The government must fund education

If one were to analyse, in depth, the argument that Pro posted in round two they'd find a compelling case as to why education is beneficial to the working population of a society overall. Yet if one were to look for a single justification as to why the government must fund it, then one would realise that none were given. Let's, first of all, assess this case for education, although not directly linked to the resolution. The bulk of the case that Pro had for education was that a workforce is good for society and that education was required for a workforce. However, in reality, the majority of blue-collar jobs do not require any official qualifications at all. There are also very high-paying jobs that, although they require a lot of time and work to get them, re zero qualifications to do so. (http://matadornetwork.com...)Additionally, it's never actually too late to be educated (http://www.careers.govt.nz...) in order to enter the working world and so while you may be slaving away for your youth on getting the money for a college course, you'd still eventually achieve it through hard work in a privatised education system.The second issue raised by Pro is that for democracy to be feasible, people of a nation must reach a minimum level of literacy and knowledge. What exactly is a minimum level of knowledge? One can't measure knowledge by objective means. As for literacy, why is it essential for anyone to be able to read any more than a name on a ballot paper in order to vote? Soeone with no education at all but the ability to speak could understand the different philosophies of political parties and vote accordingly by just memorising which name links to which person and their party and then tick that box. Democracy is simply defined as a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. (http://oxforddictionaries.com...)This, in no way, requires all of the voter to be literate. In fact, to discriminate against illiterate members of a population would be everything democracy stands against and some people have dyslexia or similar condition which can be a real challenge to overcome no matter how much education they have shoved down their throat.The final point my opponent raises is that education reduces crime. This is absolutely ridiculous. In a publicly educated country, such as the United Kingdom, many children who are educated commit crimes (since all children are educated juvenile crime is always done by educated youths). (http://www.civitas.org.uk...) So, if a country where everyone has access to education has such a variety of juvenile offenders then clearly education isn't key in cutting crime, upbringing is. An individual case is found at this source: http://voices.yahoo.com... and within it you will find the author exclaiming " was an "A" student in school. I lived in a relatively stable home. My relatives tried valiantly to teach me the values of "right from wrong." Yet, from five-years-old until 25-years-old, I was a criminal. Lying is a critical criminal skill, and often so is violence." It is not education that prevents crime, in fact education instills the mentality that the worse you make others do, the better you seem since grades are always on a bell curve basis. (http://drrickyount.com...) What does prevent crime is a complex combination of deterrence, rehabilitation and a culture of peace. (http://www.heritage.org...) none of this requires any education at all. In conclusion, there is no obligation for a government to fund the education of it's people and no obligation for the rich to help the poor be educated. Pro has failed to achieve their burden of proof as yet and I look forward to seeing them build their case back up by defending against the attacks I have brought forth on their points.