I am going to extend my opening arguments in particular with a comparison to my opponents argument on freedom.
I'll rebut the rest of Con's arguments separately.
1. Other Possible Objections
I argued none of these and don't intend to because I agree that these are poor oppositions to homeschooling.
2. Studies on the Issue
My opponent presented 9 studies and claimed "What all this studies and papers claim is very positive towards homeschooling". There is first of all no way anyone has time to read all of these to verify that assertion and besides that, I already conceded that most students who are homeschooled do well in tests and sometimes even better than public schooled kids. My opponent stated in their opening lines "I can't say if homeschooling is more effective than traditional schooling with a 100% certainty. However, that's not the discussion here." I agree with this and stated so in my opening round, so this all seems like a moot argument by Con's own admission. My opponent then goes on to state some facts without showing where they were referenced from specifically and states these facts show that "there's no negative impact on homeschooled kids". This is an untrue assertion; all Con has proven is that there can be academic benefits of being homeschooled. This is not analysis proving that no negative impacts exist especially after Con conceded that the debate is not about academic success.
Morality, Religion and Freedoms
The best and most relevant argument my opponent provided was the analysis on freedoms and I agree this is the most important comparative in this debate. There was no direct rebuttal of my opening arguments but some of this analysis implicitly interacts with mine. I will go through my opponents argument in detail and rebut the analysis while providing some direct comparisons to my own analysis from round 1.
"Parent's have the right to choose what kind of education they want for their children. Abolishing homeschooling is limiting people's rights and freedoms."
I disagree with the first statement here and agree with the second. I will argue that parents rights should not extend to the ability to take children out of school to teach them specific religious or moral lessons or because you as a parent disagree with what the school is teaching. Note that Con has not analysed why parents have the right to choose the child's education, this was just asserted as the premise of the rest of the argument. Governments already dictate necessary areas of education for all students (homeschooled, private schools, public schools) I am arguing that I believe Governments should extend this to teaching moral and religious education in a neutral and comparative way. This cannot be guaranteed in homeschool households because of the fact many parents want to homeschool their kids for this specific reason. I argued in round 1 that an increasing popularity of homeschooling for this purpose means that parents can and will promote their own moral standings and religious ideals as objectively correct. Schools by law [apart from religious schools which is am also happy to argue should be banned] have to present moral and religious ideas in a balanced and neutral manner. Good teachers will also have discussions with their pupils on controversial issues such that they understand both sides of the argument and understand how to balance these opinions in order to form their own. This is crucial in developing a respectful and tolerant population. This should be high on a Governments agenda because a tolerant population means less hate crimes, less victims of hate crime, less extreme views and because minorities that are at risk from this are citizens that the Government also has a duty to protect, allowing them to live a safe life. More tolerance leads to less social unrest which makes the country much easier to Govern. This is why it has to be a Government priority. This is why the Government can limit parental right to choose what kind of moral education children receive. I agree that it is limiting rights and I will analyse why this is allowed next.
"If an action harms the others, it's debauchery. To sum up, my rights end where your rights start. Let's apply this to our main problem. homeschooling harm anyone? If I get homeschooled, will the others get harmed? Both are no. Then, allowing homeschooling is freedom not debauchery."
First and third party harms are not the only reason rights can be limited; where a Government has a duty to provide something for all citizens then rights can also be limited by Governmental control. This is what I argued above. It is also simply asserted by Con that no first or third party harms exist. I have analysed why parents having the sole influence over their child's opinions and morality. I have explained why this does not allow children to grow up with the skills to compare opinions that are different and generate your own opinions from this. This is a crucial skill of analysis that helps you navigate politics and most situations of social discussion or conflict. This limits your ability to contribute effectively and make informed political decisions which I argue is harmful to you as an individual. It also means that it is more difficult to be tolerant of other people's lives and opinions. This does not always lead to hate crimes but ignorance and intolerance are certainly reasons why people speak out in anger and hate against one another. This is a third party harm. I argued in round 1 that as homeschooling grows in popularity communities become more isolated as opinions are constantly solidified to the child in the echo chamber of the household teachings. This means that intolerance will increase as less children are presented with counter opinions in an informative educational way. This means the Government has a duty to control this to prevent intolerance getting worse for the reasons I gave above.
"Homeschooling also provides the opportunity for parents to introduce their religious ideas to their kids. In this way, parents would be sure that their kids get the best moral education, according to them. Parents have the right to teach their religion to their children, and homeschooling helps."
Yes this is true but it is problematic because it would be the only opinions that the children are taught as I analysed above. When children are not in school they are normally with their parents who would teach them their religion and beliefs as normal however while they are in school the are exposed to other ideas and taught to be tolerant of different opinions. Parents can still teach their children religion but children should also learn in a factual way that other religions exist, what those beliefs actually are and how you can disagree with those beliefs but still respect the people who believe that. Parents who are homeschooling their children to teach religious issues will necessarily teach those beliefs as they only truth. Religious studies at the moment is not something the Government can legislate should be taught therefore there is no reason for the parents to provide their children eduction on other religions. Even if this could be legislated we cannot control wether every parent is teaching these beliefs in an impartial and tolerant way particularly when they are diametrically opposed to the beliefs that the parents hold. In schools this is more achievable because the teachers are part of a hierarchy and feedback structure.
"Besides that, the emotional and physical freedom also increases. Homeshooled kids are free from strict time tables, homework, peer pressure, bullies, and so on."
Finally this is also an untrue assertion that Con has made. There is no indication that parents won't teach their pupils in a strict timetable [they may want to teach punctuality and see a benefit in introducing structure to a child's life], there is also no analysis as to why a strict timetable is a harmful thing. I find it kind of funny that my opponent thinks that when all of the lessons are taught at home the child does not have homework. Presumably this is called independent study to supplement the lessons taught. Again there is no analysis why homework is bad. So if the pupils are homeschooled they will not experience bullies or peer pressure? Schools are not the only place this happens. Kids can be and are bullied at home and the children should presumably be interacting with people their own age at home when they are playing or at clubs so are still subject to peer pressure. There is no analysis as to why this would not happen if the pupils are homeschooled.
I have rebutted all of my opponents arguments but I am still waiting for a direct response against the material I provided in round 1 and have extended in this round. I have proven why there is a direct harm to the children in terms of there ability to weigh contrasting opinions and why parents solidifying moral structures on there child without this analytical ability means that intolerance and community isolation will continue to rise. I have shown that it is the Governments duty to prevent intolerance therefore it is acceptable for parents rights to be deferred to the Government on the matter of education. This means that homeschooling should be abolished.
I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-03-06 20:58:32 | Speak Round