Ending Education Subsidies

Pro's final arguments involve more complaints than actual rebuttals. Pro has still not refuted any part of my case. Therefore I will just be providing a short summary showing why my arguments were superior and Pro should be docked Conduct and Sources as well as arguments.Resolution:I would highly suggest that in the future, Pro put the topic he wants to debate as the resolution. He obviously wanted to argue about transferability of skills. Why then would he make a resolution saying that Educational Subsidies should be ended? Is there a purpose to this? He could just as well have made a resolution saying "Skills learned in college aren't transferable." If that were the case, he would find an opponent who wants to argue about transferability of skills rather than educational subsidies. It is simpler way to make resolutions - Put the resolution as the topic you want to debate.Now, I did entertain Pro's arguments and was a good sport about arguing about transferability of skills and how it doesn't apply to the topic at hand. However, there is no question that Pro drew me into a debate topic by posting an unrelated resolution and using semantics to twist it towards arguing what he wanted. I have no problem with someone who wants to argue whether college skills transfer to the real world, just frame the resolution as such. For this reason, Pro should lose Conduct.Having said that, not only did I debate a topic that I wasn't interested in, I actually refuted all of my opponent's points and showed why they don't apply. Let's take a look: Pro case:1) Human Capital"While knowing how to interact with people might be a useful skill, it isn’t actually the subject matter of any sociology or psychology class."This is blantently false. UC Berkeleys's Sociology and Psychology departments for instance offers courses of how to interview people, how to conduct research studies, and how people work in an organization [1][2]. This type of knowledge is useful in one's career and precisely the reason why employers require undergraduate degrees in the Humanities and Social Sciences departments.Pro concedes that my argument about HTML is valid. As a counterexample, Pro says that a course in gender conflicts is not useful for a job. I am not saying every course that you learn in college is useful for every job. A course in gender conflict is obviously useful to a social worker who has a specific job of helping victims of domestic abuse for instance. Before helping them, the candidate would need to know what causes those gender conflicts and how best to address them. This is the reason why college courses are required in order to be successful.The author of the study Pro mentioned gives examples besides the retarded women but they are just as irrelevant. For instance, the next example he gives is that everytime he boards a bus in a different country, the driver tells him in his local language what the fare is. The author goes on to prove that none of the skills he learned were transferred. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether college courses are necessary in order to be successful in the real world. Pro is not only lying but falsely accusing me of lying. His other examples were just as irrelevant as the first.2) SignallingI have argued that college courses make students more knowledgeable about the subject matter. I also argued that knowledge is required in order to be successful at a job. Con does not refute it at all. He says that working builds a better work ethic than going to college. However, firstly, working does not generally involve independently doing homework as being in college does. Secondly, the knowledge gained in college courses is required before starting work. Nowhere does Pro refute that college courses help gain knowledge of the field. Going back to my HTML argument, sure working at a web design company may hone the skills of a person better than attending a college class but work doesn't teach HTML. You have to know it before you start working. 3) Useful education"Why not have everyone get a PhD? Several PhDs? That way we’d maximize productivity."I am not saying that we shouldn't. Assuming the goverment has an unlimited budget, that is what we should do. Allocation of budget is important. I have presented several arguments why subsidizing undergraduate education is beneficial. If Pro wants to have a debate about PhDs, he can do it another time.My case:Pro has conceded every part of my case. This is another reason that I am not happy with Pro's conduct. He provided one line rebuttals to my case while using his entire character space on his own hoping that voters might forget about it. This makes me use up character space refuting his arguments while just using a few characters saying "extend" for my arguments which results in the majority of the debate being about his case. If a voter skims through the arguments, they are much more likely to notice the bigger volume of text and vote based on Pro's offensive case rather than mine. This is an extremely cheap tactic to mislead voters and I absolutely insist that Pro be docked conduct for his underhanded tactics. Voters, look not at the volume of the text but rather evaluate both my arguments and pro's arguments. A dropped argument is to be extended, not forgotten.Here is a summary of my case and why Pro failed to refute it:1) College is required for successPro merely says that college is corelated with success. I have shown causation as well by showing how it 1) Leads to increased knowledge of the subject matter (HTML example, domestic worker example). I have shown causation as well as corelation.2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsPro does not contest this point.3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needPro does not contest this point.Conclusion: Therefore education must be subsidized.Voting Comments1) Pro failes to cite online sources but rather povides books as sources. He provides a few links but none of them are his major source for transferability. You also need a subscription to an academic search engine - which is not free.2) My complaint was not that Pro's argument was unexpected. It is that Pro should write the resolution as the topic he wants to argue. Writing a resolution on one topic and arguing about another just puts off people who were interested in arguing the resolution at hand. Semantic tricks are worthy of a loss in conduct. Advice to Pro: Whatever you want to debate, frame it as the resolution. I too can perform semantic tricks by making a resolution that says "Abortion is immoral" and then argue that morality does not exist. But then, why would I use the key word "abortion" in my resolution and get people wanting to argue abortion to accept? Couldn't I simply have titled my resolution "Morality does not exist?"3) Pro ignores my entire argument hoping that unsuspecting voters will think I did not make one based on the sheer volume of characters spent talking about his argument. However, I urge voters to read both arguments. I proved every part of my syllogism and it is airtight. So, by that alone, I should win the debate.Sources[1] http://sociology.berkeley.edu...[2] http://psychology.berkeley.edu...