BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The state benefits from the skills of a university educated populace

Countries need educated people, including a certain amount of university graduates, but the idea proposed, that everyone having a degree would benefit society economically, is unfounded. There is no economic benefit when people with degrees are doing jobs that do not require university education, and represents a substantial misallocation of resources on the part of the state.4 As to developing future leaders, those who are gifted or particularly driven can still rise to the top, even if university is not free, as scholarships tend to be mostly aimed at such individuals.
The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder

Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.
Maintaining a system of free university education leads to an inefficient allocation of state resources.

While there will of course be people who do not try to get the most out of their university educations, what matters is that everyone has access to it. It is a fair trade between inefficiencies created by inattentive students and diligent students who would have lacked the facility to attend without it being free. More degree­holders thus do not automatically diminish the value of having degrees; they make the grades gained and degree subject more important.
Free university education unjustly benefits one subset of society at the expense of everyone

Many state services are furnished that benefit a few and are not used by others. That is often just the way such services operate. So long as everyone has access to the service, then it is just to provide it out of tax revenues. Every individual, when higher education is free, can attend university without cost. That is a right every taxpayer can enjoy. If some choose not to do so, that is fine, but it does not delegitimize the government outlay.
The state benefits from the skills of a university educated populace

A university educated society is of great value to any state, and provides three main benefits. Firstly, it provides extensive economic benefits. There is a profound advantage to countries that actively promote a culture of “smart economy”3, with a highly educated and technically able workforce. They are more likely to be innovative and highly productive. Secondly, higher education leads to an increase in cultural awareness via subjects like the arts, history, and the classics. The third benefit is the development of leaders in society. The barrier created by university fees will prevent some potentially high­ worth individuals from ever reaching their potential.
The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder

University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549
Maintaining a system of free university education leads to an inefficient allocation of state resources.

First, tax money is wasted on paying civil servants to deal with university bureaucracy. Second, when the state funds all university education for free, funding will be allocated to unprofitable courses. Thirdly a moral hazard problem emerges among such students attending for free. They are allowed to reap all the benefits of education, while needing to incur none of the costs so won’t feel they need to work at their degree. The fourth problem of free university education is saturation of degree­holders in the market.[1] When everyone has a degree, the value of such a qualification plummets. Thus, a system of fees is superior to free education as it allows for more efficient allocation of resources to universities determined by which universities produce the best educated students and research.  [1] Chapman, Bruce. 2001. “The Higher Education Finance Debate: Current Issues and Suggestions for Reform”. Australian Review of Public Affairs. Available: http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2001/10/chapman.html​
Free university education unjustly benefits one subset of society at the expense of everyone

The state funds essential services, but higher education is not such a service. The specific subset free university education tends to benefit not the disadvantaged, but rather the middle and upper classes who would have paid fees, but are now relieved of this burden. This pattern has been seen in Ireland where poorer communities still view higher education as something for the rich even though it is free. These groups continue to enter the workforce in similar numbers as they had before the ending of fees, and they still tend to prefer trade schools to universities if they do seek qualifications beyond the secondary level.[1] [1] Brady, Hugh. 2008. “We Must Invest Now in Our Universities or Pay Later”. University College Dublin News. Available: http://www.ucd.ie/news/2008/03MAR08/200308_students.html​        14 Government of Ireland. 1997. “Universities Act, 1997”. Available: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0024/index.html
Individuals have a right to the experience of higher education

There is no right to the university experience. University life is not used as the previous argument would suggest. University life is often about alcohol first, education second. Self­knowledge and genuine wisdom come from study and reflection. This can be done anywhere, not just in a university. There is no fundamental right of individuals to be allowed to take four years free of charge to learn new skills that will benefit them or teach them how to be better citizens. The state’s duty is to provide a baseline of care, which in the case of education secondary school more than provides. If individuals want more they should pay for it themselves.
Individuals have a right to equal opportunities that free university provides.

