Public college education in the United States should be tuition-free.

Thank you so much for an entertaining and informative debate. I will begin with another overview, and then I will move into several points of crystallization that will attempt to frame the key issues in this round, and demonstrate why Pro has won them. Con's arguments can, almost exclusively, be grouped into two categories: 1) Is/ought fallacies, and 2) Assertions and rhetorical questions. Repeatedly, we hear about what public means, student loans, what the state of the American educational system is, what the implications of a college degree are, and that college is not for everyone, among other things. None of these are arguments about why the system should be one way or another; they are simply observations about the current state of affairs, regardless of their correctness. Secondly, Con repeatedly makes absurd assertions and asks nonsensical rhetorical questions; for instance, "I have never heard of anyone pursuing philosophy and then going to law school," "We should not just give people handouts," or "Why should I pay for someone else's mistakes." I am sorry; these are not arguments that attempt to explain why something should or should not be. 1. Role of the State I have, in this round, set up a consistent framework whereby the state has one key role: to fulfill the social contract. To fulfill this contract, the state must provide public goods, which are paid for by everybody through taxation. These public goods include national defense, clean air, and, to this point, education before college. I have argued that, due to the changing nature of our society, that college is quite equivalent to what high school once was and, as such, should be provided to better societal outcomes. I have also argued that it is intrinsically wrong for citizens to pay for a public good, but to not have access to it, simply by nature of their poverty. None of these arguments have been refuted. I have also stated that members of the Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention did not include such a provision in the Constitution since such a system was not in existence at the time. Con claims that the University of Virginia having tuition now proves that Jefferson did not believe such things. On the contrary, Jefferson simply, in the early 1800s, could not secure sufficient funding, a problem which persists to the present day [1]. Thus, if I have proved that the state has an obligation, under a social contractarian framework, to provide education, then I win this round. 2. Rights and Equality I have argued, throughout this debate, that tuition abrogates equality of opportunity because it prevents people from both self-actualizing and from accessing labor markets. Con has attempted to negate this by arguing 1) That student loans exist, 2) That college should just be made cheaper by cutting departments, and 3) That some people are just not meant for college. Firstly, student loans are not optimal for many of the reasons I have listed previously. They act as a drag on the economy due to decreased spending, they form a bubble which could pop and seriously harm the integrity of the institution of higher learning, they coerce students into choosing careers that are perceived to be financially-rewarding, and they price students on the margins out of higher education. Con claims that monthly payments could simply be adjusted; this is often not possible, and any payment still prices those on the margins out. Even worse, student debt cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy; it follows a person until they die or until the debt is paid. Con next argues that college could be made more accessible by cutting departments, incredulously claiming that nobody, literally nobody, that pursues philosophy goes to law school. If this is the case, then I suppose that I do not exist. In fact, statistics show that philosophy is tied with economics for the highest LSAT score [2]. The same sorts of arguments go for arts and music; training in these fields still can benefit society and the person pursuing them. Any anecdotal claims by Con to the contrary do not have any bearing in this round. Con finally argues that some people are not meant for college. I will further expound the benefits of training more people later on, but this argument is faulty on face. The fact that some people are not as intelligent does not mean that they do not have the same right to equality of opportunity as everyone else. Con has never dealt with this line of thinking, and it will prove damaging. I have stated repeatedly that preventing people from having the opportunity to self-actualize or access labor markets equally is anathema to the idea of equality of opportunity, and we have never really heard a response from Con on this point. If I can prove that tuition impinges equality of opportunity, then I win this debate. 3 . Benefits of Education College education is a sound financial investment [3]. On average, graduates make more money and have lower rates of unemployment than non-graduates. This accrues to more spending and increased GDP, which raises the standards of living for all Americans. Con has never negated this. Instead, Con argues on two main fronts: 1) College does not guarantee success and 2) Some people are not meant for college. Both of these arguments are faulty. Firstly, I have demonstrated that college increases the probability of financial success, even if it does not guarantee it. I have never argued for absolutes, but, on the macro scale, it is empirically true that college is beneficial for one's earnings. A few anecdotal counterexamples does not disprove this. I have several responses to the second argument. Firstly, training people, even if they are less intelligent than others, has many advantages. I have already demonstrated that college graduates are better citizens and make better decisions than non-graduates [4]. This is better for society, and, when combined with the increased earning potential and ability to innovate, make for truly compelling economic reasons to educate more people. Secondly, some people will not be successful in college, some people will major in less financially-successful careers. However, if we agree that everybody should, independent of themselves, have equivalent rights claims, and if we agree that education has value, economically and for self-actualization, this is irrelevant. All majors can contribute to society, many in unique ways. Less people majoring in theater, arts, music, philosophy, etc. has serious implications for the place of the US on the global cultural landscape. Not everything is solely financial. A few people who abuse the system, which occurs in the status quo all the same, does not negate rights claims and general economic arguments. Finally, though Con claims that we should not have to pay for others' mistakes, a college education that can be had for free allows those who are trapped in poverty to self-actualize and to be able to contribute to society. So, rather than paying for mistakes, we are investing in human capital. The returns for such, as I have already stated, are huge. Throughout this round, I have argued that education is good both intrinsically and economically, both personally and across society. It leads to better behavior, increased GDP, more innovation, more lives saved, and a higher standard of living. Con has, quite literally, never argued against this. If I have proved the benefits of college education, then I win this round. Conclusion Throughout this round, you have seen a dichotomy in argumentation. On Pro's side, you have seen cogent argumentation and rebuttals; on Con's, you have seen assertions and non sequiturs. I have repeatedly argued that the government philosophically should provide education, that equality of opportunity should be maintained regardless of an individual's characteristics, and that education has myriad benefits. Con has presented many arguments, but they can all basically be summed into the following: there could be some bad apples. This is not responsive to my resolution, as this debate is on the macro scale, and is equally present in status quo; all the resolution changes is the ability of willing and able students to attend college. Thank you very much for this excellent round, and I urge a Pro vote. Sources: 1. http://www.monticello.org... 2. http://www.potsdam.edu... 3. http://www.bls.gov... 4. http://www.jstor.org...