The Instigator
LaL36
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,946 times Debate No: 28777
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

LaL36

Pro

I've started this debate before but did bad so I am providing a more revised argument.

I feel very strongly that literature isn't important and should not be taken as an obligatory class. Before I go into further detail why I would like to state what I am arguing about: Fictional literature, questions asked on fictional literature such as "What is the author trying to infer?"

Job: I hope all of you reading this have a job. Now, I would like to ask you a question: At any point of your jobs, do you read fictional books or are asked "What is the author trying to infer?" Now most of you are probably thinking a literature teacher and an author both need literature but both of those Jobs are ones that continue the chain of literature. Conclusion: Literature does not come up in any jobs that are not directly related to it.
Time: If literature were not taken as an obligatory class, think of all the time saved in English class. I am almost sure that students learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book in English. If they were to not take literature, there vocabulary would become much more sophisticated. Students could also work on writing with the free time they have, and I am talking about persuasive writing like what I am doing right now, writing conventions, powerful language, all of that will become much better because they aren't wasting their time knowing what the author is trying to infer and reading fictional books that they get no new academic benefit from. Also there will be an abridged amount of homework. Now, I am not saying that there shouldn't be any fictional books. They are entertaining and you learn some morals but it is not necessary for one's success. Take art. Art I believe is obligatory but in most schools is not taken every day. I could think of many reasons art is important. If you want to be any type of designer. If the police need to know how a criminal looks like someone could draw a picture of him. This may not be extremely important but it definitely has more importance than literature. I think literature should be taken as an elective maybe because a lot of people are interested in it while others are not therefore it should not be an obligatory class.
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. Please do not turn this into a debate between literature books versus history textbooks.
Summary: Literature does not come up in any jobs (besides the ones I mentioned and explained why that is not a good argument) therefore it is a waste of time, therefore it should not be taken as an obligatory class.
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to my opponent for starting this debate.

It is my position that the BOP rests with Pro to establish that Literature is BOTH unimportant AND that it SHOULD NOT be taught.

"Job: I hope all of you reading this have a job. Now, I would like to ask you a question: At any point of your jobs, do you read fictional books or are asked "What is the author trying to infer?" Now most of you are probably thinking a literature teacher and an author both need literature but both of those Jobs are ones that continue the chain of literature. Conclusion: Literature does not come up in any jobs that are not directly related to it."

Stating that no job asks what the author is trying to infer ignores the broader purpose of the critical thinking skills being taught. In the first place, we are asked to interpret people's writing ALL THE TIME. In this debate, I am asked to interpret my opponent's points, and must understand the context in which they're meant. While this is a non-fiction debate, at the same time, my opponent has not established that the skills learned by analyzing literature do not carry over into other realms. It's akin to saying that Math is a useless subject, because you've never been asked as a job to "calculate how old Mary is, if she is Three years younger than John, who is twice as old as Frank, who is half as old as Susie who is Six".

"Time: If literature were not taken as an obligatory class, think of all the time saved in English class. I am almost sure that students learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book in English."

The BOP rests with you, as such you cannot be "almost sure" unless I agree to the premise, and I do not. Many schools use literature to teach vocabulary, with meaning, connotation, and contextual usage.

"If they were to not take literature, there vocabulary would become much more sophisticated."
The irony of a person arguing that studying literature serves no purpose and that avoiding its use in school would allow schools to get those students' vocabulary to become more "sophisticated" while using the wrong homophone, is hopefully not lost on the audience. I negate this premise by saying that I do not believe it, and you've offered nothing to support it.

"Students could also work on writing with the free time they have, and I am talking about persuasive writing like what I am doing right now, writing conventions, powerful language, all of that will become much better because they aren't wasting their time knowing what the author is trying to infer and reading fictional books that they get no new academic benefit from."

It is a tautology that students who learn about literature in school gain academic benefit. However, I believe I understand what you, the author, intend with the statement. However, you have not shown WHY studying literature does not help students learn "writing conventions, powerful language".

"Also there will be an abridged amount of homework."

According to your own argument, the time freed by not studying literature would be spent on other pursuits. Therefore, it is irrational to ask me to assume that homework would be abridged.

"Now, I am not saying that there shouldn't be any fictional books. They are entertaining and you learn some morals but it is not necessary for one's success. Take art. Art I believe is obligatory but in most schools is not taken every day. I could think of many reasons art is important. If you want to be any type of designer. If the police need to know how a criminal looks like someone could draw a picture of him. This may not be extremely important but it definitely has more importance than literature."

For similar reasons, literature is important. After all, there are novelists, short story writers, screenwriters, movie directors. These are all jobs that use literature as much as the jobs you list use art.

"I think literature should be taken as an elective maybe because a lot of people are interested in it while others are not therefore it should not be an obligatory class."

Some people are interested in math, some people are not. Some people will never use any science in their line of work, and have no interest in it; by this argument, science should not be taught in schools. (Also, you have shifted the goals a bit here, the original point was that it should not be taught, not that it should not be required

"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. Please do not turn this into a debate between literature books versus history textbooks."

