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

Con C3 1. It's a completely rational thought and I explained why. Pro says that the need for degrees is rising due to global competition. Even if it was, that has nothing to do with the resolve because it clearly says in the US. It also is untrue because no source was provided and it's not a sound argument. Need for more advanced degrees is arising from more people receiving college education and getting their college degree for these specialized jobs which pro noted. However, it caught on though and many started getting college degrees. Competition could/is become/ing ridiculous. I'm not saying this should be considered as an argument but it is valid. 2. Your logic is to force feed those who cannot feed themselves or maybe those who don't want to eat. Not practical. Some people are bound to go hungry in both a pro and con world. That being said, education is still readily available in both a pro and con world. There would still be local school districts, public and private. Parents can enroll them there and voila. Pro keeps talking about the inconsistent adequacy of parenting but I refer to my analogy again. Parents provide food to their children; we can't say all but we can assume that it's natural to do so and the majority do. Food is a need. We can assume that most will provide education as well. I now present my final focus and would like to summarize *key points* in the debate. This round will not be used for constructive rebuttals or new arguments. However, new evidence may be provided. My opponent and I agreed on this so keep it in mind, voters. #1: Providing for the Underserved Original pro Argument: Without things like truancy laws, the poorest and most underserved students in the nation would be the ones to suffer without an education. Pro put a lot of value on these underserved children and held the position that CE is a benefit to them while non-CE is harmful. Pro defended the position with the following arguments. 1. Laws pertaining to CE get them to school. 2. Non-CE will deny E to them. 3. Blowing off the underserved is a violation of US rights. I defeated them accordingly. 1. Non-CE is still open to everyone which includes the underserved. 2. This argument was loosely based off my analogy, "Education is a need. Food is a need. Both are needs. However, we don't see a law that says it's illegal not to eat because it's a person's right to decide that; just like it's a person's right to decide whether or not they wish to follow through with formal education." Voters, re-read pro's attempted refutation in RD3 and you will see she clearly misinterpreted it which is why I rightfully labeled it as a strawman; she weakened my version of the argument by saying kids were being denied it but offered no insight as to how or why. 3. The underserved are not being blown off when we negate because no one is being blown off since both non-CE and CE are open to everyone. I've explained numerous times that the availability aspect of E (also, consider pro believes E to be a need) debunks the need for it to be compulsory. This goes hand in hand with my analogy. Pro defines E as a need. Food is also a need. There is no law against not eating even though it's clearly necessary to live as education is. #2: Education/Food Analogy Original argument posted above. Pro could not defeat this argument despite effort. I extend through with it as it destroys the pro side benefits. #3: CE yields more diplomas Original pro argument: If a student without a diploma can't earn a living wage, then you vote Pro because I give more people diplomas. Con response: You cannot prove that E, when made C, yields higher rates of graduation compared to non-compulsory education. Pro response: It's not even a logical stretch to say that [CE] will lead to more kids attending school, which leads to more kids with diplomas. Apply my analogy and the fact that pro considers E a need. It is not required by law to eat but just about everyone does anyway. Think the same for education. Pro failed to prove her point; points go to con. #4: CE vs. non-CE benefits weighing Pro benefits: provides to the underserved, ensures everyone a chance at education, yields more diplomas. All of these are just as possible within a con world and I explained why. Con benefits include further focus on education, not support and elimination of trivial truancy cases. The first con benefit is not possible in a pro world due to tax money being poured into schools to help the underserved rather than improve education for the majority. The second con benefit is clearly not possible in a pro world; truancy laws are a waste of time and in a con world, we avoid them. #5: Pro equates CE to public schooling Original argument: With regards to privatization, that is the only alternative to CE, since CE = public schools. I cannot argue against this because it would be a new argument but that doesn't change how puzzling this assertion is. Pro, you may not explain it either because we agreed on no new arguments. Conclusion: I have already proved through my rebuttals that con is the better choice. Now, in my final focus, I exhaustively conclude that con has won every single key point of this debate with reasons to back up my claims. Pro was a worthy debater but pro's arguments failed to achieve as much as mine. With the following information provided and all arguments considered, I strongly urge a con ballot. Thank you for the debate, pro. Thank you for reading the debate, voters.