Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things

I will start by refuting my opponents argument...Rebuttals:"In most public schools in America, there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget."Pro says "In most public schools". Pro concedes under Pro's own resolution. For my opponent to fulfill the burden of proof, Pro has to prove that all schools teach us the wrong things. By saying "most", means that there are 'some' that do. Therefore, nullifying Pro's entire argument."economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget. These can be easily considered crucial courses that can help you prepare for life outside of school."This still doesn't prove that all schools teach kids the wrong things. "As with your point on History, though it can be useful for students looking to apply in that field of work, it should not be mandatory, and many of these unnecessary classes require school funding, which can instead be used for more purposeful needs."Pro's logic is that because some might not want a job to do with history, it should not be mandatory. Previously, Pro says "there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget". Meaning that Pro believes that this should be mandatory. However, Pro's logic can be applied here to nullify his argument. Not 'all' people will benefit off the subjects that Pro suggested, therefore, it should not be mandatory. "which can instead be used for more purposeful needs." Some people might not find the subjects that you listed to have a purpose. Some people might think that a knowledge of history exceeds the importance of what you listed; rendering your point moot."Though yes, opinion arises often in this debate, debate is a way to provide your and other people's opinions on a subject."However, you need more than just opinion to provide enough evidence to fulfill your BoP."Now, on with 'right'. Your failure to grasp the concept that many words are subject to many meanings is stunning."Another example of ad hominem. Though, to avoid confusion and misconception of what an argument entails, it is necessary to define such aspects that have ambiguous meanings."What I find humorous is in your link, the meaning you used to justify your case just so happened to be under this definition: Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable".What's with the ad hominem? "Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable", you should have specified what meaning you wanted in round one, even still, your arguments have not proven that the information schools teach us is not "morally good", not justifiable, or not "acceptable.""This is the exact meaning I've been using, and that you fail to accept by providing faulty reasoning that I'm using the wrong word."Not once did Pro validate his arguments by stating it was under the definition: "Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable". I have argued thoroughly that Pro has to argue under the definition I stated, for I was the first party to define it."Though many things taught in school can be helpful to an extent, it can not be denied they tend to teach what we will not need in an average lifestyle, and not enough on what may help us in our future."Let's take Maths for example... Without the information they teach us, there is no chance of us achieving a Maths qualification, needed for most jobs. Still, this doesn't provide enough evidence for Pro's burden of proof.Why I won the argument:1.Pro has not fulfilled the burden of proof2.Pro has made Pro's burden of proof impossible to achieve3.Pro uses no evidence to prove Pro's argument4.Pro resorts to ad hominem (many times)5.Pro supports his arguments with mere opinion6.Con successfully refuted every argument Pro brought forward7.In turn, Con negated Pro's argumentThanks for the debate. Good luck :).