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


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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 965 times Debate No: 72873
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




I'm not going to start arguing right away here so my opponent will get the pick of who goes first. If you go first, then use Round 1 to start the debate but don't use the final round for any rebuttals. If second, don't make any arguments in the first round and I will start in the second.

So whoever you are that decides to take me on, will you go first or second? Anyway, wish you the best and let's have an interesting debate!


This will be interesting, as I am arguing devil's advocate. I have been homeschooled and have gone through regular schooling both for 5+ years. I will try my best to argue against homeschooling.

I choose to go second, so you may have the first argument.

Good luck, and have fun.
Debate Round No. 1


As I shall go first I will sum up my school experience first here. (I was in public schooling) I didn't adapt to the school environment because they weren't catering to my learning style. I see this being a problem in a lot of public schools because people learn in different ways. These are:

Visual Learners: People who learn best from watching other people and seeing information.

Auditory/Aural Learners: People who learn best from talking to people and listening to information.

Read/Write Learners: People who learn best from reading printed information and writing.

Kinaesthetic Learners: People who learn best from doing things and gestures.

Looking at these 4 different learning styles and the questionaires I have taken about this subject, I show up as a very strong Kinesthetic learner. I believe this is correct. I learn from doing tasks which brings the problems of public school into perspective.

These problems can go either one of two ways. Firstly, the teachers try to include everybody in the class by hopping between different learning styles with intention to make sure everybody learns. This doesn't work because in the end, everyone learns less than they could have if the lessons were focused in their mindset.

The second problem is if the teachers try to cater to one learning style rather than switching between them. This way, only a small group of the students learn well in such a class neglecting all the other students which learn better by one of the other three styles.

So how does this come into homeschooling you ask? Well, with homeschooling, the teacher (whether it be a relative or private tutor) can focus the tasks in a way which can make that student learn a lot better as there is no other students which require a different learning style. If I was homeschooled and brought up with lessons which were geared to a Kinaesthetic mindset, it would have kept my interest in the subject for longer and I would learn more from that.

I took the VARK questionaire, here's my results:

My VARK Results

My scores were:

  • Visual 1
  • Aural 1
  • Read/Write 0
  • Kinesthetic 16



I will use round 2 to give my opening statement. I will begin my rebuttals in this round as well since there was no restriction set on that, so I assume this is acceptable.

First, I will argue why homeschooling is detrimental in a broad sense, and why public schooling makes more sense in response to these problems. Second, I will rebut your points.

1. Problems with homeschooling

Time/money: In a public setting, parents need only drop their students off at school or a bus station, or even not do anything and have students walk to school or the station if it is close enough. If a parent decides to homeschool their child, a huge time burden is placed upon the parent because the parent has to teach their child. If a private tutor is involved, then we are talking about a huge monetary investment to substitute for the previous time investment.

Education: If it is the state's duty to make sure that its residents are all properly educated, then homeschooling poses a problem. Since parents, unlike schools, are not legally responsible for the education of their children, they could simply keep their children at home and teach them nonsense, or not teach them at all.

Social: Homeschooled students are not as equipped in a social environment as students in public schools for obvious reasons. This could pose a problem, because it is my contention that the job industry requires more from the social side of people than the educational side. This means that being able to comfortably cooperate with others is more important in the professions than being perfectly educated.

2. Rebuttal

I agree, it is true that public schools do not account for the vast differences in the learning styles of students. This particularly bugged me about my normal school experience, however, it does help in one very important way. It helps your brain conform to the norms of how education is taught and learned. This can have practical applications in two ways. First, it helps on standardized tests. Knowing how people are supposed to think can have tremendous effects on how you undestand and take a standardized test. Second, it helps your social ability. Again, this leads back to undestanding how others think. While having a standardized mind is not always preferrable, beign able to function in an environment were everyone else has a standardized mind might be more useful than you might think, especially in the workplace. This is something that public schooling does best.
Debate Round No. 2


Yeah, I don't bother with restrictions. As long as the debate is fair I am fine.

So bring on the rebuttals! (or however that word is spelt)

Firstly you mention the money aspect. This is somewhat true that homeschooling is more expensive to the parents than public schooling is. I am going to agree with that.

