No money for education

I refuse to write an LD case, insofar as you set out the necessity in the round AFTER the parameters are to be outlined. The voters will agree that after two rounds it's futile to change case structure. You can VOID ALL OF HIS IMPACTS INSTANTLY. All of his impacts rest on two assumptions: 1: Public education equates to time-constrained education. ("I believe that opportunities for learning should not be confined to youth but should continue throughout life. ") 2: Public education mandates learning only take place within the classroom. ("varieties of learning experience beyond the 'classroom. '") So, two observations follow which disprove these assumptions: 1) School has ZERO jurisdiction outside of itself. Schools do not mandate what i do in my spare time (unless you count homework - but we'll address that in a second) and as a result they cannot affect what I learn outside of the classroom, or after my schooling. Because of that, the type of learning my opponent advocates is not infringed upon by public education. 2) The impacts he presents are not unique to my case. He simply says, "schools have these problems. .. " but does not substantiate how they would be solved by a switch to capitalistic education. Unless he asserts that these private schools would NOT assign homework, and would be so easy as to not require studying, you can drop him right there. Moreover, if this assertion does hold true then schools are pointless because you aren't actually learning anything, but you're still paying money - so there's a direct economic cost. He puts a double bind on himself. Next, you can cross-apply the first two observations of my last speech here. I won't copy and paste so you don't have to reread that, but here's the tagline (name) of them. It's important to note that HE DOES not refute this, nor does he FIX the problems outlined in these two observations, so they still hold water in the debate in nullifying his points. 1) There are no PRO impacts, only unwarranted claims. 2) The PRO offers no way to solve for those claims. Finally, a summary of my case. (Copied and pasted, don't read it if you understand my arguments already. Basically, he hasn't addressed these, so I'm bringing them up to reinforce that they are STILL important in the round, and as he's giving you unwarranted assertions you STILL look to my impacts. ) These are all warranted an impacted, so I'll go through my contentions as follows: (C = Claim, I = Impact. ) C1: Education is a fundamental human right. I: Depriving individuals of education deprives them of their human rights. C2: Federal funding is necessary to ensure all individuals are able to access their right to education. I: The PRO plan deprives individuals of education. (link to the impact of C1) C3: Curriculum based education provides the most stringent standards for student development. I: Implementing the PRO's plan will remove these standards, degrading the value of an education, and the evaporating much of the learning a student COULD have under publicly funded education. C4: Capitalist-based schooling exacerbates socioeconomic problems. I: The PRO's plan separates individuals arbitrarily and keeps minorities from achieving. The claim is almost the impact itself: Do you want to perpetuate a system where an arbitrary factor such as race will keep you from accessing your human rights? C5: Privately funded education will not benefit the economy. I: A diminished economy harms all 310 million Americans, hurts our global competitiveness and on the whole is very, very, very, bad.