Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6029
For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
2
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
TheRizzler
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Description
Con defends the position that current standard is better.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Children should have the autonomy to pursue their interests without long arbitrary imposed schedules. We should recognize children's capacity for self-directed learning and free them up to explore, create, and grow at their own pace and comfort.
I. Improves health and desire for knowledge
Children need to sleep for at least 10 hours for proper brain development. With 2 hours of school and about 1 hour of travel time, they are left with 11 hours of free time per day. If school time is 7 hours a day, they are left with only 6 hours of free time a day unless they deduct from their sleep which would harm their brain development significantly.
Children need to develop relationships and friendships, and too much school harms their social skills and ability to form relationships, harming their communication skills.
Too much school time and pressure in schools causes high suicide rates and obesity.
Children do most of their learning at home. School serves to direct them. With use of AI, children can more effectively learn at home. Children during school time are given way more information than they can remember, and most children after finishing school forget 98% of things they learned in school.
Students can focus better in shorter time. Less time is wasted on unnecessary activities. Teachers can deliver key content more efficiently. It encourages independent learning. Reduces burnout and mental fatigue. Increases retention of information. Less repetitive, unproductive reviews. It promotes high-impact teaching strategies. Encourages more hands-on, engaging lessons. More time for family bonding. Strengthens parent-child relationships. Allows for more quality time with siblings. Encourages more personalized education at home. Helps students develop real-world social skills. Encourages family discussions about learning and family help with learning, making a better combination of learning at home and learning at school.
It forces schools to prioritize essential subjects over quantity of meaningless. Reduces stress and anxiety among students. Gives more time for relaxation and personal growth. Less pressure from overwhelming school work. Reduces depression caused by stress. Improves overall happiness and life satisfaction. More time for outdoor play and physical activity. Reduces problems caused by sedentary school life. Less back and neck problems from sitting for long hours. Helps students focus on their passions. Avoids long, draining school days. Fewer disciplinary issues due to exhaustion. It encourages students to be interested in learning, as reducing school hours means reducing time spent on meaningless learning, and more time to learn things children are interested in, preventing boredom from learning.
It makes children more willing to go to school, and makes school easier to deal with for children, reducing running from classes.
Promotes hands-on learning through personal projects. Encourages critical thinking and problem-solving, encourages learning on their own. Supports personal expression. More time for self-discovery. Encourages practical application of knowledge. Allows for better learning outside the classroom. Helps students learn from real-life experiences instead of theory.
Schools can focus on quality over quantity. Teachers can provide more one-on-one attention. Reduces overcrowded classrooms. Allows teachers to focus on student understanding rather than speed. Reduces unnecessary testing. Less bureaucracy and administrative work for teachers. Encourages a more flexible education system. Reduces the need for excessive homework. Fosters a love for learning instead of being burdened by learning. Encourages alternative education models.
In terms of economy, reducing school time is beneficial because it saves resources and enables more resources to be directed to more effective things which improve society, while school focuses on more effective learning methods. Reduces school operational costs. Saves money on school supplies. Less need for large school buildings. Reduces energy consumption in schools.
The length of school hours has a significant impact on students' physical and mental health. Long school hours often lead to issues like health problems, mental issues, and poor nutrition. Conversely, countries with shorter school days, such as Finland, show better health outcomes.
II. It is what children want
Children want to have more free time. Childhood should be happier, learning things children are interested in at their own comfort. Children arent adult workers and they dont need to work 7 hours in school for free as well as studying for hours at home.
Research has shown that if person is interested in what he is trying to learn, he will learn it easier and memorize longer.
What children want matters. It is their life. They are not property. They should have time for own interests instead of being pushed into so much work at a young age.
III. Reduces violence in schools significantly
Studies have shown that reducing school week by just 1 day reduces bullying by over 35%. This helps children to grow into better adults. Many criminals and many school shooters are a result of severe bullying which happens in schools. Effective effort must be made to reduce bullying. Reducing school time was shown to be a very effective way. Schools shouldnt be a prison of pain and humiliation for some children where they come just to suffer.