For the second point you made about Education, the people who are homeschooling their children should be required to stay closely to the curriculum, making sure everything that is learnt in the normal school environment is learnt. It shouldn't have to be in the same order but as long as everything which the assignment requires is taught then no harm is done. Again, homeschooling can lead to people learning faster due to learning styles and then time can be focused in homing the student's skills in an area of the student's decision when all tasks are completed.

The third point is the one which I believe to be the weakest however. If a student wants to be more social, they could sign up for a club to do with something they like. They could make friends with these people and direct their life in a way which does keep friendships. Some people are very social, others are not. Those people who are not social don't need other people around. Hey, those other people around them in class can be distracting to some people. There are always those students which never want to let others learn and instead these students will disrupt the class. This can't happen with homeschooling because there's no other students to distract the learner.

Okay, now to rebuttal the rebuttal! (That's not confusing at all!)

Some students can adapt to other learning styles but the key word here is some. If a student has a slight advantage in being an auditory learner over the others for example, it is possible that because of the balance that student could adapt. Others (me as an example) just don't adapt to other learning styles no matter how much teachers try to force it down the student's throats. These students will continue to struggle when a different method of teaching is used which isn't their learning style (This usually affects people who are strong to one style, I am one of these people)

Then you go into standardised testing. Well, this will or won't be a problem. Some qualifications such as BTECs for example don't do examinations and rather work off handing in assignments. Others such as A-levels do have examinations. Examinations are a problem for many students. For a start they target Read/Write learners. A pretty big problem. Public school can teach a few more students to be better at learning in this way but I don't think this counts for much as after the tests are done, many students forget how to, put it behind themselves and the skill will have to be relearnt at a later point.

Now I will add my own argument that public schooling doesn't prepare students for life after school. There is no teaching going on to avoid the many swindles and scams out there. There isn't much teaching about how to handle money going on either. No information on how to pay taxes or how to open a savings account. There is no preparation going on for students in the areas which are REQUIRED for later life. If you're bad with money, you're screwed. It seems more like they're expected to know this without being taught at all and this is an area where homeschooling could help quite a lot because the government aren't doing anything about this.

My idea is when the homeschooled student is up to date on their assignments, then the parent or tutor can teach the student how to survive in the real world. Sure public school can make you a bit more social but it is homeschooling which aims towards a wiser generation.


I think you spelled rebuttal right ;)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I was a little busy with Easter stuff.


With money (and presumably the time point) out of the way, there are still a few other things to clear up.

Pro's rebuttal to my second point

Pro states: "the people who are homeschooling their children should be required to stay closely to the curriculum, making sure everything that is learnt in the normal school environment is learnt."

This might be a good idea, but should we be arguing about how to make homeschooling and public schooling better, and which one is better at their peak potential? If this argument is, in fact, concerning the two methods of teaching children as they stand right now, homeschoolers are not required to follow any sort of curriculum. Therefore, my point still stands.

If it is the case that we are arguing which is better potentially, then I invite you to look at this video:

In this video, it can be clearly seen that public schooling has potential for doing exactly what Pro wants out of a school environment, thereby making this argument obsolete. Pro's entire opening speech was given concerning learning styles and how the public school system does not currently do well in that area. I agree with him, but either we must argue potential, or current state of affairs.

If we are to argue potential, then I believe this video shows how public schooling can attain what Pro seeks.

Pro's rebuttal to my third point

Pro says: "If a student wants to be more social, they could sign up for a club to do with something they like."

I am in agreement, again. However, this is not good enough. I know from personal experience (not empirical data but empirical data on this is hard to systematically obtain) that homeschoolers have weaker social abilities than people in normal schools. This is either because the homeschoolers chose not to do what Pro suggests, or because they don't have as many opportunities as public school kids.

I still maintain the fact that being able to function at peak efficiency in a social environment is paramount to being able to thrive in the workforce, even more so than the best education one could get. Homeschool students, as they are now, are antisocial. This is a problem that can be fixed with a more public environment.

Pro's rebuttals to my rebuttals

Pro states: "(That's not confusing at all!)"

Pro offends me with sarcasm. Judges take note.

