No money for education

Finally, an argument? Alright, we'll address the "open courseware argument": 1) It is "Web-based" - further exacerbating the socioeconomic problems I discuss, NOT solving them. 2) It is non-unique to the PRO: The CON could implement the same plan, and have the exact same results as the PRO. AKA There is no unique benefit to the PRO's plan. Let's go over my case and his asserted rebuttals: C1: Depriving individuals of education deprives them of their human rights. "Our education system does just that" ??? This is, in the PRO's fashion, an unsubstantiated assertion. This is not a real argument, it is not a real block. Contention one still stands. C2: the PRO plan deprives individuals of education. "Here's 1500 dollars." Let's review: 1) Private school tuition is usually >1500 a year. 2) Those who don't own home computers + internet cannot afford to buy courseware, a computer + internet, thus it exacerbates the socioeconomic problems I talk about. Either way, the PRO plan hurts. C3: Student Development "Those standards do not work." Please, show me how? Test scores in the U.S. are the highest they have been in history - how is this a failing system? Moreover, how will YOUR plan solve it? Another assertion. This is not a block. C4: Socioeconomic problems. "The current educational system is racist." School vouchers, teachers being prioritized to problem schools, FREE SCHOOLING all help the poor and minorities. The PRO asserts that the current school system is racist, but fails to refute any of my logic. C5: Economics. Whatever, he misses the point, again. The problem is, with less people being taught under the PRO then the economy on the whole will suffer due to an uneducated labor force. IMPACTS: An impact is a point you vote off of. For example: "The PRO's plan would benefit the economy." is an impact. You have none of these. SOLVENCY: The PRO has a plan by definition... hahaha. By affirming the resolution, you're saying "There should be no money for education" - the resolution is the plan itself. Basically, your burden is to prove that by providing 0 tax dollars to the educative system the american people would be benefited. You have not done this: Let's recap the logic: C1/C2: By depriving individuals who cannot afford education of education, we deprive them necessarily of their human rights. 1,500 dollars is insufficient to afford private schooling or the technology-based schooling my opponent provides. He asserts that the school system now disenfranchises individuals but fails to substantiate this point. C3: Curriculums weed out the bad teachers. He says the current is flawed but, once more, fails to substantiate this point past a level of base assertion. There is no argument here by the PRO, the CON's logic is untouched. C4: Once more, the poor will become largely disenfranchised under a privately run educative system. He makes no refutation, just another assertion that the current system is racist. (??) This is another untouched point. C5: He misses the logic entirely. A stupider work force will not keep the U.S. competitive globally. Basically, when you debate (orally, in real life, on the internet) you are supposed to give REASONS for why what you say is true. Through all five contentions I have given you solid logic, which the PRO makes random assertions to try and beat. He has one speech left to JUSTIFY any of his claims, and unless he does that you would still look to the CON arguments as being legitimate. Not only that, but he gives you NO REASON for why the PRO fixes any of the problems of the current system, so that also must be done in order to justify voting for him. At this point in the round, he has no solvency and he has no warrants - I could write the lyrics to a hannah montana song in my next speech, and still probably win.