Alternatives to Public Schooling Should Not be made Illegal.

It's hard to concisely respond to all of your fail in this small space. But I will do my best to debunk everything you typed, as the fact that anyone might believe it is terrifying. "Abolishing alternatives to public schooling will ultimately force everyone to adhere to these standards." In what universe? How do you even begin to imagine that one proposal from the 2010s, out of all the proposals in the world, out of all the educational ideas, would somehow be 'the only way' in a technocratic step to improve Public Education? Such a decree with absolute certainty is absurd, as nothing is ever that certain in reality. Period. "Sources cannot be used as an argument by themselves. " Go read the article, there's no excuse not to, as it contains all the argument I want you to see. Particularly since it's a tangential issue without any real importance beyond broadening your narrow perception of history. "Second, You seem to have trouble recognizing that children will be forced upon a standard that will ultimately lead to massive lowering of educational quality in America." Again, my point from before stands. This proposed standard is one out of many, and not the be-all and end-all of our human existence. Your next point also relies on the same deluded fallacy, that somehow I want to use the proposal I have repeatedly denounced, or that I must, when I have laid out an entirely different proposal. I'm not even sure where such an idea would come from. "You have to remember that currently Tom, Dick, and Harry"s schools outperform the Department of Education by a large amount..." Some of them do work. That's because they cluster wealthy parents together and have extreme funding to provide better facilities than anyone else, and so they promote societal inequality. However, others do not work. Others teach mythology as fact and Science as lies. "This is an ad hominem fallacy. Don"t attack my personal beliefs for the sake of your argument." Actually it's a perfectly legitimate issue. The fact that you, an admitted homeschooler, were given incorrect instruction and now believe myths proves that such a system fails to provide actual education in science. "There is something in the Constitution called the First Amendment." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Let's see, are we establishing state religion? No. Prohibiting free exercise? No, you can still go to church and Sunday school whenever. Freedom of speech? Well, as already demonstrated, that has limits. Fire in a crowded theater, threatening violence, and to me, indoctrinating children against Science. As to freedom of the press and peaceable assembly, you're welcome to print whatever books you want, and study whatever you want, on your own time. But there's absolutely no harm done to the First Amendment. "This section was written out of ignorance" Actually, several of my friends in high school were homeschooled and this opinion is drawn from their experience and my experience with them. A friend, who I will call Dave, was homeschooled. I knew him from church, where he came to the youth group. He was just socially awkward on the whole, and had a very hard time. He and I both attributed this to staying at home so often and not going out and interacting with other, very different, people. So maybe your experience at socialization was successful, but that hardly means that everyone will succeed, as you seem to believe. And also you completely ignore my comment about lack of administration, maybe I should consider that an endorsement coming from you. "it makes my blood boil." I'd watch that temper if I were you. As to your points 2 and 3, I'd argue any group isolating itself has a negative impact on society. White conservatives merely seem to cause more trouble when they isolate. And you seemed to have missed the memo that our schools are no longer segregated. You might sit at the lunch table with the other white kids, but you will see, work with, and interact with students of other ethnic backgrounds. "The only way you can truly level the playing field is open up the educational system to new opportunities. We cannot have a "one-size-fits-all" system, otherwise there will be no success." You fail to see that the nationalized system itself is adaptable based on localized needs due to access to deep amounts of federal funding, and in my system, the presence of a dedicated administration. 'New Opportunities' might sound good, but the fact is, someone has to pay for it. When it's the government, it's public school, and when it's parents, it becomes exclusive to those who can afford it, and again it divides society. The individual argument came a bit late from you, but I'll debunk it here too. Children need to be taught that they are a community, and not just individuals. This is why group work is so important and teams are so important. One of the most important skills a child can learn in school is how to work with others. They will use it in life. If we instill them in the Ayn Rand Capitalist Wet Dream, then we teach them not to look to each other for help, but as competitors and enemies, and we promote a regressive ideal of human nature that turns us into clannish little fear-machines. "How would children receive a better education by schools being shut down?" Well first off, they wouldn't be shut down. They'd be taken over by the state and run according to state standards. And your global scale reflects the massive amount of students in Subsaharan Africa with a chalk board two desks and no roof. But to answer your question in more detail, http://gawker.com... FYI, Warren Buffet is on my side. I'd say he's a pretty smart guy too. "Ad hominem much? Also, you"re making an argument for microevolution, not macroevolution." If you trot out anti-science bull, prepare to get called on it. No free passes sir. And I suggest you go review evolutionary theory, because 'microevolution' is the only kind. No one is telling you that you evolved from a chimp. "Historically, public schools run a higher risk of indoctrinating children to a mindset than private schools. This has been acknowledged by my opponent as fact, by his failure to address it." That's amusing. You see, I'd ignored it as nonsensical rambling under Godwin's law. Also, the last time I checked, not commenting was not analogous to commenting. So sure, public education would be bad. If we were living in a racist and fascist dictatorship. We aren't. "Because it was not addressed directly, and my points are accepted by my opponent, it is accepted that abolishing alternatives to public schooling will deteriorate society." I accept none of your points, and have illustrated improvements in society. The benefits: 1. Place a proper and uniform emphasis on Science, so we no longer have pundits ranting about how evolution is a 'lie' or global warming isn't real. Wipe out such ignorance with knowledge. 2. Work towards societal equality by reducing the unfair advantages wealth confers to education. 3. Reallocate societal resources away from serving the wealthy and to serving all Americans. 4. Creates a system where multiple career advancements can be made. 5. Teaches children to socialize. 6. Cuts down racial barriers and promotes diversity and tolerance. 7. Allows anyone to study what they want, on their own time, and keeps myth out of the classroom. A quick word to voters. If you believe in equality, science, reason, and diversity, then you should probably endorse my argument. But, here's what you should do. Whatever you want. Vote however your conscience dictates. Go for it.