Today we're going to talk about compulsory schooling. Not compulsory education; I'm making a distinction for purposes of this debate. The question is, should parents be required to send their children to a public or government-approved private school, or should they be allowed to pursue alternatives such as home schooling or other forms of alternative education? For our purposes here, let's pretend that a "government-approved private school" would require teachers to be credentialed, and would require children to pass subject tests each year to ensure that they were learning the same things as their public school counterparts.

The rules: if you were born in an even-numbered month, argue in favor of compulsory schooling as defined here. If you were born in an odd-numbered month, argue in favor of letting parents pursue other options.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Answers

You guys losing interest?

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Yeah, I've got no stomach for it. Sorry. Lots of briefs to write this month.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

I think I'll stop posting questions, then. They're always a pain in the ass to come up with, anyway. If someone wants to resume later, we'll see if there's any interest.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Hey. There's not a lack of interest. But I think that a fair amount of folks don't quite get/appreciate the skills building aspect of the "debate club" and shy away from arguing POV's that they don't really hold (I mean really, how much of my heart could possibly have gone into arguing against teen sex? :)). Perhaps if we granted a little more leeway in the sides you picked, it might pick up.

I think all of the questions so far have been pretty good, Beth. Your readers suck, not you.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Yeah, Beth, your readers suck... uh... hell, nevermind.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Perhaps you all could debate whether or not you suck. Even-numbered months are pro-sucking, odd-numbered months are anti-sucking.

I think I phrased that wrong.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

I don't understand the whole idea, I guess. What's the point of arguing something if you don't believe in it? Let's just argue about things as they come up.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Actually, I really liked the idea. The whole point was to force yourself to see the other side of the argument, no matter how emotional you are about the whole subject, a whole big valuable lesson in objectivity. Also, since it's so much harder to argue about something you're not passionate about, it sharpens your logic and debate skills, and that's a beautiful thing. I thought it was great. Just didn't join in often enough - usually because I felt as if I had enough info to argue successfully, didn't have time to research.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Maybe we can practice the "argue on command" idea with subjects that don't require research. Something much more trivial?

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

"...usually because I felt as if I had enough info to argue successfully..."

Uh...meant "didn't have enough info." Uhduh.

Susan, that's an excellent idea. Can we start with the sucks/doesn't thing?

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Certainly. We probably need a new topic. I'll start one.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

I think a big part of the benefit of this exercise is that, regarding those issues you feel strongly about, arguing the other side helps you see and understand the opposing argument, which is going to make your side that much easier to argue some other time - if you don't know the opposition's reasoning, you can neither defend against it, nor can you poke holes in it. If you can step away from the emotionality of it and try to find the best reason you can for taking the other side (and really do your best, not avoid presenting the parts that you'd have the hardest time defending against), you're also just naturally going to be thinking about how you'd beat those arguments if you could debate from your real point of view. Either that, or you're going to think of something you've never considered before, and adjust your view accordingly - so what you're doing either way is firming up your own viewpoint by testing it out against a debator you respect and will be less likely to demonize (yourself).

(Don't most people do that anyway in a debate, at least within themselves? Try to figure out what the opposition's rationale is, to better fight against it? We're just doing it out loud.)

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001