There is no fundamental right to a university education; it is a service, and people should pay for it, not freeload on the taxpayer. Rights exist to provide people with the necessities of life. Some people may never have the “opportunity”, ie. wealth, to visit Hawai’i, yet that is not unfair and the state should not be expected to fund every citizen’s tropical vacation. Yet even in the presence of fees, access to scholarships and loans make it possible for people from disadvantaged economic backgrounds to find their way into university. In this way the state can provide equality of opportunity while the wealthier pay.
The quality of education suffers when university education is free

State funding of higher education is actually beneficial to universities. It allows universities to get on with their research and teaching without worrying about competing and spending money on getting students to attend. The money wasted in pursuit of high numbers of students is thus saved, as the state can tend to the needs of universities.1 The idea that the state will simply neglect its universities is silly, because society and therefore the state, relies on having capable professionals whose qualifications have value.  [1] Greatrix, Paul. 2011. “University Isn’t Just a Business—and the Student Isn’t Always Right”. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/higher­education­network/higher­education­network­blog/2011/mar/14/students­asconsumers  ​
State control of acceptance/curriculum criteria has negative effects

Publicly funded universities in practice do not become parrots of the state’s agenda; far from it, in fact. Often it is public institutions that are the most outspoken against government activities. The University of California, Berkeley, for example, is one of the most politically active campuses in the United States and is a public institution. States tend to let universities govern themselves, accepting that they are generally better through self-governance. Similarly, the state controls both primary and secondary education, so would the privatisation of these too further benefit independent thinking?
Individuals have a right to the experience of higher education

University offers personal, intellectual, and often spiritual, exploration. In secondary school and in professional life, no such opportunities exist as they are about instruction and following orders, not about questioning norms and conventions in the same way university so often is.[1] A life without the critical thinking skills provided by university will be less useful to society, as citizens will be unable to engage with political debate effectively – citizens need to be critical of what politicians tell them. The state has a responsibility to provide citizens with the skillset to take partake in the democratic process.[2] Free universities benefit both the citizen, as an exploration for his/her own development, and to society, for an educated and active populace.  [1] Key Degree. 2010. “How to Reap the Benefits of College”. Keydegree.com. Available: http://www.keydegree.com/articles/benefits­of­college.html [2] Swift, Adam. 2001. Political Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide for Students and Politicians. Cambridge: Polity.
The United States must find a ‘third way’

Saying you want a third way is simply attempting to find a way to dress up moving away from prohibition as being a new and innovative policy. If there was a golden third way between prohibition and legalisation that prevents crime while allowing choice it would already have been found. While treating drugs as a public health issue may help reduce the number of people who are locked up for possession it does nothing to break drugs cartels or reduce the problem of supply so it is unlikely to be of much help to Mexico as the policy will mean reducing the help provided to Mexico while it is unlikely to have an effect on demand at least in the short to medium term. In short this would mean leaving the door open to the cartels.
The United States must find a ‘third way’

President Obama’s Director of U.S. National Drug Control Policy—or Drug Czar—R. Gil Kerlikowske has rejected the term “War on Drugs,” stating, “the Obama Administration supports a ‘third way’ approach because balanced drug policies such as those in Sweden have accomplished much for the countries that have implemented them.” Nearing the end of the administration’s first term, however, the rhetoric has changed more than the policy. In his Fiscal Year 2013 budget, Obama requested $25.6 billion for drug enforcement—the highest annual total yet.[1] Despite this if reelected, Obama would take further steps to scale back the so-called War on Drugs. Rejecting the term is a symbolic start as it moves the issue away from being an issue of national security that the term ‘war’ implies it is. A third way would mean reducing the securitization of the issue; changing the view of drug addiction from being a moral crime to being a treatable disease so focusing on education and health. This may eventually mean decriminalising some drugs such as marijuana as happened in Seattle[2] while not actually legalising drugs. In addition to Drug Czar Kerlikowske’s rejection of that term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also acknowledged that the United States holds much of the responsibility for the ongoing violence in Mexico.[3] Obama has since expressed willingness to collaborate with Mexican leaders to change policy, but has not proposed a detailed plan to do so. [1] ‘The National Drug Control Budget: FY 2013 Funding Highlights’, Office of National Drug Control Policy, February 2012. [2] Good, Chris, ‘Obama’s Drug Czar Stumps for ‘Third Way’ Policy’, abc News, 1 May 2012. [3] Clinton, Hillary Rodham, ‘Digital Town Hall at TecMilenio University’, U.S. Department of State, 26 March 2009.
Judicial and Penal reform is needed

