University education should be free.

It is a shame that the second round was forfeited. I ask the voters to please note this in the conduct section of the voting. My opponent may argue in round three if she wishes, but she must also keep in mind that she can not respond to my rebuttals, as this is only a three round debate. Since the resolution says "university," the debate will be kept to universities only. Non-university colleges do not apply. Since the resolution seems quite straightforward, we can skip right to the debate. ==Quality of Education==Before making any possible claim for either side, we must first discuss the quality of education. To approach this argument, we can look at how higher spending increases the quality of education, and visa versa. The colleges with the highest tuition should have the highest quality of education. For accuracy, all statistics will be pulled from the same source. The University of Chicago, easily one of the best universities in the U. S, charges a tuition fee of $48,000, and the total cost of the year comes out at $62,400 [1]. While the cost is without a doubt quite high, the education it offers in return in almost off the chart. While this is the fifth most costly college in the U. S, it is ranked fourth in overall education (raking in a 95 out of 100 [2]. ) The comparison between these two statistics is amazing. While it is the fifth-most costly University in the United States, it has the fourth best ranking of national U. S colleges, showing a direct correlation between pay and quality of education. New York University, one of the most popular universities in the U. S, charges as tuition fee slightly lower than UC at $46,000 [3]. The tuition cost is a little lower than Chicago, and the ranking of the University is a little lower, also. While the tuition is still quite high at 46,000, the ranking amongst national colleges is still a very solid 32 (raking in about a 70 out of 100 [4]. ) While the New York cost does not correlate with quality like Chicago does, we still see quite a distinct correlation. For comparisons sake, there are 201 national colleges, the lowest raking in just a 24/100 [5]. We can easily see that, on balance, colleges that cost more have a high education standard. University of New Mexico, a very cheap college by U. S standards, does not provide good education. Though the college is right in the middle of Alberquerque, New Mexico, the in-state tuition stands at just $6,500 [6] while the out-of-state tuition is just $20,000. The school ranks a horrific 189/201, raking in just 26 points out of 100 possible on the university scale [all data taken from source six. ] As we can clearly see here, a very low tuition results in a very low overall score for the University of New Mexico. Since there is a clear correlation between cost and quality, it stands to reason that, on balance, free university education would be worse in quality than paid education. Keep in mind that the University of New Mexico is far from free, and yet there is a distinct lack of a high quality education that higher-paying schools like UNY or UC have to offer. Thus, we can resolve that we should keep university education paid to avoid a significant downfall in the quality of education. Though all these universities are U. S based, it still negates the resolution that ALL university education should not be free. However, keep in mind that the prestigious and costly Chicago University is 11th on the global scale [7]. ==Cost Effects==Another argument that does not support the resolution is the cost free education would bear on the state. We have already established that higher pay equals higher education, meaning that the money to support high-quality education people tend to strive for has to come from somewhere. The money would have to come from the state, either through government funding or taxes. An example of this already exists via the social-democratic model that exists in places with many free universities, most notably in Sweden. Sweden is a perfect example for this case. The universities are completely free, hence the resolution. It is a common argument that costly education leaves students with very high debt, and that abolishing tuition and pay would put the students in a much easier position. However, in Sweden, students still graduate with about 70% of the debt that students who attend costly universities in the U. S graduate with [8]. Furthermore, 85% of Swedish students graduate with debt, compared to only 50% of U. S graduates. This is because Swedish universities to not provide shelter or dorms like U. S colleges do. Thus, rent, food, etc. create an enormous amount of debt that can actually match up to the debt of a paid university. So, in addition to a poorer education (see first point,) the amount of debt can still pile up in a free university. In addition to this case, education causes high taxes on the common individual. In Denmark and Sweden- both bearers of free universities- the taxes are quite high. In fact, Denmark and Sweden are the two most taxed countries in the world [9], and it is no coincidence that free and/or low university and college costs happen to exist there. Raising taxes to support these universities on a worldwide scale would be drastic, and there is not enough to necessitate such a significant tax increase regarding the cost of the universities. ==Value==Perhaps a less clear argument on my part here. This contention will rely on the value of education and who should pay for given education. Basically, what this point will boil down to is: A) Would you value your education more if you invest money into it? . .. And B) Should you pay for your education, or should other people? I know this is not exactly a clear point, but bear with me here. The first point asks whether or not investing money into something makes you value it more. The clear answer to this point is yes, it does. This is because investing implies a commitment, which means the individual is much less likely to back out of this "action" (in this case, college) than if no commitment is made/or other people pay. It stands to reason that having students pay, or at least help pay for college, would increase commitment. If college was free, no real commitment would be made, and college kids would hypothetically not have to work as hard. It goes without saying that valuing a certain subject is vital to success. If you show deep care in a subject, you are much more likely to abandon given subject. However, to achieve value, it helps to give up something (in this case, money) to help you truly see it through. If nothing is given up, achieving the needed care for seeing something through would more likely than not be nonexistent, leading to a possible higher dropout rate and apathy regarding education. Furthermore, a free education would cause taxes on all, even those who don't support it. Some people do not choose to go to college simply because they do not want to, while others don't because they feel they can accomplish more without going to college. Such patterns exist in Ireland, where the poor see college as a thing for the rich, though the colleges in question are completely free. In fact, though these universities are free, some poorer students tend to seek trade schools rather than universities [10]. Basically, this point suggests that taxpayers should not have to pay for a non-mandatory thing that they may not support. Enforcing the taxpayers to pay a non-mandatory tax for other people is not a good substitute for tuitional university education. ==Conclusion==In conclusion, it has been proven that there is a direct correlation between money and the quality of education. If the quality of education is to stay standard and not become substandard, a respectable amount of pay must be contributed. Tuitional universities and colleges cover this cost, and in return, pose very good quality of education. Dropping the quality of education substantially does not justify freeing colleges to create a little bit of equality for the poor that they may or may not partake on. In the U. S, Ireland, and Sweden, we can visibly see the effects on high university education. In the U. S, quality rises proportionally with the amount of pay the college receives from tuition and other student pay. In Ireland, we see certain patterns that will happen if all colleges are made free to everyone (i. e some poor people still preferring a lesser college. ) In Sweden, it is unmistakably clear that taxes would be raised by a visible amount if universities were made free, and even then the issue of student debt would not be resolved. In conclusion, since my opponent has forfeited (insofar) and there are some solid reasons negating the resolution, I hope you strongly consider a ballot for the con side. I hope my opponent chooses to argue in round three so I can have something to refute. As of now, the resolution is negated. Sources:[1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://tinyurl.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...[6] . http://tinyurl.com...[7] . http://tinyurl.com...[8] . http://tinyurl.com...[9] . http://tinyurl.com...[10] . http://tinyurl.com...