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

"In this debate, I am asked to interpret my opponent's points, and must understand the context in which they're meant. " If kids don't understand the context, they could just ask as oppose to writing a really long essay about it. Also, bare in mind that reading comes up in just about every other class and understanding the context is being taught in every other class. But it is much more productive to know the context of math and science then to know the context of Harry Potter. "It's akin to saying that Math is a useless subject, because you've never been asked as a job to "calculate how old Mary is, if she is Three years younger than John, who is twice as old as Frank, who is half as old as Susie who is Six". " Yes but I think there are problems very similar to it just with different names. And refer to what I said above. "The BOP rests with you, as such you cannot be "almost sure" unless I agree to the premise, and I do not. Many schools use literature to teach vocabulary, with meaning, connotation, and contextual usage. " First of all, how vocabulary is taught has nothing to do with the BOP. Second of all, just because teachers use literature for vocabulary doesn't mean they don't use a separate vocabulary book or come up with their own vocabulary words for the students. Anyway, this is irrelevant because if literature were not taken as an obligatory class, students will just learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book. "The irony of a person arguing that studying literature serves no purpose and that avoiding its use in school would allow schools to get those students' vocabulary to become more "sophisticated" while using the wrong homophone, is hopefully not lost on the audience. I negate this premise by saying that I do not believe it, and you've offered nothing to support it. " Vocabulary- a : a sum or stock of words employed by a language, group, individual, or work or in a field of knowledge b : a list or collection of terms or codes available for use (as in an indexing system) Source: the meriam Webster dictionary. It's funny how you are insulting me in the subject of English because homophones have nothing to do with vocabulary. Literature does not focus strictly on vocabulary. It focuses on context inferences etc. if that time were focused on only vocabulary how would there vocabulary not get better. Now before you say kids learn better with literature, if kids were to use books strictly for vocabulary that would not be considered by the standards of the debate that you accepted, literature class as I have stated: Before I go into further detail why I would like to state what I am arguing about: Fictional literature, questions asked on fictional literature such as "What is the author trying to infer? "". My argument is that fictional literature does not provide any different academic merit. If it were used strictly for vocabulary, that would be fine. "I negate this premise by saying that I do not believe it, and you've offered nothing to support it. " It's funny how you are criticizing me about my English because based on what you wrote, although I know what you mean, you are basically saying you negate the irony you provided. Ps: please don't write a whole paragraph on how I know what you meant because of literature. I know how you quote the tiniest and unnecessary details. "It is a tautology that students who learn about literature in school gain academic benefit. " Great, I never claimed it wasn't notice how I carefully said "NEW academic benefit". "However, you have not shown WHY studying literature does not help students learn "writing conventions, powerful language" You answered your own question. Because they simply are not directly working on writing conventions and powerful language and if you dare say that is in fictional literature I will just respond saying that is in non-fictional literature such as my opponents powerful language. "According to your own argument, the time freed by not studying literature would be spent on other pursuits. Therefore, it is irrational to ask me to assume that homework would be abridged. " True. I will give that to you. "For similar reasons, literature is important. After all, there are novelists, short story writers, screenwriters, movie directors. These are all jobs that use literature as much as the jobs you list use art. " Okay, I was clear when I said in my first round: "Now most of you are probably thinking a literature teacher and an author both need literature but both of those Jobs are ones that continue the chain of literature. Conclusion: Literature does not come up in any jobs that are not directly related to it. " Also, notice when I stated examples, I didn't say art is important for artists because that would be ridiculous. That would be like saying cooking is important for chefs. "Some people are interested in math, some people are not. " I was trying to say that literature should not be completely abolished because some people like it. "Some people will never use any science in their line of work, and have no interest in it; by this argument, science should not be taught in schools. " Notice how you said some. My argument was that literature does not come up in ANY jobs aside from jobs that I mentioned in round 1 that just continue the chain of literature. Based on your argument there should be a stripping class because some people will use it in their line of work. "Also, you have shifted the goals a bit here, the original point was that it should not be taught, not that it should not be required" No not at all. Please read the title of the debate I clearly said "literature should not be taken as an obligatory class". Con should lose conduct for giving the viewers a false message. "There are many meticulously researched historical fiction novels" It doesn't matter. The fact that it is fiction means that is not as fact based as history textbooks. "I do not believe it proper to hobble the debate by simply cutting off a potential use for literature just because it could be somewhere else. " The fact that it is used somewhere else is my point that it wastes time. If kids are already learning about history why should they learn it again? Also, not all books are historical fiction; the majority of them are not. "when I was a child Ender's Game taught me a great deal about life and people" I stated that literature provides no new ACADEMIC merit not spiritual merit so this sentence is irrelevant. "I do not believe my opponent has established that literature should not be taught. " I encourage you to read the title of the debate maybe that will change your mind. Good luck.