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

Pro Argument 1A Con response: I basically concur with everything posted in this argument. However, when you say, "education is not optional for a US citizen to be successful," what kind of education are you referring to? Basic K-12? College? It is perfectly possible to have a more than adequate career *without* a college degree. See: http://www.careerbuilder.com... Pro Argument 1B Con response: Pro asserts that if formal education isn't compulsory, it won't be provided and thus won't fulfill the social contract theory. That is not a valid argument because even if education isn't compulsory, it will still be provided. College education is not compulsory and it is still provided. Regardless of the increase of high school graduates heading to college, colleges have predated this occurrence. Pro goes on to say that truancy and other educational laws ensure that all citizens are *offered* facilities to provide such an education. Notice the word I put in asterisks, offered. Why does the truancy law have anything to do with the state *offering* educational facilities? Even if some students choose to be truant, that doesn't make education any less essential. According to my opponent's case, education is a need and it is the state's job to provide. It is still the state's job regardless of truant students. Pro keeps asserting that in order for people to educate themselves, compulsory education is needed. While it's clear that education is necessary for some sort of future (as I even established in my own case), compulsory education doesn't ensure a stable, well-paying future of anyone [1]. If people wish to be truant and not follow through with education, then they will do so. State and law pending, kids can drop out of high school. Compulsory education is not a guarantee of success. 1. Refer to my #5 source and read the first paragraph, first page. Pro Argument 1C Con response: I've already stated that compulsion can't force kids to go to school, similar to the way that the law won't stop a truly determined killer or rapist. It's really not that effective of a deterrent. Like I said, all children will have equal access to education regardless of its compulsory state and I don't see how pro can prove otherwise. Pro even stated in their case that the state had a right to provide education so the compulsory nature of it is irrelevant. Pro is fearful for children who may be hurt by non-compulsory schooling because of the area they live in but these kids that live in poverty already have a damaged education [2]. In our capitalist society, it is a given that some will make it, some won't - and this is hardly to blame on our educational institutions. See: http://health.usnews.com... Pro Argument 2A Con response: Education reform is (or at least, usually is) a good thing, I will not disagree with pro there. However, this part of their argument appears pointless. You can find many good ways to teach a lot of pointless concepts, but does that make these subjects of any further value? Cross-apply my C1 and it makes this argument completely invalid. Pro Argument 2B Con response: Pro is telling me that cognitive thinking skills and life skills *can* be learned at school? Everyone learns differently so I fail to see how you could justify this assertion. Also, just because they *can* doesn't mean they will. Pro says that, "citizens must be self-sufficient, able to interact with a diverse society, and prepared to actively participate in their own governance." Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with compulsory education. Kids would be able to do all of this just fine out of CE, given that they have adequate parenting. As for social skills, keep in mind that socialization is a part a of childhood parenting. Also, CE still fails to promise any of these things. It's completely possible and in fact likely that you can walk into a school and see a handful of kids who are somewhat to completely asocial. The three traits that pro listed for success as a citizen can be learned without the aid of CE. ===REFUTING PRO'S COUNTERARGUMENTS=== Con C1: Not warrantless assertions, unless of course you can tell me how they are warrantless. It is only warrantless if everything I said had no truth whatsoever. This is far from the case and if pro disagrees than they are being unreasonable. A warrantless assertion would be to say that kids feel important at school, because realistically there are bound to be some who do, some who don't. Also, ironic that pro says my arguments aren't linked to CE when I've already shown how the pro contentions aren't. In regards to the cross-application of your 2A, not all teachers have graduated in the past 5 years and not all of them use the constructive model. This is most observable in poor areas that struggle, refer to my earlier link posted in this round. Con C2: Your 2A evidence has nothing to do with imparting cognitive thinking; it's just a bunch of academic standards that the state of Oregon has. Every state has these and I fail to see what pro is proving with it. Homeschooling is completely possible but it still must comply with curriculum of the school [1], making my C2 proposal of teaching only the necessities worthless. Also, students in homeschooling seem to outperform their public counterparts [2], making formal CE even more questionable. If students can learn without CE, then there is no point of upholding CE. Pro asserts that school attendance laws are the only reason the state is obligated to give underserved children an education but stated in their own case that the state must supply what is necessary as part of social contract; pro defined education as necessary to which I concurred. Therefore, pro's assertion here is invalid. 1. http://www.homeedmag.com... 2. http://www.hslda.org... Pro, question: What do you mean by underserved? Con C3: High school makes having a job much harder by restricting the amount of hours you can work; factor this in with maintaining relationships, family life, and homework. Pro says that becoming part of the workforce without a diploma is nearly impossible - agreed. However, making education compulsory will not effect those who plan to work as an adult (mostly everyone) anyway because they already desire a diploma. People who don't want to contribute to society and don't feel they should have to provide for themselves won't. CE doesn't stand in the way of this at all and I fail to see how pro proves that it does. Conclusion: We are now left with an important question, "What is the purpose of making education compulsory?" Judges, you have your answer: there is no purpose. I strongly urge a con ballot, thank you.