Curent high school education should not be mandatory

Thanks to CON for a great debate. A summary of my arguments below for the final round. C1: It will free up economic resources. CON does not deny that not making high school mandatory will free up economic resources. He has also yet to show how those that those with a job that does not require formal education will benefit from a high school education. Even those jobs that "require" a high school diploma, can use the equivalent GED instead, which is simply just a test that does not require four years of schooling. Thus mandatory high school wastes both the tax payer's resources (taxes could be used for other sources) and the student's (he/she could spend his/her time doing something else). C2: Most necessary information is taught through K-8 CON has never denied that a person with a K-8 education cannot function properly in the United States. However, CON does not think someone with a K-8 education can get. However, I have shown numerous jobs that do not require a high school diploma which I have explained, and can be found here [1] and here [2]. CON does not find those jobs to be "good" jobs which are subjective. However, they do exist and will still exist even if everyone had a PhD, which CON has not denied. CON has argued that those that are not educated will not be able to vote "properly". However, since voting is not mandatory, therefore voting is not "necessary". C3: It will improve high school education CON has not really made a good rebuttal against this but instead has used red herring arguments (Ex; Stating that middle school education is a problem). He states that my reasoning is poor, but I will explain my reasoning as clear as possible: (a)High school students who do not want to learn do the following: cause disruptions, do not listen, skip school and/or do not study. These disruptions cause high school teachers to focus more on controlling these students then actually teaching. Also, since these students do not listen or study, the teacher is forced to go over material at a slower and "dumb down" the curriculum so these students will pass. (b)High school teachers do not like these students. This is something that has been observed (Teachers complain constantly complain about them and for rational reasons). So here's what these teachers do, they quit. Therefore, by requiring these students that do not want education to stay, you are lowering the supply of competent teachers. (c)Less students, means fewer teachers. Less teachers means the proportion of unqualified teachers can be reduced. Since the demand for science teachers with an undergraduate degree in science far exceeds the supply, by reducing the supply, this shortage can be reduced or eliminated. (d)If there are fewer students that do not want a high school education, then high school teachers could get paid more, since less disruptive students would cut cost of education, especially for disciplinary actions. Paying teachers more would increase the supply of qualified teacher. (e)The actions described above have been observed in other countries. Likewise CON has not provided any alternative theories why college education is much better in the united states than high school education, despite the main difference between high school and college education in the US is that one is mandatory (for the most part) while the other is not. C4: Mandatory high school education directly infringes on the freedom of others CON does not deny this statement. However CON believes that some freedom should be infringed, even though social contract theory states that freedoms should only be infringed if it infringes on others rights. CON does not disagree with social contract theory yet making high school mandatory is a direct violation of social contract theory since not going to high school does not infringe on the rights of others. My opponent also agrees that forcing someone to go to a Justin Bieber concert or have sex is immoral. However like education (a)Sex and music have their benefit, as cited earlier (b) Some people are willing to even pay for it, so there's obviously a benefit Yet, like education, it does not benefit everyone, and infringes on other's right. CON also uses an appeal to emotion, that our forefather would want us all to have an education, with no substance to support that claim. Now my opponent's main arguments: "1. High school has benefits." A.It does not benefit everyone This has been my opponent's number one assertion in the debate. My opponent appears to believe that everybody loves money and that nobody wants a job working as either a driver or a janitor. However there is: (a) A whole anti-consumer movement, cited, so not everybody loves money, or at the very least do not want a stressful job. This is more than enough evidence that not everyone likes money. Lyrics also an important part of a song (why else have lyrics in the first place) and Papa Roach's message of rejecting consumerism is clear. (b)Notice the occupation with the highest suicide. Not the janitor, but medical doctors, the highest educated and paid occupation. http://www.edubook.com... (c)As stated in contention 1, high school does not benefit everyone, since not everyone obtains a job that involves traditional education. CON has yet to prove that every job requires a high school diploma and that these jobs will still exist even after college. CON states that there are schools that there are colleges that offer music programs and actor programs, yet most of the famous actor/actresses and musicians do not attend these programs. Clearly it does not benefit everyone. B.If it benefits someone, he/she can enter voluntarily. Also, CON believes that if school benefits us, then people will not voluntarily enter. I reject this premise since it is illogical. Even if a person makes the decision to not attend high school the person can make the following thought process, and return to high school. Thought process: (a)I either cannot find a job or hate my job (b)If I get an education, I can find a job or get a new job (c)Person gets a high school degree Also notice how after high school, many people enter higher education or college even though it is not required. "2. You will find a subject that you will enjoy in high school which leads to college" Also, CON believes that it is through high school education that you will discover subjects, learn to enjoy these subjects, and this will lead to a job. I reject the notation. These subjects are already taught from K-8, many subjects for certain jobs are not taught or required in high school. I also have given many examples of how one can develop an interest in a career without the aid of high school. Also, notice how in Round 3, CON keeps on stating "children" would never have heard of these subjects, "children" become interested in something. High school students are TEENAGERS, not children. If high school students become interested in these subjects before high school, then this argument is negated. "3. More informed about society and know how government works" CON states that the uneducated will not know how to vote "properly". However, the ill-informed will not care about voting, bad politicians will be exposed through negative campaigning, and it is not difficult to go on the internet and do a web search to learn terms you do not understand. If one knows how to read and write, then one can educate himself/herself about matters not learned in school. One does not have to learn everything from school, because he or she can find help guides or do a web search for information he/she needs to know. Even those with college educations do not know everything about how everything works so he/she can look up information him or herself. [1]http://www.ehow.com... [2]http://careerplanning.about.com...