Introduction
I thank Dopl for allowing me to start the debate and hereby bring forth the resolution "THBT the modern school system is flawed." I'll begin by defining the resolution and the key terms, and I'll summarize my burden of proof.
Model
"Flawed" - Having flaws that are numerous or serious enough such that said flaws are significant. Nothing is perfect, but something that is 'flawed' is considerably imperfect relative to the context in which it exists (i.e. everybody has many significant flaws, but since that's true of everyone and 'flawed' is a relative term, not everyone is flawed in the way that people describe things to be flawed the vast majority of the time).
"The school system" - An umbrella term referring to the institution of publicly-funded, government-controlled system(s) of schooling for children that almost every country on Earth has. No two school systems are the same, but there are consistent guiding principles that allow us to debate if it generally is effective in following these principles regarding its ability to teach.
Resolution
This resolution is not about curriculums or application of the typical practices of the school system in a few outliers. A thermometer is not good at cutting vegetables, but that doesn't mean that's a flaw of the thermometer, but rather a flaw in your use of it. Sometimes a thermometer is cheaply made or works poorly, that doesn't mean thermometers are flawed (most thermometers would have to not work properly for it to be fair to say that), it means that a few specific thermometers suck because of neglect towards ensuring the thermometer works properly or that it is kept functional. There's nothing wrong with thermometers themselves or even the way thermometers are usually used, just with how some people apply the science, manufacture the item, and use the product.
This is a resolution were con can only argue towards the absence of flaws. There isn't any argument that the school system isn't flawed, just arguments that the reasons to believe it's flawed do not stand up to scrutiny. I encourage voters to view it in this lens whereby con logically cannot make a constructive case. This is not a debate asking if the school system is effective or not (or else I could make a litany of arguments for that position), just if the school system has flaws or not. Arguing for the virtues of the school system is pointless because it says nothing to prove the nonexistence of flaws other than in being a counter argument towards any perceived flaws.
There are debate resolutions such as "a deity does exist" where arguments for the nonexistence of a deity can plausibly be made. For example: the paradox of omnipotence, Occam's razor, the argument of evil, etc... but the atheist in such a debate still needs to give some reason that a deity doesn't or can't exist in the way it is conceived (or else we're left with agnosticism). In this debate, however, arguments like that cannot be made. Better said: While you can argue for the nonexistence of a deity as an example, it's impossible to argue for the nonexistence of flaws in the school system other than arguing against the existence of those flaws.
BoP
Cons burden is to prove that the general guiding principles and ideas of the school system are effective in its intended function of teaching people things through putting kids in a classroom and having them be instructed by a teacher to have their learning progress be aided and measured by assignments, tests, projects, and other things with the kids receiving a grade(s) to represent their proficiency/progress in what they are being taught.
Pros burden is to prove that, for whatever reason, the school system has significant flaws regarding its intended function relative to some other system or what the system could possibly look like. It's not acceptable to say that 1 teacher has to teach 20 students, because, although it is a flaw that each student cannot have a single teacher, it's not a flaw relative to anything that is possible since there just isn't enough teachers.
Conclusion
For the reasons I said before, I will not be making any constructive arguments since it's impossible to do so in any way that's meaningful to the resolution. I could argue that the school system is great, but that is meaningless because it can still be flawed in spite of that fact. If there's no reason to believe flaws exist, it's safe to assume that they do not.
Yeah, a little, since it's impossible to make constructive arguments for my case, but I hope that by stating that I can't really do much it will convince voters to give me some leeway.
This is a tough resolution for CON
You might have a tough time winning arguments if you consistently refuse to provide a constructive. It could be seen as a forfeited round if it isn't in the rules to waive your opening statement.
Actually, Pro did 'come' after the current users here. It is only fair he/she/they lets them go first.
This man always lets con go first
If you don’t have a plan for the school system to change, don’t complain about it.
its a debate not a plan man, I don't expect it to change, I'm just debating.
Every single person who thinks the school system is flawed should have a plan as to how they would change it.
I will accept if you change the resolution from the modern education system that is "flawed," to something more concrete.
Everything is flawed because perfection is unattainable, so in its current state, it tells us nothing.