More People Should be Helped by the Government into College

My opponent has made quite a few changes to his argument. I will address them as they pop up. "The only reason that people who have advanced degrees aren't getting work are because they're being beat out by outsourced people who are willing to work for more hours with less pay." Yes. Outsourced people who can do the same job, just as well. It's not illegal for a private business to want to minimize costs, that's why letting more people get college degrees won't necessarily land them a job. It won't even make the chances better. I thank my opponent for validating my point. "So If you apply your "Tough Luck" persona, then they can go out there and decide to work for themselves." My opponent is sorely mistaken. Outsourced workers are not getting unfair pittance from companies. On the contrary, they are working better and harder than American workers who expect benefits and minimum wage. My opponent is trying to mislead this debate by joining two totally unrelated topics. Please allow me to refocus this debate. How would sending more people to college ensure more jobs or higher wages when private companies have decided that wages are too high already? "Of course the government wouldn't be paying for ALL of the college. Just the part of the tuition the family couldn't offord." My opponent introduces this NEW proposal in the very last response. One wonders why he did not make this proposal clear from the very beginning, but I shall address it anyway. However, my point still stands. How would we determine what people can and cannot afford? The poor families can send their children to all sorts of wonderful schools without the burden of money whereas the middle class must give up 25% of their lifesavings to send their kid to a typical school. Hey, they can afford it, but they pay HELL of a lot more than the poor. Especially when the most statistically probable scneario is that the poor kid is going to come out with an undergrad degree looking for 6 figures while the middle class kid has to find some way to get into medical school without bankrupting his parents. "Students for everything EXCEPT community college take only the top half and up. Hell, UCLA only takes the top eighth. So for GOOD colleges the competition would increase. And think of all the people who were penniless, but received education and became great americans? Like Frederick Douglass, he was born a slave, was taught to read, escaped, and read and preached and learned whenever possible." My opponent is trying to mislead people again by stating that since we can name a few famous people who went from rags to riches, it is the majority of cases. I must appeal to common sense and say that for the most part, there are MANY, MANY, MANY more successful people arising from the middle class than the lower class because of environmental factors. My opponent only proposes we aid students with college fees. The lower class environment would still be miserable because they cannot afford to give their children the intellectual stimulus that the middle class can. My opponent assumes that by making college free for all the gangsters, prostitutes, and drug dealers, we can turn them into refined scholars. Will there be miracle cases where a street kid becomes a doctor? Of course. But as a whole, the cost burden would be placed on the middle class, stifling an entire group of people who have, in totality, much greater potential. "And the unemployment rate would not go up if there is still the same number of people. They would simply have a better education and thus have a better understanding of the world." My opponent is incorrect because he does not understand the economic principle of unemployment. Unemployment rate is calculated based on the percentage of the workforce actively searching for jobs. The number of people would be the same, but the number of people who are LOOKING for jobs would increase. Lower class citizens who had a free ride to college, did a mediocre job, and who came out with a college degree will ignorantly assume that they deserve a high paying job. They will then hold out for said job, depriving our economy of what we normally view as lower-tier working class jobs. In other words, the college degree will have less value in the eyes of businesses (since it's free for basically everyone) but people will keep on being unemployed because they won't settle. "And how on EARTH would this raise taxes more than they already are? Now, we're already in a massive deficit. We can pull ourselves out of it with QUALIFIED people to lead America to a brighter future." My opponent made a very awkward statement because he is lacking in several economic concepts. The fact that we are in a deficit has little to nothing to do with taxes. I will reiterate my point as to why taxes are to be raised if his proposal is to go through. My opponent is proposing that all citizens get government aid for tuition such that they only have to pay what they can afford. Thus, the entire lower class (a HUGE portion of the American population) would pay nothing and lose nothing. The upper class would pay a lot but lose nothing (they are filty rich), while the middle class gets shafted because they have to pay for their wn kid, get relatively little in return, and still have to pay for all the poor kids. Taxes would have to be raised in order to pool money together to pay for this program. My opponent must remember that money does not come from thin air. "I must say that this doesn't make you look that sympathetic to the unemployed. Now, there is a lot of evidence that people who are in a better environment work and behave better. Thus, in your terms, throwing money at poor people would turn them into doctors and lawyers." Incorrect. Although my opponent uses the word "thus" to seemingly link two thoughts together, there is absolutely no logical connection between those thoughts. First, my sympathy towards a certain group has nothing to do with this debate. Second, yes, people who are in a better environment work and behave better, this is true. However, I must remind my opponent of his own argument, and his own topic of debate. My opponent is proposing government aid for college tuition, not for living. So poor people would still live in terrible conditions, in terrible environments, it's just that they all have the opportunity to go to good schools for a low cost. ******************************************************** The more I continue with this debate, the more ridiculous it seems. My opponent has used 3 arguments to defend his position but has gotten nowhere. His proposal is counterproductive and I have made it very clear. I now try to make my position even clearer: My opponent wants MOST people to go to college and get big government funds. I say, only SOME people should get those funds. The best and brightest, regardless of how much money they have, should get full scholarships. So instead of wasting money on poor kids who probably won't benefit that much from it anyway and robbing the middle class of the money it needs to generate successful professionals, we should put the money up for grabs. The best and brightest get it. Thus, we can pinpoint the few miracle kids from the lower class while not burdening the middle class like my opponent wants.