Question: Should the Principle of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

The US government should enforce a policy of Net Neutrality.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that the FCC does not have the authority to mandate that broadband providers treat all internet traffic equally. This was a significant victory for Comcast Corporation, the nation's largest cable company, which had contested the FCC's ability to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

Net Neutrality is the principle that all internet content should be accessible to all consumers on an equal playing field, with no means or possibility for tiered speeds of access. The debate essentially revolves around what constitutes ISP property when dealing with the internet and whether these property owners should have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open-source and freely available, the physical components are not. Servers, specialized hardware that makes content available, must be purchased, owned, and maintained. Similarly, the infrastructure used by ISPs to provide access, such as cables, satellites, and wireless transmitters, must also be purchased, owned, serviced, and maintained. The servers, ISPs, and end-users at home all use property that is rightfully owned to cumulate in the experience of accessing the internet. It is not a free enterprise. The internet is not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the contrary.

ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. This is why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. For example, Verizon is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion dollars. ISPs profit by charging web content providers and web surfers for access to their lines. These profits are then invested in the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or upgrading the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows for the type of access and reach available today. Net Neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISP's infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they see fit. Net Neutrality is simply a call for private property violation.

The internet is not public property; it is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cables, and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for Net Neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under Net Neutrality must remain passive regarding how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This

It is important, in arguing any important topic, that it is presented well. Both my partner and I share serious concerns about the direction that the WoD is taking, and we both hope to see much more intelligent policy be implemented going forward. However, exactly because I agree with my partner on so many points, I would also like for him to present a strong case for this perspective – and so I am bound to offer criticisms that I feel will improve his argument in the future. To that end, I am noting the following items that I feel can be done better: “Drug use was not a problem before the 1960’s. Not much was known about cocaine. All around, there was no significant abuse of drugs. So no, there was no unacceptable level of human misery caused by drug abuse.”Here, my Partner attempts to show that there were no overdoses, accidents in the manufacture of narcotics, accidents involving the operation of automobiles or heavy machinery while under the influence, or any other significant or unacceptable pain caused by the use of dangerous narcotics that predate 1959. I believe that, despite the tepid and unconvincing statistics given, that this is an unsupported assertion. “Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt.”I may be required to concede that this point is true. I am in little position to authoritatively second guess this fact. However, it was offered within the context of reassuring me that the rates of usage of dangerous narcotics might increase as a result of ending the WoD, and that there are very likely cases in which the harmful effects of these narcotics was prevented by the WoD. It is therefore somewhat nonsensical as a response. A stronger point is made when he points out that drug use has increased since the WoD has been conducted in earnest. Unfortunately, this is another unsupported assertion; no evidence is given that clearly demonstrates that this increased usage was positively caused by the WoD. In other words, this could be a convincing argument, which would require that I concede the point or lose credibility. First, however, my partner must provide convincing supporting evidence that definitively demonstrates causation. No such evidence is offered. “I can walk outside and obtain a considerable amount of marijuana, MDMA, or LSD within 15 minutes. With this, I feel that discontinuing the War on Drugs would, for the most part, not increase the amount of users.”This is a compelling personal story, but is too small a study to represent a representative sample of the overall population. Again, while I accept that it is my partner’s earned opinion that drug use would not increase as a result of removing preventative drug laws, it is also unsupported by convincing evidence. We require this evidence in order to force a supporter of the WoD to admit that they have made an error. My partner repeats several times that “drug use will not increase if that use is made legal.” This mirrors accurately that assertion that “The WoD is not reducing the use of dangerous narcotics.” However, it is everywhere unsupported by convincing data. Since so many of his key points, critical to building his case, rely on this argument, I am required to examine it a little more closely. “Drug use will not increase if drug laws are eliminated.” Or, “The existence of drug laws do not affect drug use.”This argument requires that we believe that: “Laws do not affect human behavior.” Since, after all, my partner has not explained why drug laws should be seen in any different light than other legal requirements. For his argument to work, then, he will need to also make the case that laws in general do not work – that people are no more, (or less,) likely to stop at busy intersections if there are (or are not,) red lights positioned at those intersections. Or, he would be required to demonstrate how laws regulating the manufacture, sale, or use of narcotics are significantly different than other laws – or perhaps how drug users are less likely to be governable under any circumstances. This is key, so I will elaborate: Many of my partner’s arguments hinge on the fact that “laws do not work” as related to drug users, makers, distributors, etc. This begs the question: Why not? If he is arguing that drugs create an inability for society to govern its members, then the WoD is essential for societal governance. “Criminalizing drugs puts non-violent dealers in a bad position. The government creates negative situations for small-time users and dealers for no good reason. Similarly the War puts cartels in a like position.”This argument reduces to “Criminal penalties harm those who commit criminal acts.” It is understood that penalties for illegal actions will be incurred by those who are found to have committed them. To be convincing, we are required to evaluate why a certain action is harmless. In order to demonstrate that drug use is “harmless,” my partner will be required to do something that is obviously impossible. “I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference. Cartels still laugh with their massive profits. Though the DEA may get drug busts every now and then, it is a hopeless effort. In the long run any individual bust is rendered useless. Law enforcement is wasting man hours and lives for no reasonable gain. They could be fighting violent crimes. The cons of the War greatly outweigh the pros.” This is a mixture of hyperbole and unsupported assertions. In order to make this argument, my partner will be required to make the absurd claim that absolutely nothing good has ever, or can ever, result from any attempt to regulate, restrict, control or prohibit the manufacture, sale or use of any ingestible substance. This is in stark contrast to my argument, which is that the WoD should be improved, but all attempts to regulate drug sale, manufacture and use in the US should not be abandoned. Consider his argument, which I reduce to: “There has been no level of success with any drug laws, and no drug laws can ever prove to be a benefit to society under any circumstances. All such laws would increase drug use, and reduce police protections and waste tax dollars.”To demonstrate the wild, undisciplined rhetoric that is being used here, I will point out that my partner has indicated that there has been no level of success in the WoD (“I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference.”) Then later, he points out that, “The cons of the War greatly outweigh the pros.” Clearly, if there are any ‘Pros’ at all, then his earlier statement must be untrue. This is evidence of hyperbole, in my opinion. My partner also points out that the penalties for minor drug offenses are too severe, and that these limit the earning potential of persons thereby convicted. Here, he is exactly correct – and he makes a somewhat convincing case for why we should modify our laws that criminalize less dangerous intoxicants. I would like to see him elaborate on this point, as I feel that it is his only strong defense. These rebuttals can be summarized as follows: 1. Laws cannot govern drug users2. The WoD cannot reduce drug use Both of these statements are unsupported by any evidence, and actually argue in favor of the WoD: if “laws cannot govern drug abusers,” then preventing that abuse from occurring in the first place is essential for societal governance. Therefore, good governance requires that we support the modification of the WoD, but not it's complete abandonment. Therefore, the WoD cannot be considered a "failure."

