Homeschool is superior to government provided schools

My opponent particularly has a lot of studies that she cited, and many of the things she said are things that I've discussed in my own case. Already you can see that the entirety of my case works as counters. Therefore, I'm going to go down my opponent's case while making references to substantiate as well as defend my claims. As my opponent didn't argue my observations, they are extended across the flow. Quality and Effectiveness of Homeschools: My opponent seems to have misunderstood the point of my Contention 1 and Sub-point 1a. I'm not saying that homeschooled children have any more probability to abuse and neglect. I'm saying that BECAUSE they don't have any more probability for abuse and neglect (and may in fact have less probability for abuse and neglect), it may show an appearance in the data that homeschools are better than government-provided schools. My opponent doesn't consider the lurking variables in her research, including family conditions, socio-economic status, and other factors that could determine the effectiveness of a homeschool, as I explained in my sub-point 1a. If my opponent is telling us that little or no abuse occurs in these homeschools, or drug abuse, or etc., we immediately see that this is a lurking variable explaining the effectiveness of homeschools in her research. Would a homeschool be just as effective in an environment where there's abuse, neglect, drug use, alcoholism, gang activity, or other negative conditions? Because the current data only looks at homes that don't have such problems, we won't know, and if my opponent is trying to prove that homeschools are intrinsically better than government-provided schools (O3), homeschools should be able to function in such an environment. All I'm saying is: if there were homeschooling in such negative conditions or in a neighborhood with dangerous activity, the data would look a little differently. What my opponent has proven is only that this model of schooling works in environments such as the ones that the studies look at and are able to look at. She hasn't proven that homeschools are better simply because they're homeschools. This rebuttal applies to pretty much every single study concerning the characteristics and advantages of children in homeschools.Universality: First, I would need to see the study my opponent is looking at to understand what the study meant when it said that homeschool students have learned to do work by themselves. I also need to see a study about how effective a learning environment with no parents would be as well. In my studies, most homeschool students had at least one parent at the home (in homes where mostly two parents were existent). In any event, despite the fact that parents nor tutors have to be the ones to take up the teaching responsibility, it doesn't erase the other costs of materials that can mount to $400-600 per month. Many families can afford that, but what if they can't? In my evidence, I even stated that experts on this trade have said that homeschooling isn't for everyone in terms of economics. Not only does this show you that homeschooling can be exclusive, but if further drives the point of my sub-point 1a: that homeschools are not intrinsically better, and their quality (like any school) depends on the quality of the environment. Religious Fundementalism: This is where my opponent and I agree on many things and disagree on one. Both my opponent and I agree that parents do bring children to homeschools to indoctrinate. My opponent says it's not the primary reason, but if she looks back at my evidence, we can see that most parents that bring children to homeschools is because of religious reasons. Whether or not this is a good thing is where our agreements end. My opponent has no evidence that children from religious upbringing have a stronger regard for society. Furthermore, I agree that parents have a say what their child is around in reasons of practicality, like if the schools have gang violence, drug problems, or something that directly affects the health of the person. However, when the parents are bringing children to a different setting simply because of a confliction of religious beliefs, the action becomes from practical to arbitrary. Teachers also spread beliefs, but unlike homeschools, they don't make it the word of rule in schools. I'm still supportive of the freedom of religion, including to children. Many good things have come from religious fundementalism, including what my opponent has stated, but secularism has done the same good things without the cost to society that I mentioned. The agenda of religious fundementalism is not just to provide help, but enforce beliefs in the community that are detrimental to its structure and cohesiveness as well as the inherent rights of people. This is what I explained in my case.