Should Shakespeare be taught in School

"When we renounce all learning, we have no troubles." -Laozi, founder of Taoism Because I agree with Laozi, I negate. Observation 1: The Affirmative must prove that teaching Shakespeare in school leads to an actual benefit to society, as Negative I must show that teaching Shakespeare either produces no benefit, or leads to detriment. Observation 2: Schools are an institution of learning. The issue with teaching Shakespeare is that it encourages people to think. In fact, my opponent actually conceded this. Furthermore, Shakespeare contributes to learning. As my opponent said, he made up new words, and teaching him improves reading analysis skills. Although these seem beneficial at first, one must really look at the world. Thinking and learning are detrimental evolutionary traits. In fact, as our society learns more and thinks more, more and more people encourage the extinction of society. For example, people use learning to build factories that contribute to learning, and how do you think Hitler came up with his "Final Solution"? Hitler thought, and look what that did. Also, there are groups in society that have thought so much, they have decided that humans SHOULD go extinct. Also, our thinking and learning has encouraged monogamy, which also is evolutionarily unsound. Polygamy is far more beneficial. Look at ants. They don't think, they don't learn, in fact, they're so stupid, they find a pointless life fun. Humans would be far happier if we didn't think about how bad life was. If I was an ant, I would be soooooooooo happy, because hell, my life sucks, but I don't know that. I don't think. Life is a blast. Finally, teaching Shakespeare or anything means that children have to do something besides be delinquent. Delinquency is what gives childhood value. All the adults I know remember their delinquent moments far more favorably than their good moments. Also, delinquency leads to far more success in life than learning. For example, Obama did pot as a teenager, now he's running for president. Bill Clinton did pot, and he was elected. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Clearly delinquency should be encouraged. "I think it's really important, we should be learning about anything that is so well known in the world, especially Shakespeare." Ugh, learning. Where has that got anyone? Furthermore, learning diminishes creativity. For example, the world views of uneducated people led to amazingly creative mythologies, and complex pantheons of gods. Which would you prefer to believe, that the universe was created by an explosion of a super dense particle, or that it is actually the body of a frost giant? "I have found that all the analysing texts in English at my school are incredibly easy and the symbolism etc. is extremely obvious. Shakespeare is so much deeper, and to understand it you really have to get into the characters and think about every little thing, which is fantastic.' So Shakespeare is harder? That gives children lower grades. This is bad, because people with bad grades don't get into good schools, and then they get bad jobs. Teaching Shakespeare is evil and a purposeful attempt to degrade the self-esteem of children. "And in Drama, Shakespeare in drama, I it is really fun, you know the character's motivations but it discovering your character doesn't just stop there, there is so much more and so many thoughts and desires and feelings that are shown. It would be so interesting to play." You know what's more fun? Delinquency. "Apart from the educational things I think Shakespeare teaches us life lessons and helps us all learn the history, culture and everything about Shakespeare and our English past." More learning. As I said, learning is bad.