Philosophy and the humanities are underrated in education.

Re: Science, technology, and practical skills are underrated. - Again, this does not prove that the humanities are also not underrated.- Con says society is producing too few people with "practical skills" and I agree. In HS, I didn't learn how to do my taxes, balance a check book, vote, assess the various political parties or system outside of introductory rhetoric, how to write a resume or interview for a job, nothing whatsoever about banking or investing, nothing about the stock market, how to navigate college loans, or any other basic life skills... but I memorized the Pythagorean Theorem. I will probably never use the P.T. for the rest of my life, but I will of course need to know how to do all of the above. These practical skills that are relevant and essential to our lives all fall within the context of the humanities: philosophy, political science, law and especially economics. Con suggests that our country is "struggling for existence" and I imagine he is referring to our current economic crisis. Said crisis is the result of both political and economic failures by a large faction of Americans. People have been largely ignorant and thus detrimental with their votes and personal fiscal irresponsibility in a way that has affected us all. - Roy writes "Societies struggling for existence cannot afford to support the arts or philosophy or anything beyond survival." Con is misleading the audience to think that this debate is about obtaining more funding for the humanities, which is a manipulative interpretation of the resolution. This debate isn't about the specificities of resource allocation, but acknowledging a lack of emphasis or importance placed on teaching certain skills. Re: The humanities are overrated.- Just because TIME recognizes the importance of the humanities in acknowledging its champions, does not mean that society associates the featured people or skills with intellect. It's no secret that American culture values entertainment and the arts, but just because a famous musician has been deemed a more popular icon by a magazine has nothing to do with how the humanities are fostered in education. I used this point of reference to show that the humanities have a large impact on the world through its influence and reach. I didn't at all undermine the value and utility of science. I also didn't deny that scientists are obscure to the average citizen. Being ignorant to the accomplishments of brilliant scientific minds doesn't prove that the humanities are taught sufficiently. Re: Values do not come from the humanities.- Con says "many debates are purely factual." Likewise many debates such as this one come down to values. There is no objectively right answer, but I am trying to persuade the audience that a higher value SHOULD be placed on the humanities. A scientific observation would merely describe how much value we DO place on the humanities. Science teaches us how to measure and describe facts about reality - not resolve the superiority of subjective preferences. Of course the latter is important. Subjective preferences dictate our lives: moral values, cultural norms, political governance, etc.- Roy writes, "Philosophy does not teach values or how to derive them." I explained how philosophy helps develop critical thinking skills which allow us to determine, analyze and critique our perceived values through empirical observation and analysis. Without this skill, we couldn't weigh values that help us determine important things like laws. This is critical because values aren't objective facts we learn but are instead developed.Re: The humanities do not deliver as promised.- Philosophers form questions that guide their curiosity toward comprehension of problem solving. As such, yes philosophizing in general - not necessarily professional "philosophers" - are responsible for societal and cultural advancements throughout history. - Innovation is not only through the humanities, obviously, but these fields tend to foster or require creativity and imagination in particular. These traits are imperative to problem solving. - Roy says HS students first need to prepare to work and learn employable skills that are useful for "navigating life." I contend that those skills in particular are fostered in the humanities, while learning technological skills only teaches you that: technological skills, not life skills. - Con posits that science is more useful than philosophy because there's no convergence. Nonsense - science is riddled with controversies [1]. In fact the philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications and use/ merit of science [2]. Some use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about life. For example, you can't talk about the propensity of free will without discussing quantum physics. This is relevant because whether or not free will exists does or perhaps should have implications on things like our criminal justice system. In many cases, philosophy and science are not only interrelated but indistinguishable. Neither discipline is perfect, but fallibility does not extinguish utility. - Yes, philosophy majors are "smart people" because their intellect is cultivated through processes of rationalization, logic and reason -- all important tools both in science and life (personally and professionally). FACTS- The National Center for Education Statistics found that ~22 percent of Americans demonstrated the lowest level of skills, performing simple, routine tasks involving brief and uncomplicated texts and documents. Others were unable to perform even these simple tasks, and some had such limited skills they were unable to respond to much of the survey. 25-28% demonstrated skills in the next higher level of proficiency, though their ability to grasp complex information was still quite limited. They were only able to make low-level inferences using printed materials, and to integrate easily identifiable pieces of information. Only 1 in 5 Americans are truly literate enough to read and understand the nuances of things like political journalism. 51% of Americans can't really synthesize information and digest it [4]. - Democracy can't function without an educated populace that understands its role in civic life. Civics are taught in less than a third of American public schools, but they have a big impact according to a Harvard University study. It notes "Students who complete a year of coursework in American Government/Civics are 3-6 percentage points more likely to vote... Further, this result suggests that civic education compensates for a relative lack of political socialization at home, and thereby enhances participatory equality" [5].It is important for everyone to be more politically aware, because their vote impacts policies that affect EVERYONE. Of course since politics references philosophical and economic concepts, this proves fostering education in the humanities is essential. CONCLUSIONI agree that most people don't understand the magnitude of Einstein's work. However, it is not important that most people do. What IS important for most people to learn are what is taught in the humanities. These "practical skills" are paramount to our lives. Law, government, communication, economics, banking, ethics and even art play a pivotal role in society, so it is important for us to understand them and their implications. Con has not denied this, but instead denies that these areas are underrated in education. In order for that to be true, Con would have had to prove that our education system adequately prepares students to understand these concepts - NOT merely argue that a more comprehensive understanding of science and technology would be useful, which I would never deny. Observing American ignorance both in terms of studies and in practice proves that students absolutely do not have an adequate grasp of understanding concepts of the humanities. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...