education, it will force capable but, not very bright children out of an education, it will allow for more things like child abuse to occur, and it will allow for some very capable and bright children to be left behind.

Your saying that we should switch out the problem of 'disturbances' with the problem of 'children being left behind'

"6) This debate is only on whether this is a good idea or not."

It isn't.
Debate Round No. 1
dvhoose

Pro

Thank you, Bricheze, for accepting my debate, and I'm truly impressed by the speech. Very well thought out!

On to my opponent's arguments:

1. I understand that younger children don't understand the importance of an education, but it's never been said that younger children would be the ones being kicked out. Although maybe parents don't explain these things now, they would certainly become paramount if the possibility existed for a child to be removed from school. It would be explained, and the child would understand. Who honestly wants to see their child fail?

I have been fortunate to have parents that weren't born into the best of situations, but who wouldn't accept that as a disability and fought their way through school, getting degrees in college, and becoming the wonderful role models they are for me today. I wish everyone had that opportunity, but I know not everyone does.

2. Child abuse is a great point, however, breaking free from such a situation would be plenty of motivation to excel through school. If they wish to drop out, thus submitting themselves to more abuse, I guess that's their decision, though I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would do that. And no child-abusing parent would pull their kid out of school. School is a free day-care for them. That's the attitude I want to change. School is so much more than that.

3. Morals are, in part, taught by schools. But should they be? Why isn't it the parent's responsibility to teach right from wrong? Why should schools have to regress into teaching right and wrong instead of teaching us what we actually attend school to do? I'm sorry if I seem so repetitive, but it's this attitude that school's should do everything that causes the problems. Schools have become a second set of parents.

Look back into the past (this isn't an accurate timeline, it just demonstrates my point). Originally, students brought their own lunch to school. Then schools started serving lunch. Then schools started breakfast. Then (some) schools started serving snacks after school. Finally, there is a school program that allows students who meet certain criteria to receive food on Friday afternoon to last them through the weekend. Isn't that sad? What is the role of a parent anymore if the school is just going to do all of this? We can't continue to reinforce these bad habits and continue to teach students that they can rely upon the school to take care of everything for them when they have kids.

4. It's not selfish. I'm not talking about kicking a student out for knocking somebody's books on the floor. It's the kids who make F's year after year. The student's whose only goal is to see how many people they can make laugh in a day. The student who can't wait for the day they turn 16 so they can drop out. The kids who actually cause problems and take the focus away from school, and what it's about.

To defend my own case:

1) Obviously by the time a student is in high school, if they haven't gotten the picture, it's just not gonna happen. Why should our school continue to shell out money for students who aren't going to do anything. They won't get involved, they come to school, cause as many disruptions as possible, and leave. What are they going to do in our society? Those who wish to regress shouldn't be allowed to restrain those who wish to go further. My idea just takes honor's classes or AP classes to a higher level, really.

2) Using the high school student as an example again, if they don't know why they need an education, they should be allowed/forced out of the program. If they don't want it, they don't have to have it. Eventually, they'll see the error in their ways and guess what they're children will do... focus and study and be productive. Versus the current alternative, this student drops out, and when they have children, they simply continue the cycle.

3) And my idea proposes stricter rules, not to the extent that other countries do, they might be a little too strict. I believe students need free time, just not the seven hours they're supposed to be attentive in school. Our government would continue to educate those that wish to be educated, which leaves more funds for federal grants for college. I want an education system where anyone who wants to can succeed. If you want the education, it's all yours. Take as much as you want! An "all you can eat" buffet of education, for a little analogy.

As for the US being dominant, I'll agree to an extent. But how does super-power status tie into the education system?

4) If the parents never cared in the first place, then nothing changes. Under the current system, if parents don't care, the child ends up not caring, which leads to more children not caring... you see the vicious cycle. Under my proposed system, if the parents don't care, then the child either fails or they understand the situation and doesn't get sucked in. I guess I live under a delusion that parents are supposed to want a better life for their child? That parents want their children to have a better life than they did? Should the child fail under parents that don't care, any child they have will care, and so will the next generation, and the next one, and so on.

If you'd like to put it as heartless as "leaving children behind" then yes... but it's more motivation than anything. Those who are going to drop out or do nothing after high school, in my mind, shouldn't bother wasting everyone's time. The plan serves as an incentive to those who straddle the fence, giving them the motivation they need to buckle down and make a good life for themselves.

6) Seeing as there are several aspects that would need major fine tuning, there's no way to actually debate such a policy. I'm proposing a complete 180 of the current system; it's not feasible to create the policy. At best it'd be a rough framework, hence a debate on the idea, not the policy. You've tried to make it a debate on the policy, which has never been laid out.

To extend my case:

I. Failing school isn't an immediate "death sentence". Look at people like Bill Gates who dropped out of high school. I'd say he makes a pretty good life for not having a diploma. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, while deceased, had a pretty good, successful idea, but never received an education. Ideas aren't limited to those with educations, but I won't deny that an education is beneficial. It is possible to succeed in this world without an education, it just become more difficult. Those who prove their dedication should be allowed to go above and beyond without being "grounded" by those who are simply looking for entertainment value.

With that I'm going to conclude my speech. I look forward to another interesting speech from my opponent.
Bricheze

Con

1. "I understand that younger children don't understand the importance of an education, but it's never been said that younger children would be the ones being kicked out..."

Actually you said yourself in the comments section that 5th graders should be at an age where they could be kicked out! You really think 10 and 11 year olds should be kicked out of school, for being 'disturbing'?

"It would be explained, and the child would understand."

No most children would not understand. That is why the drop out age is 16, because that is the age when a person can understand repercussions of having no education.

"Who honestly wants to see their child fail?"

Their are parents who torture their children, there is nothing they want to see more then failure, so they can ridicule their child.

Then there are other parents who could care less about what happens to there kid, their never home, they leave just enough food, etc.

2. "Child abuse is a great point, however, breaking free from such a situation would be plenty of motivation to excel through school."

