studying is not the only way to get rich

My main point in this round will be rebutting your arguments, and possibly adding a few more of my own. First, I would just like to say that while your sources do relate to the argument and are useful for our side, I believe you may have misinterpreted some of them, not read them fully, or used sources that are unreliable and possibly inaccurate. And, as another point, your grammar and syntax is poor to the point where at some points I cannot understand your intent. I'm not saying this as a personal attack at all, but I would like the voters to keep this in mind as they read. I'm going to approach this by going through each paragraph and each point you make one by one. "studying is one of the way [sic] to make money but not the only way." This is what the whole debate is based upon, but you don't seem to list any way to make money other than studying and having a good degree. You also state that education is not as assuring nowadays, which is clearly true. This is because our current economy is in a bad position, with high unemployment rates for everyone, not just a single group. Student loans are mentioned, which are unavoidable, so I can't really challenge that. There will be debt if someone decides to be educated. Your paragraph ends with saying that students can get desperate and eventually commit suicide. This is outrageous. You have no source for this, yet you try to say that there is a correlation between student loans and suicide rate. This is a completely invalid argument. There are high schoolers that commit suicide; there are post-war vets that commit suicide; there are parents from stable middle-class families that commit suicide. Everyone gets overwhelmed in their life at least once, and all that matters is how you deal with it. "'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts'" Major problem here. Don't quote me if it's not a real quote. I never said this in my argument. You go on to say that my argument is "not true" (I can quote this because you actually said it). Your argument to back this up is only based on people aged 20-24. I was arguing for the general population. Who do you trust more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics or a poll of around 2,000 people? Also, you saying that 40% of the group polled are unemployed is an example of misreading the source. The article (not the incorrect title) says that 40% are underemployed, not unemployed. In fact, the article even says that 68% of these graduates are employed full time. The next sentence is blatantly plagiarized and not changed at all. I don't know if this was intentional, but cite your sources if you're going to quote them. You then state that "this figure remains at staggering [sic] 60 percent!" What figure? Where is this from? I don't even know what the next statement about China is trying to say, so I'll discard that. "despite studying for (4-10) years most of these graduates..." Not most, according to the nydailynews poll. Not even a plurality, as the other 60% of people are employed comfortably. Unless you got this from another source, in which case you should have cited it. "so what is the point in studying" The point in studying is to get a better education, and ultimately a better-paying job. That is the point of this debate. Your decision that going to college gives you a job that is "literally no different" is inaccurate, as this is only the case for less than half of the population. "on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success." Really? Because according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (once again), you are wrong. Those with either some college experience but no degree or no college experience at all are below average in median earnings and have an above average unemployment rate. Then, you decide that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are two good examples. They both dropped out of college - after they had already started companies that were completely successful. These are bad representations of high school and college dropouts. The average person with no degree has a lower salary than the average person with a college degree. You also have people in your community who "barely read and write but are super rich." This is most likely inheritance money or some other form of income, but not a salary from a job. Because this debate is about salary (from your opening argument, not the title), then this is an invalid point. Your lists at the end just reiterate the points that I have already, for the most part, disproved. I don't feel like I need to prove anything else as you have not challenged my main point whatsoever. You have not stated any way to get rich other than a college degree. Sources: No new sources, just the BLS chart.