The Instigator
Nulosaur
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
bballboy9876
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

High school should NOT be mandatory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Nulosaur
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,522 times Debate No: 40287
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Nulosaur

Pro

I would like to begin by stating that, by accepting the "con" position, you are arguing in favor of mandatory secondary education in the United States.

First round: Definitions and acceptance
Second round: Arguments
Third round: Counter-arguments

"High school is an institution which provides all or part of secondary education. Other terms such as "secondary school" or "secondary college" are used in different nations or regions. The phrase "high school" often forms part of the name of the secondary institution." - Wikipedia



bballboy9876

Con

I accept this debate! I look forward to a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Nulosaur

Pro

High school, particularly in developed nations, is often toted as a necessary and crucial component of a child's life, and rightfully so. The vast majority of the subjects taught by these institutions are fundamental staples of literally millions of potential jobs, so why are the students expressing such vicious and unfaltering opposition to them? The answer is simple: high schools are little more than government-funded indoctrination facilities dedicated to stripping children of their creativity and molding them into productive, complacent workers.

Allow me to begin with the facts. As of this writing, students in the United States are performing near the middle of the international pack. On average, 16 other industrialized countries are scoring above the United States in science, and 23 score above us in math.[1] Unfortunately, the reading scores planned to be utilized in this article were discarded due to a printing error. Considering that the United States remains the most financially prosperous nation in the world despite the financial turmoil of 2007 to the present, one would logically assume that a nation of such might and majesty would be capable of producing exceptionally well educated individuals, yet the statistics eradicate such aspirations. It should be noted that federal funding of public education has undergone steady increases throughout the decades, as evidenced by a bar chart accessible at http://www2.ed.gov.... These discrepancies, coupled with the social, psychological, and physical issues presented by locking children into a confined space for 7-8 hours with exposure to little more than mentally unstable peers, underpaid and often irritable teachers, and boring, outdated textbooks, are negatively impacting once inspired and dedicated learners who often find themselves questioning the value of completing their work and complying with instructions only to receive a diploma that rarely guarantees them admission into a respectable college. Therefore, I assert that secondary education in the United States should not be mandatory and that parents should be implored to seek alternative outlets for learning.

[1]: http://www.greatschools.org...

bballboy9876

Con

Mandatory high school education is extremely important for young adults. It is true that most kids don't like school, but this is likely because they don't realize the importance of school. A student's quality of life can be completely changed by their education.

If high school was made optional, there would be consequences. Those students who didn't attend school or have a job of some sort would have a large amount of free time on their hands without adult supervision. Teenagers with too much free time has been linked to an increase in crime among teens. (1)

If teens were to go without high school, they would be limiting their career options. Most careers require a minimum of a high school diploma. The best careers require much college education. A high school diploma(and much more) is needed to get into the best colleges. High school gives teens opportunities to make themselves appealing to colleges in activities like sports, band and orchestra, National Honor Society, etc. High school ultimately leads to a better career and higher quality of life for these teens.

There is also a social aspect as well. From high school teens learn how to interact with people of different races, religions, etc. They learn who to associate with and who not to associate with. They learn how to make the right choices through their mistakes. Ultimately, school promotes the learning of social skills.

Conclusion: High school is necessary for teens. Through school teens are kept out of trouble, teens are given more career options, and teens learn important social skills.

Over to my opponent.

Sources:
1. http://www.thenational.ae...
Debate Round No. 2
Nulosaur

Pro

Rebuttal 1:

"Mandatory high school education is extremely important for young adults. It is true that most kids don't like school, but this is likely because they don't realize the importance of school."

I disagree. Kids do not detest school due to failing to acknowledge the importance of education; rather, they detest school because of the manner by which said education is administered. The following text was extracted from an article entitled "Why Kids Hate School", which is accessible via the following link: http://www.parenting.com...

"'Every time I get a new package of test booklets, I feel like burning them up,' says Amy Gutowski, a third-grade teacher in Milwaukee.

Her students take a week long state exam in November, as well as four quarterly assessment tests. The testing itself doesn't bother Gutowski, who says, "Testing is fine, if it's done well." Instead, it's the way that it forces her to run her classroom that drives her crazy. Take this recent example: Gutowski's class was deep into Charlotte's Web, but they had to cut the lesson short. "The kids were dying to know what was going to happen, but we had to start prepping for an assessment and memorize lists of vocabulary words, such as 'crop rotation,' just because they were on the test," says Gutowski. "When we were reading Charlotte, their heads were in the book, they were talking about their feelings and the words they love. It was electric. As soon as we pulled out the test workbook, they shut down. The way we have to teach is anti-kid, anti-learning, and just plain boring."

Rebuttal 2:

"If high school was made optional, there would be consequences. Those students who didn't attend school or have a job of some sort would have a large amount of free time on their hands without adult supervision. Teenagers with too much free time has been linked to an increase in crime among teens."

It should be noted that Con's source (http://www.thenational.ae...) is utterly irrelevant to this debate as it refers exclusively to children in the United Arab Emirates, not the United States. As I stated in Round 1:

"I would like to begin by stating that, by accepting the "con" position, you are arguing in favor of mandatory secondary education in the United States."

Please remain on-topic, Con.

Rebuttal 3:

"If teens were to go without high school, they would be limiting their career options. Most careers require a minimum of a high school diploma. The best careers require much college education. A high school diploma(and much more) is needed to get into the best colleges."

