The Instigator
ForSerious
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
SolonKR
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state.

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 1 vote the winner is...
ForSerious
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 842 times Debate No: 56779
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

ForSerious

Pro

Round 1. Accept the invitation. Optional: Background, Key Terms.
Round 2. Standard
Round 3. Standard
Round 4. No New Arguments

Background: I am working towards a communication major
Key Terms/References: The Romeikes Family, Home School Legal Defense Association,
SolonKR

Con

As per the parameters established, I shall use this round for acceptance only.
I will provide neither background information nor key terms; I will define my key terms later.

I look forward to a good debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
ForSerious

Pro

Guess what!? I'm not going to argue religious freedom. You've probably heard that argument tons of times already and if you haven't bought it by now I probably can't change your mind over the Internet.
Instead I argue that the status quo includes persecution, that non-state regulated education systems output independent young adults, and lastly that societal interests should not be decided by a single entity.

Before I get into my three main arguments, it is necessary to be very clear what this resolution means.
I have been misunderstood before with this resolution. "Control their child(ren)'s education" does NOT mean all parents/guardians would be mandated to design or even implement a curriculum.
In this context, "control" means 'in charge of deciding where their children go to school, including the options of alternative education and home schooling'.

In fact, in the United States of America, parents and guardians ARE in control of their child(ren)'s education. Not all countries give parents the right to decide their child's education.

PRO is arguing that countries that restrict a parent's control of their child's education should cease.

A common gut reaction against this argument might be:
'but parents don't own their children'.
True!
And neither does the state.

I. Status Quo Includes Persecution [1]
The Romeike family has been in the news as of late through a variety of mediums: television, video hosting, news bulletins, etc. I chose to use the Home School Legal Defense Association's website [1] to fact check. Germany does not permit home schooling. All children, ages 5-18 must attend a standardized school, [1] exceptions do exist but they are infrequent. The Romeike family tried to teach their children at home, only to have the state enter their home and physically remove their children to take them to school. The Romeike family claimed refugee status in the United States of America due to persecution in Germany and are currently home schooling their children in Tennessee. While the US currently permits home schooling, many states hamper or even find ways of prohibiting it.
In my next section I'll show the benefit US children have received from home schooling.

II. Quality of Education [2]
Why do families home school? Believe it or not, less than half (of a web poll of 989 home school parents) gave 'religious conviction' as the reason they home school. Top reasons for home schooling are 'positive social environment', 'academic excellence', and 'specific needs of child'. [1] Contrary to stereotypes, home schooled teenagers are often more socialized and more independent than their standard education counterparts. College Students that were home schooled receive better grades and make the transition to college life more smoothly. [2]

III. Societal Interests should not be decided by one party
It is clear that home schooling is most often a high quality experience " so why does the Home School Legal Defense Association need to fight so hard to protect it? That is because the state views the purpose of education as creating productive members of society. Is it right that a single entity, a state, should hold the power to shape the values and critical thinking skills of the future workers and decision makers? What happened to the value of individualism? What happened to the freedom of thought? It is vital that a variety of thinkers contribute to the values and innovations of the future, not a cookie cutter workforce, each of which was dragged through a standardized system of education.
If cookie cutter job fillers are what makes a productive society, perhaps we should rethink our values, or at the very least, all the people to decide our values " not the state.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

SOURCES
1. http://www.hslda.org...
2. http://www.usnews.com...
SolonKR

Con

Before I begin, I clarify that I use the terms "parents/guardians", "guardians", and "parents" interchangeably; all mean "parents/guardians". As the con, I shall be arguing that legal guardians should not be "in charge of deciding where their children go to school, including the options of alternative education and home schooling," as per the clarified resolution given by the pro in this round, as he has the burden of proof. First, I will rebut Pro's points. Second, I will show that home schooling is not in the best interests of the education of the child, due to external factors such as abuse and dogmatic guardians. Third, I will show that parental choice of education is generally harmful to children. Finally, I will show that state-controlled education works better in practice.

