The government must fund education

Con has not made any real rebuttal, restraining himself to distorting my arguments into other things. Let's clarify what Con tried to fog. First, I have never said that all jobs require official qualification. What I did say, is that higher levels of education implicate in higher levels of efficiency overall, which is supported by various studies[1-6]. Also, Con makes a false claim that there are high-paying jobs which require zero qualifications, while providing 10 examples of jobs which ALL require qualifications and skills that are developed through education to be well executed[7]. So, saying that investment in human capital does not generate returns in productivity is absurd. After that, Con says that it is never too late to be educated. I really don't see how is that an argument against public education. In fact, most of the adult education in Brazil is provided by public schools, and the private schools that provide it receive governmental aid. 4.287.234 adult Brazilians went back to school in 2010[8], so Con is right to say that you can get educated after adulthood, but that is an argument in favor of public education, not against it. About democracy, it is obvious that educated people make better decisions. It is not rare to see politicians making promises that they can't legally fulfill. When people lack the knowledge on its own laws, these politicians are elected. Also, I have never discriminated against illiterate members of a population, neither have I suggested they should be excluded somehow, I have only said that for the society, it is better to have as many literate people as possible, and I can't see a reason to disagree with that. Finally, the most ridiculous claim Con makes is that education does not reduce crime. He fallaciously says that in UK people are educated, and still commit crimes, hence education does not reduces crime. This is a fallacy because I have never said that education eradicates crime, but only that it REDUCES criminality. And again, there are numerous studies that support that[9-15]. I am sorry about the great number of references, but there are so many sources proving the negative correlation between education and crime that I can't believe my opponent was ignorant (or dishonest) enough to say that education does not reduce crime. Still on crime, my opponent says that "grades are always on a bell curve basis". I have NEVER been graded on such basis, neither anyone I personally know. For me, this was an experimental grading system, I didn't even know that it was actually used in real educational contexts. The very source Con used declares that the bell curve should never be used to establish grades[16], so again, Con is being either ignorant or dishonest by saying that this system is always used on grades. In conclusion, I have achieved burden of proof by showing that investment in education socially desirable, as it produces a great number of positive externalities. As so, it is the government function to fund education as to achieve socially optimal levels. Con has failed to rebut my arguments, and has shamefully distorted them and used false information in order to disqualify the debate. References: [1] http://www.americanprogress.org... [2] https://webspace.utexas.edu... [3] http://www.thestar.com... [4] http://www.petergarrett.com.au... [5] http://phd.mshaffer.com... [6] http://www.newyorkfed.org... [7] http://matadornetwork.com... [8] http://www.moderna.com.br... [9] http://emlab.berkeley.edu... [10] http://economics.uwo.ca... [11] http://cep.lse.ac.uk... [12] http://www.justicepolicy.org... [13] http://www.educationvoterspa.org... [14] http://www.nber.org... [15] http://papers.ssrn.com... [16] http://drrickyount.com...