College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense.

Many thanks to my opponent for engaging with me in this debate. Before I get into my defense, I'd like to suggest that this structure NOT be used again in the future. Most debates that utilize Round 1 for acceptance-only consist of four rounds. I didn't notice that this debate was only three. As such, the fact that I cannot respond to Pro's rebuttal of the first group of arguments is highly frustrating. It essentially becomes a 1-round debate considering we are not able to engage in a back and forth, but merely try and predict what our opponent's arguments would be and address them before they are even made. Hopefully the audience is capable of assessing which points of mine were not adequately refuted or completely dropped without me having to point them out...Though I will respect the rules and not respond to the arguments, I would like to point out Pro's mistake in saying I have misrepresented my statistics. I do not trust the audience to check the link, so for their convenience I will post exactly what I said and what the link says in order to prove that it is Pro who is in fact mistaken. I'll copy and paste exactly what I said and exactly what the source says verbatim to demonstrate that my numbers were correct. In R1, I wrote "While 23% do take out loans..." and Pro says that this is not true. He writes, "While her source says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans." Of course I did not misrepresent anything considering the source says, "On average, the money to pay for the typical student's college costs came from the following sources: parents' income and savings (32 percent), student borrowing (23 percent)..." As you can see, I did not misrepresent anything -- student borrowing refers to student loans. That said, I'll address the final 2 arguments that I am allowed to defend. 1. I've argued that tax payer money can be put towards better use, including (but not limited to) our massive debt. Pro completely dropped this argument and instead talked about how public transportation can save us money on oil specifically. While overall less gas might be consumed, that doesn't mean that the money will belong to the government who can therefore put it toward other things (like social security, etc.), therefore this point was not actually refuted. Furthermore, while it's true that people cannot walk or bike everywhere necessary, it's also true that public transportation is not always convenient. Therefore there are pros and cons to both means of transport, but this doesn't explain why college students in particular should get "free" rides at tax payer's expense. 2. The more important argument is this: I've contended that free transportation services would increase use. This is seemingly obvious. Consider when Oprah partnered with KFC to give away free grilled chicken. Obviously a LOT of people capitalized on that offer, though when it's not free, there is nowhere near the same demand for the product when people have to pay for it themselves. However, Pro writes that this is "Not the case if only college students are given free transportation." I don't see how that makes any sense; obviously if something is free it's going to be more appealing and thus have more demand (so you'd need more supply to meet it) - even if it's just college students. Over 18 million people are in college [4], which means you'd have to accommodate a lot more people seeking "free" rides. Pro also writes, "The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full." In that case, I don't even see the point of implementing this considering most would not even be able to utilize the free ride if it's a first-come, first-serve basis and supply stays the same. [4] http://howtoedu.org...