I had a bit of difficulty constructing this argument, as there are two different resolutions Pro has brought up. First, he offers clarification for the original resolution, as he explicitly states, "I have been misunderstood before with this resolution. "Control their child(ren)'s education" does NOT mean all parents/guardians would be mandated to design or even implement a curriculum. In this context, "control" means 'in charge of deciding where their children go to school, including the options of alternative education and home schooling'." That serves to clarify the original resolution, "Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state," before Pro changes the resolution entirely to "countries that restrict a parent's control of their child's education should cease." Because the first resolution to be stated and clarified was the former, I will argue against that.

Pro's first point, that the status quo includes persecution, has no relevance to the resolution. The "persecution" of those that home school does not make home schooling correct any more than the persecution of Christians makes Christianity correct. It is a logical fallacy. On a related note, Germany outperformed the United States on the PISA test (7); lending support to the idea that their educational system is superior.

Pro's web poll is not cited specifically enough to find it, so I will respond with statistics I found that show that more than half actually home school for religious reasons (6). I will challenge the U.S. News source on the basis that taking testimony from one parent of home schooled children in order to justify the system is not broad enough in scope to have any meaningful implication. The statement about college is skewed; more information about that can be found later in my argument.

Pro's third point also has little relevance to the resolution. Most it is entirely subjective.
Anything can be considered "a single entity", including a parent/guardian unit. The state, which in cases of educated nations is often democratic, is actually fairer in education because more people have a say in its implementation. State-run education doesn't always equal a dictatorship.

External factors make the idealistic view of parent choice an unrealistic view. The idealistic view is that home schooling will "[Nurture] a child's natural thirst for learning, not [squelch it]," and will provide several other benefits (1). In practice, however, it leaves a large number of children with severe disadvantages. Though admitted home schooled children do better at college than public school students, that leaves out a major part of the picture. Home schooled students face a huge problem actually getting admitted into college, and some colleges look unfavorably upon home schooled students. (2) A source indirectly cited by article, as it was a source in the U.S. news he cited states that while approximately 3% of school-age students are home schooled, only 1% of college students come from a background of being home schooled (3). The full research report that in turn came from can be found in my sources as well (4). That is a very poor chance for a home schooled child to make it to college. In these ways, home schooling is an inferior alternative to public school, and thus should not be allowed.

Parental choice is harmful to children in general. In addition to hurting chances for college enrollment, as seen above, many other factors arise from home schooling that are extremely detrimental to the well-being of a child. Hundreds of cases of documented abuse were facilitated by home schooling (5), and those are just the documented cases. Home schooling also creates potential for highly dogmatic education. According to the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, approximately 22% of home schooling parents cite "A desire to provide religious instruction" or "A desire to provide moral instruction" as the most important reason for home schooling (6). This blatantly shows that guardian-driven indoctrination is a major component of home schooling; as well, more than 65% of parents/guardians cited "A desire to provide religious instruction" as at least an "Important" reason in the same study. For this reason, guardians should not be allowed to choose alternative forms of education for their own children. Meanwhile, private schooling and school choice also have a strong effect of cream-skimming, or discriminating against lower-opportunity students (8).

Finally, state-run education has more potential than education in which parents have a say. The PISA test, a widely-cited basis for comparing national education systems, has results that attest to this. In 2012, the United States ranked in the bottom half of participating countries (7). The majority of students are not taught at home or alternatively schooled in those countries, so success on the PISA depends mostly on public school students. The same statement applies to the U.S. Therefore, it can be logically concluded that the public school system holds a greater impact on the rankings. Let's make a generous supposition that home schooled students do 12% better at the PISA than publicly schooled ones. That's generous, because according to (3 and 4), home schooled students had an average first-year GPA of 3.41, compared to public school students with an average of 3.12, a difference of approximately 10%. The United States had a mean score of 481 on the PISA. 481 * 1.12 = 538.72. That still ranks below Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Chinese Taipei and Korea. That doesn't sound bad at first, but bear in mind that that assumes that all students would perform just as well as the top third of home schooled kids, as 1% of college students are home schooled, yet home schooled students make up 3% of the student population. This brings to light that even if the United States' education system is worse than home schooling, it has greater potential than home schooling. Therefore, resources should be spent developing state-run education, not defending the educational "rights" of guardians.

In conclusion, guardian choice of education does not significantly aid student achievement. It also provides a whole host of new issues, no matter what form the choice occurs in. This is not to say that alternative education is necessarily bad; for example, a state-sponsored school specifically for disabled children could be beneficial. The resolution, however, deals with guardian choice, and guardians should have no say in these matters.

