Tertiary Education Should Be Free

Pro begins by affirming that everyone has the right to "free" education, noting that teachers wouldn't pursue a teaching career if it were forced. My point was that claiming a "right" exists means that one is inherently entitled to something. Yet if someone was not willing to teach you, an entitlement to education means they should be forced to teach you. That's why a right to education doesn't exist. A right is something that one has pertinent to their own self -- that which does not require others to provide something to or for them. Like I said, everyone has the right to pursue an education. But they do not have the right for it to be provided. Nonetheless, appealing to the authority of the agencies saying this right exists is irrelevant. For this debate is about the right to post-secondary education (college) to be provided "free" of charge, which is not mentioned in the sources that pro cited. And by the way, you'll notice that Pro hasn't contested my point that college is not really free. There are unavoidable expenses.My opponent claims that since people don't get to choose where their tax dollars go, it's perfectly fine to put people's taxes toward "free" college. Yet that is immoral and unjust. It would be preferable to 1) refund the money people would have spent on this endeavor and allow them to keep it, or 2) put this tax money toward other/better endeavors in society, rather than something like this which is unnecessary and/or counterproductive. Pro notes that by saving money on tuition, students could put that money toward other things. This is false. First, practically NO college student pays for their own college. Either their parents pay, the government pays, or they take out loans. Thus even without the burden of tuition, this would only give parents more money to spend. However, these parents would also be paying more money in taxes -- so this is not really a net benefit.Consider presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who wanted to provide "free" healthcare and college. By his own admission, taxes would go up for nearly everyone in order to pay for this [1]. He compared this to European models where they have "free" college, yet to pay for this, they have significantly higher tax margins [2]. Germany recently decided to provide "free" college, and now has the second highest income tax burden of all OECD’s 34 countries.Pro writes, "No company would choose someone in any Financial, IT, Medical or Engineering field if they only have work experience." This is an unsupported claim. The history of banking and finance goes back to the early stage of the human civilization [3]. Likewise, the history of medicine goes back to the very first human civilizations when colleges didn't even exist [4]. While my opponent is correct that modern society does mandate higher-education in many of these fields today, that is not the case for most (outside of law and medicine) and either way that is irrelevant. Just because I don't think college should be free doesn't mean I don't accept it's utility value.My opponent brings up Europe and mentions that they have higher graduation rates -- even though the sources he uses to back this claim up do not say that. However Europe has graduation problems of its own. Extend my argument from the last round (which Pro dropped) noting that not having students bear the responsibility for tuition increases the likelihood of them slacking off and thus wasting (tax payer) money. "If everyone decided to take an extra year to graduate, because it was free, the burden of higher education on the public coffers would increase by 33%. Graduation rates are already a problem in Germany, which is known for its 'Dauerstudenten' or 'eternal students.' As The Local reports, German students fail to graduate on time, and the average graduation age (following master’s degree) is around 28 years old" [5].In the last round, I admitted that many employers will not accept (or be able to distinguish) self-taught people whom learn for free. My point was that a free education was possible. In terms of career preparation, I provided alternatives that my opponent dropped. People should be looking more for jobs that don't require college that are very in demand, such as in the trade and technical industries. There is a "tremendous demand" for jobs that do not require a college degree - many of which pay very well [6, 7].That said, please note that my opponent has dropped a handful of my proactive contentions from the last round. I mentioned that America cannot afford the tax burden of "free" college. Consider our massive debt.I said that flooding the college system devalues one's degree. I claimed that strangers shouldn't have to pay for other people's education. There is no way to ensure that people will study things that are useful or put their education to good use. I pointed out that paying your own way provides fiscal responsibility. I cited claims that government paying for college definitivlely increases the cost of college. This is a huge point in my favor; no wonder Pro dropped it. Indeed, if colleges have carte blanche to raise costs (since students don't care about the cost) they can be frivolous or less efficient with spending. This promotes waste. U.S. colleges and universities are overspending on unnecessary programs and campus perks, along with a tun of needless bureaucracy. The problem stems from schools spending money on unnecessary campus amenities to attract students [8]. This would only become more problematic with "free" college.[1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com...[3] http://finance.mapsofworld.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.forbes.com...[6] http://www.usatoday.com...[7] http://www.trade-schools.net...[8] http://www.usnews.com...;