There are many meticulously researched historical fiction novels. I do not believe it proper to hobble the debate by simply cutting off a potential use for literature just because it could be somewhere else. The same could be said about other disciplines, as well. While it will not be my main focus, I won't concede to the removal of perspective as a point.

"Summary: Literature does not come up in any jobs (besides the ones I mentioned and explained why that is not a good argument) therefore it is a waste of time, therefore it should not be taken as an obligatory class."

The idea that only things which come up in jobs should be taught is foolish, as I've already pointed out. It also ignores the broader lessons taught by literature. While I have distaste for Orson Scott Card now, when I was a child Ender's Game taught me a great deal about life and people, lessons that could have been taught elsewhere in school, but weren't.

While all subjects must be prioritized (which is why Art often falls by the wayside), I do not believe my opponent has established that literature should not be taught.
Debate Round No. 1
LaL36

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to respond and I wish him luck.

"In this debate, I am asked to interpret my opponent's points, and must understand the context in which they're meant."

If kids don't understand the context, they could just ask as oppose to writing a really long essay about it.
Also, bare in mind that reading comes up in just about every other class and understanding the context is being taught in every other class. But it is much more productive to know the context of math and science then to know the context of Harry Potter.

"It's akin to saying that Math is a useless subject, because you've never been asked as a job to "calculate how old Mary is, if she is Three years younger than John, who is twice as old as Frank, who is half as old as Susie who is Six"."

Yes but I think there are problems very similar to it just with different names. And refer to what I said above.

"The BOP rests with you, as such you cannot be "almost sure" unless I agree to the premise, and I do not. Many schools use literature to teach vocabulary, with meaning, connotation, and contextual usage."

First of all, how vocabulary is taught has nothing to do with the BOP. Second of all, just because teachers use literature for vocabulary doesn't mean they don't use a separate vocabulary book or come up with their own vocabulary words for the students. Anyway, this is irrelevant because if literature were not taken as an obligatory class, students will just learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book.

"The irony of a person arguing that studying literature serves no purpose and that avoiding its use in school would allow schools to get those students' vocabulary to become more "sophisticated" while using the wrong homophone, is hopefully not lost on the audience. I negate this premise by saying that I do not believe it, and you've offered nothing to support it."

Vocabulary-
a : a sum or stock of words employed by a language, group, individual, or work or in a field of knowledge
b : a list or collection of terms or codes available for use (as in an indexing system)

Source: the meriam Webster dictionary.

It's funny how you are insulting me in the subject of English because homophones have nothing to do with vocabulary. Literature does not focus strictly on vocabulary. It focuses on context inferences etc. if that time were focused on only vocabulary how would there vocabulary not get better. Now before you say kids learn better with literature, if kids were to use books strictly for vocabulary that would not be considered by the standards of the debate that you accepted, literature class as I have stated: Before I go into further detail why I would like to state what I am arguing about: Fictional literature, questions asked on fictional literature such as "What is the author trying to infer?"". My argument is that fictional literature does not provide any different academic merit. If it were used strictly for vocabulary, that would be fine.

"I negate this premise by saying that I do not believe it, and you've offered nothing to support it."

It's funny how you are criticizing me about my English because based on what you wrote, although I know what you mean, you are basically saying you negate the irony you provided. Ps: please don't write a whole paragraph on how I know what you meant because of literature. I know how you quote the tiniest and unnecessary details.

"It is a tautology that students who learn about literature in school gain academic benefit."

Great, I never claimed it wasn't notice how I carefully said "NEW academic benefit".

"However, you have not shown WHY studying literature does not help students learn "writing conventions, powerful language"

You answered your own question. Because they simply are not directly working on writing conventions and powerful language and if you dare say that is in fictional literature I will just respond saying that is in non-fictional literature such as my opponents powerful language.

"According to your own argument, the time freed by not studying literature would be spent on other pursuits. Therefore, it is irrational to ask me to assume that homework would be abridged."

True. I will give that to you.

"For similar reasons, literature is important. After all, there are novelists, short story writers, screenwriters, movie directors. These are all jobs that use literature as much as the jobs you list use art."

Okay, I was clear when I said in my first round: "Now most of you are probably thinking a literature teacher and an author both need literature but both of those Jobs are ones that continue the chain of literature. Conclusion: Literature does not come up in any jobs that are not directly related to it."

Also, notice when I stated examples, I didn't say art is important for artists because that would be ridiculous. That would be like saying cooking is important for chefs.

"Some people are interested in math, some people are not."

I was trying to say that literature should not be completely abolished because some people like it.

"Some people will never use any science in their line of work, and have no interest in it; by this argument, science should not be taught in schools."

Notice how you said some. My argument was that literature does not come up in ANY jobs aside from jobs that I mentioned in round 1 that just continue the chain of literature. Based on your argument there should be a stripping class because some people will use it in their line of work.

"Also, you have shifted the goals a bit here, the original point was that it should not be taught, not that it should not be required"

No not at all. Please read the title of the debate I clearly said "literature should not be taken as an obligatory class". Con should lose conduct for giving the viewers a false message.