Let's say you grew up in a home where you have been abused by your mother since you were 5. She has told you every day that she is going to kill you if you ever tell someone. Your only escape is school, but there you steal food from other students (because your mother starves you) you smell and look awful (becuase you don't ever get baths or no clothes) and you have really bad grades (because you can't do your homework) your in 5th grade and you school is kicking you out, because your teachers and class mates find you a disturbance since you stink, steal food, and your getting bad grades. Your too afraid to come forward about the abuse, so your basically screwed.

That is the kind of image your painting for several young students when you pass a law such as this.

"If they wish to drop out, thus submitting themselves to more abuse, I guess that's their decision,"

If they are kicked out, like you are suggesting they should be, they are being forced into more abuse. And if they drop out, it would only be because they can't stand the ridicule of other students.

"And no child-abusing parent would pull their kid out of school."

Perhaps they want to force them to get a job, or just work for them all day (cleaning and what not) many child abusing parents also realize their kids get food and a break at school, they want to take that away as well.

3." Morals are, in part, taught by schools. But should they be? Why isn't it the parent's responsibility to teach right from wrong?"

Because some parents aren't their to teach their children right from wrong, whether it is because they work from 7 AM to 12 PM or because they don't care some children ARE neglected, and they still have to be taught how to act civilized. It is just another way to keep our society safer.

"Schools have become a second set of parents."

Why is that a bad thing?

*opponent talks about schools feeding students*

"Isn't that sad?"

Yes, it is sad that some parents refuse to feed their children, but is it sad that their schools are saving them from starvation? Of course not.

"We can't continue to reinforce these bad habits and continue to teach students that they can rely upon the school to take care of everything for them when they have kids."

That's not what their teaching the students. They are teaching the students that while they may be neglected by their parents, someone cares about them, and they will be taken care of. Do you really want to starve these children and force them into a life of crime, by making them steal their food from stores, so they don't starve to death?

4. "The kids who actually cause problems and take the focus away from school, and what it's about."

How can you tell which child is being abused and neglected, and which is being a bully? How can you know when a child is getting straight F's because they are kept busy at home taking care of their brothers and sisters or when they are just being lazy? How can you know when I child deserves to be kicked out?

1) "Obviously by the time a student is in high school, if they haven't gotten the picture, it's just not gonna happen."

Which is why they are allowed to drop out at the age 16.

"What are they going to do in our society?"

If we don't educate them, probably a lot of crime.

2) "Using the high school student as an example again, if they don't know why they need an education, they should be allowed/forced out of the program."

They simply don't think they need an education. When they really do.

"If they don't want it, they don't have to have it."

We should still try really hard to give it to them.

Your alternatives:

New: They'll see the error in their ways and guess what they're children will do... focus and study and be productive. Current: This student drops out, and when they have children, they simply continue the cycle.

The only difference between the old and the new, is that in your new one, they can't come back, as they have been kicked out. It forces them into the current, instead of allowing them to chose.

3) "And my idea proposes stricter rules,"

Rules in which:
*Abused children are forgotten
*5th graders can be kicked out before they understand why they are being educated
* Instead of dropping out, your kicked out, and there is no coming back

"If you want the education, it's all yours. Take as much as you want! An "all you can eat" buffet of education, for a little analogy."

Once again, selfish. Instead of sharing education with kids with less privileges you want it all for yourself. Less competition, more money for your education, and no 'distractions.'

"But how does super-power status tie into the education system?"

I already explained.

4)"if parents don't care, the child ends up not caring, which leads to more children not caring..."

Unless if they go to school and learn about how they can get a good education. It's a slow process, but over time, more children will be spared this hellish lifestyle.

"if the parents don't care, then the child either fails or they understand the situation and doesn't get sucked in."

So it just makes it harder on the child, if they don't get it right away, their kicked out for good. Sounds like the opposite of a solution.

"I guess I live under a delusion that parents are supposed to want a better life for their child?"

Well you do, some parents don't.

"If you'd like to put it as heartless as "leaving children behind" then yes... but it's more motivation than anything."

Motivation or not, it is still just making it more difficult then it is now, and leaving behind more and more children over time. You say this will fix things, but all it will do is make things worse. This widens the gap between the rich and poor, takes away opportunities, and dooms so many capable children to failure.

To extend my case:

I."Failing school isn't an immediate "death sentence". Look at people like Bill Gates who dropped out of high school."

Sometimes it isn't but most time it is. Plus, you said you want to kick people out of school. When that happens it's game over.

"Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club..."

Do you know how lucky you would have to of been, how many connections you would of had to have? Once again, your just taking away opportunities from others, to keep them for more 'focused' kids like yourself. Selfish.

"It is possible to succeed in this world without an education, it just become more difficult."

So your making it more difficult to get an education, increasing the competition for success without an education, and making it nearly impossible to do well at all, unless if you come from a good home.

Kicking children out of school is not the solution. Keeping them in school, giving them hope, working with them, and giving everyone a chance, that is the solution.
Debate Round No. 2
dvhoose

Pro

1. You keep trying to trivialize my point of view. I'm not saying that students who get a detention should be expelled. I'm saying students that prove year after year that they want no part of being in school, who try to ensure that the entire class gets as little done as possible, who make it that much harder for students to get into college because valuable class time was wasted and now the class doesn't know as much as it should.

I'm talking about a societal change... If it came down to the realization that somebody could actually not have the opportunity to receive and education, and education would be highly encouraged and people would understand. You bring up 16 being the drop out age because that's when people understand repercussions. At 16, don't you think most people understand that, say, drinking has some negative effects? Why is the legal drinking age 21? And smoking. Sophomores in high school understand that smoking is bad, yet the smoking age is 18.

2. Then for these parents who torture/neglect their children, aren't these children being taught that the abuse is okay? Why should we continue the cycle? What do you believe the grades look like of children who suffer abuse? If they believe their life is horrible, the thought of not having school as a safe haven would allow them to realize that they really need to kick it in gear and get something done.

There's a difference between not making the grade because you choose not to try, and because you don't understand. Those who don't do as well, but are there after school trying to understand, who ask questions in class, who work extremely hard at trying to "get it", who make an effort... they're not being targeted, they wouldn't feel any repercussions. It's those who try to drag a class down that my idea tries to help.

