The American School System is Broken and Detrimental

"GOOD LUCK NEXT ROUND BRAH! >:3 I'ma kick you bu-I MEANNNN have a good formal debate, you know? LOL"Thanks for the kind closing remarks, I was smiling as I read lol. Also, as to your question about bolds and italics, when you type your argument, on your upper left corner, there is 'rich text', clicking it enables you to use normal word format, you may also post pictures, though you need an album on the debate website to facilitate that. I hope that clears your question, if you have more please don't hesitate to ask, provided that I know how though, lol.StructureBefore I begin, I'd like a little clarification. Pro is arguing for the motion that the US education/school system is broken and made contentions based on the usefulness of the education prospects. He put forth the argument, that the subjects learned in school are useless to certain parties. I thank him for his response but however I will point out that the majority of my argument(particularly R3) is straw manned and my opponent was busy rebutting my case that he failed to defend his original arguments rendering the argument invalid. This is in addition to changing the status quo to imply that the 'system' is BROKEN. He failed to upheld his role in defending his argument and substantiating his 'system is broken' motion. In fact he even conceded some of my main points.Rebuttal: Oversimplification ArgumentPro, I have made the premise of 'physical science' of which you contested to be useless, I did not say humanities for that matter. I said it was under the umbrella of 'science and calculation'. You've essentially said that mathematical equations are useless, as such my argument is contesting that. You are riling a reassertion of which is already brought down by my argument along with misrepresentation of my case.Moreover, You can't expect a system to be perfect, standardization is easier with physical science due to its narrow choice of answers. It helps weak teachers to keep up with elite schools to ensure students with poor backgrounds may compete neck to neck with elite students. Not all of it is useful, obviously but it does not imply that the system is broken. Most parts of it arguably are useful because engineering is the second most popular course (8.http://www.browndailyherald.com...). The majority will find the system useful and not 'useless'.Pro made numerous rebuttals, but most of it is 'past an extent'. Past what sort of extent? your argument hinged on a generalized subjective claim because you failed to show how, thus making me rely on your subjective interpretation. Subjectivism holds no substantiative merit, this argument is dropped. There is no point in quibbling with opinions.Rebuttal: Usefulness of the education systemPro here makes a conceptualized view of the education hierarchy, where the point of the school is to facilitate the future. What is the point if there is inequality? your idea is admirable but if the system legitimizes inequality, then whatever point you're bringing is useless. Standardization is meant to curb inequality, take the west minister schools where most rich kids go to, the income gap between the rich and the poor are still widening due to the presence of this school because the poor can't afford it(9.http://www.yesscotland.net...).The only way to cater meritocracy(which is judging students based on merit, not because he or she is 'rich' or came from a noble family of some sort) is by using the current US education system. Its use of standardization and of physical science helps prevent inequality.I ask again? what is the point of facilitating the future when essentially, that alternate proposal legitimize inequality?. The current system is better.Furthermore, he acknowledge my position on health. Well, this is a clear concession, sex linkage is a deep water topic to go by, how does this subject suddenly come to the light of general knowledge? and how does 'moderate' equate with'past the extent' . Pro failed to elaborate his point, his clear concession of accepting sex linkage is one such evidence. You need an understanding of the Mendelian theory (of which is very complicated) to grasp sex linkage. Moreover the subject concerned here is health as such it is under the umbrella of 'physical science'. Pro expressed a dislike for physical science because it is useless, yet contradicts himself in accepting my premise.Coupled with college student observation, I like your argument but it is nevertheless full of holes. Making an absolutist claim that college students forgets everything is in no way substantiative. Moreover, Pro did not elaborate, so I assume learning A,B,C,D,E,F,G was useless, clearly there is some application there. This along with sex linkage, bolsters and solidifies my argument in nullifying the resolution.Lastly, your point on history. I agree, it was bad lol as it was meant to be impromptu. Though Learning how Richard Nixon was involved in the Watergate scandal is useful, even if it were to guess unpopular presidents like Gerald Ford is useful. It actually acts as a bridge for students. From this, we may separate those who are uninterested in politics and those who are interested. How? Well obviously the students themselves will learn politics out of curiousity.Hence, this proves to be cost effective and a drive towards meritocracy. The system succeeds and it isn't in any way, broken.Rebuttal: Tumblr PostThat's fine, but careful with generalized claims. You failed to elaborate it. I cannot rest on your subjective interpretation. Rebuttal: DiversityPro "Right, I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't necessarily be required to take ALL of those classes because, once again, past a certain extent... you know what I'm gonna say now, LOL."HAHAHAHA you've read my mind. Thanks for the laugh, Let's begin with the othersPro's rebuttal is essentially 'Leave out unnecessary details'. How so? Pro's argument have one weakness which ran almost entirely in his argument. That weakness is failure to elaborate how he will prove the motion that the system is broken. How do you leave unnecessary details when those 'unnecessary details' are useful? I.e sex linkage.Finally, on youth. Youth is between childhood and adulthood (10.http://en.wikipedia.org...) . There is no such thing as arriving at a conclusion so early in your life. Even in mid to late high school, there are those who are unable to make their own choices. The only way is to go back to standard subjects that was offered and move on from there. Sherlock video is just rhetorical, an appeal to excite the audience. So your point is to allow people to acknowledge in ignorance that the earth is flat?Defense: The US education spending'Money does not always equal quality'. Same weakness, pro failed to elaborate and resorted to 'I don't know but I do know that it is wrong'. So whatever expensive is wrong, very well, then we should eviscerate the unions, reduce expenditure, reduce teachers' salaries in order to do that just to suit that 'I don't know' budget mentality. This argument of reducing spending is just ridiculous.Defense: Standardized tests help raise standards"Again, I actually agree with you now, partially. Thanks for elaborating on your point."Thanks for the concession =DPro failed to elaborate the majority of his points all of which are backed by 0 sources with only his subjective merit to rely on. The resolution is negated. The system is not broken.