"There are many meticulously researched historical fiction novels"

It doesn't matter. The fact that it is fiction means that is not as fact based as history textbooks.

"I do not believe it proper to hobble the debate by simply cutting off a potential use for literature just because it could be somewhere else."

The fact that it is used somewhere else is my point that it wastes time. If kids are already learning about history why should they learn it again? Also, not all books are historical fiction; the majority of them are not.

"when I was a child Ender's Game taught me a great deal about life and people"

I stated that literature provides no new ACADEMIC merit not spiritual merit so this sentence is irrelevant.

"I do not believe my opponent has established that literature should not be taught."

I encourage you to read the title of the debate maybe that will change your mind. Good luck.
bladerunner060

Con

"...it is much more productive to know the context of math and science then to know the context of Harry Potter."

Unestablished point. You have to PROVE it's more productive, you cannot simply assert it.

"Yes but I think there are problems very similar to it just with different names."

Again, unestablished point. What job requires you to calculate someone's age based on the age of other kids? 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, how vocabulary is taught has nothing to do with the BOP."

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 (you conceded that point, when you said "teachers use literature for vocabulary"), 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 is irrelevant because if literature were not taken as an obligatory class, students will just learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book."

If you're going to assert that students both WILL learn vocabulary from a vocabulary book AND that it will be equally effective, the burden is on you to demonstrate that would be the case. I never said they don't or shouldn't use a separate vocabulary book. You asserted that you were "...almost sure that students learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book in English." I said that wasn't good enough, and you have conceded that teachers use Literature books. So therefore, your greater point that somehow students would learn more vocabulary by cutting out literature has yet to be established.

"It's funny how you are insulting me in the subject of English because homophones have nothing to do with vocabulary. "

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 on: http://www.vocabulary.co.il...

Part of learning your "sum or stock of words" is learning what they mean; if you don't know the difference between there, they're, and their, you have a vocabulary problem. Now, I'm sure you actually know the difference, and it was just a typo. I will try to refrain from humor in the future, I suppose.

"Literature does not focus strictly on vocabulary."

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.

"if that time were focused on only vocabulary how would there vocabulary not get better."

Perhaps because using literature is a more effective means of teaching vocabulary? It's not on me to prove that literature studies are better, 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.

...
" My argument is that fictional literature does not provide any different academic merit. If it were used strictly for vocabulary, that would be fine."

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.

"It's funny how you are criticizing me about my English because based on what you wrote, although I know what you mean, you are basically saying you negate the irony you provided..."

First off, you are incorrect. Based on what I wrote, it can be argued I WAS UNCLEAR, not that I was "basically saying I negate the irony...". The only reason it's arguably unclear is if you take my comment about irony as a PREMISE.

"Great, I never claimed it wasn't notice how I carefully said "NEW academic benefit".

I concede that you carefully said new academic benefit.

Since that doesn't mean anything different (think "bonus gift"; an academic benefit is by definition a benefit, which is something new to the person who receives the benefit, as it wouldn't be an academic benefit if they already had it), why don't you explain what you were TRYING to say?

"...they simply are not directly working on writing conventions and powerful language and if you dare say that is in fictional literature I will just respond saying that is in non-fictional literature such as my opponents powerful language."

The fact that it is present in non-fictional literature does not prove that it is therefore as effectively taught to students using non-fictional literature.

"...I didn't say art is important for artists because that would be ridiculous. That would be like saying cooking is important for chefs."

Actually, you did say something to that effect, when you said art was important "If you want to be any type of designer"; in other words "art is important if you want to be an artist".

"Notice how you said some. My argument was that literature does not come up in ANY jobs aside from jobs that I mentioned in round 1 that just continue the chain of literature. Based on your argument there should be a stripping class because some people will use it in their line of work."

It was an extension of YOUR argument, and a stripping class WOULDN'T be valid based on that argument, because the only people who'd need it would just be "continuing the chain of stripping". Just like mathematicians just "continue the chain of mathematics". Trying to exclude some jobs because you they don't support your point doesn't work.

"No not at all. Please read the title of the debate I clearly said "literature should not be taken as an obligatory class". Con should lose conduct for giving the viewers a false message."

I agree that I apparently got that wrong while composing my argument (the dangers of going to Notepad and not constantly referring to source, I suppose), and I freely apologize. Calm down.

"It doesn't matter. The fact that it is fiction means that is not as fact based as history textbooks."

Please establish that as inherently true.

"The fact that it is used somewhere else is my point that it wastes time."

You have yet to establish that it is an actual waste of time. To do so, you would have to establish that it was more effectively taught elsewhere. Most teachers understand that using Literature helps students synthesize information in a way textbooks can't.

"I stated that literature provides no new ACADEMIC merit not spiritual merit so this sentence is irrelevant."

No, it is not. What I noted was explicitly what the teacher was trying to teach at the time, which therefore makes it academic.

"I encourage you to read the title of the debate maybe that will change your mind. Good luck."