Luckily, I've never been in a position where abuse was ever something I had to worry about. However, there are some smart people in this world, somebody's bound to notice. There are ways to anonymously tell SRS that you're being abused, and SRS will ensure that a child won't be submitted to more abuse because paperwork got filed. I can only imagine what that would be like, and I realize it's easy for me to say, but I would be doing whatever it took to get out of that situation.

Being forced into more abuse is the exact reason they wouldn't be kicked out of school. They would realize that "maybe life at school isn't much fun, but it's so much worse at home. I want to stay in school as long as possible!"

Child labor laws exist so that children don't have to get jobs, actually can't get jobs, until about 14 or 15. And should a child die from lack of food or excessive beating, the blood is on their parents hands, and that's not something an abusive parent wants to go through.

Situations of child abuse happen today, and they'll continue to happen as long as this apathy is allowed to continue.

3. If a parent couldn't be there or was going to be abusive and neglectful of their child, it seems to me like they shouldn't have had a child. Once again, the system has taught parents that a school will take care of their problems. School's being a second set of parents is a bad thing because it limits what can get done. If we have to spend half an hour explaining to Johnny why it's wrong to hit people instead of learning our colors, then next year we don't know our colors, so instead of learning to read, we learn our colors. You can see how big this gap gets at the end of 13 years of schooling.

Exactly, "it is sad that some parents refuse to feed their children". Parents need to assume some responsibility and actually take an interest in their child.

If the students feel like the school cares about them, why don't they take an interest in it? Why don't they latch onto it as their one true friend? No I don't want these children to starve and become criminals; I want them to take an interest in their future and be the best they can be, to get involved and completely unleash their potential.

It's not too hard to see when somebody is actually making an effort or not. Plus, school counselors have enormous amounts of information pertaining to students. Simply starting up a conversation with someone, and continuing that conversation, is enough to figure out what someone's about and why they are the person they are.

1) 16 is either a sophomore or a junior depending on birthday. I'd argue (and am arguing) that the realization happens sooner, and would happen even sooner if people realized that an education didn't have to wait on them.

When you say they will do a lot of crime if we don't educate them, why does it matter if they don't learn anything up until 5th grade, or don't learn anything up until 10th grade? To the person refusing education, why does it matter when they stop attending if they aren't going to pull anything out of school anyway?

2) And if they don't think they need an education, how are they going to get one by simply going to school? They have to be active and participate. They have to do their homework. They have to focus, and study, and appreciate it. How is simply showing up going to do anything for them? It's not! And that's why they choose to do absolutely nothing and slow the whole class down. Trying "really hard to give it to them" is proving futile, something needs to change.

Forcing them into the current? They made a conscience decision to still refuse their education... that sounds like they made a choice to me.

Rules in which:
* Abused children embrace school and make a better life for themselves
* Children understand the value of an education sooner
* Should someone be kicked out and realize their errors, they could still get a high-school equivalency diploma.

I'm not being selfish... how is promoting the value of an education being selfish? It's like teenagers don't recognize the value of a dollar until they start working, some students, i don't think, understand the value of an education. Because it's always going to be there for them (under the current system)

4) If it's true that children are learning about the importance of a good education, why do we continue to have problems?

You argue that my idea makes things more difficult, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. From a short term perspective, things might, key word might, get a little rough, but from a long term perspective, everything will work out and the U.S. will be even better. It doesn't widen the gap between rich and poor, it raises the standard of living across the whole nation. When people realize that an education is something to be treasured, they'll embrace it and excel through school. They'll become intelligent, rational people who will go to college and get good paying jobs. Jobs that they can use to provide a better lifestyle for the next generation, which will do the same in turn.

I. It's not game over. High school equivalency would still exist. All that happens is students are allowed to go deeper and further while in school than ever before

I wouldn't consider it luck, but having connections would help that process along. All that had to happen was somebody had to have a good idea and run with it. I'm not taking opportunities away from anyone unless they demonstrate that they don't want they opportunity being given to them. By that same logic, a sales person should just follow people around all day until finally the person buys their product. It's borderline harassment!

More difficult? Acquisition of education stays the same. As long as you want to take what's being offered, you can have it. You don't have to come from a good home to succeed. Those who come from "bad" homes and succeed today don't throw their education down the drain. They can't get enough education. That doesn't change.

Right now, school doesn't seem to give people much hope. It doesn't seem like a solution to me.
Bricheze

Con

1 "I'm saying students that prove year after year that they want no part of being in school"

Students like that expelled and given a second chance at a different school. Kicking them out permanetely is simply to harsh.

"At 16, don't you think most people understand that, say, drinking has some negative effects?"

First off, that has nothing to do with this. Second off, yes, but it is still illegal because it is permanelty harmful until you are age 21.

2. "Then for these parents who torture/neglect their children, aren't these children being taught that the abuse is okay?'

Probably, does that mean we should jut give up on them, inject them with pottasium, and get rid of the problem?

"Why should we continue the cycle?"

Because abused children have done nothing wrong, and deserve a chance just like anyone else.

"What do you believe the grades look like of children who suffer abuse?"

their grades are bad. Because first off, the have many psycological problems, making it hard to study. Secondly, their parents do not buy them even basic school supplies, how can you do homework without paper or pencils? Third, abusive parents tend to fill up their children schedules with beatings and tedious tasks, giving them no time to do homework.

"It's those who try to drag a class down that my idea tries to help."

But, who is going to be the judge? It is going to destroy the students life to kick them out of school, who has the ability to make the decisions? How many students are going to be kicked out that don't deserve to be? Even destroying one life is just to much.

"Luckily, I've never been in a position where abuse was ever something I had to worry about."

So you wouldn't know what it is like.

"However, there are some smart people in this world, somebody's bound to notice."

The rate of child abuse is estimated to be 3 times greater than is reported. Sadly, many more cases go unnoticed then are reported.

(http://www.childhelp.org...)

"There are ways to anonymously tell SRS that you're being abused,"

When your a young child that has been told you will be killed if you tell someone and you don't have any clue that it will be anonymous and safe, your not going to tell anyone about the abuse.

"And SRS will ensure that a child won't be submitted to more abuse because paperwork got filed."

Actually quite often the cases can not be proved and children are sent back to their angry parents.

"I would be doing whatever it took to get out of that situation."

And it's true. You have not idea what it would be like.

