We do not need Mathematics

I can only feel sorry for the fact that this debate is extremely short, and, instead of the usual 4 or 5 rounds we are left with only 2 rounds, during which we can't possibly discuss the resolution in depth. Nevertheless, I will do my best in defending my own case and rebutting the case supplied by my opponent. DefinitionsMy opponent acknowledges the definitions that I have supplied, but, curiously enough, she states that she doesn't think they are required, since, in her words, "we have been studying Mathematics from the start, the day when everyone of us joined school". I find this reason to be inadequate. First of all, the definition of the term Mathematics is by no means obvious, and in such debates there is a high risk of going off topic. Secondly, my opponent actually seems to have somewhat misunderstood the term (I will show why in a moment), which only necessitates it's explicit definition. Burden of ProofIf I understand correctly, my opponent disagrees with the Burden of Proof that I have proposed, stating that "I personally don't think that Mathematics is a shared burden of proof". But this sentence is confusing to me. When I say that we have a shared Burden of Proof, I merely mean that each side of the debate should produce a constructive case, and that each side should show why their position is preferable to their opponent's position. If I had the full Burden of Proof, I would be at a disadvantage, since my opponent would only need to refute my arguments to win, which seems unfair, especially since my opponent is the instigator of the debate. If my opponent wanted an unequal Burden of Proof, she should have stated that clearly in the first round, since if this is not stated explicitly, a shared Burden of Proof can only be assumed. I will now move on to the actual arguments for the resolution.1. The supposed need for Mathematics. My opponent provides several examples for why we supposedly need Mathematics. She talks about buying a bar of chocolate, keeping track of time, watching sports, building houses and keeping track of daily expenses. However, I have problems with this argument. a) These examples do not meet the definition of "need". Let me again recite the definition: Need - require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable. I can see why the aforementioned uses of Mathematics would be desirable, yet I do not see why they would be of essential or of great importance to the human species. My opponent never provides any reason for why I should believe that. It is obvious that the application of mathematics to our daily lives increases our comfort and provides some structure to our society, but I would still argue that these applications of mathematics are not actually required for our survival as a species. The examples provided by my opponent clearly were non-existent in the early epochs of humanity, yet the human species had no problems living and reproducing during that time, so my original argument still stands.2. Supposedly, Humans cannot live without mathematics. My opponent provides me with a long list of important epochs in the development of Mathematics. She seems to think that this is a good argument for her case. However, I have issues with this. a) The argument is a direct copy-paste from the original source. It seems that my opponent simply copy-pasted the whole timeline of Mathematics from the original source, without using any quotation marks. My opponent fails to produce her own original argument, and she fails to correctly adhere to the rules of citation. Although I regret to do this, as this was probably unintentional, I must call this plagiarism. b) It cannot be inferred from these examples that we need Mathematics. My opponent could have at least tried to establish a link between what was said by the source and what we mean when we say we need Mathematics. She did not do that, and I fail to see how the whole thing can be used as an argument for her position. c) There is a conflict of definitions. My opponent seemingly ignores the fact that the words Mathematics and Need, which were defined in the previous round, have completely different meanings in the source article. When the source talks about Mathematics in the earliest period of human history, it refers to that as Proto-Mathematics. The innate and intuitive human ability to understand quantity, space and time, which is exactly what was going on, does not qualify as Mathematics, because it had not yet been abstractized. [1] Recall the definition of Mathematics in the first round:Mathematics - the abstract science of number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts (pure mathematics ), or as applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ). Therefore, it becomes obvious that the early Human did not practice Mathematics, since that would require a far more abstract, non-empirical and purely logical view of the concept, which was non-existent until relatively recent periods of the Human civilization. I simply maintain my position that the early Human could have and clearly did survive for a long time without mathematics, and that the whole argument here my opponent is trying to establish is basically reduced to a Red Herring and Equivocation. ConclusionBefore concluding, I can only reiterate my dissatisfaction with the extremely short format of the debate and the lack of clear structure and definitions, which should have ideally been provided in the first round by my opponent. However, what's done is done and we should now consider the arguments that were put forth. I still maintain my position that Humans can live without mathematics, which was a statement that was never successfully contested by my opponent. My opponent tried to cite both modern and ancient examples and practices of Mathematics, but, as I have pointed out, all of those cases either completely missed the definition of Mathematics, or of actual Need. Moreover, I would have much preferred my opponent to produce an original, relevant and well-structured argument, instead of blindly copy-pasted material from another article. As the Burden of Proof goes, I believe that I have succeeded in establishing the fact that Mathematics, as defined in the first round, is neither required, nor essential, nor very important. Indeed, the only point on which I agree with my opponent is that it can be sometimes desirable, but that is of no relevance to the definition of Need. Consequently, I believe that my opponent has not produced a satisfactory argument for her own position, as it was based on several fallacies which I have pointed out. Therefore, my opponent didn't meet her Burden of Proof. VOTE PRO! Before ending the debate, I'd like to thank my opponent for initiating this challenge. This seems to be her first debate on this site, and I would therefore encourage her to continue producing interesting and thought-provoking arguments. Hopefully, you will find this site enjoyable. Sources:[1] . http://www.jstor.org...