I, again, concede and adjust my conclusion accordingly: My opponent has failed to establish that teaching literature is a "waste of time", nor has he established that it "does not come up in any job", except by attempting to exclude by declaration any job which includes it. As such, he has failed in his burden to show why it SHOULD NOT an "obligatory class".

On a final note, on the subject of "obligatory class", I have to ask exactly what you mean by that?

A class called "Literature" (which I believe is relatively uncommon in US secondary education as a specific required class, and welcome my opponent to establish otherwise if that's so), or do you mean "as an obligatory unit within a class" (which I believe is much more common...Literature occupying huge chunks of English classes). Please clarify exactly what you mean.
Debate Round No. 2
LaL36

Pro

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.
bladerunner060

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his response.

"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."

First off, I don't know that Harry Potter is taught in most Literature courses. However, all of those jobs you mentioned also require an appreciation of "morals and messages". So thank you for establishing more jobs that the teaching of literature factors in to.

"I asked someone and learnt that BOP does not mean the title of the debate or core of the debate.."
You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of how debate works, then, if you had to ask someone what the burden of proof meant.

"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."

That vocabulary exercises exist was never a point of contention. Again, you fail to understand basic concepts here. If your claim is that vocabulary can be BETTER, or at least EQUALLY learned through vocabulary exercises that are not part of literature exercises (which you would have to do to use this as a point to justify removing Literature from required curriculum.

"First of all just to even out the spelling and grammar, my opponent made a spelling mistake."

As fun as vote pandering is, it's not a debate point. But please go on.

"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."

That's what's known as "special pleading". You see, you are correct that the student is tested "completely based on that book". But in my example of a math question, the student is just as much tested just on that problem. Tests are always on a specific question, and generally the hope is that the lessons will be applied broadly.

"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."

No.

"...In your hypocritical words: unetablished point..."

Actually, I had previously established that literature can teach about broader concepts, when I spoke about Ender's Game. If I were you, I would demand conduct points.

"my teacher said we had a vocabulary test, we just learned new words."

You didn't learn what those words meant? What kind of vocabulary test was that, exactly?

"Your first big paragraph in round 1 was not talking about literature teaching vocabulary."

While I mentioned vocabulary, it was a response to your point in the first round. To repeat, you are the one who has the burden of proof. All I have to do is refute your points in order to win this debate. Thus, I refuted your points. Had you not mentioned vocabulary, it wouldn't have come up.

"You mentioned inferences and critical thinking ESTABLISHING that literature is not compromised of mainly vocabulary."
Which is irrelevant. My point was never that it WAS comprised of mainly vocabulary, but rather that your point about vocabulary was not established or valid.

"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."

Again, you have the burden of proof. If you make no valid points against the teaching of literature, then you have failed to establish your point and therefore lose this debate. You brought vocabulary into this debate as something you felt was a point in your favor. I addressed it. You, as the one with the burden, have to establish your points. I only have to show that you have not done so.
"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."

No. I didn't. I was saying "here is a POSSIBLE answer, but it's not on me to prove this, it is on you to prove the inverse." This is not hard; you should learn about BOP before attempting to debate.

"I did not day because of better means."

Should I vote pander for spelling and grammar now?

"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."

And, again, you have failed to prove that simple spending more time devoted to "focus strictly on vocabulary" would be better than spending time on Literature even for vocabulary alone.

"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."

I'm not going to bother to count the number of times I've pointed out that your assertion that spending more time using a vocabulary book, in the absence of the context of literature, has yet to be proven.

Perhaps an analogy is in order, since you clearly do not understand your burden of proof. Imagine that we're talking about fixing cars. And I'm advocating for studying the Clymer's guide, while you're claiming that that time is useless and that, if you didn't read the book, you'd have more time to work on the car. While that is true (more time could be spent if no time was spent reading the book), it's nonetheless also true that for someone who doesn't know much about cars, reading the book makes the time that is spend working on the car later FAR more efficient.

"I basically stated a counter argument about academic benefit and explained that there is no new academic benefit in literature."
I neglected to mention this earlier: It is a tautology that if the subject is being studied in school, there is an academic benefit to studying it.

"The academic benefit in literature is used in other classes therefore it is a waste of time."
Math is not used in English class. Therefore it is a waste of time.

"Jobs: I have done so unless you prove otherwise."
As you have not addresed my points about jobs, I extend my arguments. You have NOT done so.

Apparently, you ran out of space, so you did not answer the direct question I asked.

In closing: Pro did not establish that Literature is not important. Nor did Pro establsih any unrefuted reason why Literature should not be taken as an obligatory class.

Pro failed to understand basic concepts about the Burden Or Proof, and failed in basic reading comprehension (though I concede that my reading comprehension was not blemish-free, since I erred in restating the proposition). Having failed in the burden of proof, Pro has failed to prove his case.

Please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
LaL36

Pro

Sorry I ran out of character space but to answer your question of the title of the debate, you are right "literature should not be taken as an obligatory unit within a class" sounds better. For your future debates, you should clarify these things round 1. I don't think there is anything else I didn't address from the previous round onto this round: "First off, I don't know that Harry Potter is taught in most Literature courses." Harry Potter was just an example.

