The current educational system is flawed (K-12).
Debate Rounds (4)
1) No swearing or profanity.
2) You will try your best.
3) The first round is acceptance of the debate.
4) Evidence and arguments will be placed thereafter.
5) Max 2000 characters.
I agree that the current educational system (K-12) is flawed. (Pro)
Those who disagree will be against (Con)
As it is, the world is falling apart. People are dying from preventable causes while governments turn a blind eye, students cannot get jobs, the government is slowly becoming corrupt and people are unhappy. Logic and reason are now as highly endangered as black rhinos while debt is as high as the twin towers used to be and to think all of this could be cured with the next generation"s highly educated people - if there are any"
Education is the trigger to success like a firing pin to a bullet. However, when governments set out to educate their citizens they go about it the wrong way. The problem is that everyone is unhappy and they have been taught in school to become tolerant and observe without input. That is actually one of many arguments you will come across in this debate.
Aside from petty matters (e.g. schools caring more about your uniform than your education), there are serious problems in our current educational system.
Education is flawed in the sense that it is highly ineffective and the system is inefficient.
(1) In Australia, at the current state school I am attending, the period (length of time) goes for 70 minutes. The average length of time for selective sustained information (concentration) only lasts for 20 minutes in most healthy teenagers and adults. By having lessons run for 70 minutes the only information that would be retained is information from the first 28.571% of the lesson. (Excluding bell curve theory)
(2) Dreams are constructed, whilst curiosity and imagination are punished.
(3) Instead of pushing students to things they want to learn students are pushed into harder subjects as they make the school look better.
"Don"t let your schooling get in the way of your education." - Mark Twain
I bid you good luck in the following debate!
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."- Nelson Mandela.
In reading your rebuttal I am forced to make 3 assumptions:
A) The data is not skewed in your favour and is perfectly legitimate,
B) That your sample size was large enough to compensate for the entire nation's views; and,
C) That by mentioning "many" famous people I must assume that the "many" students will also become famous and successful.
By not providing any information regarding your "study" how can I be sure that the results are not hypotheticals or fabricated?
Because this sample size is likely not to be extremely diverse, like a census, it is implied that everyone else must feel the same way. This is known as the logical fallacy of composition, inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. (LogicallyFallacious, 2016).
Therefore 'x" (the number of people surveyed) must equal "y" (the general consensus). Which cannot be true. Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that every single American (assuming you are American) feels the exact same way.
First lets me define many:
Many (noun): a large number of, or the majority of people. (Google, 2016)
The statement "the educational system has lead to many famous people's success" is incorrect. "The majority of" famous people that assumed their fame through success is marginal, as most become famous for their natural talents whether it be artistry, leading (politicians), comedy, acting, pioneering, etc.
Times 100 Most Influential People demonstrate that very few actually obtained their fame through education. Schools generally frown upon subjects such as art, music, comedy, etc. whilst placing emphasis on subjects such as Math and Science as though they are more important than Arts and Humanities.
If it wasn"t hard enough to become "famous", stats have recently been released by Forbes stating that 60% of college grads couldn't get jobs.
"He who opens a school door closes a prison." - Victor Hugo
It was never stated that Mathematics and Science should be minimized and the hypothetical forecast you developed is incorrect. It is often quoted that "he who wants to learn will always find a teacher" therefore, if someone wanted to study theories and become a great mathematician then they would find the class intriguing and go on to study at university. Same goes for science. If a fifth grader wanted to learn algebra or calculus then they would find a teacher.
From the beginning, Einstein was interested in Math and Science. He was accepted into the Luitpold-Gymnasium and was studying calculus at 12 (ABC.net, 2004). With or without school he still would have developed his theories. This directly links to Argument 1.
Ancient Greek and Roman education formed the basis of our western educational system. Back then it was not compulsory that students studied subjects they were not interested in. You may argue that "students are allowed to pick their own subjects" however; they are not to the extent that would prove beneficial to society. . Similarly, when students do find a subject they enjoy they consequently achieve higher marks (OECD, 2003). Many students are asked what they are going to do when they leave school, most replies consist of an "I don"t know", adding to the unemployment rate every year, thus slowing sustainable economic growth.
Students are taught to strive for marks and fear failing. The fear of failure has been bread into students since a very young age and is a significant problem as is being taught to work and not enjoy it. Who says that you cannot find a job you enjoy and love it? Teachers. It is also taught that students should strive for marks, in a sense this is good. However, it is compounded and they continue to grow and when they do reach it they too are consumed by some other mark they haven"t achieved to see how well they did achieving the first. Therefore creating a vicious cycle that continues into their adulthood.
You have stated many sources as to prove where you recieved your information, which is admittedly a sign of a good argument. However, do you really think that your five-year-old self would have taught himself how to read, and therefore access these sources? No. So, if it wasn't for the education system, you wouldn't even be able to debate like you do now. All of the sources that you have read you would be able to make nothing of, and if the education system closed down even earlier, they wouldn't be able to find their information either. Thus, I may conclude that both sides of the debate would have no function if neither of us was sent to one of our schools.
That is all.
"Education is the movement from darkness to light." - Allan Bloom
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.