Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

Homework should be eliminated as a requirement for students.

Before I proceed with my arguments, it's crucial to clarify some terms to ensure a clear understanding.

Homework: It's an activity that students are required to complete outside of school hours, often independently, and it includes tasks related to their coursework.

Banned: It means to completely prohibit or eliminate homework as a requirement for students.

Homework has been a controversial topic for many years, with some arguing that it helps students develop essential skills such as time management, responsibility, and discipline. However, studies have shown that excessive homework can have adverse effects on students' well-being and academic performance.

Firstly, homework has been proven to be counterproductive. It causes unnecessary stress, anxiety, and confusion in students, leading to a decrease in motivation and a negative attitude towards school. Moreover, excessive homework can lead to sleep deprivation, which affects students' cognitive abilities and overall health. Younger students, in particular, have been shown to suffer from lower grades due to excessive homework, while older students experience minimal benefits.

Secondly, homework takes up valuable time that students could be using for other activities such as sports, socializing, and pursuing hobbies. The time spent on homework could be better used for rest and relaxation, which are essential for a healthy work-life balance. Additionally, homework can be a burden for teachers, who have to spend time grading assignments instead of focusing on lesson planning and creating engaging classroom experiences.

Lastly, homework can be too difficult or too easy, leading to a false sense of confidence or a lack of confidence in students. This can affect their performance in exams and assessments, leading to unnecessary stress and anxiety. Furthermore, homework can create a sense of competition among students, leading to a toxic environment that fosters a fear of failure rather than a love of learning.

In conclusion, homework should be banned to ensure that students have a healthy work-life balance, reduce stress and anxiety, and promote a love of learning. It's time to reevaluate the role of homework in education and prioritize the well-being and academic success of students.

Resolved: It would, on balance, be beneficial to reduce the amount of homework given in conjunction with an extension to the school day [see model below].Proposal: Have a strong reduction in homework, lengthen school to a 9-5 length day.RulesThe debate shall adhere to the following structure:Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, Resolution / Model Outline and DefinitionsRound 2: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals (see below on this)Round 3: New Arguments and RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments)The only rules I insists upon are the following, but I will accept any reasonable clarifications or amendments my opponent might choose to provide in Round 1, although clarification prior to acceptance is preferred.Arguments and source citations must appear within the four rounds of this debate only. Arguments and citations may not appear in offsite links, other debates, forums, or comments.Dropped arguments are not concessions. Arguments should be seen as whole units from opening to closing statements.Although R2 is not to be used for rebuttals, it is possible that my opponent’s arguments may lend themselves to countering mine naturally. This is allowed as it’s not a rebuttal per se. What I don’t want to see is a line by line refutation in round 2.All words are to take their standard definition. The only matter is what constitutes homework. A discussion of this is under the model outline section.To voters, please judge this debate based on this debate and not upon preconceptions you may have.Model Outline / Resolutional MattersWhile R1 is not for arguing, it’s critical to discuss the resolution and precisely what we’re debating on this contentious issue. Let me outline a few things that are to be taken as given barring reasonable amendments in round 1.ScopeThis debate is not limited to the US only. Also, the debate focuses primarily on a high school context as we might make exceptions for kindergarten students for instance.HomeworkI divide homework into 2 categories:1. Assignments / assessments / major projects2. Worksheets, maths exercises etc.We are discussing the elimination of type 2. Type 1 still exists, although in a perhaps reduced manner. The extended school day enables more learning (vs. homework) ; Con can dispute this if he wishes later.Timing / School logisticsLogistics, on the school level, is not meant to be a crucial issue in this debate – bureaucrats could probably resolve this matter. However, the school day would be reworked to accommodate a 9-5. My proposal is as follows:To accommodate the 2 hour extension to the school day an additional 20 minutes of rest / break, in the vein of lunch or morning tea, would be added. This would be added to the 20 minute morning tea and 40 minute lunch break typically found in schools (no negotiation on this – this is to be accepted) . That totals 80 minutes. Students retain their 40 minute lunch. 2 other 40 minute blocks would be scheduled into the day – one near the end of the day, one near the start. Students would choose which time block they wish to spend their free time (like choosing an elective; it’s a choice for the same duration that the same subjects are kept) in (40 minutes), and be in class for the other 40; yes, classes aside from this one retain their usual one hour length.Why the complexity? If students choose to have their free time in the later 40 minutes block, after all other classes, then they could leave school during this break. This is to accommodate extra-curricular activities and the like. More on this in round 2.A clarification To clear up 2 uncertainties from my previous debate, teaching will be as normal from 9-5 as per the model outline. On the scope, I’d prefer this remain to higher years where it’s more applicable – homework reduction + school extension doesn’t work if there’s no homework to reduce, as with younger students! However, I’ll say that all students go from 9-5. However, the amount of free time would be greater for younger students because the homework reduction associated with increased school time does not exist for them; this time is transferred to free time. Let’s not get bogged down on logistics though if possible. Weighing mechanismsThis is up for contention, to a point. One judges education reform based on what educational end (or ends) are desired. It is the debaters place to forward these ends, and have the voters judge policies as per which end they believe encapsulates the goal of education, or should encapsulate such a goal. The greatest overall good resulting from these policies is to be preferred when judging.More in later rounds if need be.A quick note on sourcingSome among you will have noted that some sections of this are eerily similar to this thread’s OP http://www.debate.org.... Before people scream plagiarism, I am that thread’s author. This idea had it’s genesis from http://www.debate.org... and I will later be borrowing on a quote from YYW in that thread (which I was a contributor to). Aside from not having to source these repeatedly, I’d recommend the audience read these threads for their own education (mind the pun) , especially the latter one. Also, I have done a partial debate on the subject, so I'll be using my round 2 arguments from http://www.debate.org...I thank whoever my opponent may be for this debate for agreeing to debate this subject. Let’s have an intellectually rigorous debate on this subject (I myself am undecided personally) and be civil and convivial. Voters, please read the debate in full and judge appropriately; we are in your debt for taking the time to read this debate readers.

"After revieweing the source you listed, turns out that they are the cerators of educational learning material and obviously they are going to make claims in the favor of their products."These are all independent studies that arent in any way linked to those who cerate school textbooks, try again. Also it doesnt help to criticize my sources when the only sources you ever give are just people speaking their own opinion...."If you actually think that someone is going to learn much more efficiently with boring text in a book.... I can't say you know what you're saying."So just because I disagree with you, that must mean that I dont know what im talking about? Spectacular conduct pro..."we should instead be shown everything we'll be learning with computer software and everyone can have visual and interactive learning opportunities....."So your alternative to reading boring text in cheap textbooks is to have students read the same kind of boring text on computers and expensive gadgets? Schools are already under a massive budget crunch and can barely afford to give students textbooks made 9 years ago, how the hell are they supposed to afford giving every student their own computer to do the exact same thing a textbook would give them?"I am currently in Gr.12 so I've experienced everything first hand and truth be told, my marks have been much better when its visual and interactive"Opinions =/= Definite facts pro...."Your given source is the supplier of our learning materials and we don't want them to be the ones who benefit from student education"Saying the same false statement over and over also doesnt make it true pro...."you're link also states textbook weaknesses and ways to overcome them, instead overcoming the problem, you should find a mroe efficient way entirly"And how exactly is it 'efficient' to spend money that schools dont have to avoid having a problem that can be easily fixed?http://www.ehow.com...;

to truthfully say how many people do their homework after memorizing and studying hard on the topic. What we actually do is search the internet or take help from elders. So no point in doing homework

