Is Homeschooling Good (Pro), or Bad (Con)
Debate Rounds (3)
If you've been around enough, you know how this goes. For the new guys, welcome, and the pattern is traditionally "The first round is the challenge and acceptance, the second round consists of the main arguments, and everything else after that is rebuttals." This is my observation from this very site. If it is done differently for anyone else here, no problem.
I also request that Pro clarifies who we are debating it is good, or bad, to; the student, parents of the student, the teacher, society or the government?
Homeschooling is useful for those living in very rural areas, as it would be a waste of taxpayer money to establish a school there. By necessity, all education there is homeschooling. I'm lumping the hiring of a private tutor with homeschoooling, for the sake of the argument.
Homeschooling is useful for those who wish to take more classes than their brick and mortar school will let them take, due to usage of timed class periods.
Homeschooling lets me blast loud music in class and get away with it.
I am homeschooled, and I found the k12 curriculum nothing less than satisfactory.
Homeschooling saves on commute time.
Homeschooling, especially with the k12 curriculum, has classes more challenging than the AP classes offered at a brick and mortar school, applicable in Capo Unified. To wit: The AP English Literature and Composition course offered at k12 has students going through such works as Hedda Gabler and A Streetcar Named Desire within two months. Capo Unified, to the best of my knowledge, does not offer these works in the first semester, or at all, for that matter.
Homeschooling offers a far more flexible schedule, in terms of class times. If there are any live class sessions, that may be offered through the curriculum, or third party sources such as Blackboard, the student can be sipping soda while typing.
No dress code. Wear pajamas to school day... every day.
You get to wear headphones to class.
No schoolyard bullies.
You know what's in the food.
I will freely admit that there are some drawbacks to homeschooling.
You don't get out much. This can be remedied by such activities and groups as Scouting, varsity teams, youth groups, and the Internet.
Building on the above, it's hard to be a good boyfriend/girlfriend to somebody in a brick and mortar school because you can't always be there for them. This crippled me when I was having a bad case of hormones.
Building on the above again, it's hard to have friends that you don't see a lot. The youth groups and such go a long way to alleviate that.
You may become distant from people you once knew. You stand a good chance of being some sort of villain later if this happens. This may or may not be a bad thing, because you probably get all the cool costumes, good lines, and an army of fans who think you're awesome.
In short, homeschooling is an excellent alternative to brick-and-mortar schooling. While it is not for everyone, it is a net benefit to all involved.
Thank you, good night.
Pro begins with telling us what he/she believes... Good for you buddy would you like a bouquet of flowers with that cookie?
Now, Pro continues to tell us how home-schooling is useful for people in rural areas... He then says that it would waste taxpayer's money to establish a school there. Pro is not only assuming we are in a nation where schooling is not privatized but is also saying that an expensive tutor (or sets of tutors, on per subject) is somehow better to force all families to pay for than a lesser school fee. On top of that Pro is suggesting that because time at school is limited, time at home will necessarily be more.
This is where he is wrong, different homes can be extremely contrasting. Sure, some homes are far better learning areas than schools but for some students that public school is the only time they get away form their fighting, benefits scrounging family that is involved in drugs and stuff and pressures their child into the drug business 24/7 if they can. There are so many bad neighbourhoods where school is the only time the child ever even realizes they actually can get out of it alive (even if this was by the rap battles they happened to have in the schoolyard (50 Cent living example of it [http://en.wikipedia.org...]). The fact is that school is so much more for children from deprived homes, it's a place they make other friends and get a real sense of happiness and belonging. In fact, pedophilia and many other horrible things that could go on in a family become so much easier to mask and keep unreported and unknown if there was an 'everyone teaches their own children' culture. You'd be limiting geniuses of mediocre parents because they want their child to master their trade rather than question conventions or strive for their own career path in life. It's so debilitating to allow parent and families to limit the capacity for their children.
Another issue is cultures that don't accept the notion of mental illness. There are actual parents who, if they give birth to a retard or disordered child of any kind refuse to send her/him to therapy out of pure pride and ignorance. They can't believe they'd give birth to such a disabled entity I mean sure other families do but not them. This is far more common than you think and is actually diluted by the fact that school counsellors and the like (who are the main people that the child of pedophiles would feel safe reporting to) help disabled children realize they're disabled to being with and teach them coping mechanisms beyond their family's capability to deal with the issue.
Furthermore, Pro states that he can blast his music and get away with it... Not necessarily. In fact some families are religiously against any music at all and we could have a suppressed Mozart-capacity individual never blossoming into the brilliant artist they were because they never had the variety that school forces one to experience so that children experience things they never did before and make sure they actually don't like it before refusing to pursue such a career path.
