THBT On Balance, Homeschooling Should NOT be Abolished in US
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
"Homeschooling or home schooling, also known as home education or elective home education, is the education of school-aged children at home or a variety of places other than school" -- Wikipedia
Abolish -- to get rid of, to remove completely
US: United States
Why US? There is probably most evidence in US about homeschooling and the controversial movement.
Burden of proof is shared. No new arguments in the final round.
- The parents are able to interact more with the kid
- the customization of the course/learned material can be more flexible and suited towards the kids
- The student-teacher ratio is very low and thus the learning would be more efficient
- life skills may be focused on more, rather than merely specific subjects
- due to the close family bond, counseling and mental health therapy may be more intimate and useful, also immediately accessible
- Foster the parent-child bond further and increases the sense of safety
- 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.
are you willing to create another debate where we waive our arguments and voters vote on this debate?
is it possible for you to extend voting time so this doesn't end in a no vote tie?
I used to have an account a long time ago, but I got really busy. With everything back on track, I hope to get back into the community, so best of luck to you in the community.
Some what winnable? You can take it. I am all Pro. I actually agree.
I happened to scroll across this with 13 hours left to vote. Would be a pity for you guys to put in the work to type it out, and then be left unrequited. This debate was about whether homeschooling should not be abolished. PRO argues to maintain home schooling (not abolishing) while CON wants it done away with (opposing not abolishing). A better way to word the resolution would avoid double negatives: "Homeschooling should be be maintained." PRO affirms; CON negates. Judges don't have to contend with double negatives.
PRO identifies various benefits to homeschooling (parental interaction, individualized lessons, familial strength and others) and cites a source for the proposition that increasing parental involvement improves student outcomes. And regular school has drawbacks, including the "one size fits all" approach where students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. CON rebuts before making his own case. He states (without explaining his link) that parental involvement isn't always a good thing, suggesting potential harm both to children and familial structure in the form of divorce. He states that flexible curricula loses the benefits of standardization, and offers a potential harm such as students falling below the minimal threshold of what is needed for success.
CON's argument for banning homeschooling proposed that child abuse would be reduced if homeschooling was banned, based on the role teachers have as mandatory reporters. Without that, child abuse would go unidentified and unaddressed. PRO opposes, based on evidence he claims supports higher academic achievement among homeschooled students than alternatives (a claim that would later be negated by CON in R3, with respect to math outcomes). PRO reiterates harms associated with educational standardization and suggests that the means to evaluate minimal adequacy as CON suggests are inadequate for that purpose. And on child abuse, PRO suggests that there is no difference in the rate of child abuse in homeschooled vs. public schooled kids and even if so, the focus should be on bullying, suicide and trauma; which he argues is more important than child abuse. In R3 CON focuses on school shootings.
In R2, PRO introduces a new argument about rights/freedom, although this is insufficiently explored. Even still, CON is winning this point based on his observation of the realities of parental rights. This could have been a primary focus in R1 and would have been better suited to include there. And in R2, CON did not drop the life-skills argument nor did he drop standardization; as PRO incorrectly stated in R3. A "drop" means that the other side did not address; and CON addressed. It seems common these days that kids misunderstand what that phrase means.
This is a close debate and others may disagree. It is not a clear win for either side; both sides are close to each other here. Even still, the impacts slightly favor PRO. Standardization's benefits (including life skills, minimal adequacy, etc.) were harms only tenuously linked to homeschooling. It is unclear to me how CON's five reasons (as he lists in the middle of R2) are uniquely applicable to the CON world. It is also unclear to me how increasing school attendance is going to reduce child abuse, sexual or otherwise. I'd need links between mandatory reporters and "reducing child abuse," which wasn't in CON's case. I also would need links between "all forms of abuse," as CON alleges in R3, and "homeschooling." There's a physical connection implicit in the home, as a space; and the home, as a probable location for the abuse CON describes (but he didn't say that and I can't give him points for stuff he didn't say); but little more. Those links may have made the difference, if present, for CON.
PRO likewise was only arguing for why homeschooling should not be abolished. And for those limited who participate in it, such as those at the high and low ends of the achievement spectrum; homeschooling may well turn out a better fit. This would be a good reason to preserve. The only evidence CON introduced against familial integrity/structure was speculative and based on divorce rates. And the benefits for individualized attention seemed to be conceded as well, although there is more PRO could have done with them. CON probably did establish that homeschooling shouldn't be expected to work for everyone (and that's what his standardization point mainly regards) and there may well be subject areas (e.g., math, as he noted in R3-R4) where homeschooled students underperform. But that's not the same thing as saying it shouldn't be allowed at all, and the academic-underperformance evidence is limited. I do not factor PRO's R4 new argument on corruption into this decision because it is unfair to spring new argumentation on the opposing side, in the final round.