Free tuition for college students through government taxation should be supported.

>>"Seeing that the average cost of tuition for a public college in the US (over four years) was approximately $22,000 in the '05-'06 school year... Now, in the same year, the cost of tuition over four years at a private college was about $85,000, in which case my opponent would be right" Try again.... using the same source you provided, the cost of public universities is $48,508 (4 x 12,127) and private is $116,104 (4 x 259,026) - your figures are for tuition only, however I did state that COLLEGE was the investment and the "purchase" and that includes all costs. You don't purchase just the chassis of a car (which would theoretically drive...)- you purchase the whole thing. So yes, the cost of college IS more than a brand new car, and private university possibly more than a small house. >>"If you work for most of your life and then retire, no matter what your income, you are entitled to a retirement check. True, you may not need it, but you get it." I pay social security tax. There's no way I'm going to get that money back when I retire, even if I do take the checks. There's simply not enough money in the budget to give me it back dollar for dollar. >>"Also, a "basis" for education can be better provided by private loans, which are readily available. If you are smart enough to be accepted to a university, you can get loans for tuition, leaving the government out completely (unless it is a government loan, which is fine - it is not "free," it has to be repaid.)" So you'd rather base college education on money you get, but have to pay back MORE later because of the interest, instead of money you pay gradually and don't have to pay back at all. Wonderful thesis. >>"But by law they are equal in the eyes of the government." Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Affirmative Action. >>"Excellent, MORE taxes. This sounds like more of a benefit to the federal government than to any individual. So your point here is that it would be worthwhile to the government." More taxes = more money to put into the college tuition proposition. I'm pointing out that after the initial investment, this program can possibly pay for itself. >>"competence is an independent quality completely - arguably something that cannot be taught, no matter who is teaching or for how much money they are teaching for." Incorrect - consider - are you going to be competent at algebra if you've been taught for five minutes or for an entire semester? Obviously there's a relationship between input and competency, assuming the concept is understood. >>"other countries outspend the US as they are trying to rise in the international community, whereas one might say the US has more of a "We're already there" kind of attitude. Also, the physics Olympiad is a competition between high school students. Relevance to issue at hand: none." They are actually getting somewhere with that - it's estimated that China will eclipse the US relatively soon as the world hegemony. As for the physics Olympiad... where do high school students go after high school? COLLEGE. Unless they magically change the caliber of their education over the summer, they remain relevant as an example of why our ENTIRE education system needs more monetary input. >>"Indeed those are American philosophies. However, they are relevant as regards the non-socialist views and policies of the US government and a probable majority of Americans. Also, by the same token, we might call socialism a "European philosophy,"" Well you've basically said that both philosophies are irrelevant when applied as belonging to a certain country. However, the fundamental philosophies are still important... more on this later. >>"The slots will be filled, and then we will have a large number of unemployed or underemployed overqualified college graduates." More educated people = more human capital = much greater propensity for businesses to arise. I believe there would be a huge economic growth if the number of educated and motivated persons was increased. >>"If their college students are of "higher caliber on average," then it logically follows that either they are smarter, or that their primary and secondary schools are better than those in the US." Exactly - and if their current and exiting college students are of a higher caliber than our current and exiting students.. what's that say about our TERTIARY education systems? >>"education is not politics." The debate about financing it certainly is. >>"I cannot speak on behalf of the hypocrisy of the US government." Thank you for conceding that the lack of college funding is hypocrisy - the negative connotation of hypocrisy indicates you believe college should be provided as well. >>"Pay no mind. Argument from authority or another "European philosophy."" I'm not even sure what this means... it was your suggestion to reread The Republic... American philosophy is derived from European philosophy... "Besides being unfair (not new but true), implementation would be a nightmare, as PRO admits. On top of that, college costs rise between 5 and 10 percent each year, meaning annual tax +" Indeed it would - but than again, any change in the status quo would be a nightmare in the US. Our government system VASTLY favors the status quo. Implementation isn't really the issue at hand either... As for the increase in tax, after a few years, this would balance out as there are more (higher) taxpayers and the cost of keeping an institution open decreases as enrollment goes up - the increase in income from one student vastly outweighs the added cost of him/her attending the institution. ********************************************** One of the things that has been consistently brought up is the idea of socialization and the unfairness of it. Properly implemented, socialization of education would INCREASE the fairness of the process. That's the idea behind socialization - equality of outcome. However, tempering equality of outcome with equality of opportunity will yield a system wherein everyone has the equal opportunity to go to college, and the equal outcome of a (possible) college degree. Thus, the idea stands as a beneficial one in any society that emphasizes equality of outcome. Currently, this is not the United States. But the fact remains that the US is indeed falling behind countries that do emphasize this. Consider the following scenario. There is a rich man and a poor man both of the same educational caliber, and both wish to go to college. They both pay the same tax RATE (say 10% - outrageous, I know...) to the education tax. Prior to any funding being distributed, there is INequality of opportunity - the rich man could go if he wanted to - AND INequality of outcome - only the rich man can graduate. Redistribution of the education tax, all else remaining equal will create equality of both opportunity and outcome - both CAN go to college and both CAN graduate. Is it unfair that the rich person pay taxes that help the poor man go to school? Perhaps, but consider the alternative - the poor man does not go to school, and in the end, makes 75% less than the rich man and works for him. Surely that is more unfair than if the poor man can work WITH the rich man. Are we more concerned with maintaining inequality across the board, or with creating equality at the cost of the "fairness" of the system? There will always be an unfair component in any system (assuming the poor man isn't poor because of his own vices). Maintaining multiple inequalities is akin to lining up a group of men with the requirement of shooting ONE of them, and then shooting all the ones with brown hair to be "fair." An excellent debate on a difficult topic. Read and vote... Thanks to brittwaller for a good debate!