Rebuttal My opponent makes three points, all based around his main point that "prejudice is not justified in any sense. " What he fails to take into account, however, especially when he writes about the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act is that these are legislative policies coming from the State, for the State. They are public laws−laws that should not apply to private businesses. Take the following syllogism: 1. Business owners should make decisions for their business. 2. The act of employment in their business is a decision for their business. 3. Therefore, business owners should decide employment. I will now defend each of these in a "sub-point" as my opponent has done: Business owners should make decisions for their business I don't see much of an argument here, it is quite intuitive. Business owners should be the only people making decisions regarding their business. The FDA and other government regulative departments are only necessary because they ensure safety and security.1 However, within businesses, it is the responsibility of the owners to manage the business and its affairs, including finance. By regulating a business (in non-safety and non-security matters), the government is effectively making a decision for them, cutting into potential profit and earnings that would rightfully be theirs. It is for this reason that business owners should be the only entity making decisions regarding their business. Success or failure should be determined within the business, by the quality of the management’s decisions. The act of employment in their business is a decision for their business Deciding who to employ is a very tricky process and should be left to the business owners to handle. Who the owner decides to hire is the owner’s decision, even if this decision is made solely on non-business matters. It is their business, their time and effort, and their profit; it is harmful to the business, to the free market, and to liberty in general to determine for someone else who they should employ and under what conditions. Leave it to the owner – leave it to the management, the entrepreneur who took a risk, to decide whether his business succeeds or fails. If you interfere with his decisions, you are interfering with his income. Therefore, business owners should decide employment This is the natural conclusion from my last two points. Businesses are in the private sector;2 thus, it should not be regulated by the state, especially on the basis of something as controversial and subjective as morality. If the business owner wishes to hire by which potential employee is the most attractive, let him do so. If the business owner wishes to hire by which potential employee has the most merit, by which he likes the most, or by who has served in the military, let him do so. It is his private business, his source of income, and to interfere with his decisions regarding his business is dishonest and unfair. Sources 1. . http://goo.gl... 2. . http://goo.gl...

I am Sorry for my Absense I lost track of the day count(I know a bad excuse but a true one) First of all My opponent proposed no criterion or core value and so mine are seen to stand. First point. My opponent gives the Cannibals and the missionary example. This is irrelevant because the cannibals are not necessarily felons and second in such a situation disfranchisement wouldn't exist because there are no laws. there is also no evidence the vote would be in favor of the missionary. 2nd: the only thing that makes the citizen of a democratic government different from a despotic one is the right to vote. Furthermore this debate does not concern what is currently being done but as to what we should do. So the constitution is irrelevant. re-build my own case (refutation of Marshall quote) I am Not suggesting they are equal but merely they get representation. If we disenfranchisethem we are turning what was once a two way street into a one way street. They are also paying or have paid there debt and further punishment hinders the rehabilitative efforts of society. Also the recidivism point is merely speculation without factual evidence and therefore is irrelevant. 2nd contention The point proposed by my opponent it simply un-democratic. It is turning towards Oligarchy which is, of course, not democratic and therefore denys justice 3rd contention My opponent is merely speculating with the recidivism rates and again therefore those statistics must be thrown out. Also if we were to include those who had not been caught we must consider all non-felons who may have commited a crime and advocate disenfranching them??? this destroys democracy not preserves it. Second the thought process used in felony and the thought process used in voting are entirely different things. Also the fact politicians would play to felons. this is infact not true, not politician would run a capmaign in prisons for the reason my opponent stated, cost. Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of the prison system is, ultimately, rehabilitation or deterrence from furhter crime. Felon disenfranchisement it nither and therefore overkill to the criminal justice system. again in a democratic society there is no such thing as a bad vote or else it would be moving away from democracy While this story is unfortunate it does not prove that felons disenfranchisement is warranted. It simply says felons ought to be punished. That is what the prison system is for and disenfranchisement does not solve the given situation. Because felons are required things of society they must be given all the rights of society and, therefore must vote. If they need government aid this is often times the fault of society for labeling them and not the fault of the felons themselves. Therefore in intrests of preserving democracy the resolution should be affirmed