Sources:
1.http://www.washhomeschool.org...
2.http://www.pbs.org...
3.http://i.bnet.com...
4.http://files.eric.ed.gov...
5.http://hsinvisiblechildren.org...
6.http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org...
7.http://www.oecd.org...
8.http://www.maxwell.syr.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
ForSerious

Pro

I will defend my arguments, attack CON's points, then add a new argument.


I. Given control, a state [Germany] abuses power.

The persecution is relevant. I have shown you an example of a state that does not allow parental control of education, and how that state abuses that power.

I will permit and continue the use of the PISA test as an accurate measure of a country's education system. You claim that because Germany's education system (homeschooling is illegal) is superior to the United State's education system (homeschooling is legal). However, homeschooling is legal in Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland, Estonia, Finland, Canada, Poland, and Belgium [1], all of which scored higher on the PISA in 2013 than Germany [2].

II. Quality of Education

CON attempts to counter the Home School Legal Defense Association's (HSLDA) web poll [3], which I have now more specifically cited, with a misrepresented statistic from the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) [4]. In truth, HSLDA and CRHE do not contradict each other. The data provided by CRHE says that just over 60% surveyed included religion as 'an' important reason. Concern about school environment was selected as 'an' important reason more than 90% of the time. The point is, only 17% gave religion as their most important reason. This does not contradict my earlier point that less than half of homeschooling parents' main reason is religion.

CON would have you reject my U.S. news source [5a], claiming I am taking the “testimony of one parent of home schooled children”. While the article in question does include several first-person testimonials, the facts I shared (that home schooled children receive better grades, transition to college better, etc.) came from studies [5b] [5c] cited by the article.

These studies go on to show that home schooled undergraduates are more likely to be Pell scholars, have higher GPAs, have higher ACT composite scores, and bring more transferable credits than their standard educated counterparts [5b].

III. Social Interests should not be decided by one party

CON claimed “the state, which in cases of educated nations is often democratic”. This is severely untrue. Going back to the top 15 countries with superior education systems (PISA, 2013) [2], their government types are highly varied: communist state, parliamentary republic, multi-party democracy, republic, communist state one man dictatorship, constitutional monarchy, hereditary constitutional monarchy, parliamentary government with a constitutional monarchy, confederation, federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy, and Canada's democracy/federation/monarchy [7]. This fact also destroys CON's claim that the state is “fairer in education because more people have a say”. If you want people to truly have a say, let them decide if the state's education system or an alternative is best for their child.

The problem of leaving the education of children to one single entity, is that any single entity is fallible. Uniformity of any kind leaves systems prey to shared vulnerability. No, parents don't count as 'single entities' in this explanation because a single parent could not educate a state's worth of children.

A. “homeschooling is not in the best interest of the child”

First I would like to attack CON's playful interpretation of certain statistics. Yes, 3% of K-12 aged children are currently home schooled in the US. Yes, only 1% of students out of 1000 colleges polled were home schooled. This does NOT mean that 2 out of 3 home school graduates do not continue their education. homeschooling has been growing at an alarming rate, nearly doubling in the last decade [5b]. This means that the statistic is probably closer to 1 out of 5 home school graduates not continuing their education at college, because at the time this 1% home schooled graduates were being home schooled, there were half (1.5%) as many home schooled students as there currently are (3%).

B. “Parent Choice of Education is Harmful”

CON claims that because a significant portion of parents who home school do so because of religious conviction, the state should not allow parent control of education. Where is this inherent link between religion and abuse that CON seems so afraid of? Not only is separation of Church and State a long fought for right, but religion is not some hideous monster that will either abuse children or turn them into bigots. On the note of child abuse, allowing parents the right to control their child's education in no way 'gives a thumbs up' to child abuse. The state still has the responsibility to discover and stop child abuse and neglect.

C. “State Controlled Education works better”

The United States is not the one and only example of homeschooling. CON cannot simply show that other countries beat the US at the PISA, therefor homeschooling is ineffective. CON goes on to say “The majority of students are not taught at home or alternatively schooled in those countries [that did better than the US at the PISA]”. I know of no developed country where the majority of students are home schooled. It seems the PISA data by country alone is not relevant at comparing homeschooling.

