The Instigator
aahansen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LAX66
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should students be required to finish school through high school?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
LAX66
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 75572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

aahansen

Pro

Students should be required to finish through high school. It betters their education and will make them more likely to get a job in the future.

:-)
LAX66

Con

Thank you Pro for starting this debate!

The topic is "Students should be required to finish through high school"

No. Students should advance to college to further their knowledge. There are classes you need to take in College in order to get a degree, you can't take these classes in High school. For instance, for your degree you may need Advanced Calculus, and your High school doesn't offer that class, you need to go to College instead and take it.
Debate Round No. 1
aahansen

Pro

I mean that students should at LEAST be required to complete through high school. Not stop in sixth grade and decide not to go anymore.

:-)
LAX66

Con

Pro didn't make him or herself clear in the first round. So my argument is based off of her statement "Students should be required to finish through high school" I argued No. Pro can't change their resolution in the middle of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
aahansen

Pro

Students should definitely be required to finish at least through high school. This can make it easier for them to get a job in the future. Also, this will make it more likely for students to take part in a college career. Stopping school in middle school is not good for the mind or the educational remembrance.
LAX66

Con

Pro fails to prove the following.

A. How it makes it easier for students to get a job in the future

B. How it will make it more likely for students to take part in a college career.

Pro then goes to say that "Stopping school in middle school is not good for the mind or the educational remembrance."

This was never apart of the debate.

The debate topic was "Should students be required to finish school through high school" I argued no because students cant get certain classes that they need in order to get a degree. They need to advance their knowledge.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
==================================================================
>Sniper1576 // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything but S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the Pro. If students are required to finish school through High School, they have a better chance at getting a better job.

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb based on personal bias. This RFD does not explain *any* of the points awarded and merely states the user's personal opinion on the matter and voted consistently with that personal opinion.
====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=================================================================
>Khana // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Alas, semantics. This debate was a clear example of why careful wording and grammar are important in debates, especially with the topic sentence. Con won on a very legitimate technicality.

[*Reason for removal*] Too generic. This RFD fails to explain the technicality and why it resulted in Con winning.
==================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
========================================================
>Reported vote: Lee001 // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not prove their points at all. Con goes to show us all that Pro did not prove in the last round. Con also gave us reasons as to why kids need to further their knowledge, and attend College. Pro also seemed to have changed the resolution in the middle of the debate.

[*Reason for removal*] Too generic. This RFD fails to articulate why Con had a better argument (e.g. it doesn't specify which points Con proved about why kids need to go to college), and its articulation of Pro's failings is too generic (it doesn't say anything specific to this debate).
=================================================================
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
aahansenLAX66Tied
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: Pro failed to fulfill his BOP. He meant to argue that 6th graders shouldnt be allowed to drop out, but he wasn't clear in the first round. Con argued that kids should go to college, and Pro never refuted.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
aahansenLAX66Tied
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: Conduct to Con as Pro attempted to literally change the resolution in the middle of the debate. People accept debates seeing the resolution, thus changing the resolution is especially misconducted. Since changing the resolution is rarely considered acceptable conduct in any debate setting, I penalize Pro for their misconduct. Pro also, as Con noted, had the entirety of the burden of proof to show students *should* be required to finish the entirety of high school. In R3, Con correctly notes that the majority of Pro's case is based on bare assertions, thus is logically fallacious and unproven. For example, it "betters their education" is a bare assertion, as Con points out. Thus, arguments and conduct to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.