The Instigator
infam0us
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points

Formal education (K-12) ought to be compulsory in the United States

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 11 votes the winner is...
alto2osu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 24,571 times Debate No: 10985
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (11)

 

infam0us

Con

I will now define terms relevant to the resolve. These definitions will be used frequently and their meaning will remain the same throughout the round. If pro thinks my definitions hinder his chance in winning this debate, than he may *offer* new ones. I expect most of this debate to rely on observation so evidence is welcome but don't expect me to hound you for it unless you claim something really outlandish.

Formal: being in accord with established forms and conventions and requirements [3]
Education: the activities of educating or instructing; activities that impart knowledge or skill [1]
Compulsory: required by rule [2]

C1: Compulsory education doesn't serve a meaningful purpose.

As defined, education should impart knowledge or skill. The only skill education has successfully imparted is obedience and the will to accept authority. This is not a meaningful purpose and is actually harmful. When these children grow up and go to get jobs, they will not be concerned about how a company/corporation/etc is being run nor if the pay they are receiving is fair. Compulsory education (CE) makes kids accept being a tool of the working machine; just a part in a soulless mechanism. After all, they are nothing but a student at a desk in school. It inspires minds to become dull and non-inquisitive by redundant work ethics and concepts. Schooling has become a rite of passage and an unjustified one at that: "it's just something that everyone has to go through." It takes away one's free will and forces them to do things they'd rather not. This is not justifiable. CE fails to educate; how many people do you talk to on a daily basis that you would actually consider intelligent or interesting? Most people are not intelligent and not interested in learning. Of course, it is impossible to provide proof for this but I would hope it is self-evident. If not, how can you vouch for the intelligence of the public? CE has dissipated intelligent conversation and it is the main force behind "small talk." Teachers generally do not permit their students to speak and when they are speaking, it is generally not about anything meaningful. CE does nothing but waste precious and irrevocable time. Students aren't wondering, students aren't curious, students are bored = students are not learning and I conclude that CE is purposeless.

C2: CE only teaches superficial information.

The majority of what is learned at your average K-12 district is not meaningful. It is a given that we will use our language and some form of basic mathematics everyday. Secondary languages and advanced mathematics (including but not limited to trigonometry, calculus, algebra, etc) are superfluous. An important subject that one may overlook is history; how can one form an opinion on now if they never knew then? Parents can easily teach history to their children. After all, it's pretty common for children to espouse their parents political beliefs anyway, which are highly pertinent to history. A good example of pointless information would be learning about Huckleberry Fin or To Kill a Mockingbird. I consider both of them great books but kids simply aren't interested in them. They will retain some of the knowledge for a short while to pass the numerous quizzes and tests they will be faced with that relate to the books but it will be discarded afterward. I am not trying to devalue the importance of reading but reading books like the ones I gave examples of fail to teach anything of pragmatic value and usually just pertain to the curriculum. What does school educate you about that is a). necessary and b). couldn't be learned by yourself or taught by parents?

C3: CE hurts people trying to attain jobs.

To quote Rebecca Nelson of Mary Washington College, "Employers and graduate schools alike look at future employees' education record as a tool of measuring academic achievement, work habits and competency in a particular field. A college transcript is often the most influential document future employers have to judge potential employees by," [4]. All of the following is true. If you are tempted to argue that the resolve is about CE and not college, than you should remember that one must usually complete CE to go to college. They are dependent upon each other. Employers also rely heavily on experience (volunteering, sports, clubs, and internships) to evaluate future employees [5]. The former are all a result of compulsory education. Without CE, kids can sooner become a part of the workforce whether their position is meaningful or not. It will teach them true responsibility and provide to them a more accurate representation of the work place. It also allows greater bonding time with parents which will teach skills that are not teachable anywhere except in the house by the parents and family.

Conclusion: The resolution is negated. Compulsory education is not a necessary force in the United States as it serves no purpose (C1), teaches nothing of substance (C2), and actually hurts people in getting a job (C3).

Evidence/Sources
1,2,3: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
4: http://org.elon.edu...
5: http://www.associatedcontent.com...
alto2osu

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for posting the debate. :)

PRO CASE

1. The state has an obligation to provide all citizens with the tools necessary to cultivate a satisfactory life.

a. Education is necessary to survival. The trends of the U.S. job market are clear: specialization reigns supreme. "Menial" labor is not nearly as prevalent as it used to be. One must have at least a high school diploma, if not a college degree, to even begin to seek gainful employment. In fact, those few Americans who can find jobs without a diploma make around $400.00 per week. Those with college degrees can expect $1000.00 per week. Furthermore, those without diplomas "enjoy" an unemployment rate 6% higher than college graduates [1]. The types of employment most commonly offered to non-diploma holders all statistically pay under a given area's living wage [2]. Education is not optional for a US citizen to be successful.

b. The state has both a contractual obligation to & a vested interest in educating its citizens. Consider social contract theory, which is arguably the fundamental basis of our Constitution and much of our auxiliary political ideology. If we can establish that education is necessary for each citizen to have, then the state must provide that education. Truancy and other educational laws seek to ensure that all citizens are offered facilities and faculty to provide such an education. At that point, students with diplomas will be able to seek employment or a college degree, as I stated in my subpoint A (in fact, high school graduates are now far more likely than past decades to seek that college degree [1]). Since the key to a successful state is successful citizens (as this puts less strain on socialistic programs like welfare and directly contributes to overall economic health and stability), the state has a clear interest in helping as many citizens as possible to well-paying, stable employment.

c. Compulsion is the only way to ensure that all children have equal access to education. Without things like truancy laws, the poorest and most underserved students in the nation would be the ones to suffer without an education. Certainly, parents have the right to remove their child from public school for homeschooling or alternative educational environments. However, the concept of compulsion has always included such opt-outs. Making education non-compulsory, therefore, will only hurt those students who the state currently assists in making it to school. This enables those underserved students access to the education necessary to quit their sphere of poverty or abuse. Furthermore, educational research clearly links institutional structure and its safety to the success of at-risk students [5].

2. Education is a valuable and fundamental part of any culture.

a. Education reform is giving rise to valid curricula and instructional methods via the standards movement. Over the past decade or so, educational researchers have come to the overwhelming consensus that building unified goals, keeping in mind the most important parts of education, is the best way to ensure that all schools in the nation are being held accountable for student learning [3]. Though this movement is still comparatively young, it has already led to educational standards in all 50 states that are based on the most current educational philosophy. Oregon represents a perfect example of the standards movement in action. OAKS state tests in each subject area are revisited every year, as are the educational standards. Tests are adaptive, and consistently attempt to avoid the biases that standardized tests are often accused of containing. As an administrator of the OAKS exams in two different subject areas and a teacher who is required to employ Oregon's CIM educational standards [4] in her curriculum, I feel confident in vouching for their educational integrity.

b. Public education is far more than just curricula. On the surface, education looks like the content standards I outlined above; it looks like science, math, English, social studies, etc. However, rarely are cognitive thinking skills, life skills, and social skills discussed as additional benefits. However, these are essential to positive citizenship in our representative democracy. Citizens must be self-sufficient, able to interact with a highly diverse society, and prepared to actively participate in their own governance. A public education is the most successful way to accomplish these goals.