CON again tries to rely on the 1% / 3% botched statistics, but as I showed earlier, the situation for home schoolers is not nearly as bad as CON believes.

D*. “Skimming”

While CON did not organize this as a separate argument, I found that “Meanwhile, private schooling and school choice also have a strong effect of cream-skimming, or discriminating against lower-opportunity students (8)” was inconsistent with argument “B” and needs to be labeled separately. The point I believe CON was heading towards is that allowing private schools increases elitism.Private schools are not the source of inequality. Eliminating private education, would simply remove a valuable service and not solve the problem of inequality.

This debate has so far focused on homeschooling. I would like to remind all parties that the resolution is “Parents should be in control of their child's education”. This means being allowed to choose alternative education such as homeschooling, private school, and parochial school. While homeschooling is a hot topic, are you willing to say goodbye to private education too? This leads me to my new argument: variety.

IV. Variety

Having a variety of education systems available is best. Having the state's education system available is important, as many families default to public education. However, having only a public education system available is unacceptable in a world where great alternatives could be offered.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, parents should be in control of their child's education because states are corruptible, states are fallible, alternative education systems provide quality, and alternative education systems provide variety. CON attempted to show that homeschooling is poor quality, that homeschooling parents are trying to indoctrinate their children in an abusive way, that the public education system is better, and that alternative education systems support elitism. I have rebutted CON's arguments, leaving you to agree with PRO.

SOURCES

1. http://www.hslda.org...

2. http://www.theguardian.com...

3. http://www.hslda.org...

4. http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org...

5a. http://www.usnews.com...

5b. http://i.bnet.com...

5c. http://files.eric.ed.gov...

6. http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org...

7. https://www.cia.gov...

SolonKR

Con

I. Pro counters that persecution is relevant, but his reasoning, that the state "abuses" its power, is questionable. The family broke the law; they were punished. That is not an example of "abuse". Disdain for a law does not equal exemption. Pro does not mention with regards to the PISA the math that I used to show that public schooling has a higher potential than home schooling, so that point stands. The PISA is discussed more in this point in III.C.

II. The over 60% religion statistic is in fact important. The fact that it is considered an important factor, even if not the most important, clearly shows that religion holds a strong influence over these decisions. A plethora of home schooling sites are religious, and the HSLDA itself identifies as Christian (found in the FAQ of 1) The fact that over 60% say that religion is at least important also definitively proves that over 60% over home schooling parents are in fact religious. See III.B. for more on this. Also, the HSLDA poll cited by Pro (3, in his list of sources) serves to contradict Pro's argument, as an even higher amount of people on that poll cite religion as a primary reason for home schooling.

III. With regards to the make-up of the top countries, constitutional monarchies are effectively democratic republics, as the people ultimately do hold a lot of power. Using a source from the CIA to define democracy is a bit America-centric; the Merriam-Webster definition defines democracy as "government by the people; especially: rule of the majority" (2). Also, many parts of China are included, as they are technically different nations; however, they are controlled by the same government, and thus should not be considered separate entities in terms of forms of government. Singapore is a parliamentary republic, a form of democracy. Taiwan is a republic. South Korea is a democratic republic, a form of democracy. Japan is a constitutional monarchy; that"s a form of democracy. Liechtenstein has a constitutional monarchy with elements of direct democracy, a form of democracy. Switzerland has direct and representative democracy. Netherlands? Form of democracy. Estonia? Form of democracy. If we"re to say that only direct democracy counts as democracy, then even the United States is not a democracy. Pro attempts to misconstrue my claim that the state is often "fairer in education because more people have a say". What it means is that multiple people have the opportunity to vote on education through representatives or referendums, whereas in home schooling a child is at the mercy of parents; therefore, my original rebuttal stands. I also challenge the notion that parents cannot count as a single entity because they can"t educate a state"s worth of children. That is irrelevant to the fact that a parent with autonomous control in fact has a much more rigid control over a child than a state that doesn"t have the resources to indoctrinate so heavily; the parent relatively speaking can do more harm with the resources to his/her child than the state can to a state full of children.