Unfortunately, my opponent (the negation/con) has not given any points or a case at all in this debate for the affirmative to refute. Therefore my opponent has no case to build upon. I would still like to encourage my opponent to post a refutation in this round of my case to at least keep this debate going, and then I would like to still end with a rebuild and summary statements in the fourth round. But, because my opponent has no case or points while the affirmative/pro has given points to this resolution, I urge you to vote in affirmation/pro of this debate. I am also looking forward to the negation/con's refutations within this round.

In the United States Prostitution should be legal. There are three main reasons I have for making this claim: 1) Our government should not be allowed to dictate a persons motivations for engaging in intercourse. 2) People in American society should have the right to do anything they wish to do, so long as no other person is harmed. Excepting harms caused solely by the existence of the laws prohibiting prostitution, no person is being harmed by the practice of prostitution. 3) Laws regarding prostitution have no basis other than religion. Our Supreme Court has ruled, and our Constitution states, that religion and government should never mix. Therefore laws regarding prostitution, should not exist.

Thank you for the response. This is the last round so I shall be making my refutations and restating my arguments and telling why I believe that the Opposition has won this debate. Refutations "He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed." This is because my opponent's counter-argument had no relation to the children of illegal immigrants. The argument he presented was simply about illegal immigrants in general, but not the children. I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that. "I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?" They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants like to have children in the United States because they automatically become legal citizens that can help their parents become citizens quickly. That's a benefit that attracts illegal here to have children. If the law is repealed, then illegal immigrants will not have children here. And if those children want to become American citizens, then they can when the become young adults or even older. "CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate." I have constantly stated a point that my opponent seems to ignore and not bother with. Wouldn't an immigrant, who worked hard to wait in the lines and learn about American history, who feels honored to even have the opportunity to become a legal citizen, wouldn't he feel angered that a child of an illegal immigrant, a bad person, could automatically be born as a citizen? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. That makes little to no sense in any circumstance. As I mentioned in the 2nd round, a Rasmussen poll found that more of the United States is against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than those who support. Clearly, the true, legal citizens of the US have their own concerns. "How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship (citizenship) evens means, what else would you have them do?" By repealing the birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. That's one of the main reasons why illegals have children here. For the free citizenship. Now, about the child become a legal citizen. A child could not live by himself/herself, meaning there must be an illegal parent in the picture. The parent should then, as an illegal, get citizenship for herself and the child, or pack up and leave or suffer consequences, seeing as they are on our United States soil illegally. "CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment." The Alien and Seditions Act had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. The act was about the power and right of the President to be able to deport any resident alien that could be potentially dangerous to the US, the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, and that it is a crime to publish false writing against the government and its officials [1]. What similar argument is there? Jefferson argued stating that it violated the 10th Amendment, where power is reserved to the people [2], legal citizens, not illegals. How does this have any relevance in any way? My opponent refutes my argument that birthright citizenship is outdated because back then there was a time of less immigration. He continues to support his refutation with two percentages. One stating that in 1990, the foreign-born population of the US was 8.5%. From 1860 to 1940, it was above 13 percent. Now, percentages can always be deceiving. Just because in 1990 the foreign population was 8.5% doesn't mean that there was fewer immigrants. Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people [3]. Back then, I'm not even sure there WERE that many people in the US. "Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else." How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test. "I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys." They would return to their family and get true citizenship at an older age when they can care for themselves. "CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. " I've never known those words and thank you for adding that to my vocabulary. Anyway, isn't this a democratic republic? The people have spoken and they want these birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ended. What happened to the 10th amendment that Jefferson defended? Don't the people have power? "But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States." If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams? "Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants." Well, that's what we're currently arguing and the topic has been brought up again, so I don't see the argument here. Arguments My opponent has constantly repeated that I have no actual reason to repeal the 14th amendment. I will try to make these points as clear as possible. 1. Birthright citizenship is unfair to the current legal citizens who worked hard for their citizenship. 2. We should not be rewarding the illegals with citizenship for their child. 3. Citizenship is something that should be earned. 4. It encourages illegal parents to have a child in the US. 5. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a time of less illegal immigration. For these arguments, CON should win this debate. I congratulate my opponent on good arguments and excellent vocabulary and near perfect spelling. Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.infoplease.com...

You are just restating something you already said, and, was rebutted. I am still awaiting your rebuttals.

.. Two rules too: 1. ) Do not disrespect anybody. I don't want to waste my time with people saying things like 'Obama sucks'. You are entitled to your opinion, but this debate is attacking/defending POLICY ONLY. 2. ) Please back up everything with sources clearly labelled. Like this: Rebuts opponents argument. 1. ) argument, makes a point 2. ) argument, makes a point SOURCES 1. ) www. google. com 2. ) peta. org i just randomly made up the pages, but you get the idea. Source 1 backs up info in Argument 1. And (obviously) you are not limited to 2 arguments. By accepting the challenge, you are agreeing to these two rules.

