Resolved: In the United States, students should be guaranteed two years of free tuition to a communi

Thank you for hosting this debate! I accept your apology but will continue to claim that all of my arguments stand due to a lack of objection. --------------Reaffirming Negative---------------- 1. The Pell Grant program covers TUITION, so this funding would not be in addition to free community college. We have already tried throwing money at a problem that is more complicated. This has actually DECREASED graduation rates of the poorest people.I will come back to this with my second point. Also, only 22% of people graduate community college within three years, so this plan still would not cover the majority of college attendees. 2. A massive influx of college graduates would not help them get better jobs, instead assigning them to menial jobs, because an associates' degree is not as high as a bachelor's degree, but higher than a high school diploma. There are already too few jobs requiring an associates' degree, and this plan will only gut those who do not have time to go back and get a college degree, the very people that tend to make up the lower class themselves. 3. This will reduce incentive to join the military. International relations are extremely tense, and if the U.S.'s military shrinks, this will have drastic effects on global stability. -------------Clashes------------ Skill Gap and Undercutting of the working class: We both agree that there is already an overflow of college graduates. The skill gap might be cut, but at the expense of the working class whose jobs will be taken. This will not increase the median income of these college grads, and simply destroy those hard workers who simply do not have the time to go back to college. Students Lowering Debt: The debt would be moved, becoming the government's, and essentially the taxpayers', debt. Community college will not guarantee students to get good jobs, and simply harm the working class, whose welfare taxpayers would have to pay for, along with free community college. Impoverished People and Pell Grants: Impoverished people can already go to community college with free tuition, so they will not be benefited. It will just move the source of their funding. Pell Grant funding does not add on to this bill, it only covers tuition. Throwing money at a problem is not necessarily the way to solve it, especially in this case, where our mistake has already been shown by Pell Grants. --------Final Thoughts---------- My opponent's first and third contentions fall, the first because I have shown how it will not change the situation for college students, and the third because I showed how it would be translocated and eventually become even worse of a burden in regard to my second contention. Her second contention stands, but her income gain subpoint falls due to the overflow that would be created, and the entire contention must be weighed against the destruction of the working class who do not have time to go back to college. The Pell Grant Program stands because I have sufficiently shown why things would not change for students. The working class contention stands because my opponent has not objected to my explanations, and because I have shown how the working class would have serious problems. The GI Bill contention stands because my opponent has not objected and because I have shown the link between this plan and a decrease in military enrollment, and between a decrease in military enrollment and severe, even nuclear impacts. I urge a con vote in this debate.