Curent high school education should not be mandatory

I will add a contention, which really isn't new, but wasn't made clear in C1 and C2, so it is contention 5 (also a rebuttal on CON's 1st and some of 2nd argument in round 1): C5) Not everyone benefits from education. Rebutting CON's first argument/Proof of C5) "People who graduate from high school continue on to college to pursue an academic subject they enjoy." This is not the point. People who perform well in academics will pursue a high school education, not because it is mandatory, but because it will benefit him or her. Even if it was possible that everyone benefits from high school then everyone would go to high school, even if it was not mandatory so there's no point of making it mandatory in the first place. It's like making a law that requires everyone to eat. We do not make rules or laws that require everyone to eat food, since eating food benefit. However, there are many reasons not to pursue to pursue a high school education. The person might has job opportunities (ex: A rising actor/actress or musician that does not have time to pursue a high school education), wants to focus on other job skills not offered in high school, wants a simpler life, or finds school to be difficult. CON makes the fallacy of composition: "What is good for the part is good for the whole". Rather high school does not benefit everyone, only those that wish to pursue a job that requires book smarts. "Just because you think someone isn't going to make it far in life, we should simply abandon them?" This seems to be an appeal to emotion. It is only failing in society because you think it is failing in society. Maybe someone would rather be a janitor working an easy job than work in a stressful job that he or she hates. And even if everyone had a doctorate degree, someone would still have to be a janitor. "you will receive benefits, namely money, and everyone loves money" Then how do you explain how a song that says "f*** your money" is highly liked song with over 4 million views?[2] Proof of C3) "This is very interesting. Because, in that exact website, when you look under "Causes for Failure," you will find the answer…….." It's a big contrast that US high schools are far worse than US universities. One reason US universities are better is because they are optional. So what if middle schools are also weak as well? How does that invalidate my claim in anyway? This is just a red herring argument. Yes those that have a division in high school perform better, which is why I stated "CURRENT high school should not be mandatory". High schools in the United States do not have this division. The source stated that a major problem is that there are not enough science high school teachers that have a good background in science. An atmosphere without disruptive students who do not want to learn, paying these teachers more and a smaller supply of teachers will cause a larger percentile of high school teachers to have a better background in science. Proof of C4) "There are many things in society that infringe upon the freedom of people. So should we eliminate all these things because of lack of freedom?" Only because these things infringe upon other people's freedoms or harms others. Again education does neither. A society that infringes upon many freedoms for unnecessary reason is a tyrant. "Yes, indeed, you should. Because there is a benefit in that action. There is not benefit in taking someone to a horrible Justin Bieber (shudder) concert and the second inappropriate action doesn't do anything at all." However sex and music both have benefits. People are even willing to pay to see a Justin Bieber concert or pay for sex. [3][4]. However forcing someone to do either one of these actions would be a serious infringement on one's rights, just like making school mandatory. "As far as I'm concerned, I do not see how going to school will harm anyone in the world" Over Six hours of having your speaking privileges revoked, doing stuff when you would rather be doing other stuff might be considered harmful to some. Rebuttal of second argument of CON from round 1) "How else do you make money? Without education, you will do bad things to get money. No one hires a middle schooler." Only if you're basing things on age, not education, since there are child labor laws. However there though there are still jobs around. For example child actors, babysitters, caddies, lawn mowers, etc. As one's age increases one can get higher paying jobs (with added job experience to the resume). I did list the various jobs one can receive without a high school diploma (ex: construction worker, driver, hair stylist, entertainer, chef) which there will always be a demand for, so yes people are willing to hire those without a high school education. It is true that statistically (although not a deciding factor) those without an education are more likely to commit crimes. However even if everyone had a PhD, jobs that do not require an education (or a traditional education) will still exist and someone will have to take these job. There will always be jobs that pay better than others, creating income inequality, creating those with less envious of the rich style, creating one reason for crime. Also, based on your logic actually, why not require everyone to get a doctorate since those with doctorate degrees live a more "successful" life? Also there are other factors besides poverty that causes crime. Drug addiction, heredity, gender, peers, and parenting also play much larger roles. [5]The point is you can't pre-determine whether one will be a criminal or not just by their education level alone. "Do you see American children running around with textbooks on their free time?......... children would not want to learn things themselves" Do you see an industry that profits off of selling non-fiction books? Yes. How do "math camps" or "science camps" exist if only these schools can show people subjects he/she will enjoys? How do museums exist if nobody is willing to learn themselves? How many people exist that have ONLY learned information from school? Very few, if any. People are naturally curious and want to explore, so it would be natural for people to stumble across a field they enjoy. There are people who build things or computer whizzes who learn about computer for their own interest and go on to become future engineers or computer scientists. Even for the video game enthusiastic, maybe he/she might find it interesting to make a game like this, and thus the person created an interest in computer science. And as I stated before, most subjects in school are not geared towards helping one find a career, since most careers require one to know other information not taught in high school. Rebuttal of a new argument from CON) "In America, people vote for who they want as the president. What if these people vote for the most ignorant candidate? And he eventually becomes our president?" The less educated make up a smaller voting population. [6] Since money contributions are very important for elections, those with the most money have a larger impact on who wins an election. From Wikipedia: "One of the most important aspects of the major American political campaign is the ability to raise large sums of money, especially early on in the race." [7] It should not be difficult for someone to determine if someone is an ignorant president (especially since negative campaigning would make an ignorant president clearly visible). Even very educated people have different political views on abortion, military action, social security, drug criminalization or gun rights, so even the educated do not know the overall the best policy. The government could actually use education for propaganda purposes causing people to make ill-based choices. "It's odd that you cite yourself and your mother." Do you consider these personal experiences invalid sources?