Attending elementary school should not be mandatory in the USA.

1) Ah, but those would, essentially, be a form of home schooling. As per the terms of the debate, home schooling is equivalent to elementary school (remember, you said that they do not wish to send their children to school, nor do they want to teach them at home.) We obviously must regulate home school-- most parents are not experts in education and cannot be trusted to come up with a good curriculum. 2) Sure, it *is* possible to start a business and succeed without an education, but only barely-- and only for those of a supremely advanced intellect, people who can skip most grades and graduate at a very young age anyway. Remember, the law must be designed for the general case, not the exception. No matter how skilled a driver, you're not allowed to go 100 over the speed limit, because most people who do will risk causing a fatal accident. 3) Yes, it should. The law has already established that children cannot make certain decisions for themselves. There is an age of consent for sex, a drinking age, and a smoking age. Should children be allowed to have sex, be allowed to drink, be allowed to drive? Why is it the government's place to tell children not to do these things, but it is not their place to tell them to get an education? Why should the government look out for the well-being of children in the cases of sex, drinking, and smoking, but not in education? Simply put, you have not presented any reason for such a distinction, you have merely claimed that there is one. 4) You're acting as if 4) directly supports 9)-- and in doing so, you misrepresent the structure of my argument. I clearly stated in my previous argument that 3) and 4) jointly support 5), which supports 9)(the conclusion). 4) doesn't say that the child has an obligation to get an education, but, in conjunction with 3) (that parents cannot deny their children rights), parents cannot deprive their children of an education. (That is, argument 5)) 5) Remember, my argument was that 5) follows from 3) and 4). Since you have not demonstrated that 3) and 4) are invalid, you have failed to refute 5). (Remember, the argument was that Education is a right and parents cannot deprive their children of rights, ergo, parents cannot deprive their children of education.) 6) Irrelevant. Driving sober does not guarantee that you won't get in accident; driving drunk does not guarantee that you will; however, the law still bans drunk driving because it's a matter of *probability.* Education does not guarantee you will get a good job, but it *vastly* increases the chances. Not getting one does not guarantee that you will fall into poverty, but it *vastly* increases the chances of you doing so. 7) Two objections to this: most people's interests change by the time they grow up. When I was a child, I was positive that I was going to be a scientist of some sort; now, I'm a history major. A child might be into nature as a child and want to study it, but by limiting himself to such a specific study so early, he limits the rest of his life for an interest that he may not keep into adulthood. Secondly, it would be much easier to study nature on the side as he grows up, and to more intensely do so after graduation, than it would be to put his entire focus into studying nature as a child, and then go back and get a proper education if he later changes his mind. If nature is what he enjoys, he can pursue it individually even while he's in school. A great friend of mine studied photography all throughout school-- he didn't need to drop out to do it! 8) I didn't provide a source for this just for fun, I did it for a REASON. Parents who withdraw their children from elementary/primary school (in places where it is legal, or who do it illegally) most often do it so that their children can work to earn money. Seeing as you have not refuted any of my points, the conclusion still stands. To refute my position, you would have to refute ALL of 1), 2), 5)(by either refuting 3) or 4)), 6), 7), and 8), or demonstrate how none of them support 9). You haven't demonstrated how ANY of them do not support 9), nor have you demonstrated how 9) does not follow from them. Now, you go on to essentially restate your argument. In order to refute it, I will apply your argument to other areas; let's see where it takes us. It's not the job of the government to force children to not smoke. If children want to smoke, and the parents are fine with it, the child should not be forced to not smoke. It's not the job of the government to force children to not have sex. If children want to have sex, and the parents are fine with it, the child (even if they're, say, 6 or 7-- the ages in question in this debate) should be allowed to. It's not the job of the government to force children not to film that sex. If a child wants to make kiddie porn, and the parents are fine with it, the child should be allowed to make kiddie porn. Are you prepared to legalize child smoking? Are you prepared to legalize pedophilia? Are you prepared to legalize kiddie porn? If not, you recognize that the government *should* tell children what to do in certain situations-- and that a parent who attempts to defy that would be an abusive parent. You either agree that the government very well *should* interfere the life of children in certain areas-- and thus contradict your core argument that it should not do so-- or you agree that children as young as 5 should be able to smoke, have sex, and appear in pornography, among other activities. Therefore, the core of your argument-- that, and I quote: "The government should not be taking children's lives into their own hands, especially since it is not the government's children," (and you specifically, in this case, apply it to education) is effectively refuted. In the case of smoking, in the case of pedophilia, in the case of child porn, and in many other cases, the government does and should take children's lives into their own hands. Because the long term damage of not getting an education is nearly irreparable, I would argue that education is one of those areas in which the government must interfere.