Con
#2
Children need to develop relationships and friendships, and too much school harms their social skills and ability to form relationships, harming their communication skills.
How exactly does school harm relational and communication skills? This point you've made seems rather counter-intuitive since more school hours usually means more time spent around peers. In fact one of the main arguments against home-school or less school hours is less social interaction.
Too much school time and pressure in schools causes high suicide rates and obesity.
Saying that is a little bit of an exaggeration. Long school hours does not directly cause high suicide or obesity rates as you implied here. The two have been linked in studies, but long school hours is not a direct cause.
Children do most of their learning at home. School serves to direct them. With use of AI, children can more effectively learn at home.
The first and second sentences are hardly facts. Also when you say 'learning' do you mean the general learning of any variety of things (eg. cooking, how to behave appropriately), or actual subjects? (eg. math, English, history). In addition it would be appreciated if you explained how AI can help children learn at home more effectively.
Students can focus better in shorter time. Less time is wasted on unnecessary activities. Teachers can deliver key content more efficiently. It encourages independent learning... Helps students develop real-world social skills.
1) What do you mean by 'unnecessary activities'? That sounds like a very opinionated statement. 2) With 2 hours per day in class teaching would actually be much more difficult, especially with complicated concepts. Schools generally teach at least 6 subjects every day, that leaves at most 20 minutes for the teacher to do their job. In addition to that, since the time they spend teaching is much shorter, they will end up working much less. Since they're working less, it only makes sense that the school will pay them less. Since they're getting paid less, teachers will stop teaching in search of better ways to support themselves/their families. People will stop studying to become teachers and eventually people will only be teachers as a hobby or a side hustle, which makes for less qualified people teaching the youth, and also less quantity. 3) Since the government now only requires two hours of school per day for children, Ian increase in independent learning is certainly not a guarantee. The children are generally going to want to play in their free time, not learn more, and that leaves further education up to the parents. Even if they want to educate their child more, homeschooling is a ton of work. 4) Still not clear how less time at school improves social skills.
It forces schools to prioritize essential subjects over quantity of meaningless
That is purely an opinion statement. You personally thinking that certain subjects aren't useful doesn't make them meaningless.
More time for outdoor play and physical activity.
It's very possible that students will play outside more, but it's not a guarantee. Plus PE is mandatory in the majority of schools (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/rpt/pdf/2017-R-0341.pdf).
It encourages students to be interested in learning, as reducing school hours means reducing time spent on meaningless learning, and more time to learn things children are interested in, preventing boredom from learning.
Still pure opinion on 'meaningless learning'. Also boredom is not a bad thing we need to get rid of. Boredom is a part of life. Everyone feels bored sometimes. Kids need to learn how to handle the feeling of boredom instead of avoiding it.
Improves overall happiness and life satisfaction
Not a fact. Life might be less satisfying or happy when you're unable to get the job you wanted due to your weakened education.
Helps students focus on their passions
To be frank, passions aren't as important as paying the bills. In addition, the weakened education might stop children from discovering their passions in the first place. For example, I might not have discovered a passion for writing if I hadn't practiced writing in school and presenting that writing in front of others many times.
It makes children more willing to go to school, and makes school easier to deal with for children, reducing running from classes.
Children wanting less school doesn't provide a worthy reason for making less school. Running from classes is hardly a big issue, and not something that should be solved by reducing school time. That's like reducing jail time so less people try to escape. (I know it's an extreme comparison but you know what I'm trying to say)
Promotes hands-on learning through personal projects. Encourages critical thinking and problem-solving, encourages learning on their own. Supports personal expression... Encourages practical application of knowledge. Allows for better learning outside the classroom. Helps students learn from real-life experiences instead of theory.
No evidence was provided for any of these claims. If you do have a source for them, please state it immediately after a claim to avoid confusion.
