The U.S. should make collegiate education free

While I may disagree on most all of your points, I must applaud you for your effort. Thank you for not forfeiting, and proving to be a good opponent to go against. Once again, may the best debater win. Addressing Rules Concerns: In his earlier round, my opponent stated my violations of rules one, three, four, and eight. All things considered, I do not know why he accused me of the rule breakages. Let’s go over them. Rule 1: “No semantics whatsoever. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided. ” I can understand why an inexperienced debater would interpret my argument as a play on the resolution, but I can assure you that arguing from a value standpoint is perfectly allowed within the provided resolution, rules, and definitions. Therefore, I was not breaking the rules because I did not provide a policy-based argument, which my opponent was anticipating. Rule 3: “Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting. ” We hold these truths to be self evident that I did in fact post my acceptance and structure of the rules in Round 1. This claim is irrelevant, and voters should consider it so. Rule 4: “Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else. ” This accusation also has no basis because I did provide my sources and any final conclusions within the boundaries of my argument, not anywhere else. Rule 8: “No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks). ” Lastly, this accusation is not a valid one because running a value contention is not a kritik. I suggest my opponent read up on Kritik’s in debates, and understand them. Contention 1: The Existing System Works In the first part of his first contention, my opponent states that, “The U. S. is already sponsoring and managing its collegiate system in a more responsible manner. ” He follows up this quote with the statement that the U. S. injects more of its GDP into education than Germany does. While this is true, it provides no real value to the debate, as we are arguing over college education, not general spending. My opponent’s evidence of spending provides no evidence to his claim of responsibly managing the collegiate education system. In his second part of Contention 1, my opponent states that the current U. S. collegiate system is already accommodating for opportunity and personal advancement. How can it be that one fourth of current students graduate with upwards of $30,000 dollars in debt, and 36% of students still show no meaningful gains over four years? If our system is so just, and so efficient, our students would be graduating with flying colors and no debt. Implementing free collegiate education would greatly reduce the burden placed upon students at every college. I acknowledge the fact that the U. S. collegiate education system is praised around the world. It does not change the fact that implementing a free education system would only increase the potential students have after completion of college. In succession to the “b” contention, he posts a quote that shows increased college attendance in African Americans and Hispanics. This is not necessary, for I am not arguing about minority attendance in colleges. Contention 2: Role of Government in 3rd Level Education In his second contention, I think my opponent means the convey the message that: “The government does have a responsibility in maintaining the fairness and justness in the collegiate education system. It should act on behalf of the citizens to address apparent issues so that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. ” My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present. Yet, he does not acknowledge the fact that collegiate education can either lose or gain from increased government involvement in the event of free education. More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality, which I suggested in my last argument. Contention 3: College Education is Hard Currency My opponent argues that student loans are a perfect way to pay for college. He also says that socioeconomically disadvantaged grants and scholarships can counter the wealthy applicants, so that there is an egalitarian sense to college admissions. Those who do not receive scholarships or grants for their college education, and are not inherently wealthy, often graduate with substantial student loan debt. There needs to be a common ground, or a median, in which all applicants, regardless of wealth, scholarship/grant eligibility, and race, where admissions is not based upon the cost, but the merit displayed by the applicants. The way to solve this is to implement free education. My opponent then goes on to talk about the advantages of getting a degree, and the greater results that better degrees yield. This is not of value to the resolution described in the first round of the debate. B. O. P. Analysis: Throughout my opponent’s arguments, he implements evidence and statements that have little to no value in regards to the resolution. My opponent’s job, as Con, is to argue that college education should not be made free for constituents of the U. S. Quotes of degree-salary relations and increased minority acceptance are among the suggested items. I would like voters to take into consideration that he as not fully fulfilled his share of the Burden of Proof.