The Instigator
caubrie123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Should Schooling Be Voluntary?

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 2 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,419 times Debate No: 22267
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

caubrie123

Con

We are doing debates in our English Course and we need a lot of background and news feed on what other people think so we can have an idea about what everyone else thinks on this matter. We don't believe that school should be voluntary because if it was, half of the kids all around America would NOT attend. By not attending, how do you expect your child to receive an education and go on to be successful in life?
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

I believe that school should be voluntary, because kids who don't want to attend and are forced to can end up being major disruptions. By forcing children who do not want to attend to attend, schools will gain students who will not make an effort to obtain an education and who will worsen the quality of education for others who actually want to learn. Additionally, an education is not necessarily necessary to be successful in life, as what constitutes success is subjective.
Debate Round No. 1
caubrie123

Con

How do you figure that they will be a "Disruption"? People are not going to get very far in life without an education, sorry but it's just not going to happen. How are kids supposed to get jobs? Would you rather your child work at a fast food restaurant the rest of their lives? That's not what I want for my child. All kids would be doing is running the streets, making the rate of teen alcoholics and the rate of teens doing drugs increase highly. And plus, not only would no students attend school, but it would also run schools out of business because no one is choosing to attend. Children need an education to succeed in life. I don't know how anyone couldn't see that.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Since last round I failed to make the kind of argument I should make in order to affirm the resolution, I will attempt to make such an argument this round.

1. Children who do not wish to attend school will not be benefited by attending

If a child does not want to attend school, forcing them to attend will not help them. To learn, one must actually make some sort of an effort to retain the information. Making someone who does not want to go to school go to school will probably not teach them anything. Furthermore, such children are more inclined towards disruptive behaviours. If a child really has a serious desire to maximize his knowledge, it is unlikely he will behave in a disorderly fashion or cut classes. However, a child who does not care about school in the slightest might do such things. Forcing those children to go to school does them no favours, as the school now has to waste the time of administrative officials in order to disclipline them, which is a waste of taxpayer money.

2. Education for occupations

It is true that most of the more academic and challenging careers do require advanced education, for instance it is hard to imagine a brain surgeon with no training or a teacher who dropped out of high school. Yet, until one goes to university, most schools do not teach anything remotely relevant to the vast majority of careers. For instance, out of the core courses, one will find little use for history, more advanced mathematics, and most sciences in more general careers. Additionally, some jobs do not really require any of the skills taught by most schools; for instance to be a bus driver, one would usually require specialized driving courses but few of the core academics. Similarly, other forms of labour-based work require little education. For society to function, someone will have to fulfill those roles, and it makes no sense to require that person to be stuck in a school they might not want to go to to gain education they might not even need.

3. Children can still attend

Clearly, if a child wants to receive an education, the resolution in no way implies the impossibility of this. In fact, making schooling voluntary would improve them, as more effort would be placed individually on the students, there likely being fewer of them. Many schools are overworked with an unbelievably high student to faculty ratio, and lowering the number of students would improve the quality of education for all. Again, anyone may choose to attend if they want to, but those who do not need not attend, thus improving the experience for those who do.

I will now refute any of CON's arguments that I deem to still stand.

4. CON says "People are not going to get very far in life without an education, sorry but it's just not going to happen."

It would be interesting to know what CON judges "getting very far". A London Underground driver can make £50000 a year without university education, that is a not insignificant figure.

5. CON says "How are kids supposed to get jobs? Would you rather your child work at a fast food restaurant the rest of their lives? That's not what I want for my child."

Back when few people went to university, high school dropouts could still get jobs. If schooling is not mandatory, there will be jobs available for the less educated. Regardless, if the children want to attend they still can but if they do not, they do not have to. Anyway, working at a fast food restaurant is far preferrable to being unemployed.

6. CON says " All kids would be doing is running the streets, making the rate of teen alcoholics and the rate of teens doing drugs increase highly."

It is not as though being in school stops kids from doing drugs or drinking alcohol. High school students, even when in school, use drugs and smoke, which then ends up becoming the school's problem when it really ought not to be. [1]

7. CON says "And plus, not only would no students attend school, but it would also run schools out of business because no one is choosing to attend."

I personally believe it to be an unsupported claim that no students would attend school if it was suddenly voluntary. In fact, it is not only unsupported but ridiculous. I am sure that many children see the benefits of higher education (or would be so pressured by their parents that they would have no choice but to continue to attend). Unless by "schools" CON means "universities", a lack of attendence would not drive schools out of business, as (with private schools as the exception) they do not receive money in proportion to attending students, but rather from taxes. Obviously it would make little sense to take "schools" to mean "universities" as it is already voluntary to attend university.

In conclusion, attending school should be voluntary. I would also be interested in CON's definition of "success" and "succeed", as I have defined "success" as "That which happens in the sequel; the termination (favourable or otherwise) of affairs; the issue, upshot, result." and "succeed" as "To have the desired or a fortunate issue or conclusion; to turn out successfully." using the Oxford English Dictionary.

Sources:

Debate Round No. 2
caubrie123

Con

caubrie123 forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

I urge a vote for PRO
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
I apologize in advance, but I'm very likely to forfeit the next round unless an argument is posted before 8:00 GMT. Sorry about that.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Should I post an argument for the first round?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
caubrie123AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and Pro made a a stronger, in-depth case, affirming the resolution.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
caubrie123AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark1 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 forfeited.