Schools can focus on quality over quantity. Teachers can provide more one-on-one attention. Reduces overcrowded classrooms. Allows teachers to focus on student understanding rather than speed. Reduces unnecessary testing. Less bureaucracy and administrative work for teachers. Encourages a more flexible education system. Reduces the need for excessive homework.
Explain how less time to teach makes it easier for teachers to focus on students' individual understanding. Explain how less school hours reduces crowded classrooms. What do you mean by 'unnecessary testing'? I already covered the negative impacts of less work. Explain how it reduces homework.
Ran out of space thx for reading!
Round 2
Pro
#3
I. Improves health and desire for knowledge
Homeschooled children are less likely to experience harm and bullying, and more likely to achieve better education results, proving that school environment isnt the best system at teaching, or safest. Thus, reducing such system in favor of increased use of better ones like studying at home using AI is beneficial.
II. It is what children want
This point was not challenged. What people want is most important to them. We cant just impose what we want on others, because they have wants and choices too and their wants and choices matter like ours. Giving children choices and respecting their wants was proved to improve their decision-making abilities and improve their reasoning abilities, and this should be applied in case of education too, as education of a child anyway depends a lot on child's choice, and improving child's ability to choose results in better choices in their own education.
III. Reduces violence in schools significantly
This point was not challenged. Children who are bullies in school have much less time to bully other children when school hours are much shorter, and shorter school time also allows better supervision. In school, children have no choice but to spend time with their bullies as they cant go anywhere else. This time should be reduced. With improved mental health of children and less stress, there will also be less bullies, and children will be able to better deal with bullying problems.
Answers
more school hours usually means more time spent around peers
Being near peers =/= talking to peers. Children talk with each other freely in their free time, not during class.
Long school hours does not directly cause high suicide or obesity rates
I already linked a study about it. High pressure and too much work is a common reason to develop mental illnesses and suicidal thoughts, especially if it combines with other problems.
it would be appreciated if you explained how AI can help children learn at home more effectively.
Many people use AI to study and research. Thats the point of AI.
What do you mean by 'unnecessary activities'?
Most knowledge and activities learned in school are unnecessary for most children. The amount of knowledge children are expected to learn in school equals to over 1 million statements. That needs to be reduced significantly, because it is impossible to learn.
that leaves at most 20 minutes for the teacher to do their job
Most teachers teach multiple classes. 20 minutes is enough to give directions, facts and topics which can be studied at home.
they will end up working much less
They wont work less, but less teachers will teach more classes. It also enables the option that size of class becomes smaller to enable much better teaching.
The children are generally going to want to play in their free time, not learn more
Children do most of their studying and homework at home anyway.
that leaves further education up to the parents
Its up to children and parents. But it is always up to these two. If neither are willing, more time in school wont change much in terms of education of child who doesnt want to study. But reducing school hours was shown to increase will to study in children.
Plus PE is mandatory in the majority of schools
I am not advocating for abolishing it. In fact, making sure children do healthy activities for 10 minutes every day in school would greatly improve their health.
It's very possible that students will play outside more, but it's not a guarantee
What is a guarantee now is that 6 classes means sitting for almost 5 hours. So with reduced school time, the chances of that time instead being spent in activity greatly increases.
Also boredom is not a bad thing
Being bored of learning is, as it reduces will to learn.
weakened education might stop children from discovering their passions
I am not arguing for making education weaker. As studies show, learning improves with reduced school hours.
Children wanting less school doesn't provide a worthy reason for making less school
It does if you believe that people's wants matter, and most people think their own wants matter. There must be a balance between what children want and what is expected of them. You cant turn children into slaves.
No evidence was provided for any of these claims
Sources for them were linked at the end.
Explain how less time to teach makes it easier for teachers to focus on students' individual understanding.
It enables either smaller classes either time for teacher to make individual programs for children to study at home, or it enables more of private teaching.
Explain how less school hours reduces crowded classrooms.
Already explained.