True, true. I acknowledged that in my last point, however, forgot it in my begining. My apologies.Interesting. You state that you are "one of those technicians." My question to you is:1) Your profile differs. It states that your occupation is "Artist," and that you are "just on this thing while drinking beer." A technician certainly wouldn't do either of those things at the place at which he works.2) Your round one argument seemed to state that you were apologetic to the issue at hand. You state, "Sorry about that" twice in your argument, making me think that you do want to fix the problem. 3) You speak of "our technicians." If you are truely one of the technicians, why speak this way? It is as if I were to state, "Sorry about that. Our students have been notified," when speaking of myself. Not only is it unnatural, but it throws shadow upon your case, as it hinges upon your occupation and your reason to work. I await your response.

You spend so much money buying a computer, routers, and monthly internet usage. You would think that's all you have to spend it on, yet there's millions of hackers and viruses on the computer that might come to your computer without your permission and completely mess up for hard drive, it's bad enough you have to suffer that, but on top of it, buy an anti virus program to protect your computer. how fair is that? shouldn't the internet be automatically filtered for this stuff to protect users? instead of having their ultimate goal keeping users protected, their job and living expenses is counted on people getting viruses. f there were no more viruses, those companies would go out of business... so their aim is to keep viruses on the internet, right? really think about it; what loser just lives to make viruses and Trojan spy-ware? who is just that out of a life? the only person viruses benefit is the anti virus companies that "protect" users. if no one was being affected, why would anyone buy the programs? the internet should be remodeled in a safer and more organized way, but that's out of the question, what at least should be done is to stop the virus makers instead of focusing only on "protecting users" rebuttals are accepted :)


Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

We should reconsider the necessity of homework!
Initially, it's crucial to examine three points supporting the idea that homework is beneficial and should persist in contemporary educational settings. Firstly, homework is advantageous for practical learners. It's widely acknowledged that learners can be categorized into three types: auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. While some are content with hearing or seeing the instruction of a subject, others require hands-on experience. Thus, homework is beneficial for the latter group as it facilitates learning through action. Secondly, homework reinforces learning. Although many students may be thrilled without homework, the quality of education would undoubtedly decline without it. Whether it's assigned reading, essays, or other tasks, they are designed to reinforce the instruction in students' minds. After all, students who complete their homework tend to be more academically successful than those who don't. This is a self-evident truth. Thirdly, homework prepares students for real-life demands. After high school, graduates typically have two paths: college or work. Both paths require assignments and deadlines, and professors or bosses expect them to be completed. Having completed homework with deadlines before, graduates are accustomed to these demands and are more likely to succeed. However, without homework, students may be unfamiliar with long-term assignments and deadlines.
Now, let's address the opposing arguments. Firstly, the claim that checking homework takes up valuable class time is false. Instructors typically grade homework outside of class, and class time is seldom affected by grading homework. Secondly, while it's true that children have shorter attention spans than adults, homework is tailored to their ability to perform. If a teacher knows that a student can only focus for a certain amount of time before becoming distracted, they will not assign more than the student can handle. Ideally, if the workload is too heavy, the student and their parents will complain, and the instructor or principal will correct the problem. Finally, the argument that homework takes away from family time is ironic. The length of school days is the primary culprit, not homework. If a student is diligent, there is still ample time for familial interaction. Moreover, many students prefer to engage in activities like playing video games rather than socializing with their families. In conclusion, homework is beneficial, even if it's occasionally misused.

I agree mostly with what my opponent says in his first paragragh OUTSIDE of a school environment. You need to encode the information into long term memory because they won't let you make a google search on your exams. My opponent argues that you can store information in the digital realm so you can access it after your time in school is over. If your incredibly concerned with being able to have access to your 10th grade history class twenty years down the line then this argument is completely valid. However, most people are more concerned with getting high marks on their exams which requires mnemonic encoding. 1. if you lose focus on the lecture and you find yourself without an answer, chances are your class has assigned homework. if you find yourself without an answer on the homework you can look up the answer and incorporate it into the notes thus facilitating encoding. 2. yes, you can print the paper but if you learned it on the computer attempting to encode it on paper will still be more difficult. And I'm not saying that computerized learning has no meritorious traits. Simply that there needs to be a balance to ensure the most efficient learning. 3. It's not the right of the university to track the movements of its students. it's invasive. At work you can sign a contract. I wouldn't want my workplace to track my location either. This point is one of the smaller ones in both of our cases. 4. I believe these websites are great tools to facilitate learning as a supplement to what was taught in a lecture. to enforce this method of learning upon all students when many learn best from face to face instruction would defeat the purpose of these learning supplements. 5 again. these apps could be used as a supplement to learning and could be used to drill information that has already been encoded to increase the ease of access by drilling synaptic pathways. 6.7. Again, since you won't have access to google on the exam you will need the information encoded into long term memory as a result face to face communication is the best known methodology for facilitating encoding. What's actually driving up tuition are the redundant administrative positions that are growing in number. not hiring professors. but that's a debate for another day. 8. I don't think we were on the same page for the first part of this. For getting help from the teacher I was referring more to High school. Tutors were more for college. Having an online community to help you would be beneficial as long as it was used as a supplement to what was taught in the lecture. Information must first be encoded into long term memory in the lecture, then it may be supplemented with whatever means work best for you.