"Being forced into more abuse is the exact reason they wouldn't be kicked out of school."

Unless if there is nothing they can do to improve their grades or appearences.

And should a child die from lack of food or excessive beating, the blood is on their parents hands, and that's not something an abusive parent wants to go through.

You would be surprised: "1,500 children die every year from child abuse and neglect. That is just over 4 fatalities every day."

(http://www.childhelp.org...)

"They'll continue to happen as long as this apathy is allowed to continue."

They will continue as long as you force innocent children out of school and ignore the real problems.

3. "If a parent couldn't be there or was going to be abusive and neglectful of their child, it seems to me like they shouldn't have had a child."

Well they did, and that innocent child still needs food, clothing, and a safe place to stay.

"If we have to spend half an hour explaining to Johnny why it's wrong to hit people instead of learning our colors,"
By the end of the year you have to be taught to a certain degree, that is why we have tests. And the teacher would send the student to the principles office to be scolded, not only that but if you don't tell Johnny not to hit people, he will grow up to abuse his wife, commit murder, etc.

"Parents need to assume some responsibility and actually take an interest in their child."

And if they don't, their children still need to be fed somehow. You can't punish the child, for the parents neglect. That is double the abuse.

"If the students feel like the school cares about them, why don't they take an interest in it? Why don't they latch onto it as their one true friend?"

Because they have many psycological and personality problems from being abused and neglected their entire lives. Stop punishing the children for the parents mistakes!

"It's not too hard to see when somebody is actually making an effort or not."

Unless if the child is abused, has psycological issues, doesn't quite understand yet, or if you are wrong in your assumptions and ruin a young persons life, for no reason.

1) "16 is either a sophomore or a junior depending on birthday. I'd argue (and am arguing) that the realization happens sooner, and would happen even sooner if people realized that an education didn't have to wait on them."

There are still students with the potential to understand that don't. And until their at an age where we are certain they are all in understanding we should allow them to drop out, let alone kick them out.

2) "And if they don't think they need an education, how are they going to get one by simply going to school?"

Because, we might be able to get the student to understand and to change, and we might be able to save them from a life of no education, crime, etc.

'I'm not being selfish... how is promoting the value of an education being selfish?"

Because you are saying your education is more important then other students that are coming from homes where education isn't important, where they are abused, or where many other problems make it hard for them to understand the importance of an education or where they are not able to practice their education easily.

4) If it's true that children are learning about the importance of a good education, why do we continue to have problems?

Because we continue to have bad problems. But we can't just kick the students out of school and ignore the problem. It is just going to make the problem worse.

"It doesn't widen the gap between rich and poor, it raises the standard of living across the whole nation"

No, it forces kids out of school, forcing them to be poor, and more then likely forcing their children to be poor, and then their children... and the only people who can succeed are people who are already rich or in a good home. With less competition from the more 'poor' people, it allows those lucky children to get more and more rich and have better and better families, while the other children become more and more poor, with worse and worse familes. Widening the gap. This will never be a solution.

I. "It's not game over. High school equivalency would still exist. All that happens is students are allowed to go deeper and further while in school than ever before"

Some students are allowed to go deeper, and several are kicked out forever and, for their possibility in life, it is game over.

"I wouldn't consider it luck, but having connections would help that process along"

Being born into a good home, making connections, having parents with money, it is all luck. You easily could have been born into a poor home and not care about education, you easily could be one of these kids that you think should be 'kicked out' you don't know how hard it is, unless if your in the situation.

"More difficult? Acquisition of education stays the same."

Yes, it is more difficult, if you don't get that education is important quickly, you are kicked out and you don't get a second chance. That is much harder then it is now.

"It doesn't seem like a solution to me."

To several young students school is the only solution their only chance, and you, selfishly, want to take it away.
Debate Round No. 3
dvhoose

Pro

1. Alright, so they get expelled and move on to a new school, where they get kicked out again and move on, where they get kicked out again... See the cycle?

Alcohol does relate, because it proves that people can recognize something before the law states that we can.

2. Injecting potassium? That's a little harsh! Seriously though, we shouldn't give up on them; instead, we should help them recognize that there is a better life out there and they can attain it. I keep mentioning this "apathy"; I think it plays a major role in the problems our education system has.

Right, abused children haven't done anything wrong, yet it's okay to let them grow up and abuse their children? That's doesn't seem right. We need to teach those children that they can overcome their circumstances and create a life for themselves that they only dreamed of. Becoming a hinderance to the future of our country is not the best way to fulfill their lives and potential.

Granted, the abused children have many psychological problems, but they still want to escape their situation. An education is the best way to do so, yet it's taken for granted by so many. It's like climbing a rope (if you can't climb said rope). When the rope's just there, you can't climb it. Now light the end on fire and watch. Adrenaline kicks in hard, and people can do things they never thought possible. (Not the best analogy, but you get the point) My idea simply adds a little epiphany to the system.

"Who is going to be the judge?" An excellent question, one that would have to be answered by whoever put this policy into place. If it were up to me, I'd say it should be a panel of teachers who have had the student in question, as well as administrators and counselors. But the decision wouldn't just come out of the blue. Conferences still exist, there are ways to inform parents/students of the situation at hand. It's still America, people are innocent until proven guilty.

Those are sad statistics, and you admit that there are many cases that go unnoticed. How does that get affected by either system. Child abuse still happens either way. While that sounds horrible, it's true, and the argument has no uniqueness.

If the child isn't going to tell anyone about the abuse, and it's going to go unnoticed, what can we do? Simply being at school isn't going to solve the problem, your statistics prove that. And if SRS is going to find inconclusive evidence, again what more can we do? It seems like at Catch 22 to me.

But they can improve their grades. They can ask questions, ensure they understand what's going on. Depending on where you go to school, homework doesn't usually start happening until about 4th or 5th grade. Understanding and grasping concepts is enough to get through.

Again, according to your statistics, 3 out of those 4 daily fatalities are children 4 and under, who don't go to school. Your statistics also state that abuse happens across all socio-economic levels, in every race, every education level, every religion, every culture, etc. Also, if you look at the graph, deaths from child abuse have been on the rise from '01-'03 (no data is provided from '03-'08). I ask my opponent why this is? *I encourage the voters to look at my opponents source*

3. I agree that the child needs food, clothing, and shelter. How would they attain this? Through a good education that isn't being provided for them due to apathy.