[1] http://www.bls.gov...
[2] http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu...
[3] http://www.sonoma.edu...
[4] http://web1.ode.state.or.us...
[5] http://www.focusas.com...

CON CASE

C1:

1. This entire argument tends to be based on, as my opponent points out, warrantless assertions. Even on an individual level, I object to the notion that my classes are like this.
2. The problems he is describing are never linked specifically to "CE." In fact, a number of nations that are out-competing the US in education all have CE, and none of those nations exhibit the same harms. He establishes no causation.
3. Cross-apply my 2A. The education system is poised for a change, and the educational theory of the past few years specifically and universally advocates a constructive teaching model, which is specifically student-centered. Nearly all future educators in the nation and any teacher that has graduated in the last 5 years knows and uses the constructive model.

C2:

1. Cross-apply my 2A. In the link I provide, you can find hundreds of educational standards for the state of Oregon alone that specifically require all teachers in that state to impart cognitive thinking skills to their students through curriculum.
2. If parents want to homeschool their children, then a compulsory model won't stop them from doing so. The US has this infrastructure in place right now.
3. Cross-apply my 2B. Though I would argue that general knowledge of the world is absolutely necessary in order to enrich cognitive development, school isn't just about the subjects taught. Those subjects are only a gateway.
4. Cross-apply my 1C. Mandatory school attendance laws are the only reason the state is obligated to give underserved children an education at all.

C3:

1. Going to high school does not stop a student from getting a job and gaining this experience.
2. Becoming part of the workforce without a diploma is nearly impossible, and if one does, he or she will not be able to survive, most likely. Cross-apply my 1A and all the data. Unless my opponent can also claim to change the entire structure of the American workforce, he's S.O.L.
3. Cross-apply my 1C. These underserved students, without the structure of CE, are most likely not going to have an education, since they don't have parents to guide them and/or resources at their disposal for education. These are provided right now by the sta
Debate Round No. 1
infam0us

Con

Pro Argument 1A

Con response: I basically concur with everything posted in this argument. However, when you say, "education is not optional for a US citizen to be successful," what kind of education are you referring to? Basic K-12? College? It is perfectly possible to have a more than adequate career *without* a college degree.
See: http://www.careerbuilder.com...

Pro Argument 1B

Con response: Pro asserts that if formal education isn't compulsory, it won't be provided and thus won't fulfill the social contract theory. That is not a valid argument because even if education isn't compulsory, it will still be provided. College education is not compulsory and it is still provided. Regardless of the increase of high school graduates heading to college, colleges have predated this occurrence. Pro goes on to say that truancy and other educational laws ensure that all citizens are *offered* facilities to provide such an education. Notice the word I put in asterisks, offered. Why does the truancy law have anything to do with the state *offering* educational facilities? Even if some students choose to be truant, that doesn't make education any less essential. According to my opponent's case, education is a need and it is the state's job to provide. It is still the state's job regardless of truant students. Pro keeps asserting that in order for people to educate themselves, compulsory education is needed. While it's clear that education is necessary for some sort of future (as I even established in my own case), compulsory education doesn't ensure a stable, well-paying future of anyone [1]. If people wish to be truant and not follow through with education, then they will do so. State and law pending, kids can drop out of high school. Compulsory education is not a guarantee of success.
1. Refer to my #5 source and read the first paragraph, first page.

Pro Argument 1C

Con response: I've already stated that compulsion can't force kids to go to school, similar to the way that the law won't stop a truly determined killer or rapist. It's really not that effective of a deterrent. Like I said, all children will have equal access to education regardless of its compulsory state and I don't see how pro can prove otherwise. Pro even stated in their case that the state had a right to provide education so the compulsory nature of it is irrelevant. Pro is fearful for children who may be hurt by non-compulsory schooling because of the area they live in but these kids that live in poverty already have a damaged education [2]. In our capitalist society, it is a given that some will make it, some won't - and this is hardly to blame on our educational institutions.
See: http://health.usnews.com...

Pro Argument 2A

Con response: Education reform is (or at least, usually is) a good thing, I will not disagree with pro there. However, this part of their argument appears pointless. You can find many good ways to teach a lot of pointless concepts, but does that make these subjects of any further value? Cross-apply my C1 and it makes this argument completely invalid.

Pro Argument 2B

Con response: Pro is telling me that cognitive thinking skills and life skills *can* be learned at school? Everyone learns differently so I fail to see how you could justify this assertion. Also, just because they *can* doesn't mean they will. Pro says that, "citizens must be self-sufficient, able to interact with a diverse society, and prepared to actively participate in their own governance." Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with compulsory education. Kids would be able to do all of this just fine out of CE, given that they have adequate parenting. As for social skills, keep in mind that socialization is a part a of childhood parenting. Also, CE still fails to promise any of these things. It's completely possible and in fact likely that you can walk into a school and see a handful of kids who are somewhat to completely asocial. The three traits that pro listed for success as a citizen can be learned without the aid of CE.

===REFUTING PRO'S COUNTERARGUMENTS===

Con C1: Not warrantless assertions, unless of course you can tell me how they are warrantless. It is only warrantless if everything I said had no truth whatsoever. This is far from the case and if pro disagrees than they are being unreasonable. A warrantless assertion would be to say that kids feel important at school, because realistically there are bound to be some who do, some who don't. Also, ironic that pro says my arguments aren't linked to CE when I've already shown how the pro contentions aren't. In regards to the cross-application of your 2A, not all teachers have graduated in the past 5 years and not all of them use the constructive model. This is most observable in poor areas that struggle, refer to my earlier link posted in this round.

Con C2: Your 2A evidence has nothing to do with imparting cognitive thinking; it's just a bunch of academic standards that the state of Oregon has. Every state has these and I fail to see what pro is proving with it. Homeschooling is completely possible but it still must comply with curriculum of the school [1], making my C2 proposal of teaching only the necessities worthless. Also, students in homeschooling seem to outperform their public counterparts [2], making formal CE even more questionable. If students can learn without CE, then there is no point of upholding CE. Pro asserts that school attendance laws are the only reason the state is obligated to give underserved children an education but stated in their own case that the state must supply what is necessary as part of social contract; pro defined education as necessary to which I concurred. Therefore, pro's assertion here is invalid.
1. http://www.homeedmag.com...
2. http://www.hslda.org...

Pro, question: What do you mean by underserved?

