It's time to summarize and highlight why I am still winning.
Throughout this debate I have advocated for flexibility, extra freedom, and enhanced interaction between children and adults. Con on the other hand, seems to value academic performance as most important, but gives no justification for why this should be valued over different needs for different students. Recall that even Con was forced to admit that every student follows the same curriculum -- while different students may need an accelerated or slower program to adjust for their needs. The diversity of students makes it unlikely that schools will be unable to handle all types of students, hence, homeschooling will always be a viable alternative.
Con has seemed to shot down the causation of Homeschooling to academic performance overall, but has not negated the innate logic, instead, criticizing the studies. He falsely cross applies his logic to the "lower student teacher ratio", but drops the idea that the teacher would have lesser workload and be able to dedicate more time to their children.
- the amount of resources you would need to match that level of special treatment,
- nor the inherent bond and understanding of the family.
- Each kid has one or two parents to help them throughout their troubles. I doubt con can guarantee this level of dedication in school.
Even with my most ambivalent source, homeschooling has advantages in some aspects where public schools do not. Hence, there must be something that homeschooling provides that public education cannot make up for. Therefore, we should keep homeschooling due to extra needs fulfilled from homeschooling. Con keeps arguing that standardized testing is "better", but is it so good that we absolutely cannot go without it? If it is so necessary, then homeschooling may cross apply crucial components of schools as well.
Finally, Con's strongest argument has been extension of abuse, but he has failed to show how much worse it actually becomes. He keeps asserting it will be driven further into the shadows, but offers no backing for this. By contrast, the abuse rate is nearly equal as previously highlighted (R2+R3), and hence it is difficult to measure precisely how much worse this abuse is.
On the other hand, Con claims that the public school tragedies have been bought to light, but it seems even worse that the US is not taking action to prevent all these accidents. The public school may have some corruption as well,
with countless principals embezzling money and committing school fraud. Even if voters don't buy this due to being a final round argument, keep in mind that my core argument
is that parents are able to decide which way is safer for the kids. Bullying, corruption, sexual abuse, etc. There are too many problems to list in schools that may be hidden or unsolved just as badly as the home's abuse. Thus the government cannot decide for parents and children.
It's difficult to say that it is a just decision to force the child into public schools. In other words, Parents that agree with Con will still send their students to school, and thus Con has no significant benefits for completely banning homeschooling. Keep in mind that my argument of government arbitrarily and forcibly rejecting homeschooling also infiltrates into our children's freedom. Con has little to compensation for this.
Thank you for the debate, and Vote for Pro.