This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi

First off, apologies for calling Pro UnitedAndy. Andy and I were discussing this same issue in the forums when this challenge popped up so I assumed it was him, not paying attention to who it actually was. Secondly, I'd just like to say that I find Pro's pattern of personal remarks, now in both rounds, totally unnecessary in a debate setting. How about we just stick to the facts, and let them speak for themselves, rather than trying to poison the well with personal comments and namecalling. Calling someone a liar and asking the voters to ignore that paragraph since it isn't in the actual argument is unreasonable. Pro has placed that in his rounds, thus it is part of the debate, just as it would be if we were debating orally. I would ask the voters to consider it when voting for conduct.The underlying problem here, in my opinion, is the view that many hold, that our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. My purpose for putting that in my sig was to show that from the time the settlers stepped foot in the new world, religion was a huge part of their lives. Religious beliefs have been reflected in our laws since the beginning, and was included in education, and for many that is still the case today. Pro wanted me to change my sig, and made an argument against it in the forum, however, he didn't prove it to be factually incorrect, which is why I didn't change it. He has taken on a big task, and I ask the reader to keep in mind that in challenging me, Pro has accepted the BoP for showing that it "is factually incorrect". If he can do that, I'll change it. Pro's CasePro presents three arguments.1. The line that my opponent purports is from a school curriculum is actually from a law of a British colony.True, this is from a law in the Massachusets Bay Colony, called "The Old Deluder Act", from 1647 [1]. Pro seems to think that this law wouldn't be used in the schoolhouses themselves, to justify to kids and to parents who may have wanted them home for chores, why they were suddenly required to spend all that time in school. I think it unreasonable to assume that teachers wouldn't use the very wording of the law to show kids why it's necessary for them to be educated. It only seems logical that one of the very first lessons would be to explain to them why they were there in the first place.The second part of his statement points out that the territory was a British colony. That part will be dealt with in my comments, on his second peice of evidence, given below. 2 (a). ... the U.S didn't even exist at the time. Here Pro is simply being nitpicky about me calling America, the US. Few people would argue that these people, and this land, wasn't part of our nation's history, or that compulsory education began with this law and continues today. So to make such an argument, and use this as a basis for calling someone a liar, while portraying himself as a crusader for "truth", is unreasonable. Using Pro's logic here, one can't point to something in history and call it a model for, or the beginnings of something, unless it matches up to the exact way we know it now.That's an unreasonable position. This law established compulsory public education, and compulsory education still exists today, making this nothing more than a complaint about minutia.Simply put, one can refer to the actual laws that led to formation of an institution if they existed, prior to the formation of a new nation in a land that would be part of that new nation, without having lied about it. This is not proof of my sig being factually incorrect2. (b) ... no one could contend that this is a U.S law or even that it has anything to do with the United States. Bottom line is that there were 3 laws passed in the colony in the 1640's, regarding education. The Old Deluder Act is the most well-known, and together those laws serve as the beginnings of compulsory education, in both that territory, and what would later become the US. As Judy Gelbrich, from the OSU School of Education states [2]..."The first compulsory education laws were passed in Massachusetts from 1642-1648. They were specifically oriented towards a segment of the population (non-Puritan) who was not providing their children with a proper education. Religious leaders were concerned about the rapid growth of the non-Puritan population and took these steps to maintain Puritan religious beliefs. The first act, called the Massachusetts Act of 1642 made education a state responsibility. While schools were not yet funded or required, education was and all children were supposed to learn how to read and write or parents would risk loss of custody of their children. The law was amended and strengthened in 1648. The law requiring the establishment of schools was passed in 1647. All towns of fifty or more households were required to form a school and pay a teacher either out of private or public monies. In addition towns of one hundred or more households had to establish a secondary or Latin grammar school to prepare students to enter Harvard College."As you can see, I'm not the only one who recognizes this law as being instrumental in the history of education. In what we now know as the US, educators are taught, and point to that law as the beginning of the public school system.3. Is that the first school in America came into being in 1635, 10 years before he say's this was in a school curriculum. I'm not sure why this is even relevant to the debate. If I had implied that it was a "first" school, or that it was in "all school's cirriculums", then it would be relevant, but I didn't so it isn't. Since the Deluder Act establishes public schools where no organized system previously existed, my statement obviously wouldn't pertain to this school, thus it's existence or what it's cirriculum was is irrelevant to this debate. I look forward to the next round. 1. http://www.constitution.org...;2. http://oregonstate.edu...;