Year round school is horrible

At this point, I find it pertinent to point out that though the resolution as stated is "Year round school is horrible" and my opponent has registered himself as "Con," his first argument is in opposition to year-round schools. He claims that he doesn't want them. Therefore, given his first post, we can very easily modify this resolution so that it retains its original meaning: "Year-round school isn't horrible." I trust that Con will accept this, because it doesn't disadvantage either of us: it simply affirms his position in opposition to year-round schools. At this point, I'd like to discuss the burdens in this debate that each of us bear from my perspective, and Con should feel free to respond to this if he disagrees. I feel as though we both possess a burden of proof: I must demonstrate in some way how year-round schools are not horrible, and Con must demonstrate that they are horrible. However, it is inescapable that Con's burden is far higher than mine, for he is making a positive statement to the tune of "year-round schools are horrible." My burden is simply to disprove the word "horrible." I don't need to demonstrate why year-round schools are amazing and why everyone should drop everything they're doing an attend, but simply uphold this (new) resolution by providing even one reason that these schools aren't, as Con says, horrible. He must, therefore, be able to successfully refute every one of my points and prove his own points which actually stick -- that is, that aren't refuted -- in order to win this debate. With that said, onto my opening arguments: I'd like to begin my defining the terms in this debate: -Year-round education [1. http://tinyurl.com...]: "Year Round Education is when schools operate on a 180 day system, yet they spread these days out across the year with shorter breaks between each term as opposed to a longer summer break." -Horrible [http://tinyurl.com...]: 1. causing horror: very shocking and upsetting 2. very bad and unpleasant Suffice it to say, proving that year-round education "causes horror" is going to be quite a difficult feat for Con. It’s obvious that there is a grave distinction between simply disagreeing with something and having a preference for something else, and asserting that it is categorically “horrible.” That’s a steep burden to fulfill, and I wish him the best of luck in this debate. Contention 1: Year-Round schooling is conducive to exceptional school performance. The logic behind this draws largely from a study from the Century Foundation (http://tinyurl.com...). Teixeira and Bloniarz conducted a study on this, and they state that teachers spend roughly four weeks at the beginning of the school year reviewing past lessons because students forget them over their long summer breaks. They draw on a paper written by Alan Krueger, who argues that this problem is most pervasive among low-income people. With year-round schooling and shorter vacations, there is much less reviewing, so teachers are able to focus on progressing their lessons forward and students are kept alert and ready to learn, and this addresses a gap between high- and low- income people. Contention 2: Year-Round schooling is good for the economy. This extends beyond the fact that it would be conducive to better performance by students and a higher-educated workforce is extremely beneficial to a growing economy. This point is in reference to findings from that same study that about 50% of families do not have after-school prearrangements for their children. So, because schooling tends to run only for 9 months, they often need to find day care services, transportation, etc. for their children, which places, again, a disproportionate burden particularly on low-income people. At the same time, this would free up resources that can be spent elsewhere in the economy, and the confidence effects from “feeling wealthier” by virtue of being able to save on day care services would boost consumption elsewhere, thus stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Contention 3: Year-round schooling allows for a great deal of flexibility. There are a number of tracks that schools can take. A school could even use multit-racking, whereby a group of students and teachers are always on vacation. This leads to smaller class sizes and more individualized attention, and thus more effective lessons. Conclusion: I have provided several ways in which year-round schooling is not evil, but effective. In order to win this debate, my opponent must not only refute my reasons, but provide conclusive evidence as to why year-round schooling is “horrible.” I find this to be a very hard burden to fulfill, especially because, even if he disagrees with me, that isn’t grounds for the phraseology he has opted for.