This House Will abolish streaming students into classes of differing academic aptitude.

The case against academic/intellectual 'segregation' still stands. My opponent argues that Kant and Wittgenstein are singular cases. Their anecdotal status undermines the very point I am trying to establish through their use, according to my opponent. "Wittgenstein and Kant were but a select few" he says In retrospect, my opponent similarly has provided only one case example for his purely theoretical attack against intellectual 'segregation'. Austin Tan is also of a select few. Notice the way I put colons around segregation. In reality, the 'segregation' to which PRO refers to is no segregation at all. There are no laws within our society that enforces intellectual segregation. The fact that upper-end schools don't open admission to just anyone who applies is, in reality, justified. Imagine our earth an its territorial parameters. There are about 7 billion people living on this little globe of land. The fac is, there are simply not enough resources to sustain everbody. On a limited quantity of land with a limited quantity of land resources, you cannot expect civilization to produce unlimited quantities of sustenance to support such unsustainable growth. It'd be great if we could give everyone a top-notch education, but that is simply impossible. There are only so many people they can take with the limited land (college grounds), capital (computers, paper, all manners of products necessary to funding an education) and labor (teachers, staff, professors, etc.) Recognizing this fact is key. The acceptance of the less capable (not all hyper-inellectuals are necessarily capable of success. I know some very intelligent individuals who are not bound to succeed simply due to bad work ethics/laziness) Simply giving open admission to everyone and anyone would allow the wealthier, but less potentially successful people to dominate school grounds. Those who can't pay for the services provided obviously won't receive said services. If we remove academic standards, the school would then have to prioritize profit unless given some other profit-incentive that allows open admission to anybody (government subsidy). This is, in essence, a form of socioeconomic elitism. It completely defeats the purpose of my opponent's argument against academic standards of acceptance. Another problem with allowing 'equal' admission is that these spots are limited, as establish before. This means that, for every wasteful acceptance of students who have lesser potential to use the facility resources/allowances given, one more capable student is rejected from a chance at success through the medium. This is wasting the potential of our societal units, possibly destroying the outlooks of many would-be successful individuals. There are so many applicants to these insitutions of higher education these days that it is impossible even to chose ALL of the academic elites (note that academic =/= economic, meaning some can be very middle class or poor). A system that does not prioritize those with greater indications of success is bound to failure. If my opponent cannot fix these logistical problems presented, then the PRO argument is successfully negated. Snobbery and morality are not necessarily relevant, as proven with my case examples. All my opponent has done to negate this is claim: "psychologically stifles the students deemed by society to be on the weaker end in terms of their abilities, who might otherwise have the potential to make it big in the world." with no substantiated evidence or argumentative/logical support (aside from the clause about slavery, racism and ethnic cleansing, which I will address later). Although this condescending individual, Austin Tan, looks down on others, it is no indication of his actual actions/performances with regard to society (i.e: charity or labor exploitation). Again, Wittgenstein's degree of disdain was so much more prominent than this Tan kid, but he was still a very good man (worked for charity, constantly tried to give away his money to charitable causes) who followed his ethics like a train follows the tracks upon which it runs. He was consistently productive and beneficial to society at large. How does egotism necessarily indicate actual conduct? It doesn't as per the examples provided. People like Austin Tan, although generally reproachable, can still be good in terms of moral conduct. I'm not saying that I support Austin Tan's supercilious attitude, I'm just saying that there is no legitimate evidence proving that this attitude is the direct cause/result of immorality. Racism, slavery, etc. are LAW-enforced segregation, meaning African Americans were subjugated under prohibitions BY LAW (yes, there is a difference). Academic 'segregation' is really no segregation at all since it is the academic insitution's right to chose whom they would like to provide their services to; the facilities and resources do, after all, belong to them. Potential logistical reasons for academic 'segregation' has already been provided above. Personal stance: I think I'd rather have a boss like Austin Tan, with a despicable attitude (not going to be friends with this guy), but knows what he is doing than someone who is not capable of running a company efficiently (less profit means less revenue means less pay for me. I might even be in constant fear of being laid off to the company's salvage lost revenue). "Social segregation is seen to be the cause of many large-scale world problems." Right, except academic selectivity and social segregation aren't the same thing. "Such discrimination...is the root of many problems which we have around the world now. Problems like low wages, monopolism, oppression under the guise of "free trade", and even " indirectly " poverty" So says PRO. I'd like to see pro establish authentic support for this statement. Just saying it doesn't make it true. GIVE US EVIDENCE! I've backed up my claim that academic elitists benefit society a large (Kant and Wittgenstein), but my opponent has given us nothing to prove the claim that academic elitism is a direct/indirect causal relationship with societal problems. Looking at Kant and Wittgenstein, I can only brand such statements as insubstantiated and therefore, false. I believe societal problems result from a variety of causes that are much more probable than academic elitism. Furthermore, those who DO enact vampirical policies that benefits a larger minority at the cost of he greater majority are not necessarily condescending (they could be just like you and me, just slightly more greedy or selfish). Greed & selfishness =/= condescension. NOTHING MATTERS! The reason for providing socioeconomic welfare for as many societal units as possible is???? A generic answer would be for the bettering/well-being of humanity. There is, however, a problem. For what reason should we seek to promote the well-being of humanity? So that everyone, including ourselves, can be happy? What logical or objective reason is there for our happiness? What objective reason is there for humanity's survival? You might say to better our Earth (which we are most definitely not doing; our enormous contribution to the destruction of environmental habitats is indicative of that). Even if humanity is beneficial for the earth (for the universe for that matter), what objective reason is there to maintain the earth or the universe? For the livelihood of humanity? As you can see, this is a cyclical development that leads nowhere. The ultimate response turns to religion: everything we do is for the attainment of a better afterlife. Let's take Christianity, for example: What reason do we have to avoid hell and go to heaven? For eternal happiness? What reason do we have for eternal happiness? Any response to such questions can only be subjective: I don't want pain, I want to be happy, I want to live forever, etc. The reason: you want to. Nothing is necessary. Nothing therefore matters. There is nothing wrong with segregation.