Free Tuition at Community and Technical Colleges

Thanks Genghis_Khan for your arguments.During this round, I will be attacking my opponent's case, beginning with their pragmatic harms, and concluding with a rebuttal to my opponent's claims about the role of the government.C1) Too Many BenefactorsCon proceeds to make the claim that large amounts of individuals are going to take advantage of free tuition to community colleges, making funding free tuition less feasible. There are a few flaws with this argument. Con's evidence isn't related to the resolution at hand. Rather, it is related to Obama's plan. Obama's plan guarantees any applicant with a 2.5 gpa free tuition to community colleges as long as they attend part time. The resolution vastly differs from Obama's plan because it uses the word "students." Meaning that under the resolution, community colleges could reject as many individuals as they want because before an individual goes to college, they are not a "student" and the free tuition guarantee does not apply to them (rather, they are an applicant). Looking at the wording of the resolution, it is obvious that in the affirmative world, community colleges and technical schools still have the right to reject whatever applicants they want, meaning overcrowding will not be an issue. Moreover, the resolution incentives graduating from college in two years because students are only provided tuition for two years. Even if colleges were to allow in more applicants, students would be graduating quicker (allowing for extra room). Thus, it is shown through the wording of the resolution that affirming allows for colleges to have autonomy in the sense that they can accept the applicants they wish to accept while tuition is subsidized by the government. Con's claim too many students will join must fall. In fact, this argument can actually be turned to the pro side due to the added space through faster graduation rates.C2) Over-CompetitionCross apply my attacks on con's first contention. Since con has not established that under this resolution (not Obama's plan), there will be a massive increase in enrollment, con cannot make the claim that over-competition in the work force will be a valid issue. Beyond this, society currently has too many bachelors and associates degrees and not enough skilled trades workers or community college degrees. So, though the amounts of graduates from community and technical colleges will increase, this is a great thing for the workforce because the resolution deflects individuals focus away from careers that society doesn't need and shifts the focus to more wanted careers, like plumbing or electricity. Starting with the need for skilled trades, it is apparent that the need for these trades is only growing since those involved in the trades are at an age of retirement. Moreover, very few teens even consider trades as an option. Take con's evidence in contention one and turn it to the pro side. This expected increase in applicants is a wonderful thing for trade schools because these schools actually need more students to put out into the work force. More individuals getting involved in trades is unlikely to result in competition because there is such high demand for these jobs. Similarly, community colleges target community need. The degrees promoted at these schools generally cater to the needs of the community itself, and community colleges (just like technical schools) offer instruction in skilled trades (1). Thus, con's claims that over competition will ensue from affirming the resolution are blatantly false when one looks at where the demand lies.C3) Under matchingCons final contention goes over the idea that less affluent families will attend community colleges once they become free rather than attending four year institutions. There are a few reasons this point is invalid. Firstly, this point is non unique. Even if "under matching" exists and is a problem, community college is already cheaper than four year institutions. Thus, under matching is going to exist whether community college is free or not because less affluent families are still given a cheaper alternative.Secondly, con never establishes why community and technical degrees are bad or substandard. Given the need for degrees in the skilled trades, encouraging *anyone* to attend community or technical college is a good thing regardless of their status.Lastly, less affluent students are likely to fail in four year institutions. As I showed in my constructive case, over 80% of all drop outs leave due to financial problems. This evidence talks specifically about less affluent community college students. If students from low income backgrounds struggle to pay community college tuition, encouraging them to attend a four year institution where tuition rates quadruple is a bad idea. Moreover, if the college is more rigorous, it inhibits the student from being able to successfully juggle work and school, furthering the idea that free tuition in community and technical schools is a good thing for the low income individuals in America.Now, I'll move on to talk about why it is a good idea for the government to institute this resolution.Con's argument doesn't really make sense because he is essentially saying that making decisions is a bad idea because it's impossible to know the consequences of any given policy. This doesn't even justify his own ideal government because it's impossible for a government to fulfill it's role without some degree of cost-benefit analysis. He starts out with an example that weighs 100 deaths against 100,000,000 severe injuries as a critique on consequentialism, saying that it's impossible to weigh these two harms against eachother. This is because these harms are in entirely different categories. Looking at the topic at hand, all the impacts can be weighed against eachother fairly easily. For example, the economic impacts clearly swing in the favor of the pro and it's very straightforward to compare economic benefit because one must just look to the side that achieves a net gain. Social impacts clearly swing in the favor of the pro as well and it's fairly straightforward to predict an increase in graduates and overall quality of life after implementation of this policy.Con then shifts over to claiming that objective rights exist, and that the government ought to focus only the preservation of human rights. The burden lies with pro, not me, to establish that objective rights actually exist because without this being established, the protection of rights is just as arbitrary as anything else. Looking at the current state of the government, it is important to realize that there will always be trade offs. For example, people have to be taxed to provide an a police force that protects anyone, rather than just those who can afford it. Thus, it's advisable to choose policies that render the best trade offs, when taking into account the political dynamics of America. Even if you buy con's framework claiming that the government's only plausible role is the protection of human rights, observe that this is a hefty duty to fulfill. The government naturally will need to institute policies that cause economic gain if they are to provide services that promote protection of human rights. Given the multiple pragmatic benefits stemming from funding free tuition, including less crime and welfare, as well as large amounts of economic gain, free tuition is worth instituting because such policies are needed to protect citizen's rights. Con is currently failing because he hasn't established that objective rights even exist, or that the government has a means of protecting these objective rights.