A. I concede that my interpretation of the statistics was an exaggeration; however, Pro"s interpretation is as well. He states that "Yes, only 1% of students out of 1000 colleges polled were home schooled" the statistic is probably closer to 1 out of 5 home school graduates not continuing their education at college, because at the time this 1% home schooled graduates were being home schooled, there were half (1.5%) as many home schooled students as there currently are (3%)." Given the statistics cited in that paragraph, the 1 out of 5 statistic has no evidence supporting it at all. 1 out of 1.5 as a proper fraction is 2/3, which is approximately average, according to the NCES (3, can be found under the heading "Enrollment"). The NCES also states that the number of public high school dropouts is decreasing dramatically.

B. Pro attempts again to misconstrue my arguments, linking my argument against abuse to my argument against indoctrination. They are two separate points. He even acknowledges this by rebutting the former separately at the end of this point, despite linking them together twice. I"ll start off rebutting the indoctrination with a quick reference (4). The evidence presented in that study, coupled with the 60% statistic earlier, are strong indicators that parents utilize home schooling to impose their religious views on the children. Pro also shows a lack of understanding of the law. The "separation of church and state" means only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (5) Forbidding home schooling would not prohibit the child from exercising his beliefs; contrary to popular belief, people can pray in schools, it just cannot be teacher/administrator-sanctioned (6). The parents are not prohibited either, as they can exercise it themselves at any time; it only limits the contact time they have with the children, and there is no constitutional right to control another person"s religion, anyway. In terms of abuse, Pro actually rebuts his own ideas. Giving the state the responsibility to discover and stop child abuse and neglect in effect gives the state control over education, since they ultimately define what that entails; home schooling would thus become "state-run education that occurs at home", defeating the whole purpose.

C. Pro attempts to misconstrue my point again. He makes no mention of the theoretical math done in which home schooled children here are compared to publicly schooled children abroad, so it should be considered resolved that public schooling in fact has a higher potential for educating students than home schooling. See III.A. for my response to the "botched statistics".

D. Pro does not rebut skimming with any sources; therefore, the point that private schooling and school choice create a derogatory skimming effect is affirmed.

IV. It is not exactly proper form to introduce a new argument late in the debate, but I"ll respond to it regardless. There is no source cited in this paragraph, and Pro has the burden of proof to show that variety improves education. He has not provided proof; therefore, this argument should not be taken into consideration.

Pro misconstrued my arguments on several occasions, such as linking my abuse argument to my indoctrination argument, and also provided no rebuttal for several points. Ultimately, Pro still has not provided enough proof to counter my arguments against parents being in charge of education. I have shown that school choice is not as beneficial compared to public school as Pro believes. Meanwhile, my points about skimming, indoctrination, and abuse all stand, and Pro has not definitively demonstrated why parents and guardians should be in charge of education, not the state.

Sources:
1.http://www.hslda.org...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://nces.ed.gov...
4. http://www.iejee.com...
5. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
6. https://www.au.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ForSerious

Pro

I. Abuse of Power That the Romeike family was accepted to the US under refugee status, lends that the harsh action of the German government traumatizing the Romeike children by physically removing them from their home and escorting them to school is in fact an abuse of power. The Romeike children were not abused. The states only reason for interfering was its instistance that all children receive the exact same education.

II. Quality of Education While CON has showed that a significant proportion of home schooling families are religious, CON has failed to show that religion is inherently harmful to the quality of education. Private Schools are known for their quality education and what few studies there are have begun to show the benefits of home education. Optional alternative education allows parents to choose a higher quality education for their child.

III. Fallibility of a Single Entity CON believes that democracy gives decision making power to the many, and that this is better than having every guardian decide on behalf of their child. However, voter turn out for presidential elections fluctuates between 50% to 60% [1]. Barely over half of US citizens give their voice to presidential elections. Far less have direct input into the public education system. It is vital that parents have the choice to place their child in the care of the public education system or an alternative, such as private school or home school. It is too risky to force all children to go through the same education system. A variety of educations is best to ensure a variety of schools of thought have an input on our future. This leads me into point IV.

IV. Variety of Educational Systems If you'll refer back to the rules in the first speech, new arguments are only not allowed in the last round. My opponent is much more interested in playing at statistics than using critical thinking. A lack of statistics where irrelevant or unattainable does not make an argument invalid. CON attacked the format of this argument, not the argument itself, thus dropping the point to me.