Pro uses anecdotal evidence of how he/she was home-schooled but this is only acceptable to Pro as they didn't have the exposure to school.
home-schooling does not save on commuting time. People will shop far more often as they have to buy far more food and drinks to survive a week for their child is being fed there and additionally will have to clean it more often as the individual is in the house more often. This will result in having to buy cleaning products more frequently as well as lightbulb replacements. Everything that was being saved by the facilities at school providing it for the child is now solely up to the individual family to sort out. What if they ran out of something like lightbulb and refuse dot let their child work in the dark and it was middle of winter? Some parents are really sociopathic and just don't care for their child, some are psychopathic and go out of their way to make their child suffer.
In regards to the headphones point not all families would allow that and this is why school is fairer to all students regardless of their home life.
Knowing what' sin the food is more likely in a school that would be sued the sh*t out of if they dared to lie on their menu and were caught by someone having an allergic reaction or something. Instead, at home all kinds of things can be put in your food by your parent without any supervision or official health checks to fear.
The bully point is stupid. Family members can bully you far easier if they control you 24/7, and systematically do so too. On top of this your system has zero capacity for orphans and kids in foster homes.
Not getting out much is a point you yourself invented but as you can see it gives the parents too much power to abuse their child and lock them up etc. whereas a system that made school compulsory and home-schooling banned would force parents to give that child some access and a way to escape their hell. You have no idea how it is to be abused clearly so don't say 'it can't be that bad' because if you dare to say that I will bring up 30 examples of the most horrific kind of abuses you could think of all because non-home-schooling wasn't a mandatory thing for all parents to offer their children.
What the heck is the boyfriend and girlfriend point about? Surely this is an argument against your case...
You say that the social isolation of home-school can be compensated for but why would you need to compensate if you sent the damn kid to school in the first place and let them experience social life and the interaction that the working world requires wannabe loners to actually do to get anywhere. Even the weirdest geeks had to interact at some point to get to where they are.
In actual fact this is a point I want to raise; almost all geniuses began in school and their hatred of it became the fire that drove them to outshine all their peers and eventually become the brilliant minds they once were. While they hated it,f they'd never had that fire in their belly their motivation and competitive streak to outdo their 'inferior' peers would never have surfaced in the first place as very few parents encourage their child to become a narcissist despite it being the best personality for any genius to have if they want to succeed.
The best villains were bully victims in school who learned the hard way how to manipulate and charm people. It's never some home-schooled freak who has no reason to hate humanity as a whole and they are defective villains since they don't know how to deal with people the right way.
To begin with (oh the rebuttal shall be grand). The expensive tutor would charge through the nose, for sure, but what of the gas prices? What of the personnel? What of government-subsidized online courses? There's a boarding school in Switzerland, 40k a year, that offers this: http://www.k12.com.... Through CAVA, a state-subsidized virtual academy, I was shipped a computer, a HP deskjet, a mic, and school materials. Even the Internet connection was subsidized. This is the same material.
I freely admit that I may not know exactly how dysfunctional things may be in some households, but this seems focused on inner-city kids. There, stepping outside can get you shot anyway, so the kids staying inside could be better. You say public school is so much more. My response is that I said that homeschool is an alternative, not flat-out better. Then comes the sexual abuse from family members. I can safely say that if a home's that messed up, it would be happening anyway. It would just be later in the day.
The posing of mediocrity is a very good point raised. For me, I was at a brick and mortar kindergarten to third, then fifth-grade through freshman, and I hated it. The teachers honestly wanted me to sit down and listen to the lecture even though I had already completed the day's homework, due to how the system worked. For me, the waste of time was eternal torment made manifest. I felt like I needed to take a shower afterwards. I had mild ADD and OCD then, there was a pretty girl directly in front of me (she was nice to me as well), and there were so many reflective objects that it wasn't even funny. Also, the lights glared directly into my eyes, no matter where I looked, partially from all those reflective objects. I may have been a little biased, and I freely admit this is a very specific example. Homeschool offered me relief from that.
You bring up an excellent point on mental illness and a family's refusal to accept the concept. This has to happen in, what, one in several million households? The minority here is either hilariously vocal, or is simply another group that brick and mortar schools supposedly have a program for dealing with. There are people who do need special education. I will say no more on the subject.
The families that are religious and anti-music, or religiously anti-music may curtail the loud annoying music any time they wish. They have a right to do that within their own household.
I hated brick and mortar school. Girls terrified me, and there were a lot of them, so many that pro Korean Starcraft players would call "HACKS!" Also, see above.
What of time spent shopping normally? Would they make extra shopping trips just to buy that extra 2000 kcal a day? Or would they but it all in one go?
If there are sociopathic and psychotic parents, the kid has bigger problems than a mere lightbulb. Bigger problems on the level of abuse at home. The abuse would still happen if the kid attended a public school, just less often.
Parents have the right to restrict their children, as they are paying for them.