The following page provides a list of 10 careers which provide sustainable incomes and do not require high school diplomas: http://jobs.aol.com...

Additionally, individuals who did not receive a formal high school diploma are legally permitted to take the General Equivalency Diploma examination (frequently referred to as the GED), which, if passed, provides said individual with documentation equivalent to a high school diploma. Graduation of high school is not a prerequisite for this exam. Regarding individuals possessing GEDs who wish to attend college:

"About 95 percent of U.S. colleges and universities accept GED graduates in the same manner as high school graduates. GED graduates are also eligible for most federal financial aid if they meet the program’s other criteria. After earning your GED credential, sign up to take the ACT and/or the SAT. The colleges to which you apply may also require you to take placement or achievement tests so that they can determine whether you need additional coursework." (https://www.tuhsd.k12.az.us...)

Rebuttal 4:

"There is also a social aspect as well. From high school teens learn how to interact with people of different races, religions, etc. They learn who to associate with and who not to associate with. They learn how to make the right choices through their mistakes. Ultimately, school promotes the learning of social skills."

There is no conclusive evidence stating that attending high school is socially beneficial. As any mathematics teacher will inform you, it only requires one counter-example to disprove a postulate, and my counter-example lies in the following article regarding home-schooled children:

"Home schooling is a parenting choice often hotly debated by adults, but when it comes to asking the children themselves what they think, whether they'll miss prom is likely to be high on the list of concerns.

The home-schooled students of Northern Texas, however, need have no fear of missing out on this essential rite of passage.

Every year,1,000 boys and girls aged between 16 and 18 who spend their semesters at home rather than in school, flock to their 'home-school prom' dressed in their best dresses and newly purchased tuxedos."(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)

I implore the votes to consider my opponent's utter lack of conclusive evidence for his/her case and formulate a decision accordingly.

bballboy9876

Con

The answer is simple: high schools are little more than government-funded indoctrination facilities dedicated to stripping children of their creativity and molding them into productive, complacent workers.

This is an exaggeration. Many schools offer children chances to be creative through art, music programs, writing, etc.

Considering that the United States remains the most financially prosperous nation in the world despite the financial turmoil of 2007 to the present, one would logically assume that a nation of such might and majesty would be capable of producing exceptionally well educated individuals, yet the statistics eradicate such aspirations.

This argument seems to support a reform and improvement of the education system rather than wiping out mandatory high school education.

These discrepancies, coupled with the social, psychological, and physical issues presented by locking children into a confined space for 7-8 hours with exposure to little more than mentally unstable peers, underpaid and often irritable teachers, and boring, outdated textbooks, are negatively impacting once inspired and dedicated learners who often find themselves questioning the value of completing their work and complying with instructions only to receive a diploma that rarely guarantees them admission into a respectable college.

This argument makes the mistake of grouping teachers and students into groups. Most students are far from "mentally unstable" and many teachers merely want their students to succeed. The fact that teachers are underpaid contradicts your argument; if high school education were to be made optional, enrollment would decrease, and teachers would be paid even less than they are now.

Conclusion: It seems that my opponent's argument would support reform and improvement of the educational system. Making high school optional would only make the problems described worse. High school education is important for the future of the United States.

I would like to clarify a source that I used as a part of my argument. While this source did come from the United Arab Emirates, it was an example of how free time among teens leads to crime.

I would like to thank my opponent for their time and respect during this debate.





Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by emil1 3 years ago
emil1
Really people!!!!
Posted by TheInterlang 3 years ago
TheInterlang
Free time may lead to more time, but it also leads to more genius. The computer you are using was created because someone had too much time on their hands.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mubaracus 3 years ago
mubaracus
Nulosaurbballboy9876Tied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate clearly needed another round. Pro effectively delivered a fair argument though he didn't sway me. Overall his argument really does not adequately advocate for eliminating high school.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
Nulosaurbballboy9876Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Both used sources and argued their point well. Pro got close to improper conduct by claiming things about Con that he never said. However, I don't he crossed the line. I have to give arguments to Con and Sources to Pro. Arguments from Con were weak in the beginning but strong in the end. Pro's were the reverse of that. Sources used by Pro were much more reliable than Con's. I would have added more rounds and pushed a bit deeper, but overall good debate.
Vote Placed by HitReaper 3 years ago
HitReaper
Nulosaurbballboy9876Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you explained your side very well. Though I think in total the pro actually produced the better argument. The contender explained his side very well and I think had more of a structured argument. Though I kept in account that the contender ended the debate which tends to sway a good majority of people. Good job guys, very nice debate.
Vote Placed by Emily77 3 years ago
Emily77
Nulosaurbballboy9876Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were fairly even in the quality of arguments given, however I think CON was narrowly more convincing in his argumentation simply because PRO's language was too universal and exaggerated, thus easier to rebut. If PRO hadn't done this, I think he would have won this debate by a long shot. For future debates PRO, my suggestion to you would be to stay away from these kinds of exaggerated and universal terms and labels as it makes an argument much easier to puncture. For example: 'All textbooks are boring and outdated' is much easier to refute completely than 'textbooks have a tendency to be boring or outdated'. This is because, in the former argument, all that needs be done is find one textbook that is neither boring OR outdated whereas the latter requires an argument that proves the MAJORITY of books are not boring AND not outdated. As you can see, the oppositions burden of proof is much higher, and your argument more solid.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Nulosaurbballboy9876Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both used fairly reliable sources, but Con's arguments were just better overall.