Studying English(Pro) vs Math(Con)

REBUTTALSa.) SemanticsFirstly, the proposition side has not (a) provided an adequate criterion for indeed having a good debate. He suggests that the "[ease of] to study [which can be thought] of as better than the other." However, this criterion is, frankly, lame and ultimately, worthless. If the easiest thing were the most useful thing, then death would be easier than life. Then blabbering on, such as Hegel does, would be better (and easier) than making a point, as Hume does. He has also (b) doubted the "certainty" and "intrinsic value" criterion, but his criterion of ease is much more absurd. And even if he makes it so that he rejects my criterion, he ultimately uses it when he states that "math can at times lose its usefulness," implying that the intrinsic value criterion has been accepted.b.) Intrinsic Value of AlgebraWe are told that the opposition "[has]not been using algebra in...daily life." However, people from many fields use algebra daily. From complicated subjects such as physics, the usage of such easy theorems such as that of Pythagoras has helped scientists learn more about the universe. The opposition hence mistakens his life, which is a "particular," to be universal. Apart from this, the intrinsic value of algebra is much more useful in finding good conclusions. The opposition refers the question: "Is algebra useful in our daily lives?" An absurd question-but perhaps relevant. I argue-yes it is. Finding conclusions to an unknown variable i.e. solving it is much more useful than the pure speculations that the opposition can achieve with the English language.c.) The Case of Ms. ExcelThe opposition talks about "Ms. Excel has that facility [to make graphs]," hence we should not learn how to make them. Are we willing to prostitute our epistemological knowledge to some computer program? That is just an absurd conclusion-"because we have Excel, we should ignore the practical makings of a graph." For ultimately, what Ms. Excel can do is all based on math, which is based on the ability of someone to do math. The opposition "[doesn't] get why [he] need to draw [a graph]" because Ms. Excel does it for you. However, even if Ms. Excel draws it for you, Ms. Excel is pretty blunt-for example, if you tell Ms. Excel to graph a graph from a simple Cartesian method, Ms. Excel would get confused. Apart from this, if one does not learn good math, one does not learn the contents of the graph.d.) EnglishThere are 1.2 billion English speakers in this world. That means 16% of the world speaks English. Many more people know how to count than speak English-is the opposition saying that we live in a homogeneous world where every speaks the language? Everyone knows how to count-but only 16% of the world speaks English. Is English more useful? If the opposition were to take a trip to Shanghai, China, the opposition would doubt the usefulness of English-because no one speaks English there. The opposition suggests that "English can be entertaining if you like reading novels." I do like reading novels too-from the translated works of Victor Hugo to the many beautiful sonnets of Shakespeare. But America's best-selling book, the Bible, was not written in English, but rather Hebrew! CONCLUSIONThe opposition's case is based upon ease-because x is easier, henceforth x is better. This is flawed-laziness is easier than hard-work, yet hard-work pays off in the end. Disorganization is better than organization-but organization is ultimately more useful. English is not a global language-only 16% of the world knows how to speak it. The opposition states that "even without semantics, knowing good vocabulary can help muster more reasons to persuade the other person," which is to a point, ironic. The opposition presents no good counter-argument to the main assertion of my only case, and henceforth, I am not obliged to present any other arguments whatsoever. The resolution is NEGATED!