Good afternoon. In today's case, I shall prove beyond the notion of a doubt that computers are more beneficial to education than books. Let us start by examining a few crucial definitions which I feel may present a problem in this debate (which are both provided by Merriam Webster's dictionary): Definition 1: Beneficial: 1 : conferring benefits : conducive to personal or social well-being 2 : receiving or entitling one to receive advantage, use, or benefit Definition 2: Education: 1 a: the action or process of educating or of being educated; also : a stage of such a process b: the knowledge and development resulting from an educational process 2: the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools. Observation: One must note that education isn't merely limited to schools; one can be educated without being involved with a formal institution. Furthermore, one is being educated when they are inheriting knowledge and developing mentally (as suggested by the definition). Any action which causes individuals to inherit knowledge and develop mentally is to be considered education during this debate. Onto to my arguments: CONTENTION 1) COMPUTERS HAVE THE INTERNET: a) Research: With it, students (or people who just wish to educate themselves) have been able to speedily gather information they wanted at their own leisure; one merely needs type in a brief description of the information (on a search engine or online database) which they need and in no time, they will have access to it. It is far more time consuming to go to a physical library, look for books that may POSSIBLY help out in research, and spend hours searching for pieces of information inside the countless pages of books. Clearly, when comparing both methods of research, one has the bigger advantage in using the Internet via computer. b) Interactivity: When using the Internet via computer, one has the ability to educate themselves by carrying out thought provoking discussions/debates with other individuals. This website is proof of that. Furthermore, online/offline games such as online/offline chess and checkers serve as means of developing oneself mentally as well as giving one knowledge of how to think tactically, hence are a means of education. This is yet another advantage which computers have other books as actions like these cannot even be performed via books. c) Films: Through using the Internet, one has the ability to watch entire films, as well as listen to radio clips. This is highly beneficial as there are many education films and radio clips. In fact, many of these are difficult to locate in the physical world, much less impossible to locate inside a book. Once more, a clear advantage which makes computers more beneficial to education than books. d) Updates: Whereas books can have their information updated every year or decade, Internet authors don't have to go through all the trouble of publishing and such and can update their information instantly. Thus, there is the potential for more accurate information when using the Internet via computer. e) Institutionalized classes (especially for colleges) can be taught via Internet, via computer. Many education institutions have classes that are strictly conducted through the Internet. This way, students who cannot afford to make it to the physical classes at the usual scheduled times or individuals who are disabled have a much easier time at attending class and being educated. Not that it needs to be said, but books possess no such advantage. Basically, the Internet provides significant advantages which books cannot even come close to reproducing or competing with when it comes to education. CONTENTION 2) COMPUTERS CAN STORE MORE INFORMATION THAN BOOKS: Whereas it may seem long for a book to possess thousands of pages, one computer has access to (and can hold) an exponential amount of information (in comparison). In fact, with the Internet, one computer can be more beneficial than one billion books combined. CONTENTION 3) DVD CAPABILITIES: One can purchase educational DVDs and watch them on their computer. This differs from previous film point as I was referring to films which had to be found on the Internet. In any case, yet another advantage which computers have over books when it comes to education. CONTENTION 4) CALCULATOR FUNCTIONS: Most computers come with Calculator software. As real world calculators benefit math students and mathematicians through making it easier and less time consuming to solve complex equations, computer calculators can do the same. Once more, and advantage which one doesn't have with a book. CONTENTION 5) WORD PROCESSOR: Through using a computer, one can work on their writing skills (hence educate themselves) a seemingly infinite number of times through using a word processor (whether it be Word pad, notepad, Microsoft word, etc). This can also benefit students who need to type out essays. Can this be done through a book? Of course not. For these reasons, a computer is obviously more beneficial to education than a book is (especially when it comes to self-education). We must note that although books were great educational tools of the past, they are (for the most post) vastly outdated when compared to the educational capabilities of a computer. Of course, there are more advantages which a computer has over a book, but I feel no need to mention them (not just because I've listed the primary advantages) as I guarantee you that my opponent will unknowingly end up exposing these other advantages when he presents his case. I now stand ready for CON's case/rebuttal.

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.

I would like to start of this debate by quoting your opening statement "The education system in the USA is actually very laid back compared to the rest of the world to the point that it's laughed at by many for its ridiculousness." That is totally irrelevant to this topic, because it has not much to do with this topic. The education system may be more difficult in other countries, but we are not talking about other countries, we are talking about the irregularity of assignments in my school system. Do you really think you could write an 18 page paper in one night? Most of us probably could do it in one night, but we want a grade better than a D on our paper. (Answering a question in the comments below) We cannot use any tricks to fool our teacher that would make out paper longer. She has been a teacher for a long time, and she would recognize any variation in the size. We are also not allowed to add pictures, if we do, we get points taken off. Any other tricks we try would also end in loss of points. I am offended that you would be so oblivious that you would say that we are just a bunch of lazy kids who want people to do everything for them. Most of us are straight A students, and we actually care about our grades compared to people who just do it all in one night. I'm sure many of us would be quite upset if someone wrote it for us. "You have such a sense of entitlement, but you haven't earned such." Interesting you would say that, its almost as you are contradicting yourself. You are actually the one with the sense of entitlement my friend, for you think you can just say that the youths of the USA are lazy and spoiled, without experiencing what we are going through. Very stereotypical.

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.

For many different reasons, there are parents out there who feel that public, or even private schools, aren"t the right environments for their children to thrive in education. People who feel strongly about this matter often opt to homeschool their kids. Firstly, you make the decision about what your children learn. You have total control over what subjects your children are learning. Secondly, you make the decisions about how your children learn. There is no way a school classroom can tailor its teaching style for each child. Yet each child differs. As a home schooling parent, you can teach your child in the style that best fits him or her, and you can tweak your teaching style as needed. Thirdly, you get to choose the curriculum. You can decide how many books, worksheets, crafts, and so forth that your student does. You can reject or accept aspects of various curricula and/or design your own. And finally, your child gets one-on-one instruction. Time and again, studies have shown that children learn well with individual instruction.

