Formal education (K-12) ought to be compulsory in the United States

PRO 1A 1. Yes I can. It's not even a logical stretch to say that compulsory education will lead to more kids attending school, which leads to more kids with diplomas. Your case's benefits directly entail kids *not* going to public school, which reduces graduates. 2. The US is rights-based, yes? I.E. it's all about individual citizen's rights and welfare. That's to prevent tyranny of the majority. We can't just blow off the minority because Con says so. Also, given that our job market is driven by education level, making sure that the most individuals succeed is the only thing that can maximize benefit to the state as a whole. I don't know how to make it clearer. Pro maximizes both individual and collective benefit. 3. That still invalidates your source as a piece of offense, since my 1A says that the diploma is a gateway for employment, not a college degree. We covered this in RD 2. 1B 1. First of all, not a strawman. Second of all, yes there is. Privatization is exactly that. Since capitalist institutions seek to maximize profit, rather than social gain, students who can't foot the bill on their own are denied education. You cannot maintain the benefits of CE while not having CE. See 1B-2 (below). 2. Then why the heck are we debating? You assert, again, that you can claim all the benefits coming out of the Pro advocacy but you don't ever tell us how you plan on motivating a privatized school system to do this. I'm not asking you to make plan text. But the voters and I *expect* you to be able to, logically or otherwise, prove that a privatized education system will offer all students an education without the incentive that CE provides. 3. I was. That was my warrant that states can mandate participation in activities that better the state as a whole. 1C 1. I'm not presupposing anything. Look to RD 3. I don't believe anything is perfectly equal now. I'm saying Con results in a loss of equality. With regards to privatization, that is the only alternative to CE, since CE = public schools. Hence, you are de facto arguing for privatized schools. 2. First, the American public dubbed it as such. Big difference. And, per previous arguments, Con does shut school doors by fundamentally changing both the goals and obligations associated with public schooling. Kids spend 7+ hours of their day at school. How does that not warrant it being a support system as well as an educational institution? 2A 1. Problem solving and critical thinking skills are universally useful. According to all of my evidence in 2A, schools teach skills, not subject areas. Look at the standards I posted. Who doesn't need to read, or write complete sentences, or speak coherently? The subjects are used as ways to diversify cognitive thinking skills. Not everyone may want to read, or write, or speak, but that doesn't mean that they don't need to. I've already proven that a diploma is a necessity, but I'd say cognitive higher thinking is right up there, too. 3. It actually has everything to do with the resolution. We can't universally apply educational standards without a CE model. Again, look to the harms of privatization. Without government oversight (in this case, at the state level via departments of education), standards *cannot* be enforced. That's just a reality of the US education system. 2B 1. Already did prove otherwise. I'll make this a voting issue so that I don't have to repeat what I've said already in RDs 1-4. 2. This is also going to be a voting issue, readers. See the above 1B-2 response again. 3. Besides the whole parents who are incapacitated issue (and that child services is hardly an appealing option), do you suppose that our welfare system can handle all the new cases you'll be throwing its way? We are talking about millions of people. Ex: 30.5 million children were on a free/reduced lunch plan in 2007 alone. Con says just let them go hungry, which, as the WFP states, will severely affect their ability to learn all these awesome new concepts he wants to forward in the Con world. However, my 2A proves that we get the education reform he touts, but only if we stick to CE. But, food isn't even the most important issue at hand. Look at his "benefits": we get an educational system that is actually focused on educating and we eliminate trivial truancy cases. First, the focus is where it needs to be right now. Second, what is the real monetary harm of trivial truancy cases? How is this even quantifiable in the round when compared to the loss of rights? Homeschooling options within CE basically solve for any rights abuses he can claim, so I'm still outweighing. CON C1 1. First, if you are educated under the system described in 2A (which right now kids are), then you are far more likely to be educated than if you just didn't go to school. Second, that really doesn't matter at the point where you cannot succeed in the US without a diploma. No, the two don't *always* correlate, but in general, they do. We aren't debating absolutes. 2. Way to glance over everything important that I said about public school obligations. Food is a necessity to a good education, says WFP. So, if you want your educational system to be equal access, you are obligated to provide students with the meals they require. And lunch is sort of essential, dude. Even if you aren't aiming for equal access (which is a rights-based obligation via the USFG, so you don't really have a choice), human beings need food. And you have these human beings in your possession for 7 hrs min. per day. 3. Remember this from RD 4: "The benefits when we negate are 1. an educational system more focused on educating and not supporting…" To achieve this benefit, you have to prove that the Pro world contains little to no useful education. I'd say that's basically your C1 right there. If I prove CE provides the only useful education in the round, that's a voting issue for me. And you just admitted that I do since you just severed from that argument. 4. I don't really need to concern myself with your subtext. Say what you mean, or you are still a moving target. C2 1. You explicitly argue that all parents are equal when you try to use them as a way to prove that education levels will remain the same in a Con world. 2/3. This'll be another voter. Standards just can't function without CE. Note on C3: He talks about diplomas becoming obsolete, and then doesn't give himself enough space to properly defend this incredible claim. He's asking you to vote Con based on the hope that this *might* happen, despite the fact that the need for formal education is on the rise for reasons that the education system has no control over (foreign labor market competition, etc.). Also, He can't provide jobs for people who won't graduate, and he can't tell you how long it would take for the entire employment system to readjust (assuming it even can). Assigning a time limit to this is beyond our realm of discourse.