What do you mean by 'unnecessary testing'?
Many tests done in schools are not really necessary. If you think about it, the focus should be learning, not constant testing. And learning is best done at home, as studies show. Thus, some tests can be thrown out to make room for more directions in how and what to study at home.
Explain how it reduces homework.
By focusing on important things and quality, plenty of homework like mass of pointless copy pasting or some other useless work which is rarely needed in life would be reduced to make room for learning things which matter, things which will be remembered, learning how to do your own research at home and how to learn on your own instead of just repeating what teacher tells you. Hence, more improved reasoning ability and generally, better students who dont merely repeat what they are told, but learn and explore by themselves.
Con
#4
I. Improves health and desire for knowledgeHomeschooled children are less likely to experience harm and bullying, and more likely to achieve better education results, proving that school environment isnt the best system at teaching, or safest. Thus, reducing such system in favor of increased use of better ones like studying at home using AI is beneficial.
You are trying to completely change the topic of this debate. We are not debating whether 'homeschool is better than public school'. If your primary goal with reducing public school hours is to promote homeschooling, it would make more sense just to get rid of homeschool altogether. Your plan put parents in a position where they either have to let their child get a weaker education, or commit time to homeschooling them. Unless your plan is to force parents to set spend give more time from their already busy lives to homeschool their kids, it is unlikely they will work on any extra school and thus will get a weak education. If your plan is to replace kid's work at school with more homework, then that is worse than public school because they can't ask for help when they don't understand a concept (if they do get help from their parents then that is the equivalent of the homeschool situation I just talked about).
II. It is what children wantThis point was not challenged. What people want is most important to them. We cant just impose what we want on others, because they have wants and choices too and their wants and choices matter like ours. Giving children choices and respecting their wants was proved to improve their decision-making abilities and improve their reasoning abilities, and this should be applied in case of education too, as education of a child anyway depends a lot on child's choice, and improving child's ability to choose results in better choices in their own education.
I meant to challenge it earlier but I ran out of space. Anyways, this is a very weak argument for less public school hours. It is actually generally agreed that adults do have the right to impose certain things upon children due to the fact that they have less developed minds and weaker decision making skills. Children tend to pick whatever makes them happiest and not take their future well-being into account. There is a reason kids aren't allowed to drink, get married, or vote. If we left it up to kids the majority would certainly choose not to engage in any kind of school at all and the future generations of America would be, to put it frankly, 'dumb as rocks'.
III. Reduces violence in schools significantlyThis point was not challenged. Children who are bullies in school have much less time to bully other children when school hours are much shorter, and shorter school time also allows better supervision. In school, children have no choice but to spend time with their bullies as they cant go anywhere else. This time should be reduced. With improved mental health of children and less stress, there will also be less bullies, and children will be able to better deal with bullying problems.
This is a fair enough point for physical bullying. However, it is unlikely to have much of an impact on any verbal abuse. Generally, it is the quality and not the quantity of hurtful words that are spoken that has an effect on mental health. All it takes is one cruel sentence to effectively ruin someone's day, especially if they are a child. In addition, approximately 79% of bullying consists of verbal harassment (https://dosomething.org/article/11-facts-about-bullying).
more school hours usually means more time spent around peersBeing near peers =/= talking to peers. Children talk with each other freely in their free time, not during class.
Less school hours still doesn't necessarily mean more socializing.
Long school hours does not directly cause high suicide or obesity ratesI already linked a study about it. High pressure and too much work is a common reason to develop mental illnesses and suicidal thoughts, especially if it combines with other problems.
I wasn't denying that it can be a contributing factor. I was just saying that 'public school time causes obesity and suicide' is a bit of a misleading statement.
What do you mean by 'unnecessary activities'?Most knowledge and activities learned in school are unnecessary for most children. The amount of knowledge children are expected to learn in school equals to over 1 million statements. That needs to be reduced significantly, because it is impossible to learn.