I believe that homeschooling is beneficial to the student, and by extension, the family, the state, and everyone else. Homeschooling is useful for those living in very rural areas, as it would be a waste of taxpayer money to establish a school there. By necessity, all education there is homeschooling. I'm lumping the hiring of a private tutor with homeschoooling, for the sake of the argument. Homeschooling is useful for those who wish to take more classes than their brick and mortar school will let them take, due to usage of timed class periods. Homeschooling lets me blast loud music in class and get away with it. I am homeschooled, and I found the k12 curriculum nothing less than satisfactory. Homeschooling saves on commute time. Homeschooling, especially with the k12 curriculum, has classes more challenging than the AP classes offered at a brick and mortar school, applicable in Capo Unified. To wit: The AP English Literature and Composition course offered at k12 has students going through such works as Hedda Gabler and A Streetcar Named Desire within two months. Capo Unified, to the best of my knowledge, does not offer these works in the first semester, or at all, for that matter. Homeschooling offers a far more flexible schedule, in terms of class times. If there are any live class sessions, that may be offered through the curriculum, or third party sources such as Blackboard, the student can be sipping soda while typing. No dress code. Wear pajamas to school day... every day. You get to wear headphones to class. No schoolyard bullies. You know what's in the food. I will freely admit that there are some drawbacks to homeschooling. You don't get out much. This can be remedied by such activities and groups as Scouting, varsity teams, youth groups, and the Internet. Building on the above, it's hard to be a good boyfriend/girlfriend to somebody in a brick and mortar school because you can't always be there for them. This crippled me when I was having a bad case of hormones. Building on the above again, it's hard to have friends that you don't see a lot. The youth groups and such go a long way to alleviate that. You may become distant from people you once knew. You stand a good chance of being some sort of villain later if this happens. This may or may not be a bad thing, because you probably get all the cool costumes, good lines, and an army of fans who think you're awesome. In short, homeschooling is an excellent alternative to brick-and-mortar schooling. While it is not for everyone, it is a net benefit to all involved. Thank you, good night.

I will go about this by first introducing my case, then attacking my opponents all in this round. My opponent didn’t say yes or no to my format, so I will just follow his format as best as possible. My Case:Contention 1: Price. Research shows that most parents who homeschool their children spend less than $600 whereas public school parents spend an average of $10,000 per year. It is also shown that even though less money is spent, each homeschooled child outperforms the average public school student by about 30 percentile points. Contention 2: More Time to Pursue Interests. As soon as school is over, the children can immediately go to whatever they want. There is no traveling to get home and waste a lot of time. One can dance, or learn music. They don’t have to wait to get home, put away all their stuff because it is right there. Contention 3: No Bullies. At most schools, there are bullies. But in homeschool, the teacher almost always is watching the kids. And even if there is more than one kid, if anyone is being bullied, the teacher/instructor will easily find out. The kids don’t have to endure the teasing that happens in a normal school. Contention 4: Curriculum. When children are homeschooled, the teacher gets to choose the curriculum. Most times the curriculum is higher than most normal schools. And they tend to have a higher GPA, which as most of you know, is very important when applying to colleges. Contention 5: Attention. Children who attend public school lose attention in class because of their peers. They are either passing notes or talking. But in homeschooling, there are few children. It is better because the teacher will easily know if the child is zoning out, and the teacher can work better with the student because he/she doesn’t have to pay attention to how many ever students a normal school teacher has (depends on elementary, middle, or high). I urge you to check out this link below on the stats of homeschool vs. public school. It shows that students who are homeschooled do better generally. . http://www.home-school.com...My Opponent’s Case:Contention 1 - When children are homeschooled, they are not inside the house 24/7. They do leave the house. They can make friends by going to the park, mall, or even through their parent’s friends children. Just because they are homeschooled does not mean they are cooped up in the house all the time. Contention 2 - Usually, when a child is homeschooled, their “school” environment is separate from their playing area. I have a friend who is homeschooled, she played upstairs and her “school” was downstairs away from everything. They may be tempted as all kids are, but if they try anything, there is a less chance of them getting away with it. Contention 3 - When kids are homeschooled, they are given the opportunity to grow and learn in the real world, rather than isolating them in the artificial world. This means that as they are growing up, they learn a great deal through observation and practical experience. Homeschoolers are more involved in their communities and do many other activities. They also go on field trips more often which introduce them to the real world day by day. Contention 4 - I see your point for the two children, but both parents don’t have to drop out of work to take care of this. One is sufficient enough. As I said, my friend’s mom assigns a task to the oldest, and then after she has started her task, she goes on to the youngest. Then she alternates back and forth until their school day is finished. Contention 5 - Homeschooling also has clubs. Just not in that wording. They do helping around the community, they can learn instruments, singing, whatever they want. They are not limited just because they go to school at a different place. Contention 6 - Actually, if you checked out my link above, it is the homeschooled kids who have the better scores and the better averages. The graduation rate of a homeschooled child is 66.7% whereas a normal schooled child is 57.5%. There is a big difference in those two numbers. Judge/Viewer, I urge you to vote Con/Homeschooling is better. Thank You.


Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

Homework is unnecessary.
Students already receive sufficient education during school hours. There is no need for them to continue working once they are at home, especially when it does not contribute to their learning.

