Free tuition for college students through government taxation should be supported.

While my opponent wastes valuable time disputing that the cost of college is one of the most expensive things people will ever "buy," I'd just like to point out that of the people that have a college education, that education cost vastly more money than any other thing they will ever buy. This is to say that the average person will spend more on college than they will on their cars, watches, prostitutes, etc... unless somehow the average person shells out $100,000 for their watch and car. While the restrictions I speak of do not necessarily follow the resolution to the letter, I'd also like to point out that we've been given a terrible resolution for implementation in the United States and to implement it here would mean the introduction of compromises and restrictions, and indeed, many social programs in foreign countries are contingent upon certain conditions - the government in the UK won't pay for a student with a High School GPA of 1.8 to go to college. It's simply a waste of money. In these restrictions, I mentioned the lack of need to give tax money to millionaires. If they're not receiving the benefit of the tax, why should they pay it? Everyone pays social security tax, yet many people don't use it. We all pay taxes used to provide welfare, yet most of us don't use it. Therefore, it would follow that there is no change in the system to tax people for social programs they won't use. Everyone would pay the tax, and the usage of the program would depend on income level. I also mentioned that outrageously priced institutions should not benefit from this resolution. This of course makes perfect sense in the current system. Food stamps do not pay for persons to buy fillet mingion every night. As with that program, this resolution should provide a basis for education. The education from a state school such as Purdue University or Iowa State is perfectly acceptable - in fact, some of these schools are much better than more expensive private institutions (Purdue in engineering, Iowa in political science). >> "If free tuition through taxation were to be a reality, then all college students should be able to benefit equally." Why? Not all college students ARE equal. This is quite clear in the fact that colleges turn down students based on academic performance or provide financial aid to those students who otherwise would not be able to pay for college. Why should the 4.0 student recieve the same benefit as the 0.8 student? That's ludicrous. Why should the millionaire get the same ammount as the student who is also using food stamps. That's ludicrous as well. >>"Unfortunately, per the restrictions assumed by JCMTarzan, the Dept. of Education calls you up and tells you that you cannot attend because it is too expensive. The program didn't really work in your case, did it? A highly specific example, but it makes the point." It makes the point that this program can easily be adapted to suit individual needs, not that the program is fallacious. Obviously, if the student is of a high enough caliber to be accepted to MIT, then there's no reason the government can't put them in a higher strata of assistence. This is done with hundreds of government programs - why not this one? >>"There is no guarantee that such a huge investment, which could only happen by way of taxes increasing, as my opponent admits, would prove to be worthwhile." It is a fact that persons with a college education make more money (on average) than those that do not. When people make more money, they pay more taxes. It's pretty clear that there is a relation between education and tax income for the country. >>""There is a definite correlation between the investment in education and the literacy rates and success of a country." -What might this correlation be?" It would seem self evident that when a (successful) investment is made in education that literacy and competency rates in a country would rise. Foreign governments outspend the US on education, an the US finished LAST in the most recent international physics olympiad. >>"Whatever happened to self-made men (or women), self-reliance, and self-responsibility? The primary problem with socialism is that once you are getting the "free ride," as it were, that many, many people do not want to get off. Shall the government in turn provide graduates of their free-tuition system with jobs if they are unable to find one themselves? Why not: they got them into college in the first place." I'm not entirely sure what the self-made man and self-relienace has to do with this as a whole. Those are American philosophies, and you admitted in the previous sentence that this resolution did not deal with the United States exclusively. Therefore, introducing American philosophy is fallacious and irrelevant to the argument writ large. >>"I agree that the applicant pool will be larger; of higher calibre I am not so certain: the more applicants there are, the lower their average calibre would be. That's a simple law of statistics. More students, larger classes, etc, less quality of services rendered (education)." I will admit you have a point with the higher caliber issue - I must admit I misspoke. The pool itself will not be higher caliber, but the accepted pool will be. Institutions will take the best they can until they are full. The pool will increase, but there is no reason that schools will reduce the quality of their education - if they grow proportionally and maintain the ratios between students, classes, and professors, the quality will not change. >>"Universities now have breeding programs in line with Social Darwinism? A shock, to say the least ;)" Actually, that would be quite welcome... I merely meant the American workforce. >>"-OBVIOUSLY not. If more people go to school, then more are educated. Of course, educated is not synonymous with intelligent, hard-working, or even contributory in any way to the overall well-being of society." I see - therefore, according to you, the Chinese, Brits, Spainards, Poles, etc... must all be more intelligent than Americans. It has nothing at all to do with their education system and the fact that their college students are of higher caliber on average. >>"Someone somewhere is getting the raw end of the deal - paying the taxes but not having children, paying the taxes while having children but not seeing them benefit because of good economic status, etc. Other societies do as they like, sure, but in providing "free" tuition do they not devalue the education that is sought? Whatever is worth having is worth earning, worth working for, sacrificing for; do we not appreciate what we have worked hard for more than what is simply "given" to us (while at the same time being taken from others)?" The very nature of politics is that there are ALWAYS going to be winners and losers. Are not the losers in the current system those who cannot afford to go to college at all? Why should they be denied a college education in the same country where a high school education is free? Other societies DO do as they like, and their results seem to be eclipsing the United States. Is their education devalued? I'd say not. Our Chinese foreign exchange students at my college spend about 3 or 4 times as long studying for classes as American students because they view their education as so important. >>"Reread "The Republic,"" Indeed, please do. Education in The Republic is the responsibility of the state. >>"and side CON" Indeed please don't. The nexus of Con's argument is that it is "unfair" to people. All political processes are unfair to someone. This is not new news.