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

Before I get into the flow of this debate, I would like to begin with an overview. Con has given us no substantive reasons why the resolution ought not be adopted; they simply make nebulous claims about the nature of higher education and mitigating factors that attempt to downplay the benefits I have so clearly demonstrated. I hope to see more substantive claims in the next round. I will, then, move down the flow. Con first tells us that the government does not have an obligation to the taxpayer to provide free higher education because this provision is not in the Constitution. Two responses: 1) Public universities, indeed, public education, did not exist at the time the Constitution was written. In fact, a philosophical leader of the new Republic, Thomas Jefferson, would, several years later, go on to found the University of Virginia, the first public university in the fledgling nation. 2) Simply because the Constitution lacks a provision does not mean that the state ought not provide it. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal government must provide infrastructure, funding for such programs as welfare, or, even, free primary and secondary schooling. However, we see that the Federal government does have a duty, on the macro, to foster better outcomes and equality of opportunity, meaning that all workers enter the workforce with at least some standard degree of skills. Previously, this was seen as grade school. Now, it is high school; however, this is an arbitrary distinction that robs many willing applicants of the ability to self-actualize, which accrues to deadweight losses as people fail to fulfill their maximal potential. Con then tells us that college is not a right because it is meant for more motivated and intellectual students. Three responses: 1) A caveat in my case construct was that universities would not change their admission policies; that is, they would still admit on at least some degree of merit, 2) Many people who do work hard in high school cannot attend college because they simply cannot afford it, and 3) Simply because some students are not as intellectual does not mean that we should not assist them in self-actualizing and acquiring skills; that is why community college and lower-tier state schools exist - these people, when given more skills, can still help our economy and create better lives for themselves. Moving on to my second contention, Con tells us that college does not concern equality of opportunity. It is never really clear why this is the case; I have demonstrated that having a college degree is often necessary to even gain access to certain labor markets. Sure, a degree does not guarantee success, but not having one decidedly limits it. Moreover, there is a reason that college graduates make significantly more, on average, than those with less education. Con also states that, to make college more affordable, universities could just trim costs; in doing this, he cites Philosophy as an area of waste. As a philosophy student, I find this argument misplaced and lacking in perspective: philosophy endows students with a skill set that can transfer to such places as law school, or, when paired with such degrees as neuroscience, create an extremely powerful combination, holding tangible allure in the workforce. The same is true of music and art; training in these fields is not for "losers" who do not have any career goals, but is for the next generation of talent to hone their abilities. Students should feel free to pursue these degrees without being coerced by faux-financial arguments, like the one Con is presenting. Finally, trimming costs still ensures tuition, even if the bill is smaller. ANY tuition prices out consumers on the margins who are unable to pay, but have the skills necessary to attend. Any such marginal losses ought to be eliminated. Next, Con states that college is not for everyone. While this may be true, that does not mean that everyone should not have access to it. This line of thinking which pervades Con's arguments is non-responsive, and I have dealt with it more meaningfully above. Con's discussion of those who have made poor choices is important, but is not developed. When taken further, it is clear that, when taken to its logical conclusion, it supports Pro. This is the case because people who have made these choices need some way to escape the vortex of unfortunate circumstances that threatens to turn their existence into a drag on society, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. If these people had an opportunity, when they saw fit, to go to college, free of charge, then they could change their trajectory in life from despondence to success. Moreover, those who attend college are generally better citizens; they drink and use illegal drugs less, they vote more, they are better-read, etc. These bad life choices can be averted by attending college. Con then tells us that college does not guarantee economic success. This is empirically true. However, college ensures that everybody has equal access to the labor market. Also, college graduates DO make more, on average, than those of lesser education, thereby increasing the probability of economic success. A few success stories who did not attend college does not negate the argument I make and is, writ large, non-responsive. Finally, Con states that the student loan bubble is due to too many people getting "useless" degrees or not finishing college; in fact, Con claims that student loans are the reason for tuition increases. The first part of this argument clearly is misguided; society should not be in the business of coercing people into pursuing a field solely for financial success. Moreover, many people who acquire "good" degrees, even such degrees as a J.D. or an M.D., are saddled with debt, though they are pursuing "prestigious" degrees. These loans act as both a weight on the economy, due to lesser spending, and as a grenade, which threatens to explode and send the institution of higher education tumbling down. Moreover, it is clear that ever-expanding campuses and services are the primary blame for tuition-hikes, not student loans. And, even if student loans cause tuition increases, then that alone is a reason to adopt my proposal. I will not spend too much time reiterating my case, but would like to point out several arguments which go under-addressed. Con does not engage with the idea that the social contract of public goods provision necessitates free tuition; the most important idea here is that if everyone pays for something, then everyone should have access to it. I have, above, reiterated my argument regarding equality of opportunity. My points about the importance of education personally and across society, which coalesce into economic benefits, was not dealt with meaningfully. Remember: more degrees means less inequality, more innovation, increasing GDP, and a better standard of living for all Americans. I am proud to propose.