True, we shouldn't punish the children if it isn't the child's fault. But to an extent, it is. It's not like the children don't understand education. Teachers continually preach about college and needing good grades and good study habits.

We all have problems, maybe not to the extent that abused children do, but they still exist. It's human nature to latch on to those who accept us and make us feel safe. If school is truly their safe haven, these students would be up early just to get to school and escape their problems. They might even try to manufacture reasons to stay late. Human nature is to get away from danger. Fight or flight. So unless abusive parents have found a way to reprogram the human mind...

If a child is abused and/or has psych issues, they can still make an effort to understand. Like I've said before, asking questions is a great sign of attentiveness and proves effort. Children understand, and usually understand things a lot faster than adults. Why do children have hype for their first day of school? It's something exciting and new, and as a society, we build the need for an education early.

1) There's technically the possibility that people of any age don't understand something they are supposed to. 700,000 seniors graduate "unable to read their high school diploma"
http://www.efmoody.com...
Obviously, the system had a breakdown, and nothing was done about it. Why do Americans settle for this? I wish I knew the answer.

2) "We might be able to get the student to understand and to change". That's only a might. By the same token, we might not be able to. It's like pearls before swine. Will people eventually see the error in their ways? Hopefully. Is it worth "dumbing down" our nation's students while we wait and see? I don't think so.

You've targeted one specific group of people and used it as the cornerstone of your arguments, to the point where you're calling me selfish at least once a round. What about the kids that come from decent homes, yet see school as a huge waste of time? You're overlooking so many other groups of people. I honestly don't see myself as selfish, whether that's naive of me or not. Either way, you don't know who I am and I don't see how you're entitled to make that judgement on me. I don't see how wanting everyone to value an education and live to their fullest potential is selfish of me. If everyone appreciated their education, that would create more competition... not less.

3) I asked "Why do we continue to have problems" and got the answer "Because we continue to have bad problems". So we have problems, and will continue to have problems, but that's no reason to try something different. "If you always do what you've always done, then you'll always get what you've always got(ten)." So evaluate the system. Is this something you want to continue? Continue the abuse, the apathy, the feeling that schools will do whatever those who choose not to care for their child won't do?

This idea doesn't widen the gap at all! Abuse happens equally to everyone regardless of anything! http://www.childhelp.org...
What it does is place an emphasis on education that hasn't been seen in 50 years. It encourages college by changing societal norms. It's synonymous to the Scarlet Letters of the olden days. You put a negative connotation on people who don't have an education, and people will ensure they get an education!

I would bet most students would be allowed to go deeper, but we really won't know unless this idea was put into place. Our opinions really don't matter on the demographics of schools should schools implement this idea.

Okay, granted, I could have been born to anybody on the planet, but why should there be homes that don't care about education? I think we both agree that education is vital. Yet other people shun this belief? Why should we allow this mindset to continue?

Getting an education won't get any harder because if society teaches that educations are necessary, that will reflect on children. Why do you think alcohol companies target young people in advertisements (and cigarette companies when they were allowed to [Joe Camel])? Because if they portray their product as one that allows people to have fun, youth will get ahold of it.

Once again, I'm selfish, according to my opponent. If school is their only solution, they have no reason to shun it. Yet contrary to popular opinion, they do and they end up dropping out of school, continuing the cycle
Bricheze

Con

1. "Alright, so they get expelled and move on to a new school, where they get kicked out again and move on, where they get kicked out again... See the cycle?"

Well, some kids might fall into that cycle, before dropping out when they turn 16, but there are still other kids that realize they made mistakes the first time they were expelled and then turn it around in their new school. As apposed to just being kicked out of school in general, it gives kids a second chance.

"because it proves that people can recognize something before the law states that we can."

First off, alchohal and education are completely different, and you can not say 'he knew that drugs were bad, therefore he knows education is good.' that just doesn't make sense! And second there will still be some 15 and 16 year olds that don't understand that education is needed and their lives are going to be really hard without

2. "Seriously though, we shouldn't give up on them; instead, we should help them recognize that there is a better life out there and they can attain it."

Your the one that is saying we should just give up on them. Kick them out of school and forget about them, so you can get a better education.

"We need to teach those children that they can overcome their circumstances and create a life for themselves that they only dreamed of. Becoming a hinderance to the future of our country is not the best way to fulfill their lives and potential."

Which is what I have been saying this entire time! You have been saying, that we should just kick them out of school and forget about them, tell them that they will be permanetly expelled from school in general unless if they can change and sense they can't kicking them out, you are the one who has been trying to decrease their chances of doing well. How can we teach them anything, if we are just kicking them out and forgetting about them, how is ignoring the problem a solution in any way?

"Granted, the abused children have many psychological problems, but they still want to escape their situation"

And they don't know that they can! Their parents tell them it's legal, and if they tell someone they will just be punished. They believe them because they are the only ones telling them. Not only that, but you can not prove statistics wrong, 3 times the amount of reported cases go unnoticed.

"An education is the best way to do so,"

And you want to take education away from them?

"It's like climbing a rope (if you can't climb said rope). When the rope's just there, you can't climb it. Now light the end on fire and watch."

Some children still can't climb the rope, even when it is lit. Some don't realize there is a fire. And some don't realize the fire is so dangerous and life changing. And then some just give up and jump off the rope, when they had the ability to finish if they hadn't been pushed so hard by the flames licking at their heels.

You can't forget about these children, you can not let them fall through the cracks, when it is possible to save them from failure.

"It's still America, people are innocent until proven guilty."

And some people are sill innocent when proven guilty.

"How does that get affected by either system."

In the current system, abused children wouldn't be kicked out of the school. They would have a better chance of getting discovered going to a school. They would also get the break of going to school and possibly stealing food or receiving food from the school so they don't starve.

In your system, it is very likely abused children would be permenetly kicked out of school (Lack of homework, poor heigene, and stealing food, are all common in abused children). This would up the abuse at home (angrier parents) and make it nearly impossible for anyone to ever detect the abuse (They are forgotten, locked inside their homes all day, no one will likely realize they still exist after the school system has kicked them out).

