Childcare should be free

I will now present my rebuttals to con's case and tell the voters why I have won the debate. Again, in the name of fairness, I will not address any points brought up in the second round by con. Rebuttal to Con 1. In the first sentence of the negation's first contention, they mention a "first speaker" that is apparently providing a fact that free childcare means there will be more children in childcare. However, simply addressing an imaginary person doesn't grant factual power to con's first sentence. In fact I see no evidence at all to support that there will be more children in childcare if it is free. This alone defeats con's contention. That being said, even if the voter decides they were correct in assuming their will be more children, this point is easily defeated by simply pointing out the slippery slope that con is attempting to push us down. First, there is no proof that increased attendance in childcare facilities will increase infection rates on an individual rate or on a grand scale. Even if they did, my opponent is advocating for stay-at-home parents as I pointed out in my first contention. If this is the case, then there is a parent home already to take care of a sick child which means no one needs to take time off of work. No threat to job security. It should also be realized that in most cases the parents are immune to diseases that children get. There is no proof or reason that free childcare would lead to more disease in the community not to mention the lack of a link between these two things from my opponent. Rebuttal to Con 2 (labeled 3). In this article from the Globe and Mail, Dr. Krashinsky, an economist at the University of Toronto, lists the many benefits that Norway gains from having their childcare system . http://tinyurl.com.... He says that a study found that the payoff for the system was 2:1 meaning very every dollar spent, they earned two. In this paper written by Dr. Lamb, the only time child care has a negative effect on the child's behavior is if the care provided was of exceptionally poor quality . http://tinyurl.com.... Assuming this effort would be government funded, these jobs would more than likely require education and training not unlike a teacher's. The likeliness of poor quality providers would actually be lower than they are in Con's world making most of Con's contention a point against himself. With my opponents two points successfully rebutted, let me outline the debate for the voters and why you should vote Pro. We must simply look at the impacts that both sides have provided and weigh them against each other. As you saw in the first round, I have listed major impacts for each of my contentions that simply cannot be refuted. My opponent on the other hand has given weak impacts that are only linked to their original case by logical fallacies and statements that con would have you believe are fact but simply are not. For further evidence I will provide a comparison of both cases: what happens if you vote con or pro. In a con world where childcare is not provided for free we are left with children who start with a disadvantage and parents who are strained in every aspect of their life. In a pro world, children are given equal opportunity and the world is allowed to keep moving even through a child birth. For these reasons and more, I believe Pro has won this debate.