Students clearly aren't actually 'expected' to retain all that knowledge, since students pass with a D grade, or 60% correct (https://www.excelhighschool.com/what-is-the-grading-scale). Also it's obviously not 'impossible' since several students graduate with straight A's every year.
that leaves at most 20 minutes for the teacher to do their jobMost teachers teach multiple classes. 20 minutes is enough to give directions, facts and topics which can be studied at home.they will end up working much lessThey wont work less, but less teachers will teach more classes. It also enables the option that size of class becomes smaller to enable much better teaching.
The teachers are still working 2 hours maximum in comparison to an 8 hour shift. Then it only makes sense that they will be paid 1/4 of what is being paid now, so teaching will vastly decrease in popularity and qualified instructors will be scarce.
And now i'm out of space again. :(
Round 3
Pro
#5
Reducing the school day to just two hours is an unconventional approach, yes, but it has arguments to support it. It would allow for more flexible schedules that cater to children's natural learning patterns and interests. Many young minds have a limited attention span and might find it challenging to sit still for an extended period. A shorter school day could enable children to engage in extracurricular activities, sports, and hobbies, which are essential for developing essential life skills, creativity, and socialization. Further, all research talks of benefits of reducing school hours and harms of long school hours and too much pressure in schools. Some schools have already reduced school hours by reducing school week by one day, and have seen great benefits. What I am defending in this topic is much more preferable to standard 7 hours a day of school for 5 days in a row, and the studies do point to many benefits of alternative ways to study, not just in terms of economy, safety and mental and physical health, and sleep quality, but grades too. No one can seriously defend that current system is good for children, due to known and proved harms it causes to their lives. The only harm of a system I am arguing for is a small chance of slightly worse grades, but even that is challenged by many studies and it was already proved that studying at home is superior and often the main way children study anyway.
I. Improves health and desire for knowledge
The notion that longer hours in school directly correlate with improved academic performance is misguided. It ignores the complex, individualized factors that influence learning outcomes. What it does perpetuate, however, is an unhealthy emphasis on productivity and compliance over genuine understanding and personal growth. It's a recipe for burnout, resentment, and the stifling of curiosity. As studies show, homeschooling provides much better results than all schools on average.
My position in this debate isnt "reduce learning time to 2 hours", but do more learning in home environment and reduce school time to 2 hours. Japan and South Korea have long school hours of 8 hours per day, but plenty of suicides, mental health issues and relationship forming issues due to severe pressure on children. We cant expect 10 year olds to work as long as adults. We cant sacrifice their health, experiences and relationships to achieve slightly better grades. Finland has lowest number of school hours per day, yet one of countries which have best grades in the world. Reducing school hours greatly benefits health while also often benefiting grades as well, while giving children more choices and freedom to improve their decision making abilities.
II. It is what children want
What exactly is a response to this point? That children are property and that their childhood, choices, dreams and wishes dont matter in adult world?
Body ownership and choices about own life is not only basic human right, but a condition for a debate. Debating is the only possible way to determine who is right. Any reduction in debate reduces the ability to determine who is right. Debate depends upon body ownership and property ownership not being reduced. Reducing body ownership cannot be justified in a debate because it reduces debates and reduces its own ability to prove itself right.
III. Reduces violence in schools significantly
It will never be worthy to cause child pain, violence and humiliation just for the sake of grades, and such society in long term will only pile up mental health issues and problems.
Answers
We are not debating whether 'homeschool is better than public school
Homeschooling was merely an example of studying at home being more effective and less harmful than studying at school. So increasing home studying time by reducing school time is beneficial as well, and with help of AI, it can be no much burden on parents while improving effectiveness.
It is actually generally agreed that adults do have the right to impose certain things
This was already negated by studies which show that giving more choices to children makes them smarter and better at decision making, and taking away choices is widely considered harmful for development. Hence, the helicopter parent label.
it is unlikely to have much of an impact on any verbal abuse
Less time for verbal abuse as well, plus study was already shown which showed reduced bullying by 35%.
