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

PRO CASE 1A: 1. The data set I used stated that a high school diploma earned a person at least $200.00 more per week on average. But, since your resolution states K-12 education, that means that a person without a diploma is still unable to survive. Living wage went unrefuted. 2. Since the US workforce is so dependent on specialized labor, a college degree is becoming more and more critical to success. Extend the fact that my opponent agreed with my specialization arguments. 1B: 1. It isn't enough to merely "provide." As I proved in 1A, since education is necessary to the success of its citizens in a way that separates it from any other government service, it makes sense that the state would compel its citizens to participate in it. States may, via the social contract, require citizens to do certain things that don't violate their natural rights for the benefit of the state as a whole. See all US state and federal laws. 1C: 1. So, my opponent states that because millions of underserved students have a "damaged education" already, instead of attempting to fix the system because we know they can't succeed without education, we should demolish the only set of laws that actually *get* them to school. They can't magic their way to a diploma. 2. Capitalist system or no, our first priority is not to our economic theories, but our fundamental political ideology, which centers on equal rights. We cannot forsake any student without violating our core ideals. 3. I'm not sure what the deterrent portion of his response is referring to, but I can prove that not every American would receive access to education without truancy and attendance laws dexterously. It's described directly in the 1C. Students from poor homes, broken homes, or straight up no home lack the fundamental resources (parents, money, mentors, teachers) to seek out education on their own. Furthermore, students who come from these places find that the only safe place in their lives is at a school. It may even be the only place where they receive a hot meal each day (this is the case with a handful of my own students). It is tax dollars, allocated via the state because K-12 education is mandatory, that keeps them in school, with school supplies, and with lunch money. The millisecond education is not compulsory, you take away the state's obligation to provide those tax dollars. 2A: Cross-applying his 1 does nothing to diminish my argument. First, remember that his 1 has no warrants whatsoever that prove that schools teach 100% useless material. Second, the state educational standards actually work to ensure that useless skills and information are not taught in public schools. To prove my point, let's sample just a few of the standards that I am mandated by the state to meet: *EL.CM.RE.02: Listen to, read, and understand a wide variety of informational and narrative text, including classic and contemporary literature, poetry, magazines, newspapers, reference materials, and online information. *EL.CM.WR.30: Synthesize information from multiple sources and identify complexities and discrepancies in the information and the different perspectives found in each medium, including almanacs, microfiche, news sources, in-depth field studies, speeches, journals, and technical documents. *EL.CM.SL.04: Recognize and use elements of speech forms (e.g. introduction, first and second transitions, body, conclusion) in formulating rational arguments and applying the art of persuasion and debate. These represent reading comprehension, writing, and speaking skills that the state requires me to teach my high schoolers. The standards movement has hardly proved a pointless endeavor, and my argument seeks to prove that education is comprised of the above skills, rather than the nebulous affirmative's "pointless concepts." 2B: 1. My opponent admits that "adequate parenting" is required for students to gain life and social skills outside of CE. At that point, he's just lost this strand of argumentation. While he has no method or metric by which to determine parent involvement, school curriculums in the US *mandate* character education, life skills, and social skills (see the DARE program, etc.). The state's obligation is not to provide a perfect system. However, I am the only one maximizing the access to all of these essential skills. CON CASE C1: 1. You admit in RD 1 that you can't prove this argument to be true. And I quote: "Of course, it is impossible to provide proof for this but I would hope it is self-evident." It isn't self-evident. Look to my counter-evidence on state standards. 2. Unwarranted arguments don't have to be entirely untrue. I'm sure there are bad teachers, just like there are bad everything else's in the world. However, does that mean that we scrap a system that has inherent worth as proven in my advocacy? Not so much. He's given himself a huge burden here that he now has to hold to. He needs to prove to you that the flaws of CE are so vast that the system cannot be saved. My advocacy proves this patently untrue. In fact, my advocacy clearly shows that education is improving. 3. You still haven't linked this to CE. You try and dodge the bullet by calling my case ironically non-linking (see my above arguments about how I do link into CE), but don't bother to actually address my argument here. Extend that he can't prove causation. C2: 1. Already proved why homeschooling is not a viable option for all students. Con seems to be living in a fantasy world in which all parents are equal. 2. The link to those standards was to allow readers to peruse them to back up my claims of legitimacy. Reading some of them helps with this process. Luckily, I provided some above. 3. If the standards movement continues the way that it is, the gap between those extremely lucky enough to have dedicated homeschool parents and public school children with rapidly decrease. 4. Con's gonna have to explain that last couple of sentences. I'm not dropping it, but I have no clue what he's trying to argue. C3: 1. How does making public education voluntary *not* affect how many kids get their diplomas? Logic dictates that if CE is abolished, less students will attend K-12 school or even seek educational opportunities. This means that less students will get their GED or diploma. This means that more students will be cut out of the job market entirely. His whole point here is to get kids out into the work force sooner. However, at the point where he concedes that employment success is determined by graduating high school, you pretty must cast your vote for Pro. 2. Yet again, this blatantly discriminates against kids who don't have access to the parent support, community support, or resources to self-educate to the point of passing a GED exam. You can't possibly warrant that all people who don't have these resources just "don't want their diplomas." It isn't laziness; it's institutional discrimination.