In the united states College is Necessary

ConductI have, as yet, offered no substantive material in support of my contention. I have simply pointed out some things about my opponent's definitions that might not be immediately clear to voters. I fail to see how my opponent can call my material in round two non-applicable to the debate, since it was a commentary on his definition, unless his own definitions are non-applicable also. I also fail to see how I am in breach of the agreed round structure. I am only talking about definitions, which is the very thing I was allowed to talk about. Since I offered no substantive material this is no ground for loss of conduct. Of course my opponent has prior knowledge of where I stand - and that isn't the issue - but he has no idea what arguments I am going to run in order to get there. Personally I see this as a weak response to the fact that I proved last round my opponent had already broken his own rule, #2, based on the fact he is now aggressively searching for a way to win on the rules rather than his arguments, which are only described very shallowly as I will show.FrameworkIn terms of my opponent's extension to framework I agree entirely with everything. I think it is also reasonable for obs2 to be extended to all subsequent rounds, rather than just this one, because burden of proof should be maintained until the end of the debate, as otherwise this would make the rest of the debate rather pointless.RebuttalMy opponent offers two contentions, but really they are the same thing. He claims that college does not fulfill any role that is absolutely essential, for psychological reasons (including survival), safety, belonging, esteem and self-actualization. He tells us these needs are drawn from the famous hierarchy by Maslow. I have two responses.First, under my opponent's own framework, his burden of proof is to show WHY college does not fulfill any of these needs. This is further reinforced by his own second rule, in round one. My opponent offers absolutely no analysis that college showing why college does not fulfill these needs. Rather, he simply asserts this (bullet point one), and then shifts his burden of proof on to me (bullet point two), in clear violation of his own rules and structure, not to mention logical reasoning. Therefore my opponent hasn't really offered a contention yet, just a blind assertion.Second, even if my opponent did provide analysis that college did not meet these needs, he still doesn't show WHY Maslow was correct. He doesn't even offer a citation! According to his own rule, again number two, the evidence he supplies from Maslow needs to be backed up by analysis. My opponent, however, also does not show why Maslow is the most appropriate way of working out needs. Famous studies such as Wahba and Bridgewell (1976) have indeed proven that no hierarchy such as that described by Maslow exists. They drew on their research which showed that the hierarchy was nothing but a perfect individualist, but was statistically insignificant in collectivist society.Nonetheless, in my substantive I will show why college is so important. I just want voters to remember that it isn't enough for my opponent to simply rebut me - he actually needs to logically substantiate his own case as well.Contentions1. Research is necessaryHumans have a way of stuffing things up. For example, right now we are stuffing up our environment, our governments and so on. Colleges are the only forum where researchers can solve these problems, because privately-funded research always has a huge bias, because of the need to support whoever is funding it - for instance one could look to all the suppressed research recently discovered to have been with-held by cigarette companies. These problems have at least the potential to be devastating to our world. Therefore it is necessary that clever people are able to have a forum where they can work together to review and solve these problems.2. Learning is necessaryThere are many fields of work that simply cannot be accomplished successfully without the training provided by higher-level education providers. Obvious examples might include nuclear physicists, who power the nuclear plants that keep much of the USA running. Another might be structural engineering. Even apprenticeships fall under my opponent's definitions of colleges, because apprenticeships happen through standards bodies to ensure apprentices are indeed qualified, and as a result offer qualifications. Thus a society with no college is a society without electricians or plumbers. Indeed, the vast majority of skilled work is dependent on at least one institute of higher education. Only colleges are capable of offering this, because only colleges are going to be able to set a consistent standard - if everyone decided to self-qualify as able to set standards, standards would not exist and that skilled profession would be therefore fatally undermined.Of course, my opponent will contend that it isn't absolutely essential for any given individual not to do manual labor or other unskilled work. However one cannot ignore the needs of the collective. We depend every day on the skills that only colleges can teach. Therefore they are necessary.I look forward to hearing my opponent's response.SourcesWahba, A; Bridgewell, L (1976). "Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (15): 212–240.