A. Best Interest of Child I apologize for “1 out of 5”. This was a typo. In my notes I have “1 out of 3” home school graduates do not continue on to college, which is congruent with the math. CON shared with us that Public School graduates continue on to college at approximately the same ratio as home school graduates. This may have led you to believe we have tied this point. However, CON forgets that home school is not the only form of alternative education. Private Schools pride themselves on extremely high college acceptance rates for their graduates. Therefor, alternative education is in the best interest of the child. Home schooling gives the child as good a chance at continuing on to college as public schooling, and private schooling gives the child an even better chance.

B. Parent Choice is Harmful Allowing the state to prevent child abuse is not the same as allowing the state to control all education. Parents have been indoctrinating their children into their religious beliefs for centuries with or without the help of home education. If CON suggests the state prevent parents from indoctrinating their children into their beliefs this would be a gross overstep and directly violate freedom of religion. As usual, CON ignores the branch of alternative education that is private school. CON feels it is necessary for parents to limit contact with their child. Again, this would be a gross overstep of state control to dictate how much time a parent can spend with their child. The exception to this being abuse, in which case it is the state's duty to interfere. The only harm CON has shown is child abuse, which is not directly caused by parent choice of education, and does not fall under state controlled education for the state to remove a child from an abusive or neglectful environment.

C. State Controlled Education is Better CON has merely shown that there is more data on public education than home education. Yet again, CON neglects the branch of alternative education that is private schooling. Public education is certainly not better than private education, otherwise why would anyone ever pay to send their child to private school when public school is free?

D. Elitist Education “Skims” CON claims I dropped this point. I did not. I said “private schools are not the source of inequality. Eliminating private education, would simply remove a valuable service and not solve the problem of inequality”.

Here is a quick summary for you.

I have four arguments. I. Allowing the state to control the education of every child lends it to abusing that power. II. Quality of education would be hampered by limiting children to the public education system. III. Putting all children to through the same education system is irresponsible due to the fallibility of a single entity (putting all your eggs in one basket. IV. Having a variety of education systems available is our best chance at success.

My opponent also have four arguments. A. CON believes public education is in the best interest of the child. However, public school is just as bad as home school at getting their graduates into college and private school is fantastic at getting their graduates into college. B. CON believes parent choice is harmful. However, allowing every parent to decide on behalf of their child is better than allowing the state to put them all through the same system. C. CON believes public education is better. However, it is clear that private education is superior. D. CON believes private education causes inequality. However, eliminating private education will not solve inequality and instead steals a valuable service.

The central theme of this debate is would you rather risk a small proportion of the sliver of the families that home school having an easier time indoctrinating or abusing their child, or would you rather risk the state putting all children through the exact same sub-par education with the curriculum and pledges chosen by the state.
How children are educated shapes the future. Don't let the state water down the potential of the future by controlling the education of our children.

1. http://elections.gmu.edu...
SolonKR

Con

I'll follow Pro's lead and offer rebuttals right up to the conclusion.

I. Pro does not acknowledge or respond to my rebuttals regarding the Romeike family. I will present the rebuttals I made, and why his responses are not sufficient. In Round 2, I state "Pro's first point, that the status quo includes persecution, has no relevance to the resolution. The "persecution" of those that home school does not make home schooling correct any more than the persecution of Christians makes Christianity correct. It is a logical fallacy." Pro's response in the next round simply states "The persecution is relevant. I have shown you an example of a state that does not allow parental control of education, and how that state abuses that power." Pro, however, fails to state why the German government's actions are actually abusive, and more importantly, he fails to state why that "abuse" supports the notion that "Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state."

II. Pro ignores the main point of the home schooling statistic. "[A] significant proportion of home schooling families are religious" is not the main point. As I stated in Round 3, "The fact that it is considered an important factor [in home schooling], even if not the most important, clearly shows that religion holds a strong influence over these decisions." Religion is inherently contradictory toward education, in fields such as science (evolution) and history (Creationism), as well as in the humanities (defined gender roles). Meanwhile, Pro states private schools are known for quality education, but has only pointed out statistics about home schooling in his arguments thus far. His repetition of the idea that home education has many benefits does not respond to my rebuttals.