"However, all of those jobs you mentioned also require an appreciation of "morals and messages". So thank you for establishing more jobs that the teaching of literature factors in to."

1. I did not do what your second sentence claims. 2. In your once again, hypocritical words: "unestablished point". A doctor needs to heal someone. No morals needed for that. Why do stat keepers need to know morals. You specifically said "all the jobs I mentioned" required this so it is your responsibility to prove every job I mentioned requires "morals and messages".

"You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of how debate works, then, if you had to ask someone what the burden of proof meant."
Okay you clearly misunderstood me. I didn't know what BOP stands for but I know what burden of proof is. "That vocabulary exercises exist was never a point of contention." Once again you focus on the wrong thing. I was not focusing on the excercises just that vocabulary would still be taught without literature.

"If your claim is that vocabulary can be BETTER, or at least EQUALLY learned through vocabulary exercises that are not part of literature exercises (which you would have to do to use this as a point to justify removing Literature from required curriculum." I can't understand this, it is not a full sentence.
"But in my example of a math question, the student is just as much tested just on that problem"
So you just chose to disregard what I said that the math problems are chosen randomly?

"Tests are always on a specific question, and generally the hope is that the lessons will be applied broadly." Unestablished point. What would literature be applied to? What makes learning to know about the context of ficitional literature different than learning to know the context of math books, science books, etc.?

"No"
You are saying that you would not use the argument that it could be applied to other books? Let me jog your memory go back to round 1 where you said "The idea that only things which come up in jobs should be taught is foolish, as I've already pointed out." This is an argument for it being applied to other jobs even though you did not say it directly you imply it by saying that since it doesn't directly come up in jobs is foolish.
"Actually, I had previously established that literature can teach about broader concepts, when I spoke about Ender's Game."
So why did you repeat it?
"You didn't learn what those words meant? What kind of vocabulary test was that, exactly?"
Are you joking? You really could not infer that I meant also learn the definition of new words? Come on con.
"To repeat, you are the one who has the burden of proof. All I have to do is refute your points in order to win this debate." You barely refuted my points. You mainly just said unestablished point (in case you want to take things so literally again I also mean anything similar to that).
"Which is irrelevant. My point was never that it WAS comprised of mainly vocabulary, but rather that your point about vocabulary was not established or valid." It is relevant because you said it wasn't established and I was trying to say that I don't need to establish something you already established.
"Again, you have the burden of proof." If you make a claim you also need to prove it.
"I only have to show that you have not done so."
That is not true. If you read any other debate, the facts will show otherwise. If what you say is true, you are basically just coaching me and revising my debate.

I was saying "here is a POSSIBLE answer,"
Why don't you say your opinion. Why are you saying opinion that you do not agree with.
"it is on you to prove the inverse." Once again, my point was if literature were not taken as part of an obligatory class, vocabulary would still be taught. Without literature, there will be extra time for vocabulary because of all those aspects my opponent has established that are a part of literature would not be taken. More time learning vocabulary without literature. Got it?
"And, again, you have failed to prove that simple spending more time devoted to "focus strictly on vocabulary" would be better than spending time on Literature even for vocabulary alone."
Without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class. There will be more time to focus strictly on vocabulary therefore vocabulary would not be abolished that is my point and that sounds like enough proof to me.
"I'm not going to bother to count the number of times I've pointed out that your assertion that spending more time using a vocabulary book, in the absence of the context of literature, has yet to be proven."
Please explain to me how it is not proven. Why does it not make sense to you that without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class, there will be more time, and that time could be used for vocabulary. How is this not enough?
Your analogy: The difference is, you need the book to know how to work on fixing the car. You do not need ficitional literature to know how to learn vocabulary. Until you establish otherwise, this is an established point.
"It is a tautology that if the subject is being studied in school, there is an academic benefit to studying it." I have agreed that there is some academic benefit to it like "of mice and men" teach about the Great Depression, this is also learned it history so my initial point still stands that there is no new academic merit to fictional literature. Also, you are using bad logic. If school all of sudden started teaching racism, we should not just assume that since it is taught in school, it is okay. We should take action. I am not suggesting literature is like racism, just saying you are not using such good logic.
"Math is not used in English class. Therefore it is a waste of time" are you trying to suggest that I used a similar argument? If so, I did no such thing.

"As you have not addresed my points about jobs, I extend my arguments."
I did you said it is a foolish argument and mentioned jobs that just continue the chain of literature. Refer to what you said in round 1 and I think me using this debate is considered a reliable source.
"Apparently, you ran out of space, so you did not answer the direct question I asked."
Was it the one that I answered in the beginning of this round? If not, then which one are you referring to?
"Nor did Pro establsih any unrefuted reason why Literature should not be taken as an obligatory class."
You have not given me one job that literature comes up in that does not continue the chain of literature. I think that is a legitimate point. Can you please establish how literature has contributed to society because I consider it as a factor of being important.
"Should I vote pander for spelling and grammar"
I think you just did but should I vote pander by pointing out that you misspelled addressed and establish wrong. Good luck and I don't know why you told voters to vote for you now, when it was only round 3 when you wrote it. I await my opponent's response.
bladerunner060

Con

"In your once again, hypocritical words: "unestablished point". A doctor needs to heal someone. No morals needed for that."