"If the child isn't going to tell anyone about the abuse, and it's going to go unnoticed, what can we do? Simply being at school isn't going to solve the problem, your statistics prove that."

My statistics proved that child abuse is bad now (you were trying to disprove this) and your system would make it much much worse and would provide the opposite of a solution.

"But they can improve their grades. They can ask questions, ensure they understand what's going on. Depending on where you go to school, homework doesn't usually start happening until about 4th or 5th grade"

Right about when you want to start kicking kids out, remember? If your kicked out of school in 5th grade your just as screwed as if you had been kicked out in 1st grade.

"Understanding and grasping concepts is enough to get through."

Until 5th grade, when you would be kicked out because that is when homework starts becoming a major portion of school.

You still don't prove that in your system child abuse will find a better solution. I sill prove that abuse will get worse.

3. "I agree that the child needs food, clothing, and shelter. How would they attain this?"

You were arguing earlier that school should not be feeding neglected children. And you also want to kick them out from school, and remove them from their only shelter of their abusive parents.

"True, we shouldn't punish the children if it isn't the child's fault. But to an extent, it is."

It's the child's fault they were born into a broken home. It is the child's fault they are abused day after day. It is the child's fault they have problems understanding education because of their abuse and neglect. It is the child's fault? Really, that's what your saying? Becuase all of this is 'their fault' we should destroy any chance of a good life they have by removing their right to an education?

"So unless abusive parents have found a way to reprogram the human mind..."

They have! If you have never felt love from your parents, your entire life since the day you were born you have been told something, anything, you will believe it. Abusive parents don't 'reprogram' the human mind they program it. They instill so much fear in their children, they easily control them. These kids don't have regular human nature, they are completely different then any normal child.

1) "Obviously, the system had a breakdown, and nothing was done about it."

Yes this system is not perfect, and yes something needs to be done about it, but your solution does the opposite of fix it, it makes it worse. The system needs to be changed, but not in the way you want to change it.

"You've targeted one specific group of people and used it as the cornerstone of your arguments"

Because abused children are the biggest problem in your 'solution.'

"What about the kids that come from decent homes, yet see school as a huge waste of time? "

Perhaps kicking them out of school would be beneficial (even though I still don't believe it will). Just because there are gigantic holes in this solution you have come up with, it doesn't mean it is without some benefit. It's just the negative side effects from it far far out weight the positive. I have simply been focusing on the giant holes.

:3) I asked "Why do we continue to have problems" and got the answer "Because we continue to have bad problems".

lol sorry, I have this brain problem where I switch out words on accident when I'm speaking and writing ;P I met 'bad parents'

"This idea doesn't widen the gap at all!"

I think I have proved it will adequetly widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

"Why should we allow this mindset to continue?"

We shouldn't, but kicking these families kids out of school and forgetting about the problem is not going to fix it.

"They end up dropping out of school, continuing the cycle"

And in your system they still drop out, but now even more are kicked out, to continue the cycle.
Debate Round No. 4
dvhoose

Pro

1. So those kids who would continue the cycle wouldn't change regardless of the policy, and those who would realize they made mistakes would turn things around when they realize that the opportunity for them to attend a different school isn't a reality. If you take the average person and tell them they have one shot at something, they'll try to keep that shot.

I'm not saying that just because people know drugs are bad they know education is good. I'm simply making the point that most people are capable of realizing important decisions before the law states they should be. As for those 15 and 16 year olds that don't understand the necessity of education aren't doing anything in school anyway! They aren't pulling anything out of it. Their lives are going to be hard with or without school.

2. I'm not giving up on them, I'm 1) giving them some motivation to do well in school and 2) not wasting time on those who won't see education as important.

I'm not going on one giant "expel crusade". Kids aren't just going to be kicked out for a detention. That'd be like giving someone a death sentence for speeding; it just doesn't make sense. The ones kicked out are going to be repeat offenders who severely disrupt class and garner no knowledge from the tirade of days they spend there. Those who refuse to realize what an education will do. I'm not ignoring a problem, I'm attacking it from a new angle, trying to reform society to love education the same way they hated cigarettes.

That's why society would press education on people. The system would encourage an education. Let's take a minute and look at your statistics again, shall we? 4 people die every day from child abuse. 3 of them are under the age of four (so the school system can't help them). You said SRS dismisses lots of cases. Assume a majority of those are school-age children that got reported by teachers/friends/counselors. Three times this number don't even get reported. How effective is the current system? Why is it a bad thing to put a heavy emphasis on education and let people know that they can overcome whatever background they came from?

I don't want to take an education away from anyone. Do you think criminal judges enjoy giving life sentences? No. The punishment exists in the hopes that the negative effects nullify any positive gain. Same here. Being expelled exists as a deterrent to being worthless in school. Are people going to be expelled? Yes. Are more people going to be harmed under the new scenario? No. And here's why: There exist three types of people in the school system. Those who value education, those who don't, and those who can see long term benefits, but can't see any benefit now. Those who value education will be fine. Those who don't would be expelled/reap no benefit from the system as is. Assume the "iffy" group will split 50/50. Under the new system, the "iffy" group will move to a majority understanding the value of an education. More people graduate, more people go to college, more people become productive members of society.

Society will ensure that people understand the value of an education, and that life won't be great without one. Imagine peer pressure on a national scale. And those who give up would give up regardless of what system is in place.

Nobody is kicked out, granted. But you said for every case that gets discovered, three don't! The negative impact on abused children, looking at things on a nationwide basis, is minimal. I know that sounds cold and mean, but really think about that for a minute. These abused children go to school and STILL don't get noticed? Their parents don't care what kind of education they receive! So bring in the new system and allow society and the school system to open their eyes. That's all I ask.

75% of child abuse goes unnoticed, and the current system gives them 7 hours to escape that... Why do they shun it? Even if they sit at the back of the class, silent, and just absorb info they're making the right choice. Yet many don't, because they have no motivation. The system will accept them for eternity.

