Free Education

The resolutionThe resolution seems to be some what ill defined, "free education" is just thrown out there. As such I think it will help to better define as the Pro what I will seek to argue for. I will argue that a society should have some sort of "free education" available. As such its my understanding that Con is arguing that free education should not exist. What does "free education" mean ? As Con notes, nothing is free, by free education it is meant that the one receiving the education either does not pay for it or pays only a small amount of their education cost, hence from their point of view the education is "free". I propose that we define small amount up to 25% of their education cost. So where does the other 100% - 75% of the funds come from ? tax revenue, in other words government funded. I think its also worth noting that I am not arguing that every possible instance of education should be free, just that some sort of free education should be available to all, at the very least what is considered the fundamental basics of reading, writing, comprehension, maths, and what ever else is deemed necessary to function in that society. Countering Cons argumentsCon says. .. "Now if you agree that free education is a good things than do you agree that the taxes on long island and New York State in general are affordable, and conducive to a thriving economic environment? "Even if we grant Con that taxes are unaffordable in long island and Newyork state how does this even remotely suggest that this means that no free education should be made available ? it doesn't, its a complete non sequitur. Con says. .. "Point being nothing in life is free. Most of the countries are going broke right now except western Germany, because in the E. U. health care is "free" retirement benefits are "free", the whole E. U. is on the verge of collapse bc of the free benefits from the government. "Even if its the case that the EU is broke because of retirement benefits and health care benefits this isn't relevant to the debate. It seems to me what Con is really taking a swipe out is any form of government funded benefits for people. I would point out there is an issue of if a society should have some kind of welfare safety net. I think its also worth mentioning there are other factors involved here like, are the rich getting out of paying their fair share of tax ? are there issues of wealth distribution, for example is only a small percentage of the people getting the majoirty of the economic gains ? Does the society have unnecessary obstacles in being producitve ? etc, etc. Arguments for "free education"1) EconomicA better educated population will be able to do things that a lesser educated can't. This has consequences for both individual and societal economic outcomes. 2) CivicIf we accept modern democracy for all its flaws is the least worst form of government, then a government can only be as good as the majority will allow it. An educated population has a better chance at better government, but of course not guaranteed.3) FairnessNo one asks to be born, nor asks to be born into the circumstances they are born into. Without free education some people will be denied basic education just because they were born into bad circumstances. Education basics aren't just educational basic, they are life basic, as education basics allow further learning and opportunities into other area's. I look forward to Cons response.