Any given person should do debate

Can I begin by saying this: this debate is not about your average person. This debate is about whether a given person exists from whom the net benefits of debate outweigh the net costs. I firmly believe that such people do indeed exist. My opponent has pointed out a whole bunch of facts about debating. Every one of them assumes that the given person is a school student in a country or state with an established debating scene. My opponent goes on to assume that the given person lives in the USA specifically. All of the above is an ideal environment for debate. But surely that ideal environment is neither prevalent nor the moot of the debate. The moot of the debate is whether ANY given person should do debate, not a person in ideal circumstances. It is my argument that not all people should do debate. In this round, I will argue that a mother of five working two jobs in Palau, struggling to make ends meet, should not take up debating when given the opportunity. Granted, that's an extreme. But it cannot be denied that this lady is a person, and a given person at that. If you accept she should not do debate, then great! Victory is mine. If not, then my opponent wins. My opponent's burden of proof is therefore to show how this woman would significantly benefit from debate. That rules out all of my opponent's analysis. The bit about students benefits doesn't count because she's not a student. She doesn't have a college and her parents are dead, so they don't benefit either. Palau doesn't have school districts, so they don't benefit. The only bit of analysis that counts is that the nation might benefit, but here my opponent's figures assume the United States is everyone. That's not true. Besides, I contend that the woman will not have the time to do debating well. Debating takes significant amounts of time. This is even more true for countries without an established debating structure, such as Palau. A debate on Palau can take days, as participants need to sail to the host island for a debate there. Given that she works two jobs, which she needs to do to support her family, she can hardly sacrifice that sort of time. For her, therefore, "doing debate" means to learn and practice, but not actually compete. Since she does not compete, she has to do all of this work and never actually see the reward from it. Psychological study after psychological study has shown that one does not change behavior after just learning. One needs to apply that learning in real life. Even if this were not so, however, this woman would learn nothing, because she already knows how to read and write, and doesn't need to think critically in her line of work (hotel portering). Given that she will not actually change her life, all of your national benefits will not accrue. All of your other benefits also require competition to accrue, and are therefore void. All that debate would do for her is force her to socialise more with the people in her village in a debating forum. Even this is not a benefit of debate, for she can do that anyway without taking up debating. There are a number of harms debating brings this person. Namely: 1) STRESS - as she will have less time to dedicate to zoning out after a hard day of work. 2) LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY - as she will be tired each day after dedicating time to debating the night before. 3) DEPRESSION - from the impact of learning all manner of concerning facts about the world yet being helpless to solve the issues involved. 4) COMMUNITY REJECTION - as she would have to skip church to maintain that lifestyle and be unable to participate in other community activities. That woman in Palau, although she will be the focus for me in this debate, is by no means alone in her predicament. Millions of people are too busy to find the time for debating. In modern society, as time grows ever more fragile, mirror images of that Palauian woman become more common. Perhaps it is a sad sight. Debating will only make it worse. Wouldn't you agree?