Being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do.

Re Reason 1) As I clearly elucidate in the previous round, I was not discussing the issue of importance here. My argument concerned my opponent's actual logic. All mothers may be women, but not all women are (or are physically/socially capable of being) mothers or "stay at home" mothers. Again, my opponent merely objects to my attack on her argument with irrelevant information. The fact that I clearly pointed this out in the previous round makes it more harmful to my opponent's case. In any case, you're free to dismiss my opponent's objection on this matter. My opponent drops reasons #2 and #3, so you can extend those. My opponent doesn't object to how I define importance, thus she concedes to it being how importance is to be measured when it comes to jobs. My opponent tells you that I stated her husband to be more important than her, but this is an textbook example of the false dichotomy fallacy. I stated that his JOB was more important than hers and even went through backing up my claim. This was to disprove her claim that their jobs were equal. She drops my response on this matter (and therefore concedes), so you're free to extend it. As for addressing whether or not her job is important, this is again not my intention; I'm addressing whether or not her job can be considered one of the "MOST" important. I use her answer to my question to fuel my case on this matter. Speaking of her answer, she goes on to defend it by still pointing out that it merely directly benefits her children and her husband. All of what she states on the actions and choices her children WILL make is baseless conjecture at best. Not only that, but even if we had valid reasons to support her claims, the manner of influence (as in the form that effects her children's actions in their careers) would merely be recognized as INDIRECT. The thing about indrect influence is that everything which an individual encounters indirectly influences that individual is one form or another. Influence is actually an effect that occurs with and without the usage of jobs. Furthermore, influencing a child concerns parenthood itself (rather than parenthood via the channel of staying at home). It isn't merely staying at home with your children that manipulates how the children are influenced. As I've insinuated in the previous round, staying at home 24/7 isn't even remotely necessary to conduct parenthood. This answers my opponents question as well as her response on this matter. As for the school system, I beg to differ. During preschool and kindergarten, teachers as well as other members of the faculty are likely to treat the students as if they were their children. Teachers are well aware of delicacy that is incorporated into young minds. Hugging a crying child and eliminating the fear of the dark are matters which teachers are likely to deal with (when the child is still of the age where this mostly occurs). As for potty training though, this seems more like something which is handled before children start going to school, thus has no real relevance here. Not to mention that this is yet again something which parents handle without having to resort to "staying at home" as their career. As for maid's, they don't read bedtime stories or sing songs, but this is not to suggest that there isn't a career devoted to handling this; hiring a nanny could just as easily solve those problems. Also, one thing I notice in these reason which my opponent provides is that none of them are reasons that would require a typical parent to stay home. Finally, I ask that you compare my opponent's last contention to the statement which she is quoting as it easily exposes her devotion to the straw man fallacy which I talked about in the previous round (something else which my opponent has not responded to). Again, I've shown how being a stay at home isn't one of the most important jobs. Whether or not it is to be considered important in the first place is a completely different issue. If anything, this statement . . . Candice: "I have in every argument shown why I think being a stay at home mom is important." . . . is to be taken as a confession that my opponent has not upheld the burden provided in the resolution. Although to pacify my opponent, she has talked about the benefits of parenting itself; none of the benefits apply as being benefits which can only come from a parent staying at home rather than getting a paying job (hence benefiting the economy, insuring social order, insuring public peace, or any combination of the three). As I've pointed out, staying out home while devoting oneself to parenthood directly benefits one's private interest, but public interest? Not really. As noted in the previous round, an important job is a job which manages to directly benefit the public. To further pacify my opponent, even if her children do end up excelling in their careers, it won't directly be due to my opponent's decision on staying at home; it will be due their education as well as the many people and things that manage to influence their minds. Closing Statements: First, my opponent's entire case suffers from the non sequitur fallacy. Second, my opponent has ignored many of my arguments. Third, my opponent has even admitted that she hasn't upheld the burden of proving her case (as she argued in favor a different idea). Fourth, I've shown that pursuing the task of staying a "stay at home mother" isn't to be considered one of the most important jobs since it does not provide benefits in favor of the publics' interest. My opponent conceded to my definition of "most important" through not providing a response on this matter, thus further reason to consider it as being a legitimate reason to vote in favor of my case. These are the main reasons as to why you should vote in favor of my case (although you're free to vote on other reasons which I've provided during my rounds). I urge that you vote in favor of my case. Thank you.