College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense.

-- REBUTTAL -- 1. College students have very little money. Pro explains, "Most college students have taken student loans or had their parents take mortgages on their house to pay for college tuition, rent, food and textbooks." This is factually inaccurate and misleading. First, 1/3 of college students have their costs completely covered by their parents' income and savings. An additional 45% cover costs via their own savings, assistance from relatives, grants, scholarships and with help from parent borrowing [1]. While 23% do take out loans, the student is not obligated to pay back those loans until they are finished with school. As such, it doesn't make sense to reference student debt (which is obsolete until graduation) as a reason for them being financially challenged, because it hasn't affected them yet. Moreover, college students are not the only demographic with "very little money." People who work low-income jobs or who are unemployed have little to no money -- why should transportation not be free for them? This is especially true once you consider the following: people with low-income jobs ARE tax payers, therefore Pro is suggesting that these people (often far less well off than college students) pay for other people's rides despite being similarly or even more disadvantaged. Additionally, many college students in fact hold jobs, meaning they are not necessarily struggling more than others. In fact, almost 80% of college students work on average 30 hours per week - almost full time [2]! Therefore, it makes no sense to suggest that college students deserve this special privilege based on how much money they have in comparison with other demographics. 2. Students have a huge requirement for transportation. Many transportation services already provide discounts, but most importantly, it would be Pro's burden to explain why students have a higher need than anyone else, particularly others with or who are looking for jobs. Additionally, many colleges already provide methods of free transportation for students. My school provides buses that take students not only through the campuses to get to class, but even through the city where the school is located to various other convenient checkpoints. There are also free shuttles that essentially act as cabs in some instances [3]. 3. Students would pay for it after graduation.That is not a fair exchange; people will likely pay a disproportionate amount to what they "owe" based on use. A fair financial transaction is one based on a mutual agreement. It should be up to the person paying whether or not they accept a service or good in exchange for payment. Some students with cars will not need this "free" transportation, yet wind up paying for others to use the service through taxes. That is equivalent to theft. 4. The university owes them. This contention is irrelevant considering Pro wants the tax payers and not the school to fund the transportation. I also disagree with Pro's bare assertion that it is up to the university to alleviate financial burdens for the student as much as possible; they have their own agenda. -- ARGUMENTS -- In addition to what I've already argued above in my rebuttal, 1. There are more important or useful things we could put tax payer money toward than free transportation; i.e., our debt, social security or other flailing aspects of our economy. Additionally, many people would still find a way to get places such as carpooling or walking and biking places, which contributes toward good personal and environmental health. 2. Free transportation would increase use, thereby necessarily drastically increase the cost of providing the service (i.e., more buses, trains, drivers, gas, electricity, etc.) to alleviate demand. It would be FAR too expensive to maintain, and create another huge tax payer drain. -- SOURCES --http://www.debate.org...