Whether rehabilitation reduces crime more than prison has been the subject of considerable debate for more than a century.[1] Not all treatments work and the twelve step model used by most rehab clinics does not work and almost all the success in treatment for addictive substances (in this case alcohol) comes down to the willpower to initially take treatment rather than the treatment itself.[2] Obviously those who are sentenced to drug treatment programs rather than prison are not making that crucial first step so the programs are unlikely to be very successful. We also should remember that many of those who are in prison who are addicts are also violent criminals[3] and those who commit criminal acts should got to prison to prevent them being a threat to others as well as to punish that act. Treatment as a sentence is only a sensible alternative if the offender’s only crime is possession of drugs. [1] Cullen, Francis T., and Gendreau, Paul, ‘Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects’, in  Policies Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, 2000, pp.111-113. [2] Johnson, Bankole A., ‘We’re addicted to rehab. It doesn’t even work’, The Washington Post, 8 August 2010. [3] ‘Breaking the Cycle of Drugs and Crime’, 1999 National Drug Control Strategy, 1999.
Judicial and Penal reform is needed

Short of a nationwide restructuring of drug policy, the president’s ability to affect the everyday implementation of drug laws is limited. So far, President Obama has emphasized much needed judicial and penal reform. Currently the United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world, and 22 percent of those incarcerated in federal and state prisons are drug offenders. Obama hopes to begin to address these numbers. He has supported alternatives to current detention strategies both in principle and as a cost-cutting technique. Specifically, he supports establishing of special drug courts[1] and sentencing offenders to drug treatment programs rather than prisons.[2] This is necessary because so many crimes are committed while people are high or to fund the habit. For example more than half of people arrested in San Diego had illegal drugs in their system.[3] As a result treatment rather than prison will reduce the numbers of crimes committed. Obama also signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduces the disparity in sentencing of crack cocaine users as opposed to sentencing for cocaine users. It also eliminated mandatory minimums for possession and increased penalties for traffickers.[4] These judicial policy changes are cost-effective, pragmatic toward the goal of reducing drug use, and just. Incarceration costs approximately $30,600 annually per inmate, so treatment programs and reduced mandatory minimums for sentencing will save taxpayer dollars.[5] The RAND Corporation (a government-supported non-profit think tank), among others, has found repeatedly that drug policies prioritizing treatment over punishment are more effective, while costing less.[6][7][8] Finally, Obama has made US drug policy more just by reducing a sentencing disparity that had unduly punished African Americans for decades.[9] [1] ‘Drug and Veterans Courts’, Office of National Drug Control Policy. [2] Obama, Barack, ‘National Drug Court Month’, The White House, 23 May 2012. [3] Fudge, Tom, ‘Tests Show Majority Of People Arrested In San Diego Are High On Drugs’, KPBS, 6 September 2012. [4] One Hundred Eleventh Congress, ‘Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’, Government Printing Office, 5 January 2010. [5] Sabol, William J. et al., ‘Prisoners In 2008’, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 8 December 2009. [6] Everingham, Susan S., and Rydell, C. Peter, ‘Projecting Future Cocaine Use and Evaluating Control Strategies’, RAND Corporation, RB-6002, 1995. [7] Caulkins, Jonathan, ‘Cost-Effectiveness of School-Based Drug Programs’, RAND Corporation. [8] Rydell, C. Peter et al., ‘Enforcement or Treatment? : modelling the relative efficacy of alternatives for controlling cocaine’, RAND Corporation, RP-614, 1997. [9] CNN Wire Staff, ‘Obama signs bill reducing cocaine sentencing gap’, CNN, 3 August 2010.
The War on Drugs has failed and there needs to be a new dialogue to decide on the course forward

Presidents are meant to lead not simply open up national discussions and follow whatever the public wants. While discussion is always welcome it is unlikely to actually provide any answers except telling us what the public wants – most people may consider the war on drugs a failure but that does not mean that they have any idea of what policies they want to replace it. A dialogue also simply kicks the problem down the road; how long is a national discussion going to take? If it is comprehensive this is likely to delay any decisions until after the next election.
The War on Drugs has failed and there needs to be a new dialogue to decide on the course forward

