formal instruction on dining etiquette should be mandatory in all US public schools

Through the rejection of the affirmative contentions, I will prove to you that you should vote negative. Let's go this his response to my fourth point/sole contention, which explains that we should divert our resources to math and science instead of dining etiquette. He claims that since it is the school's responsibility to provide children with enough education to survive in the adult world, the school must provide dining education. The problem is that he completely ignores two important analyses. First, that it is impossible for the nation to provide both because it would be extremely expensive (remember that I explained this in the last speech.) Insofar as this is true, he cannot solve both my plan and his plan due to resources. More importantly, however, he drops the impact of the fourth point, namely that improving science and math skills solve the affirmative case because I can improve American culture and dining etiquette as a result. Remember that I explained that as American science and math improve, interactions on a global scale increase due to improved cooperation, meaning that scientists and the public will feel pressure to learn how to dine properly in order to better connect with the international community. This means that I solve the affirmative case at no additional cost while also improving science and math education. Even if you assume that he improves dining education, you still vote negative off of this impact because I outweigh his impacts on magnitude. Next look to the first point, namely that dining etiquette is outdated. He first asserts that good dining manners are important to a cohesive society. Perhaps this is true for Victorian society, but the United States no longer adopts Victorian values, and modern culture no longer touts the importance of dining etiquette, meaning that the education that he wants people to receive currently has no practical importance in the real world. The impact of this is that even if children learn to dine properly, they will never be able to exercise their skills (assuming they belong to the middle class or lower class and not to the upper class; i.e. the vast majority of children), so it is a waste of time to pursue this option. He finally claims that the U.S. is the richest nation in the world, so my first sovlency turn will not stand. The problem is that the vast majority of the people in the United States do not have the opportunity to use these skills because the wealth is concentrated in the upper classes. This argument only means that the richest people in the United States are the richest in the world. Although they may have the opportunity to use dining skills, most children in the middle class and lower class do not because they do not attend such formal gatherings. In my second point, I explained that he does not achieve solvency because children are more likely to be influenced by popular culture than their teachers. He responds by saying that most children become law-abiding citizens rather than gangsters. The problem with this analysis is that 1) he assumes that popular culture has degraded to a level that includes violence, but in reality it has not (since the majority of people do not engage in it) and 2) people do not engage in these activities because they are prohibited by law from doing so, not because their teacher told them not to. Dining etiquette, however, is not mandated by law because not following it is absolutely harmless, meaning that students can safely ignore their teachers because not eating with a fork will not cause harm to another person. This means that you can extend the second point and mitigate his solvency. On the third point, he claims that children can shame parents into eating food properly. The problem with this analysis is that most parents do not listen to their children, so they will continue to engage in "improper" dining habits. Having a child convince a parent to not attend a meeting at a museum is different from having the parent change his or her eating habits because the parent is trying to help the child in the first case (meaning that the parent is convinced to switch out of love rather than out of shame), while in the second case, the parent is being rebuked by the child, which most parents will not find acceptable. He completely mishandles my fifth point, which explained that because he wants to improve American culture by having dining etiquette, and modern culture recognizes the importance of all cultural traditions, including those "savage" backgrounds that promote eating with hands, chopsticks, etc., that learning European dining etiquette will actually reduce American culture because it will promote Eurocentrism, which is outdated. He only responds to this by saying that culture should travel in the opposite direction, but that does not respond to my point because modern culture has assimilated the dining traditions of many nations across the globe. This means that even if you ignore everything else I have said, you should still vote negative because his end goal is circumvented if you adopt his plan. Thus, I strongly urge a negation of today's resolution. Thank you.