Less school hours still doesn't necessarily mean more socializing.
It greatly increases the possibility, as free time is necessary for socializing.
Also it's obviously not 'impossible' since several students graduate with straight A's every year.
It is impossible, because those students dont remember 1 million statements after finishing school. They just learn what they need in specific month, get grade, and then forget most of what was learned. Hence, pointless. It is not possible for human to remember 1 million sentences given to him through decades of education, and for average human, it would be even pointless even if it was possible.
The teachers are still working 2 hours maximum in comparison to an 8 hour shift
No, they can teach multiple classes each for 2 hours one after another.
5. This scientific source does great research and compares countries like China which have more hours of school per day to more advanced countries with much less hours of school per day: https://scienceandliteracy.org/why-school-days-should-be-shorter/
Con
#6
I would like to remind both the voters and the opposing team that is not my position to be against any sort of reduction in public school hours, but that it should be longer than 2. With public schooling being limited to two hours per day, the quality of the teaching can only get worse, with teachers' having even more limited time to focus in struggling students, and the issue of reduced teaching popularity I brought up earlier.
I. Improves health and desire for knowledgeThe notion that longer hours in school directly correlate with improved academic performance is misguided. It ignores the complex, individualized factors that influence learning outcomes. What it does perpetuate, however, is an unhealthy emphasis on productivity and compliance over genuine understanding and personal growth. It's a recipe for burnout, resentment, and the stifling of curiosity. As studies show, homeschooling provides much better results than all schools on average.My position in this debate isnt "reduce learning time to 2 hours", but do more learning in home environment and reduce school time to 2 hours. Japan and South Korea have long school hours of 8 hours per day, but plenty of suicides, mental health issues and relationship forming issues due to severe pressure on children. We cant expect 10 year olds to work as long as adults. We cant sacrifice their health, experiences and relationships to achieve slightly better grades. Finland has lowest number of school hours per day, yet one of countries which have best grades in the world. Reducing school hours greatly benefits health while also often benefiting grades as well, while giving children more choices and freedom to improve their decision making abilities.
I never tried to argue that more school hours will make students get better grades. I concede that with more hours there will be more knowledge taught and more testing and therefore less overall accuracy on the tests. However I disagree with the idea that we should teach children less to improve their accuracy on testing. What you're stating is you think it's better for kids to be very comfortable with simple concepts than to be uncomfortable with being tested on complex or advanced concepts. I respect that opinion but I do not agree. Also, you have again brought up that 'homeschooling is better', and 'with less public school people will homeschool after it's over'. However you have shifted the topic of this debate by bringing homeschooling into it, and you have entirely swapped your original position. You cannot just change from 'Public school should last 2 hours' to 'students should replace public school. hours with homeschool'. Therefore, since you changed your position, I win this debate by default. However, I will still continue to address some of your other points.
II. It is what children wantWhat exactly is a response to this point? That children are property and that their childhood, choices, dreams and wishes dont matter in adult world?Body ownership and choices about own life is not only basic human right, but a condition for a debate. Debating is the only possible way to determine who is right. Any reduction in debate reduces the ability to determine who is right. Debate depends upon body ownership and property ownership not being reduced. Reducing body ownership cannot be justified in a debate because it reduces debates and reduces its own ability to prove itself right.
That is a gross exaggeration in response to my previous counter. In fact, that is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is commonly defined exaggerating or oversimplifying an opponent's argument and then attacking this distorted version (https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/#:~:text=Regardless%20of%20their%20form%2C%20straw%20man%20fallacies,that%20original%20position%20X%20has%20been%20refuted.). The second paragraph is essentially just nonsense.
III. Reduces violence in schools significantlyIt will never be worthy to cause child pain, violence and humiliation just for the sake of grades, and such society in long term will only pile up mental health issues and problems.
