Literature is not important and should not be taken as an obligatory class.

It is my position that the BOP rests with Pro to establish that Literature is BOTH unimportant AND that it SHOULD NOT be taught. "Job: I hope all of you reading this have a job. Now, I would like to ask you a question: At any point of your jobs, do you read fictional books or are asked "What is the author trying to infer? " Now most of you are probably thinking a literature teacher and an author both need literature but both of those Jobs are ones that continue the chain of literature. Conclusion: Literature does not come up in any jobs that are not directly related to it. " Stating that no job asks what the author is trying to infer ignores the broader purpose of the critical thinking skills being taught. In the first place, we are asked to interpret people's writing ALL THE TIME. In this debate, I am asked to interpret my opponent's points, and must understand the context in which they're meant. While this is a non-fiction debate, at the same time, my opponent has not established that the skills learned by analyzing literature do not carry over into other realms. It's akin to saying that Math is a useless subject, because you've never been asked as a job to "calculate how old Mary is, if she is Three years younger than John, who is twice as old as Frank, who is half as old as Susie who is Six". "Time: If literature were not taken as an obligatory class, think of all the time saved in English class. I am almost sure that students learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book in English. " The BOP rests with you, as such you cannot be "almost sure" unless I agree to the premise, and I do not. Many schools use literature to teach vocabulary, with meaning, connotation, and contextual usage. "If they were to not take literature, there vocabulary would become much more sophisticated. " The irony of a person arguing that studying literature serves no purpose and that avoiding its use in school would allow schools to get those students' vocabulary to become more "sophisticated" while using the wrong homophone, is hopefully not lost on the audience. I negate this premise by saying that I do not believe it, and you've offered nothing to support it. "Students could also work on writing with the free time they have, and I am talking about persuasive writing like what I am doing right now, writing conventions, powerful language, all of that will become much better because they aren't wasting their time knowing what the author is trying to infer and reading fictional books that they get no new academic benefit from. " It is a tautology that students who learn about literature in school gain academic benefit. However, I believe I understand what you, the author, intend with the statement. However, you have not shown WHY studying literature does not help students learn "writing conventions, powerful language". "Also there will be an abridged amount of homework. " According to your own argument, the time freed by not studying literature would be spent on other pursuits. Therefore, it is irrational to ask me to assume that homework would be abridged. "Now, I am not saying that there shouldn't be any fictional books. They are entertaining and you learn some morals but it is not necessary for one's success. Take art. Art I believe is obligatory but in most schools is not taken every day. I could think of many reasons art is important. If you want to be any type of designer. If the police need to know how a criminal looks like someone could draw a picture of him. This may not be extremely important but it definitely has more importance than literature. " For similar reasons, literature is important. After all, there are novelists, short story writers, screenwriters, movie directors. These are all jobs that use literature as much as the jobs you list use art. "I think literature should be taken as an elective maybe because a lot of people are interested in it while others are not therefore it should not be an obligatory class. " Some people are interested in math, some people are not. Some people will never use any science in their line of work, and have no interest in it; by this argument, science should not be taught in schools. (Also, you have shifted the goals a bit here, the original point was that it should not be taught, not that it should not be required "Culture: I have heard that literature exposes you to different cultures and I agree 100%. But wait, Social Studies does that so reading could be a more fun way to expose someone to different cultures but in fictional novels, it doesn't necessarily give facts about the country and its details that you learn in history/social studies. Please do not turn this into a debate between literature books versus history textbooks. " There are many meticulously researched historical fiction novels. I do not believe it proper to hobble the debate by simply cutting off a potential use for literature just because it could be somewhere else. The same could be said about other disciplines, as well. While it will not be my main focus, I won't concede to the removal of perspective as a point. "Summary: Literature does not come up in any jobs (besides the ones I mentioned and explained why that is not a good argument) therefore it is a waste of time, therefore it should not be taken as an obligatory class. " The idea that only things which come up in jobs should be taught is foolish, as I've already pointed out. It also ignores the broader lessons taught by literature. While I have distaste for Orson Scott Card now, when I was a child Ender's Game taught me a great deal about life and people, lessons that could have been taught elsewhere in school, but weren't. While all subjects must be prioritized (which is why Art often falls by the wayside), I do not believe my opponent has established that literature should not be taught.