You do not feel that MORALS factor at all into the practice of MEDICINE? That is stunning. Morals (or ethics) are applicable in any job; moreso the practice of medicine. It was a trivially true point. While you are correct in asserting it was "unestablished", it is disingenuous to equate it to your blanket assertions. If you really do not understand that MORALS factor into jobs such as medicine, I feel you lack the necessary understanding to debate this topic, and question whether your age on your profile is fraudulent. I feel like only a very young person would be completely unaware of the concept of medical ethics. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

"I was not focusing on the excercises just that vocabulary would still be taught without literature."

You have to establish it would be BETTER or at least EQUALLY taught without literature. You have not done so. As regards to my "nonsensical" sentence, it was missing a bit of itself:

Corrected sentence: "If your claim is that vocabulary can be BETTER, or at least EQUALLY learned through vocabulary exercises that are not part of literature exercises (which you would have to do to use this as a point to justify removing Literature from required curriculum) you must actually establish that."

"So you just chose to disregard what I said that the math problems are chosen randomly?"
Your point was a non-sequitur. The relative "Randomness" of the question had no bearing on the point that a question only tests that which is within the question. I "disregarded" the part that had no bearing on the legitimacy of your point.

"So why did you repeat it?"
Nice dodge of the fact that you claimed a point was unestablished that was, in fact, established.

"Are you joking? You really could not infer that I meant also learn the definition of new words? Come on con."

I made the mistake of using sarcasm. I'll refrain from that, since you are unable to understand it.

"You barely refuted my points."
So I did, in fact, refute your points. Excellent. Thus, you have the burden of either re-establishing them, or offering new ones. Which you have yet to do.

"If you make a claim you also need to prove it."
Generally correct. However, some claims are trivial, and some are not. Trivial claims generally do not have to be established unless there is some contention, while non-trivial claims must be established.

"That is not true. If you read any other debate, the facts will show otherwise. If what you say is true, you are basically just coaching me and revising my debate."

I'm not sure what you mean. You have the burden of proving that Literature should not be a required unit. If you have not met the burden of that, you have lost. I do not have to prove literature is great, only that you have not shown sufficient cause to prevent its being a required unit.

"Why don't you say your opinion. Why are you saying opinion that you do not agree with."
Because the burden is on you to establish your points well enough. You did not do so. One of your arguments was that vocabulary could be better learned elsewhere; you still have not used anything to back that up other than the idea that there would be more time to use vocabulary books, which is insufficient to support the point. I gave you a plausible (but not necessarily true) reason why that might not be the case. When questioning a point, I do not have the burden of proving you wrong, but only of showing that you have not proven yourself correct.

"Once again, my point was if literature were not taken as part of an obligatory class, vocabulary would still be taught. Without literature, there will be extra time for vocabulary because of all those aspects my opponent has established that are a part of literature would not be taken. More time learning vocabulary without literature. Got it?"

Got it. But that still doesn't prove that learning vocabulary without the context literature provides is as effective or more effective than learning it WITH the context literature provides.

"Without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class. There will be more time to focus strictly on vocabulary therefore vocabulary would not be abolished that is my point and that sounds like enough proof to me."

It's not.

"Please explain to me how it is not proven. Why does it not make sense to you that without literature being taken as part of an obligatory class, there will be more time, and that time could be used for vocabulary. How is this not enough?"

Because learning does not directly correlate to "time spent" alone. There are more efficient or less efficient ways of teaching things.

"Your analogy: The difference is, you need the book to know how to work on fixing the car. You do not need ficitional literature to know how to learn vocabulary. Until you establish otherwise, this is an established point."

Not true. You do not NEED a book to learn how to fix the car. That is trivially untrue; mechanics do not have the book on EVERY CAR.

"I have agreed that there is some academic benefit to it like "of mice and men" teach about the Great Depression, this is also learned it history so my initial point still stands that there is no new academic merit to fictional literature. Also, you are using bad logic. If school all of sudden started teaching racism, we should not just assume that since it is taught in school, it is okay. We should take action. I am not suggesting literature is like racism, just saying you are not using such good logic."

You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of logic. Acadmic benefit is benefit in school. If schools taught racism, then learning racism would have academic benefit. That woulnd't make it "okay"; but other arguments would be used to prove that, as it would still be a tautology that subjects taught in school have academic benefit by the fact that they are taught in school.

"Are you trying to suggest that I used a similar argument? If so, I did no such thing."
Ahem. To quote you: "The academic benefit in literature is used in other classes therefore it is a waste of time." That is the same argument.

"I did you said it is a foolish argument and mentioned jobs that just continue the chain of literature. Refer to what you said in round 1 and I think me using this debate is considered a reliable source."

And I pointed out that that was a fallacious argument, as it could be made about ANY job. The only jobs that use Biology are ones that "just continue the chain of Biology", etc.

