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

"In your once again, hypocritical words: "unestablished point". A doctor needs to heal someone. No morals needed for that." You do not feel that MORALS factor at all into the practice of MEDICINE? That is stunning. Morals (or ethics) are applicable in any job; moreso the practice of medicine. It was a trivially true point. While you are correct in asserting it was "unestablished", it is disingenuous to equate it to your blanket assertions. If you really do not understand that MORALS factor into jobs such as medicine, I feel you lack the necessary understanding to debate this topic, and question whether your age on your profile is fraudulent. I feel like only a very young person would be completely unaware of the concept of medical ethics. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "I was not focusing on the excercises just that vocabulary would still be taught without literature." You have to establish it would be BETTER or at least EQUALLY taught without literature. You have not done so. As regards to my "nonsensical" sentence, it was missing a bit of itself: Corrected sentence: "If your claim is that vocabulary can be BETTER, or at least EQUALLY learned through vocabulary exercises that are not part of literature exercises (which you would have to do to use this as a point to justify removing Literature from required curriculum) you must actually establish that." "So you just chose to disregard what I said that the math problems are chosen randomly?" Your point was a non-sequitur. The relative "Randomness" of the question had no bearing on the point that a question only tests that which is within the question. I "disregarded" the part that had no bearing on the legitimacy of your point. "So why did you repeat it?" Nice dodge of the fact that you claimed a point was unestablished that was, in fact, established. "Are you joking? You really could not infer that I meant also learn the definition of new words? Come on con." I made the mistake of using sarcasm. I'll refrain from that, since you are unable to understand it. "You barely refuted my points." So I did, in fact, refute your points. Excellent. Thus, you have the burden of either re-establishing them, or offering new ones. Which you have yet to do. "If you make a claim you also need to prove it." Generally correct. However, some claims are trivial, and some are not. Trivial claims generally do not have to be established unless there is some contention, while non-trivial claims must be established. "That is not true. If you read any other debate, the facts will show otherwise. If what you say is true, you are basically just coaching me and revising my debate." I'm not sure what you mean. You have the burden of proving that Literature should not be a required unit. If you have not met the burden of that, you have lost. I do not have to prove literature is great, only that you have not shown sufficient cause to prevent its being a required unit. "Why don't you say your opinion. Why are you saying opinion that you do not agree with." Because the burden is on you to establish your points well enough. You did not do so. One of your arguments was that vocabulary could be better learned elsewhere; you still have not used anything to back that up other than the idea that there would be more time to use vocabulary books, which is insufficient to support the point. I gave you a plausible (but not necessarily true) reason why that might not be the case. When questioning a point, I do not have the burden of proving you wrong, but only of showing that you have not proven yourself correct. "Once again, my point was if literature were not taken as part of an obligatory class, vocabulary would still be taught. Without literature, there will be extra time for vocabulary because of all those aspects my opponent has established that are a part of literature would not be taken. More time learning vocabulary without literature. Got it?" Got it. But that still doesn't prove that learning vocabulary without the context literature provides is as effective or more effective than learning it WITH the context literature provides. "Without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class. There will be more time to focus strictly on vocabulary therefore vocabulary would not be abolished that is my point and that sounds like enough proof to me." It's not. "Please explain to me how it is not proven. Why does it not make sense to you that without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class, there will be more time, and that time could be used for vocabulary. How is this not enough?" Because learning does not directly correlate to "time spent" alone. There are more efficient or less efficient ways of teaching things. "Your analogy: The difference is, you need the book to know how to work on fixing the car. You do not need ficitional literature to know how to learn vocabulary. Until you establish otherwise, this is an established point." Not true. You do not NEED a book to learn how to fix the car. That is trivially untrue; mechanics do not have the book on EVERY CAR. "I have agreed that there is some academic benefit to it like "of mice and men" teach about the Great Depression, this is also learned it history so my initial point still stands that there is no new academic merit to fictional literature. Also, you are using bad logic. If school all of sudden started teaching racism, we should not just assume that since it is taught in school, it is okay. We should take action. I am not suggesting literature is like racism, just saying you are not using such good logic." You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of logic. Acadmic benefit is benefit in school. If schools taught racism, then learning racism would have academic benefit. That woulnd't make it "okay"; but other arguments would be used to prove that, as it would still be a tautology that subjects taught in school have academic benefit by the fact that they are taught in school. "Are you trying to suggest that I used a similar argument? If so, I did no such thing." Ahem. To quote you: "The academic benefit in literature is used in other classes therefore it is a waste of time." That is the same argument. "I did you said it is a foolish argument and mentioned jobs that just continue the chain of literature. Refer to what you said in round 1 and I think me using this debate is considered a reliable source." And I pointed out that that was a fallacious argument, as it could be made about ANY job. The only jobs that use Biology are ones that "just continue the chain of Biology", etc. "Can you please establish how literature has contributed to society because I consider it as a factor of being important." That's an entirely different debate. With as much as we've typed in service of THIS debate, I don't think I'll be able to do the subject justice. However, as a single example, of a single book witha significant impact: http://en.wikipedia.org... "I think you just did but should I vote pander by pointing out that you misspelled addressed and establish wrong." Actually, I once again employed sarcasm. I suspect it will be difficult for me to avoid it henceforth in this debate, but I shall try. "Good luck and I don't know why you told voters to vote for you now, when it was only round 3 when you wrote it. I await my opponent's response." I did because it became clear that you have no arguments that I haven't already refuted. But you may still prove me wrong on that. However, I do apologize for all my typos so far, and undoubtedly in the remaining rounds. I suspect we shall tie on the "spelling and grammar" category (on that note, btw, exercises is not spelled excercises; you have typed it that way multiple times, which leads me to believe it's not a simple typo).