My argument against home-schooling is mainly with the quality of the education. There is no real set of checks and balances in place (outside of taking the SAT's) to ensure the quality of what is being taught. I had a friend that was home-schooled, not because his family was religious (the most common reason) but because they knew that was the only way he would get a high school diploma. As a nation the US has fallen far behind other developed nations in the area of education. This is a time when we should be raising the bar for education, not letting people teach their kids that the world is 6000 years old and we rode around on dinosaurs at on time. Home-schooling also limits the colleges that a student may apply and attend. Most private colleges will not accept a HS diploma that was earned at home, and for very good reason. My argument remains that until one can guarantee the quality of the education received home-schooling shouldn't be allowed.

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.

Rebuttals 1.Grades create stress Great. Recent research that suggests stress has many benefits. Moderate stress can lead to cell growth in the brain’s learning centers In this 2013 study out of University of California, Berkeley, adult rats were immobilized in a small space for three hours or left unchanged. Two days and then two weeks later, the rats were given a fear-conditioning test, which evaluates the rats freezing or avoidance behavior when in a context that last lead to a negative consequence such as a shock. The measure is known as ‘fear extinction memory.’ The immobilized rats showed an increased level of the stress hormone corticosterone (the rat equivalent of cortisol in humans) as well as an increased growth of neural stem cells in their hippocampus, an important learning center of the brain. As compared to the control group, these rats had similar results on the fear extinction memory test given two days after the initial stressor, but showed significant improvement on the test after two weeks. The authors put fourth that these newly proliferated cells, after taking multiple days to integrate to fullest capacity, helped in learning at this improved level. Overall, it suggests that moderate levels of stress enhanced neural function and learning. Source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. Feed back. As I stated in my opening case. 3.Grades provide feedback to the student Students might *feel* that they understand the material or that they are learning. However, that subjective feeling must be tested by some objective, external measurement. A student that *thinks* has learned the material may have a rude awakening when he takes a quiz and scores 20/100. Without this external feedback, the student would never know whether he truly understood. Psychological studies have found that all people have a natural bias to believe that they are above average. For students, this translates to most students believing that they have above average knowledge of the subject matter. Without external feedback to dissipate this bias, students that don't really understand the material would not realize that they need to study more or harder. 7. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is mainly a case against standardized tests however a creative piece of writing may also be graded according to a rubric which may make student work harder to accomplish everything in the rubric and get a high grade. Tests may foster rote memorization but not grades. 8. Again grades provide the student something to work towards perhaps the student doesn’t want to learn but the fear of failing encourages him and makes him finish the 5 problems which in turn may make him interested in the subject. 9. Students working for a grade view knowledge as something that must be internalized in order to achieve a high mark, instead of something that can be intriguing when discussed and grappled with. Again this has to do with issues in TESTS and not grades. Tests perhaps should be given in different formats to encourage more critical thinking or have a class discussion which is also graded. For example I have had class discussions that have been graded. 4. However they are still learning and without grades they would not WANT to learn at all without that extrinsic motivator they may not do any work or learn anything at all but with grades they are still learning even if indirectly Furthermore education is ultimately utilitarian. 1.Grades give immediate gratification for hard work & and something tangible to work towards… Grades provide gratification for hard work. As pro pointed out ” People do better in life if they can work towards a more concrete, important goal further down the road” For many people GRADES provide that goal to work towards. 2.2.Efficiency Not only are grades beneficial for students but also teachers greatly benefit from qualitatively quantifying the performance of students. For example letter grading systems provides teachers with concrete and effeicent ways of evaluating mastery of course content by students. Furthermore if a high school student applies to college, one major factor that the admissions office consider are grades. When college students apply to graduate school, the admissions office again considers grades. When students apply for a job, the employer considers the students grades. Without grades, post-secondary schools and employers will have no way to know whether the student learned the material well or badly. Employers would obviously prefer to hire computer programmers and lawyers who achieved top grades rather than those that received the worst grades because top grades are a proxy for learning. The students with the best grades learned the material better than the other students and are therefore likely to make better workers. UC Santa Cruz, for example, used to have a holistic rating system, where each student merely received an "essay" as feedback from each professor. The campus switched to grades so that graduate schools would have some legitimate way to measure students' performance (against each other and against other students from other schools). As pro pointed out. Grades allow educators to make clear and informed decisions. This benefits EDUCATION. “educators are helped to make decisions” 4. 4. The educational system would crumble without grades. My opponent would have to offer a rival educational system without grades. It is incoherent to talk about whether a student has learned a certain subject matter, without somehow grading their knowledge. Without some tangible form of knowledge, any attempt of a student or teacher to figure out how much a student had learned would be nothing more than a subjective guess based on cognitive bias (such as a teacher saying that students who he or she liked "knew" the material better). Without grades, students that did not talk much during class would likely be marginalized because the teacher would assume they had not learned anything. Thus, I negate the resolution and argue that grades are on the whole necessary and beneficial and the educational system is better with them. Since an essay will be graded according to a rubric if a student met those goals within the rubric the teacher has no choice but to assign the grade deserved.

