Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

Thanks for answering, Pro! Rebuttal >Everyone in society benefits from university graduates because they are educatedCorrect, but the entire point of my argument was that tuition fees do not reduce the amount of lower class students going to university and have in fact increased it. Regardless, the amount of people going to university does not and will not change. The only thing that changes is how many lower class students go to university.>. Furthermore tuition fees hinder bright working class students from attending universityYou've provided no evidence for this. This is because the evidence states that you're incorrect.> Now over 8% of working class students drop out of university in their first year and high costs are predominantly stated as the reason for this. Regrettable, but not a problem with fees. This is a problem with the lack of a maintenance grant. University cities are expensive, no doubt about it, but the fees are paid for by a loan which you don't even have to pay back until you get a reasonably well paying job, doesn't affect your credit score.The problem here is a lack of education around the matter, which is easily remediable.>As for the Browne report this was published at a time of recession where the Government was looking to make as many savings as possibleNot relevant to what the Browne report actually concluded, which is that at any time fees being raised was the correct decision.>My opponent claims that universities would have less money if tuition fees were abolished. However the figure of 8 Billion would be giving universities the money that Tuition Fees would take away.First, let me clarify that it's in fact 8 billion per year being spent. Second of all, where the government spends on things like abolishing tuition fees it's in fact paying the bare minimum. This means that where universities already have a "funding gap"[1] this would further increase. Borrowing and donations from alumni usually fill this gap but where the government is spending it *cannot* possibly spend as much as £9250 per pupil. This means universities have less money.>The real change is that you would have more working class students staying in University.This contention is based on the premise that tuition fees stop working class students going to university or cause them to drop out. My round one argument and most of my rebuttal thus far has shown that this contention is false.>My opponent makes a good point by saying that richer students are more likely to get good grades and this is true.It's not only because they go to private schools, which are better, but also that they can afford private tutors et cetera. It is impossible to close this gap short of literally taking away money from rich people so they cannot do these things.>It is ridiculous of my opponent to claim it would be better for universities to accept people on the basis of money and grades I never claimed this. I claimed that tuition fees permit universities to choose on the basis of just grades because the fees help to make up the funding gap.>doesn't address the fact that nothing would change other than the government paying for tuition fees rather than studentsI quoted dozens of figures about how this does actually make a difference because of widening the funding gap meaning there are fewer bursaries.The first argument is based off nothing more than a few cherry-picked examples of where Corbyn said things which are now consensus.Furthermore, this is a fallacious argument because essentially it is stating that because on this side of history, Corbyn is correct, therefore there was some undetermined date where these things were indeed on the correct side of history. In that reality, Corbyn was incorrect. This is a completely nonsensical argument - measuring historical actions by the standards of today is no basis for morality.Just in case we need more proof, we can apply this fallacious argument to such a person as Joseph Stalin.1.)He turned Russia from agricultural country into superstate with atomic bomb and so he had the foresight to know that he needed to unify Russia under one banner2.)He built thousands of factories3.)He encouraged science where others said that it was the wrong course of action.This is clearly a nonsensical line of argument. If we wished to take this further, we could also state that Corbyn is on the wrong side of history for not condemning Venezuela.I just want to draw attention quickly to the last of Pro's contentions on this matter, and then we can leave it.>Corbyn and McDonnell argued in favour of further regulation on the banks in the run up to the recession of 2008 and we now know that had the Banks been properly regulated the UK would have been in a far better state that it was in real life.Both of them have always been arguing for more regulation on the banks. This is completely nonsensical.>Furthermore a Prime Minister Corbyn would ban unpaid internshipsThis isn't the point of unpaid internships. The point is that they're work experience, with a view to getting hired by the same company. They're a good thing because they increase social mobility - those who don't have very good job offers can indeed take these jobs with a view to getting into the field better. It should be obvious that no one will take unpaid job for absolutely no reason.>Only people living off the bank off mum and dad would be able to pay for this.there's this thing called borrowing++Substantative++Premise:The rich wish to keep the majority of their wealth.[2]Therefore, if Corbyn's proposed tax rises come into effect, for those who are wealthy, they have two options. Either they can be affected by the tax rises, which could mean that some have to pay up to 70% income tax or they can simply leave the country. It's not particularly hard for rich people to leave the country.Conclusion:Were Corbyn's tax policies to be enacted, it would cause capital flight.Trickle-down economics is incorrect, but it's the case that you cannot tax the rich if they aren't in the country. This leads us to two conclusions.Firstly, we can conclude that the revenue required for Corbyn's policies would not be there - thereby either meaning that it couldn't happen or that borrowing would go up, effectively bankrupting the country.Secondly, we can conclude that spending in the economy would considerably decrease, meaning the loss of many jobs and the vast shrinkage of the luxury sector.1.)https://www.timeshighereducation.com...2.)http://www.lse.ac.uk...