University tuition fees should be abolished.

Thanks to PRO. Because PRO is advocating for a polciy which represents a substantial shift in the status quo, he bears the entirety of the burden of proof. If he fails to uphold this burden - and prove that this change is warranted - you vote CON. First and foremost, it's crucial to emphasize that there is no such thing as a free lunch - it isn't possible to "abolish" tuition fees, even. All PRO would do is shift the costs onto someone else, namely the government. However, the money *has* to come from somewhere. Not only will this tamper with fudns that could better be allocated elsewhere - such as infrastructure projects, national defense, green energy investments, or even deficit reduction, as a number of countries (US included) have exceedingly high debt burdens that may bear negativley on future growth - but it will require, eventually, higher taxes, which distort the efficient allocation of capital and reduce economic growth. PRO needs to demonstrate that his system would outweigh the immense costs, and wouldn't simply drive up the cost of education - but this is difficult, not only because of why utterly expensive this would be, further driving up the cost of education, but also because it would create a state-sanctioned monopoly. With monopolies, which suppress competition, we see artificially high prices and reduced quality. PRO needs to surmount this impact, and prove that we ought to have *completely* government-funded education as opposed to, say, a government sector which competes with the private sector. If he can't prove that *all* university education ought to be government-funded, you vote CON. This is a very crucial point. Even with, say, primary education, public schools exist, but competition is allowed, which (a) gives people choices; (b) drives down costs; and (c) improves quality. Not to mention, PRO's system requires an immediate transition to strictly university-funded education, which will lay a multitude of people off. This is a huge impact in my favor. I'll now rebut PRO's case. This won't take long, considering that he provides no evidence at all for his case - and thus doesn't at all advance his burden of proof.PRO says, "Currently, people in the United Kingdom pay around "60,000 for 4 years at University, including accomodation."First, PRO doesn't (a) source this, so it very well be complete nonsense - and, without a source, you discard it; (b) tell me why he wants to cherry-pick data from the U.K., when this resolution isn't U.K.-specific; and (c) tell me why I should care. He doesn't tell me how the government setting a price would actually improve the quality of education - in fact, as I noted, government involvement has actually significantly increased the quality of education, whereas a free market system which caters to the demands of consumers would drive down prices and improve quality. Not to mention, even if he wanted the government to set a price ceiling, this would be grossly inefficient because he would need to cap teacher's salaries - the quality of teachers would deteriorate, and quality would erode even further. A free market system - or a system whereby the public sector competes with the private sector - is far and away superior in terms of both cost and quality, and allows people the freedom to choose and schools the ability to adapt to the demands of consumers.PRO says, "This results in many students coming out of University with heavy debt. Now, this leads on to more homeless people, and people who rely on charities until they can pay back their loan (presuming they have one)."This is a complete non-sequitur, firstly, because he doesn't provide any sort of causal link between student loan debt and homelessness - so this is not and cannot be an impact in his favor. Second, he doesn't tell me how his proposal would actually fix this. I noted earlier that this would have deleterious effects on the quality of education, lead to higher taxes and higher government debt which distort, and the layoffs of thousands of teachers. Not to mention, costs would be lower under a free market system, so students would bear less debt. Unlike PRO's proposal, I can genuinely solve for harms which actually exist. PRO says, "People may say, 'Why don't they just work before going to University', but there is a lack of jobs available. The Government NEEDS to make getting a job ALOT easier."PRO completely contadicts himself. He says the government needs to make getting jobs easier, but then proposes job-killing policies - that will lead to the layoffs of thousands of teachers and lower quality education, as well as pay cuts to teachers who keep their jobs. If you want to actually create jobs, the solution is for the government to step out of the way, especially when it comes to, as PRO wants to do, socializing vast portions of the economy. We know that price ceilings are inherently costly and inefficient, and he has just practically conceded to my earlier impacts.PRO says, "So what other benefits would abolishing tuition fees have? More people will go to University, which makes people get better jobs, wich means they can pay their taxes as they have a good job."PRO doesn't demonstrate at all that more people will go to univesity - note that he has the burden of proof, so he cannot rely on bare a ssertions. Second, he doesn't tell me how government-funded education would increase incentives among people who actually would benefit from university education - as opposed to trades, where many ought to be, because not everyone is fit for college - and that this would actually generate meaningful results. Even if you buy this baseless assertion that more people would go to college - which you shouldn't, because it's without a warrant - PRO must acknowledge that this would *not* lead to better jobs: it would devaluate the benefit of having a degree, because *everyone* would have a degree. It would only lead employers to increase standards - i.e., you would need a Master's, or a PhD, or on-job training, ad infinitum, in order to get the job, which would only snowball perpetually into higher costs. Not to mention, it would only increase tax revenue if it increased the overall size of the economy - i.e., the size of the pie. Not only would it not lead people to get better jobs, but I've pointed out how it would be extremely delerious to the economy, and therefore would *shrink* the pie.For the reasons, you negate.