"If your kicked out of school in 5th grade your just as screwed as if you had been kicked out in 1st grade." I particularly like this quote from my opponent. I'll counter with if you're kicked out of school in 12th grade, you're just as screwed as if you had been kicked out in 5th grade. Either way, you get kicked out because you refuse to accept the schooling our government provides.

I don't know how homework works elsewhere, but where I come from, the penalty for not doing your homework in 5th grade was the loss of a candy bar at the end of the month... It's not a vital role.

3. I'm arguing that schools shouldn't HAVE to feed neglected children, because there shouldn't BE any neglected children. Give them a reason to excel in school, they'll press that importance upon their children, and a new, better, cycle emerges.

No, it's the child's fault for not embracing the one place they can feel safe.

Humans are still animals, we're all born with basic instinct. Babies will cry seconds after birth. They have a natural inclination to suck, so as to get food and as a pacifying method. Fight or flight happens to be one of those, and most abused children are too afraid to fight, so they should "flight" to school and get a good education, but they don't.

1) Picture a rubik's cube. Imagine four faces are solved, but the other two are crazy. You have to mess up the other four faces and trust that you can solve the whole cube. Worst comes to worst, you can get back to the four solved faces. "Don't let the fear of striking out keep you from playing the game"

If abused children are the biggest problem in my solution, and the current system does hardly anything to stop it now (between not catching 75% of cases, and dismissing many of those that do get caught), then my solution can't do much harm and can only do good.

3) Why should we settle for having bad parents? That's a good enough reason? I think society should try to stop bad parental behavior. We can do this easily by placing a stigma against those without an education. It'd only take 10-15 years, which isn't that much time considering how long people fought for Emancipation or Enfranchisement...

I have proven it won't widen the gap! Overall it leads to a heightened standard of living.

We shouldn't allow this mindset to continue, and the way to stop it is to emphasize and encourage education, exactly what my idea does.

Finally my system won't see more dropouts but less, as that "iffy" group I mentioned earlier will move to the side of those who value education. Those that don't will fail either way.

This being my last round, I'd like to finish off with a few thoughts.

* Thank you Bricheze, it's been a great debate!
* I apologize for the rather lengthy debate. I understand it's difficult to get through, but some great ideas/counter-ideas have been presented.
* Please judge only on the content of the debate, not on your personal preference!
* If you would leave a Reason For Decision in the comment section with constructive criticism, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thank you to everyone involved, and I hope to see you vote PRO.
Bricheze

Con

1. "If you take the average person and tell them they have one shot at something, they'll try to keep that shot."

If you tell a person who currently doesn't think it matters if they get an education they have one shot at it, they aren't going to try and they are going to be kicked out. Later on, they will wish they had realized it, but it will be to late and they won't be allowed to try again. This system will decrease the amount of people who graduate and over time widen the gaps between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, effectively declining our education system.

"I'm simply making the point that most people are capable of realizing important decisions before the law states they should be."

Except there will still be 15 year old students who don't quite understand yet and who are capable of understanding still; kids that we could still save from a life of heart ache, pain, and crime. Your system just wants to kick them out and give up on them.

"Their lives are going to be hard with or without school."

Yes, their lives will be hard either way, just much harder without school.

"1) giving them some motivation to do well in school"

Your giving some motivation, your telling others to just give up. Your making it more difficult in a way that make education less plausible for more and more under privileged children.

"2) not wasting time on those who won't see education as important."

I don't see it as 'wasting time' when we are saving so many childrens lives by spending time on them and giving them an education. Children that come from broken homes are going to be harder to educate, but they are not impossible to educate, and as long as we are capable of saving them; we should.

"Those who refuse to realize what an education will do."

But these problems you want to 'attack' might not need to just be kicked out. They might need to be confronted and shown a different way. They might be able to be saved and we are capable of saving them. It isn't going to fix problems by just ignoring them (and yes even when they are the toughest problems, it still counts as ignoring them) Many of these young adults aren't 'refusing to realize' they have just not understood quite yet.

"I don't want to take an education away from anyone."

Yes you do, you want to take away the right to an education from people. Whether or not you believe they deserve to have it taken away, still doesn't mean that you aren't taking it away from people.

"The punishment exists in the hopes that the negative effects nullify any positive gain."

It won't though. That's the problem, these kids aren't guilty of anything more then coming from homes where education is not prioritized. They are taught this and they need to be taught that an education is important; not just kicked out of the school system and forgotten. How can permanently expelling naive students from all schools going to solve anything?

"More people graduate, more people go to college, more people become productive members of society."

And even more people are left behind, kicked out, and forgotten. The kids that 'don't care about their education' are capable of doing really well in school, and since we are capable of helping them do this, we should.

"Assume the "iffy" group will split 50/50. Under the new system, the "iffy" group will move to a majority understanding the value of an education."

They probably won't and you really can't guess that they will. Your just making this up, if more pressure is pushed on a student who is already doing poorly, are they going to give up because it is to much work and now they might be kicked out anyways, or are they going to start trying even harder? It seems to me like more would choose the first one.

And once again you are leaving out naive students who come from broken homes and abused children who can't do the work and wouldn't meet the qualifications you are asking them to meet. These children deserve a chance and this education system completely strips them of that chance.

"And those who give up would give up regardless of what system is in place."

Once again, in the current system students drop out on their own. In your system, they would still drop out on their own but, even more would be kicked out. This would undoubtedly increase the amount of students who do not graduate.

"The negative impact on abused children, looking at things on a nationwide basis, is minimal."

If one child is saved from a life of abuse by their school, it's worth it.

"So bring in the new system and allow society and the school system to open their eyes. That's all I ask."

And when their eyes stay closely shut so many children will go unnoticed, so many capable young people will be forgotten and left behind.

All I ask is for everyone to be given second chances. An education decides the rest of their life. Without one they will surely fail and with one they could succeed. The only way to increase everyone's life style is to increase the amount of high school graduates we have over time. The system your proposing will surely decrease the amount of graduates we will have, I have clearly shown that.

"These abused children go to school and STILL don't get noticed?"

Sometimes they don't but, quite often they do. They will never get noticed if they are kicked out and locked up in their homes all day, but by going to a school, at least they have a chance.

"Why do they shun it?"