The Obama administration has indicated that it will publicly address the failures of the War on Drugs if it wins a second term.[1] In terms of the direction of drug policy as a whole, several Obama “aides and associates” have indicated that the President will bring drug policy to the forefront of the national discussion if he is reelected, but it is unclear what specific steps he would take, going forward. This would be welcome to most Americans; only 10% of people believe the policy of the war on drugs has been a success against 66% who consider it a failure.[2] A national discussion is the only way to determine whether there should be a fundamental shift in policy. [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘Exclusive: In His Second Term, Obama Will Pivot to the Drug War’, GQ, 2 July 2012. [2] AngusReid, ‘ Americans Decry War on Drugs, Support Legalizing Marihuana’, 6th June 2012.
Drugs policy must be punitive

Privatising prisons does not work – of course it will result in more prisons but it will also result in more convictions and soon those new prisons will be full too. This is because if prisons are privatised they become an industry, often literally meaning the prisoners manufacture goods for as little as 17 cents an hour,[1] and those engaged in law enforcement have a stake.  The local sheriffs often run these for profit facilities and so have a financial incentive to keep the prisons full so as to keep the money coming in.[2] It is not correct that the three strikes rule in California have caused crime to fall, it has been similar to declines in states that don’t have the rule, instead there are other explanations for why crime has fallen such as a reduction in the consumption of alcohol.[3] The Punitive policy towards drugs has been tried; it has resulted in one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and little appreciable drop in crime. It is time to change the policy. [1] Bowie, Nile, ‘Profit Driven Prison Industrial Complex: The Economics of Incarceration in the USA’, Centre for Research on Globalization, 6 February 2012. [2] Talbot, Margaret, ‘Prisons, Colleges, and the Private-sector Delusion’, The New Yorker, 14 June 2012. [3] Miller, Bettye, ‘Three-strikes Law Fails to Reduce Crime’, UCR Today, 28 February 2012.
Drugs policy must be punitive

Governor Romney would not scale back the War on Drugs, as he supports the punitive approach that characterizes drug policy in the status quo. Romney supports punitive strategies toward criminal justice in general, such as “three strikes and you’re out” laws, which impose mandatory sentences for people who have committed three offenses.[1] These policies can be effective in reducing crime, in California after three strikes was implemented the crime rate declined by 43% although the three strikes was only one factor.[2] Romney maintains that those who break current laws should be punished, and therefore has proposed that states should contract with for-profit prison companies to continue expanding prison populations in order to keep up with current rates of incarceration. If larger prisons are necessary in order to keep drug users and dealers off the streets, then they are a necessary cost. [1] ‘Mitt Romney on Crime, Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent’, On The Issues, 2012. [2] ‘A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade’, Legislative Analyst’s Office, October 2005.
Allowing drug use is wrong – Prohibition must remain

Dismissing drug users as a ‘pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up’ almost concedes the point. These people have a right to make the choice for themselves whether to use drugs – the government should make sure the risks are known, and the substance priced accordingly but ultimately there is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure. Romney further muddies the waters by not allowing the sale of syringes as this is an act that would save lives. A study in the lancet estimated that with a needle exchange program in the US between 10000 and 20000 HIV infections could have been prevented between 187 and 2000.[1] [1] Lurie, P. and Drucker, E. ‘An opportunity lost: HIV infections associated with lack of   a national needle-exchange programme in the USA’. Lancet.  1997 Vol.349 pp.604-608.
Allowing drug use is wrong – Prohibition must remain

Romney also has a record of preferring prohibitory policies over those that allow drug use with the intention of making it safer. For example, as Governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill to allow the sale of syringes without a prescription.[1] He has not since stated that he would take a different approach as president, and his position on marijuana use suggests that he would continue to support prohibitory laws. Romney has staunchly opposed calls to legalize and regulate marijuana, making a moral argument against such a change by claiming that pot legalization is simply a pet issue of a “pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up.”[2] While President Obama has not supported the legalization of marijuana, Romney is stronger in calling for harsh penalties for marijuana users in order to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime. He has also gone further than Obama in his opposition to marijuana by coming out against the legalization of the drug for medical use.[3] [1] U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Massachusetts: Needle Sales OK’d After Legislature Barely Trumps Veto’, The Body, 18 July 2006. [2] ‘Mitt Romney on Drugs, Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent’, On The Issues, 2012. [3] Mooney, Alexander, ‘Romney confronted with medical marijuana issue’, CNN, 8 October 2007.