This House would send its children to boarding school

RantIt's really irritating when people take a debate, wait three days, and then don't fight it. I only take one debate at a time and expect better than this. Given that my opponent has failed to respond to my opening speech, I shall assume that my definitions and substantives have been carried through, as the Opposition has yet to present a case against them. Rebuttal*Insert 3,500 characters of rebuttal here - oh wait. .. *With all that rebuttal out of the way, I now have plenty of time for some more substantives. Substantive III: Young people are herd animalsThis argument is particularly valid for only children, or those with much older siblings who have moved out of the family home. The fact is that young people prefer to spend time with people of their own age who they consider to be more entertaining, better value, and consistent. It is only natural that teenagers would prefer to be nearer to their friends, and essentially have them on tap. In general, this is an experience that only a boarding school can offer. Especially for more social teenagers who want the proper boarding experience, with the opportunities to grow close to their friends and develop relationships which will last a lifetime, boarding school offers something that no parents can. Equally, surely it is more healthy and socially normal for teenagers to spend their evenings and free time with people of their own age than consistently being bored by their parents, spending time with them purely because there's no better company in the immediate vicinity. The benefits of spending time with people of one's own age are increased confidence and social skills: this is a trend which can clearly be seen when boarders are compared with day pupils. This will create young people who are adept, socially aware, and have experience of forming closer relationships. Above all, it teaches the lesson of having to get on with people, regardless of whether or not you are similar people. Substantive IV: Boarding schools prepare young people for lifeThis seems obvious, but it is a solid argument for sending one's child to boarding school. Many students, when they go off to university, find themselves stranded with very little idea how to fend for themselves. They've never had to cook, they don't know how to look after their money, and many don't know how a dishwasher works. All of this comes because the present gap between day school and university is simply too large. Sending one's child to boarding school is, in the Proposition's opinion, a happy medium. Young people start learning how to fend for themselves in a controlled and monitored environment, without having their parents constantly watching over them. It teaches the valuable skill of time management, something many students struggle with when they go to university. The final key thing it teaches them is moderation and self-control: how much they can drink without going over the edge. In a sense, it means that the usual catastrophes of student life, by which time young people are out on their own with nobody watching over them, take place while the adolescent is still in a monitored environment. Summary of the Third Speech for the PropositionI have now put forward all four of my substantive arguments, and the Opposition has put forward nothing against them. This system is better than day schools because young people have friends on tap 24/7, as opposed to constantly relying on their parents, which makes them better socially adapted and aware. It also teaches valuable lifeskills such as time management, which makes the first few years of university run more easily and smoothly. There is - literally - no case against this. And a quick word to the Opposition. .. If you're not going to take part in this debate, at least simply submit a third speech saying "I concede", so this debate wraps up and I can debate with someone who is actually going to put forward some arguments.