Pro says: "Others (me as an example) just don't adapt to other learning styles no matter how much teachers try to force it down the student's throats. These students will continue to struggle when a different method of teaching is used which isn't their learning style"

As stated in my first round of rebuttals, I agree with this. I was particularly wary of this in my experience with public school, especially in how people think. I think in patterns and learn visually, while most others in the classroom think in a step-oriented way and learn from listening. This, in the current state of public schooling is inescapable. I agreed to this because it's true. However, Pro did not refute my point concerning how this allows some of us to learn how others think. It is true, I could never adapt either, so I just zoned out during class and taught myself when I got home. The important part, I feel is not adapting to learn something yourself, but seeing how others learn things. This may or may not be important, but it's definitely something that happens to one who is around a different kind of learning.

Standardized testing is not important when approaching this problem the way Pro does: what is best for the future. To this effect, Pro states: "after the tests are done, many students forget how to, put it behind themselves and the skill will have to be relearnt at a later point." This is true, but I fail to see how this matters unless Pro is arguing that the goal of a school is to prepare for life. This is a possibility, but perhaps it needs to be extrapolated upon.

Pro's final point that he introduces to the argument has the same focus: what is better for life. It is my contention that school is not for preparing students for life. It is for preparing students for a job in an industry. Therefore, this argument is pointless unless Pro can explain why schooling is at least trying to gear itself towards giving students a better future and raising a "wiser generation"
Debate Round No. 3


Cazaam forfeited this round.


I extent my arguments. Thank you, Pro for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
RFD (1/1)

Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting, I also noted the sarcasm which Con raised as an issue.

S&G - Tie. Both had good spelling and grammar.

Arguments - Con. To put it simply, Pro was unable to overcome the challenges presented by Con. To start, Pro immediately conceded the time/money argument from Con. So this debate really came down to education and social points of contention and I found that Con was able to easily maintain his position on those matters. For education, Pro argued that homeschooling is more effective for certain types of learning, but Con then comes in and shows how the benefit of learning on type doesn't outweigh the benefits of being exposed to other methods. Con hammered this point by utilizing a video that supported his arguments on the potential ability of schools to adapt. Pro never overcame this rebuttal. In terms of social elements, Pro just wasn't able to overcome the fact that home-schooled kids are still more antisocial than other kids for any of the reasons Con gave. Ultimately, I wish Pro hadn't of forfeited the final round, because in doing so he left Con standing unchallenged when he really needed to overcome Con's contentions. For these reasons, Con wins arguments.

Sources - Tie. I really think a majority of the claims made from both sides needed some supporting evidence. The lack of sources in a debate like this is somewhat surprising, but being that you're both newer members it's understandable. I would just like to say that your impacts could be weighed much more if they were backed by some form of supporting evidence.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

The debate's pretty straightforward as a whole, but in order to give ample feedback, I'm going to go through all the points for each side.


There's a pervasive problem that persists in Pro's arguments, and that is this unyielding assumption that homeschooling can provide some things that public schooling cannot. The closest Pro gets to explaining those aspects is in stating that it's more individualized attention and that there's more leeway to offer opportunities for teaching that don't exist in public school. I'll get into these more on the arguments themselves, but these while these are accurate, there's a dearth of links between this argument and the impacts provided.

Pro's argument breaks down into two separate points. The first is this learner argument, which Con concedes. It's a pretty good argument, but it's missing a very important piece: impacts. I'm completely missing them for this argument. Merely saying that it improves the capacity of individuals to learn isn't an end in and of itself " learning is a means to an end, not an end. I'll get more into how that weighs at the end of this RFD.

Even if I assumed an impact, though, this argument's in trouble for another reason, and that is the lack of links between individualized attention and improved learning. Con might have conceded this point, but it's still problematic. Merely having individual attention doesn't mean parents/tutors are more likely than not to teach to the student. That's sort of just assumed, despite the fact that most of these parents are going to have no classical training in teaching styles, and thus be more limited in their capacity to provide the effective learning style. This matters little given the concession, but it's a gaping hole in Pro's argument that could have been exploited.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
(Pt. 2)

The second argument falters as Con rebuts it. It's unclear from the outset why having parents and tutors be the teachers suddenly increases the probability that that teaching will include lessons on basic finance and accounting, and why those lessons should be afforded through schooling in general (more on that shortly). It's also unclear what the impact is. It might seem obvious that a more financially savvy individual is likelier to do better in life, and thus benefit society around him rather than dragging them down, but that has to be stated directly. Pro just assumes the impact, and Con lets him roll with it.

