The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 88620
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Ok so we will begin with the rules.

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)


I accept the challenge. The debate can begin.
Debate Round No. 1


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.

Initial Arguments
(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!


I have conducted a survey with students grade six and onwards, and 89.7 percent of them say that they are perfectly happy with the way things are taught. Furthermore, I have asked the same question to graduates ages twenty to thirty, and I have seen that 91.3 percent of those say that they are happy with the way their education has turned out. Many schools these days have 'suggestion boxes' and the suggestions are either considered by the Student Council (ages vary) or the teachers themselves. Another thing is that teachers do care about their student's education first, which is why we have homework and parent-teacher conferences. Also, part of the principal's job is to decide teachers, and if they feel that their employees are worrying more about other matters than the education and well-being of their students, they will not allow them to teach at their school anymore. The education system has lead to many famous people's success, and there is no doubt that it will do the same to children in the present.

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."- Nelson Mandela.
Debate Round No. 2


To counter,

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.

Argument A
By not providing any information regarding your "study" how can I be sure that the results are not hypotheticals or fabricated?

Argument B
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.

Argument C
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.


Imagine if the world's schools shut down or minimised Mathematics and Science to fit in an unnecessarily long Drama lesson. Exactly what would happen is that our future generations would not be able to expand on the theories that we already have. Mathematics is vital to calculate solutions to your problems as a grown-up, and Science will explain more about how our world works. Cultural Arts are important, too, but they are very easily learnt freehand or without any guidance, while a fifth grader who tries to teach himself Algebra will probably fail miserably. And, while it is true that a number of famous people have not relied on their education, if Albert Einstein was taught no theories while he was in school, he would not at all be able to manage what he achieved in his time. Also, you said in Round One that schools push students to take harder courses than they can manage, but isn't there a required GPA to get into a class? And while you might say that students will feel pressured to devote time to earn those grades, what is wrong with challenging students in new classes, which is not necessarily to 'make the school look better'. If a student can absolutely not cope in class, they will either receive a Special Needs teacher or be pushed down to a lower grade, according to several school's policies.

"He who opens a school door closes a prison." - Victor Hugo
Debate Round No. 3



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 (, 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.


In your rebuttal, you have said that 'with or without school [Albert Einstein] still would have developed his theories'. However, if Albert Einstein did not attend primary school, for example, how would be learn the basics he later expanded on? Also, you have said that students are taught to strive for good marks, although isn't healthy challenge the thing that motivates us to study? And, most teachers (especially in lower schools) create interactive programs and teach their students to love and 'enjoy' learning. And, yes, it is true that 'I don't know' is a common response for asking about future career, although students who use it are still picking their path to life, which makes it beneficial for those students to study subjects they are not interested in; they may easily change their minds in the future. You would be lying if you said you had the same ambitions ever since you were a toddler.

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
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Liveena 1 year ago
Thank you for a brilliant debate!
Posted by LachlanSmithson 1 year ago
Unfortunately there were not enough rounds in this debate to fully express all available arguments.
Posted by LachlanSmithson 1 year ago
I apologise if the point about the twin towers hits and sour notes (as terrorism's still an extremely prevalent issue in society, especially after the attacks in Belgium.) However, I only wish for it to be a point that demonstrates how the world is going to sh*t. No offence is given or is wished to be received.

*To the Belgians and anyone affected by the attacks my deepest sympathies and condolences are with you and your families.
Posted by LachlanSmithson 1 year ago

I mean, the way in which children are educated is not the most effective and the system is not working as such.

Being 'the contender' you will argue that the educational system is working and all the things that are right.

Thank you for your expression of concern and for joining the debate! I look forward to your up and coming arguments.

Good luck! May the best debater win :)
Posted by Liveena 1 year ago
I agree with the following rules, although I'm having trouble understanding what you meant by the education system being flawed. Am I supposed to argue that the different grade groups themselves are not flawed, or am I supposed to argue about the system itself. I am sorry if I am troubling you by asking this, but I want to make sure I am supporting the right facts.
No votes have been placed for this debate.