Con C3: High school makes having a job much harder by restricting the amount of hours you can work; factor this in with maintaining relationships, family life, and homework. Pro says that becoming part of the workforce without a diploma is nearly impossible - agreed. However, making education compulsory will not effect those who plan to work as an adult (mostly everyone) anyway because they already desire a diploma. People who don't want to contribute to society and don't feel they should have to provide for themselves won't. CE doesn't stand in the way of this at all and I fail to see how pro proves that it does.

Conclusion: We are now left with an important question, "What is the purpose of making education compulsory?" Judges, you have your answer: there is no purpose. I strongly urge a con ballot, thank you.
alto2osu

Pro

PRO CASE

1A:
1. The data set I used stated that a high school diploma earned a person at least $200.00 more per week on average. But, since your resolution states K-12 education, that means that a person without a diploma is still unable to survive. Living wage went unrefuted.
2. Since the US workforce is so dependent on specialized labor, a college degree is becoming more and more critical to success. Extend the fact that my opponent agreed with my specialization arguments.

1B:
1. It isn't enough to merely "provide." As I proved in 1A, since education is necessary to the success of its citizens in a way that separates it from any other government service, it makes sense that the state would compel its citizens to participate in it. States may, via the social contract, require citizens to do certain things that don't violate their natural rights for the benefit of the state as a whole. See all US state and federal laws.

1C:
1. So, my opponent states that because millions of underserved students have a "damaged education" already, instead of attempting to fix the system because we know they can't succeed without education, we should demolish the only set of laws that actually *get* them to school. They can't magic their way to a diploma.
2. Capitalist system or no, our first priority is not to our economic theories, but our fundamental political ideology, which centers on equal rights. We cannot forsake any student without violating our core ideals.
3. I'm not sure what the deterrent portion of his response is referring to, but I can prove that not every American would receive access to education without truancy and attendance laws dexterously. It's described directly in the 1C. Students from poor homes, broken homes, or straight up no home lack the fundamental resources (parents, money, mentors, teachers) to seek out education on their own. Furthermore, students who come from these places find that the only safe place in their lives is at a school. It may even be the only place where they receive a hot meal each day (this is the case with a handful of my own students). It is tax dollars, allocated via the state because K-12 education is mandatory, that keeps them in school, with school supplies, and with lunch money. The millisecond education is not compulsory, you take away the state's obligation to provide those tax dollars.

2A:
Cross-applying his 1 does nothing to diminish my argument. First, remember that his 1 has no warrants whatsoever that prove that schools teach 100% useless material. Second, the state educational standards actually work to ensure that useless skills and information are not taught in public schools. To prove my point, let's sample just a few of the standards that I am mandated by the state to meet:
*EL.CM.RE.02: Listen to, read, and understand a wide variety of informational and narrative text, including classic and contemporary literature, poetry, magazines, newspapers, reference materials, and online information.
*EL.CM.WR.30: Synthesize information from multiple sources and identify complexities and discrepancies in the information and the different perspectives found in each medium, including almanacs, microfiche, news sources, in-depth field studies, speeches, journals, and technical documents.
*EL.CM.SL.04: Recognize and use elements of speech forms (e.g. introduction, first and second transitions, body, conclusion) in formulating rational arguments and applying the art of persuasion and debate.

These represent reading comprehension, writing, and speaking skills that the state requires me to teach my high schoolers. The standards movement has hardly proved a pointless endeavor, and my argument seeks to prove that education is comprised of the above skills, rather than the nebulous affirmative's "pointless concepts."

2B:
1. My opponent admits that "adequate parenting" is required for students to gain life and social skills outside of CE. At that point, he's just lost this strand of argumentation. While he has no method or metric by which to determine parent involvement, school curriculums in the US *mandate* character education, life skills, and social skills (see the DARE program, etc.). The state's obligation is not to provide a perfect system. However, I am the only one maximizing the access to all of these essential skills.

CON CASE

C1:
1. You admit in RD 1 that you can't prove this argument to be true. And I quote: "Of course, it is impossible to provide proof for this but I would hope it is self-evident." It isn't self-evident. Look to my counter-evidence on state standards.
2. Unwarranted arguments don't have to be entirely untrue. I'm sure there are bad teachers, just like there are bad everything else's in the world. However, does that mean that we scrap a system that has inherent worth as proven in my advocacy? Not so much. He's given himself a huge burden here that he now has to hold to. He needs to prove to you that the flaws of CE are so vast that the system cannot be saved. My advocacy proves this patently untrue. In fact, my advocacy clearly shows that education is improving.
3. You still haven't linked this to CE. You try and dodge the bullet by calling my case ironically non-linking (see my above arguments about how I do link into CE), but don't bother to actually address my argument here. Extend that he can't prove causation.

C2:
1. Already proved why homeschooling is not a viable option for all students. Con seems to be living in a fantasy world in which all parents are equal.
2. The link to those standards was to allow readers to peruse them to back up my claims of legitimacy. Reading some of them helps with this process. Luckily, I provided some above.
3. If the standards movement continues the way that it is, the gap between those extremely lucky enough to have dedicated homeschool parents and public school children with rapidly decrease.
4. Con's gonna have to explain that last couple of sentences. I'm not dropping it, but I have no clue what he's trying to argue.

C3:
1. How does making public education voluntary *not* affect how many kids get their diplomas? Logic dictates that if CE is abolished, less students will attend K-12 school or even seek educational opportunities. This means that less students will get their GED or diploma. This means that more students will be cut out of the job market entirely. His whole point here is to get kids out into the work force sooner. However, at the point where he concedes that employment success is determined by graduating high school, you pretty must cast your vote for Pro.
2. Yet again, this blatantly discriminates against kids who don't have access to the parent support, community support, or resources to self-educate to the point of passing a GED exam. You can't possibly warrant that all people who don't have these resources just "don't want their diplomas." It isn't laziness; it's institutional discrimination.
Debate Round No. 2
infam0us

Con

===PRO CASE===

1A

Con: Living wage means nothing in the big picture here. We're debating on whether or not formal education should be compulsory. Education is still provided even if it's not compulsory and therefore *the majority of people* people *can* still receive the necessity you assert as education and make a living. Despite what pro leads you to believe, I've already posted evidence that a college degree has seriously nothing to do with success. Refer to my earlier arguments, please. The extension of me agreeing with your specialization arguments doesn't mean anything because I've separated my stance from the pro viewpoint.

1B

Con: Pro claims that they proved education must be compulsory in their 1A. To summarize, the pro 1A argument consists of how specialization has reigned supreme in the US and the importance of a high school diploma. I confirm the pro 1A has nothing to do with affirming the resolution. Allow me to give you an analogy. Education is a need. Food is a need. Both are needs. However, we don't see a law that says it's illegal not to eat because it's a person's right to decide that; just like it's a person's right to decide whether or not they wish to follow through with formal education. My analogy debunks the whole pro cause and arguments attached. Non-compulsory education still educates and will still benefit the state; giving up rights is not necessary on con as it is on pro. Also, I could care less about what the laws say. This debate is about "ought to," not "is."

