To be selected as a Member of Parliament in India one must atleast be a graduate.

Re: Education and GovernancePro claims that “So according to you lets fill up the parliament house with illiterate people like Lalu Prasad Yadavs wife Rabri Devi.”I must say I felt seriously abused when I read this because that’s a straw man as amazing as anything I’ve seen. I would like to point him to my argument in the previous round, where I explicitly articulated the stance that “it is absolutely important to have basic literacy." That is diametrically opposed to what he is claiming I’ve allegedly said. I urge him to read my argument more closely before responding in future.Even though I only have to satisfactorily negate the resolution to win the debate, I have offered alternative courses of action to tackle the issue that would not only be more effective, but also obviously more just and sensible. One solution I have proposed is to institute a more robust legal system with sufficient checks and balance, since the rule of law is critical for ensuring fair and able governance. Yet, Pro has conveniently ignored all of the points I have raised.Re: The Arbitrary Standard of a Graduate DegreeIt is important for me to draw the audience’s attention to the glaring fact that, even after three rounds, Pro has yet to offer any justification for the standard he had posited, i.e. a “graduate degree.” One of my main objections to the resolution—that it unfairly disqualifies the overwhelming majority of the population from political office without even considering other merits or qualities that can potentially outweigh the facile standard of Pro’s “graduate degree”—remains unchallenged.The only interesting thing Pro said in response to my point here is to malign me of being a flagbearer of “illiterate politicians”: he writes, “Its okay to have minimum educational qualification requirement for IAS, IPS, IES etc but we must have illiterate ministers, is it so?” For the last time, I shall reiterate: no, I do not support illiterate politicians who fail at the most fundamental and rudimentary tasks and operations required of any reasonably capable politician. Conversely, my argument is grounded on the principle that there is absolutely *no reason* why an individual with honor and integrity, passion to serve the people and defend their rights, and sufficient education (formal or otherwise) to discharge his political duty, should be unfairly precluded from serving as a politician just because he had not satisfy Pro’s highly arbitrary criterion.The Deplorable State of Indian Higher EducationPro has failed to respond to any of my arguments delineated in this section.(a) Higher education in India is not only prone to corruption, but a large fraction of graduates don’t even possess basic communication skills and reading comprehension. Therefore, a “graduate degree” means a lot less than what Pro superficially takes it to be. Perhaps he should think about how to raise the quality of education first, before assuming that anyone with a degree can magically become a good politician.(b) The class divide. This is remarkably important, given India’s already highly stratified social hierarchies. Concentrating power in the hands of an even smaller number of elites is potentially disastrous for the average Indian citizen.Since Pro has chosen not to rebut my points, please extend all my arguments for why a graduate degree is a terrible gauge of one’s political calibre.The Affective DividePro has not responded to the dangers of alienating the citizens from their political representative, a scenario that will only be exacerabated in India if he wants an exclusive group of privileged elites wielding power over Indians who are poor, uneducated, and with dismal access to other basic necessities.Instead, Pro writes, “I would like to state that most of the Scandinavian countries have high literacy rate up to near 100%” and that the Scandinavian government is consequently functioning better than the Indian government."I am not sure what Pro is trying to prove here. Since Scandinavia’s population is (close to being) fully literate, it’s nothing more than a necessary consequence that all their politicians are literate. Pro achieves nothing by comparing a country with a fully literate population with India, which has the largest number of illiterate people. If anything, this only gives more weight to my point that the resolution is misguided because Pro’s suggestion assumes the efficacy of education of India, whereas in fact education itself constitutes the most urgent problem as I have shown. Moreover, he is again making a case for literate politicians (as he has hitherto been doing in the debate, but is entirely irrelevant to the resolution), not politicians with a graduate degree (which is what the resolution is all about).Therefore, the resolution remains negated. Back to you :)