The NSW selective schools system is beneficial

Intro I apologise for the link confusion, for some reason it won't work, and the fact I said the 22 hour mark (should have said 22 hours till posting) . Also, on the BOP my opponent is correct in stating I must prove benefits. However, if I can negate her only comprehensive argument (special needs) then I only need prove a single benefit to have won the debate. (a=b changed to a+1>b as an example) . Also, because of char. limits some, less crucial arguments may be dropped. Special Needs Con originally posted about selective students being the same as mentally disabled, in having special needs (see previous rounds) . I countered by seperating the two, which con then stated was incorrect. Here's a few definitions: Needs generated by a person's disability - www. charlestonctc. com/s. htm (not a link) In the USA, special needs is a term used in clinical diagnostic and functional development to describe individuals who require assistance for disabilities that may be medical, mental, or psychological - . http://en.wikipedia.org... (also addresses things in greater depth) I think voters can agree that being 'gifted' isn't a disability. My Case 1. Firstly, partially selective schools (PSS from now) gain any potential benefits a comprehensive school may have, while keeping selective benefits. Secondly, at these schools selectives realise their advantages, and those students who get into fully selective schools are already acknowledge (by the government test) to have superior academic abilities, meaning that they already know they have to simplify their arguments. 2. Firstly, at no point has con thrown any argument against PSS, because they have any possible advantages of the comprehensive system, and any advantages of the selective system, the best of both worlds. This alone is a positive which has gone uncontested and by itself makes for a beneficial system. Also, con seems to miss my main point - time saving. A teacher teaching 3 different levels must divide their attention as opposed to the teacher teaching 1 level of ability. It's not a matter of qualifications or students teaching each other. It's a matter of teachers teaching to maximum efficiency (m. e), and students learning to m. e. 3. I can also use my own experiences to back up my case, but that's a biased source. Also it's interesting that con has a contradiction between 3 and 4 here. If students don't know the answer and try, by con's reasoning on 4 they will feel disappointed, a negative, creating fear of trying. Henceforth they won't and those who know the answer are more likely to answer. 4. If we accept con's reasoning (3) then we have a result. But we can also negate con's reasoning. It is through failure that one learns. If one's disappointment is overshadowed by what he/she learns and recognises, is it not a positive? Failure is not always a negative. Also, failure keeps positives what they are. Since positives are simply relative to failures and negatives, we must have negatives for positives. An example - You can try and possibly fail the selective schools test or you can not try, but not fail the test. Do you try? Of course, for in failure you learn where you went wrong and how to improve your technique - the purpose of education, to make people learn and improve in what they are instructed. 5. Multiculturalism remains unopposed. Here's a link showing numbers of migrants and people from other cultures . http://www.smh.com.au... (approx. 60% LBOTE students selective schools)Comprehensive - . https://www.det.nsw.edu.au... (average 28.8% , this is including selective schools) 6. Dropped, agreed by con. In conclusion, con can't have both 3 and 4 work, multiculturalism is also uncontested, PSS are also unopposed and the system itself is more time efficient.