Studying English(Pro) vs Math(Con)

FRAMEWORKThis debate is about the study of a linguistics of one language (English) and the study of a wide-range of things (Math). We can define the study of English as a broad study inclusive of literature, complex linguistics and grammar, and the study of the applications of English in everday life (rhetoric). The definition of math is still disputed. For the sake of this debate, I shall take Benjamin Pierce's "mathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions" definition.Hence, since this is a value debate, we shall talk about the ends only (i.e. results) and not means-we shall not also talk about the pragmatic usage of the ends (money earned) as the fields of mathematics (and English) are too broad to have one definite job in mind, but we shall talk about the intrinsic value of the ends (epistemological ability). The BoP of the prop-side is to prove that English has ends which are more intrinsically useful than math. ARGUMENTSa.) Truth and LanguageFor years, philosophers have been working on the fundamental "problems of philosophy." Many great minds have been swallowed by these problems-Shakespeare included, whose Romeo and Juliet was more of an exposition of a tragic and dark fatalism. However, many old problems of philosophy are now more or less solved-for example, the beginning of the universe, in which Herbert Spencer in his First Principles spent so much time analyzing, has been solved by a relatively simple model called the Big Bang Theory. My point here is the following-following Ludwing Wittgenstein's famous "what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence"- is that the intrinsic value of the English language can ultimately be used to say something only, or deduce something analytically. However, a synthetic conclusion cannot ever be reached via English alone. More must be said on this. Hence, I shall go into the theory of semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning. We cannot create a theory of semantics based only upon the English language alone. For example, define "a"-accordingly to some sources, "a" is "not any particular or certain one of a class or group." But what is a "group" so to say? A group is "a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together." Hence we are led to a circular definition of the word "a"-hence, we have no definition of the word "a" whatsoever (in the English language that is). This is crucial-in English, we can barely assert any certainty, even in the definitions of the smallest and easiest terms. But to go further, let us take the Kantian concept of antinomies i.e. "whatever conclusion is reached via reason has an equal and opposite reason against the conclusion." For example, if I assert that "God exists" because God created the universe, we could hence say that no one created God, hence, God does not exist etc. No absolute conclusion can be reached on these fields. Pragmatically, this has also been the case. Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems destroyed the volumnious works of the logical positivists by showing that no consistent mathematical system can be complete. Newton's Principles also destroyed the previously accepted De Physica of Aristotle by showing that objects are not things that what to be reunited, but are held together by a force called gravity.What has been concluded here is the following: that the English language alone cannot lead to any "certainties." Only the possibility of mathematics, and logical analysis of language can lead to certainties. REBUTTALSa.) Math is HardLife is hard. Does that mean death is more than life? CONCLUSIONSOne more argument will be presented in the next round. The opposition's argument does nothing to affirm the motion whatsoever. It is henceforth negated!