Philosophy is of greater value than science to students.

"Pro dismisses my assessment of his biased source, claiming that it is 'baseless'. This is quite ironic because 'baseless' exactly describes Pros dismissal, here. I gave clear, logically-supported reasons to believe that his source is biased: as a university philosophy department's homepage, the writers would have had a vested interest in persuading students to major in that field; furthermore, I cited a more objective source with no such vested interests (i.e. Forbes) that contradicted the assertions in Pro's source. There is nothing even vaguely resembling "misrepresentation" in my analysis of Pro's source. This contention remains refuted, as I have successfully shown that the source upon which its factual accuracy rests is biased/unreliable.", it looks like I get to play teacher again... 1. That's not proof of bias. In order to prove bias you have to show, legitimately, that claims are either exaggerated or false however you did neither. You must do more than claim it's biased, because that's a claim, you have to give sound evidence. You've committed ad hominem, "Because the school's philosophy department posted it it's clearly biased." is not valid; that's no different than me saying "Because you think it's biased and you are con you're clearly lying." (http://www.nizkor.org...) ""An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). Example from page (reorganized to fit this): School: "I believe that Philosophy is a good major/minor." You: "Of course you would say that, you're the Philosophy Department." School: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" You: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're the Philosophy Dept, so you have to say that Philosophy is exaggerated. Further, you are just trying to get students,, so I can't believe what you say." 2. Your source is ambiguous. The odds that it is a direct reference to Theology are high because (http://www.salary.com..., http://www.dailyfinance.com..., http://www.nydailynews.com... http://www.thinkadvisor.com...) it comes up multiple times throughout the years. Not once is "Philosophy" listed particularly because it's not a simple "field". "Pro attacks my Forbes source by two routes. He first objects that it lacks a date, but this is simply based in a failure to look deeper into the source; if we look at the article from which the linked slide show comes from [1], we can clearly see a date printed on the top: 10/11/2012.", you are required to actually submit your own sources as complete. It is not your opponents job to complete your sources. Ever. I'm going to spend 8,000 characters telling you how to do this again. This is basic stuff. " However, there is absolutely no reason to believe this; philosophy is grouped with 'religious studies' simply because they often deal with similar subjects (e.g. morality, the nature of reality, etc.). Both of Pro's objections fail. Forbes can safely be considered an objective, reliable source.", That was just proven false. "Pro does not contest my argument that science as a general field provides an enormous amount of occupational versatility to the point that *even* if Pro's claims hold true (which they don't), studying science would *still* allow for more versatility than studying philosophy.", it's still unsupported. I am going to make zero effort to prove your points. Zero. Let me make that clear right now. So as it's your claim you need to show that Science degrees are versatile between fields and that there are more fields in Science than Philosophy. I would drop it personally, you will likely not succeed in that, it's a difficult claim to back but it's yours, period. We are not going to do "Silence is Concession". "My rebuttal is *not* based on any alleged claim of philosophy courses increasing physiological/genetic intelligence.", "However, I believe that my opponent is confusing cause and effect, here; this correlation would only show that philosophy has significant value to students if majoring in philosophy was *causing* that high intelligence.", but you completely did base it off of that. Also, that's an outright lie, the word "Intelligence" doesn't appear at all in my first argument. It's not there. You are actually the first person to use the word (and bring up the subject). I have no idea how you are aware how I used a word I never used. To prove it just press F3 and search the word "Intelligence". So your rebuttal is based on nothing tangible. I have no idea how to handle this because I've never come across this before! First, it's still a strawman because that was not your original claim, you're shifting goalposts, and second you cried bias but then you got a website that's distinctly selling something? Not only this but the term "Critical Thinking" only comes up when it's the company and intelligence is never in a sentence with critical thinking. Upon reading it there is no evidence backing anything about an explanation of how it works or how the two connect innately. It's selling a product, clearly, and it is not a research paper. C is still unsupported. You need to do something more than say "It does!" The claim is simple "Science exercises the critical thinking and reasoning skills as much as Philosophy", but it's your claim, so I don't have to try and prove it. And I won't. "However, I am not really sure how to substantiate my claim any further... there is a clear logical gap between descriptions of the competitiveness within scholarly philosophy circles (what he provided) and the practical usages of philosophy (what he was trying to prove).", I don't know if you understand this but you actually have to show how that works. There is no such thing as a "Clear" outlook. You need evidence for everything. There isn't and wasn't sufficient explanation, you just keep making the claim, hoping it will stick. " It is PRO's job to bridge this gap.", incorrect. Burden of Proof for your claims rests on you. When you say "Nu uh!" that's not enough. I cannot respond to "Nu uh!" with anything more than "Yah huh!" and we're not doing that. It is your job to show that Science is either equivalent or greater in value, that's the burden you chose to take on, and you're not doing it! "Philosophy is not just the art of sitting in a circle and making things up. Philosophy is Life. Philosophy is what grants many meanings to many things, from Ethics to Law, from Medicine to Business Magnate, these are the cores of the system that cannot be ignored. A person who does not have a backing in philosophy is simply worse off; they do not do as well on tests, they limit themselves to a very specific and ever shrinking instead of ever expanding discipline, and they can only take one route when they take on a science, for instance biological sciences will not yield aerodynamic results however philosophy can take you down many, many roads as cited above.", did you just claim that the summary of the citations and arguments is actually "baseless"? By the way your parody (if you used the same source method and argumentation) would be accurate as a summary. Out of words correcting you again. Great.