1C

Con: Underserved students, as you defined them, DO have a damaged education already; especially the ones that are minorities, homeless, or living in poverty. Refer to source in previous argument. Substance dependent youth may deserve a shot at education but that doesn't change the fault of getting addicted to an illegal substance. It is not the state's job to bail out these kids who have made serious mistakes. Then, my opponent stresses the importance of equal rights. Pro is not arguing equal rights one bit and it can be easily proven. If education was not compulsory yet still provided to all citizens and still considered a "need," then I would contend that education is still a right. Pro is arguing equal opportunities which would still exist without compulsory education (more later about that in the paragraph+). Furthermore, the deterrent I was referring to was how truancy laws are not a deterrent to keep kids from dropping out or skipping. Obviously, kids still drop out and skip. Pro is now misplacing priorities of the state. Kids that are homeless, from a broken home, in poverty, etc. - I can sympathize with them. They deserve a shot at education like everyone else does. However, it is not the school's job to provide them with a hot meal. My opponent then talks about tax dollars and how they provide for needy children. +Again, tax dollars would still exist and can still go these people without compulsory education. It's called welfare and not to mention numerous soup kitchens and shelters already exist. By making education non-compulsory, you are not depriving anyone of rights.

2A

Con: Argument from ignorance - just because I can't prove it's 100% useless doesn't make it useful. You've also only given us a small portion of education, conveniently leaving out all of the mostly useless things like geometry, trigonometry, persuasive essays, etc. I would like to avoid debating the use of these subjects from now on, it's really not inline with the resolve.

2B

Con: Actually, I have not lost my "strand of argumentation" whatsoever and pro totally misunderstood my argument. I argued that students could still get social skills outside of CE because it's up to the PARENTS, not to the STATE to teach social skills. Affirming is not maximizing access to anything; the neg side still ensures that most of the US *can* get an education. People who can't get an education are present even in CE, rendering this pro argument invalid. The "will or will not" dilemma is present in the compulsory side as well so it's irrelevant to the negation of the resolve. According to pro, the underserved students can't get an education when we negate the resolution. This is untrue/not valid for two reasons. 1, there are people in the US now that don't get educations. 2, underserved students can still go to school to get education and could technically still receive benefits from the tax payers even. However, pro also argues that the students won't have the drive to do as such. Again, this is a parenting issue, not a state issue. I have now made it clear that pro is not maximizing access to anything.

===CON CASE===

C1
1. I never admitted it to be untrue but based on observation, just like you observe how some kids can only get a hot meal at school. You don't see me flagging that as unsubstantial proof when I've never known anyone that only gets a hot meal at school. However, it would be a self-evident fact to me because it is possible. It is also possible that the information being taught to students could be useless. What use does learning "To Kill a Mockingbird" serve? We must reach a middle ground here: some information is useful, some is useless. Also, my argument has NO OBLIGATION AT ALL to prove that CE is a flawed system; it just needs to show that education ought not to be compulsory. Pro accuses me of a dodging a bullet but I've already dismantled the pro case and the pro rebuttals while proving the negation of the resolve to be more justified morally and logically.

C2
1. Pro seems to be living in a fantasy world where all schools, teachers, and students are equal. Skip 2.
3. Explain.
4. Translation: Attendance laws have no bearing on the necessity of education meaning that E doesn't have to be C for the state to provide the need.

C3
1. Logic dictates that if E is a necessity as pro asserts, they would seek it out like food if they were hungry. Pro tries to say I concede but I don't. If E is made non-C, the importance of a diploma may gradually drop. This is a rational hypothesis because the only reason education is so important now is because it's a must-go. It's preposterous to say that without any education everyone will be dumb.
2. Institutional discrimination? Pro misunderstands. I am referring to people that may not attend E just because it isn't C anymore. This isn't a resources thing and even if it was, I covered that.

Conclusion: Yet again I've dismantled pro's case. I will admit my case is weaker (I'm NOT conceding, just being honest) but that means nothing when the pro case has been defeated exhaustively twice. I have proved it is more sensible to negate the resolution and strongly urge a con vote.
alto2osu

Pro

I thank Con for his response. :)

PRO

1A
1. Living wage is the wage it takes to survive. If a student without a diploma can't earn a living wage, then you vote Pro because I give more people diplomas. Clear link.
2. Con ignores all data I provide in my 1A that gives me a big margin of maximizing employment. The US is calibrated to individual rights. The majority can't succeed without the success of the minority.
3. On pro's source: this article lists 25 jobs that don't require a bachelor's, but there are 2 problems with it. 1: It says nothing of a *diploma*. 2: These jobs can't absorb millions of people, or they already would be. Extend my data on average pay from RD 1.

1B
1. Go back to Con discrimination. If we use his own analogy, these students don't choose not to eat—they are denied food. Homeschooling is a perfectly viable way to exercise one's right to not attend compulsory public education while still protecting children who have no stable home or resources available to them. Con's world represents a net loss in rights for people who need the most protection.
2. Con has yet to show us *how* non-compulsory education will maintain equal opportunities. He's said it, but he hasn't warranted it.
3. Con misunderstood my reference to US laws. That was merely an example of the state being able to mandate behavior for the good of all citizens collectively. CE is the same story.

1C
1. How is it that equal educational opportunities will be provided to underserved students outside of CE? If education is voluntary, then it's voluntary. All motivation to provide equal access is eliminated the moment we do something like privatize schools, which is essentially what a voluntary model looks like.
2. Actually, it is the state's job to provide its citizens with basic necessities. The tax dollars that I am referring to are directed towards these students only because CE exists. The whole "hot meal" thing is being blown out of proportion by Con, but legislation in all 50 states is what has made it the school system's responsibility. The will of the citizens of this nation is to make the education system a *support* system.

2A
1. This made me laugh. Not only are abstract math concepts integral to the development of problem solving & critical thinking skills, but Con *actually* said that persuasive writing is a useless skill! What is Con doing RIGHT NOW? I do believe he is on a website designed for the sole purpose of writing persuasively.
2. You've given us a claim that education is worthless with no warrants, & then tried to distract us by saying that you don't have to prove yourself universally true. I have yet to see a warrant, though.
3. Extend the standards I quoted. The meat of my argument lies in those warrants. The standards cover *essential* skills, which directly counters the Con advocacy.

2B
1. Con has yet to address the fact that not every child has a parent that is willing or able to fulfill their parental obligations. Since social and life skills are directly tied to successful citizenship & stable individual welfare, the state's obligation is evident.
2. No system is perfect. Con seems to think that I have to eliminate ALL people who don't graduate from high school in order to win this debate. That's not the case. I just have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms.
3. Con still has yet to warrant how he'll be accessing all of the benefits of a Pro world without using CE. He'll need to do that sometime soon.

