Affordable education

Thanks for the cool debate topic fam good to be back in the game! First, extend the entirety of the pro case as it went unaddressed by my opponent. Then move on to my opponent"s latest responses in the order they were presented. 1. What about those that don"t do anything with their degree? Again, refer to the Lewis 11 card of the pro case. The reason the con is so concerned with what others do with their education is because we are conditioned to not waste our "potential" under the threat of being "abandoned" or unemployed as stated in the Lewis 15 card. The pro removes these concerns of wasted potential or wasted resources by shifting away from the conditioning of the learner society, while the con continues to blame the affordability of schools and how people make use of the education they receive. -Courses and life experience result in the same development. If this argument were true in the slightest than I"d have my dream job of teaching my own debate team, instead I must sell my current achievements just to be able to be considered for a temporary assistant coach position. The fact of our learner society is diplomas talk. So, in order for this argument to make any sense the con must advocate for more affordable and accessible education to allow for more potential to work under the current system, or they concede to the rejection of the learner society and the shift to the studier society. 2. School shouldn"t be restricted by class. The con argues this, but it is more of a pro point, by arguing against affordable education the con is inherently arguing for education separated by the classes seeing as if we make school unaffordable, as is the con stance, then only the richer class would be the only ones who could afford education. The pro rejects this elitist idea best by moving away from the commodification of education that happens in the status quo to a more open and pure form of education where no one is restricted by anything or anyone and everyone is free to study without normative pressures. -We need to focus on high performing students, not the average student. This is a very biopolitical argument from the con. The con is essentially determining which life is valuable and which life is not only differentiated by a standard that the con arbitrarily sets. Those who are deemed "average" or achieve high but just not high enough are now pushed into the unemployment line and abandoned by society. Not only is biopolitics extremely bad in this instance, but the con also directly links back to the pro case with the logic of who is valuable based on, what is deemed by them as, potential. The pro case is a better option in this situation as it not only avoids the biopolitical determination of life, but it also provides individuals the autonomous decision to make regarding their personal education path without the outside pressures and standards of the con. 3. No one is competent Don"t make the mistake that is the students fault that they are incompetent. The pro clearly depicts the con"s students, the learner is the one who is not yet complete, not yet knowledgeable, not yet skillful, not yet competent, not yet autonomous. This is clearly the fault of the system not the student. It is the teachers job to change this in the con"s world, but because we put so much emphasis on diplomas and the "you have to go to college" mentality, we overlook competency for that piece of paper saying we know something. Again, the pro proves that removing education as a commodity opens up new, real, potentials instead of the factory that is the con pushing out flawed drones for money. Studying is a form of inaction that releases educational activity from particular outcomes and educational standards. -Vocational schools are not prestigious and low paying jobs are frowned upon in society. The reason we see prestige and wage difference is because we are conditioned to look through the lens of the learner society to feel pity for those who aren't as filled with "potential" or value as ourselves. In the pro world we would see less prejudice because people aren"t influenced by where you went to school or what job you like because the ever-present pressures of the learner society is removed and then replaced with a more curious, studier society. This results in a more open and pure form of education where each is free to study whatever without being tied to one subject, and we truly achieve our impotentialiality. 4. It was harder to be a teacher in the past now it is easy. In 1872 the only requirements for a teacher were that they fill lamps, bring a bucket of water and coal for the lesson, make pens, work 10 hours, don"t marry during your teaching contract, pay your benefits, and don"t smoke or drink. But I assume the con isn"t referring that far back. Yes, it may be "easier" to become a teacher now with the requirements being a bachelor"s degree and a teaching certificate in most schools, but teachers now have much more expected of them. Teachers now have to deal with keeping up with the advancing technology, the ease of and how frequently parents are able to contact them, increasing their workload, the increase of their workload compared to say 25 years ago has caused more stress to be placed on teachers now, new Ofsted inspections have created a much more scrutinized environment, more after school classes have appeared and the list goes on and on. With the system we have created, it is no one but our own faults of who teaches the next generation. The pro however offers a breath of fresh air by sifting pressure off teachers and students and allows for us to grow as a society. -Those who are just there to get a diploma. This is exactly the point the pro is making. Our education system has become such a cycle of commodification that you see students choosing diplomas in fields they are disinterested in just so they can feel like their 30+ thousand-dollar education (without any financial aid) results in a diploma with potential return rather than disappointment. In the situation of teaching, when students do "resort" to teaching then this cycle of dissatisfied education starts over and continues into the next generation. The pro world has a better outcome because we get the real choice of what we want to study and what we want to do while the con only gives you the illusion of that choice. As this debate comes to an end with only one more round to go we clearly see that the pro has met their obligation in this debate through extending and defending the pro case and properly responding to each of the cons arguments.