Homeschool is the Better than Public School
Debate Rounds (5)
For this debate I will be using two main arguments. I will start with explaining why the Public School is bad and then showing how homeschool is better.
I will first make the case that public schools are an unsafe environment for children.
Guns: I don't have a problem with people owning and using guns it's a constitution right (2nd Amendment). But when children pillage their parents (or friends) gun collections (because somebody left them out!) and bring them to school whether by accident or on purpose it absolutely creates a dangerous environment.
A little over one week ago in my own county, a girl was accidentally shot by a 9 year old boy who had stolen a .45 handgun from his mother, who is a felon, in preparation to run away. The girl was seriously injured and is still in intensive care. I have posted several of the the news reports on the story if you care for more detail.
This is only one of hundreds of stories of school shootings across the nation, many of which were far worse.
You have only to ask at your local police station to find out the kinds of drugs which are being passed around daily at the school.
The stories which have been documented by the media are too numerous too count. Below are a couple to make the case:
I know that not every one is against the legality of drugs, but seriously! Should minors be running around trading and consuming drugs? At least wait till they get to be 18.
In my opinion this is the worst aspect of public school. It is common knowledge than each year raps and premarital sex grows in schools across the country. Many would like to believe that "their" school is different but this is not the case.
In 2009, 46% of high school students had sexual intercourse and 13.8% had four or more sex partners during their life.� Prior to the sexual activity, 21.6% drank alcohol or used drugs.� Only 38.9% used a condom. CDC
In 2009, 34% of currently sexually active high school students did not use a condom during their last sexual intercourse. CDC
In 2006, an estimated 5,259 young people (ages 13-24) were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. CDC
Each year, approximately 19 million new STD infections occur, and almost half of them are among youth ages 15-24. CDC
(retrieved from http://sadd.org...)
Not only this but young children (4 years old!) lose their mental innocence to teachers who tell them about sex, homosexuality, and other things. How could I send my children to such a place?
Again this fact is well documented:
My second argument is that Government run "public" schools are Poor Educational Quality
I will take only a few areas to prove my point:
In the National Spelling Bee where homeschoolers have matched against public schoolers, the Homeschoolers win again and again.
What about all the tests put together? How do homeschoolers compare to public schooled kids on average? Statistics show that homeschoolers get significantly more points than the national average, even if the child's parent(s) were not certified teachers or having any higher education.
Homeschoolers out perform public schoolers in every area.
Finally I will argue from people that I have talked to that homeschooling is better for the development of the child. Parents know the child the best and care for them the most. They are the ones who should teach the child not just "education" (math, science writing etc.) but also politeness, ethics, how to be a respected adult. They are the ones who teach the child what it means to be a father or a mother, husband or wife. Children need these values to become useful people who care about what is going on around them. Parents teach children values (dare I say religion?) which dictates who they will vote for, what they will be involved in, and what they will read.
Within the second two arguments I already showed how homeschool is better. Before I conclude I just want to explain why homeschool is better concerning my first argument about safety.
In homeschooling all of the students are siblings who (for the most part) love and care about each other. Violence is easily quelled by the parent who always there to make sure that the environment is safe. Speaking from my own experience, we certainly had occasional fights (tussles) which were in good fun. Never was there any desire to actually hurt another sibling. Anything bigger than sticks was a non-issue. Sure we went to the range and shot with dad. But all guns were carefully locked up, and we never had access to them (and still don't). As far as drugs or sex we never even knew about them until we were older.
From all this evidence, I postulate than homeschooling is better than public schooling.
My opponent makes most of his case for quality based on test scores, and while there is some truth to the results of these, one must consider the fact that the majority of the population isn't home schooled. The percentages extracted from the public school system are taken from a much larger population, and a much lower-achieving one as well. Going back to his first argument about safety. My opponent believes that sex is the worst aspect of public school, and that it is a horrible thing for children to learn about it until "they get older." However, ignorance is not the best solution, and honestly it's not outrageous to assume that children who spend all day at home will run across their parents making new siblings for them, destroying their innocence anyways. Drugs will be purchased by anyone who want them, school is just a convenient place to do the trade. People, and students, still purchase a large quantity of illegal drugs outside of school. Parental irresponsibility is half the issue my opponent brings up, but there's little reason to believe, other than my opponents experience, that parents who home school their children are inherently more responsible. Public education gives to its students only as much as they put into it. The raw statistics are skewed by an underachieving majority, but the fact remains is that highly educated, articulate, intelligent individuals are produced by the public education system. Furthermore, being in an environment where one is continually offered drugs makes one necessarily immune to peer pressure. Also, social interaction is more limited by a home school environment, as one stays home for the majority of their weekdays.
