Homework is a waste of time

Unrelated argument: "majority of students cannot simply memorize theories instantaneously" -> I did not claim any student could do so. Instead, I stated that making the effort to process textual information improves ones ability to process language. If that is the case then your argument about linguistic skills is still irrelevant as it doesn't prove why homework is a waste of time. " Students may learn to apply the theoretical knowledge that they learned in class on an abstract word problem but that doesn't mean that it develops a deep understanding of the subject. Word problems simply reinforce a narrow versions of the information that the student learned which only serves to pass the upcoming text." http://www.colorincolorado.org... This article seems to directly contradict your claims that word problems don't develop understandings of the topic. Also, please provide sources that prove your claim because im assuming that BOP rests on both sides of the debate. "The flaws that it demonstrates in your understanding are on the shallow level since they are only in relation to a narrow question. This is why test are not an accurate measure of fundamental understanding and therefore nor are exercises." Here's an example to demonstrate my point. If you were studying differences of perfect squares and you were to do 1 exercise but fail to do so, one would naturally assume that your understanding is not adequate. Now before you say that learning about difference of perfect squares is only shallow, the theory of differences of perfect squares will be useful in future tests as maths tends to be built on theories learnt previously to further develop an understanding. Also, when criticizing "Any studying system develops dedication and persistence therefore this argument is pointless" If any do please list them in your rebuttal because your refutation is incomplete without it "Homework also generally leads to better grades which then leads to a better grades when applying for separate colleges or universities. By dedicating time towards studying towards something, you are improving your chances of being accepted into a higher-caliber education facility which then leads to more career options." -> This argument is bias, he uses the word homework instead of studying which would support both are cases. My apologies it was a typo, you can observe that the phrase " towards studying towards something" doesn't make sense. What i meant to say is that "By dedicating time towards homework..." "-> Good social skills will give much more career advancement opportunities to person than graduating from a high university. To advance in the job market a person must be good at teamwork, not cause conflict in the workplace and have a good relationship with their boss. In addition, having contacts can be very beneficial on the job market and when upper management position open up, companies look for people who can achieve their quarterly goals and that takes people skills. Those who merely studying all the time will only be able to do office paper work or the technical aspect of their job." Warning: rebuttals coming up in the next 3 paragraphs apply to the quote below! I strongly disagree with this statement. Not only does this statement fit only a niche audience but it seems completely irrational. First of all, few promotions include upper management jobs. Sure, there might be hospitality jobs that offer promotions but in general for accounting business, law firms, health departments and chefs, to earn promotions in these jobs, people in charge would surely choose someone who is more skilled in the field with mediocre social skills over someone who has better social skills but is not as skilled in the job. 2nd of all (this applies to all sorts of jobs), employers attention will only be drawn if the employee is skilled in the job. examples include if someone is highly proficient at being a cashier, the employer will most likely pay attention to that person. This is not the same for someone who has high social skills as these social skills cannot be observed in the line of work. Thus the person with better technical skills will most likely receive a promotion over someone with high social skills and how do you ask, do you get these technical skills? By doing homework to advance in grades and have a higher understanding of the task then everyone else. You'll have to bear with me with all these rebuttals of this one argument my opponent has made, but the quote "having contacts can be very beneficial on the job market and when upper management position open up," does not seem logical to me. Generally when upper management jobs open, they are looking for someone with experience. This means that you must have had a management job previously which is unlikely when you have good social skills. (same argument as above) "Those who merely studying all the time will only be able to do office paper work or the technical aspect of their job" This is false because those who don't have the technical caliber required for paper work or technical aspects would mean that they would likely receive jobs that are considered lower that office jobs because like i said before, it is very unlikely employers will hand you a management job straight on the spot. "High school is not designed for acquiring jobs, they are designed to give every student a broad knowledge of subjects. This is necessary in opening student's minds to subjects they haven't tried but might enjoy." This argument is relevant because it serves as a rebuttal for your argument of "In addition, when a student gets a career, he ends up using only a small portion of the knowledge that he learned at school. Therefore, what he mainly relies on is the previous skill sets that he acquired." "These claim are not based on a reliable source: "Homework is essential to a school child's life as it reinforces things learnt in class as many students only remember 10-20% of what teachers say in class after 3 days. (2) , it is essential to engage in participatory activities such as homework as this increases the remembering rate to 65% after 3 days." It is not enough just to say that they're based on a reliable source. You must prove to me that they are an unreliable source. "This claim is not made by a reliable source: "This is due to us only learning 10% of what we read after 3 days of reading the material" Same rebuttal as above. "- The fact that math is currently taught by application does not prove that human can only learn using their skills in practical methods." The quote from source 2 (http://changingminds.org...) explains a quote from a Chinese proverb stating that "What I hear, I forget; What I see, I remember; What I do, I understand." This quote is perfectly relevant and serves as a rebuttal towards your argument Sorry for the late argument as i have exams and a bit busy atm