Should school be compulsory for all children?
Thank you to the PRO side for instating this debate, I anticipate an informative and fun discussion. I assume there is no acceptance round, thus I will proceed to deliver my rebuttals and arguments directly starting this round. I ask for both sides of the house today to not bring out new arguments in the final round, and to abide by common etiquette. Allow me to define a few terms and the burdenso of proof of both sides seeing that PRO has not done so.
School: An institution for educating children 
Child: A human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier 
BURDEN OF PROOF
Pro must establish that school is the best option for serving the purpose it is designed to serve by justifying that making it compulsory does more good than harm and that there are no alternatives that are more effective in doing so
Con must establish at least one of the following: that mandatory schooling is more detrimental than beneficial, and/or that more effective alternatives exist.
R1) "...one can learn and gain a lot of knowledge"
First off, PRO has not provided any evidence or background explanation to justify this claim, and has propped up his hollow assertion on the fact that all schools educate in the form of teaching them knowledge. There is a fine line between a school teaching said knowledge, and the students learning and digesting this knowledge which is the ultimate goal of a school - to educate effectively. Even if we assume that one does in fact learn and gain a lot of knowledge from schools, this is still an invalid point. PRO has not laid down any criteria to measure the legitimacy of making school compulsory, so there is no intrinsic value to this statement unless PRO decides that the criteria should be the performance of schools.
R2) "...meeting and interacting with new people"
This is another baseless assumption, and even if this is presumed to be true, it has no contributory power in the absence of a solid criteria.
P1) Freedom of choice
In today's debate, I openly acknowledge the benefits of school and the potential that a good educational institution harbours for its society. However, there is a fine line between the good that a school can bring and the necessity to make it compulsory, which is why today, instead of arguing about how school in general is bad, I will talk about the implications of mandatory schooling.
There is a large chasm between concept and implementation that needs to be bridged to ensure that all the good points of school come to fruition and that a school can successfully fulfil its purpose of educating chidren. There are two overlapping premises in which this chasm cannot be bridged:
1. The implementation of the school is done poorly (i.e. bad curriculum, unqualified teachers, insufficient resources)
2. The parent/student does not wish for the student to be enrolled in a school for whatever reason
Should any of these two scenarios take place, the parent and student are graced with the option of opting out of traditional schooling and pursuing other forms of education (i.e. homeschooling) that they deem fit instead. The aspect of choice here is crucial due to the fact that it enhances the flexibility of educational infrastructure by allowing parents and students to choose a medium of education that is best tailored to their conditions and their needs, thus ultimately working towards the goal of more effective and inclusive education for children.
The 'freedom of choice' system is also superior to making school compulsory for other reasons too. Firstly, PRO has not defined a geographical scope for this debate, hence I assume that this debate concerns all countries and regions on Earth. There is no universal standard as to what is the best form of education, and there is a lack of consistency in terms of the quality of education between different countries as well. For instance, Asian countries tend to lean towards compulsory education as they favour drill-styled and rigorous education and also because they perceive education to be an asset and a privilege rather than a given. In contrast, Western education, particularly American education, is undergoing a completely different transformation whereby the curriculum is not standardised but rather oriented around the child, thus the inauguration of homeschooling and the IB (International Baccalaureate). With that said, it is virtually impossible to enforce compulsory education and accommodate for these differences at the same time. Hence, the availability of choice is the only way where quality education is made possible while accounting for these differences.
in addition, the 'freedom of choice' system is vital because it puts some of the responsibility of moderating a child's education back into the hands of the parents. Too often are parents clueless about what their child is learning at school as well as any academic or social problems they might encounter. Studies show that only 22% of American parents are capable of identifying signs of learning progress and less than half of all parents have a good idea of their child's school's academic performance in relation with other schools. The aspect of choice is vital since it encourages parents to take on a more active role in their child’s learning, as they will need to understand their child’s needs and take into consideration the extent to which they are able to contribute to their child’s education when choosing between traditional schooling and other forms of education. Fundamentally, balanced input between the school (or other educational institutions) and parents creates a double safety net and fosters a more wholesome atmosphere for the child to learn in.
To conclude, I have rebutted all of PRO's main arguments thus far and have proven to you that making conventional schooling optional is a win-win situation is a more effective way of achieving optimal education for all children regardless of the cultural and social context they are placed within. I will be addressing my other BOP of 'more effective alternatives' in the next round, and eagerly await PRO's response. Thank you.
So to say , Con puts forward the "freedom of choice" where Con assumes that home schooling matches up with normal schooling. At school one can learn to compete, learn the harsh rules of the world, shape up mostly to be good people. At home schooling , sure it is an alternative but not an effective ones.
WHY HOMESCHOOLING IS NOT A GOOD IDEA....
1. Cost- Parents may face financial drawbacks since since on of the parents need to stay back at home. Overall income if both parents are working is reduced. Sure working from home is an option but pay is less.
2.Criticism- In some countries(Asian mostly), home schooling is looked down upon and thought as an escape to school. Home schooling student is mocked by several friends of his/her community.
3.Finding the best resources- In schools , students are recommended by the school about their study material. For home schooling , a lot of study material is suggested . Choosing the wrong study material can hamper students career.
4.Isolation- Student feels isolated in his/her society as being the black sheep in the colony of white sheep!! It is very difficult to find others who also home school. Student regrets his/her decision for home schooling.
By this one can say that home schooling is not an ideal alternative to proper schooling.
To conclude, I have made it clear that home schooling is not an alternative to proper schooling. Also I would like to point out that the last source which Con has provided is no longer available. I would request Con to provide me with a working source,
I have also interviewed my friend who is currently home schooling.
I eagerly await Con's response
Thank you to the PRO side for their arguments! To all audience members and potential voters, please note that I have posted the functioning link for my  citation for the previous round in the comments section as PRO has pointed out.
1. That 'better' equates to making something compulsory, and,
PRO has accepted defeat and concedes the debate and his stance. I thank PRO for such a heroic display of healthy competition and honesty, and I ask that no points be deducted off of PRO in terms of conduct on this basis.
I was the only side of the house to uphold my BOP and deliver arguments that were relevant to the motion, and have rebutted PRO's points which were done so with no resistance from PRO. Therefore, this motion must fall and I rightfully take this debate. Thank you to PRO for his contributions to the debate and any audience members and voters!
|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||3|