Most of formal education is a complete waste of time

I would like to apologize for a forfeited round. I am still very much alive, I just thought I had another hour, but that is no excuse. Voters, please give the conduct point to Pro, and judge the rest of the debate as usual. Now, without further ado: Memory Loss Factor When your argument depends so largely on the memory loss factor and the extent to which it is shown, you do have to prove it. Also, the numbers in Pro’s source are faulty. When you click on the second link given, the first couple of sources that actually had relevance to the statistics cited stated that they were absolute hogwash, and the studies themselves are faulty, and there are way too many variables for any reliable studies to be performed (1)(2). Problem-solving in Math Even if problem-solving skills are learned in math, they do not only apply to math. Problem-solving skills apply to problems. In math, students learn how to identify the problem, notice the constraints, and then solve the problem. Also, that math problem example is incoherent. Problem-solving in Science A classic example of science classes teaching problem-solving skills would be with the egg drop experiment. With this experiment, science classes will be divided up into mini groups, and these groups will have to build a contraption to protect an egg from cracking when dropped. Here is a sample rubric (3). This is very difficult to do, but the students are told to figure it out. This is just one of the many experiments science classes will do to encourage problem-solving skills. Specific Science This frog example is another instance of Pro only noticing the explicit value, rather than the implicit value. Being able to have personal experience in an issue and being able to do experiments on one’s own to further understand the issue is a general positive. The Internet I’m glad that Pro has conceded the point that schools teach valuable life-skills. That being said, his argument against that was to cite the Internet, which do not as effectively teach the skills listed. He then says that he doesn’t see the value of sitting for hours in a classroom, but I have already shown that it is a focused time period for practicing and developing skills. For this reason, formal education is not a complete waste of time. Intelligent conversations with others My opponent says that we don’t need to sit in a classroom to be well read. However, students often need the extra push to be well read. Language arts classes encourage students to not only read the classics, but also to answer questions about them, discuss them, and analyze them. We don’t need to sit in a classroom to be well read, but a classroom certainly steers individuals in the right direction and helps them to comprehend their readings, and then to interpret their readings on their own. Further uses of Formal Education My opponent concedes all of this, but then says “any of this can be obtained outside of a formal classroom setting.” First of all, he gives no examples here of how they could be obtained. He also ignores my previous points that school is a way to have constant practice with those skills and attributes. For this reason (among others), formal education is not a complete waste of time. Online Education as a Supplement My opponent says he disagrees here, but his refutation completely ignores my whole point about formal education giving direction to the research so it is well rounded, and that Google does not help develop all of the skills I have demonstrated. He also doesn’t counter my claim that it would be best used as a supplement. He then tries to address my point about how if some classes only lead to specific careers, it still isn’t a waste of time by saying “I am talking about the majority of the time for the majority of the population. Exceptions do not change the premise of the debate.” If any part of education leads to any student getting a specific job, like a biochemist, or a mathematician, etc., then it is not a complete waste of time. If it is not a complete waste of time, but only a partial waste of time, my opponent isn’t fulfilling his burden of proof with those examples. Advanced Reading Skills See the Intelligent Conversations section, but replace all instances of the words “be well read” being used with “have advanced reading skills.” That sufficiently addresses this. Temporary memorization The entire point my opponent is addressing is the memory loss factor that my opponent’s entire argument relies on. That being said, my opponent even disagrees with his own rebuttal, as evidenced by the way he is constantly saying that school is just memorizing for the next test. I only showed how those memorization skills are useful. Accountants They still need to know how to solve the problems before using the calculator. A calculator is useless without knowledge of the processes. Some of this is useless to 99.9% of students I’ve already shown that the education, in the skills it provides, is not useless. I’ve also shown that if even .01% of students need it for their jobs, then, in the jobs respect, it is also not a complete waste of time, as the resolution states. At the same time though, my opponent’s 99.9% of students remark sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. Conclusion My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Most of his rebuttals essentially come down to “You’re completely right, but you don’t need to be in school for that,” yet he doesn't show how to practice and develop those skills as effectively outside of school, and I’ve shown that school aids greatly, so it is not a complete waste of time. In order to show it is a complete waste of time, Pro needs to show that it is completely without value or usefulness. I have shown both with every example he has given, and have given many more examples. Sources: http://www.willatworklearning.com... http://www.trainingindustry.com... http://cyfair3.schoolwires.net...