Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state.

I'll follow Pro's lead and offer rebuttals right up to the conclusion. I. Pro does not acknowledge or respond to my rebuttals regarding the Romeike family. I will present the rebuttals I made, and why his responses are not sufficient. In Round 2, I state "Pro's first point, that the status quo includes persecution, has no relevance to the resolution. The "persecution" of those that home school does not make home schooling correct any more than the persecution of Christians makes Christianity correct. It is a logical fallacy. " Pro's response in the next round simply states "The persecution is relevant. I have shown you an example of a state that does not allow parental control of education, and how that state abuses that power. " Pro, however, fails to state why the German government's actions are actually abusive, and more importantly, he fails to state why that "abuse" supports the notion that "Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state. " II. Pro ignores the main point of the home schooling statistic. "[A] significant proportion of home schooling families are religious" is not the main point. As I stated in Round 3, "The fact that it is considered an important factor [in home schooling], even if not the most important, clearly shows that religion holds a strong influence over these decisions. " Religion is inherently contradictory toward education, in fields such as science (evolution) and history (Creationism), as well as in the humanities (defined gender roles). Meanwhile, Pro states private schools are known for quality education, but has only pointed out statistics about home schooling in his arguments thus far. His repetition of the idea that home education has many benefits does not respond to my rebuttals. III. The statistic cited by Pro about voter turnout in this last round is irrelevant. Every eligible voter CAN vote; the fact that not all do only speaks to the point that they do not wish to say anything, rather than that they cannot speak. The point about not having direct input into the public education is completely untrue, with a plethora of parent organizations that serve to offer just that. One such organization is the PTA, which in 2013 boasted 4,266,785 members (Source: Page 13 . http://www.pta.org...). Pro repeatedly states that school choice is vital, but does not state why. IV. The issue of this being not allowed was a difference in interpretation, as I presumed that "Standard" meant rebuttals in the third round only. I see Pro's meaning now, so I will agree that it is allowable. Regardless, Pro has the burden of proof to show that school choice and variety are in any way beneficial, and he has not shown that they are; thus this argument carries no more weight than if I were to simply state that variety places a great strain on the educational system and damages everyone in it. A. Pro admits to making a mistake with his math; as his statistical math cannot be completely trusted when he has sources, he surely cannot be trusted when making statistical claims he provides no support for, with regards to private school college acceptance rates. B. Again, Pro continues the trend of saying that my arguments are invalid without giving reasoning; in this case, stating that I'm wrong that giving the state power to control abuse gives the state power to control the whole education, without providing reasoning against my claim. Pro makes a point that damages his own position in stating "Parents have been indoctrinating their children into their religious beliefs for centuries with or without the help of home education", because it clearly shows the tendency of indoctrination by parents to be true, while the state education is secular and does not force a viewpoint in the context of the United States. I have ignored private school no more than Pro has, who has, I emphasize, provided no sources in support of private schooling, only home schooling. The "state's duty to interfere" in cases of child abuse is just that: interfering. Therefore, either the point about abuse must be accepted as valid, or the state has a right to interfere with a child's education, nullifying the resolution. The resolution contains that parents/guardians "control", and explicitly NOT the state. Any sort of state control, even over abuse, nullifies the resolution. Pro also argues that "child abuse. .. is not directly caused by parent choice of education". I never said it was. All I stated was that choice facilitates abuse; it makes it easier to commit. C. Again, Pro ignores my point that home schooling achievement in the U. S. is lower than public school achievement abroad. Meanwhile, Pro accuses me of ignoring private schooling when he in fact ignored it as well. With regards to ". .. why would anyone ever pay to send their child to private school when public school is free? ", that doesn't prove anything about quality. People in the U. S. pay for bottled water when they could easily take free water and put it into their own bottle; it doesn't mean that bottled water is better. D. Pro did in fact drop the point that skimming occurs, which is detrimental to the poor. His point that it is not the source of inequality is irrelevant, as he does not contest that it skimming is indeed detrimental to the poor. Conclusion: I have had many points sustained, such as those of abuse, religion, and skimming, that demonstrate that the state should indeed have control over the educational system, and all have been well-cited and documented. Pro, on the other hand, has many arguments that he offers no supporting evidence for, and some of the ones he does have been completely rebutted. As well, Pro attempts to shift the argument away from the core by accusing me of being against private schooling altogether. According to the resolution, I do not hold that; I only hold that the state should ultimately be in charge of regulating those private schools and admittance to them. The same holds for home schooling and charter schooling and schools for the disabled. Pro has not offered enough evidence to conclusively prove that "Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state", and substantial evidence to the contrary is present; as such, he has not met the burden of proof and the argument should go to Con.