High Schools should not require high-level math courses

I will soon address each of Pro's arguments, exposing their flaws and inconsistencies. But first I'd like to bring light to the challenge I had presented in the beginning of this debate. I had challenged the Pro debater to show that concepts taught in Geometry, Algebra II, or beyond are not useful to the life of an average american functioning properly in society, but since he has declined to show you how they don't, because they clearly do, I will show you how. My opponent has made the point that the most basic principles of geometry, such as angles, Pythagorean theorem, volume, and etc. are included in the educational system he mandates. And I agree, these concepts are given to students before high school, but my contention is that it is not to the extent that is covered in Geometry and where one can apply to their lives. The key addition that Geometry makes to a student, is that it shows then how to apply the knowledge they have acquired and other theorems and postulates to prove statements. This is not only a mathematical task, but also one that involves the cognitive aspect of one's brain. Most of math before Geometry is dealing with equations and functions which involve the left side of the brain. The involvement of Geometry gives the students of the other aspect of abstract thought processing [1]. This shows that Geometry goes beyond the basic things taught in middle school that pro mentioned. Now the reason that this more advanced Geometry is more applicable to an individual's life is because it because it deals with more realistic instances. When younger students are taught angles, and volume, and shapes, they are shown what would be ideal. They do not see the quadrilaterals, or ovals, or other irregular polygons to calculate their ares, dimensions or whatever, but those beautifully cut rectangles, circles, and other regular polygons. This is the knowledge that they have and retain, but the fact is that in reality, most things are not regular shapes, and it is crucial for them to get used to that. Geometry presents a ton of such practice of such situations, where the students are required to explore the most extreme cases and prove whether they still match the definition and perform calculations finding the area of irregular shapes. Now, the Pro side has incessantly claimed that this is the task of only people who are focused on STEM based majors, but I will provide an example of how even a farmer, one who doesn't even need to go to school, benefits from this knowledge. A common practice in farming is not growing plants in a certain area so that the soil is not overworked [2]. This, of course, is not done to all the land at the same time, but alternating parts so that the farmers may still have a steady income. To start off, in most cases around the world, especially poorer countries, farms are not regularly shaped so not having geometry would already inadequate to knowing how much land you have to grow. On top of that, to find the amount of land that is actually gonna be used is completely out of the question for students who only know math from middle school, and is difficult even with the knowledge gained from Geometry. My point from this is that someone even as simple as a farmer can benefit by math beyond Algebra I. Since a job, as simple as a farmer still benefits from geometry, I will claim that jobs more complex or esteemed higher than a farmer also benefits from math concepts beyond Algebra. My next example will be to show that most Americans can benefit from higher mathematics. According to a research conducted by CNN, the percentage of people who said they would like to start their own business who are 18 - 30 years old was close to 75%, that's three quarters of everyone they asked in that age group [3]. It is therefore not extreme to conclude that most American's desire to start a business right after they graduate or soon after. Now, the tasks of the owner of a business are not able to be adequately performed by on studying up till Algebra I. The are faced with much more functions which do not usually match the linear or quadratic ones learned in Algebra I. Instead they need to have proficiency in Algebra II, so that they may be able to find the most optimum amount to produce, sell, and price and all other things which are not enough with the knowledge from Algebra I. Since one of Pro's main arguments were that most students do not need math beyond Algebra I, the counter example of this statistic and the basic function of business owners proves this wrong. Consider how I have not even included STEM based jobs in any of my examples. This is because high-level math classes are applicable to most people's lives, and not only the small quantity of STEM students for who it is crucial. The lessons learned are not a waste of time, but practical things that you can use for the rest of your life. The Proposition has not given any example of anyone who doesn't need such, and the only one they have alluded to were students not going into STEM, which I previously proved wrong with my example of requirements imposed even upon English majors at ASU. The claim that Pro makes saying the universities will change the requirement is not expressed anywhere and is a mere figment of his imagination. My example still stands to disprove his argument that most other majors do not need high-level math. Just think about it, if someone who writes books (english major), who grows plants (farmer), and a typical high school graduate (aspiring entrepreneur) can benefit from the study from high-level mathmatics, than is it really any majority in any sense that wont? The argument that it is hard for students is redundant because yes, the success for students is important, but the students do not have the experience of the teacher, administrators and other faculties to know what will contribute to their success. I have refuted that only technical fields or specific jobs benefit form these courses as practically all careers can benefit from the concepts of high-level maths. The Proposition has expressed that if I can show that high-level math courses either prepare most students for a line of work, or general knowledge that will be useful to most students, then he will admit defeat. In light of the examples I have provided in this round and previous, I do not think it is absurd to claim that I have done so. Therefore I would urge the voters to vote in favor of Con to conclude that high-level maths should remain required. Sources: 1. http://brainmadesimple.com... 2. http://modernfarmer.com... 3. http://www.gallup.com...