Would Children be Prepared for the Real World by going to School or being Unschooled

First, notice that my opponent failed to address my arguments discussing the benefits of unschooling, so those arguments can be extended into this round. Keep in mind that, in a debate, any failure to refute an argument is an admission that the argument is true. Most notably, he didn't address my point that he has the burden of proof to show that unschooling would not prepare ALL students as well as a formal education would. Yet he did not provide an argument addressing the counterexample I gave in the previous round. Furthermore, by omission, he admits that the following arguments are true: 1. Children can expect to have lower stress levels in an unschooled environment. 2. Putting children through a system teaches everyone almost the exact same way is not efficient. Different children have different preferred methods of learning. 3. Children are curious and natural learners. However, they would rather learn at their own pace than be forced to go at the same pace as a traditional school. Now, I'm going to refute my opponent's arguments point-by-point. "My first argument is that without a school, there is no basis on which a child may thrive on to learn." This is false. Unschooling is a type of home-school characterized by freedom in which subjects to be learned. Here is a definition provided by an online source: "define unschooling as allowing children as much freedom to learn in the world, as their parents can comfortably bear." http://www.holtgws.com... The "basis on which a child may thrive on to learn" is provided by the parents. Education does not always have to be formalized in order to learn. Common skills not typically taught in a formal education are cooking, dish-washing, laundry, social skills, how to fill tax forms, how to eat and stay healthy, how to use a phone, how to ride a bike, etc. The list of skills usually learned in an informal setting goes on. My opponent's next argument: "If unschooling allows children to learn anything they like with no formal basis, then they could be interested in somethings, but not everything." The issue with this argument is:- people don't need to learn "everything" in order to be prepared "for the Real World." For the majority of the population, we don't use most of what we learn in our daily lives. If a child wants to be a physicist when he or she grows older, then learning African history will most likely be useless for him or her. My opponent's next argument: "If you were to be unschooled, then along with most of the students in public schools, the ratio of children who enjoy mathematics to those who don't is about 1:6 (based on a small survey I have conducted at my school)." When we are discussing "children," what age group are you talking about, and what ages are the students at your school that you surveyed? Do these students consider themselves to be children? Can we really use a "small survey" from a public school to generalize the results to all children? Please post more information about the survey in the next round. Another argument: "This would show that if most children don't enjoy mathematics, then they would have no reason to learn mathematics if they didn't want to. But, math is needed in everyday life, and weather someone doesn't like it doesn't mean that it's not important." Again, parents provide the basis of education in unschooling. Just because unschooling is characterized by more freedom then formal education does not mean absolute freedom. A good analogy would be comparing this to the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which includes freedom of speech. Despite this, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the First Amendment. Similarly, parents would be teaching the student math in an informal education. Final argument: "During school, children are taught by a professional on a more formal basis." While a formal education is more "professional," it is also far more standardized. In comparison to unschooling, formal education does not adapt to a student's best learning style as well. Also, since you are not advocating for Common Core, you must be advocating for some form of standardized education. In the next round, please post a list of subjects that you believe all children should be required to learn. "I conclude my point."