CON

C1
1. I quoted you. You admit you can't prove that education is actually useless. I've given you a block of evidence to the contrary, but apparently we should just believe you anyway.
2. The hot meal thing is provable. First of all, it's the reason that the federal government created the free/reduced lunch program [1]. Not only that, but the world community has already come to the conclusion that schools have an obligation to provide food to their students:
"WFP School Feeding Programmes encourage children to attend school by providing a free nutritious meal…In many cases, this may be the only meal children eat during the day. This simple meal helps children concentrate on their studies & ensures they attend class [2]."
The US is part of this community, & participates in & funds WFP.
[1] http://www.fns.usda.gov...
[2] http://www2.hawaii.edu...
3. Taking out hot meals doesn't really affect my offense. Education being useless, on the other hand, is key to voting Con. If I prove this claim untrue (which I have), then you can vote Pro on that alone.
4. Moving target, Con. You say in RD 1: "Compulsory education doesn't serve a meaningful purpose…The only skill education has successfully imparted is obedience & the will to accept authority." That entire C1 is talking about how *all* CE education is useless. Now, you concede that some education is useful. Which is it?
5. Con does have the obligation to prove CE a flawed system. Again, in RD 1, he says, "CE makes kids accept being a tool of the working machine…CE fails to educate…CE has dissipated intelligence…CE is purposeless." He's trying to get you to eliminate a system based on flaws he either can't prove exist, or that have proved fixable. He *must* prove that CE harms outweigh the benefits.

C2
1. When do I say schools, teachers, & students are equal? In fact, I've maintained throughout that they aren't, which is why we need CE & the standards movement. I'm working to fix inequality. He's entrenching it.
2. So we both accept that my link is a legit piece of evidence illustrating the essential skills being taught in K-12 education.
3. This basically stated that education is being improved by the standards movement. If education continues to improve as it is now (which researchers predict it will), then the statistical gap between homeschooling & public schooling will disappear.
4. I don't understand how this translated argument gets you any offense.

C3
1. "If we make education voluntary, then maybe the need for a diploma will just go away." 1: Says who? 2: How many people have to starve & rape the economy before that happens? My crystal ball is currently out of service, so I guess he'll need to consult his. Extend specialization again. The need for more advanced degrees is currently RISING, not falling, & it has more to do with global competition, which Con cannot solve for, than internal employer preference.
2. You didn't cover institutional discrimination at all. You can't. Your advocacy cannot solve for it. Mine does. Also, it doesn't matter who you were addressing; the casualties of adopting your advocacy don't change. Con talks about people who will logically seek out food if they are hungry as if there is always just food laying around for the hungry to eat. Education is the same way. Without available resources, it ain't gonna happen.
Debate Round No. 3
infam0us

Con

PRO

1A
1. You cannot prove that E, when made C, yields higher rates of graduation compared to non-compulsory education.
2. I don't understand the thinking behind this claim because it doesn't make sense. Minorities usually don't succeed in society or at least have a much lower probability of doing so; it's always been this way. Explain or I'll be forced to drop the argument.
3. List was to provide examples that didn't require college degree, not alternatives to a diploma.

1B
1. Pro resorts to a logical fallacy known as a strawman here. There's no base to believe that institutions would deny certain kids E if it were to be made non-C.
2. I'm not going to sketch out a policy to you. Basically, the only difference between CE and non-CE is the C part. Otherwise, it's reasonable to assume nothing else has changed. Everyone in the US still has the ability to go to school, it's just not required but highly recommended. After all, pro has stated and I agree that at least a diploma is necessary to live a decent life. Furthermore, pro does not realize that by eliminating the C part of E, we *may* end up lowering the significance of a diploma which isn't a bad thing at all. People don't need a diploma to be intelligent and people certainly aren't smart just because they own a diploma. Of course, that's not to say it wouldn't be important still.
3. Understood but I'm not sure if you were making an argument with that.

1C
1. You are presupposing that underserved students receive equal E opportunities to begin with (by a large portion of your definition). I'll post this source again because you seem to be overlooking it. As for the privatizing/voluntary model comparison, I don't exactly see how they're related; perhaps pro could elaborate.
See: http://health.usnews.com...
2. Yes, it is the state's job to provide citizens with basic necessities. Not only do I agree, but how many times have I said that myself throughout my rebuttals? You say that the tax dollars are only given to these students because CE exists. Tell me why they wouldn't if E was made non-C or provide proof that they wouldn't. The last sentence is one of my problems with CE - it's not supposed to be a support system. That's what things like shelters and welfare are for. It's supposed to be an E system first and a support system last. When we negate the resolution, we do not close our doors to the underserved children and have potential to provide better education since tax money isn't wasted into what pro dubs a "support system."

2A
1. This wasn't over whether or not they were concepts related to problem solving, it was about whether or not they were useful. Furthermore, for the average person on the average day, they are completely useless. Also, persuasive writing is useful tool but not everyone needs or wants it. For example, I live in a box with A type monkeys and my friend lives in a box with B type monkeys. My friend uses a lava lamp to get the monkeys to dance for him. For him, the lava lamp is a useful tool. On the other hand, I use a screwdriver to get the monkeys to dance for me. For me, the screwdriver is a useful tool. All tools are useful but only in the hands of someone who has to apply them or chooses to. I apologize for the silly analogy.
3. Pro claims the meat of her arguments lie within 2A. It's a shame that all they deal with is E reforms and improved teaching methods, not the resolve. Sure, they may have defeated my C1; that's up for the voters to decide. However, it will not do pro any good to rely on this to win the debate because it has little to do with the resolve.

2B
1. I will address it and I counter with the fact that not all E systems within CE are adequate. These kids within inadequate educational institutions are (which DO exist, pro) left at a disadvantage even with a diploma. The state can only offer the opportunity to the child which is there regardless of C. Even within non-CE, anyone can still get an education. Pro cannot prove otherwise.
2. I don't see how I'm acting like that. I'm just saying that a lot of pro's assertions that, "Non-C can't account for X" are completely baseless and I've offered numerous reasons as to why for each assertion. Yes, all pro has to show is that the benefits outweigh the negatives. However, pro has had a lot of difficulty with this due to my valid rebuttals. Keep this in mind, voters.
3. Okay, I'll try to summarize this. The main benefits in a pro world that pro thinks *can't* be achieved when we negate are 1. providing for the underserved and 2. ensuring everyone has a chance for education. #1 has been explained, same with #2. The benefits when we negate are 1. an educational system more focused on educating and not supporting and 2. less trivial truancy cases. When the taxpayers can stop paying money to worry about supporting underserved children, they can instead focus on further reforms which pro praises. The people that are now seemingly completely "unserved" will be forced to turn to welfare. If they are not eligible, then I contend they are not truly underserved. Pro may argue that the parent may not be sensible enough to apply for welfare. I have but two responses: 1. child services and 2. common sense. It's only natural to assume that *most* parents will apply for welfare when it is necessary, especially when attempting to support a child and being unable to. Secondly, when E is made non-C, laws like truancy will longer be in effect. This saves the state a lot of hassle for kids who are just going to drop out anyway [1]. I'm not dismissing the importance of their education but at some point, people become a lost cause.
1. http://www2.ed.gov...