"Can you please establish how literature has contributed to society because I consider it as a factor of being important."
That's an entirely different debate. With as much as we've typed in service of THIS debate, I don't think I'll be able to do the subject justice. However, as a single example, of a single book witha significant impact: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I think you just did but should I vote pander by pointing out that you misspelled addressed and establish wrong."
Actually, I once again employed sarcasm. I suspect it will be difficult for me to avoid it henceforth in this debate, but I shall try.

"Good luck and I don't know why you told voters to vote for you now, when it was only round 3 when you wrote it. I await my opponent's response."

I did because it became clear that you have no arguments that I haven't already refuted. But you may still prove me wrong on that.

However, I do apologize for all my typos so far, and undoubtedly in the remaining rounds. I suspect we shall tie on the "spelling and grammar" category (on that note, btw, exercises is not spelled excercises; you have typed it that way multiple times, which leads me to believe it's not a simple typo).
Debate Round No. 4
LaL36

Pro

Medical ethics: The morals learnt in books are much deeper than this. Medical ethics are basic rules like doctor patient confidentiality. There is not that much thought into medical ethics as much as the morals in literature. Sometimes the morals in literature are hidden whereas medical ethics are direct.

"You have to establish it would be BETTER or at least EQUALLY taught without literature. You have not done so" There are so many ways to teach vocabulary without fictional literature. The main argument you said or suggested is that literature puts the word in context. So does many vocabulary books such as worldly wise. They do not just define the word, they put it in a sentence, there are exercises and questions on the word, there are synonyms provided etc. A lot of the factors I mentioned literature does not provide. To summarize, other means of vocabulary can teach vocabulary in so many other ways besides for just putting a sophisticated word in a sentence and not defining it like literature. Established enough? And for my factors I mentioned you can look at wordlywise3000.com
"Your point was a non-sequitur. The relative "Randomness" of the question had no bearing on the point that a question only tests that which is within the question. I "disregarded" the part that had no bearing on the legitimacy of your point."
That was a rhetorical question by the way. And I said you disregarded it because I already answered that. You wrote "But in my example of a math question, the student is just as much tested just on that problem" (as much as literature). I was saying that I already said how that doesn't matter because the math problem has no meaning. The names and the conflict is picked randomly. This is not the case for literature because readers are suppose to examine the book carefully and say why the author wrote the things he wrote in the book.
"Nice dodge of the fact that you claimed a point was unestablished that was, in fact, established."
Okay you can make an argument that I might have dodged the fact (I don't know how that is possible), but it is a fact that you dodged the question.
"I made the mistake of using sarcasm. I'll refrain from that, since you are unable to understand it."
I understood that but it was bugging me. What if some voters wouldn't understand that. Your sarcasm is a little annoying in this debate and I feel con should lose conduct.
"I do not have to prove literature is great, only that you have not shown sufficient cause to prevent its being a required unit." Your position is Con. Therefore you have to prove that you are against the topic that I am arguing.
"I gave you a plausible (but not necessarily true) reason why that might not be the case."
You still did not answer why you did that.
For a while you later say how I have not established my points on vocabulary, I think I answered them this round already.
Your analogy: It is still saying that you are working on a car without learning about the car. You have to learn about the car. Just like you have to learn vocabulary. I do not think your analogy is relevant.
"Ahem. To quote you: "The academic benefit in literature is used in other classes therefore it is a waste of time." That is the same argument."
You provide the exact opposite argument "Math is not used in English class. Therefore it is a waste of time." How is this the same?

"And I pointed out that that was a fallacious argument, as it could be made about ANY job. The only jobs that use Biology are ones that "just continue the chain of Biology", etc."

Laboratory technician (medical, microbiological, biotechnological, etc.)
Food, dairy, brewery production, quality control
Animal technician (looking after animals in zoo, pet store, vivarium, veterinary hospital)
Greenhouse/garden curator(botanical technician)
Agricultural or wildlife fields
Environmental technician, consultant

How do all of these examples directly relate to it and just continue the chain of biology?

"However, as a single example, of a single book witha significant impact"
That has nothing to do with fictional literature in general that is just one book.

Also, can you provide just one job that literature comes into play but does not directly relate and just continue the chain of literature?
bladerunner060

Con

This is the final round. I thank my opponent for the debate.

"Sometimes the morals in literature are hidden whereas medical ethics are direct."

This is not about how some circumstances have literature that doesn't have ethics. And if you think that "medical ethics are direct", I direct you to things like the Stanford Prison Experiment[1], or the history of the HeLa cells[2], or the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment. All circumstances where the medical ethics were a gray area. Consider the question of cloning, or of abortion rights, or of genetic modification. These are all areas where a grounding in ethics would be important. To say that medical ethics are "direct" is wrong.

"There are so many ways to teach vocabulary without fictional literature."
And it is your obligation to prove, with evidence, that those things work at least as well or better. Undoubtedly there are studies on this subject. Find some, or concede the point as invalid.

"I was saying that I already said how that doesn't matter because the math problem has no meaning. The names and the conflict is picked randomly. This is not the case for literature because readers are suppose to examine the book carefully and say why the author wrote the things he wrote in the book."