Perhaps you are right in this position. However I will call into question the inherency of your solution. If bullying is the main harm you are using for your case, then shortening school hours is not the best, only, or even a very affective solution. If you want to stop bullying, don't just do away with school. Use creativity and problem solving skills to come up with a less extreme solution. For example you can come up with a plan to have adults present throughout the school to prevent any harassment. Or maybe assemble a volunteer group of students who work together within the school to stop bullying.
In conclusion, I have countered your main points to the best of my ability, and I wholeheartedly believe that you have not provided sufficient evidence for the resolution: Public school should be limited to two hours a day for children. I thank the opposing team for a lively debate, and I thank any voters for reading and analyzing this debate. That is all.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Not much time for analysis...
I think if this debate had shared BoP, I'd be leaving it a tie. As is, pro has the duty to overcome the status quo. He need not address every angle of it, but it's not a strict comparison debate of 2 hours vs. 7 hours (for setup of a topic like this, I'd probably start with a phrasing along the lines of of 4hours or less, vs 6hours or more... much smaller gap to overcome, but also leaves a clear tied range in the middle, and implies some BoP on con).
The decreased bullying if cutting school by one day per week was compelling, but begs the question of why not just cut school by one day per week? Con was able to raise the issue of verbal bullying, which doesn't sound like it would take much time (and not basing my vote on this, but I've seen my nephew get bullied in videogames plenty; and it does get worse when he's on breaks from school).
Con's point about the quality of education carries the day for me. While pro was able to say it would improve the quality of education if teachers had less time per class but then more classes (to avoid disincentivizing them with less pay as con cautioned), but this is getting into an implementation gap, which isn't assured to manifest as such. It's like saying if we just raise taxes, we will at last be able to feed the orphans; but in reality even if money is earmarked for them, it is not assured to go to them.
If schools become worse, then it is worse for students even if it's what they would prefer.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
that's a spicy debate , 🙂
our Pro act like a mother while Con perform like a father
if my son analyze this debate he exactly stand with Pro but i know we r not the citizens of Utopia , Con well done
Maybe just copy text from debate to it. Otherwise, it might have difficulty telling what is part of debate and what isnt. As for AI adding new arguments, yeah, I dont know how to fix that. Maybe specifically instruct it not to add own arguments.
ChatGPT is wonky. I am gradually getting it trained up, but it’s got leagues to go.
I wouldn’t trust an AI to vote on any complex debate. The single refinement I made for it on this one (which took multiple tries) was telling it that Shane.Roy was not a participant in this debate.
One of the first debate reviews I had it do, it turned out to have decided cons arguments were no good so wrote new better ones. Harmless in a review and easy to correct, but detrimental in a vote.
ChatGPT takes every claim as true in debate unless it thinks it was negated by some claim? I guess maybe, just maybe, ChatGPT could be a good voter. Not sure if it is possible to introduce AI voter on this site, but it would be kinda fun.
You'd be surprised how fast I've gotten at those (at least unrefined ones like that).
"I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate"
You didnt have to bother that much, but thanks for voting.
Thank you for your vote @Barney
I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate (it's not what I used when voting, I ended up scanning more). But here is the breakdown it provided...