That being said, Con doesn't let Pro get away with his solvency explanation. He questions the basic reason why we care about this mode of teaching, and I think manages to successfully mitigate this argument. However, that doesn't mean it goes away. Con's response is only an assertion that preparation for a job is the central focus of school, but it's unclear why that's more likely. Thus, both sides are equal on this issue, and there's no reason to necessarily prefer either goal. It would have been simple to provide some, but that goes by the wayside.

The last thing I'd like to cover is this idea that we can improve the system. There are several problems with this. The fact that it comes out for the first time in R3 is not a good sign " it needed to be in R2 in order to be regarded as important. It's exceedingly unclear how regulations on homeschooling could be implemented, or what kind of effect they could have. Con doesn't give either of these responses, but he does get another in, pointing out that the harms of the current public school system can be similarly solved by modifications. I'm not particularly impressed by that response, since Con doesn't take any time to explain what could be changed in the public school system to solve for Pro's concerns, but lacking rebuttal, it is deadly to Con's pseudo-plan expansion.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
(Pt. 3)


Con's case is more diverse, giving him more opportunities to present a winning argument. At first blush, though, it's unclear that he's accomplished that.

The time/money argument doesn't have any clear impact. Despite Pro's concession, I'm left wanting on what this menas for any given family. No one's being forced to enter into homeschooling, so the cost is borne by willing participants. Maybe that willingness has a negative effect on certain parties that shouldn't be allowed, but that needs to be made clear. It's not. So the best I have here is a minimal effect without any real fallout for families. It would have been nice to see at least something regarding a lack of resources and their effect on children, but I don't see it.

The duty argument is similarly unclear. Why does having the duty matter? Merely having a responsibility doesn't necessarily make a public school better than homeschooling. Con's correct to argue that education could be done very poorly, but it's unclear how often this is done and how likely it is to continue occurring. It doesn't sound incredibly likely, since parents do have some responsibility to their children, but Pro doesn't assault the likelihood on this, nor any of the link structure.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
(Pt. 4)

The social education point is similarly weak. I'm not sure why a social education is necessarily one that must be imposed. Both Pro and Con commonly refer to themselves when it comes to supporting their arguments, and it's not good evidence (as Con later concedes). Even if it is true, it's not clear that forcing a public education necessarily solves for antisocial behavior among homeschooled students, who may just be more likely to be antisocial because those are the children who are likeliest to be homeschooled (parental overprotection), rather than homeschooling making them antisocial. Still, all Pro gives me is partial mitigation, and so long as I'm believing that there's any likelihood of an improved social education (and I am), there's a benefit. There's no terminal impact here as far as I can see " being a better participant in the workplace is not a terminal impact, just the starting impact " but it's something.

The conformation point is probably the most problematic in the bunch, since it's full of holes. Con tells me that standardized tests are an end goal of public schooling, but it's unclear what benefit they provide. Con eventually gets to a pseudo-explanation where he talks about the importance of learning how other people learn (I'm guessing in order to help students eventually become good leaders?), but that doesn't tell me why standardized testing is important. The arguments exist, but they need to be stated. And again, we move back to social ability. I'm unclear on why one has to learn in the same environment as others with a different method of learning in order to understand how they learn. It's just generally unclear. I was expecting arguments regarding how colleges teach (no home school alternative), and some points about being responsive to a variety of teaching styles in the workplace, but Con gets somewhere with these points, if not far.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
(Pt. 5)


Both debaters are making the same basic mistakes. However, there are a few separating factors. Con spends more time rebutting Pro's argument, directly mitigating many of his points without trying to expand his case in the process. He doesn't forfeit and gets the last word in. Apart from that, he has the most arguments supporting his case, and while many of those pieces are weak, they seem to stack up into a case with some clout. Both debaters fail to do much in the way of weighing arguments, but since I'm not finding much in the way of reasons to view one argument as most important or even one set of impacts as the biggest or strongest, winning more points sets Con apart. Hence, I vote Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
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: Given in comments. Conduct to Con for the forfeit.