Should children be forced to go to school?
Debate Rounds (5)
Children should be required to go to school because that is their main responsibility in life, even if they don't do the full 12 years. Go to school, do your work, and come home; simple as that! Without school, they learn nothing about Math, Reading, or even increasing penmenship in Writing. I admit that school is not the "funnest" activity, but its there for a reason; to learn. Even if you don't use all its knowledge, its still good to have that knowledge in mind.
Just because anyone claims their smart enough, does not mean they shouldn't learn a little something here or there in school. For now, this will be my opening argument and curious on what my opponent says to argue back.
Following the topic of deciding whether or not to go, or not to go to school is the debate. But the descriptions that my opponent have provided has been mainly her emotions coming into this debate. She is mainly arguing for herself, than the whole scenario if kids should or shouldn't be "forced" into school. In my previous argument, I brought up that this is simply the childs only responsibility and is very simple. Go to school, do your work, and come home; simple as that! In this round, my opponent argues that school is not a good thing. Quoted by my opponent, she said: "School isn't always a good thing, teachers aren't always 'playing nice', the students aren't always as honest as you thought they were, just because that education was there, doesn't mean it was good enough for this person". First off, I must use common sense to my opponent where school isn't going to be "perfect". There are going to be days where things don't go "your way", but we move on. Its like doing regular labor in society, you do it and that is it. Sometimes there is conflict, but we continue on and understand that nothing is "truly" perfect.
We can sit here a discuss about a different in opinions and views, so I will now provide facts about how school benefits society; and the individual him or herself. To begin, I wish to provide a different perspective of school. It can, at times, be referred to as a home where kids can meet other kids and socialize, while in an environment of learning. But at their true home, some of them don't even have a home, or food even. School can help with this, by providing food in the cafeteria and a free education to them. If we look at the statistics, stated under "The Number Of Homeless Children In American Public Schools Is Skyrocketing"(1), it states: "In the 2012-2013 school year, there were 1,258,182 homeless students, according to newly released data from the National Center for Homeless Education. That’s an 8 percent increase from the 2011-2012 school year, when the 1,168,354 homeless students marked a record high". Thats a huge increase, and if my opponent is saying that kids shouldn't be forced to go to school, even though the parents are trying to help, why let the children suffer? Why not let them get an education, and posssibly making a better living for themselves in the future?
Secondly, of course when you go to school social interaction will come along with it; and of course, social interaction is a key part in life. In life, no one can go without interacting to someone; and going to school can help benefit the student with social interaction. Stated under the article "Your Child's Social Life"(2), it states: "Friendships help children gradually learn to be independent, contributing members of a community and it’s just as important as their academic growth notes Diane Levin, Ph.D., author of Remote Control Childhood. However, it’s a slow process. There are many social skills to learn, which advance with age and experience, trial and error, and experiencing the satisfaction that comes from contributing to an ongoing friendship". This comes more in the form of school, than just going outside because of being "contained" within an environment.
As we can see, school actually has more benefits, than my opponent makes. Some days won't be as "fantastic" as others, but you move on. My opponent seems to be putting herself as the main priority, than this debate as a whole. Just because school inconviniences you does not mean it should be rejected. Its an education being given to your freely.
It is true not everyone experiences the "same" thing, but there are other alternatives for your "personal issues". One alternative is Home School, in which you can teach yourself how to do something, but still under the program of school.
Right now in this debate, I really can't debate because my opponent has failed to provide any arguments or facts. Just arguing about her own personal issues, and not arguing about this debate!
My opponent still has failed to do an argument, but more talking about his or her own personal issues. This is truly not a debate, but more of a "Therapy Session" at this point.
Also, my opponent does not deserve this win, even if she is arguing, because of her admitting to herself that she is lazy. Quoted by her in this round: "I'm not going to say he/she everytime I debate, too much effort". Voters, my opponent is not even putting effort into this debate, while I am.
I will agree that chewing gum in school should be allowed because of the benefits, but that isn't part of the debate at all. The topic of this debate is whether or not kids should be forced to go to school. I am on the position that they should, and my opponent has not provided any evidence nor strong argument about why students should not be forced to go to school. While I have, with evidence in the previous rounds, and actually trying to Debate. My opponent has failed to argue, and more stating about her personal issues in school then actually arguing. This isn't a debate at this point!
Secondly, my opponent says "I found it pretty responsible for the teachers to hit the children at school, because then they wouldn't act like such fools. People grow up, they change after school". Yeah because clearly all teachers "hit" their students. My opponent is making ridiculous claims, without any evidence to support her argument what so ever.
To conclude, this debate wasn't even a debate. My opponent has provided no arguments or evidence, and had numerous Grammar mistakes throughout the session. This debate went no where, and I hope Voters will easily see who the "true" victor is.
Also, to my opponent, if you hate school that much and claim that you are very "smart"; that is your choice, but you really are not that smart because you failed to even bring a debate here. You only just complained about your personal issues, instead of actually debating on a website called Debate.org. I'm sorry about being agressive about this, but it didn't even seem you tried to even do a debate in the first place.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro. Pro provided solid facts about the benefits of school, and also that it is a child's main responsibility in life, as at that stage they're supposed to learn, there's nothing else required of them. Con's argument was mainly personal experiences and small complaints. Pro's argument wins out, because it remained unrefuted throughout the debate, and it was backed up by objective stats. They also showed the benefits of going to school. Con's argument was insufficient. They were very off topic sometimes, saying stuff like "children shouldn't be forced to go to school because they can't chew gum." Most of Con's case was arguments like this, small things that weren't sufficient evidence to allow children to skip school. To conclude, Pro's arguments win out, because they remained unrefuted and showed the benefits of school. whereas Con's case was merely personal complaints about small issues, with no evidence that it was widespread. Sources were only used by Pro.
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.