== Debate Title ==
'''For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day'''
== Participants ==
* '''Pro''': TheGreatSunGod
* '''Con''': TheRizzler
== Round-by-Round Breakdown ==
=== Argument Tree ===
==== Arguments Initiated by Pro (TheGreatSunGod) ====
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''School causes chronic sleep deprivation in children.'''<br>{{Q|Chronic sleep deprivation is rampant among children. The cause is primarily the demands of school.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Sleep deprivation is not necessarily due to school; students can still sleep 8 hours.'''<br>{{Q|They only need 8 hours of sleep, so if they sleep from 9pm-5am, it will not result in chronic sleep deprivation.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''8 hours is insufficient for children.'''<br>{{Q|The average amount of sleep required for a 13-year-old is 9.25 hours.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Most students do get enough sleep.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
::::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Most of these studies are flawed or untrue.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children retain very little from long school days.'''<br>{{Q|A 2015 study of high school students found that students only retained 20% of what they were taught.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Some students can retain a lot with good methods.'''<br>{{Q|The effectiveness of memory is up to the student and the techniques they use.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Children don't all have access to ideal study environments.'''<br>{{Q|That's not an excuse. The average student doesn't retain much; you can't expect perfection.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Reduced school time promotes better mental health.'''<br>{{Q|Shorter school time could lead to students being more relaxed and less depressed.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''School time is necessary structure.'''<br>{{Q|Structure and discipline are necessary, especially for kids who can't get it at home.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Structure doesn’t have to come from school.'''<br>{{Q|You can give children structure in other ways, such as planned activities.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Bullying and peer pressure are amplified in long school days.'''<br>{{Q|If kids only go to school for 2 hours, there's less time to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Bullying occurs regardless of hours.'''<br>{{Q|If they get bullied, it will happen regardless of how long they're there.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Less time reduces exposure.'''<br>{{Q|Less time around bullies means fewer opportunities to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children would be happier if their time was better respected.'''<br>{{Q|Respecting children’s time is respecting them as people.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Children lack maturity to make such decisions.'''<br>{{Q|You're arguing that we should let children decide what's best for them.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Autonomy helps development.'''<br>{{Q|Giving children some choice and freedom helps them grow.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
==== Arguments Initiated by Con (TheRizzler) ====
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''A 2-hour school day is insufficient to teach all necessary subjects.'''<br>{{Q|With only 2 hours of school, you would not be able to cover reading, math, history, science, etc.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Learning can happen outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You don’t need 8 hours of school to learn math.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Many students won’t learn outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You say they could do it at home, but many wouldn’t.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Parents and technology can support at-home learning.'''<br>{{Q|If you have involved parents or even just good software, students can thrive.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Not all families have access to those resources.'''<br>{{Q|This assumes privilege. Many students don’t have that kind of support.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''The 2-hour proposal lacks practicality.'''<br>{{Q|This would be an unworkable shift in how education is done.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Other countries succeed with short hours.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has shorter school hours and still ranks high in education.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Cultural and structural differences make comparisons invalid.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has a different society, economy, and values. It’s not an easy comparison.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
== Result ==
The voting period is still open, and the result is currently tied. This page presents a tiered breakdown of the full debate to aid readers and potential voters in assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides.
=== Evaluation Summary ===
* '''Logical Clarity''': Slight edge to '''Con''' for pragmatic framing and consistent rebuttals.
* '''Use of Evidence''': Relatively even; '''Pro''' offers some studies, while '''Con''' uses common-sense rebuttals.
* '''Debate Structure''': '''Con''' consistently responds to and frames issues across rounds.
* '''Rhetorical Framing''': '''Pro''' appeals to reform and autonomy; '''Con''' focuses on feasibility and equity.
'''Recommended Vote''':
* Vote '''Pro''' if you prioritize idealism, student-centered reform, or philosophical values.
* Vote '''Con''' if you value pragmatic feasibility, systemic equity, and rebuttal discipline.
Under traditional criteria (burden of proof, refutation, impact): '''Con''' holds a slight edge overall.
[[Category:Debates]]
Cast a tie breaking vote? Pretty please? 😭
I am happy as long as there is any. On my previous account, I had like 150 debates without any votes. But I guess it would be better if vote wasnt a tie, because thats same result as no votes 🤔
No (helpful) votes 😔
I just want a vote so my debate has a vote. I dont care who the vote is for ^^
although, don't go against me if i don't vote for u, but yeah i hv to check out the stuff first so
ok, i will lemme c
Vote? One little vote? >.<
Okey, pwease one vote?
Yeah, I have only 2 debates now which need votes, and after that, I can start new debates.
vote?
Yes, some votes would be nice >.<
Would appreciate some votes if you can spare the time!
sure, please do on this topic
I can make a new debate, if you want to accept.
I request that I may oppose this