Literature is not important and should not be taken as an obligatory class.

This is the final round. I thank my opponent for the debate. "Sometimes the morals in literature are hidden whereas medical ethics are direct." This is not about how some circumstances have literature that doesn't have ethics. And if you think that "medical ethics are direct", I direct you to things like the Stanford Prison Experiment[1], or the history of the HeLa cells[2], or the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment. All circumstances where the medical ethics were a gray area. Consider the question of cloning, or of abortion rights, or of genetic modification. These are all areas where a grounding in ethics would be important. To say that medical ethics are "direct" is wrong. "There are so many ways to teach vocabulary without fictional literature." And it is your obligation to prove, with evidence, that those things work at least as well or better. Undoubtedly there are studies on this subject. Find some, or concede the point as invalid. "I was saying that I already said how that doesn't matter because the math problem has no meaning. The names and the conflict is picked randomly. This is not the case for literature because readers are suppose to examine the book carefully and say why the author wrote the things he wrote in the book." I understood that concept. But, again, the relative randomness of the question has no bearing on the fact that ANY question tests only that which it asks about. You said that it was only applicable to that one concept, and I pointed out that that is fallacious reasoning. "I understood that but it was bugging me. What if some voters wouldn't understand that. Your sarcasm is a little annoying in this debate and I feel con should lose conduct." Stop vote pandering. I'm sorry you're annoyed by my sarcasm; by the same token, I'm annoyed by your constant vote pandering, your complete lack of understanding of the basic parameters of debate, the burden of proof, and the concept of a valid point. "You still did not answer why you did that." I was giving a perfectly plausible objection that you had not dealt with when making your point. It was a way of responding to your point without just saying "unestablished point". Again, it is up to you to deal with objections to your points, and show that there is a reason to believe it to be true other than your bare assertion. "For a while you later say how I have not established my points on vocabulary, I think I answered them this round already." No. You haven't. You keep falling back on to the idea that "more time equals better!" You have not established that to be actually true. Find a study. "How is this the same?" I will reformulate it, since you are unable to understand. "The academic benefit in Math is not used in English class therefore it is a waste of time". I hope it helps you see that your conclusion is a nonsequitor, it does not follow from your premise. Things learned in one class do not get their validity from whether they are used in another class. "How do all of these examples directly relate to it and just continue the chain of biology?" How do they not? How do screenwriters just "continue the chain of literature"? How are you defining "continuing the chain"? "That has nothing to do with fictional literature in general that is just one book." Literature is composed of books. You're trying to imply here that the abstract concept of literature must have some impact. Analogous to that would be this: asking "What will America do for the starving children!" and, when someone points out "Well, a lot of Americans have flown over there, and the government is sending money and food", your resposne is "That has nothing to do with America in general that is just one book." "Also, can you provide just one job that literature comes into play but does not directly relate and just continue the chain of literature?" Well, you used "laboratory technician" (presumably in a biology lab) as an example of someone who uses biology, who is not "just continuing the chain of biology". Therefore, I will use screenwriter. The cases are analogous: A laboratory technician in a biology lab is working on biology experiments. They are using the lessons they've learned in biology class to help them in their job, which is a job which directly relates to biology. A screenwriter is working on writing and is using the lessons they've learned in literature class to help them in their job. Again, my opponent has failed to establish his case. He has not presented any legitimate arguments. Some of his points might possibly be true, but as long as they are bare assertions, they have not been established. Please vote Con. [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] -- http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...