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

PRO 1A 1. You cannot prove that E, when made C, yields higher rates of graduation compared to non-compulsory education. 2. I don't understand the thinking behind this claim because it doesn't make sense. Minorities usually don't succeed in society or at least have a much lower probability of doing so; it's always been this way. Explain or I'll be forced to drop the argument. 3. List was to provide examples that didn't require college degree, not alternatives to a diploma. 1B 1. Pro resorts to a logical fallacy known as a strawman here. There's no base to believe that institutions would deny certain kids E if it were to be made non-C. 2. I'm not going to sketch out a policy to you. Basically, the only difference between CE and non-CE is the C part. Otherwise, it's reasonable to assume nothing else has changed. Everyone in the US still has the ability to go to school, it's just not required but highly recommended. After all, pro has stated and I agree that at least a diploma is necessary to live a decent life. Furthermore, pro does not realize that by eliminating the C part of E, we *may* end up lowering the significance of a diploma which isn't a bad thing at all. People don't need a diploma to be intelligent and people certainly aren't smart just because they own a diploma. Of course, that's not to say it wouldn't be important still. 3. Understood but I'm not sure if you were making an argument with that. 1C 1. You are presupposing that underserved students receive equal E opportunities to begin with (by a large portion of your definition). I'll post this source again because you seem to be overlooking it. As for the privatizing/voluntary model comparison, I don't exactly see how they're related; perhaps pro could elaborate. See: http://health.usnews.com... 2. Yes, it is the state's job to provide citizens with basic necessities. Not only do I agree, but how many times have I said that myself throughout my rebuttals? You say that the tax dollars are only given to these students because CE exists. Tell me why they wouldn't if E was made non-C or provide proof that they wouldn't. The last sentence is one of my problems with CE - it's not supposed to be a support system. That's what things like shelters and welfare are for. It's supposed to be an E system first and a support system last. When we negate the resolution, we do not close our doors to the underserved children and have potential to provide better education since tax money isn't wasted into what pro dubs a "support system." 2A 1. This wasn't over whether or not they were concepts related to problem solving, it was about whether or not they were useful. Furthermore, for the average person on the average day, they are completely useless. Also, persuasive writing is useful tool but not everyone needs or wants it. For example, I live in a box with A type monkeys and my friend lives in a box with B type monkeys. My friend uses a lava lamp to get the monkeys to dance for him. For him, the lava lamp is a useful tool. On the other hand, I use a screwdriver to get the monkeys to dance for me. For me, the screwdriver is a useful tool. All tools are useful but only in the hands of someone who has to apply them or chooses to. I apologize for the silly analogy. 3. Pro claims the meat of her arguments lie within 2A. It's a shame that all they deal with is E reforms and improved teaching methods, not the resolve. Sure, they may have defeated my C1; that's up for the voters to decide. However, it will not do pro any good to rely on this to win the debate because it has little to do with the resolve. 2B 1. I will address it and I counter with the fact that not all E systems within CE are adequate. These kids within inadequate educational institutions are (which DO exist, pro) left at a disadvantage even with a diploma. The state can only offer the opportunity to the child which is there regardless of C. Even within non-CE, anyone can still get an education. Pro cannot prove otherwise. 2. I don't see how I'm acting like that. I'm just saying that a lot of pro's assertions that, "Non-C can't account for X" are completely baseless and I've offered numerous reasons as to why for each assertion. Yes, all pro has to show is that the benefits outweigh the negatives. However, pro has had a lot of difficulty with this due to my valid rebuttals. Keep this in mind, voters. 3. Okay, I'll try to summarize this. The main benefits in a pro world that pro thinks *can't* be achieved when we negate are 1. providing for the underserved and 2. ensuring everyone has a chance for education. #1 has been explained, same with #2. The benefits when we negate are 1. an educational system more focused on educating and not supporting and 2. less trivial truancy cases. When the taxpayers can stop paying money to worry about supporting underserved children, they can instead focus on further reforms which pro praises. The people that are now seemingly completely "unserved" will be forced to turn to welfare. If they are not eligible, then I contend they are not truly underserved. Pro may argue that the parent may not be sensible enough to apply for welfare. I have but two responses: 1. child services and 2. common sense. It's only natural to assume that *most* parents will apply for welfare when it is necessary, especially when attempting to support a child and being unable to. Secondly, when E is made non-C, laws like truancy will longer be in effect. This saves the state a lot of hassle for kids who are just going to drop out anyway [1]. I'm not dismissing the importance of their education but at some point, people become a lost cause. 1. http://www2.ed.gov... CON C1 1. You can't prove that education is useful without dismissing my assertion with an argument from ignorance. A diploma is necessary for a living but I've already stated that having a diploma doesn't make you educated. 2. Sure, at lunch. It is not the schools job to feed them their essential meals. 3. My first contention is not crucial for me to win this debate. 4. Actually, if you read between the lines, you could deduce that I was arguing towards E in general but held malice at the fact that what I felt was useless was also C. 5. Apply my 4. I've proved as pro claims I must to win the debate. C2 1. When do I explicitly say all parents are equal? I don't but you think I'm acting like it. Same thing can be said of pro with schools, teachers & students. CE doesn't fix this and non-CE can still have standards. 2. Sure, except it does nothing to show that E *ought* to be C. Kids can learn essential skills in a non-CE school. 3. Standards movement can continue with non-CE. Skip 4. I will cover my C3 in RD4. I apologize for cutting this short.