Affordable education

As this is the final round the pro will be going over what still stands in this debate as well as weighing the impacts. First extend the pro case, the con concedes it and did nothing to refute it, the pro has shown that an affordable and accessible form of education is the best way to solve for the issues the con argues. This is important because we will be impacting the con arguments as advantages to the pro. Next, we look to the con arguments and see that the con has consistently taken the middle ground in this debate and has no real impacts coming from the con side. Finally, we will look to each argument from the past response and impact these for the pro side: 1. Because school is affordable the diploma is depreciated. The pro has already responded to how this is not the case. In the pro case we show that because we view education as a commodity and because we focus on optimizing productivity (or the value of a student in the pro case), we have a consistent frame of thought because of it. Go to college or you"ll do nothing with your life. The pro however takes this argument from the con and shows that if we shift away from the learner mentality and more to a study mentality we see the education itself, not just the diploma, gain back the value it once had. -Students are only there for a diploma. This falls back under the pro argument for the previous point. Students go for the diploma because that is what they are conditioned to do. Students even overlook diplomas in areas of work that they like for the more "productive" diplomas. The pro takes away this stigma and has students study what they want with no outside pressures. We create a true educational environment unlike the con. The more affordable and accessible the education system the better. 2. The con does not make education inaccessible, we want better quality. The con position in the debate about affordable education is that affordable education fails and should not be implemented the pro is the opposite, we want more affordable and accessible, thus by definition you make school less accessible. Even if you didn"t make school inaccessible by making it less affordable, the quality argument coming from the con is extremely biopolitical. The only way that the con sees bettering quality is by determining who is valuable enough to the larger body to get a higher education. This puts those who don"t meet the cons standards at a clear disadvantage in life. Because the con does nothing to remove the negative stigmas over other learning institutions as well as labor heavy jobs, we see those deemed not worthy fall into those categories and in turn live lives they didn"t particularly want. The pro however removes these stigmas and allows everyone to study what they want by shifting away from the status quo and to a new form of education that allows all to be truly equal in their educational endeavors. -If you study you will do well. This is exactly what the pro is arguing. Study is the purest form of education rather then the unaffordable version of the status quo the con presents. Instead on focusing for paying for an education and comparing who went where who learned what, we see that in the pro world students only care about pursuing knowledge because it"s affordable and accessible, all they must do is study. The con world we see that studying is deemed as only a step to true learning while the pro shows that studying is where you truly educate yourself, the example in the pro case being Agamben"s view on Bartleby. 3. We focus on to many other things than quality of education. The pro will concede that we do focus on reforms that ultimately fail but that only proves the pro case further. Otto Nuerath"s boat is the best example I can give when it comes to fixing the education system. Reforms only plug up the holes in the boat until land where we can rebuild, but this system never hits land so we can reconstruct, we just keep plugging up the holes. The pro studier society is how we reconstruct, we move away from the boat we had and we have built a new one of better quality, to fix the problems with the old. The only true bettering of quality is happening on the pro side. 4. Change is needed and the con is how we do it. The cons way of changing is to exclude those who are not deemed worthy by the con"s system. The pro takes the opposite approach we try to fix the system, we don"t exclude we include to have more voices and opinions on problems in the world. We ignore what others deem productive or valuable and we study what we deem important. Through the pro world we fix all the issues of quality and depreciation through not exclusion, but inclusion. Affordable and accessible education is the only way we will see each other prosper instead of deeming who is valuable and who is not by what they learn or what they want to learn. In this debate we saw that the con offered up arguments against the current system and that only through making school less affordable and deeming who is worthy of university learning will we see any quality change. The pro has shown that all these arguments on quality and depreciation will be changed for the better is we reject the system now and make it more affordable and accessible while avoiding the biopolitical tones of the pro case, inclusion is the best approach for education, studying without judgement and achieving our true impotential is how we fix what is wrong with this system.