Free tuition for college students through government taxation should be supported.

"While my opponent wastes valuable time disputing that the cost of college is one of the most expensive things people will ever "buy," I'd just like to point out that of the people that have a college education, that education cost vastly more money than any other thing they will ever buy." -Seeing that the average cost of tuition for a public college in the US (over four years) was approximately $22,000 in the '05-'06 school year, I believe that this point stands, even allowing for the latest increases, as most cars easily cost more than this. Now, in the same year, the cost of tuition over four years at a private college was about $85,000, in which case my opponent would be right; however, based on this, the "average" person does not attend a private college. Were I to add the lower tuition costs of two-year colleges or other institutions, which greatly outnumber private and public four-year colleges, the average cost of tuition would drop even more. "While the restrictions I speak of do not necessarily follow the resolution to the letter, I'd also like to point out that we've been given a terrible resolution for implementation in the United States..." -Irrelevant. "If they're not receiving the benefit of the tax, why should they pay it?" -Precisely. "Everyone pays social security tax, yet many people don't use it. We all pay taxes used to provide welfare, yet most of us don't use it." -1)Incorrect. If you work for most of your life and then retire, no matter what your income, you are entitled to a retirement check. True, you may not need it, but you get it. 2)Your second sentence here is true; however, welfare provides necessities to the underprivileged, whereas college attendance is a luxury in comparison. And while welfare may be necessary, it is still unfair for the same reasons I spoke of in Round 1. "Food stamps do not pay for persons to buy fillet mingion every night. As with that program, this resolution should provide a basis for education." -You are comparing apples to oranges again. Even then, incorrectly: food stamps do not provide a "basis" for buying food - for many on food stamps, that is all they have for food, period. Also, a "basis" for education can be better provided by private loans, which are readily available. If you are smart enough to be accepted to a university, you can get loans for tuition, leaving the government out completely (unless it is a government loan, which is fine - it is not "free," it has to be repaid.) "Why? Not all college students ARE equal." -But by law they are equal in the eyes of the government. "Why should the 4.0 student receive the same benefit as the 0.8 student?" -They shouldn't, wouldn't, and don't. I doubt the 0.8 student will be attending college at all. A non-issue. "It makes the point that this program *can* easily be adapted to suit individual needs, not that the program is fallacious." -I reached the opposite conclusion from the example I gave. "It is a fact that persons with a college education make more money (on average) than those that do not. When people make more money, they pay more taxes. It's pretty clear that there is a relation between education and tax income for the country." -Excellent, MORE taxes. This sounds like more of a benefit to the federal government than to any individual. So your point here is that it would be worthwhile to the government. "It would seem self evident that when a (successful) investment is made in education that literacy and competency rates in a country would rise." -Perhaps. However, going to college does not teach one to be "literate" or "competent." Literacy is taught long before that point, and competence is an independent quality completely - arguably something that cannot be taught, no matter who is teaching or for how much money they are teaching for. "Foreign governments outspend the US on education, an the US finished LAST in the most recent international physics olympiad." -I believe this has more to do with the fact that the US has accepted and enjoyed its hegemony over the past years than anything else: other countries outspend the US as they are trying to rise in the international community, whereas one might say the US has more of a "We're already there" kind of attitude. Also, the physics Olympiad is a competition between high school students. Relevance to issue at hand: none. "Those are American philosophies, and you admitted in the previous sentence that this resolution did not deal with the United States exclusively. Therefore, introducing American philosophy is fallacious and irrelevant to the argument writ large." -Indeed those are American philosophies. However, they are relevant as regards the non-socialist views and policies of the US government and a probable majority of Americans. Also, by the same token, we might call socialism a "European philosophy," thereby extinguishing any points you had about the education systems of Europe (you mentioned the UK and Spain specifically.) "...[I]f they grow proportionally and maintain the ratios between students, classes, and professors, the quality will not change." -Another big "if." "Actually, that would be quite welcome... I merely meant the American workforce." -Joking aside, you are still incorrect. The overall quality may be affected, but in terms of quantity, there are only so many jobs to go around, even to college graduates. The slots will be filled, and then we will have a large number of unemployed or underemployed overqualified college graduates. "I see - therefore, according to you, the Chinese, Brits, Spainards[sic], Poles, etc... must all be more intelligent than Americans. It has nothing at all to do with their education system and the fact that their college students are of higher caliber on average." -This was not my point. If more people go to school, then by definition more people are "educated." However, you seem to be confirming the argument you accused me of making with your second sentence. If their college students are of "higher caliber on average," then it logically follows that either they are smarter, or that their primary and secondary schools are better than those in the US. This point about primary and secondary schools can be applied to your point about the physics Olympiad. "The very nature of politics is that there are ALWAYS going to be winners and losers." -True. But education is not politics. "Are not the losers in the current system those who cannot afford to go to college at all?" -Perhaps; that does not mean that I or anyone else necessarily want to pay for them. A very small monthly savings through a child's life until they go to college can pay for a lot, if done correctly. It should not be the burden of society at large that a person's parents or guardians do not have the foresight to provide for a college education. "Why should they be denied a college education in the same country where a high school education is free?" -I cannot speak on behalf of the hypocrisy of the US government. "Is their education devalued? I'd say not. Our Chinese foreign exchange students at my college spend about 3 or 4 times as long studying for classes as American students because they view their education as so important." -They are happy to have the chance to do such things, whereas the US has "had it made" for such a long time that education is simply seen as another service, and if implemented here, it would devalue education - just another government freebie. "Indeed, please do. Education in The Republic is the responsibility of the state." -Pay no mind. Argument from authority or another "European philosophy." Besides being unfair (not new but true), implementation would be a nightmare, as PRO admits. On top of that, college costs rise between 5 and 10 percent each year, meaning annual tax +