CON

C1
1. You can't prove that education is useful without dismissing my assertion with an argument from ignorance. A diploma is necessary for a living but I've already stated that having a diploma doesn't make you educated.
2. Sure, at lunch. It is not the schools job to feed them their essential meals.
3. My first contention is not crucial for me to win this debate.
4. Actually, if you read between the lines, you could deduce that I was arguing towards E in general but held malice at the fact that what I felt was useless was also C.
5. Apply my 4. I've proved as pro claims I must to win the debate.

C2
1. When do I explicitly say all parents are equal? I don't but you think I'm acting like it. Same thing can be said of pro with schools, teachers & students. CE doesn't fix this and non-CE can still have standards.
2. Sure, except it does nothing to show that E *ought* to be C. Kids can learn essential skills in a non-CE school.
3. Standards movement can continue with non-CE. Skip 4.

I will cover my C3 in RD4. I apologize for cutting this short.
alto2osu

Pro

PRO

1A
1. Yes I can. It's not even a logical stretch to say that compulsory education will lead to more kids attending school, which leads to more kids with diplomas. Your case's benefits directly entail kids *not* going to public school, which reduces graduates.
2. The US is rights-based, yes? I.E. it's all about individual citizen's rights and welfare. That's to prevent tyranny of the majority. We can't just blow off the minority because Con says so. Also, given that our job market is driven by education level, making sure that the most individuals succeed is the only thing that can maximize benefit to the state as a whole. I don't know how to make it clearer. Pro maximizes both individual and collective benefit.
3. That still invalidates your source as a piece of offense, since my 1A says that the diploma is a gateway for employment, not a college degree. We covered this in RD 2.

1B
1. First of all, not a strawman. Second of all, yes there is. Privatization is exactly that. Since capitalist institutions seek to maximize profit, rather than social gain, students who can't foot the bill on their own are denied education. You cannot maintain the benefits of CE while not having CE. See 1B-2 (below).
2. Then why the heck are we debating? You assert, again, that you can claim all the benefits coming out of the Pro advocacy but you don't ever tell us how you plan on motivating a privatized school system to do this. I'm not asking you to make plan text. But the voters and I *expect* you to be able to, logically or otherwise, prove that a privatized education system will offer all students an education without the incentive that CE provides.
3. I was. That was my warrant that states can mandate participation in activities that better the state as a whole.

1C
1. I'm not presupposing anything. Look to RD 3. I don't believe anything is perfectly equal now. I'm saying Con results in a loss of equality. With regards to privatization, that is the only alternative to CE, since CE = public schools. Hence, you are de facto arguing for privatized schools.
2. First, the American public dubbed it as such. Big difference. And, per previous arguments, Con does shut school doors by fundamentally changing both the goals and obligations associated with public schooling. Kids spend 7+ hours of their day at school. How does that not warrant it being a support system as well as an educational institution?

2A
1. Problem solving and critical thinking skills are universally useful. According to all of my evidence in 2A, schools teach skills, not subject areas. Look at the standards I posted. Who doesn't need to read, or write complete sentences, or speak coherently? The subjects are used as ways to diversify cognitive thinking skills. Not everyone may want to read, or write, or speak, but that doesn't mean that they don't need to. I've already proven that a diploma is a necessity, but I'd say cognitive higher thinking is right up there, too.
3. It actually has everything to do with the resolution. We can't universally apply educational standards without a CE model. Again, look to the harms of privatization. Without government oversight (in this case, at the state level via departments of education), standards *cannot* be enforced. That's just a reality of the US education system.

2B
1. Already did prove otherwise. I'll make this a voting issue so that I don't have to repeat what I've said already in RDs 1-4.
2. This is also going to be a voting issue, readers. See the above 1B-2 response again.
3. Besides the whole parents who are incapacitated issue (and that child services is hardly an appealing option), do you suppose that our welfare system can handle all the new cases you'll be throwing its way? We are talking about millions of people. Ex: 30.5 million children were on a free/reduced lunch plan in 2007 alone. Con says just let them go hungry, which, as the WFP states, will severely affect their ability to learn all these awesome new concepts he wants to forward in the Con world. However, my 2A proves that we get the education reform he touts, but only if we stick to CE.

But, food isn't even the most important issue at hand. Look at his "benefits": we get an educational system that is actually focused on educating and we eliminate trivial truancy cases. First, the focus is where it needs to be right now. Second, what is the real monetary harm of trivial truancy cases? How is this even quantifiable in the round when compared to the loss of rights? Homeschooling options within CE basically solve for any rights abuses he can claim, so I'm still outweighing.

CON

C1
1. First, if you are educated under the system described in 2A (which right now kids are), then you are far more likely to be educated than if you just didn't go to school. Second, that really doesn't matter at the point where you cannot succeed in the US without a diploma. No, the two don't *always* correlate, but in general, they do. We aren't debating absolutes.
2. Way to glance over everything important that I said about public school obligations. Food is a necessity to a good education, says WFP. So, if you want your educational system to be equal access, you are obligated to provide students with the meals they require. And lunch is sort of essential, dude. Even if you aren't aiming for equal access (which is a rights-based obligation via the USFG, so you don't really have a choice), human beings need food. And you have these human beings in your possession for 7 hrs min. per day.
3. Remember this from RD 4: "The benefits when we negate are 1. an educational system more focused on educating and not supporting…" To achieve this benefit, you have to prove that the Pro world contains little to no useful education. I'd say that's basically your C1 right there. If I prove CE provides the only useful education in the round, that's a voting issue for me. And you just admitted that I do since you just severed from that argument.
4. I don't really need to concern myself with your subtext. Say what you mean, or you are still a moving target.

C2
1. You explicitly argue that all parents are equal when you try to use them as a way to prove that education levels will remain the same in a Con world.
2/3. This'll be another voter. Standards just can't function without CE.

Note on C3: He talks about diplomas becoming obsolete, and then doesn't give himself enough space to properly defend this incredible claim. He's asking you to vote Con based on the hope that this *might* happen, despite the fact that the need for formal education is on the rise for reasons that the education system has no control over (foreign labor market competition, etc.). Also, He can't provide jobs for people who won't graduate, and he can't tell you how long it would take for the entire employment system to readjust (assuming it even can). Assigning a time limit to this is beyond our realm of discourse.
Debate Round No. 4
infam0us

Con

Con C3
1. It's a completely rational thought and I explained why. Pro says that the need for degrees is rising due to global competition. Even if it was, that has nothing to do with the resolve because it clearly says in the US. It also is untrue because no source was provided and it's not a sound argument. Need for more advanced degrees is arising from more people receiving college education and getting their college degree for these specialized jobs which pro noted. However, it caught on though and many started getting college degrees. Competition could/is become/ing ridiculous. I'm not saying this should be considered as an argument but it is valid.
2. Your logic is to force feed those who cannot feed themselves or maybe those who don't want to eat. Not practical. Some people are bound to go hungry in both a pro and con world. That being said, education is still readily available in both a pro and con world. There would still be local school districts, public and private. Parents can enroll them there and voila. Pro keeps talking about the inconsistent adequacy of parenting but I refer to my analogy again. Parents provide food to their children; we can't say all but we can assume that it's natural to do so and the majority do. Food is a need. We can assume that most will provide education as well.

