Homework Should Not Be Required

Thanks Danielle! This debate has definitely been a fun one to participate in. [Debate Summary] Clarification It is evident that my opponent completely misunderstands what a counterplan is. My counterplan (ie. proposed changes to the status quo which gives me a fraction of the BOP) was in regards to quantity because, obviously, I can feasibly make sure that all homework is beneficial and of a good quality - that does NOT mean that I can’t talk about homework quality within the status quo and in the past because my counterplan is not a list of my advocacies (as my opponent seems to believe). Ergo, there is no contradiction, I hope it is now clear to my opponent and to voters of what a counterplan is and how it is different to my advocacies and rebuttals. So, just to clarify, my counterplan states that quantity is too high so it will be reduced. My rebuttal to my opponent’s source is that it addresses an older version of the education system with different qualities of homework. These statements are not contradictory and can coexist without any contradictions. Nobody should be confused by this. I extend those arguments. Point 1 The outcome of this contention is simple. My opponent uses incredibly unreliable data that fails to account for 99.99999163742% of the children in the world (children in poverty and in poor conditions are still children and should be [and are] included in this figure). Virtually all of my opponent’s sources here deal with large quantities of homework which is something that I’m specifically advocating the removal of from the status quo (as is made evident in my counterplan). My opponent has attempted to show that my sources do not account for as many people as hers however my sources are not being used in the same way that hers are. She is using her sources to prove that homework should be abolished using statistical data. I was using mine for general claims that bare the same weight regardless of the amount of people involved since I did not use these for statistic related claims. She also appears to believe that not every beneficial thing must be mandatory. I have accepted this however my opponent seems to believe that this is as far as her burden requires her to achieve. This is objectively false. There are some things that are beneficial and should be mandatory (my opponent concedes this). Therefore, my opponent’s burden entails them in proving that whilst homework can be beneficial it should not be mandatory. My concession of beneficial things not having to be mandatory does not mean that my opponent’s burden is advanced in any way. Counterplan 1A. My opponent once again misunderstands what a counterplan is. My opponent lies about me saying that my counterplan involves only beneficial homework being implemented. She tries to get out of this precarious situation she’s been put in by saying that by saying this it means that I advocate all homework - even non beneficial homework. This is simply not true. A counterplan is a proposed change to the status quo on the the negative case’s behalf. I cannot make a beneficial related change to the status quo because as my opponent pointed out earlier on in this debate, that simply isn’t feasible. This doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t prefer there to be only beneficial homework, I would. Though this is virtually impossible so I am focussing my counterplan elsewhere. 1B. My opponent makes an identical misinterpretation to what she says in response to point 1A. Just because I’m not making a proposed change on the status quo to make all homework beneficial, doesn’t mean that I do not advocate this - I merely find this proposed changed to be unfeasible and unrealistic. Please extend my counterplan as my opponent pretty much drops it all and instead resorts to refuting nonexistent argument regarding benefits and then making strange and ultimately false complaints about me advocating homework that isn’t beneficial. Point 2 In this contention I proved that the burden on parents is of an extremely low percentage. The majority are clearly content with the status quo. Regardless, even if this objection fails you still ought to presume Con as the counterplan minimizes homework quantity for those that receive too much homework, therefore the burden on parents is virtually non existent. Either way, you ought to consider this point in my favor. She also raised the objection of family time being lost which was also refuted by the fact that I used psychological evidence in order to refute this point and show that in reality family time is created as opposed to being lost. I also showed that students are set based on abilities and are given the amount of homework that should be sufficient in correlation with their ability so that everybody spends the same amount of time on homework (though not necessarily doing the same amount of homework or the same difficulty level in homework). Furthermore, I managed to show that parents doing homework is neither good nor bad. Though no benefits at all is worse. Sets and teaching opinion on students is formulated based on class work and examination (which I proved via citation in the previous round). Therefore, whilst this does happen, all this means is that some students won’t gain anything from homework and some will. I refuted the objection in regards to resources due to the fact that schools take the student’s parents/carers financial state into consideration. My opponent blatantly lies when she says: “Con dropped that even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. ” This is massively untrue. I will quote my response from R3: “She helps explain the very purpose of homework itself. She points out that homework cannot be monitored in regards to approach and therefore students may not grasp or understand the material properly. If they do not understand it and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher’s duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them. The lesson is designed to teach all students generally. The homework shows specific pupils progress and understanding of that lesson which teachers can then monitor and intervene if necessary in order to help said student to understand it properly”. My opponent’s claim that I dropped this is ludicrous. Point 3 My opponent claims that homework cuts time into things and she also claim that it provides a second shift of work for children. This is automatically negated by the counterplan. Additionally, even if my counterplan was not enacted this contention would still work in my favor since after school activities exist and I presented a large statistic showing that people have plenty of time to do homework alongside activities and I demonstrated that there are a record breaking amount of people in part time jobs in the UK which my opponent drops. Point 4 I have shown that homework does not count towards sets for children. In fact class work and examination are used only. The only claims that my opponent has been able to muster are bare assertions that homework is often graded (which is irrelevant since grading homework is not the same as taking it into consideration when assessing that student’s ability - which is what general classwork and examinations are for). I concede that cheating happens however my opponent’s website regarding cheating statistics is unreliable (and my opponent drops this argument). We can conclude that since homework does not count for anything important, cheating has no effects (neither positive or negative). Whereas the students that opt in to do their homework properly receive the benefits from homework which my opponent concedes when she says that just because homework is beneficial, doesn’t mean that it should be mandatory. Once again, my opponent lies and states that I dropped the effects of HW’s drill and kill methodology. This is false. Again, I will have to quote my response which my opponent supposedly claims is nonexistent when she says that I dropped it: “Again, the review my opponent cites in an attempt to prove that homework results in the loss of sleep, self esteem and childhood is refuted by the counterplan as it once again references to excessive homework and homework taking up valuable time from children. ” The outcome of this debate is incredibly clear. The resolution is negated.