Philosophy is of greater value than science to students.

Pro unfortunately has chosen to continue with his strategy from last round. Again, all I need to do is show that each accusation is false. 1. Versatility a. Pro misconstrues my argument. I am NOT dismissing his source simply because it is a university philosophy department's homepage. That potential motive for exaggeration is *a* reason, but there are other more important reasons that I have already pointed out, such as that the home page itself lacks any substantial evidence behind its assertions (only a list of links to mediocre sources at the bottom of the page), and that reputable sources with no biases towards or against the field of philosophy contain information which contradicts the home page's claims. All of those observations *together* lead us to the conclusion that Pro's source is biased. Thus, there is sufficient reason to disbelieve that a philosophy degree actually opens up all the fields that Pro's source claims it does. b. Pro continues to pursue his point that Forbes was only talking about theology when it listed philosophy, but his only support for that assertion is that there are other sources where philosophy and religious studies are listed together... this STILL doesn't prove that ANY of those sources were talking about theology... Pro's argument is completely baseless. There is no reason to believe that they are talking about something other than philosophy when they specifically write 'philosophy'. I have already provided a reasonable explanation for why philosophy and religious studies are often listed together. c. Pro claims that because I have not put up a link to support my argument about the great number of specialties encompassed by the field of general science, he can safely ignore it. This is absurd; not only is what I pointed out a matter of common knowledge, but I also provided several examples of specialty fields commonly accepted as 'scientific' to support my point. Pro has no valid grounds for rejecting my argument, here. It should be treated as a concession on his part. 2. Applicability a. Pro is playing semantics. It is true that I was the first one to use the term intelligence; however, there are multiple definitions of intelligence. Pro is the one who automatically assumed that by intelligence, I meant physiological/genetic intelligence, when I was indeed referring to the same thing he was (critical thinking capability). Pro has now accused me of both straw-manning and shifting goal posts, but ironically, it is he who is straw-manning my argument in order to accuse me of those fallacies... My rebuttal still holds: we cannot accept a correlation between high intelligence and philosophy majors as evidence that studying philosophy causes high intelligence. b. Pro dismisses my source (regarding IQ being an indicator of critical thinking skill) as being biased using similar logic to that which I used in 1a. Firstly, we must note that Pro provides no competing source disproving my claim, as I did, so he is essentially committing the exact same fallacy that he falsely accused me of: claiming bias based on nothing more than the motive for exaggeration. Secondly, even if we accept his critique of IQ, it wouldn't refute my rebuttal, here, because Physics majors also score higher than Philosophy majors on other standardized tests like the SAT. Thus, we can still use Pro's fallacious argument against him to show that even by his own logic, studying Physics (a science) increases your intelligence more than studying philosophy. c. Pro claims that since I have not sourced my argument that studying science also exercises critical thinking skills, he can safely ignore it. Again, what I pointed out is a matter of common knowledge, and I even provided examples of common activities within a science curriculum which actively engage our cognitive faculties. Also, I would like to point out that Pro's source behind his own claim that philosophy increases reasoning skills is just a non-reputable online article... Pro has no valid reason for dismissing this argument; his doing so should be treated as another concession. 3. Practicality a. Flabbergasted again. There is no logical reason why we should connect the academic rigor of studying philosophy with philosophy as a field having practical value, and Pro has *still* not provided any reason for us to do so, instead going off on some non-applicable tangent about BOP. Thus, whatever point he was trying to make is rejected. Simple, really. b. I concede this point. It seems that due to Pro's poor formatting, I was unable to distinguish his closing statement from his third contention. However, this clarification actually just has even *more* harmful implications for Pro's case because it means that his *only* support for his third contention is the 'academic rigor' point, which has been rejected due to the complete lack of logical connection between it and the topic of the contention. c. Pro doesn't even address my point about science's immense practical outputs. Should be treated as a concession. =========================== In conclusion, Pro has provided pretty much zero substantive argumentation, failing to properly defend his original arguments or give actual rebuttals to my arguments for science's superiority. Instead he has wasted all his space with rants about how dumb I am (and then proceeding the blame the lack of space on me). None of Pro's accusations regarding my supposed logical fallacies hold up, and all three of my arguments against the resolution (occupational versatility, real world applicability, practical output) have virtually been conceded . The resolution is negated.