I understood that concept. But, again, the relative randomness of the question has no bearing on the fact that ANY question tests only that which it asks about. You said that it was only applicable to that one concept, and I pointed out that that is fallacious reasoning.

"I understood that but it was bugging me. What if some voters wouldn't understand that. Your sarcasm is a little annoying in this debate and I feel con should lose conduct."

Stop vote pandering. I'm sorry you're annoyed by my sarcasm; by the same token, I'm annoyed by your constant vote pandering, your complete lack of understanding of the basic parameters of debate, the burden of proof, and the concept of a valid point.

"You still did not answer why you did that."

I was giving a perfectly plausible objection that you had not dealt with when making your point. It was a way of responding to your point without just saying "unestablished point". Again, it is up to you to deal with objections to your points, and show that there is a reason to believe it to be true other than your bare assertion.

"For a while you later say how I have not established my points on vocabulary, I think I answered them this round already."

No. You haven't. You keep falling back on to the idea that "more time equals better!" You have not established that to be actually true. Find a study.

"How is this the same?"

I will reformulate it, since you are unable to understand. "The academic benefit in Math is not used in English class therefore it is a waste of time". I hope it helps you see that your conclusion is a nonsequitor, it does not follow from your premise. Things learned in one class do not get their validity from whether they are used in another class.

"How do all of these examples directly relate to it and just continue the chain of biology?"
How do they not? How do screenwriters just "continue the chain of literature"? How are you defining "continuing the chain"?

"That has nothing to do with fictional literature in general that is just one book."
Literature is composed of books. You're trying to imply here that the abstract concept of literature must have some impact. Analogous to that would be this: asking "What will America do for the starving children!" and, when someone points out "Well, a lot of Americans have flown over there, and the government is sending money and food", your resposne is "That has nothing to do with America in general that is just one book."

"Also, can you provide just one job that literature comes into play but does not directly relate and just continue the chain of literature?"

Well, you used "laboratory technician" (presumably in a biology lab) as an example of someone who uses biology, who is not "just continuing the chain of biology". Therefore, I will use screenwriter. The cases are analogous: A laboratory technician in a biology lab is working on biology experiments. They are using the lessons they've learned in biology class to help them in their job, which is a job which directly relates to biology. A screenwriter is working on writing and is using the lessons they've learned in literature class to help them in their job.

Again, my opponent has failed to establish his case. He has not presented any legitimate arguments. Some of his points might possibly be true, but as long as they are bare assertions, they have not been established. Please vote Con.

[1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
@bull-diesel I think you have a clear misunderstanding of the argument because I clearly said that vocabulary should still be taught so it seems like a votebomb.
Posted by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
Forgot that it was last round. Thank you my opponent and voters for reading.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
LaL36bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB
Vote Placed by sadolite 4 years ago
sadolite
LaL36bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I never learned anything from reading fictional literature, other than being forced to paraphrase it. Con did not make convincing arguments for me to make fictional literature "an obligatory class." All English skills and reading comprehension spill over into other studies. It is more important to be able to "infer" what reality is saying than fiction world.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
LaL36bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll keep it simple. This debate was in SERIOUS need of structure. I had to use three sheets of paper to wrap my head around it, mostly apparently influenced by con's point-for-point style. The annoying thing was that each claim was little more than assertion. For example - pro's claim that skills from literature are not used in work against pro's claim they are. Both sides ultimately merely asserted what skills literature can give without much analysis for WHY literature is or is not best placed for learning those skills. It would have helped enormously to define what skills are actually important and why. That could have sealed the debate for either side. In the end, I was convinced that future screenwriters could get some basic understanding of literature outside of that class. Pro provided some weak evidence of that, and con's counter-evidence was zero. This argument was enough to hold BOP. Close tho. Conduct for several personal attacks and repeatedly mischaracterizing pro's case.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
LaL36bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that studying fiction should not required because the skills of vocabulary, history, and culture could be better obtained from non-fiction works which offer the added benefit of factual reality. Neither side used sources, a debate shortcoming, so the debate had to be judged solely on what said.con gave reasons, but Con only responded that teaching literature could do all that Pro claimed without giving reasons why literature was necessary. con didn't come up with the main reason for teaching literature, which is cultural literacy, nor examples of things taught much better by fiction than non-fiction, such as details of complex human interaction. Based upon what was argued, arguments to Pro. Pro had inferior S&G, but not bad enough to interfere with following the debate. con came close to conduct violation by insults, but was elliptical enough to avoid it.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
LaL36bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have to say con by a landslide. You're arguing English and literature have no place as required courses in schools? Ok. I can live with that. What's that? You're sucking pretty fiercely at forming coherent thoughts with correctly spelled or phrased wording or statements? Yeah.... we probably don't need to teach our children to read and write. I have almost never heard of a highly paid individual being required to read or write effectively. Almost never. This is not a vote bomb, bladerunner just swept the debate IMO
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
LaL36bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end, the argument that eventually won me over was the argument that although the reading of specific novels does not come up in most jobs, the skills learned from reading them are always used. Clever point from the Con, but good effort from the Pro as well.