III. The statistic cited by Pro about voter turnout in this last round is irrelevant. Every eligible voter CAN vote; the fact that not all do only speaks to the point that they do not wish to say anything, rather than that they cannot speak. The point about not having direct input into the public education is completely untrue, with a plethora of parent organizations that serve to offer just that. One such organization is the PTA, which in 2013 boasted 4,266,785 members (Source: Page 13 http://www.pta.org...). Pro repeatedly states that school choice is vital, but does not state why.

IV. The issue of this being not allowed was a difference in interpretation, as I presumed that "Standard" meant rebuttals in the third round only. I see Pro's meaning now, so I will agree that it is allowable. Regardless, Pro has the burden of proof to show that school choice and variety are in any way beneficial, and he has not shown that they are; thus this argument carries no more weight than if I were to simply state that variety places a great strain on the educational system and damages everyone in it.

A. Pro admits to making a mistake with his math; as his statistical math cannot be completely trusted when he has sources, he surely cannot be trusted when making statistical claims he provides no support for, with regards to private school college acceptance rates.

B. Again, Pro continues the trend of saying that my arguments are invalid without giving reasoning; in this case, stating that I'm wrong that giving the state power to control abuse gives the state power to control the whole education, without providing reasoning against my claim. Pro makes a point that damages his own position in stating "Parents have been indoctrinating their children into their religious beliefs for centuries with or without the help of home education", because it clearly shows the tendency of indoctrination by parents to be true, while the state education is secular and does not force a viewpoint in the context of the United States. I have ignored private school no more than Pro has, who has, I emphasize, provided no sources in support of private schooling, only home schooling. The "state's duty to interfere" in cases of child abuse is just that: interfering. Therefore, either the point about abuse must be accepted as valid, or the state has a right to interfere with a child's education, nullifying the resolution. The resolution contains that parents/guardians "control", and explicitly NOT the state. Any sort of state control, even over abuse, nullifies the resolution. Pro also argues that "child abuse... is not directly caused by parent choice of education". I never said it was. All I stated was that choice facilitates abuse; it makes it easier to commit.

C. Again, Pro ignores my point that home schooling achievement in the U.S. is lower than public school achievement abroad. Meanwhile, Pro accuses me of ignoring private schooling when he in fact ignored it as well. With regards to "...why would anyone ever pay to send their child to private school when public school is free?", that doesn't prove anything about quality. People in the U.S. pay for bottled water when they could easily take free water and put it into their own bottle; it doesn't mean that bottled water is better.

D. Pro did in fact drop the point that skimming occurs, which is detrimental to the poor. His point that it is not the source of inequality is irrelevant, as he does not contest that it skimming is indeed detrimental to the poor.

Conclusion:

I have had many points sustained, such as those of abuse, religion, and skimming, that demonstrate that the state should indeed have control over the educational system, and all have been well-cited and documented. Pro, on the other hand, has many arguments that he offers no supporting evidence for, and some of the ones he does have been completely rebutted. As well, Pro attempts to shift the argument away from the core by accusing me of being against private schooling altogether. According to the resolution, I do not hold that; I only hold that the state should ultimately be in charge of regulating those private schools and admittance to them. The same holds for home schooling and charter schooling and schools for the disabled.

Pro has not offered enough evidence to conclusively prove that "Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state", and substantial evidence to the contrary is present; as such, he has not met the burden of proof and the argument should go to Con.

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate, and I enjoyed the chance to research a perspective on a topic that I hadn't considered previously. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
It was a CVB my friend. The other guy wrote "better arguments", so I counter vote bombed it.
Posted by ForSerious 2 years ago
ForSerious
ChosenWolff, can you explain your "reason for voting decision".
Posted by ForSerious 2 years ago
ForSerious
I didn't have room to say this, 8000 character limit, but I concede to the point that I was confusing when I used the line "PRO is arguing ..." This wasn't meant to be a restating of the resolution. I'm glad you stuck to the agreed upon resolution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
ForSeriousSolonKRTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a really, really close round. Con barely addressed the alternatives to homeschooling in my opinion, and I thought Pro was more persuasive. Many of Pro's arguments were new to me, and I thought Con did an excellent job responding, so I really enjoyed reading this. You all were neck in neck. Good job to you both!