Philosophy is of greater value than science to students.

Section 1: "Pro claims that a degree in philosophy opens up occupations in a variety of different fields. However, his only source for that claim is the homepage of a random university's philosophy department, which is clearly biased, as it is has been purposefully crafted to try convincing students to select philosophy as their major.", Fallacy: Lying, subsection "Misrepresentation". "Misrepresentation: If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent"s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) No evidence is given that there is "clear bias". It is a baseless claim. "In reality, philosophy has very limited versatility, as shown by the fact that philosophy majors have an above-average unemployment rate; in fact, this high unemployment rate is such a prominent outlier that philosophy even made number four on Forbes' top-ten list of worst majors", Fallacy: Slanting: "Slanting: This error occurs when the issue is not treated fairly because of misrepresenting the evidence by, say, suppressing part of it, or misconstruing some of it, or simply lying. See the following related fallacies: Confirmation Bias, Lying, Misrepresentation, Questionable Premise, Quoting out of Context, Straw Man, Suppressed Evidence." The source given lacks a date, it outlines a very specific focus (Philosophy & Religious Studies, likely known as "Theology"), and it doesn't substantiate anything relating to philosophy as a whole. The opponent is using vagueness as a means to substantiate their claim versus using legitimate considerations making note that philosophy is a very wide spectrum of fields so to be able to substantiate "Philosophy" as a field would be incredibly difficult considering it ranges from theology to bioethics and beyond. I am not accusing my opponent of Misdirection particularly because I do not believe it was purposeful. Section 2: "Pro asserts that philosophy has much more real world application because it teaches students the "art of thinking". To support this, he cites a correlation between philosophy majors and high intelligence indicators. However, I believe that my opponent is confusing cause and effect, here; this correlation would only show that philosophy has significant value to students if majoring in philosophy was *causing* that high intelligence.", there is no evidence of the implication considering the sources and there is no evidence of correlation as causation on my part. There is no claim made that Philosophy and it's study causes high intelligence. My opponent is performing "Equivocation" (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) using the term "intelligence" in multiple ways; the sources indicate that increasing your knowledge and ability to think well helps improve test scores however my opponent indicates that philosophy would change your physiological innate intelligence (not as a synonym for knowledge) which no such claim has ever been made. "Of course, that cannot be true-- taking an advanced course of academic study at the age of a college student, which is right around the age that the brain exits its development stage, does not "increase" your intelligence. It is much more likely that it is the other way around, with people who already have high intelligence choosing to major in philosophy because their brains can handle the difficult concepts being taught.", unsupported. "Thus, we see that Pro's statistic here does not really support the resolution at all.", due to the unsupported nature of the first two claims this is Fallacy: Strawman "Straw Man Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn"t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent"s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) The clear misrepresentation of my argument with no evidence for the misrepresentation is the grounds. "And besides that, philosophy majors are actually second on the list of highest IQs and standardized test scores-- number one on the list is Physics majors [2]. Even by Pro's own fallacious reasoning, a science major is superior to a philosophy major!", Fallacy: Non-Sequitur, subsection "Irrelevant Reason" "This fallacy is a kind of non sequitur in which the premises are wholly irrelevant to drawing the conclusion." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) The basis is that on top of the Strawman there was never a claim at any point by either side that your Intelligence Quotient had anything to do with the ranking of importance for philosophical education nor does it prove or provide that any specific form of scientific field is preferably better for any given student. It is completely disconnected from the arguments presented. The factual value of the source, even if questionable, is also not important to the point. Section 3: "Pro argues that philosophy has more practical value than science because it "is what grants meanings to many things" and "can take you down many, many roads". He starts off with a quoted anecdote about the competitiveness of academic philosophical circles; however, this really proves nothing... not only is the same level of intellectual rigor present in the scientific community (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, reproducible experiments, etc.), but intellectual rigor doesn't even vaguely connect to the topic of the contention at hand: practicality.", unsupported. There are two claims here, A) That the "same level of intellectual rigor" is present in the scientific community and that the listed examples can be considered equivalent(?) based on some criteria. B) "Intellectual rigor doesn't even vaguely connect to the topic ...", but there's no explanation as to why not. It's just a claim. The burden of proof for claims falls on the claimant so until these two claims are supported I don't have to answer for them because I can't. No counter would make sense. "The rest of Pro's case is full of bare assertions that philosophy grants meaning to everything and allows for a broader view of reality than science does.", requires citation at no point did I say that. I closed specifically reiterating the sources I cited and the citations I made so there are no new claims, no unsupported claims, and no particularly "bare assertions". If there are I will gladly answer for them if you can cite them. "Putting aside for a moment that this is all his subjective opinion (I could just as easily assert that knowing how the universe works is essential to a comprehensive view of reality), I must ask: why does any of this matter? What practical output does knowing the "deeper meanings" of everything yield? The only honest answer is NONE.", Fallacy: Strawman (again), unsupported (again), and Complex Question: "You use this fallacy when you frame a question so that some controversial presupposition is made by the wording of the question." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) On the grounds of the final question "Why does any of this matter?" leading into a personal viewpoint that is specifically framed to undermine Philosophy (the art / science of forming and maintaining thought ) as some form of mysticism. The Strawman is on the basis that I made the claims to begin with representing the idea that one does not need to know of the universe or that there is some form of disconnect between the universe and philosophy [see: Empiricism (http://plato.stanford.edu...) ] and the unsupported claim is that it's my subjective opinion (to which there is no citation because my opponents take on my opinion is wrong).