I now present my final focus and would like to summarize *key points* in the debate. This round will not be used for constructive rebuttals or new arguments. However, new evidence may be provided. My opponent and I agreed on this so keep it in mind, voters.

#1: Providing for the Underserved

Original pro Argument: Without things like truancy laws, the poorest and most underserved students in the nation would be the ones to suffer without an education.

Pro put a lot of value on these underserved children and held the position that CE is a benefit to them while non-CE is harmful. Pro defended the position with the following arguments.
1. Laws pertaining to CE get them to school.
2. Non-CE will deny E to them.
3. Blowing off the underserved is a violation of US rights.

I defeated them accordingly.
1. Non-CE is still open to everyone which includes the underserved.
2. This argument was loosely based off my analogy, "Education is a need. Food is a need. Both are needs. However, we don't see a law that says it's illegal not to eat because it's a person's right to decide that; just like it's a person's right to decide whether or not they wish to follow through with formal education." Voters, re-read pro's attempted refutation in RD3 and you will see she clearly misinterpreted it which is why I rightfully labeled it as a strawman; she weakened my version of the argument by saying kids were being denied it but offered no insight as to how or why.
3. The underserved are not being blown off when we negate because no one is being blown off since both non-CE and CE are open to everyone. I've explained numerous times that the availability aspect of E (also, consider pro believes E to be a need) debunks the need for it to be compulsory. This goes hand in hand with my analogy. Pro defines E as a need. Food is also a need. There is no law against not eating even though it's clearly necessary to live as education is.

#2: Education/Food Analogy

Original argument posted above. Pro could not defeat this argument despite effort. I extend through with it as it destroys the pro side benefits.

#3: CE yields more diplomas

Original pro argument: If a student without a diploma can't earn a living wage, then you vote Pro because I give more people diplomas.

Con response: You cannot prove that E, when made C, yields higher rates of graduation compared to non-compulsory education.

Pro response: It's not even a logical stretch to say that [CE] will lead to more kids attending school, which leads to more kids with diplomas.

Apply my analogy and the fact that pro considers E a need. It is not required by law to eat but just about everyone does anyway. Think the same for education. Pro failed to prove her point; points go to con.

#4: CE vs. non-CE benefits weighing

Pro benefits: provides to the underserved, ensures everyone a chance at education, yields more diplomas.

All of these are just as possible within a con world and I explained why. Con benefits include further focus on education, not support and elimination of trivial truancy cases. The first con benefit is not possible in a pro world due to tax money being poured into schools to help the underserved rather than improve education for the majority. The second con benefit is clearly not possible in a pro world; truancy laws are a waste of time and in a con world, we avoid them.

#5: Pro equates CE to public schooling

Original argument: With regards to privatization, that is the only alternative to CE, since CE = public schools.

I cannot argue against this because it would be a new argument but that doesn't change how puzzling this assertion is. Pro, you may not explain it either because we agreed on no new arguments.

Conclusion: I have already proved through my rebuttals that con is the better choice. Now, in my final focus, I exhaustively conclude that con has won every single key point of this debate with reasons to back up my claims. Pro was a worthy debater but pro's arguments failed to achieve as much as mine. With the following information provided and all arguments considered, I strongly urge a con ballot. Thank you for the debate, pro. Thank you for reading the debate, voters.
alto2osu

Pro

On C3, as I think the RD 5 analysis requires it:

1. Time for global economy 101: global and national labor market competition is 100% topical to this debate. The biggest reason for specialization is the outsourcing of our jobs to other nations and the flooding of unskilled laborers into US borders, legal or otherwise. Hence, specialization has become a necessity outside of the control of our education system. I didn't provide sources because I figured this was common knowledge, but I've provided [1] & [2]below. No new arguments, just sources to appease Con. We need diplomas and college degrees not just because "they caught on," as Con asserts with no warrants (ironically enough). We need them because we need training in a job that can't be outsourced to another nation or given to an employee willing to work for half our pay. Thank you, capitalism.

[1] http://emlab.berkeley.edu...
[2] http://actrav.itcilo.org...

2. His assumptions about parents providing necessities is totally bunk. 30.5 million kids needed free/reduced lunch. Even though 30.5 million kids is still a minority of the school population (about 40% of the total enrolled), by Con's logic, they are a foregone loss—so screw them. If 40% of the US's school children don't have parents that can provide them with a couple of dollars for school lunch every day, how many parents out there can't deal with the task of properly educating their own children? "Parents provide food to their children; we can't say all but we can assume that it's natural to do so and the majority do. Food is a need. We can assume that most will provide education as well." No, no we can't.

And now, for 3 voting issues.

1. Con cannot ensure the same level of education that Pro can.

-Compulsory education ensures that the standards movement is successful. As I stated previously, the standards movement was specifically designed to operate within a compulsory education system. The amount of oversight that it takes to guarantee that education continues to improve can only be done if schools are literally working as one unit. Anything less than a compulsory system cannot achieve this goal.

-Furthermore, I've proved that education in the US is a worthwhile and improving endeavor. Extend all the analysis I gave on standards, cognitive thinking skills, life skills, and social skills. At this point, you can cast your vote for Pro right now, as he has not met his burden, which was to prove that compulsory education was broken enough to eliminate. I'm winning the cost/benefit analysis in other places, too, but this is probably the most important place.

-Con will not achieve as many diplomas as Pro will. Though Con attempts to side step this by saying that education enrollment won't actually change and that diplomas may or may not reduce in importance if we eliminate compulsory education, both claims fall flat on their faces. I've already proven why the need for diplomas and higher education isn't going anywhere. And of course education enrollment would change! If it doesn't, then Con can't achieve any of the benefits in his case as all are contingent upon less people going to school. He can't get around the fact that people need diplomas to be successful in the US, and that I provide many, many more of those to people.

2. Despite Con claims, the state has an obligation to help its citizens succeed economically and politically. The state's job is to maximize the wellbeing of its citizenry. In fact, that's its only job. Education falls under the blanket of this job more than enough to require the state to take an active role in its administration.

In the debate, I used the brief example of US and state laws to demonstrate why it is that the government makes certain acts compulsorily right and wrong. Though word count prohibited me from elaborating, I can extend this now. Why can't we murder people? Why can't companies form monopolies? Why does the government "coerce" money from every citizen each year in the form of taxes? Simple answer: the government, via the will of the people in one way or another, has mandated that these activities are all important enough to mandate in order to ensure the success of the individual and the collective.

