BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschooling Is Economically Beneficial

The practice of homeschooling positively affects budgets of both the family and the state. Homeschooling families save money on expenditures which public schools would otherwise demand: large notebooks for every subject, presentation boards, or uniforms. Uniforms are increasingly more required[[http://tinyurl.com/dzwmkt]]; cost $150 - $300 per year[[http://tinyurl.com/yfbx2hk]]; and must be annually renewed. Public schools thus become expensive, especially for the poor stricken by the current financial crisis; for them, homeschooling is much cheaper, because its costs are customized[[http://tinyurl.com/34onh6p]]. State incurs unnecessary costs as well. Firstly, underprivileged families may qualify to have their uniforms paid for by governmental grants [[http://tinyurl.com/2w6fw2d]]. More importantly, state has to foot the bill for tuition. The most basic cost per child in public school is $8,322; in reality, that is almost $25,000[[http://tinyurl.com/5y2f27]]. In contrast, “the average cost per homeschool student is $546”[[http://tinyurl.com/2dchmnd]]. Return of the homeschooled would make the US alone pay $8,000 to $25,000 per each of the 1.5 million homeschooled children[[http://tinyurl.com/2v9mktl]]. Overall, this would make the US pay $37.5 billion: the equivalent of nominal GDP of Lithuania[[http://tinyurl.com/39y82lq]], or 462 education budgets of the District of Columbia[[http://tinyurl.com/5y2f27]]; in any case, fifty times as much as homeschooling. The government will need to raise that extra money, thus restricting our financial freedoms, or to redirect that money from other vital projects, where they already are too scarce. This is an unnecessary expense. Contrary to Proposition’s unfounded claims, we have proven homeschooled children academically perform, psychologically develop and socially integrate much better than their public-school counterparts. Homeschooling is clearly the efficient option for both families and the state.
Unschooling

Homeschooling can be a guise for unschooling. For ideological, economic, health issues, etc., some parents will pull their children from school under homeschooling statutes and refuse or be unable to carry on the education. It is estimated that in the US alone, there are 100,000 unschooled children in the 1.5 million homeschooled population [[http://dailywd.womansday.com/blog/2010/04/daily-buzz-goodbye-homeschooling-hello-unschooling.html]] At least 100,000 adults will enter society without any formal education. This will severely affect their chances of unemployment and hopes of financial and fiscal success. Regardless of how important it is tolearn to dance, sing, and play, employment standards are based upon public education standards. It is important to be formally educated for this reason.
It’s ridiculous to say that home schooling necessarily will be of poor quality.

It’s ridiculous to say that home schooling necessarily will be of poor quality. Many parents will be fantastic teachers. Furthermore, it’s not as if the process occurs in a vacuum simply because education occurs in the home. In the USA, the nation that home-schools the largest proportion of its population; a network of home-school support groups and businesses provides expertise on given subjects and teaching methods. The internet makes all this viable in a way it was not before and allows every home to have better research facilities than any school library had ten years ago.
Home schooling increases civic involvement

The reason the average homeschooled child performs better on standardised tests and is more involved in civic society is because of who they are rather than the process of homeschooling itself. They tend to come from two parent households, where both parents are substantially educated themselves, are thus reasonably financially comfortable, and place a high importance on education[[http://www.educationbug.org/a/homeschool-statistics.html]]. Any compilation of such students will perform better than the average. Such students, who may not have to juggle a job and taking care of younger siblings while their parents juggle jobs, will naturally have more time for civic involvement. These already relatively privileged students will perform even better after partaking in the collaborative learning experience in the diverse learning environment that is school, in addition to becoming more well rounded individuals with superior social skills. We believe that the path to 'early integration into a community' lies not in performing community service at an orphanage twice a week, but rather by regularly, actively engaging with peers and mentors on an intellectual as well as a social level.
The Uniqueness of School