When did we ever come to the conclusion abused children shunned school? They would be kicked out, based on this system, because of their lack of hygiene, poor homework, and doing things like stealing food so they don't starve. But, do abused children 'shun' school more often then non-abused children? No.

"Either way, you get kicked out because you refuse to accept the schooling our government provides."

Or because you didn't understand the importance of an education when you were kicked out and you weren't allowed a second chance.

"It's not a vital role."

By middle school it becomes a vital role (this was originally about abused children not having the ability to complete their homework) abused children still won't be doing homework in middle school and they will still be getting bad grades, and they will be kicked out. In fact, they would most likely get bad grades from fifth grade on as well and be kicked out rather quickly, since they would never do homework and becuase of their psycological problems, they would have a tough time studying in class.

"I'm arguing that schools shouldn't HAVE to feed neglected children, because there shouldn't BE any neglected children."

But, there still ARE abused children and they still HAVE to be fed.

"so they should "flight" to school and get a good education, but they don't."

Correct, because they are to afraid to do ANYTHING. They are to afraid to fight or flight. So they just have to take the abuse until they are discovered. And in your system, they would be unable to get an education.

then my solution can't do much harm and can only do good."

How does that make any since,your basically saying 'well it's pretty bad now, I don't suspect it will get any worse...' how can it not get worse? Your forcing abused children out of school because they would fit the criteria of 'non-caring students.' Out of school abused children would most likely never get discovered. If your system halts the discovery of one abused child, it is officially not worth it.

Your system will have the same amount of drop outs, and even more students who are forcibly kicked out, this would undoubtedly increase the amount of students who do not graduate, and make the current education system worse.

These students who are now kicked out and dropped out, would increase in the next generation of non-graduaters, and then increase in the next... this will widen the gap.
Debate Round No. 5
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bricheze 5 years ago
Bricheze
Ranghar, I wasn't talking to you at all.

"Pushing kids harder with positive words and motivation is going to keep them in school."

You aren't pushing them harder with positivity, you are pushing them out with 'work harder or you will be kicked out.'

"I don't think it's the school's job to feed students"

The students have to be fed somehow! I really can't believe you are against feeding neglected children. Just because schools refuse to help them does not mean it will make their parents care anymore.

You aren't reforming society, you are ignoring the problems, and focusing on the 'good apples.' It doesn't fix anything to ignore these kids, it just makes the problem worse overtime, and generates more and more bad seeded kids.
Posted by dvhoose 5 years ago
dvhoose
Pushing kids harder with positive words and motivation is going to keep them in school. There's no negative pressure, unless you're considering dropping out. We'll see an increase in educated students because the positive reinforcement of education will exist thanks in large part to society.

I think every child should be given as much help as they need provided they are in favor of receiving the help, and while I would love a scholarship, I don't think it's the school's job to feed students (other than lunch). I do recognize that they need food, and I'm glad somebody picked up the slack, but reforming society, and those parents who neglect their children, is the best thing for America at this point.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"You can't just kill each student that acts up and elimanate the problem."
You're equivocating... crime vs. acting up.

"and your selfish because you don't want tax money going to starving children,"
Thank you for the complement.
:)
Posted by Bricheze 5 years ago
Bricheze
Obviously pushing kids harder is just going to push them out of school, and then your just forcing more out of school by kicking them out. Making it legal to drop out at an early age isn't going to increase the amount of educated kids we have, it will most definitely decrease it.

And I was saying you were a horrible person because you think that abused children shouldn't be given as much help as possible through their schools; and your selfish because you don't want tax money going to starving children, you want it going to your scholarships.
Posted by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
Oh no, Bricheze played the ol' broken home card. Toughen up kids. I've lived in 8 different states because of my mother drug problem. In California I was actually homeless for a period of time, and when I wasn't I was living in hotels and motels. That went on for about 2 years. I have similar stories from each state. Yet I was always at the top of my class. Don't use a hard home life for an excuse to not value eduction. If you want to get out of that life you should see a good education as an escape.
Posted by dvhoose 5 years ago
dvhoose
Bricheze, while I'll admit I'm human and therefore have some selfish tendencies, I don't think it's right or fair to call me selfish. As I stated in our debate, I'm actually being selfless in a different kind of way. The analogy seems kind of cruel here, but I'm going to use it anyway. This idea is almost Jigsaw-like (if you've ever seen saw). Jigsaw wasn't a bad person, but the world was been cruel to him and he made it a mission to better the planet...
Posted by Psalmist 5 years ago
Psalmist
Education should be a right. Now, what is considered education differs amongst different opinions. A child once born is being educated and it is expected by the terms life designates...it comes naturally for mature parents. Imagine, to enlighten a fellow human, you pose that it is a priviledge which can be considered as an option, for some, to be unobtainable? That is a shameful stance!!! History shows us that. It is a right, especially within a society which possesses much, the obligation to share it for the fair opportunity for all to have chance, should be even greater.
Posted by Bricheze 5 years ago
Bricheze
You can't just kill each student that acts up and elimanate the problem. You have to remember that these ARE people, they are just kids! Kids that grew up in broken homes with no understanding of the importance of an education.

If we just kick out these 'problem children' they will have kids with the same problems, and then those kids will have more, etc. Currently this happens with drop-outs, but your just making it worse by not only having drop-outs but even more kids that are kicked out.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"The problem of having uneducated people, unprivileged people, poor people, crime, etc."
Crime can be solved by elimination of the criminal.

The rest is a problem I only care to solve in some contexts, and in those contexts I gave that solution earlier in this comment section, a solution involving-- no taxes! ::)
Posted by Bricheze 5 years ago
Bricheze
dvhoose

"on the system teaching abuse is okay, the school's have been overly sympathetic toward the cause. "

You are a horrible, horrible, selfish person.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LoveyounoHomo 5 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 Bricheze 5 years ago
Bricheze
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 dvhoose 5 years ago
dvhoose
dvhooseBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 sydnerella 5 years ago
sydnerella
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by peace-maker 5 years ago
peace-maker
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 mastajake 5 years ago
mastajake
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 5 years ago
Rodriguez47
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 theitalianstallion 5 years ago
theitalianstallion
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by MagicalSmoke 5 years ago
MagicalSmoke
dvhooseBrichezeTied
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