I'd like to say I'm glad that you're not trying to be rude. In the following argument, if anything is perceived as rude, I am not trying to be, just like you said. Anything that seems insulting honestly isn't, because I see that we are both trying to be mature about this, and I respect that. It's not always easy to find on a website like this. I disagree that the wording is awful- I just didn't go into description. When I said "School sports are taking up too much time" I meant that we are arguing about how much time kids have to do it. I wasn't focusing solely on the sport itself- I was talking about a sport participant's personal time (meaning sports are taking too much time in their personal life). Were you ignorant on this topic? The reason I did not provide statistics was because I supposed the debate was not going to continue. If we both agree that our points were "bad and atrocious" (I don't think mine are, and I'm sure you don't think yours are), I'm sure we can agree to disagree. It's only fair, of course. I thought of "Kids should be able to handle the time consumption. It is their choice to quit. Sports are a good way to use time- they can help a child stay healthy" as something that was describing my argument- that sports were not taking up too much time (it was explaining why they should continue, which was describing continuing, which was describing the sports, which I am fighting for. I suppose that is an argument in the past, so we can put that behind us). Now I suppose we can get back to just arguing points. I will argue your points and I will also state my own. Arguing Opponent's Points: 1. "Kids won't do their homework." I think that if sports are taking up a kid's homework time, they should be punished. I do not think that this is a reason that it takes up too much time. Many students can find time. There are ways that they an be punished for not doing their homework that isn't making them quit sports. They can find time to do their homework. In fact, many schools have study halls- some even let students have an extra study hall in place of P.E. or another additional activity. They can also find time to do their homework on days they don't have sports (because they don't have it every day, and if they did that would be solved by the school, because they can solve it interfering with schoolwork), such as going to school on the weekends (or if they're at home, they can do it there). My Points: 1. Sports can actually help students with school. Let me explain. How many kids have had problems because of social issues at school? A lot- so many you can't count. Think about it. Sports are an excellent way to find new friends and bond with teammates. This will help a student make friends, which is a social problem solved. 2. Sports can help a student make friend, which can stop bullying. Many students think that they are alone in bullying. With a friend, they can have someone support them. I get that you were not trying to offend me. We're okay on that now. Instead of saying attack, maybe we can use terms such as argue? It would seem more friendly if, say, instead of saying "You're arguments are bad" we could say "I don't agree with them." Hopefully we can both agree to be friendly while arguing! To readers: I think you should vote for my (con) side because I thought I had very valid arguments. There are no problems and we can continue this debate in a friendly, non-offensive way! :-) Go Con Side!

Thank you. Nice to be debating you too! Opening Arguments Only!!!!! Whether you home school your kids or put them in a government provided (public) school is an option you as a parent may decide as one of our precious freedoms that we as Americans have. How do you decide on which environment is better for your children to grow up in? Here are some interesting facts I have found when researching home school.•Children who are home schooled "... may be more socially mature and have better leadership skills than other children ..." - Richard G. Medlin, Ph.D. (NHERI)•Recent studies demonstrate that 98% of home taught children are involved in two or more social/community beyond the home each week, including such things as 4-H, Bible Clubs, Scouts, Ballet Classes, Music Lessons, Sports, Field Trips and Sunday School.•The Galloway-Sutton Study, which examines five success indicators, showed home schooled children (with the exception of the psychomotor) excelling above other students in the academic, cognitive, spiritual and affective-social categories.•On average, home school students, grades 1–4, perform one grade level above their public and private school counterparts. The achievement gap grows in grade 5; by 8th grade the average home school student performs four grades higher than the national average. (SADC)•Students who have been home schooled their entire academic lives have the highest scholastic achievement. The difference is more pronounced during the higher grades; students who home school throughout high school continue to flourish while in that environment. (SADC)•Kate Grossman, Chicago Sun-Times reported noted, "The number of homeschoolers receiving National Merit Scholarships has increased more than 500 percent: from 21 in 1995 to 129 in 2003." (HSLDA)Not only does home school help a child succeed socially and academically but it also provides them with a secure stable educational environment and does not force them to face peer pressure, sex, drugs, bullies, and all other immoral things the secular world has to often. Although they may face it in the future, It is proved that if faced with these these things while the child is still ageing, they are almost 6 times as likely to give in as if they were faced with it as an adult.Home school gives parents more say in how their children grow up, and what kinds of things they are exposed to. It also gives more Religious Freedom. Many families feel their religious and spiritual beliefs are an important part of who they are. Home schooling provides the opportunity for parents to incorporate their beliefs into their daily lives.Well-Rested Kids. As more and more studies are illustrating, sleep is vital to the emotional and physical well-being of kids, especially teens and preteens. The effects of early morning classes can be devastating to many children, especially those who are not morning people. After realizing that lack of sleep and hours of busywork often left her boy in a zombie-like stupor, Haya has decided to try home schooling: "My oldest (age 13), is up at 6:30 in order to catch the bus at 7:15 and start school at 7:30. He comes home at 3:00 and does homework — sometimes until midnight. He's often exhausted. I'm hoping that when we home school next year, the dark circles under his eyes will disappear and his real personality will emerge again."This also provides parents with a better schedule as they don't have to work around the public school schedule and are free to go on vacation or go to public places during the week where otherwise it would be prohibited or discouraged.Hopefully, in my argument I have disproved the false theories that home schooled children lack academic and social skills and home schooling is far fetched for the average family.I am interested in Cons point of view. Remember this round is only for opening arguments. You may rebuttal in the next round. Thank You!!!!

