The U.S. should make collegiate education free

On a side note, Hayd has done a wonderful job moderating this debate and making sure people get votes. Now, I will present the defense of my arguments. Argument 1: The Virtue of Education; Social Advancement: My opponent lists off my points of attack as: (i)You want students to have no debt. (ii)You want the country to prosper. (iii)You plead for the return of ' the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based. ', (iv)Your posturing leads you to suggest that 'More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality' (v)Etc, etc ,etc. (No Idea what this means, specify please? ) All of these reasons, which my opponent has graciously provided, are why education should be made free. It addresses these four key points, and wipes out the current faults in the system. An egalitarian presence in the system is important because it provides equal opportunity for social and economic advancement for college graduates and applicants. Debt is an increasing factor in the collegiate education of United States citizens. With more than a quarter graduating students coming out of college, having upwards of 30,000 dollars in debt, it greatly impedes upon their social and economic advancements. If the debt factor is removed through free education, it would remove a great deal of stress from graduating students, and would allow them to accumulate wealth faster than previously possible. I do want the country to prosper, because free education plays a big role in prosperity of every country. When the government invests in the education of its citizens, and fully funds it to maximize government involvement and quality, then government has fully fulfilled their duty to their citizens; providing a quality education to last them a lifetime. Free education would return college admissions to what they were designed for, merit based admissions into collegiate institutions. If college was free, it would eliminate socioeconomic status and the cost factor. When this is complete, college admissions can be based purely upon the merit of applicants. Government control can and would greatly increase the quality of education. Right now, most of federal funding in education in the U. S. is focused on research and development (sources from previous arguments) in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education. With government heading the system, they would be able to provide the improvements and aid to the critical areas that truly do need it. Credibility and a Play on Words: As the voter can see, I did ask in the comments if we could narrow it down to a specification. My opponent denied, in a rather hostile way I might add, so I left it at that. Now, my opponent brings it up as a serious issue in my arguments. This is unnecessary and inconsequential regarding the outcome of the debate. The contender also takes a shot at my “credibility” in his rebuttals. He is wrong in saying that I did not address the beneficiaries, for I created a whole argument based on the principle that there are not enough grants and scholarships to level out the debt issue facing our students today. From seemingly out of nowhere, my opponent extracts this quote, completely out of context from my argument, ““Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. ” This was a total play on words, and irrelevant in the context of his rebuttal. The quote means that the government should pay no heed to expenses of education when it benefits their constituents. What my opponent did is underline six words of the quote to serve his own purpose in the rebuttal. This should be seen as a manipulation of my argument. On Conceding: When I said that the current U. S. system is praised around the world, and he in return replied with the statement that I agreed with him that the current system worked, he was wrong. I was not conceding anything, but stating a widely known fact gleaned by looking at any internet statistic. Whether or not the U. S. collegiate system is praised around the world has no relevance to the resolution over whether college education should be free. Conceding that the current system is good does not mean that the faults are gone, which I have repeatedly stated in all of my arguments. Just because we are known around the world, doesn’t mean it is for the right reasons. Even if I conceded that the U. S. collegiate system is good, it does not mean that it is perfect. If free education will improve the collegiate system in its current form, then it is a major benefit in my case that my opponent fails to respond to. In fact, this was in my rebuttal, not my main case. I hope my opponent knows that rebuttals are covering your opponent’s case, not their rebuttals. My opponent also wrongly interprets one of my statements as a concession when I said that, “My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present. ” He, in return, stated that, “You agree that the government is as it should be in all of this. ” This is yet another play on words. I merely stated that you identified the presence of government in modern education. Yes, I did concede how the government is used in collegiate education in its present, yet faulty role. The government’s role in education in the status quo is too weak and uninvolved. You did not address the core problem that I addressed, “it is not as it should be. ” This was also contained within my rebuttals, not my main case. In all honesty, I am tired of addressing your rule violations. Voters, this is a clear breach of the structure, and should be taken into consideration during the voting phase. Contention 3 (of my rebuttal*): My proposal is not to merely target the elimination of wealth-based admission, but the evening of the playing field, and providing applicants with equal opportunity, focused on merit based admissions. Free education effectively does this by eliminating any cost factor in admissions, and removing any favoritism of applicants. Putting taxpayer dollars into funding of early education is what the United States already does, and when constituents reach the age of eighteen, and it is time to apply for college, the funding of early education has done, quite frankly, nothing to aid their circumstances. Of course we should try to work on improving all aspects of education, but one aspect of education is not all we should focus on. In this debate, college education is specified, and that is what we should discuss, not other aspects. The die is not, “well and truly cast. ” This is not a correct representation of the United States early education system; just inserting a piece of text that is overtly insulting, implying that students cannot escape from a weak educational background. Are you saying that we should give up on the current generation of students? Should we even bother if the die is “well and truly cast? ” Students have an opportunity to show their ability and academic prowess to prospective colleges during the application process. With free education, things like wealth, race, or socioeconomic status will not play a role. Overall, free education increases the versatility of admissions and focuses on the academic ability of applicants. In his last piece of his rebuttal my opponent states, “You, on the other hand, want to raise the downtrodden by pulling the top upwards. ” This is the exact opposite effect of what free education would have on the system. Actually, it would even the playing field, by lowering those perched on top and raising those stuck on bottom. Framework: The resolution states the following, “The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. ” The burden of proof, which my opponent is bound by the rules to uphold, has been violated. My opponent makes requests for funding and implementation plans, yet my job is to argue why free education SHOULD be implemented. I have successfully upheld my share of the BOP. All I am required to do is show the benefits of free education and why it should be implemented over the current system. In my arguments I have outlined equality, egalitarianism, and social progress. Therefore, my share of the BOP is upheld, and I have proven that free education is greatly beneficial to society. The contender, on the other hand, has failed to answer his part of the BOP: why free education SHOULD NOT be implemented. He did not provide a value to follow, and all of his arguments were a scattershot attempt to find flaws in mine. He did not provide an unified basis to follow, and he has failed to provide any valid arguments supporting his side of the resolution. Conclusion: Thank you to my opponent for engaging in this debate with me. I would like for voters to take into consideration this fact: His rebuttals are flawed, they do not follow the specified debate structure, and he did not uphold his share of the burden of proof. I outlined the benefits and proved that free education should be implemented.