The American School System is Broken and Detrimental

Peter Griffin. Nice link LOLThanks. Let's jump straight into argumentsRebuttal: Oversimplification argument(1)Pro makes a blatant oversimplified view of society. He contested that physical science and maths are useless, and asserted that not everyone will appreciate science as different individuals have different interest.An Appreciation is required, Science is meant to ease overall life styles, it comprises everything around us. It is more sensible for us to learn all of it at general assessment. What you're saying is that we should ignore everything and rely on our self-centred interest. In addition to that, Knowledge is power. It acts as a draw bridge for everyone to pursue their own interest. Through this system, people may express what they like and dislike. Not everything has to come up to our liking. Standardization is just, it helps weak teachers to stick to procedures and therefore increases the chance of people succeeding because they need not possess Krauss or Nietzsche type brains.Furthermore, The youth are unsure of what to choose. They can't just leave an empty field and choose a career. This primae Facie Case is just blind and holds no substantive merit. They ought to live and learn to arrive at such an ambitious conclusion and the only way through this is through the system. It is in no way broken, of course it has disadvantages but it is in no way BROKEN.Your argument of pay is irrelevant, if society revolves around meritocracy, what does it matter anyway. You work hard, you'll succeed according to your respective efforts. Education is about meritocracy, and in that, the system succeeds. Rebuttal: Usefulness of the Education system(2)Pro's self interpreted everything by looking at his argument. Your argument is like a sponge, full of holes due to its subjective nature. You've also conceded half of your premise.Pro asserts "don't get me wrong; we need good grammar/communication skills, math for money purposes, and an accurate understanding of science for health reasons as teens"You've essentially acknowledged my position. Health is part of Biology which makes it an essential component of physical science. It has multiple uses, such as information on Sickle cell anaemia(4.http://en.wikipedia.org...), sex linkage. How does this benefit us? We may assess sex linkage characteristics, what can be brought down to our children, whether our alleles affect our children's health. Whether our alleles are genuine enough or whether a defect is masked. It has its uses. Moreover,We may assess what happens if we consume too much fats et cetera.These are general knowledge, it is needed for us to survive in this world. Plus, Pro is making these outrageous claims based on his subjective merit, all of which holds 0 substantiation.In addition to that, Pro's argument of quadratic formulas and history is weak. History is there to teach us a lesson, a lesson which we all need to learn before casting our votes. If history was to be discarded we wouldn't know the devastative effects of assuming the laws of nature into society, take the 3rd Reich for example. We need it more than you think, especially at the time when politicians appeal to our emotion. Hitler ironically won in a legitimate election (5.http://en.wikipedia.org...). If we did learn history, we would stop, pause and think of the consequences before the votes are cast. Our past is our experience, Our past is our future.History is then useful and in no way implies that the education is broken. Again, my opponent is very subjective in his claim. He claim that maths are useless because it is ACCORDING to him. We need maths to assess the grocery store, we need maths to even calculate the tiniest of prices. It certainly benefits society as cars, bridges rest on the principle of maths. How does this imply that the system is broken?Rebuttal: Tumblr postSelective bias. The person is perceiving what he or she wants to perceive. The person is shifting the goal post, as he/she is arguing out of hand. This is about the system, you're supposed to criticize how maths is useless, how biology is useless, not how taxes indirectly have a causal correlation with the system.Rebuttal: Diversity(4),(5),(6)Diversity isn't an option. We need quality teachers to cater to those needs. You are actually dwindling down professors to the status of normal 'teachers'. This is not possible. The pay would be too large to maintain. Essentially, my opponent is favoring for another system that is already broken in theory.We are struck by world poverty and the US has about 16% living in poverty(6. http://en.wikipedia.org...).Education is fixed on meritocracy, ask any left or right, they agree that education should be meritocratic. The system did exactly that, by establishing standard subjects. From this, it again allows poor schools to compete more effectively. If you want more choice, it will strain poor schools in that they experience a lack of specialized teachers. The youth can work its own way in time, they cannot arrive at a conclusion so early in their life.Even if it has disadvantages, it is in no way broken. It has its own uses, of which endorses the premise of lifting poverty and establishing a meritocratic system.Sherlock video was funny haha thanks, but it is nevertheless unrepresentative. Defense: The US Education SpendingIn that case, where does the money go then, in MP's pockets, congressmen's bank a/c?. The money ensures textbooks, libraries to be well supplied with up to date books. It allows kids to read other fields independently rather than what you mention. This still serves as a point for the system, that it acts in nullifying your argument because the system legislates this aspect based on the spendingIn addition to that, Movie analogy is fallacious, we are arguing education at hand. Overspending is barely an issue, the same can be said about US's military spending (7.http://www.globalissues.org...) which is the highest in the world. Does that mean it is as weak as the reservist that serve under Slovakia? Defense: Standardized tests help raise standardsPro links back to his additional arguments which I have provided a lengthy critique of it. Standardization is effective in applying the concept of meritocracy and lifting the world out of poverty. Useless information is blatant misassertion of a weak stereotypical argument, all I had to do was to look deeper and that argument, which I already proved, is fallacious.Thank you :)