The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Schoolhoming is a revolutionary idea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 822 times Debate No: 33810
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

KingDebater

Pro

There was this boy in our neighbourhood called Bob. What made Bob so unique is that I never saw him on the bus on the way to school. This made me wonder how he got to school. I asked him if he teleported to school using his mind. He replied "no". "Don't you go to school?" I asked him, shortly after he replied "I go to school at home." I thought that having all your education at home is a bit weird and backwards, but I probably shouldn't have been so surprised. Bob was a backwards kind of guy. He even spelt his name backwards.

I then tried to think all backwards the way he does, and soon I came up with a brilliant idea; doing everything a normal person does at home at school. Brushing your teeth, getting dressed, going to sleep, eating breakfast and dinner, that sort of thing. I then thought that I should be as imaginative as the advocates of homsechooling, so I named my idea "Schoolhoming".

So that's what I want to debate today, whether my idea of schoolhoming is revolutionary, as I currently believe.

I thank you.
TN05

Con

I accept this debate. I do not believe 'schoolhoming' is revolutionary in the least, and will explain so in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

Normal children are noisy and rude, but schoolhoming shall correct this. With schoolhoming, the equivelant of the bedroom is the library, so children will at least be civilised for a third of the day. A couple of days of doing this will transform normal scratty children into superchildren. The whole concept of this goal would encourage children universally to not be so terrible.

Second, it would be very educational, since time spent being educated is in the vast majority of cases, less than time spent doing home stuff. The child would be surrounded with informative posters and intellectual minds (the teachers). This would transform the child even more into a superchild.

Another thing is the school rules. Because of the threat of a detention, children will act really good. They will not lie, deceive or steal. One or two years of this and that behaviour will be applied by the child in all scenarios in his/her life.

Schoolhoming is a completely new idea, with the origin of its concept being introduced in this very debate. I have also only revealed its features in this round to date. This would mean that he has not experienced any kind of schoolhoming, meaning that however convincing his arguments supporting his side of the debate may be, they are wrong. This is because he has never learnt the lessons "Don't steal, deceive or steal" like what schoolhoming teaches you. I plead you to vote for pro. I do not lie, deceive or steal.

The thought may come to mind that I haven't been through schoolhoming either. This is true, but may I remind you that schoolhoming is my own creation, and what would happen there is ultimately my choice. That being said, I have therefore learnt the moral lessons that schoolhoming teaches you.

How does schoolhoming teach you moral lessons? Schoolhoming cannot be understood or comprehended by outsiders, so there would be no point in telling you. Once you have experience schoolhoming, then and only then shall you understand it.

Schoolhoming also teaches fair voting and to eliminate bias.

I thank you.

TN05

Con

My opponent asserts 'schoolhoming' is a revolutionary idea. Revolutionary means "constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change".[1] However, the basic idea of schoolhoming - living at school - already exists. It is called a 'boarding school'. Schoolhoming only slightly alters the idea of a boarding school, and thus cannot be considered a legitimately revolutionary idea.

As to my opponent's points:
1. Everyone knows that children wet the bed at night. If you place children in a library to sleep, the odds are that by the end of the week the library will be completely uninhabitable. This is a fact. Further, some children might have trouble 'holding it' until they could get to a bathroom. These could easily be tempted to urinate or defecate on the books, which would have essentially the same effect as wetting the bed.
2. Who says people learn anything at school? A recent survey from the organization Kids Against School revealed that 10 out of 10 kids don't learn anything at school, and learn much more from sitting at home and playing video games all day.
3. I have already noted that schoolhoming is not a new idea, but rather a slight alteration of the concept of a boarding school. However, even assuming that it is a new idea, my opponent has not been schoolhomed either, meaning he hasn't learned the basic lesson to not "Don't steal, deceive or steal", which would mean he is just as much of a liar as I am.
4. My opponent then argues that he has learned the basic life lessons outside of schoolhoming, which means that the basic life lessons can be taught outside of schoolhoming. This defeats the purpose of schoolhoming entirely.
5. See answers three and four
6. Everyone knows that all boarding schools are run by nuns. As a subset of boarding schools, schoolhoming would work essentially the same. We all know that:
A) Nuns are mean
and
B) Nuns are Catholics
Since nuns are mean Catholics, they would certainly give kids a bias towards Catholicism and mean-ness. Further, everyone knows that the Pope - the leader of Catholicism - is not elected democratically, but is rather elected by a group of unelected bureaucrats (the Cardinals). By teaching kids to become Catholics, nuns clearly run contrary to the concept of 'fair voting' because if you can't vote, voting is hardly fair.

References:
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zealous1 4 years ago
Zealous1
wut
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Very revolutionary. However not all revolutions are a good idea :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
KingDebaterTN05Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This should have have had more rounds... Conduct: Con intentionally delayed any points until the final round, not even just saying 'isn't that called boarding school?' Arguments: Both sides had heavy use of fallacies, and the jokes were good all around, but con did convince me the base idea is not in fact revolutionary (even if kids wetting the books instead of the beds might be new).
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
KingDebaterTN05Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con negated the claim that it is 'revolutionary' by pointing out that it has been around longer than other forms of education. Pro ignored the meaning of 'revolutionary' for the entire debate. "Schoolhoming is a completely new idea, with the origin of its concept being introduced in this very debate." This might be a troll debate. Sources & spelling and grammar go to con to counter leo's vote, who didn't do a proper RFD.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
KingDebaterTN05Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was really hard to vote on. Since I was home schooled my six grade. Con did use a source. But Pro convinced me in his argument.