Free University Education

Hello. Firstly, I would like to thank Philocat for giving me my first debate with a person who isn't trying to troll me, as I am rather new here. My opponent has stated that the right to free education as listed in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights does not necessarily apply to tertiary education. This is true, as what the text actually says is "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." (1) However, it does state that everyone has a right to education and that education shall be made "generally available and equally accessible to all."(1) College education in many countries is ridiculously expensive, and, as a result of this, education is not "generally available and equally accessible to all." People may not be able to afford being burdened with massive bills and/or student loans. They may have a family to feed but can't do so on their current salary and want to go to college so that they can earn more money, but due to the increased Harvardization of higher education, the potential increase in salary will be offset by paying for college. Granted, a small percentage of the population is rich enough that they can just afford college easily with money from their own pockets, but this elite is not representative of the majority of the populace in countries where higher education is not communal or nearly communal. My opponent has stated that college is non-essential, non-core education, when in fact an average of 2 years of college education are dedicated to core learning. My opponent has stated that college is for only the brightest in our society to do the most cognitively challenging jobs, such as that of a physician, lawyer, architect, etc., while himself admitting that nearly half of people (not sure where he's referring to, though) have attended/are attending/will attend college according to current rates. This is contradictory, as highly specialized academic professionals such as those listed by my opponent make up well below half of employed people. My opponent has stated that making college free is unfair on those who don't attend college. This is a self-disproving argument, though, as, if college were free, these people who don't attend college would be able to remedy the issue by, you guessed it, going to college. For free. My opponent has stated that free education will make people want to do more drugs and alcohol because they're not paying for the arbitrary cost of college. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this, but I suppose he's referring to the stigma that college students retain when it comes to partying and whatnot, and that they would care less about their education because the money is not coming out of their pocket. This isn't really an issue, though, because people that behave that way in a setting with free higher education would either clean up their act or be filtered out of the system, just as is the case in countries where college is not free. And countries where college is free generally have a higher population percentage with degrees, so obviously most people don't behave as my opponent has suggested. My opponent has stated that attending an absolutely free university that only serves to widen your options is a bad thing somehow. He seems to believe that this will decrease the size of the pool from which countries draw unskilled labor. It won't. Even assuming that there is a low carrying capacity for educated jobs, as my opponent suggests there is, those who don't manage to land one will just end up doing lower-paying jobs, just as they do in countries where college is not free. They wouldn't have to worry about paying for student loans on this low salary because, again, college would be free. There would be roughly the same percentage of people working these unskilled jobs because, going along with the hypothetical situation that my opponent established wherein there is a small carrying capacity for educated jobs, only a set number of people won't have low-paying jobs anyway. Plus, these people with low-paying jobs will have a degree that gives them increased potential to advance their status and makes for an educated, intelligent, well-informed populace. My opponent says that going to college breeds a sense of entitlement, and that graduates won't want to work low-paying jobs. Some will have to, though, if, as my opponent said, there is only a set number of academic careers. My opponent has stated that "If the financial advantage that graduates receive is balanced out by requiring them to pay for their tuition, then no group has a disadvantage." This is true, except for people who can't afford to pay for college. Which, in many countries, including the U.S., Canada, U.K., etc., is, you know, most people. Plus, if education is free, this whole point can be disregarded because *everyone can attend college.* They don't have to stay at a disadvantage if they don't want to. My opponent has stated that "so it is only fair that if someone is going to get a financial benefit from going to university, then they should be expected to financially subsidise it." There are these magical things called taxes. They are for things that benefit the public, like free education and such. They're pretty handy in situations such as these. 1- http://www.un.org...