Higher Education ought to be private and indiviuals ought to pay for it themselves.

Rebuttal 1.Your right, every country needs experts. I am not sure what collapse of Germany you are referring to, considering that Germany still exists as a country and has a powerful economy. If you're referring to the economic problems it had after World War I, this was because Germany had economic turmoil from the devastation of World War I and also had to pay war reparations, as well as their own debt from war spending. This is the major theory for the source of Germany's problem, not the ‘lack of experts' that CON has claimed, without any proof. However, although shortages of experts are bad; surpluses of experts are bad for the following reasons: a.A surplus of experts causes their wages to decrease (economic theory of supply of demand) b.This artificial surplus will cause employers to hire cheap experts than use more efficient ways to produce goods and services instead. For example, a surplus in medical professions might cause a hospital less likely to invest in technology or medical supplies, or other companies might be less likely to invest in technology. (Ex: Software that cause solve mathematical problems, simulators, etc.) CON also mentions that those from poor backgrounds will not be able to afford an education. However there are many ways a person can pay for an education. One can get a loan from a bank. Since one is expected to obtain more money after graduating, this is an investment for the higher educated graduate, and will benefit him or her in the end. Potential employers can finance one's education, since these employers will benefit from a better worker. Military personnel can pay for college in exchange for them to serve a certain amount of time in the services. Private charities can offer financial aid and scholarship to those who want a higher education. Also, those that come from "rich" families might not even decide to get a higher education, since he or she might feel better investing money in other forms, rather than for education itself. This is what I mean by "education as an investment". By deciding whether it is more profitable to invest in companies or one's own ability and through what medium, one can make effective choices that allocate resources that overall benefit everyone. This is essential how one can create the balance between having too many experts or too few experts and how much education should cost (Ex: Online schools are becoming increasingly popular due to it being a lot less inexpensive compared to traditional forms of education). 2) CON has not cited any examples or sources of these regulations so I do not have anything to refute. I expect CON to show these examples or sources in the next round, otherwise this point is null. 3) CON actually shows some support here of private education. 16% of Denmark's populations go to private education. I would also like to note that point: "All men are born equal and everyone should have the same opportunity!" and "If you're not satisfied with free University and you have money and you don't want to someone else pays for you can always go to Private University" contradict oneself, since the option of private university is a different opportunity based on your logic that the poor cannot finance private education for oneself. The fact that there are protests for privatization of education is irreverent, since it is an Argumentum ad populum fallacy (appeal to the majority). There are also protests for lowering taxes, something that can be achieved if education is privatized. The KKK also protests white supremacy. That does not mean that white supremacy is overall good? No.