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

Thank you for your response "Unestablished point. You have to PROVE it's more productive, you cannot simply assert it." I thought most people will know that knowing the ending to Harry potter is not as important as math but this might lead into another debate. I think Harry potter is simply for entertainment purposes and there might be morals and messages. Science comes up in most doctors in order to perform anything on their patients or say anything, they must have knowledge of science. Environmental workers need knowledge of science. A gardener will also need to know science. As for math, many people use stats and averages. Examples are insurance workers and stat keepers for major sports. "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" I asked someone and learnt that BOP does not mean the title of the debate or core of the debate it means the burden of proof but you are right. Ask and you shall recieve. http://forums.welltrainedmind.com... "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 really isn't that important but ill continue. I never stated that kids ONLY learn vocabulary from a vocabulary book. I was just making a point that if literature were not not to be taken as an obligatory class, vocabulary would still be learned. If you look at common vocabulary books like wordly wise, there are pages of excersises that are to the point on what the words mean and they give you thinking question on the words. Wordlywise3000.com Despite your misconception, I was not trying to say that vocabulary books are used for voabulary more than literature. You are just commenting on my debate tactics and not responding to my points. You have not established if you agree or disagreed with the statement and are kind of dodging the argument which in this case is "without literature vocabulary would still be taught" as I have explained. "Again, unestablished point. What job requires you to calculate someone's age based on the age of other kids?" The variable can represent anything in life. Pharmacists use this if a customer wants to know how long a medicine lasts in their system, the pharmacist looks up the half-life and then does a quick mental calculation how long it will take for it to drop to less than 1%. So if the half-life is 24 hours, then a single dose takes 7 days to be eliminated from your body. "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 just to even out the spelling and grammar, my opponent made a spelling mistake. Second of all, let me explain the difference. I agree with your point about how math can be applied to different situations but in literature, you are tested completely based on that book. For example, the case you mentioned about the kids, the teacher and kids do not care about the people's age they just want to learn how to solve problems. Literature on the other hand, focuses extensively on that book. This is kind of turning into a debate between reading comprehension as oppose to fictional literature. The main argument one would probably use is that questions asked on that book can be applied to other books. Once again, this skill can be used in the plentiful amount of reading children do in other classes. In math, science, and history, kids read from textbooks and if they understand the topic this proves if they know what they are reading. Also, those math problems you referred to, those cases are picked randomly and I mean the names and the scenario I don't mean the skill. In literature, they are not picked randomly and the proof is because a lot of schools read the same books. "That was my point: you were ignoring that the lessons learned by reading literature can be applied in other circumstances" In your hypocritical words: unetablished point. "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" I meant vocabulary in the context that we were using it in. Sophisticated vocabulary. If that is the case then for my homophone mistake I should not be penalized for spelling and grammar because you categorize it as vocabulary. Anyway, this is really irrelevant and I guess I'm wrong I consider it to be spelling and grammar because when my teacher said we had a vocabulary test, we just learned new words. "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." I am pointing out once again, that you are not responding and giving your view on what I said rather just giving me debate tactics. Your first big paragraph in round 1 was not talking about literature teaching vocabulary. You mentioned inferences and critical thinking ESTABLISHING that literature is not compromised of mainly vocabulary. You also have not established how literature does comprise of mainly vocabulary. "Perhaps because using literature is a more effective means of teaching vocabulary" That is a complete opinion based on no evidence. As I have pointed out literature does not focus strictly on vocabulary. If all that time without literature would be focused only on vocabulary there would be more time to learn vocabulary even IF literature was a more effective way to teach vocabulary. "It's not on me to prove that literature studies are better" You just asserted that literature studies are better, therefore it is on you to prove that. "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." I did not day because of better means. Notice how I put it under the category of "time" not better "means" because as I have established literature does not focus strictly on vocabulary so that time can be used in order to focus strictly on vocabulary. "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." This is probably around the fourth time it has been proven. Literature is not focused strictly in vocabulary so if literature was not taken as an obligatory class, that would be more time for vocabulary. "why don't you explain what you were TRYING to say?" As I have explained in first round debate I will quote it "Culture: I have heard that literature exposes you to different cultures and I agree 100%. But wait, Social Studies does that so reading could be a more fun way to expose someone to different cultures but in fictional novels, it doesn't necessarily give facts about the country and its details that you learn in history/social studies." I basically stated a counter argument about academic benefit and explained that there is no new academic benefit in literature. "Please establish that as inherently true." Fiction: something that is told or written that is not a fact. Refer to my other dictionary source. "My opponent has failed to establish that teaching literature is a "waste of time" or "does not come up in any jobs" The academic benefit in literature is used in other classes therefore it is a waste of time. Jobs: I have done so unless you prove otherwise. Do you want me to state every job that doesn't have literature? Charecter limit.