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

"...it is much more productive to know the context of math and science then to know the context of Harry Potter." Unestablished point. You have to PROVE it's more productive, you cannot simply assert it. "Yes but I think there are problems very similar to it just with different names." Again, unestablished point. What job requires you to calculate someone's age based on the age of other kids? Or are you saying that the problem I meantion is, in fact, teaching you skills which can be applied in other circumstances? That was my point: you were ignoring that the lessons learned by reading literature can be applied in other circumstances. "First of all, how vocabulary is taught has nothing to do with the BOP." Yes, it does. You asserted that "students learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book in English." You did not back this up at all. Considering we all know that it is true that teachers use literature to help teach vocabulary (you conceded that point, when you said "teachers use literature for vocabulary"), If you actually meant that some teachers ALSO use vocabulary books, I'd that some do, but by no means all, and you're advocating that one entire avenue be closed off to them, which would require you to establish that both methods are AT LEAST equally effective. "...this is irrelevant because if literature were not taken as an obligatory class, students will just learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book." If you're going to assert that students both WILL learn vocabulary from a vocabulary book AND that it will be equally effective, the burden is on you to demonstrate that would be the case. I never said they don't or shouldn't use a separate vocabulary book. You asserted that you were "...almost sure that students learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book in English." I said that wasn't good enough, and you have conceded that teachers use Literature books. So therefore, your greater point that somehow students would learn more vocabulary by cutting out literature has yet to be established. "It's funny how you are insulting me in the subject of English because homophones have nothing to do with vocabulary. " Quoting the dictionary definition, while not understanding what it means, does not bolster your point. I believe you to be quite obviously wrong, but I will back up that assertion with the vocabulary lesson about homophones on: http://www.vocabulary.co.il... Part of learning your "sum or stock of words" is learning what they mean; if you don't know the difference between there, they're, and their, you have a vocabulary problem. Now, I'm sure you actually know the difference, and it was just a typo. I will try to refrain from humor in the future, I suppose. "Literature does not focus strictly on vocabulary." You asserted that the vocabulary portion could be better learned elsewhere, I pointed out that you did not establish that. You still have not done so. "if that time were focused on only vocabulary how would there vocabulary not get better." Perhaps because using literature is a more effective means of teaching vocabulary? It's not on me to prove that literature studies are better, but rather on you to prove that they are worse, if you're going to assert that literature should not be taught because there are better means. ... " My argument is that fictional literature does not provide any different academic merit. If it were used strictly for vocabulary, that would be fine." You brought vocabulary into this debate, as something that Literature was used that could be used elsewhere, and I demonstrated your arguments had not been proven. "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..." First off, you are incorrect. Based on what I wrote, it can be argued I WAS UNCLEAR, not that I was "basically saying I negate the irony...". The only reason it's arguably unclear is if you take my comment about irony as a PREMISE. "Great, I never claimed it wasn't notice how I carefully said "NEW academic benefit". I concede that you carefully said new academic benefit. Since that doesn't mean anything different (think "bonus gift"; an academic benefit is by definition a benefit, which is something new to the person who receives the benefit, as it wouldn't be an academic benefit if they already had it), why don't you explain what you were TRYING to say? "...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." The fact that it is present in non-fictional literature does not prove that it is therefore as effectively taught to students using non-fictional literature. "...I didn't say art is important for artists because that would be ridiculous. That would be like saying cooking is important for chefs." Actually, you did say something to that effect, when you said art was important "If you want to be any type of designer"; in other words "art is important if you want to be an artist". "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." It was an extension of YOUR argument, and a stripping class WOULDN'T be valid based on that argument, because the only people who'd need it would just be "continuing the chain of stripping". Just like mathematicians just "continue the chain of mathematics". Trying to exclude some jobs because you they don't support your point doesn't work. "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." I agree that I apparently got that wrong while composing my argument (the dangers of going to Notepad and not constantly referring to source, I suppose), and I freely apologize. Calm down. "It doesn't matter. The fact that it is fiction means that is not as fact based as history textbooks." Please establish that as inherently true. "The fact that it is used somewhere else is my point that it wastes time." You have yet to establish that it is an actual waste of time. To do so, you would have to establish that it was more effectively taught elsewhere. Most teachers understand that using Literature helps students synthesize information in a way textbooks can't. "I stated that literature provides no new ACADEMIC merit not spiritual merit so this sentence is irrelevant." No, it is not. What I noted was explicitly what the teacher was trying to teach at the time, which therefore makes it academic. "I encourage you to read the title of the debate maybe that will change your mind. Good luck." I, again, concede and adjust my conclusion accordingly: My opponent has failed to establish that teaching literature is a "waste of time", nor has he established that it "does not come up in any job", except by attempting to exclude by declaration any job which includes it. As such, he has failed in his burden to show why it SHOULD NOT an "obligatory class". On a final note, on the subject of "obligatory class", I have to ask exactly what you mean by that? A class called "Literature" (which I believe is relatively uncommon in US secondary education as a specific required class, and welcome my opponent to establish otherwise if that's so), or do you mean "as an obligatory unit within a class" (which I believe is much more common...Literature occupying huge chunks of English classes). Please clarify exactly what you mean.