Homework Should Not Be Required

Keep in mind I cannot respond to any of Con's dropped contentions.Point 1My opponent seemingly defeats his own argument. In the last round he said exactly this: "Here is a remind of my counter plan: Homework should be given in moderate quantity (in short).This is about homework QUANTITY (ie. how much homework is given) NOT homework QUALITY (ie. how beneficial it is)."And yet when explaining why my sources are allegedly irrelevant, he says:"She falsely states that I must prove that homework assigned then vs. now is different in quantity... All I need to do is show that the systems of education have changed since then because that affects everything. If homework is different in regards to difficulty (for example), then higher quantity is not as necessary if it’s harder." In the first statement he says that he is arguing QUANTITY is what matters in assessing homework. And then in the second statement he says DIFFICULTY is what's relevant and quantity isn't relevant at all. I'm sure I am not the only one confused by Con's statements, and once again, I will not have the opportunity to respond.To repeat my position, students have had roughly the same amount of HW quantity over the last 30 years. Con does not deny this - nor has Con proven that a DIFFERENCE in education standards over the last 30 years means a difference one way or the other (easier or harder) let alone a difference in the quality of HW assignments. Moreover, I argued that Con had not proven that his studies account for more of the population than the ones I have presented. If he cannot, then we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the pro-HW studies he cites (noting that quantity of homework is most important -- which I've argued against) are any more valid. He dropped this contention and has not proven that his studies represent a larger sample size.I pointed out that my study examined data of more than 18,000 students to uncover explanations for academic performance. Con suggests we have to use the entire world population of children as a measure which is absurd. Out of 1.9 billion children, 1 billion of them live in destitute poverty [1]. These children, especially in the third world, can't even eat or drink and millions die from starvation daily -- yet Con suggests we should factor them into the population of students who benefit from homework, when they have never seen a school in their life. That is an abusive standard no judge would take seriously. Quite obviously we are discussing homework in the West (especially the U.S.) where public education and the subsequent standards is the norm. Thus 18K is a good sample size for research. Con has not even tried to present us with an estimate of the number of students his cited studies cover, let alone present research that accounts for a larger size. Some studies in his favor have "hundreds" yet I invite Con to prove his studies are more relevant in size, date and scope [2, 3]. One study in his favor had a sample size of around 1,300 students -- or about 1/18th of the population my sources covered. In short, Con has dug himself a hole in trying to attack the credibility of my sources and studies; he has not proven his are any more valid. In the last round I decided to move on from this and noted it would appear SOME cases show that homework could be beneficial (accounting for a lot of different variables). Of course, that is completely irrelevant to the rest of my argument. I've pointed out that not everything that is beneficial ought to be required as well as suggested the potential negatives of HW outweigh the potential positives. Indeed that is the crux of my position in this debate. 1A. I pointed out that even if HW can sometimes be beneficial, Con is only saying that *beneficial* homework be required - not all homework. Yet he cannot ensure the HW assigned will be beneficial. He responded with accusations of straw mans when in fact he fails to see the absurdity of this objection. If Con is not saying that only BENEFICIAL homework be required, then he is advocating that even NON-beneficial homework be required. Why would Con advocate non-beneficial homework?! That would be punishment with no substance or positive effect. Therefore it is only logical to assume Con is only advocating BENEFICIAL homework. If he would like to challenge this, I guess he can...1B. It would appear Con does want to challenge this lol. He writes, "Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation of the counter plan. I never mentioned that it had to be beneficial, nor did I say that beneficial things have to be mandatory." So here we can see that Con even supports HW that is not beneficial, meaning he has no good reason (positive benefits) to support HW at all. And furthermore, Con skirts 1B as if it is a meaningless statement when in fact it is the entire basis of my argument. Please extend all of my 1B points -- I pointed out why not all things that are beneficial should be required. Ergo, even if homework were beneficial, it need not be mandatory. Con thinks HW (despite being so problematic) should just be imposed whether it has benefits or not, which is an even more ridiculous position than I think anyone expected him to take. Point 2Con accuses me of not refuting the counter plan which is false. His counter plan is simply "less homework" which I have argued, especially in Point 2. "Con argues that by reducing HW time, the problems of HW won't exist. But while they might be less significant, they would still exist. Even 1 hour of HW per night interferes with 1 hour of family or recreational time. Furthermore, Con cannot prove that all students spend the same amount of time on homework..." which proves I did address his counter plan of less HW time. My opponent says that it's okay for students to spend different amounts of time on HW, which fails to address my point on an undue burden for slow learners or those who take longer to do assignments. This means additional stress and imposition for those students on recreational and rest time, which Con glosses over as being addressed by special classes/assignments but this cannot be proven or enforced. Even students in special classes learn at a different pace from each other. Con asked for sources proving that parents do their kid's homework. I presented the studies; Con dropped this point and said "Well kids should be doing it themselves." Sure, but extend my argument that they are often NOT doing it themselves based on my statistics. Con must concede this point; instead he suggests this simply doesn't matter. Obviously when parents do their kid's assignments, it places burden on the parents and provides no utility to the child while still creating work for teachers. Once again - whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to HW monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy HW response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Many students (especially in low-income areas) specifically have a hard time completing their assignments.In response, Con says "since there will be a lower homework quantity, this means that these people will not be overwhelmed with homework" which clearly doesn't address my points at all regarding lack of resources, not just time. Con also says that the states account for financial factors in HW assignments and cited this source from the UK -- yet not a single line from that source said anything about poverty affecting assigned work or HW. I invite my opponent to copy and paste the line from that source which proves his point here [4]. I have no reason to accept it thus far. And besides, people within the same school can still come from vastly different financial backgrounds. Con states, "If [students] do not understand [HW] and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher’s duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them." However teachers do not give students more help if they have trouble with homework - a factor cited in Con's previous source from the CPE [5]. Con dropped that even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. However teachers cannot monitor or control how students approach their HW. Con also dropped that his citations don't account for today's HW distractions. Research shows that students today are not grasping as much of the homework material even when they complete it, because they are distracted by social media and don't retain the information.Point 3Con says "She makes a an argument riddled with fallacies. She claims that homework cuts into time for anything." That is not fallacious but a logical fact. If you spend time on X (homework) you cannot spend time on Y (anything else) that requires significant attention. That's called the law of non-contradiction. Just because school provides some activities doesn't mean it provides the same activities or amount of time/attention on those activities as parents or kids would like. Con notes that school, work, etc. cut into people's time and yet I am not advocating those be abolished. I explained how homework provides a "second shift" of work that kids should not have to face. Please extend my arguments on parents not being subjected to this burden and having options here; Con dropped it and I will not be able to respond.Point 4Con says that HW "counts for nothing" yet HW is often graded. Con says I have provided "no evidence" of cheating. See explanations regarding points 12-15 in the last round. He only contested 1 of those sources. One is a forum - the rest are academic - and he ignores that parents doing HW is cheating which he admits happens. He dropped every one of my arguments on copying and using the internet to cheat as well. Con also dropped the negative effects of HW's "drill and kill" methodolgy and its impact on learning. PLEASE EXTEND MY LAST ROUND'S CONCLUSION.Thanks!SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...