THBT Parent should have obligation to send their children to inclusion school

I. Justification of Moral and Legal Bounds placed on parentsPro has failed to present any justification for the moral and legal bounds that would be placed on parents if this resolution was affirmed. The attempt to justify such an obligation, on Pro's part, boiled down to education and social needs/rights. I've already pointed out how both are met under the current education system found in America. Education is already a legal requirement and social is a natural outcome of placing hundreds or thousands of students in the same school buildings. This includes "special needs" students who get social fulfillment through interaction with their fellow students, teachers, and yes - even normal students - when they participate or qualify for the inclusion programs which are offered at normal schools with 'special needs' programs. [1] "So, con can't said that inclusion school and 'special school for disabilities' give same effect."I never said they give the same effect, I said that they both accomplish the same thing in regards to protecting/respecting those rights. If a current system is accomplishing the same thing as the one Pro is presenting, I see no reason to literally obligate parents to send there children to inclusion schools. There is no basis for doing so. "In the school, they just interaction with same environment and content of that's environment are some people like teachers, student who has disabilities."False. This is working under the false premise that normal schools don't have inclusion programs. I've already shown that they do [1] - hence this argument is irrelevant. "So, con can't said that inclusion school and 'special school' can accomplish same thing and has same program."They don't have to accomplish the *same thing* - they just have to uphold the rights for education and social needs (according to you), which they fully do. Thus your arguments for justifying this obligation are unfounded as they are currently being met by the system in place. "I already give you fact that happen in Vietnam. And inclusion school there was success made children with disabilities can more mingle with normal people in the real environment."Then you should debate that inclusion schools be an obligation for parents in Vietnam, because here in America we already have such programs in place. There is literally no need for American parents to be obligated to send there kids to inclusion school. This is a major issue that Pro has failed to overcome throughout the debate - the fact that this resolution covers everywhere... and when certain countries already have sufficient systems - like America - then there is no need to place such an obligation on parents."Parents should let them live independent to be people in the real environment as people that had the same right with normal people; the children who has disabilities can't always depends other people for choose or do something. "I fully agree, but my point was to show that some of these 'special needs' children aren't capable of being independent due to physical disabilities restricting there ability to function properly. You stated they are capable of living independently and I presented pictures showing individuals who can not live independently. Pro also fails to recognize that some 'special needs' children are severe cases that might not have the means to live independently due to mental restrictions as well. [2]"Independent Living means that we demand the same choices and control in our every-day lives that our non-disabled brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends take for granted."This is irrelevant to the resolution, in which, the focus is forcing parents by means of legal or moral bounds to send their children to inclusion schools. This is the problem with your obligation... it's a relative desire on your part, not something that is actually beneficial to everyone on a global scale, especially when considering that in some of the more advanced nations like America already see to it that these individuals have such freedoms (if they are mentally/physically capable of doing so). [1] http://www.greatschools.org...[2] http://www.enquirer.com...II. Special needsIn response to the massive influx of students into the inclusion school system, Pro simply replies:"In Indonesia, provision about class division is one class for all subject. So, it's not a problem. Because the important thing is school can handle it."Pro fails to realize we are debating on a global scale, not a single country. Assuming it'd work in other countries based on the fact that it worked in Indonesia - which is reasonably behind the curve in comparison to American school systems - is nothing more than just that, an assumption. "Government should pick minimal 1 school in each region to be inclusion school."The government in America already does a similar thing where they have 1 or 2 schools in the county that specialize in 'special needs' programs. Once again, Pro fails to consider how things are already in effect in other countries. III. Effects on Normal Students & IV. Resource RoomsPro attempts to rebut this point by saying that it's not the same as regular schools because there are two types of inclusion. My point is that if the inclusion schools she is promoting place 'disruptive students' in 'resource rooms' then it is no different from the separation that occurs in normal schools in regards to kids who are not capable of acting appropriately in normal classroom environments. In regards to Pro's limitation on solely primary schools, Pro continues to back-pedal by claiming that:"In debate, Pro has right to give the limitation for make this debate more focus to what problem it is."I fully agree, but that right is found within either the resolution itself, or the first round where clarifications are given. Pro never said this debate focuses solely on premiere school-aged children. In the resolution, it clearly states "school", not "premiere school". In Pro's first round, it also says nothing of this limitation. Thus, Pro is doing nothing but adding limitations mid-debate in order to strengthen her case. In reality - it's nothing but a cheap tactic that doesn't work. Pro is limited, just as I am, to the resolution. I would recommend Pro create more specific resolutions in the future. "after school hours they get special treatments (other curriculum). In this curriculum, teacher will teach special education the children who has disabilities that relevant with 'disabilities' it self. So the education in the second curriculum is depends what kind of disabilities it self."Great. In America, they have specialized curriculum's as well, as evident in my previous links. Since Pro insists I failed to address this, please allow me to share yet another link: http://insideschools.org...In this link, you'll note that they have specialists and courses which are offered and tailored for addressing the individual needs of the student. V. About justificationPro assumes I need to provide a solution instead of just negating her affirmative case. That is not my burden to carry as Con. Furthermore, America, as I've shown, already has the solution in effect with it's modern school system and 'special needs' programs. Pro relies on the rights' as justification for obligating parents to send there children to inclusion schools. You'll note in the first argument that I've already shown how those rights are not being violated, and how those needs are currently being met. There is no reason whatsoever to impliment this obligation onto parents who are already living in a society where the rights and needs of 'special needs' children are already being met. Pro failed to present both moral and legal justifications, which were key since her resolution contained the term obligation.