I agree with you, the grading system is a joke; children experience too much stress as a result of it especially when given too much homework. A lot of times I'd to do the bare minimum due to the amount I had, so it was pointless being graded every time. The combination of too much homework and grading can cause students to lose interest. However, the reason why children are so anti-homework is because they want to avoid being told off. They simply don't understand that it is for their benefit. By being given a grade they can see how well they are doing, and can know how much more effort is required to get the final grade they seek. If grades were simply abolished, no-one would take homework seriously. The solution is to give students the option to get their homework graded by putting a sticker inside their book, or to place their work in a separate pile. They deserve respect. The only subject where grades should be compulsory is Maths because grading is mathematical, and a maths teacher can get students excited about getting their homework graded. I think most children would want their homework graded if they knew it was for their benefit, if they got low grades they would be more likely to ask for help. I look forward to your response

I must disagree. Teachers give us homework to sharpen our skills with the topic we learned. To help us understand the lesson. That is why they give us homework. Because they do not have time to make sure that they have the lesson well taught and well learned for everyone. With my prior example, the teacher can make sure that everyone understands the material that is being taught. I am not sure what my opponent's point was with trying to learn 4 lessons of physics in around 30 minutes was. If he is being sarcastic I have no idea. Long periods are beneficial to society as well as the education system as a whole. And actually, let us see what happens to bully rates when the school hours increase. I am willing to bet that they will decrease. The answer to that is very simple when you look at the root cause for bullying. Why does it occur? If you increase school hours, and they reduce stress on the bully, he will not need to hurt a kid to express himself from all the stress he is under. I am not saying to increase the amount of time outside of class. I am saying to increase the amount of time in class, so that students can have a better chance of learning the material. Less wearing uniforms? This is not true for all schools. Thus, that is a school topic for a debate, not a nation-wide topic such as the school hours. Thanks for the debate. Good job! You made some good points in the debate. Although, the insults were a little much. And since you like Halo, check out the debate with me on the topic Battlefield takes more skill than Halo! Ill cya round!

Argument Convenience: Some times it is much more convenient for parents and kids to be homeschooled. For example what if a family moves around a lot, for some reason such as one of the parents career. The parents might want their kids to be homeschooled so that they don’t have to change schools so often. If a kid has social problems, mental problems, or physical problems the parents might not want him to go to a school. Or what if a kid has problems that the parents know would cause him to be unpopular and made fun of at school. What if the kid gets bullied a lot and hates his life, and hates going to school. Being home schooled my whole life I have met many other home schoolers. I have met or seen kids with mental or social problems, but I find them to often be happy, and actually liked by others. Finance: If parents don’t want their kid/kids going to a public school, because of what is being taught their or for some other reason, private schools might be too expensive. I have been home schooled my whole life, I am currently in two co-ops. This is my first year in a co-op. The idea that home schooled kids don’t get enough socializing is for the most part bogus. I know and have known lots of home schooled kids and none of them appear to have that problem. Besides if a kid thinks he is not meeting enough other kids, that problem can be easily fixed. He can simply stop being home schooled and go to a school. Or he could join a co-op which are way cheaper than schools and are sometimes even free. Home schooled kids have a good reputation of being smart people. I get mostly B’s or A’s, but for some reason home schoolers generally get good or average grades. Like my sister who is in the honors program at her college :) Of course many kids who go to school get good grades too. But the point is being homeschooled does not mean your education is going not going to be as good.

I think that kids are getting way to much homework kids spend most of their days at school and don't need that extra stress on them. they are already waking up at 7:00 or 8:00 and going to school stay there for up to 7 hours and then only have a few hours with their family but if they are given homework that makes spending time with your family shorter. now i want you guys that are disagreeing with me to think about this would you rather spend time with your family or spend time doing homework.


Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

Students shouldn’t be burdened with excessive homework. While it’s true that homework can be duplicated, this is often a result of the assignments being overly lengthy. Homework can indeed aid in comprehending a topic and enhancing one’s understanding of the subject matter. Consequently, homework can be advantageous to learning, provided it is of a manageable length to avoid undue stress.

Likewise, I have enjoyed our discussion as well. I believe there have been some very good points called to my attention. I appreciate the clarification of the word "creating", without the proper defining of words it is easy for debates to become confusing and misunderstood. To answer your questions, I am willing to consider that schools have an impact on the mental health if a very clean study was done that eliminated as many variables as possible and recorded the amount of stress hormones released. If there was another round then I'd ask for a further explanation on what one means about the group project example. When you refer to home life in this example, does one mean that the home life was negatively impacting the student. If so then one couldn't necessarily say the student, that worked on it, would receive an "A". I believe that our argument now lies upon what we were originally arguing. I apologize for not starting off the argument by stating what exactly I meant, whether the American education system was the only thing negatively impacting students or if it simply played a part. For future arguments, I will keep this in mind, to first define the argument. Thank you for taking the time to debate this with me. I have learned a great deal from this debate and will use it to better my skills.

Studies have proved that teenagers get the least amount of sleep out of all people. With this being said starting school at a later time would allow teenagers to sleep a little more and be well rested for the day ahead of them. Most high school students on average have 3.5 hours of homework waiting for them when they get home. Also add in that most high school students have jobs and other responsibilities to deal with. With the time being set back an hour I feel that everyone would benefit from this, not just the students themselves.