On the subject of grading this debate: There is a difference between a competition and education, and between score and grade. A grade pertains to ones performance in an academic endeavor, but a score pertains to the rating of someone in a competition, like a debate. Saying that people voting on a debate is giving us a grade, is like saying that a soccer game is graded. One indication of this is that anyone who votes can give certain categories to one person and other categories in favor of another, and is not giving an objective rating to each person individually. Rebuttal to point #1: Instant gratification isn’t a good thing. People do better in life if they can work towards a more concrete, important goal further down the road [1. ] This goal can be to learn enough to pursue a career they are interested in, or to learn something interesting about the world. Grades detract from ones ability to think this way because they force people to do less difficult activities. This whole argument plays right into a lot of the contentions that I brought up because all of your ideas focus on the idea that any motivation is as good as any other motivation and that as long as a student is motivated, you are doing something right. The whole point of my fourth contention is to show that extrinsic motivation is detrimental to important intrinsic motivation, as well as bringing a host of other problems with it. In the case you mention with the student Bobby, there are a few things that you don’t account for. Firstly it doesn’t account for the fact that Bobby, instead of being motivated to get the grade, is motivated to get the PS3. This makes things even worse, now getting the A doesn’t give Billy a sense of accomplishment, getting a PS3 does. So now the motivation to succeed in any intellectual way is completely gone. Secondly, this means that Bobby is more likely to forget what he learned, as my earlier study shows. And thirdly Bobby doesn’t do the more difficult problems and doesn’t take intellectual risks because he is only interested in getting the grade. This also means that Bobby doesn’t do more work than is necessary for things that he is interested in because it could harm his A. You state that “Even if this motivates students to learn indirectly they are learning. ” But they aren’t retaining what they are learning, and aren’t learning in a meaningful way, aren’t striving to know more. Grades (along with rote memorization and standardized curriculums and testing) are what Carl Sagan meant when he said “Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. ” Kids file knowledge away as ‘learned’ instead of ‘interesting and useful’ and ask questions like ‘will we need to know this for the test’ instead of, can we learn more about that. Rebuttal to point #2: I see two problems in this contention. Firstly, this contention is irrelevant. This debate is about whether or not education is benefited, not whether educators are helped to make decisions. Even if you accept that as a valid argument, once again we as a society are putting ease and comfort above education. The other main problem I see with this argument is that the whole idea of needing an objective way of determining between students results in the detraction from the overall quality of the students. It is like a college cutting off a child’s hand and then using how well they can withstand pain. The students who are best at handling get to go to college, but all the students are worse for it because they don’t have a hand. If in setting up a standard on which to choose people, you make everybody worse, it isn’t a good standard. Colleges can look at narratives and work more on the basis of interviews. As fare as your one campus switched argument, the fact that one campus switched doesn’t mean that they were right, or that all non-grading campuses should follow. Hampshire College does not employ grades, and MIT doesn’t grade for freshman year to reduce stress, and foster student’s interest in the subject matter. Rebuttal to point #3: Once again, grades reduce to the least common denominator. You may be able to show students that they aren’t learning well slightly more effectively, but it comes at the cost that on average, all your students will score worse on the quiz, and forget more of the material. Additionally students can tell from their professor’s comments whether or not they understand material, but in this case are motivated to fix what they did wrong because they are interested in the subject, and not merely trying to get a grade. Rebuttal to point #4: Firstly, I don’t see how grades remove a bias. Teachers that are more likely to say that a student they like is better than a student they dislike are also more likely to give a better grade on an essay to a student they like than to one they dislike. Additionally, students who are learning for a grade are less likely to talk because they feel they are constantly being matched up to their classmates and to some arbitrary objective standard, and are therefore more afraid of making mistakes. If class participation is being graded, then students worry about their comments level of complexity, when adding what they have to say to a conversation is the first step to getting their ideas tested and coming up with more complex ones. I personally talk with friends about things that I am not quite sure about, and may seem somewhat absurd, to use them as a sounding board. I have a more interesting, developed, objective standard because I have taken the time to voice my opinions in setting where I don’t feel threatened. As a result of this, I am more confident about stating my ideas in class; I am not worried about a grade, but about having an interesting conversation. In this way, taking away grades gives students spontaneity, creativity and collaboration, all of which are essential. Narratives are just as biased as grades, but they tell more. In conclusion, I would like to state two things. Firstly my opponent’s second third and fourth arguments all rest on the idea that students, teachers colleges and/or parents need a way of discerning whether or not a student is learning, and that the only way to do this is to grade them. Not only have I already stated that there are other alternatives that allow for this, but I have also showed a myriad of ways in which the practice of grading is detriment to students. Unless my opponent can show that these other forms of judgment pose the same detriments to Education, he looses these three points. This follows from the fact that, when comparing my alternative, which doesn’t have any detriments to its name (and is in fact more indicative than just assigning a student a number or letter) and my opponent’s, which does; it is a fairly clear choice in favor of my alternative. Secondly, my opponents first argument is erroneous in that it rests on ideas that I have already disproven, namely that all motivation is equal, and that none is detrimental. If my opponent can not directly show that his form of motivation (grades) do not cause the harms that I have laid out he looses this contention as well. This covers all of my opponent’s contentions. To ensure that students are, on average, more creative, intrigued and intrinsically motivated, and to increase their retention of knowledge, their ambition and their inquisitiveness, I urge a pro ballot, thank you. [1] . https://www.apa.org...

Hi. Refutation: Contention 1: Price Sure, if you have evidence to back up your claim that homeschooling children perform better, I agree. However, what happens in high school? Does the parents continue to teach, and if the child's intended major is not his parents, what will his parents do? In elementary school and maybe middle school, homeschooling is fairly easy as most people know how to teach 1 1=2 and all that good stuff. But in high school, as the intensity is higher, homeschooling becomes more as a hassle than a benefit, as parents may not know much of the high school curriculum. And what happens when the kid goes to college? It will be an entirely new experience as he will be socially awkward, and it is better to have training for that in middle school or high school. And please, I would like to say that the $10,000 is not entirely true, as donations etc. make up the bulk of it. Public school is free while in homeschool you have to pay money for supplies. In public school the material is funded by the gov. Therefore this contention is entirely refuted. Contention 2: More time to pursue interests This is a weak argument. Walking home takes only 5-20 minutes, and most of the time students get picked up. We cannot ignore all the benefits of normal school just because of the time it takes for a mere 20 minutes to walk back from school. I can turn this to my side too. As students will arrive 20 minutes later than homeschool, they will learn time management which can be a vital skill in college and the real world. While this may also be a weak argument, it does not matter as your contention is refuted already. Contention 3: No bullies This can be turned to my side of the argument. Bullies are GOOD. At least in school. Why? Because in the real world, there are tons of bullies like your manager or job interviewer. You just got to be prepared for them, and learning how to deal with them in school can prepare for the real bullies in life. It is the journey that counts and makes you stronger. This principle of having a weaker form of a bad thing to immunize the person from it can be demonstrated in vaccines. Therefore not only is this argument refuted, it is turned to my side of the debate now. Contention 4: Curriculum You talk about higher GPA. This is totally false as GPA is only in public schools, not home. Next, if the parent gets to choose the curriculum, then he will be biased, and make the curriculum based on their interests and what he wants his child to become, NOT his child's own interests. This breeds a weak child who struggles in his area because he does not like it, but is forced to do it. For example, a child is fascinated by science. However, his parents love math and computer engineering. They force their kid to learn computer engineering, which their child not only struggles with, but hate. This is a bad way of teaching. Therefore this argument is refuted. Contention 5: Attention This can also be applied to the real world. In the real world there are a lot of people who work with you and can "distract" you. Again, you just have to learn to deal with it. In homeschool, there is a bit too much attention, and can make the child self-centered and selfish. This will ultimately spoil the child. Therefore this contention is also refuted. Rebuttals: Contention 1: Social interaction Most friends stem from school. Parent's friend's children is more based on the parent, not on the child. The child may not have the same interests as his parent's friend's child. You say that children are not in the house 24/7 but this is a weak refutation. Even though children are not in the house 24/7, 1. other children who attend public school are at school, so therefore the homeschooled child is never in sync with public school students, therefore he cannot really meet and befriend other students, and 2. In public school, there is more social interaction than in homeschool, even when the child is in his free hours. Therefore this argument is won. Contention 2: Discipline However, in public school, there is a rigid discipline stronger than homeschool. In public school, this is the teacher's job, so she must get it right. Therefore they will work extremely hard, creating a well-rounded curriculum and schedule and having homework, and consequences such as calling parents. If children still disobey, they are brought to the principal, who will punish them. In homeschool, the schedule is very laid back, as they are in their own home, with their mom, so there wouldn't be a true schedule. They would just skip around as necessary and this is a bad teaching method. Homework would be classwork, and homework is more important as classwork as it strengthens responsibility. Therefore this argument is won. Contention 3: Preparation for the real world This is a weak refutation. In homeschool, you are isolated, while in public school you are with real people. Field trips wouldn't be the same without peers, as they are ultimately the competitors of the child when they grow up. Obviously, this is an illogical refutation so it should be disregarded.Therefore this argument is won. Contention 4: Tiring for the parent If the parent gives the older a task, the parent is not watching her, and she is at her home, and these two combined gives distraction. In public school, the teacher also does not watch you, but the student is not at home with all his toys and video games. Also, you keep on using your friend as a source and example. Your friend does not represent all the home-schooled kids. Therefore this contention is won. Contention 5: Schools have extracurricular activities and clubs Yes, they can do activities, but it is different as it is without peers, therefore without teamwork and cooperation. If they want to debate, then who to debate? Their siblings? Maybe, but that will get boring as they always have the same opponent. In school, you have teammates, and tournaments, and it is official. Doing something with peers have better life skill and normal skill development than with homeschool. Therefore this contention is won. Contention 6: Competition Graduation. Huh. What do you define graduation, as official (as with normal school) or just in name (with homeschool)? In homeschool, everything is laid back, and graduation at home is not the same at school, where it is much more competitive. Even if homeschooled kids have better scores and averages, they cannot improve, and cannot strive to compete as in the real world. Competition is ultimately more significant than with better scores temporarily, so this contention is won. Lastly I would like to add another contention. Contention 7: Bandwagon What bandwagon means it that since most kids (actually 90% ) go to public schools, kids at homeschool would want to go to public school too. They feel left out and different from the others and want to fit in. They would be more happy to be with their peers than with their little brother who is younger by 5 years and their mom. To clear this debate and organize it, voters, I will like to sum up the debate as of now. First, children like normal school, as stated in my 7th contention, parents like it, as stated in my 4th contention (they have less work), and therefore why not? Next, I would like to say that I have 7 contentions of my own that are still standing and 2 contention of my opponents's (contention 2 and 3) that I have turned to my side of the debate. That equals a total of 9 contentions, and since I refuted all my opponent's arguments, the contentions that we each have is 9:0. This is a huge difference and I have obviously won at this point. I still respect my opponent's new refutations and contentions, but I doubt (no offense) that they would be enough to win, as I have 9 contentions while my opponent has none. Vote Pro. Thank you all.

