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

My arguments stand in opposition to the resolution "Free tuition for college students through government taxation should be supported." My opponent opens with "College tuition is one of the most expensive expenditures any person or family faces. In fact, after possibly a house, it is the most expensive thing any person will "buy."" While college may indeed be one of the *more* expensive purchases a person or family might makes, it seems a tad broad and inaccurate to state, as a fact, that college is the *most* expensive thing *any* person will buy, qualified only with "after possibly a house." This is totally dependent on what person we are talking about, and in turn that person's (or that person's family's) financial standing. These days, depending on who we are talking about, the cost of college can easily pale in comparison to such things as cars, real estate (not a house), market investments, political influence, prostitutes, and watches. I am not denying the expense of college, only saying that we cannot afford to reach such unsound conclusions, or take any statement given as fact to actually be fact without further exploration of the topic at hand. After this statement, my opponent goes on to say, "However, it should be the case that the government provide students extra funding drawn from tax dollars. There should of course be restrictions placed on this - there is no reason tax dollars should be given to millionaires' children or for people to attend outrageously priced institutions." JCMTarzan wants the government to provide, through taxation of course, free tuition. Of course, as with any social program, and government-provided free tuition is that if nothing else, this would be massively unfair, especially in light of the restrictions that JCMTarzan proposes: no money should go to millionaires' children, or toward the attendance of "outrageously" priced colleges (Ivy League schools.) On the one hand, the currently wealthy should handle the majority of the tax burden (as they already do, not just in the US but everywhere) but their children should be disqualified from benefiting from their family's "investment in the future." Not a very equitable investment on a personal level, and I think most would agree with me. On the other hand, this is an argument for my position: the resolution speaks of no restrictions - it only says "college students," which I take to mean all college students, that is, college students in general. My opponent cannot pick and choose which students will benefit and which will not; if JCMTarzan's view is in fact this which he writes, then he is not truly "For" the topic resolution. If free tuition through taxation were to be a reality, then all college students should be able to benefit equally. As for his restriction on possibly over-priced schools, a thought experiment will serve my purposes: You are high school senior living in Massachusetts, and you have applied to Boston University, the University of Mass., and, although it is possible but unlikely that you are accepted, to Harvard, Cambridge, and MIT. Your family is of average economic standing - if you were accepted it would not be on account of any "legacy"-type tradition, or even on scholarship, as you are not THAT smart, but smart enough to have a chance. Free tuition from the government is in effect. Amazingly, you are accepted. The chance of a lifetime has been dropped in your lap. As you do not have a scholarship or other means to pay tuition, you must rely on the government's program. 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. "There are two main reasons tax dollars should be used in this way: It constitutes and investment in the future, and it will increase the base of educated people." First, is not every investment an investment in (or for) the future? Unfortunately, some investments have a good return and some have a bad return. Anyone who has ever bought a stock knows this well. An investment, in simplest terms, is nothing more than a gamble at best: ask the stockholders of Bear-Stearns. 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. Second, an increase in the base of educated people is not necessarily a good thing. More on that in a moment. "There is a definite correlation between the investment in education and the literacy rates and success of a country." -What might this correlation be? "Consider that in the UK..." and "In Spain..." -I understand and agree that the resolution is not aimed specifically at the US. However, this is simply socialism (as my opponent also admits), or many people getting a free ride at the hands of the few on the education bus. 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. "The payment of tuition from tax dollars constitutes this incentive. If institutions of higher education maintain the same enrollment rates, but have "free" tuition, the applicant pool will be both larger AND of a higher caliber because you'll be getting students who otherwise could not afford to go to college actually applying." -First, that is a big "if." If free tuition were enacted, there would be so many applicants that schools could not help but increase their enrollment rates: who wants to pass all of that money by? Unless new entrance standards were introduced along with free tuition, this seems inevitable. If you have X GPA, X ACT or SAT scores, and other current standard qualifications, as many who do not go to college on account of the expense do, then all of these people would have to be accepted somewhere if they chose to go at all: they would have overcome their only stumbling block (money), so what else would stop them? 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). "Institutions can take the best of the pool and increase both the size and quality of the American Populace." -Universities now have breeding programs in line with Social Darwinism? A shock, to say the least ;) "However, cases show that the education rates of other countries that DO practice this are higher than that of the United States. Coincidence?" -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. JCMTarzan urges the reader to support this idea, but I ask you not to, for it is a socially onerous but politically expedient idea. NOTHING is free. 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)? Reread "The Republic," and side CON.