Considering that wellbeing is inextricably tied to education, as established in RD 1 via my statistics on living wage and the US labor market, I'd say I've accomplished my goal, since only I can guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to get more citizens diplomas that reflect a well-balanced, skillful education. Furthermore, as I will discuss in my 3rd voting issue, the Con world causes a net loss in rights protection.

3. Any compulsory system will be the best way to combat institutional discrimination. This has also been a much discussed topic within the debate. Con seems to think that we live in a society that will continue to offer social support to people even without a compulsion by mandate to do so. How exactly is it that institutional discrimination was able to take such a strong hold in the first place? Discrimination is only corrected by declaring it to be universally wrong and then mandating that it be fixed. Otherwise, we have the same problems with oversight that we have with the standards movement. Any voluntary system leaves it up to individuals to decide who deserves services. Any compulsory system doesn't allow the individual to make that choice, because everyone deserves services. Take the flaws of a voluntary military system as an example (note: this is an example: no new analysis is made here). Right now, institutional discrimination is a *huge* problem in the US military. The incentive program offers college tuition and the like to anyone who will join the military's ranks, which means that poor and minority citizens are the only ones actually being appealed to. A conscription model, on the other hand, ensures that citizens from every socioeconomic and cultural division of society are represented within the armed forces.

Furthermore, my opponent essentially contradicts himself on a number of occasions when he says that society will just naturally pick up the slack and offer kids with no resources or stable home an education without it being compulsory. He's also said time and time again that society expects a certain percentage of citizens to fail miserably, and that those are just acceptable losses within a capitalist system. Well, which is it? Is society going to follow its capitalist roots and tell them all to buzz off, or is society going to betray those roots and decide to help out underserved youth? In this case, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

With that, I sincerely thank Con for the debate, but encourage a vote in favor of Pro. (Woot! 89 characters remaining. I'm going to Disneyland!)
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
cool opinion, guy.
Posted by omgitsmee4247 4 years ago
omgitsmee4247
You say "As defined, education should impart knowledge or skill. The only skill education has successfully imparted is obedience and the will to accept authority. This is not a meaningful purpose and is actually harmful." I think that this is not in fact the only skill that education has successfully imparted, I think it has done much more. I also believe that education does not do much for obedience. Being in highschool, I believe that there are in fact boundries, but their are plenty of kids in our school that go beyond the boundries and do not get penalized.
As much as I do not favor school, I do think that there are aspects of it that are useful. This comment: "A good example of pointless information would be learning about Huckleberry Fin or To Kill a Mockingbird." is an interesting one. I'm currently reading Huckleberry Fin in my English class and although I'm not yet completely enveloped in the book I do find the story interesting, so far. As far as To Kill a Mockingbird is concerned, I read that last year and it was surprisingly, one of my favorite books i'd ever been assigned. I think that whether or not a book is good the fact that it is an assignment is definitley a turn off to most highschool students, I have always been big into reading but I always struggled getting through books that were assigned to me in school.
You say "Parents can easily teach history to their children." I say that as far as history is concerned, there are some parents who are not aware, or do not have the correct information on history, so you can not depend on parents for that information. Although, I do enjoy the idea of no school, I think that the future of our country depends on us being highly educated.
Posted by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
not going to debate you over comments. but anyway, about huck fin. it can be as revolutionary as it wants, i still absolutely despise the slang and writing style used. it's hideously boring.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
infam0ous, You claimed, "Compulsory education doesn't serve a meaningful purpose.
... The only skill education has successfully imparted is obedience and the will to accept authority." Later, you claimed "CE only teaches superficial information. ... The majority of what is learned at your average K-12 district is not meaningful." One of the main purposes of K-12 education is to teach reading skills. Consequently, your claims clearly dismiss reading skills as unimportant. The reason that chain restaurants have pictures on their menus is many of their clients cannot read. It is that bad.

Huck Finn is a revolutionary work. Twain is saying out that N-word Jim was a better man than the townspeople who claimed superiority. For the times, that was a dangerous claim.
Posted by alto2osu 4 years ago
alto2osu
Can't say I'm familiar with it. Then again, the high school I teach at is flat a$$ broke, so we haven't had new novels in...forever :) I've been working there since I got out of undergrad (3 years ago), and we've had no money since I got there.
Posted by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
have you read the killer angels? prolly my favorite school book.
Posted by alto2osu 4 years ago
alto2osu
Not a fan of Huck Finn either. Don't get me wrong-- Twain is a great writer, but I never dug the vernacular. I think that the themes are worth exploring, in terms of racism, slavery, and Huck being a completely static character (which is probably the most interesting part about it), but I sparknoted my way through that novel 4 times from junior year in HS to my 2nd year in college.

I much prefer other novels that deal with racism as a theme. Cry, The Beloved Country = AWESOME book.
Posted by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
tbh, i hate huck fin but i loved to kill a mockingbird. the majority of the books i read in school i don't have a problem with.
Posted by alto2osu 4 years ago
alto2osu
My intention is not to continue the debate in the comments, area, but I gotta say, as an English teacher, I don't think it can be properly warranted that canonical and non-canonical literature taught in schools is useless. Even though *you* may not like the reading selections all the time within a high school curriculum, that doesn't rob them of their inherent value. I didn't really have time to get into this. I wouldn't have in an 8K debate, either :) The nature of education is really a tough thing to discuss given the website constraints we have.

I *hate* To Kill a Mockingbird. Think its a terrible book. However, that doesn't diminish the fact that, statistically (in terms of published education research), it isn't a good book to expose youth to. The purpose of education right now is teaching skills, not really content. The content is secondary, which is why many states are moving away from mandated curriculum models (though there are notable exceptions, like Texas) and allowing educators to diversify their curriculum based on class interest and whatnot. I select all of my literature based primarily on three things: my knowledge of my students' interest, the state standards for skill building, and available resources. That, in my opinion, leads to valid and useful reading material in schools.
Posted by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
my case was really bad. after this debate, i realized how hard it is to win the resolution on con side just because it's so different from the norm. i'm going to have to do a lot more research into this topic if i plan on debating it in the future from the con POV.

@Roy: where on earth did i say learning to read isn't important? i claimed reading material like huck fin or to kill a mockingbird could be seen as fairly pointless.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kefka 4 years ago
Kefka
infam0usalto2osuTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by commonprotocol 4 years ago
commonprotocol
infam0usalto2osuTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
infam0usalto2osuTied
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 LuxEtVeritas 4 years ago
LuxEtVeritas
infam0usalto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by seeley.linda 4 years ago
seeley.linda
infam0usalto2osuTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 4 years ago
alto2osu
infam0usalto2osuTied
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 jborgen 4 years ago
jborgen
infam0usalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
infam0usalto2osuTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by LadyHavok13 4 years ago
LadyHavok13
infam0usalto2osuTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 4 years ago
pcmbrown
infam0usalto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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