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

===PRO CASE=== 1A Con: Living wage means nothing in the big picture here. We're debating on whether or not formal education should be compulsory. Education is still provided even if it's not compulsory and therefore *the majority of people* people *can* still receive the necessity you assert as education and make a living. Despite what pro leads you to believe, I've already posted evidence that a college degree has seriously nothing to do with success. Refer to my earlier arguments, please. The extension of me agreeing with your specialization arguments doesn't mean anything because I've separated my stance from the pro viewpoint. 1B Con: Pro claims that they proved education must be compulsory in their 1A. To summarize, the pro 1A argument consists of how specialization has reigned supreme in the US and the importance of a high school diploma. I confirm the pro 1A has nothing to do with affirming the resolution. Allow me to give you an analogy. Education is a need. Food is a need. Both are needs. However, we don't see a law that says it's illegal not to eat because it's a person's right to decide that; just like it's a person's right to decide whether or not they wish to follow through with formal education. My analogy debunks the whole pro cause and arguments attached. Non-compulsory education still educates and will still benefit the state; giving up rights is not necessary on con as it is on pro. Also, I could care less about what the laws say. This debate is about "ought to," not "is." 1C Con: Underserved students, as you defined them, DO have a damaged education already; especially the ones that are minorities, homeless, or living in poverty. Refer to source in previous argument. Substance dependent youth may deserve a shot at education but that doesn't change the fault of getting addicted to an illegal substance. It is not the state's job to bail out these kids who have made serious mistakes. Then, my opponent stresses the importance of equal rights. Pro is not arguing equal rights one bit and it can be easily proven. If education was not compulsory yet still provided to all citizens and still considered a "need," then I would contend that education is still a right. Pro is arguing equal opportunities which would still exist without compulsory education (more later about that in the paragraph+). Furthermore, the deterrent I was referring to was how truancy laws are not a deterrent to keep kids from dropping out or skipping. Obviously, kids still drop out and skip. Pro is now misplacing priorities of the state. Kids that are homeless, from a broken home, in poverty, etc. - I can sympathize with them. They deserve a shot at education like everyone else does. However, it is not the school's job to provide them with a hot meal. My opponent then talks about tax dollars and how they provide for needy children. +Again, tax dollars would still exist and can still go these people without compulsory education. It's called welfare and not to mention numerous soup kitchens and shelters already exist. By making education non-compulsory, you are not depriving anyone of rights. 2A Con: Argument from ignorance - just because I can't prove it's 100% useless doesn't make it useful. You've also only given us a small portion of education, conveniently leaving out all of the mostly useless things like geometry, trigonometry, persuasive essays, etc. I would like to avoid debating the use of these subjects from now on, it's really not inline with the resolve. 2B Con: Actually, I have not lost my "strand of argumentation" whatsoever and pro totally misunderstood my argument. I argued that students could still get social skills outside of CE because it's up to the PARENTS, not to the STATE to teach social skills. Affirming is not maximizing access to anything; the neg side still ensures that most of the US *can* get an education. People who can't get an education are present even in CE, rendering this pro argument invalid. The "will or will not" dilemma is present in the compulsory side as well so it's irrelevant to the negation of the resolve. According to pro, the underserved students can't get an education when we negate the resolution. This is untrue/not valid for two reasons. 1, there are people in the US now that don't get educations. 2, underserved students can still go to school to get education and could technically still receive benefits from the tax payers even. However, pro also argues that the students won't have the drive to do as such. Again, this is a parenting issue, not a state issue. I have now made it clear that pro is not maximizing access to anything. ===CON CASE=== C1 1. I never admitted it to be untrue but based on observation, just like you observe how some kids can only get a hot meal at school. You don't see me flagging that as unsubstantial proof when I've never known anyone that only gets a hot meal at school. However, it would be a self-evident fact to me because it is possible. It is also possible that the information being taught to students could be useless. What use does learning "To Kill a Mockingbird" serve? We must reach a middle ground here: some information is useful, some is useless. Also, my argument has NO OBLIGATION AT ALL to prove that CE is a flawed system; it just needs to show that education ought not to be compulsory. Pro accuses me of a dodging a bullet but I've already dismantled the pro case and the pro rebuttals while proving the negation of the resolve to be more justified morally and logically. C2 1. Pro seems to be living in a fantasy world where all schools, teachers, and students are equal. Skip 2. 3. Explain. 4. Translation: Attendance laws have no bearing on the necessity of education meaning that E doesn't have to be C for the state to provide the need. C3 1. Logic dictates that if E is a necessity as pro asserts, they would seek it out like food if they were hungry. Pro tries to say I concede but I don't. If E is made non-C, the importance of a diploma may gradually drop. This is a rational hypothesis because the only reason education is so important now is because it's a must-go. It's preposterous to say that without any education everyone will be dumb. 2. Institutional discrimination? Pro misunderstands. I am referring to people that may not attend E just because it isn't C anymore. This isn't a resources thing and even if it was, I covered that. Conclusion: Yet again I've dismantled pro's case. I will admit my case is weaker (I'm NOT conceding, just being honest) but that means nothing when the pro case has been defeated exhaustively twice. I have proved it is more sensible to negate the resolution and strongly urge a con vote.