High School Education should be simplified and focus on specialization.

Ok, this debate has gone on for a long time, so I'm just going to summarize the important parts. The first main clash is in the math area. I am advocating four years of math for the reasons I stated last round. "That thinking process [math] causes the brain to work, much like a muscle. The more that muscle works out, the better it performs on OTHER tasks." This shows that math will help strengthen the brain and help outside of math. The Pro says only that "The current math system does not even do what you are trying to do". This does not prove anything, so my claims still stand. The Pro's main counter to my math plan is his social studies plan. While social studies problem solving is beneficial, my social studies program achieves most of the same benefits, such as developing a political opinion through government classes. Also, Pro's problem solving is very different from stretching your brain with numbers. The next main area is the English classes. They are the same in everything except public speaking (Pro) and reading (Me). The Pro says that public speaking is more important because the service sector is the largest part of the economy. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you saw your plumber use speaking skills? The Pro says that reading would not be used in jobs, but that is not my point. I am saying that teaching students to enjoy reading would provide benefits outside of the work place. Pro's argument about the importance of teaching research skills is weak because very few people need to be taught how to google "how to change a tire". By the way, my computer classes would provide ample teaching about how to find information on the internet. The third area of clash is the science classes. Pro accuses me of restating the same argument each round, but that is only because he gives me no new argument to refute. I agree with Pro that anatomy and medicine are important, but I think that other sciences are equally important. Pro continuously says that medicine is important if you go to the doctor and I will say again that the doctor knows plenty without you providing the info you learned in high school. He also says that nutrition class would be good, but this was not in the original plan where he said "Science should focus on anatomy and medicine only", so you can disregard it. All science is important so you can understand the world around you and be more educated. The Pro says that I do not explain how that is good, but understanding and knowledge is a worthy end in and of itself. It is good to be educated about this you come in contact with every day because the whole universe operates on laws of physics and chemistry. The next area is the problems with having lots of specialized classes. There is really no way to do this without a larger campus and more teachers, or putting a larger burden on teachers. The Pro seems to want to do this by having teachers teach lots of different classes, but this would be very difficult. Teachers work hard to prepare lessons for one or two classes, but more than that would be completely unfair to them. There would be no way do this without increasing salaries, which the government doesn't have the money to do. Pro's arguments against classes building on each other still have no base. He seems to have dropped the "benefits" of classes not building on each other, so we will only look at the benefits of building on each other. The Pro claims that if a student does not learn one subject, it will follow him throughout the other classes, but this is not true. At my school, teachers are willing to help students with things they don't understand, so if/when the concept is used again the student can get help with it. After this, Pro talks about the problems with teaching "useless information". I have already shown that the only classes that are required are all beneficial to everyone, regardless of their occupation. Any other class, such as architecture which the Pro brings up, will be optional. The Pro's idea that his program would save money is false. In order to teach more classes at a higher level for college credit, you must put in more money. There is no way to get the benefits without cost. The only way to lower the cost is to pay teachers less or lose some benefits. The final point of argument is that of computer skills. Pro has conceded that computer skills are important and now is saying that his plan teaches them. He claims that he does this through emphasizing computers in other classes and having online classes. Both of these claims are not in the original plans that we are debating, so you can disregard them. Without those claims, my argument about computer classes goes completely unopposed. I should win this debate for four main reasons. First, I have shown how my math classes give benefits that cannot be achieved as well by social studies. Second, I have shown that reading is much more useful that public speaking. Third, my computer classes give clear benefits and went unopposed. Finally, it is impractical to successfully provide a good selection of career classes and better to expose students to more subjects. If any of you readers make this far, thank you for reading through that endless debate.