The U.S. should make collegiate education free

Rule 1: “No semantics whatsoever.'TheProphett states: 'In the first part of his first contention, my opponent states that, “The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing its collegiate system in a more responsible manner.” He follows up this quote with the statement that the U.S. injects more of its GDP into education than Germany does. While this is true, it provides no real value to the debate, as we are arguing over college education, not general spending. My opponent’s evidence of spending provides no evidence to his claim of responsibly managing the collegiate education system.'If you check my source from Round 2 you will find that the (U.S.- % of GDP- Tertiary Education Spend) is also higher than that of Germany. Nobody considered general spending except you. General spending refers to an overall fiscal budget including non educational sectors. Why such wordplay?How did the following 'addition' happen?How did the extra word 'more' occur when you misquoted me. The actual quote from me was ''The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing it's collegiate system in a responsible manner.'(All this becomes tedious and disappointing to any sincere observer of your argument.) ........................... Allow me to summate your presentation to date. You nail your argument to the door that is 'egalitarian principle', while simultaneously engaging in kochian Tea-Party sponsored kite flying. (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.Remember that you, TheProphett, requested within comments to restrict our debate to deal with 'public colleges only'. It is credible to believe that you would have persisted in this 'removed' manner without the slightest whim, while surveying a public college model in isolation.Why discuss the 'have nots' without reference to the 'haves'. How can we endorse your credentials in all this? The actual quote from your friend John Adams that is relevant here is the following.“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.” In Conclusion:You agree with me that the existing system is working.TheProphett:'I acknowledge the fact that the U.S. collegiate education system is praised around the world.'You agree that Government is as it should be in all this.TheProphett:'My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present.'With regard to Contention 3 Your proposal is little more than to advocate the correctness of the mantra of ' the succession of wealth and privilege '. If you want to create equality within an educational system you do it by investing tax dollars into the roots of that system,( ie in pre-school schemes within disadvantaged areas). We all know that by the time the 'Constituents' have reached 17 yrs of age, that 'the die is well and truly cast.' You, on the other hand, want to raise the downtrodden by pulling the top upwards. You make no suggestion with regard to funding within your submissions.You fail to prescribe a real implementation hypothesis for dealing with the elemental implications of your opposition to the status-quo.zeromeansnothingSources:(as previous)(The poor have to labour in the face of the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France)