Curent high school education should not be mandatory

I will refute all of my opponent's points and conclude the basis of my main argument. Refutation of Pro Arguments "It will free up economic resources. " No, I will disagree with this. High schools produce intelligent young adults that move on to college where they further continue their studies. These studies encourage them to perhaps create a new invention, one beneficial to society. What if the next economics major solves future economic crises? What if a government student creates international peace and peaceful relations between the US and the Middle East? This certainly could happen, and high school to college students have changed the world. You need to attend high school to attend college and future stars could be made. My opponent has cited that the jobs that require a high school diploma can take the GED to prove their worth. However, the General Education Development Test is for ages 18 and older [1]. And that is for a reason. Generally, 18 year olds are high school graduates. You require that specific knowledge to pass the test. Passing the test means that you will receive "the California High School Equivalency Certificate. " According to my opponent's argument, why not just eliminate school entirely if it "wastes" taxpayers' money? Because school IS beneficial. For people's lives, job, and for society. Not only will society be helped, but it will also become more intelligent if people continue to high school. "Most necessary information is taught through K-8. " I do deny this. Most necessary information is certainly not taught from kindergarten through the eighth grade. People cannot function properly with an eighth grade education. You think an eighth grader can live by himself? Can he get a job? Can he save money? No, that person needs to mature. Even if he is 50, he still has the mind of an eighth grader. What about college? My opponent seems to be denying that college is a very important factor in intelligence. Since we can certainly deny that through elementary school, you don't learn enough, we only have middle school to look at. In middle school you learn basic algebra, no advanced math, grammar, relatively brief history, not necessarily "good" writing, and other skills. High school takes all those subjects to the next step and increases intelligence and knowledge of the society. "High school students who do not want to learn do the following: cause disruptions, do not listen, skip school and/or do not study. " So that means we don't allow them to get any better. We still need them to learn things. If they don't listen and disrupt things, then they're going to do that for the rest of their life. They can't get jobs or live by themselves. School also is an essential part to teach you about how you speak to people and how you should behave. Eighth graders are certainly not mature enough. We need to teach them that maturity so they can succeed in life, socially and educationally. "High school teachers do not like these students. This is something that has been observed (Teachers complain constantly complain about them and for rational reasons). So here's what these teachers do, they quit. " I have never heard of a teacher quitting due to a pesky student. If the teacher really wants the job and is smart, she would keep it. It is very hard to get a job these days and that teacher is very lucky. My opponent has never cited a source for this claim and I highly doubt it is likely. "Less students, means fewer teachers. " But, less students in class also means fewer teachers in the future. We need teachers to teach everybody, even if they are good or bad. To be a teacher, you need to pass certification requirements. It's not as easy as you think to be an official teacher. Most are required to have a bachelor's degree from college [2]. And the only way to get that is to go to high school and graduate. "If there are fewer students that do not want a high school education, then high school teachers could get paid more, since less disruptive students would cut cost of education. " How does this make sense? Why do disruptive students cut the cost of education? My opponent has never explained this so this argument can be ignored. "The actions described above have been observed in other countries. " My opponent has supported this claim by stating that college education is better in the US than high school because high school is mandatory and college is optional. Just because something is mandatory does not mean it is worse than an optional thing. For example, in China, middle school is mandatory. I am not sure about high school. But, this mandatory middle school education has been proven to be better than middle school education in the US. However, it is proven that the US has the best colleges, whereas Chinese education goes down. Both are optional. But different scenarios happen. Certainly, there must be a real reason. "Mandatory high school education directly infringes on the freedom of others. " This point has already been shot down. By me and my opponent. "Only because these things infringe upon other people's freedoms or harms others. Again education does neither. " Education does not infringe upon people's freedom or harm people, according to me AND my opponent. This point has been lost and should be ignored. "It [high school] does not benefit everyone. " My opponent only focused on the money part of this. But high school makes everyone more intelligent and aware of society and our present day. "Notice the occupation with the highest suicide. Not the janitor, but medical doctors, the highest educated and paid occupation. " This is due to stress. What's important about this? There are other less stressful jobs that require college degrees that make a good amount of money. "If it benefits someone, he/she can enter voluntarily. " It's beneficial to everyone and lazy kids won't realize it. They'll just ditch school. We should keep it mandatory because it IS beneficial to their intelligence as I have proven. "Also, CON believes that it is through high school education that you will discover subjects, learn to enjoy these subjects, and this will lead to a job. I reject the notation. " High school students choose which classes they take. If they get interested before, then they'll go farther. High school curriculum takes it farther and sparks interest in newer topics. "One does not have to learn everything from school, because he or she can find help guides or do a web search for information he/she needs to know. " You can't learn everything from a "help guide. " In school, you have real scenarios with real people. It's more effective. You learn how to function in society, take care of yourself, and you become informed of the real world. Main Argument/Conclusion High school is beneficial to EVERYONE. High school will teach all teenagers important material and how to live their lives. You can get only get jobs with a high school/college degree, not a middle school one. They will make money and live on their own comfortably. High school encourages people to go to college and thus, new technology can be developed by intelligent people. My opponent's argument that it will help the economy, improve high school education, main information is already taught, and that it will infringe upon freedom have been refuted. School teaches students how to behave in society and how to behave well to each other. High school is a critical and essential part of every student's career and life. For these reasons, high school should stay mandatory. Please vote PRO! Sources: 1. . http://www.cde.ca.gov... 2. . http://www.teacherscount.org...