Higher Education (Full Resolution in R1)

I stand for a solid affirmation of the resolved 3 key reasons. First, Necessity. The second, Societal benefits, and the third, economic benefits. With that I will begin on 4 pieces of overview which will lay the framework for the affirmative case. The sole burden of the affirmative is to prove in a cost benefit analysis that the people of the United States would be bettered by the Federal Government ensuring higher education is affordable. It is not my burden to prove solvency at any point in this debate. If I am being held up at gun point, it would be in my best interest to stop my attacker because then I live and keep my stuff the attacker is trying to rob me of. But just because it is in my best interest doesn't mean it is possible. However, if it becomes needed I reserve the right to introduce a plan for solvency later in the debate. Higher education refers to any education above the high school level. Whether it is technical certification, an associates, bachelors, masters, or doctoral education. All of them are applicable. There is a divide between what is best for the people of a nation and the government of a nation. For example, if the Neg proves that the government loses soft power or that a certain party is weakened by affirming, unless they tie is back to the people of the United States, they get no offence. With that I will begin. ==Contention One: Necessity=====Subpoint A: Costly Colleges have Limits and harms===According to a study backed by the Lumina Foundation, 29% of Low Income, High Scoring 8th graders finished college compared to 75% of their high income counter parts. (1) Furthermore, the US department of Education finds that when students are worried about the costs of college, they are less likely to attend (2) The Economist Reports that college graduates make more money than their peers with just a high school diploma. (3) When you negate, you maintain the status quo and you allow these costly colleges to continue to have their limits. This perpetuates income inequality, because as the Washington Post reports, increased access to higher education would allow the growing income inequality to be moderated. This is going to be important because the Washington Post outlines that income inequality increases tuition costs, increases spending, and increases the needed amount of financial aid. This puts the negative world into a viscous cycle. By voting aff, you break this cycle. (4)===Subpoint B: The Government Must intervene===Before I get into the evidence and analysis, lets look at this logically. The Federal Government is the only actor who has total jurdisticion, and despite any current economic woes, no other actor willing to take action has the same amount of funding as the federal government. Furthermore, the government is obligated by the Social Contract to act in a way that is best for its citizens. Now lets look at some evidence here. In the Status Quo, market forces are allowed to dictate prices. These market forces are more geared towards profits and higher fees than what the people need. (1) Secondly, the federal government is the best actor in this situation. According to a study published by Harvard and the Brookings institute, the federal government is the superior actor to provide educational subsides. State Governments, when choosing to provide educational subsides, they must directly take funding from another area. The federal government doesn't have the same drawback, and even if the negative convinces you that they do, because they are so much larger than any of the 50 state governments, the federal government could better mitigate the costs. (5) ==Contention 2: Higher Education benefits Society== By exposing people to new events and experiences, higher education provides several benefits to society. First, The Bedford Group finds that those with higher education are more racially tolerant. (6) Racism decreases social cohesion and leads to numerous harms. The Australian Human Rights Commission finds that racism decreases physical and mental health, reduces productivity, and reduces life span. (7) Going further, those with higher education are healthier. Studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found similar results, with their findings concluding that, on average, every additional year of schooling extends one’s life by roughly half a year. (8) Finally, according to a study published by the College Board, those with college certifications are more likely to get proper exercise than those without. (9).And finally, those with higher education are less likely to be depressed and have better mental health. (10) What this means is that by increasing access to higher education, you better society. On that you vote pro based off the fact that we better the people directly.==Contention 3: Jobs and Wages==As already stated, those with a higher education make more money. But to go further. A report by Georgetown University states that by 2020, 55 million new jobs will be created. Of those Jobs, 35% of these will require at least Bachelor's Degree and 30% of jobs will require an associates degree or some college. This means that a grand total of 65% of jobs will require at least some higher education. (11) Going further, Women who finish 2 years of college have 37 to 39% more income than those with a high school degree. A similar, but less extreme trend was observed with men. (12) In the status quo, the Atlantic reports that 600,000 jobs went unfilled because of a lack of skilled labor. (13)To break the cycle of income inequality, to better society, and to fill the current and future job gap, I can only see an affirmative ballot. I wait patiently for the negative case.