Hi. This is a 3-round, 72 hour, 10,000 word limit polite conversation whether homeschooling is beneficial or not. If you believe homeschooling is detrimental, then I want to hear why. If you've been around enough, you know how this goes. For the new guys, welcome, and the pattern is traditionally "The first round is the challenge and acceptance, the second round consists of the main arguments, and everything else after that is rebuttals." This is my observation from this very site. If it is done differently for anyone else here, no problem.

homework is just a waste of time. we learn everything in school, so why should we do it at home. home is for family time and whenever we have homework it takes time away for you to spend with your families.

I disagee with you, because firstly,nowadays there is a continuous population growth, it is leading to overcrowded schools in many areas. This means that teachers are more overwhelmed than ever, often handling classes of 30-40 or more children at a time. Teachers are spreading themselves too thinly to provide personalized attention to children in their classes, which means your child may not receive the full benefit of their support. Your child's educational struggles are increasingly likely to go unaddressed, resulting in poor test scores and falling behind. When homeschooled, your kids will have your undivided attention. Any learning issues or bad behaviors can be addressed and corrected quickly, helping your child reach his or her full potential. Secondly, with homeschooling, your children can learn at their own speed. Combined with the personal attention offered by a homeschooling environment, many children who learn from home wind up ahead of the traditional educational schedule as homeschooling statistics confirm. This environment also helps parents incorporate subjects that might not be included in the local school's curriculum, such as foreign language. And finally, I think one of the best arguments in favor of homeschooling is the guarantee of your child's safety. Bullying, fights and other school violence become a non-issue when your child is educated from home. Homeschooling can also help you avoid all the problems that can result from school violence, including disciplinary actions, or, for example, trips to the school.

My argument is simply that technology is negatively affect our schools. Electronics are making kids lazy and inactive. I'm a witness of kids sitting on the sidelines on their hone not even walking around the field. I understand that you think technology is the best way. But it seems to me that you think kids should look up things in a quick search in order to be "more efficient", but wouldn't that make you lazy? Counting on a web search to give you all answers quickly? So you wont have to take time to research. We all rely on our electronics to be there for us all the time. If kids become (more) dependent on electronics, what happens if they suddenly just stop working. Books will be out dated nobody is using them. Everything is replaced with the devices. What do we do? We're counting on our leaders, who are relying on the electronic. Again what do we do? There is a book for any subject you want to know about. Are you saying that no one has made a book, article, etc that has the same information as Wikipedia, or Answer.com ?

School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework will reap great rewards such as a favourable test score or report card. Why are we posing such a ludicrous question about the possible abolishment of homework if doing homework is what it takes to succeed in school? It is a common emotion to students regarding the distaste of homework, but legions of teachers know better because they recognize the importance of homework in the success of students in school and outside of school. Not only does homework accomplishment benefit the student, it also benefits the teacher as well. Teachers receive the opportunity to see at what stage the student is by assigning homework. Furthermore, the teacher can identify the weaknesses of the student so they can ameliorate their study habits in hopes of pulling their grades up. On the other hand, if teachers were to abandon the idea of homework altogether, they would have to base the majority of the student's mark on tests alone. However, students fare much better in the homework column than the test column; otherwise, their marks would be lower Conclusively,that is the reason it should not be banned

Ok, I know that students can't get a job 15 or younger. I agree that 15 or younger shouldn't be allowed to get an after school job, but since that topic didn't mentioned the age, I assume that underage students are excluded.I agree that students should have an after school job because they can learn how to manage their time. They actually can learn the skills of how to spend their time wisely and not using homework as excuses.

I accept. Let's dissect the PRO's thinking. The obvious assumption of the PRO is this: Students drop out of the school because of the service learning hour requirement. However, if you look at data, this is not the case. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the top four reasons students drop out are: 1. Classes were not interesting (47 percent) 2. Missed too many days and could not catch up (43 percent) 3. Spent time with people who were not interested in school (42 percent) 4. Had too much freedom and not enough rules in my life (38 percent) (1) You probably noticed, but none of these included "service learning hours". In fact, Service Learning hours could help students graduate by: 1) Making school interesting (counters reason 1). They allow students to spend time on a project they are personally involved in and care about. There is nothing like passion to keep determination. 2) Spend time with motivated people (counters reason 3). By spending time with people who care about something and are motivated to see it though, students could, ideally, pick up some of that and change their attitude towards school. 3) Structure (counters reason 4). One reason students drop out is a lack of structure in their life. But volunteering on a fixed so-many-hours-a-week basis allows for a schedule outside of school--it gives them normalcy. This is especially true for students from dysfunctional homes. In conclusion, the PRO opening argument is invalid and, in fact Service Learning hours could help prevent dropouts. 1. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...

I've actually been reading a few debates on here about homeschooling vs public school education. Honestly, I actually think that the homeschoolers have some good points; being able to hand craft their children's education sounds awesome to me. I've also read some success stories on different sites about how their kids easily get high tests scores and go on to college. The ways and methods they used to help their children get there were really creative and actually gave me a few ideas....However, I don't believe homeschooling should have to mean taking the kids out of school at all. As for posting a con side, I honestly can't think of any points I could make. Most of the homeschoolers in the stories that I've read used outside classes/activities/curriculum to teach their kids, and so the children weren't even being taught at home or by their parents. The parents were mainly there to pick curriculum or structure routines for their children, they didn't really teach.