Literature is not important and should not be taken as an obligatory class.

Sorry I ran out of character space but to answer your question of the title of the debate, you are right "literature should not be taken as an obligatory unit within a class" sounds better. For your future debates, you should clarify these things round 1. I don't think there is anything else I didn't address from the previous round onto this round: "First off, I don't know that Harry Potter is taught in most Literature courses." Harry Potter was just an example. "However, all of those jobs you mentioned also require an appreciation of "morals and messages". So thank you for establishing more jobs that the teaching of literature factors in to." 1. I did not do what your second sentence claims. 2. In your once again, hypocritical words: "unestablished point". A doctor needs to heal someone. No morals needed for that. Why do stat keepers need to know morals. You specifically said "all the jobs I mentioned" required this so it is your responsibility to prove every job I mentioned requires "morals and messages". "You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of how debate works, then, if you had to ask someone what the burden of proof meant." Okay you clearly misunderstood me. I didn't know what BOP stands for but I know what burden of proof is. "That vocabulary exercises exist was never a point of contention." Once again you focus on the wrong thing. I was not focusing on the excercises just that vocabulary would still be taught without literature. "If your claim is that vocabulary can be BETTER, or at least EQUALLY learned through vocabulary exercises that are not part of literature exercises (which you would have to do to use this as a point to justify removing Literature from required curriculum." I can't understand this, it is not a full sentence. "But in my example of a math question, the student is just as much tested just on that problem" So you just chose to disregard what I said that the math problems are chosen randomly? "Tests are always on a specific question, and generally the hope is that the lessons will be applied broadly." Unestablished point. What would literature be applied to? What makes learning to know about the context of ficitional literature different than learning to know the context of math books, science books, etc.? "No" You are saying that you would not use the argument that it could be applied to other books? Let me jog your memory go back to round 1 where you said "The idea that only things which come up in jobs should be taught is foolish, as I've already pointed out." This is an argument for it being applied to other jobs even though you did not say it directly you imply it by saying that since it doesn't directly come up in jobs is foolish. "Actually, I had previously established that literature can teach about broader concepts, when I spoke about Ender's Game." So why did you repeat it? "You didn't learn what those words meant? What kind of vocabulary test was that, exactly?" Are you joking? You really could not infer that I meant also learn the definition of new words? Come on con. "To repeat, you are the one who has the burden of proof. All I have to do is refute your points in order to win this debate." You barely refuted my points. You mainly just said unestablished point (in case you want to take things so literally again I also mean anything similar to that). "Which is irrelevant. My point was never that it WAS comprised of mainly vocabulary, but rather that your point about vocabulary was not established or valid." It is relevant because you said it wasn't established and I was trying to say that I don't need to establish something you already established. "Again, you have the burden of proof." If you make a claim you also need to prove it. "I only have to show that you have not done so." That is not true. If you read any other debate, the facts will show otherwise. If what you say is true, you are basically just coaching me and revising my debate. I was saying "here is a POSSIBLE answer," Why don't you say your opinion. Why are you saying opinion that you do not agree with. "it is on you to prove the inverse." Once again, my point was if literature were not taken as part of an obligatory class, vocabulary would still be taught. Without literature, there will be extra time for vocabulary because of all those aspects my opponent has established that are a part of literature would not be taken. More time learning vocabulary without literature. Got it? "And, again, you have failed to prove that simple spending more time devoted to "focus strictly on vocabulary" would be better than spending time on Literature even for vocabulary alone." Without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class. There will be more time to focus strictly on vocabulary therefore vocabulary would not be abolished that is my point and that sounds like enough proof to me. "I'm not going to bother to count the number of times I've pointed out that your assertion that spending more time using a vocabulary book, in the absence of the context of literature, has yet to be proven." Please explain to me how it is not proven. Why does it not make sense to you that without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class, there will be more time, and that time could be used for vocabulary. How is this not enough? Your analogy: The difference is, you need the book to know how to work on fixing the car. You do not need ficitional literature to know how to learn vocabulary. Until you establish otherwise, this is an established point. "It is a tautology that if the subject is being studied in school, there is an academic benefit to studying it." I have agreed that there is some academic benefit to it like "of mice and men" teach about the Great Depression, this is also learned it history so my initial point still stands that there is no new academic merit to fictional literature. Also, you are using bad logic. If school all of sudden started teaching racism, we should not just assume that since it is taught in school, it is okay. We should take action. I am not suggesting literature is like racism, just saying you are not using such good logic. "Math is not used in English class. Therefore it is a waste of time" are you trying to suggest that I used a similar argument? If so, I did no such thing. "As you have not addresed my points about jobs, I extend my arguments." I did you said it is a foolish argument and mentioned jobs that just continue the chain of literature. Refer to what you said in round 1 and I think me using this debate is considered a reliable source. "Apparently, you ran out of space, so you did not answer the direct question I asked." Was it the one that I answered in the beginning of this round? If not, then which one are you referring to? "Nor did Pro establsih any unrefuted reason why Literature should not be taken as an obligatory class." You have not given me one job that literature comes up in that does not continue the chain of literature. I think that is a legitimate point. Can you please establish how literature has contributed to society because I consider it as a factor of being important. "Should I vote pander for spelling and grammar" I think you just did but should I vote pander by pointing out that you misspelled addressed and establish wrong. Good luck and I don't know why you told voters to vote for you now, when it was only round 3 when you wrote it. I await my opponent's response.