The Instigator
kernst14
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Resolved: Should home schooled students be able to play public activities.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 21563
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

kernst14

Pro

My argument is that home schooled students should have to right to participate in the public schooling activities.
Such as: Basketball, Softball, Debate, Band, etc. Pretty much anything besides class. Like clubs. That the school offers they should be able to interact with what ever they can.
Zaradi

Con

Fair enough. I'll accept this one.
Round starts with you, pro.
Debate Round No. 1
kernst14

Pro

Then i guess there isnt much of a debate here..
Zaradi

Con

My opponent refused to post arguments in her last round. Her refusal to participate should, at the minimum, cost her a conduct point. All I have to do is prove one point and I will thus win the round.

Home school students should not be able to participate in public school activities because they would be taking the spot of someone who wants to do it and goes to public school. If a home schooler wanted to participate in some public school club, then they should go to public school instead of taking a public school kid's spot.

Thus, vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
kernst14

Pro

So what you are saying is that Home schooled kids should be able to participate in public schooling clubs and actitives. To that i find that wrong because, anyone that is of the age to play high school activites and feels good about the changes of actually making a team or club. They should be able to. Just because they are taught at home doesnt mean that they cant join any clubs at the high school of the district that they are in... For an example I go to Nixa High School, and I believe that we should invite the home bounded or home schooled students to the open gyms at least let them have a feel of what they are interested in.

In other words you are stating that if we allow these random kids join the schools activites, that maybe it'll be resulted in Riots. There should be a huge problem with public schools or private schools because they are completely different.

But, with public schooling and home schooling shouldnt have a hige fight over mixing when it comes to school activites. And just to add that, we come to public school because its free schooling. So, there is really not much of a conflict between this topic. Please I ask my opponet if there is! Tell me and explain what harm could come from mixing home school kids and public school kids.

Actually a main i would like to add is of the fact that we actually compete againist private schools all the time. Exspecially in debate such as: New Covenet High School. So if we can compete and mix private schools then why cant we mix home schooled students in with our clubs and sports and other public school activites.

I respectfully ask for a Pro Ballet thanks
Zaradi

Con

I have a hard time figuring out what my opponent is shooting for. Not only did she not post her case in the first round of debating, she held it off to the LAST ROUND, giving me the least amount of time possible to refute it. This in itself is highly abusive to me, so I ask that you take that into consideration when viewing the round.

A second point to consider: my opponent never really states a case of her own. All she has are refutations of my single point. Since the burden of proof in this debate is inherently split between us, I'm going to be better proving my BOP best because I'm actually providing proof as to why my side of the debate is right. She has no evidence as to why her side of the debate is right, only why my side is wrong. Thus, she CAN'T fulfil her burden of proof, and off of this very easily we can vote con. Even if you buy all of her refutations against my case, I'm the only one with a risk of offense in this round. All she has is terminal defense, which ISN'T enough to fulfill her burden of proof. So here's the first easy place to vote con before I even adress her counter-arguments, which I shall do so now.

Her first point was that since she believes that if anyone of highschool age and capable of doing the activity, they ought to have a shot. I don't deny this, except for the fact that when HOMESCHOOLED kids are taking the spaces of PUBLIC SCHOOL kids who are actually enrolled in the school, that's when we have something wrong. If it were something outside of the school, then there wouldn't be a problem. But that's not the resolution given by my opponent. Also, this point is hingent on her belief, which is hardly fact. Just because I believe that unicorns and dragons and aliens and Spongebob and Demonized Nambian Antelopes exist, doesn't make it in the slightest bit true. Because of this, her first point is refuted.

Her second point is something that I'm a little bit confused on myself. Apparently to my opponent, I'm saying that if we allow homeschooled kids to join public school activities, then riots will break out.

Wait, what? Hold on a second. When did I say this? I ask the voters to look back at my sole point and find where I mention this at all. The answer to that, to save you time from having to pointlessly look, is that I never mentioned this. My argument is specifically that if we allow homeschooled kids to try out for positions on public school teams and activities, that we deny those who actually ARE in public school. If home schooled kids wanted to be on a public school team, then why can't they just enroll in public school?

My opponent then asks me what harm would come from it. I clearly explained the harm in my sole point that if we allow those who are home schooled to try out for public school teams, then we are certainly denying those, who before would've gotten a spot, a spot to someone who doesn't even go to that school! How is this right!? THAT'S the question that needs to be answered.

Aside from those three points, there isn't anything that stands up against my sole point. And since I have refuted all three points, my argument can be cleanly extended. Thus, since I best fulfill the burden of proof, there's no other vote to cast but one for the con debater.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
I feel bad, yes, but I justified partially making the argument for her by the fact that I feel you could have done a way better job. It felt like you were noobsniping and not putting effort in.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
You are making the argument for her. But it's okay. At least you admit you're just arbitrarily intervening. And while I'm not sure why you're granting her offense for an argument she didn't make, but that's your call, not mine.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
I know this is going to be a really surprising vote, and you may consider it incorrect, but here's my RFD:

-----Conduct point does not go to Con for three reasons:
1) Pro actually did state a sort of argument in the first round, although extremely skimpy.
2) Pro never said round 1 is acceptance.
3) Con seemed quite aggressive and almost mocking of Pro in my opinion. Don't act like the voters can't vote for someone other than you. "Thus, since I best fulfill the burden of proof, there's no other vote to cast but one for the con debater."

-----Grammar:

Obvious.

-----Argument:

It's obvious Con didn't make a point about Riots and this didn't make sense at all. But this does not lose Pro points or gain Con any.

Con's basic argument is weak: homeschool students will take the place of public schoolers.

It could have been developed more.

Pro's argument is simple: homeschool students need an opportunity to do the things they want such as basketball or whatever.

Con pretty much tried refuting the argument by outweighing it, but here's my problem with Con's argument.

The resolution didn't say "Homeschool students should be more important than public school students", it said they should be able to play. Public schoolers will most likely get a priority, and even if they don't, they'll probably sign up quicker and such.

Now I feel like I'm kind of making the argument for Pro, but at the same time Con is an experienced debater and should absolutely be able to do a better job. This feels like a noob snipe with no effort poured in just because it was a noob.

I'm sorry if this is the wrong decision, but that's my RFD.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
kernst14ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Pro, as the instigator, should go first w/ her case. S/G- hige=/=huge. Args- the only thing that pro answers is some argument about mixing home school kids and non home school kids. Con doesn't make that argument and Con doesn't say anything about riots so that's non-responsive. Con's argument that there shouldn't be a fight over activities does not hold true because there is a gap between what should be and what is. Therefore, con's args stand. PM/Comment with questions.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
kernst14ZaradiTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Tuff, arguing last round only deserves a conduct deduction. So unless you can justify those 6 points I counter, then I re-read and re vote. This is a valid counter.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
kernst14ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
kernst14ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't argue til the last round.