Students that take education online often take it less seriously, it is also more difficult to test them as they could easily cheat- A written test would still b standard. by "kids" it sounds like you are suggest high schoolers- Online education isn't feasible at all for them as they are still required to go and learn witting a school building. I terms of college students, Online lessons often will not carry him/he as far as going and learning at the college would. While textbooks are very heavy, e-books are an option but DOES NOT count as online education- it would still be traditional education but with heavier textbooks replaced with an electronic option. Handwriting should NOT be avoided- you can't run away from it. No matter where you go and/or how you live, there are always forms that cannot be filled out online and still require you to write. You will always need to type AND write and while your handwriting does not need to be great- it just needs to be decently readable, Many people often blame the use of technology to be the cause of worse handwriting- While this isn't always the case, that also isn't the subject of this debate. It is faster to type than to write out your thoughts, that's why projects are often type -is school- rather than written out. HOWEVER, many students never learn to type properly as it isn't mandatory in many schools to take a typing class thus reducing ones efficiency, often to "search and peck" speeds... Digital storage isn't always better- while it makes it easier to create redundant copies of a file, I have seen many classmates lose there saved document BUT still have the physical copy to re-type from.

As I recently stated homework is something to do as help not just as the perfect grade. It is done to understand a topic and not kill yourself. Also, essays can easily be done in advance spaced out through a week rather than doing it the night before. Stressing about homework and sleep is due to a students inability to take time on their assignments and spread the work out over a course of a week or more.

In a nutshell, does homework take away from your free time? Does it get in the way of being home? Should homework be eliminated so that home and school is separated? Definitions: Homework - Work to be specifically done at home, does not include projects / work that was not finished in class Interrupt - Disrupt / Take a substantial portion of time away from Home Life - Time spent not in school, "free time"

My thanks to Muted for his response – it is a challenging, direct rebuttal. On BoP issues, Con need not have to present a case, but if he does not then any proven benefit is enough for me. As is, a weighing is required. Just quickly, Con couldn’t rebut all arguments of mine last round (as per rules) , yet (as per memory retention and short term memory!) I’ll remind readers that my points ‘Reduction in general mischief’ and ‘Working Mindset / Lack of Agrarian Workforce’ and most of ‘Homework vs. Instruction’ have not been contended as yet. Let’s go to the arguments – Con’s then a focus on mine. School and Work Life Con laments about how students aren’t being prepared for school. I agree completely and would be ready to debate a host of policies. The point though is whether my proposal increases the time spent on school related work – currently called homework and time in school. If homework currently is > the increase in schooltime (and reduction in ‘homework’) then my system gives more time for student use. The converse applies. Let’s assume the net ‘homework’ component remains the same. Does the amount of student free time, time not required to be at school, increase? Yes. Under the current model lunch, recess and all other breaks occur at set times – they are immovable to the student; it is bad luck if you’d like to sacrifice a break at school for an equivalent amount of time outside school – you can’t. Under my model, as readers may recall, you can. Recall in R1 how we had 80 minutes of break built into the day; 40 was automatically set aside for lunch. That left 40 minutes which students could elect to have at the start or the end of the day. If they chose the day’s end then they could leave school at the start of that break. So, in terms of time which students can utilise freely (free time for things like work), my model provides 20 minutes extra for extracurricular activities, work etc. notwithstanding any changes in the amount of homework. If Con argues for a change in homework amount (the extra time ought to cancel out the reduction) then he gets to drink the associated poison. That is... aside from all the other benefits of the scheme, particularly memory retention, which we’ll touch on later. For instance, in R2 I discussed how teacher instruction can help students do homework more productively if they’re stuck. Time saved is time that can be used for the very activities Con values. Con needs to demonstrate how my model decreases available free time. Homework reduction is equivalent to school being lengthened; under my model extra free time is available. Lamenting school’s uselessness is irrelevant unless it can be linked to time for other activities. Con’s calculation makes no sense as well. In Australia a 9-3 approx. (I have 8:50-3:10) day is the norm, although a longer school year is the compensation [1] [2]. Con, why the – (40*2 – 20) ? Con needs to elaborate on this example. Memory retention, homework, spacing effect Con lamented the failure of school. Con’s first source started with “The Department for Work and Pensions minister said he was "genuinely shocked" by "the very small number of young people coming out of school with good GCSE passes in core subjects”(about 1 in 6 said later) . What would help with this? Better memory retention. In R2 I outlined how spaced presentation was superior to massed presentation for memory retention purposes, and how school promoted spaced presentation by virtue of the lessons being spaced out on the timetable. Indeed, school forces spaced presentation vs. the massed presentation of the home. Con does state that the spacing effect can occur at home. Agreed. However, this will necessarily happen less than under the model, ergo worse memory retention. Also, I specifically noted that a student will tend to do homework in clumps (say, a bunch of maths exercises) because massed presentation is at work! But it doesn’t end there for memory retention. I recently read Memory by Jonathan K. Foster (first published 2009), one of OUP’s fascination very short introductions. To quote one part: “Other things being equal, we tend to remember information better if we are in a similar physical context and emotional state at the time we wish to retrieve information as we were in at the time we were exposed to that information.” School is more akin to work than the home environment, so as per a more similar physical context we remember better. This is specified in the encoding specificity principle. Also, the emotional state at school is more constant than at home, more like work. This again promotes better memory retention as the retrieval cue matches memories better. This sort of logic strongly explains why we can’t remember dreams – the physical context is different, our emotional state different and our physiological state are also different. On Con’s other points: Technology is getting better, but it’s no substitute for a qualified teacher at school at the ready – that’s what my model gives. Also, technology is a wash – every year 9 student in the public sector is already given a laptop. [3] At least in NSW they do! On comfort, I concede homes are generally more comfortable, although friends can mitigate this discomfort. To recap, homework done at school is done in a manner of spaced presentation. This is superior for memory retention. Furthermore, recall is strengthened by a similar emotional state and physical context, which happens when learning is conducted more strongly in a given place, such as school. These effects far outweigh some minor comfort benefits. Memory is strengthened tremendously by shifting homework to school time. Cost / Teacher Workload Con is right, the US has poor teacher pay: See that? The US is far to the right...I strongly suggest higher pay for teachers, and more respect as in Finland. [4] Would that we could change that. However, Con makes the mistake of assuming a higher workload for teachers, and the associated problems. Evidence? No, assertion. Remember, the increased time at school is in substitute for marking things like homework at home, there doesn’t have to be additional lectures. If Con wishes to contend that homework shouldn’t be marked he can. I'm all for Con's concerns... if they apply to the proposed model, which isn't proven. In fact, reducing homework separates work and home life, which is beneficial. Also, with better memory retention the teacher has to waste less time re-explaining content. Time saved that can be utilised as the teacher wishes. Finally, my cost points weren’t refuted – debase private tuition costs, reduce day care costs, and, crucially, streamline use of public transport and the like (more efficient, less cost of public transport... maybe those savings could go to teachers pay in a dream...) . And my last point, to quote from R2: “Parents can work for longer. There’s less concern for parents to be at home, supervising their children, if they can trust that their child is safe and productive at school, vs. potentially the converse at home.” That point ties into the social mischief point, which hasn’t been contended as yet. Families save money if students aren’t damaging things, doing drugs , as well as earning more through working longer hours of course. Conclusion Con must refute the points of this round + those of mine unscathed of mine by his R2 (in part as per the rules). Con has work to do, specifically, he must prove how his points apply to my model and not just a general attack on schools, and how they outweigh my benefits. I look forward to Con’s reply. Sources 1 - http://www.infoplease.com... 2 - http://nces.ed.gov... 3 - http://ozteacher.com.au... 4 - http://www.smh.com.au...

