Homeschooling

I think you spelled rebuttal right ;)Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I was a little busy with Easter stuff. Anyway,With money (and presumably the time point) out of the way, there are still a few other things to clear up.Pro's rebuttal to my second pointPro states: "the people who are homeschooling their children should be required to stay closely to the curriculum, making sure everything that is learnt in the normal school environment is learnt."This might be a good idea, but should we be arguing about how to make homeschooling and public schooling better, and which one is better at their peak potential? If this argument is, in fact, concerning the two methods of teaching children as they stand right now, homeschoolers are not required to follow any sort of curriculum. Therefore, my point still stands.If it is the case that we are arguing which is better potentially, then I invite you to look at this video: In this video, it can be clearly seen that public schooling has potential for doing exactly what Pro wants out of a school environment, thereby making this argument obsolete. Pro's entire opening speech was given concerning learning styles and how the public school system does not currently do well in that area. I agree with him, but either we must argue potential, or current state of affairs.If we are to argue potential, then I believe this video shows how public schooling can attain what Pro seeks.Pro's rebuttal to my third pointPro says: "If a student wants to be more social, they could sign up for a club to do with something they like." I am in agreement, again. However, this is not good enough. I know from personal experience (not empirical data but empirical data on this is hard to systematically obtain) that homeschoolers have weaker social abilities than people in normal schools. This is either because the homeschoolers chose not to do what Pro suggests, or because they don't have as many opportunities as public school kids.I still maintain the fact that being able to function at peak efficiency in a social environment is paramount to being able to thrive in the workforce, even more so than the best education one could get. Homeschool students, as they are now, are antisocial. This is a problem that can be fixed with a more public environment.Pro's rebuttals to my rebuttalsPro states: "(That's not confusing at all!)"Pro offends me with sarcasm. Judges take note.Pro says: "Others (me as an example) just don't adapt to other learning styles no matter how much teachers try to force it down the student's throats. These students will continue to struggle when a different method of teaching is used which isn't their learning style"As stated in my first round of rebuttals, I agree with this. I was particularly wary of this in my experience with public school, especially in how people think. I think in patterns and learn visually, while most others in the classroom think in a step-oriented way and learn from listening. This, in the current state of public schooling is inescapable. I agreed to this because it's true. However, Pro did not refute my point concerning how this allows some of us to learn how others think. It is true, I could never adapt either, so I just zoned out during class and taught myself when I got home. The important part, I feel is not adapting to learn something yourself, but seeing how others learn things. This may or may not be important, but it's definitely something that happens to one who is around a different kind of learning.Standardized testing is not important when approaching this problem the way Pro does: what is best for the future. To this effect, Pro states: "after the tests are done, many students forget how to, put it behind themselves and the skill will have to be relearnt at a later point." This is true, but I fail to see how this matters unless Pro is arguing that the goal of a school is to prepare for life. This is a possibility, but perhaps it needs to be extrapolated upon.Pro's final point that he introduces to the argument has the same focus: what is better for life. It is my contention that school is not for preparing students for life. It is for preparing students for a job in an industry. Therefore, this argument is pointless unless Pro can explain why schooling is at least trying to gear itself towards giving students a better future and raising a "wiser generation"