Rebuttal To The Years Of School .

This is going to be a rebuttal to Vic’s post on “should the number of years of schooling be changed.” On his post, he said that the years of schooling should be change, to shorten the years of school. And I disagree with Vic for a few reasons.
He stated that, “Students spend most of their childhood learning in school, discipline and educational subjects, but they don't have enough time to be a child after elementary school.”
So I believe that Vic is saying students should spend time out side of school, and instead they should spend more time not in school, because they should enjoy their life while they can.  He also said “ they don't have enough time to be a child after elementary school,” this is saying, kids should not have that many years of elementary schooling, because they are not important to life. And he is also saying, kids should focus more on middle, high school or college instead of elementary school.
I have to say, I disagree with him, elementary years should not be shortened in any how, because during elementary years are what prepared kids or students to move on to like middle school. And middle prepares them into high school, and high school into college. So if they messed up during their elementary years they can messed up their whole life.
In addition, the numbers of school years should not change because kids can learn a lot from elementary schools too. From the math-and-reading-help-for-kids.org, it says that, “Although kids usually take a year of geometry in high school, they begin learning geometry in elementary school.” This is saying kids will start to learn geometry in their elementary years already, but if the year of elementary is shorter they might not get a chance to learn about geometry till like middle school or high school. Also learning geometry at such a young age can help them prepare when they take geometry in middle or high school.
In conclusion, the years of schooling should not change, because in every years of schooling, it prepares them for the next stage.

Rebuttal For The Death Penalty Debate .

  →The following is what Elizabeth and I came up with : 

Death penalty should be allowed for a myriad of reasons and there are some points  that the con side did not address. To begin with the con side said, “A second chance should be given in life before a death penalty,” but in fact most people wait many years on death row before they are killed, and so they have much time to prove that they are innocent. If you are not trying to to prove yourself innocent, then you are not really trying and do not care about your life. Some prisoners would prefer the death penalty so that they don’t have the guilt of the crime committed weighing down their minds for the rest of their lives.

Additionally  the con side quoted that “To kill the person who has killed someone close to you, is simply to continue the violence which destroys the avenger as well as the offender.” They are saying we should not put them on death row, but if we do not do that then we have to put them in jail and as we get more prisoners then the prisons get overfull, and we have to provide the supplies necessary for their survival: food, education, shelter for more of them since more and more people are being sent to prison because they did something awful. 

Lastly, one of the con side’s other reason says something about religion, “Religion also plays a important part in Death penalty. Everyone is taught that they  should be given a second chance” The thing about religion though, is that it is an unreliable source and excuse for many things having to do with politics. This is the reason we have this little thing called “Separation of Church and State.” Ever heard of it? I think so. Religion should not be a deciding factor in laws. One of the con side’s reasons said every one should deserve a second chance in life, but who ever gave the person that got killed by the accused a second chance?

A few sources, just for good measure:

Click If You Wanna See It (:

Click ! 

Thanks For Reading ☺