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

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 would like to start of this debate by quoting your opening statement "The education system in the USA is actually very laid back compared to the rest of the world to the point that it's laughed at by many for its ridiculousness." That is totally irrelevant to this topic, because it has not much to do with this topic. The education system may be more difficult in other countries, but we are not talking about other countries, we are talking about the irregularity of assignments in my school system. Do you really think you could write an 18 page paper in one night? Most of us probably could do it in one night, but we want a grade better than a D on our paper. (Answering a question in the comments below) We cannot use any tricks to fool our teacher that would make out paper longer. She has been a teacher for a long time, and she would recognize any variation in the size. We are also not allowed to add pictures, if we do, we get points taken off. Any other tricks we try would also end in loss of points. I am offended that you would be so oblivious that you would say that we are just a bunch of lazy kids who want people to do everything for them. Most of us are straight A students, and we actually care about our grades compared to people who just do it all in one night. I'm sure many of us would be quite upset if someone wrote it for us. "You have such a sense of entitlement, but you haven't earned such." Interesting you would say that, its almost as you are contradicting yourself. You are actually the one with the sense of entitlement my friend, for you think you can just say that the youths of the USA are lazy and spoiled, without experiencing what we are going through. Very stereotypical.

So you are arguing that reading makes better communication and I am arguing that the fact that it strains your eyes is quite dangerous and a reason why so many people have glasses/contacts. POINT 1. Public schools in general have desks and, for many kids who sit in the back of the rooms, have to strain their eyes anyways just to see the whiteboard/blackboard/Smart-board. The kids go home, do their routine--which may include watching TV, where they could be damaging eyes (that is a controversial subject)--and then the kids have homework which most of the time includes reading. This is another place where the kids hurt their eyes yet again. POINT 2. It is very easy to overlook (see what I did there) the fact that, if you are reading without enough light, your eyes will be effected for the worse later in life because of straining. This is a problem for a lot of people, adults and kids, and it is a factor for why so many people have glasses. POINT 3. Reading at an early age effects their eyesight later in life. Is it good when kids learn to read at an early age? Particularly girls, since not many boys find interest in reading at an early age, like to read aloud to themselves when they are very young and take eager practice to learning new words. This is where #2 (above point) comes in. If they do not have enough light and are practicing--sometimes hours a day--at as early as 3-4 years old, reading can't be very good for you. In other--Asian--countries most schools do not allow kids to be taught to read until a certain age, for different reasons, but for one because it starts to slowly destroy your original eyesight. CONCLUSION: children shouldn't be taught to read at as early an age as below 6 years old. (That's an opinion of course, but that's what we're debating here.) REBUTTAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT: You are arguing that the technology and engineering part of reading is good, the part which advances society, but the debate here is about YOUR experience with reading and if it's healthy for you. The reason that the debate is not about what you were saying is because I agree with you on that. SOURCES. http://america.aljazeera.com... http://health.howstuffworks.com... http://www.theage.com.au... http://www.theage.com.au...


Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

The idea of abolishing homework is not one that should be entertained. The notion of school without homework is hard to imagine. Homework serves a crucial role in education, as it allows teachers to understand students' weaknesses, providing them with a chance to improve and develop new skills. Regular homework sessions enable students to catch up on missed lessons and reinforce daily teachings, ensuring the material is firmly embedded in their memory for future use. Research confirms that homework enhances student stability in school, reinforcing the idea that homework time is time well spent. Instead of granting students additional leisure time, homework offers an hour of enriched learning, which can significantly benefit them, leading to excellent test scores or report cards. Why would we even consider the absurd question of abolishing homework, when it is a key factor in academic success? While students may dislike homework, educators understand its significance in both school and real-world success. Homework not only benefits students but also teachers, who can gauge student progress and identify areas for improvement to boost grades. Without homework, teachers would rely heavily on tests for grading, which may not be as favorable for students. In conclusion, these reasons underscore why homework should not be banned.

Parents can control what they want their children to learn and WHEN they learn it, if your child is not mature enough to learn a subject (i.e. Biology) the tutor will not teach biology until further instructions from the parents. In a class, there are lots of children (30-40 where I live) Since the child is not receiving individual attention, he/she will tend to get bored and lose interest in learning. In home-schooling, that does not happen, the child is given individual attention and it makes learning fun and interesting. Another advantage is taking vacations whenever you feel like it, and there's no catching up to do. In public schools, you can't take a vacation or you are going to miss so much in school.

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.

Homework is waste of time and all students hate it. People who enjoy what they are doing are more likely to give their full effort. Homework is not one of those things. People like to do things they enjoy.

"I do agree with you. But my main point is that internet should be used for homework and research but i mean for games anf stuff the students can do that at home. Plus they can also do their homework and research at home too. "It seems as though con concedes to all of my points. To finish up, he states people can do games and stuff at home. This ignores the purpose of breaks in school, which is to have a break between classes. If people want to use the internet during a break, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. He states homework and research could be done at home too. This is true, but students should also be able to use the internet to do these things in school if they want to. There are plenty of times when this could benefit the student, without any drawbacks. There is no reason to inhibit a student's ability to do homework and research in school. With all the drawbacks of an internet ban in schools outlined, it is evident that this idea should not be implemented in schools.