I was referring to the terrible, almost industrial flavor of the cardboard they call food. I honestly believed the pizza was cardboard marinated in oil.
I didn't have that many friends, so I may be missing a few things. I was listing drawbacks, and you turned them up to eleven.
I'm freely admitting that there are a few things that could be worked out, and the horrific abuse you mentioned makes up a very small percentage.
I don't pretend to be a genius, but I'm smart enough to know how to get things done, and I know how to use that ability. And when things get done (by me), the benefits flow. When those benefits flow, I have power. When I have power, I can use it to gain more power. When I have more power, I become relevant. When I become relevant, I can grab even more power, and when I have even more power, I can influence even more things, as well as come out smelling like a rose. Just as planned.
I am the villain, and when I take over the world, I want something worth ruling over. In terms of tropes, I am the Magnificent Bastard and Visionary Villain, rolled up into one package, with a healthy side of No Place For Me There. For dessert, I've got enough Refuge In Audacity, Pragmatic Villainy, and Xanatos Gambits to ensure nobody leaves unsatisfied.
Besides, and this bears repeating, did I not say that homeschool is an alternative? While banning homeschoooling may be a bit extreme, by all means, send the kid to school, if you believe it best for the child. Percentage-wise, when all is said and done, homeschooling would represent a net gain.
Have a nice day.
Bring it on.
Pro's case is essentially 100% his/her own subjective experience of schooling and his/her own family's ability to raise him/her correctly.
The primary justification for homeschooling being good is that it raises villains... What exactly is Pro getting at here? [http://dictionary.reference.com...] A villain is the embodiment of malice and contempt, so if homeschooling is more efficient at breeding such individuals, the resolution would be proven false.
Pro mentions their own individual special deal that heir parents happened to be able to afford of an abroad learning course... This has nothing to do with the resolution. The matter of fact is that Pro never experienced public schooling during the years which he/she was home-schooled. Instead, he/she experienced an isolated lifestyle which they have nothing to compare to but the memories of what their younger schooling years were (schooling gets better as the years increase since the exams get gradually harder and behavior standards become less bullying-prone and more mature as children mature into young adults).
Not only has the entirety of my Round 2 gone unchallenged but it was turned into a straw man of only relating to extreme inner cities. Rape and abuse happens everywhere, in fact it's easier to abuse children sparser areas where neighbours are less likely to pick up on it. Thus, it was extremely ignorant and illogical to say "I may not know exactly how dysfunctional things may be in some households, but this seems focused on inner-city kids." this is almost as prejudiced as jingoism or racism as it is presuming that people of a certain region, or upbringing are magically inferior to the others at doing a task totally unrelated to it. Many inner city children have the most loving parents ever because they have to be thick as thieves in order to survive in the 'hood' so to speak. In all honesty this is still not an argument against public schooling as staying in the house all day is exactly what you said would have to be compensated for for the resolution to be true. If the children are having to compensate for this by constantly leaving their homes, rather than moving from one region of a safe school to another, then it inherently puts such children at more risk of getting hurt than at the school.
Again Pro uses pure individual anecdote to base their entire argument on. No one cares what you went through or how tough it was in this debate, they solely care about how true you have proven the resolution to be. Your impatience with the school system (ADD) and incapability to cope with the mess (OCD) should have been dealt with. Instead, you have avoided dealing with them and cowered into your little bedroom to survive. How are you going to cope in the working world where, again, many board meetings are even duller and longer than the lectures you couldn't bare were and the people perhaps more messy and prone to malice than schoolyard bullies are who are not as competent as the sever bullying that can occur in workplaces to literally ruin someone's entire career.
Pretty much the entirety of India, in fact most of Asia [http://www.time-to-change.org.uk...][http://www.psychologytoday.com...] Africa [http://www.irinnews.org... and South America [http://www.uniteforsight.org... fills the category of what I was talking about parents not accepting that their child is disabled in any way. This is because they believe either that god only makes people 'different' and that labels are bad to consider or that their culture is severely 'harsh' and very 'shut up and do it' regardless of how psychologically hurt the individual is. In more developed nations it still tends to be an issue amongst more religious families that can't bear the thought of God having cursed them with a retard child ('retard child' really could just refer to someone with dyslexia or asperger's syndrome). It is actually people who would readily send their child to therapy and analyze if it's worth getting extra help for the child's learning at school (helpers and such) and the fact that the school will have these facilities that are not only in the minority but are the living example of why it's better to do it this way.
I conclude that not only is homeschooling far more capable of enabling
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: it feels like pro raised too much of his own experience. You cannot apply your home-schooling to everyone, neither can you apply possible opinions of public schooling in comparison to con's facts. Con wins here with good evidence and over-reaching arguments applying to school overall, whether at home or in public.
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.