Education in the UK should only be free until 16 to take pressure of the economy

As such, my opponent will retain the primary burden, and his responsibility will be to bring a positive affirmation of the resolution. As the contendor, my primary burden will be to refute any and all of my opponent's arguments, culminating in the negation of the resolution. The way in which I will attempt to refute my opponent's case will be to summarize the arguments he has made and show where there are problems in them thusly. But first the primary claim my opponent seems to be upholding needs to be scrutinized. He writes:"the government should make pupils pay a small amount to stay in education after 16"The charge I will bring against my opponent's summary of his claim is that it is at best, inconsistent. In order for one of his arguments to hold up, specifically the part about benefiting the economy, we must know at least what ball park the "small" charge would be. If by "small", my opponent refers to 1 euro a year per student, it would not help the economy much and it would be in contradiction to my opponent's argument that the 'school fee' would help the government raise more money in that since there are more tax paying citizens than students over the age of 16, the funds could be raised in a more spread out fashion, If it is 100,000 euros a year per student, my opponent succeeds in his point that the government would surely raise a lot of money from implementing this policy, but it reduced government education to something more privatized than actually government-run. So, I will not provide a full refutation of his case until he provides me with the general ballpark in which his fee would be in. A1: this would help the economy by giving the government more money to work withI will not dispute this argument, however I will dispute whether this is a more effective method of raising funds than traditional taxation. The differences may not be too apparent upon superficial consideration of my opponent's points, however I will bring two reasons for why a small tax raise would be a more efficient means of raising funds, and why it would prove more beneficial to students in the United Kingdom who are over 16. Counterpoint A: Compulsory taxation is a more efficient means to produce funds than a voluntary fee. At first glance, this point is clearly valid. Tax evasion in most countries is a crime. Making tax evasion a punishable offense is a means of deterring tax evasion. So, people are more likely to pay their taxes than not and risk fines, cut wages or imprisonment. Not paying a voluntary fee is no grounds for legal recourse and so one must conclude that an ordinary British citizen is more likely to pay a compulsory tax than to pay a voluntary fee. Counterpoint B: Having government charge for schooling would lead to higher rates of drop outs. With some working class and blue collar families, their budgets are tight enough so that they cannot afford higher education after that which is compulsory and universalized. As such, the specific age my opponent uses as a point where they should pay for government schooling, means that the students will be more likely to simply leave at 16 in that most 16 year old are legally allowed to get certain jobs. A2: Government making more money benefits the economy as a whole. My opponent did not say this specifically, however his A1 implies that because the government would make money off of the students, it would necessarily help the economy. He provides no warrant for this assertion though. Since he retains the primary BOP in this debate, he has a responsibility to affirm the resolution with warrant and evidence. Since he has not done this, his A2 argument may be discarded.