Be nice since I'm still new to this =P. Thanks for acccepting To be clear, I have stated "homeschool" is worse than "public school." You have posted that public school in America is worse than private schools, which would be correct IF the debate was on private VS public. But private is different than home schooling. Definition of a private school: Private schools United States as corporate entities separate from public schools, which are supported by the government. They are ordinarily under the immediate control of a private corporation , not of a government agency or board; and they are supported primarily by private funds. http://education.stateuniversity.com... Definition of home school: A home school is a school in which parents teach their children an academic curriculum at home instead of sending them out to a public or private school. Home schooling is legally accepted in all 50 states of the U.S., but each state has its own laws that a family must adhere to. http://whatis.techtarget.com... Now, for my argument =) Public School Pros of Public School: Learning within a group setting Extra-curricular activity availability More curriculum opportunities Diverse social education Now let's look at the pros of home schooling. Pros of Home School: Free to choose curriculum Free to choose schedule Small teacher to student ratio Teaches students to be independent in their learning choices True, you are free to choose the curriculum taught to your child, BUT the same CORE curriculum is taught whether it be home school or public school. Still being free to choose your schedule doesn't really mean anything since the parent will still set a schedule for the child, just with different hours. If you have the right teachers teaching you, then public school could be better for the child. What if the parent doesn't know English that well? How can they give the child the proper education in English if they themselves do not know it very well? Also, Public schools foster cultural literacy and pass on traditions. Many parents are not even qualified to teach there children at home depending on what state you live in. Also, being in public school helps a child learn what pure-pressure and how to handle it. I will agree home school can be more educational, BUT does harm by sheltering the child and not letting them experience what real life is =) Be gentle on the return XD

First off I'd like to say, thank you for debating with me. I have enjoyed our discussion. Here is part of a paper I wrote on the mental health of students. This paragraph pertains to how stress impacts mental health: The byproducts of these hormones are said to have the ability to act as sedatives. When large amounts of stress hormones are released it can contribute to low energy or depression. It"s normal to experience highs and lows from day to day, but an extensive release of byproducts from stress can cause people to be down in the dumps for long periods of time and develop what is known as Major Depression. According to Mills, Reiss and Dombeck, "Symptoms of Major Depression may include: sleep problems; fatigue; appetite changes; feelings of worthlessness, self-hate, and guilt; an inability to concentrate or make decisions; agitation, restlessness, and irritability; withdrawal from typical pleasurable activities; and feelings of hopelessness and helplessness." In a research study focusing on the coping mechanisms among students conducted by Deasy et al. states, "coping is defined as cognitive and emotional attempts to deal with the internal or external demands of the encountered situation. It is perceived as a process as opposed to a trait or outcome ". The results of this study showed three prevalent methods that students used to cope with psychological distress: escape/avoidance, support and taking control. The most frequent of these methods was the escaping and avoidance method. This included substance abuse, oversleeping, eating disorders and other detrimental habits. (http://journals.plos.org... http://mhn.centersite.org...) To me creating means that it is the sole perpetrator of anxiety and depression. I am stating that it is a contributor due to the stress that homework and tests can place on students. I am also stating that school is not the only reason why people have anxiety and depression. However, my claim is that the American education system increases stress, therefore, increasing the likelihood for depression and anxiety. Here is another article stating the influence on how tests can take a toll on students. http://brainconnection.brainhq.com... I will have to agree with you on the idea that teaching kids about coping mechanisms and how to deal with mental illnesses should not fall completely on the school. However, most parents don't have the right knowledge and resources to help their kids either. Part of the teaching that I believe schools should offer is helping the students recognize patterns of depression and anxiety so they can get the help they need whether it be from the school or from an outside source. I also think another part of the issue is the stigma place on mental illnesses. This article : http://www.newsweek.com... talks about how college specifically have a negative view on mental health. It talks about how some students who went to seek help ended up getting kicked out of college. This then caused students to be afraid of what might happen and therefore not going and seeking help when needed. You talk about how it is mostly home life that is causing mental illnesses. From that point of view I could see how you could come to the conclusion that its not the school's responsibility to provide the resources to help deal with these mental illnesses. So I must ask then, would you say that the school then have no effect on a students mental health? I would say by nature, because students spend an average of 7 hours a day at school during the school year, it must have some effect on the student. I also feel as if you are taking an all or nothing approach. Are you stating that the only way that our American education system can negatively impact students is if it is the only contributor? Say everyone is working on a group project, and five people work on it and get an A. From what I am getting from your statement " if it isn't only the tests and homework that is causing these issues, then the school is not pushing these students to have these mental illnesses." I would assume with the same logic, you'd be saying only one of the students ("home life') got the A on the project and the other student ("the American education system") did not contribute at all to get the A even though every student worked on it collectively. The impact that the American education system has on students is one a piece of what influences a students mental health. There are many others such as home life as you mentioned and social life. It is that the American education system has a negative impact because of the high levels of stress it places on the students with tests and excessive homework amounts (not the only contributors to stress just 2 of the examples I used). If we were to argue that the American education system is the only factor that impacts students health then I could agree with you that it is not the system at totally at fault. I believe it does play a part of it though.

Thank you for the challenge IF (do you mind if I call you that?) I've got questions I will direct in the comments section. I propose that kids should NOT go to school. First I will refute my opponants arguments then I will present my own case. "it offers them a lifetime of learning. " So does homeschooling. "It offers them friends and " This is not always a good thing. Take those Texas Cheerleaders in McKinney; being friends was not really a good thing for them. Seeing as you are 11 your parents may have chosen to shield you from this. Basically a group of four cheerleaders somehow nicknamed the Fab 5 (see if school were that great they could have counted to 4) run around drinking and taking inappropriate pictures and posting them on MySpace. There's a movie about it on Lifetime, but I wouldn't think it's overly true seeing as those made for TV movies never are. "a better life for the future " I disagree that this is because of school. I think this is because of education, which can be received from homeschooling. "What's a life without an education." Life without education is ignorance. Ignorance is bliss. Therefore life without education is bliss. Now I will present my case: I.Kids don't learn well in schools There are numerous theories out there about how to best teach children. All of them show different methods that work well with different children. Not one study however has shown children learning well from an intuitional style setting. I propose that students would be better served out of school, learning from hands on, natural experimentation and exploration in the real world (structured of course) II.Homeschooling is good for many kids As much as my boss would love to say differently, studies show that kids with homeschooling can and do perform as well or better on standardized tests than the traditionally schooled counterparts. http://www.hslda.org...