Proposition basically says that school is necessary because it (1) makes communication with diverse people necessary, as parents do not choose where their children go, (2) homeschooling and extra-curricular activities connected to it cannot bring that diversity, for the attending group is self-selecting rather than "unfiltered mixture". We believe that none of the two assumptions is warranted nor true. Firstly, parents still select schools for their children on the basis of common values, cultures and achievements - and even go as far as to move closer to the school they want in order to fall into its catchment area [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/25/chicken-run-city-schools]]. As such, public schools then offer blatant misrepresentations of the society, as exemplified by DC public schools, where less than 5 % of children are white, although whites account for 40.6 % of DC population [[http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html]]. Proposition policy bars no parent from sending their child to a religious or a predominantly white school; if anything, it strengthens incentives for doing so. This phenomenon of "rational racism" is well-accounted for in modern research, most recently by Tim Harford's Logic of Life: no Proposition mechanism changes this. What stems therefrom is that a child's environment is often only as diverse as parents allow it to be - and there is no change to that with homeschooling ban. Secondly, we think it rubbish that homeschooling should somehow eliminate diversity from socialization in sports teams or other clubs. What members of a basketball team or, indeed, a debate club share is not race, religion, nor income bracket: it is the desire to participate. We think that this volitional common goal is much more likely to bring tolerance and integration than forcing parents and children alike into one classroom; the latter is more likely to produce resentment to society in general and minorities in particular
Try as it might, the state constantly fails those with greatest faith needs in its schools.

Try as it might, the state constantly fails those with greatest faith needs in its schools. Numerous examples can be found of the state failing to provide for students of ‘minority’ faiths - of ignorant failure to provide for prayer time, the banning or denigrating of religious dress, of unwitting subjection of students to religious festivals that are manifestly unsuitable.The popular home schooling movement in America sprang out of two real and legitimate concerns parents of Christian students had: that their religion was being denigrated in the state curriculum, and the ritual humiliations they were subjected to for their faith. Of course, schools should reform to ensure such behaviour is minimised - but if parents want to avoid such perils altogether, and teach their child within an environment that caters for their religious needs, that is and should be their right.Nowhere is this more true than in discussing the appropriate place of dogma in schools. Many deeply held beliefs - such as creationism - are undermined, directly and indirectly, by state sector educators. The refusal of many schools to alter text books to highlight the fact that evolution is a theory and not proven truth, and the refusal to teach creationism as a possibility alongside it, serves to prove this point.
Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children’s education is carried out well.

The most important thing in this debate is ensuring children receive the decent education which they have a right to - something that, with its resources, experience and expertise, the state is best placed to do. High minded arguments about ‘parental rights’ are all well and good, but if things go wrong, it’s impossible to make up for lost time and bad practice in a child’s education. What if a parent is deficient in providing the educational process, but the state fail to spot it? What if they are satisfactory upon inspection, and then take the year off with the child to watch sports? What if the child does school work the day the state comes knocking, and house chores the rest of the year? A system can try to cater for these problems but it will frequently fail, not least because those it tries to monitor will often wilfully mislead it. This is therefore not about a right, and not about a choice - there is no right to choose to fail your child’s education. This is true not just as a precautionary principle, but as a practical problem the proposition simply can’t answer - there is no feasible mechanism which can ensure that the standards held to be appropriate are carried out in practice.
Improves Education

Firstly, we need to point out a huge concession on part of Proposition: they concede that the state of public education is bleak and in need of reform. This kills their point of educational quality for all homeschooled children transferred to public schools - which we showed is not going to happen. Strangely, Proposition advocates a position that homeschoolers like John Holt[[http://tinyurl.com/yk3kry]] used to stand for in the 1960s: that the system can be changed by thorough discussion of its flaws. However, past evidence suggests that educational reform movements accomplish nothing[[http://tinyurl.com/cfl5c4]]; current public schools are results thereof. Opposition says that public schools are on the government agenda enough[[http://tinyurl.com/cpp9hq]], without need for extra voices; moreover, we think that homeschoolers would rather lobby for reinstatement of homeschooling than engage in a Sisyphean task of reforming a system they hate. Several ideas in this argument merit refutation simply by virtue of being bland assertions. Firstly, the idea about parents’ inability to actually homeschool once they opt for homeschooling is clearly frivolous: even if they didn't have the time - an absurdity - they could still provide for a qualified tutor [[http://tinyurl.com/38b4qtl]]. Secondly, the notion that parents' lack of education makes them ineffective teachers is demonstrably false: 2009 research shows that homeschooled children are more successful than publicly schooled children, regardless of parents' qualifications to teach, thanks to individual approach[[http://tinyurl.com/6r22hm]]. Lastly, the idea that non-long-term or non-mainstream methods need be banned is clearly ridiculous on its own, akin to banning emergency shelters after hurricanes to promote building new houses. If public schools can be reformed (which we doubt), the reform can be simultaneous with homeschooling. Banning it wouldn’t get any lobbying support; even if it did, it wouldn't help.
Homes beat schools on two significant fronts - facilities and an atmosphere that encourages learning.