I know it's a bit choppy, but I would have had to forfeit the round otherwise. Anticipate a much better 3rd round.
Unfortunately I don't have time to refute your refutations this round, so I'll just extent my arguements from round 2 and we can dicuss more once you get your more dtailed refutation up.
Public school is an unsafe environment for children.
Concerning guns, my opponent makes a very unsound argument. My opponent means to imply that "hundreds" of incidents of school shootings occur on an annual basis. This is simply nonfactual. One would have to actually go back quite a bit before the more recently sensationalized stories of violence at school to even find a ten year period where more than a hundred homicides occurred in school.
Scattered, isolated incidents don't show a trend which is capable of justifying such a grand statement as "This is only one of hundreds of stories..."
It is certainly undeniable that drugs are sold on campus. However, my opponent provides no reasoning as to why we should view this as a bad thing in any way except for the fact that most of them aren't 18 yet. There is no mention of anything that proves that the public school environment is what causes minors to do drugs. Here lies the difference between correlation and causality. My opponent is confusing the presence of drugs in public school as the reason these kids are doing drugs. Drug addiction and other such things frequently begin and continue to occur outside of school. Furthermore, most of the heavier drug abusers are truants who waste most of their free education.
There is no real substance to this argument. Much of it is based off the notion that sex is wrong. There is no reason to believe that having sex is wrong, yet my opponent says it is the worst thing about public education. It is as if my opponent wants promiscuity to be a punishable offense. Abstinence until marriage is a personal choice, and has little correlation to the safety of the school environment or the moral standard in said environment. While there are statistics to show that much of what my opponent says is true in regards to STD's, I disagree largely with my opponents certainty that it is an issue of major importance. My opponent is attempting to use alarming sounding numbers to disguise the insignificance of sex to the issues of public education. My opponent is implying throughout his point that sex is killing off our children, which it is not. A quick look at the sampling methods and introduction of the following report shows this to be truth.
Sex related deaths barely even register next to the grim reaper known as the automobile.
Quality of education
I have a very simple refutation to this point, and I derive it directly from some basic thoughts on the nature of statistics. It is obvious that there will be more outliers and under-achievers in a school population if you sample more of them. My opponent seeks to show, primarily by means of standardized test results, that homeschool results in superior quality education. However, there simply aren't as many people being home schooled, and so there aren't quite as many under-achieving dregs holding down the averages. Most individuals of that description are in the public education system. Attempting to use statistics which will clearly be skewed beyond all recognition to establish superiority is ridiculous.
My argument is simple. I maintain that they are basically the same.
My opponent came in seeking to establish that one is superior to the other. As the Con, however, I can simply maintain a neutral position. Neither is better than the other. I believe I have sufficiently shown already that most of the arguments presented by my opponent are either dramatizations of fringe statistics or simply unreliable. Home school and public school students typically learn the exact same things. If the students do what they're supposed to do, which in the higher achieving minorities in public education they do, then the learning is equal in quality. The instructors in public school are trained educators, which can fully compensate for the lack of a personal touch provided by a parent. However, these things both vary tremendously. Unsupportive or inattentive parents may be just as unhelpful as an extremely poor teacher.
New social, scientific, and religious ideas
This is more of a secondary point, but worth mentioning all the same. My opponent doesn't wish for his children to have to learn about horrifying things like homosexuality. However, once again, what is wrong with this? Nothing. Homosexuality isn't so horrifying that children can't know about it. Much the same with many other things. Some parents may take advantage of the opportunity to neglect teaching their children anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs, such as evolution. These are things which one must learn in public school, and generally they all serve to enrich each child's understanding of the world.
TheApologist forfeited this round.
TheApologist forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.