My opponent particularly has a lot of studies that she cited, and many of the things she said are things that I've discussed in my own case. Already you can see that the entirety of my case works as counters. Therefore, I'm going to go down my opponent's case while making references to substantiate as well as defend my claims. As my opponent didn't argue my observations, they are extended across the flow. Quality and Effectiveness of Homeschools: My opponent seems to have misunderstood the point of my Contention 1 and Sub-point 1a. I'm not saying that homeschooled children have any more probability to abuse and neglect. I'm saying that BECAUSE they don't have any more probability for abuse and neglect (and may in fact have less probability for abuse and neglect), it may show an appearance in the data that homeschools are better than government-provided schools. My opponent doesn't consider the lurking variables in her research, including family conditions, socio-economic status, and other factors that could determine the effectiveness of a homeschool, as I explained in my sub-point 1a. If my opponent is telling us that little or no abuse occurs in these homeschools, or drug abuse, or etc., we immediately see that this is a lurking variable explaining the effectiveness of homeschools in her research. Would a homeschool be just as effective in an environment where there's abuse, neglect, drug use, alcoholism, gang activity, or other negative conditions? Because the current data only looks at homes that don't have such problems, we won't know, and if my opponent is trying to prove that homeschools are intrinsically better than government-provided schools (O3), homeschools should be able to function in such an environment. All I'm saying is: if there were homeschooling in such negative conditions or in a neighborhood with dangerous activity, the data would look a little differently. What my opponent has proven is only that this model of schooling works in environments such as the ones that the studies look at and are able to look at. She hasn't proven that homeschools are better simply because they're homeschools. This rebuttal applies to pretty much every single study concerning the characteristics and advantages of children in homeschools.Universality: First, I would need to see the study my opponent is looking at to understand what the study meant when it said that homeschool students have learned to do work by themselves. I also need to see a study about how effective a learning environment with no parents would be as well. In my studies, most homeschool students had at least one parent at the home (in homes where mostly two parents were existent). In any event, despite the fact that parents nor tutors have to be the ones to take up the teaching responsibility, it doesn't erase the other costs of materials that can mount to $400-600 per month. Many families can afford that, but what if they can't? In my evidence, I even stated that experts on this trade have said that homeschooling isn't for everyone in terms of economics. Not only does this show you that homeschooling can be exclusive, but if further drives the point of my sub-point 1a: that homeschools are not intrinsically better, and their quality (like any school) depends on the quality of the environment. Religious Fundementalism: This is where my opponent and I agree on many things and disagree on one. Both my opponent and I agree that parents do bring children to homeschools to indoctrinate. My opponent says it's not the primary reason, but if she looks back at my evidence, we can see that most parents that bring children to homeschools is because of religious reasons. Whether or not this is a good thing is where our agreements end. My opponent has no evidence that children from religious upbringing have a stronger regard for society. Furthermore, I agree that parents have a say what their child is around in reasons of practicality, like if the schools have gang violence, drug problems, or something that directly affects the health of the person. However, when the parents are bringing children to a different setting simply because of a confliction of religious beliefs, the action becomes from practical to arbitrary. Teachers also spread beliefs, but unlike homeschools, they don't make it the word of rule in schools. I'm still supportive of the freedom of religion, including to children. Many good things have come from religious fundementalism, including what my opponent has stated, but secularism has done the same good things without the cost to society that I mentioned. The agenda of religious fundementalism is not just to provide help, but enforce beliefs in the community that are detrimental to its structure and cohesiveness as well as the inherent rights of people. This is what I explained in my case.

Social skills- You can still learn social skills by talking with neighbors, hanging out at a mall or park etc. Summer isn't a hiding time, now is it? Bullying- Well it could have went the other way around for you, you may have became a bully or allowed yourself to be run over. And this is used as an excuse by our teachers for not taking adequate action against bullying. 'deal with it yourself' sometimes doesn't work out. Talking- So, if teachers stop us from talking in class, then the time talking with friends is reduced. I would have met my people somewhere else rather than school. Homework organization- You may be lucky then. Our subject teachers give time for homework according to the time needed only for 'its completion', and so if we get more assignments that day from other classes its humanly impossible not to skip one of them. I can't give myself 45 minutes, I have to make do with 10, for I return at home 4-30 pm and sleep at 9, so I have approximately 4 hours, out of which I need to do other things like eat, change, debate on this site(lol), play football etc. which reduces my study time. 'also, the curriculum for school are made to be easy to understand, easy to comprehend and made so its at your grades average level, none of the work is forced into you, every subject can be fun if you apply yourself.' No, every child has a different level of intelligence, and also a different level of interest. I think that interest is like pouring 1 liter of water into 10 glasses. Sure, some may have 1.5 capacity and more want to learn, but I think that for each subject you are a bit more interested in, give a bit more effort you reduce the effort you will put in another subject. All of the work is forced upon us, we really can't choose subjects yet, and its impossible to be wizard at all subjects unless in primary. How can you be sure the curriculum is made keeping in mind the average ability when no student's opinion is taken upon it?? ' if you don't like a certain subject you can just not take it on your chosen subjects in year nine and after. as for the "homework plague", again spreading your workload helps a lot in giving you time to enjoy. I told you, most subject teachers don't co-ordinate with each other when giving homework, and thus we get overburdened. As for choosing subjects in year nine, I saw that our form was rigged( it required us to choose at least 13 subjects) and we are already studying only 17 subjects. I certainly dislike more than 4 subjects, what shall I do?

<> This is a very relevant point in which I will get to in just a moment. < > You do not hear news stories based on the laziness of students in foreign countries. But they hear segments on the students of the USA. They are considered lazy and priviledged by the rest of the world. I'm inclined to agree. < > How sad for you and your friends that you couldn't produce an "A" with one night's work. That only says that you're either not as smart as I was, or that you're too lazy to put the proper effort into your work that I did to my work. <<(Answering a question in the comments below) We cannot use any tricks to fool our teacher that would make out paper longer. She has been a teacher for a long time, and she would recognize any variation in the size. We are also not allowed to add pictures, if we do, we get points taken off. Any other tricks we try would also end in loss of points.>> Thank you for acknowledging the comments below in this debate. Now I may do the very same. You have three sources that have all successfully completed the eighth grade and we all echo the other's advice. Instead of complaining about the task that each of us has had to do, you came online and made a debate about it, instead of actually doing the report itself. <> I apologize for offending you, but it was not my intent. Actions speak louder than words, and inaction speaks just as loudly. I believe you truly care about your grades. I do. I also believe that you would prefer things to be easy and have fast solutions, which is why you probably still haven't completed your assignment. < > I doubt that, as there are countless websites that offer cheats of every kind for students in high school. Students cheat every single day in this country. It's laughable to suggest that "many" would be "quite upset" if someone did their work for them. I have a nephew in the eighth grade and I guarantee that he wouldn't be as distraught. <<"You have such a sense of entitlement, but you haven't earned such.">> I wasn't referring to you, specifically, in this statement. I was referring to your entire generation. As a whole, you are everything that I claim you to be. Prove me wrong if this isn't so. < > I have already experienced what you're going through. I did it (without all the complaining). My schoolmates and I accepted our workload as part of our academic careers. And, yes, we complained about things, but never about having TWO-WHOLE-WEEKS TO PRODUCE eighteen little pages. It's madness! < > Yes. So? This debate is how you claim to have been working like crazy, yet here you are on the internet while your paper is unfinished. There are three sources here echoing the fact that this is a small feat and not unreasonable at all. If I seem to act with entitlement, it is because I've earned the right to be this way. I've paid my dues. I've written the papers that I was assigned to write. I work and earn every cent in my bank account. Entitlement, within reason, is mine for the taking. You are barely a teenager, so I'll give you some advice. It only gets much, much harder before it ever becomes easy.