Parents/guardians should be in control of their child(ren)'s education, not the state.

I. Pro counters that persecution is relevant, but his reasoning, that the state "abuses" its power, is questionable. The family broke the law; they were punished. That is not an example of "abuse". Disdain for a law does not equal exemption. Pro does not mention with regards to the PISA the math that I used to show that public schooling has a higher potential than home schooling, so that point stands. The PISA is discussed more in this point in III.C. II. The over 60% religion statistic is in fact important. The fact that it is considered an important factor, even if not the most important, clearly shows that religion holds a strong influence over these decisions. A plethora of home schooling sites are religious, and the HSLDA itself identifies as Christian (found in the FAQ of 1) The fact that over 60% say that religion is at least important also definitively proves that over 60% over home schooling parents are in fact religious. See III.B. for more on this. Also, the HSLDA poll cited by Pro (3, in his list of sources) serves to contradict Pro's argument, as an even higher amount of people on that poll cite religion as a primary reason for home schooling. III. With regards to the make-up of the top countries, constitutional monarchies are effectively democratic republics, as the people ultimately do hold a lot of power. Using a source from the CIA to define democracy is a bit America-centric; the Merriam-Webster definition defines democracy as "government by the people; especially: rule of the majority" (2). Also, many parts of China are included, as they are technically different nations; however, they are controlled by the same government, and thus should not be considered separate entities in terms of forms of government. Singapore is a parliamentary republic, a form of democracy. Taiwan is a republic. South Korea is a democratic republic, a form of democracy. Japan is a constitutional monarchy; that"s a form of democracy. Liechtenstein has a constitutional monarchy with elements of direct democracy, a form of democracy. Switzerland has direct and representative democracy. Netherlands? Form of democracy. Estonia? Form of democracy. If we"re to say that only direct democracy counts as democracy, then even the United States is not a democracy. Pro attempts to misconstrue my claim that the state is often "fairer in education because more people have a say". What it means is that multiple people have the opportunity to vote on education through representatives or referendums, whereas in home schooling a child is at the mercy of parents; therefore, my original rebuttal stands. I also challenge the notion that parents cannot count as a single entity because they can"t educate a state"s worth of children. That is irrelevant to the fact that a parent with autonomous control in fact has a much more rigid control over a child than a state that doesn"t have the resources to indoctrinate so heavily; the parent relatively speaking can do more harm with the resources to his/her child than the state can to a state full of children. A. I concede that my interpretation of the statistics was an exaggeration; however, Pro"s interpretation is as well. He states that "Yes, only 1% of students out of 1000 colleges polled were home schooled" the statistic is probably closer to 1 out of 5 home school graduates not continuing their education at college, because at the time this 1% home schooled graduates were being home schooled, there were half (1.5%) as many home schooled students as there currently are (3%)." Given the statistics cited in that paragraph, the 1 out of 5 statistic has no evidence supporting it at all. 1 out of 1.5 as a proper fraction is 2/3, which is approximately average, according to the NCES (3, can be found under the heading "Enrollment"). The NCES also states that the number of public high school dropouts is decreasing dramatically. B. Pro attempts again to misconstrue my arguments, linking my argument against abuse to my argument against indoctrination. They are two separate points. He even acknowledges this by rebutting the former separately at the end of this point, despite linking them together twice. I"ll start off rebutting the indoctrination with a quick reference (4). The evidence presented in that study, coupled with the 60% statistic earlier, are strong indicators that parents utilize home schooling to impose their religious views on the children. Pro also shows a lack of understanding of the law. The "separation of church and state" means only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (5) Forbidding home schooling would not prohibit the child from exercising his beliefs; contrary to popular belief, people can pray in schools, it just cannot be teacher/administrator-sanctioned (6). The parents are not prohibited either, as they can exercise it themselves at any time; it only limits the contact time they have with the children, and there is no constitutional right to control another person"s religion, anyway. In terms of abuse, Pro actually rebuts his own ideas. Giving the state the responsibility to discover and stop child abuse and neglect in effect gives the state control over education, since they ultimately define what that entails; home schooling would thus become "state-run education that occurs at home", defeating the whole purpose. C. Pro attempts to misconstrue my point again. He makes no mention of the theoretical math done in which home schooled children here are compared to publicly schooled children abroad, so it should be considered resolved that public schooling in fact has a higher potential for educating students than home schooling. See III.A. for my response to the "botched statistics". D. Pro does not rebut skimming with any sources; therefore, the point that private schooling and school choice create a derogatory skimming effect is affirmed. IV. It is not exactly proper form to introduce a new argument late in the debate, but I"ll respond to it regardless. There is no source cited in this paragraph, and Pro has the burden of proof to show that variety improves education. He has not provided proof; therefore, this argument should not be taken into consideration. Pro misconstrued my arguments on several occasions, such as linking my abuse argument to my indoctrination argument, and also provided no rebuttal for several points. Ultimately, Pro still has not provided enough proof to counter my arguments against parents being in charge of education. I have shown that school choice is not as beneficial compared to public school as Pro believes. Meanwhile, my points about skimming, indoctrination, and abuse all stand, and Pro has not definitively demonstrated why parents and guardians should be in charge of education, not the state. Sources: 1.http://www.hslda.org... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://nces.ed.gov... 4. http://www.iejee.com... 5. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 6. https://www.au.org...