Free tuition for college students through government taxation should be supported.

"Try again. .. . using the same source you provided, the cost of public universities is $48,508 (4 x 12,127) and private is $116,104 (4 x 259,026) - your figures are for tuition only. .. " -Yes; as the debate is about tuition alone, my figures are for tuition only. If you average the cost of 2-year colleges in as well, the figure will drop significantly. ". .. however I did state that COLLEGE was. .. " -I did not see this explicit statement. You may have implied it in what you wrote, but I did not infer it from what I read. In any case, only the cost of tuition is relevant, unless your Education Tax will cover board, books, and other fees of attendance as well, in which case your figures would be right but the whole of your position would suffer as this is simply MORE money to be paid in taxes. "I pay social security tax. .. even if I do take the checks[,] there's simply not enough money in the budget to give me it back dollar for dollar. " -Excellent point. A great example of both government inefficiency and the ineffectiveness and unfairness involved in socialistic programs of this type. "So you'd rather base college education on money you get, but have to pay back MORE later because of the interest, instead of money you pay gradually and don't have to pay back at all. " -Another way of saying what you said would be "So you'd rather base college education on money you borrow, but have to pay back MORE later because of the interest, instead of money the government steals from the citizenry and just gives to you? " Either way, my answer is: Precisely. That is the way things work in the real world, right? An excellent lesson in real-life financial responsibility for college students. "Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Affirmative Action. " -I misspoke here - I should have qualified my statement with "should be. " However, thank you for bringing up another example of government interference in personal matters that has worked out so well for everyone affected. "More taxes = more money to put into the college tuition proposition. " -Ostensibly, perhaps. But does anyone really think that the government will simply use a fund this large for its actual purpose? In the end, more taxes = more money for the government to spend on whatever it feels necessary, no matter how much it hurts the initial purpose of what the money was for. "Incorrect - consider - are you going to be competent at algebra if you've been taught for five minutes or for an entire semester? Obviously there's a relationship between input and competency, assuming the concept is understood. " -My point was that it doesn't matter in some cases how long they are taught or by whom - Newton could teach Mr. X calculus for 20 years, but if Mr. X is incompetent, trying to teach him the same thing over and over to no avail will not result in competency. "Unless they magically change the caliber of their education over the summer, they remain relevant as an example of why our ENTIRE education system needs more monetary input. " -Throwing money at a problem is not a solution, unless your problem is a blackmailer. More money is surely needed in some areas, but it is not a fix to the core of the problem: disinterest and laziness. Thank you again: public primary and secondary school in the US is "free," and look how well that is turning out in light of the points Tarzan brings out about China eclipsing the US for hegemonic supremacy. Let's make college the same way, and see if the long-run results are for the better or the worse. I believe it will be the latter. "Well you've basically said that both philosophies are irrelevant when applied as belonging to a certain country. " -That would be the case by your logic is what I'm saying. I believe that the philosophical background of a country influences its policy pretty consistently, as is obviously the case here. You said "American philosophy" was irrelevant; I'm saying it is completely relevant as you cannot separate the cause from the effect. "More educated people = more human capital = much greater propensity for businesses to arise. I believe there would be a huge economic growth if the number of educated and motivated persons was increased. " -Perhaps, but not if no one can afford to start a business or be in business because all of their money is going toward taxes to pay for the educational advancement of other people. ". .. what's that say about our TERTIARY education systems? " -Another good point. Alas, the problem is not the quality of college education nor the availability of funds for tuition - it is much deeper than that and starts long before college. Conclusion: free college tuition should not be supported as this is not the cause of our evidently mediocre-caliber high school graduates that then become low-caliber college students. ". .. the negative connotation of hypocrisy indicates you believe college should be provided as well. " -You mistake my meaning. My point is the converse of what you inferred. "Implementation isn't really the issue at hand either. .. As for the increase in tax, after a few years, this would balance out as there are more (higher) taxpayers and the cost of keeping an institution open decreases as enrollment goes up. .. " -1)I would say implementation isn't the *primary* issue at hand, but is quite relevant: if you support the "Free College Tuition Act" (for example) then by definition you support its implementation, which in turn begs the question of overall feasibility: very low in this instance. 2)The cost of keeping an institution open will never decrease - it is not correlated to enrollment. There is a certain amount of money it takes to keep it open, and that does not change depending on enrollment. 3)As for "the increase in income from one student vastly outweighs the added cost of him/her attending the institution. " If this were so, then every person would actually end up paying more to the government in taxes for the program than it actually cost them to go to school in the first place, so it turns out that the college education was not actually free, but instead a longtime tax burden. The private sector, for all its faults, would have been much better in the long run, as even though interest rates may be high, at least they can *eventually* be paid off. With this system, a person ends up paying for the education of others even if they did not benefit (attend college for free), and if they did benefit, they pay for their whole education and ALSO for the education of others. Most of my opponent's closing simply amounts to "the ends (giving people a free college education with no guarantee of return) justify the means (stealing outrageous amounts from the citizenry). " I think this is simply fallacious reasoning. "Equality of outcome" is a just a euphemism for "FORCED equality of outcome," and as my opponent was so quick to point out about politics always having winners and losers, the same applies to all other aspects of life. Either way, it is not equality of outcome that society should be promoting. We all have equality of opportunity; beyond that, it is up to the individual - society at large is not at fault for their lack of taking that opportunity and cannot be held responsible. In the end, the major reasons for not supporting free tuition are 1)inherent unfairness, 2)feasibility of implementation, 3)potential (virtually guaranteed) inefficiency, 4)the unilateral expansion of federal power, and 5)it does not address the major problem in the equation of the US lagging behind educationally, as that seems to be Tarzan's de facto argument for implementation in the first place. If education in and of itself is not incentive enough for Americans, then the problem is indeed very deep, and throwing money (at what isn't even the problem) is only a superficial and cosmetic fix at best.