A psychology course should be mandated for all high school students in the US.

The Pro would like to first thank the Con for a pretty good debate. I would be happy to debate someone else on this topic should anyone be interested, because I feel as if this could have expanded to a much bigger discussion, but whatevs. I'd also be open to challenges about anything else. == The Pro's case (again, but it's getting shorter)== The youth of the US would benefit greatly from learning psychology. The two branches of Transactional Analysis and body language, in particular, have huge benefits. TA helps people not only overcome daily stress through an easily communicated language but also recognize any prejudices within themselves so that they can actively fight past assumptions and discrimination. Second, studying body language will help citizens learn about the instinctual borders in space and non verbal communication, benefiting relations in many scenarios and especially in business. Sadly, many students (myself included) are unable to take psychology classes in high school due to conflicts or simply a lack of awareness of the advantages of the class. Therefore, the US federal government needs to mandate that every high school student take a psychology class, so that the US youth can make great strides and gain great rewards in the knowledge. == The Con's arguments (so far)== The Con has made 3 arguments so far, and the Pro will address them straight down in order (to cover all its bases). 1. The Con suggested that instead of the Pro's proposal to mandate psychology for all high school students, only ROTC and students with serious issues should be mandated to take the class. The Pro simply argues in response that this would mean that a huge chunk of the youth wouldn't get the benefits of learning the class. This means that the two benefits of the Pro's case would be much weaker in the Con's proposal. 2. The Con next argued that the psychology class should be mandated in college instead. The Pro made 4 points in response detailing that high school students would learn the material just as well and also that this delay in the mandate will mean that 50% (+/- 10%) of the youth would miss the education. Again, the Con's proposal would have weaker benefits versus the Pro's case. 3. Finally, the Con has argued that "high schools dont even teach sexual education anymore. So why should they learn psychology?" The Pro can easily answer the second question with a copy-paste-Round 2-here. There are 2 reasons why they should learn psychology: they will fight prejudice and improve relations. It is necessary that they learn far beyond Freud to the fields of TA and body language to attain these abilities. Next, the Pro will argue that the fact that high schools don't teach sexual education anymore is irrelevant. The Con could have made a convincing argument as to why sexual education is more important and should be mandated instead of psychology (an opportunity cost argument) but the Pro is sad to say that the debate is finishing up and it would be a bit too late for that new argument. == The scoreboard== As it stands, the Pro is still defending two unique reasons why a world with a mandated psychology class is good. The Con has made a couple arguments here and there, but none of them have either proven that 1) The Pro's case isn't as good as it says it is. Nor proven that 2) The Pro's case causes harmful things to happen. The Con's arguments have offered suggestions as to other actions that can be taken, but these have also not received any explanation as to why they would have a net benefit over the Pro's case. Regardless, they've all received some extensive answering. Therefore, barring some sort of super-argument pulled out in the last Round by the Con (which should trigger some conduct vote backlash), a voter can be safe in knowing that according to the arguments presented by both sides in this debate, mandating that high school students take a psychology course will only cause good things to happen. When looking at whether or not to do something (such as mandate a psychology course), when the two options are either do it and receive pure benefits or not do it and feel no change over the status quo, one should vote for the world that has pure benefit, i.e. the Pro. The Pro rests his case.