Schools beat homes on two significant fronts – facilities and an atmosphere that encourages learning. Homes are very unlikely to have extensive science laboratories, sports facilities. By pooling the resources of all to provide common facilities, the state is able to cater for everyone’s needs without needless duplication. In the unlikely circumstance that an extremely wealthy parent were able to provide the plethora of things required for a rounded education, it would be a massively selfish thing to do, and remarkably pointless: why not send their child to a private school, where at least the power of review exists, and the pooling of facilities occurs?It must be terribly confusing for a young child to be asked to ‘switch’ to ‘learning mode’ and then back to ‘play mode’ in the same environment by the same people. For the older child, it represents ample opportunities for abuse - for pushing activities the parent enjoys instead of a lesson, or manipulating the parent into slacking off ‘just this once’. Schools are for learning - that’s their essence, their function. The home is an altogether more complex environment, ill-suited to the purpose of instruction.
Home schooling increases civic involvement

While children in public schools already fall into the arbitrary hierarchical structure of the school, homeschooled children are left in the relaxed setting of the family, free to seek a different social ladder to climb on. This often tends to be the real one: when students don't attend school, they often get involved in their communities[[http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/Civic.asp]]. In fact, homeschooled students are almost twice as likely to be involved in an ongoing community service activity, be a member of a community group or simply be able to get involved, as the average US citizen[[http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/Tab2.gif]]. We believe that is intrinsically beneficial: early integration into community makes for a more prepared adult citizen, which is what the entire schooling system strives for.
The Uniqueness of School

When answering the question of whether or not something should be banned, we must look at the what is being lost in the world of the stakeholders while that action or thing is still being permitted. In the context of this debate, we believe that there are unique benefits to receiving an education outside of the home that are so conclusive and so vital that they make school an absolute necessity that every child should partake in. A crucial part of an education outside of the home is the interaction amongst the students that is used to prepare them to have constructive engagements with fellow citizens when their schooling is over. Interacting with other children who may be taught different belief systems and come from different social-economic statuses and religious or ethnic backgrounds prepare students for their future, where the potential of having to deal with someone who is different is almost inevitable. While there may be attempts by parents to socialize their children through other means (such as joining sports teams or youth clubs), these organizations are centered around similarity - all the kids that enjoy the same thing or believe in the same values congregate. School is a mixture that does not filter out students, and there is an inherent social value to such a mix. We believe that governments have a duty to ensure, or at the very at least, provide children the potential to interact with other children of different backgrounds at such a crucial time of their development as active and productive citizens. The only way to do this is to eliminate systems such as homeschooling that promote exclusivity under the guise of protection. The only way to truly hold the child's interests as a priority is to to prepare them for the society that they will soon inherit; homeschooling attempts to construct a world for the child that often does not match reality.
Czech Summary

This week, Proposition failed in all points. Negating the importance of socialization among ethnically diverse groups, we proved that public schools don’t give any inter-ethnic socialization, while homeschooling alone gives enough. Countering the importance of school in passing values, we pointed out that it is unclear how public school does that better than home school, that homeschooled kids are generally better prepared for the society as measured by psychologists, and that ban actually harms societal values. Refuting the mentors point, we showed that their importance is largely speculative, but that public schools give fewer opportunities still to meet mentors than homeschooling. In the misguided argument about unschooling, we explained that Proposition misconstrues the concept. Lastly, opposing the lobbying point, we remarked that USA misunderstands what drives lobbying and imagines public school reform quite simplistically. Generally, we showed USA argues on wrong facts, uses bad logic and ignores majority of cases. Even if ban worked, it won’t yield benefits; rather harm them. We out-evidenced them, forcing them to concoct e. g. “college-bound public schoolers” (see their link which “backs it up”). The Opposition case stood. We consistently showed that homeschooling enriches students, that it gives them better - in some cases, the only - education for life and thus ensures social integration. We also showed that society benefits from legal homeschooling and that keeping it legal is principally justified. US refutation was fragmented, seized on details rather than whole ideas, and succumbed to our POIs. More importantly, our arguments forced Team USA to make a number of concessions. Firstly, the premise that parents who homeschool are carefree, racist, unable-to-teach, religious zealots, prone to sacrifice their children's education to their God (be it the God of Creationism, Non-Vaccination or White Supremacy), formed the basis of half their argument. As time went, they argued instead that these same parents would be the critical voice to finally reform public schooling; or that they would hone their kids’ education and thus make up for demonstrated drawbacks of public schools. In claiming that parents are responsible, caring, and personally incentivized (which sets them apart from public school teachers and enables them to teach better), they assented to our original argument. Secondly, USA at first argued that public schools are the perfect solution; then admitted that they badly need reform. Thirdly, our POIs revealed that their asserted importance of socialization is caved by their espousal of the TCS in NZ, a symptom of wider failure to provide definitions. Opposition teamline was simple & stable: homeschooling rules over public and even private schooling; flaws coming with it can be fixed by regulation, but mostly need not be. In contrast, Team USA had no teamline; only inconsistent logic and faulty fundamentals.
Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children’s education is carried out well.

Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children’s education is carried out well - there is no logic that necessarily requires them to surrender that responsibility to the state. If they feel that the child would be best educated at home, by them or by another, that is their right. It is of course a crucial check within such a system that those teaching are vetted by the state to some extent to ensure their suitability. Such a system has worked for some of our most able achievers and will continue to do so. Some exceptions might slip through such a system, but that doesn’t mean the system is wrong - and it’s hardly as if state education has never failed. Moreover, this is a debate about whose claim to the right to guide a child is greater, the state’s or parents’. We stand firmly on behalf of the parents. Freedom of choice should exist in this arena, given all the responsibilities a parent assumes in bringing up a child: refusing parents the right to educate their children at home is an affront to a family’s liberty.
Improves Education

When parents are (often rightly) concerned about the state of public education, their concern is likely to revolve mostly around their own child or children. Given the option of homeschooling, those who have sufficient leisure time (i.e., time not devoted to work and life functions) to actively participate in the civic life will be able to homeschool their child. This is clearly not a long-term solution, though, as many children live in households where both parents work or even if one parent has the time to educate them has not themselves been well-educated enough to qualify as a home-teacher. If homeschooling was banned, those concerned parents could use their political clout to improve the public school system through democratic reform, producing a better system that is more equitable even for those who do not have time to take upon large civic reform.
Homes beat schools on two significant fronts - facilities and an atmosphere that encourages learning.

Homes beat schools on two significant fronts - facilities and an atmosphere that encourages learning. The needs of one or a very small number of students are the focus of the entire educative process. Parents willing to invest in their children properly often find the local and woefully ill-equipped state school is unable to match the targeted provision they are able to make.The home also lacks the many distractions of schools - peer pressure, social stigma attached to achievement, bullying, show-offs, general rowdiness.
Home schooling can be the only alternative

We don't have a problem with implementing programs like the TCS in NZ for particular cases in which the student is not able to attend school because of their location. Programs like the TCS are essentially a home deliver service of public education and not characterization of homeschooling that we have seen in this debate. Students are given the same exact curriculum as they would in at a State school and parents actually receive an allowance from the government much like a teacher would receive pay[[http://tiny.cc/gyy5p]]. Since the government still has control over the curriculum, the values of the society can still be reflected through education and a level of quality control is still maintained. These students will not receive all the benefits of an education outside the home, but they will still receive some. Bullying is all about exerting power over another. The way to stop bullying surely isn't to say to the bully that your power is so great that you can control the attendance of another student to this school. One way to stop bullying is to train teachers to recognize tell-tale signs and provide 'teachable moments' to the class which create an environment where bullying isn't tolerated by the students. These programs have worked in the US where students who reported being physically bullied over the past year had declined from nearly 22 percent in 2003 to under 15 percent in 2008[[http://tiny.cc/kyy7v]]. While we have seen a focus on mentally handicapped children in this debate, kids get bullied for vast amounts of reasons and the only way to stop the problem is to face it head on with campaigns against bullying. We don't think achievement recognition is mutually exclusive to homeschooling. Students can be put in accelerate classes, skip grades and have after school tutors to get the education they deserve. There is a possibility that young people from public schools can also be accepted to top tier universities.[[http://tiny.cc/w03kz]]