Question: Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans I think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.

You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students.

You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. I will separate my arguments into 5 sections so as to make them more structured. Federal Student Loans Have Caused an Education Bubble Over the past few decades, tuition has skyrocketed inside the United States. Between 1978 and 2012, the tuition in the US has increased 1210%, or 12-fold. (1) This is also 4 times faster than the increase in the consumer price index. This is obviously a huge problem, so the first steps we must take to come up with a solution is to look for the cause or causes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, stated that "The basic problem is simple: Give everyone $100 to pay for higher education and colleges will raise their prices by $100, negating the value of the aid. And inflation-adjusted aid--most of it federal--has certainly gone up, ballooning from $4,602 per undergraduate in 1990-91 to $12,455 in 2010-11. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced priced has artificially inflated the price of college education. Thus begins a classic upward price spiral caused by government intervention: Subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. Yet this higher education bubble, like the housing bubble, will eventually pop. Meanwhile, large numbers of students will graduate with more debt than they would have in an unsubsidized market. "(1) Patrick Hedger, a policy analyst from FreedomWorks, found that “Students are taking out cheap loans as liberally as colleges spend their tuition. With money readily available at low rates to anyone who asks, students never think twice and colleges have no incentive to keep prices low. The end result is tens of thousands of dollars worth of each student’s tuition being spent by universities on superfluous things designed simply to draw more and more students and their government-backed blank checks. "(2) Federal Student Loans Have Cause a Rise in Tuition As a result of the Education Bubble, tuition has been artificially inflated through government intervention. Chris Edwards, from the Cato Institute, explains that “It is a matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumer willingness to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increase, the public’s budget constraint has been lifted. ”(3) Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University noted that federal subsidies “are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking … tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. (4) Federal Student Loans have Harmed Students Not only do student loans cause a rise in tuition, they also harm students various ways. A. Cause Unemployment In 2012, about 1.5 million, or 56%, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest since in of least 11 years. (5) How could this have happened? Patrick Hedger explains "“Federal student loans, which are soon to be the only education loans available, severely up start the market and are directly responsible for the surge of under-and unemployed youths with bachelor’s degrees. ” B. Students are Negatively Impacted by Debt The American Association of State Colleges and Universities found that “Students often see higher education as the primary path to upward mobility, but when they accumulate excessive debt, this pathway quickly becomes riddled with pitfalls. Students graduate with debt may put off life milestones such as buying a car, owning a home, getting married, or entering certain low paying professions like teaching or social work. ” (6) Also from the AASCU, “Particularly worrisome is that the number of college graduates with $40,000 in student loan debt has increase 10-fold in the past decade. Those numbers pose long-term threats to recent college graduates lifelong decisions, but the financial future of borrowers who do not earn a degree is even bleaker. ” C. Student Loans Harms Students' Credit Score Student loans also put many students at risk of ruining their credit score if they fail to pay off the extremely high debt on time. “Because your student loans are little to be your first significant loan into the world of credit, it’s imperative that you handle these loans wisely. ” “Missing even one payment can trash your Credit Score. And a bad Credit Score can lead to higher costs for loans, higher insurance premiums, and trouble when attempting to get a job or an apartment. ”(7) Defaulting on a student loan goes on your credit report and can seriously hinder your ability to get a loan later in your life. Student Loan defaulters are restricted in their access to bankruptcy protection. The IRS can seize defaulters’ income tax refunds, and students who default on an education are prohibited from participating in the student loan program thereafter. (8) Sadly, many students end up defaulting on their loans, ruining their credit scores. Last year one in 10 recent borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans within the first two years, the highest default rate since 1995, according to annual figures made public Monday by the Department of Education. (9) Alternatives My opponent will likely state that federal student loans are necessary for our education system. I will contend there are better alternatives. Tax Credits I support the expansion of the tax credit system for low-income students. Currently, there are various tax credits already available to students. (10) The American Opportunity Tax Credit those eligible qualify for the maximum annual credit of $2,500 per student. The Lifetime Learning may allow students and parents to claim up to $2,000 for qualified education expenses paid for all students enrolled in eligible educational institutions. Deductions are also available to student, The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. The benefits of the tax credit system is it decreases the cost burden on low-income workers without putting poor students into huge amounts of debt. Another benefit is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything, it simply decreases taxes for the individuals it's intended to help. Work and Study Working while going to college is a viable alternative to students who need money to pay for tuition. Not only does the money you earn pay for the tuition, but there are also other benefits. One benefit of working while in college is that it can help build your resume, regardless if the job is in your field, according to a Scholarships. com article on balancing work and college. (11) There are also Vocational Programs, Grants, Direct Aid, Scholarships, and investment plans. As I've run out of time and characters, I will go into alternatives deeper next round. Sources 1. . http://mercatus.org... 2. . http://dailycaller.com... 3. . http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... 4. . http://www.cato.org... 5. . http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. . http://www.aascu.org... 7. . http://articles.latimes.com... 8. Chang, Cello. “The Impact of College Debt and costs”. Dis. California State Polytechnic University. Pomona. 2000. Print. P.12 9. . http://www.irs.gov... 10. . http://www.benefits.gov... 11. . http://www.schools.com...

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Before I begin, a brief observation:Pro is making the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. His burden is to prove that federal student loans should be abolished. As con, my burden is to negate his argument. That could mean that I argue that there is something wrong with the federal student loan system, and that such a problem needs to be addressed, but not addressed in the way PRO proposes OR it could mean that I defend the status quo. It could mean that I argue that the harms PRO seeks to address are not problems, or his solution is not sufficient to address them. All would negate the resolution. Now, I'll talk about PRO's case, and make some counter arguments in response.PRO's Case:PRO's first argument states that federal student loans have caused an education bubble. He reasons that tuition has "skyrocketed" because federal student loans, which he calls a subsidy, cause prices to rise. Indeed, there may be some correlation there, but the fact that students have access to federal student loans is not by itself enough to indicate that those loans specifically caused an increase in tuition prices because there could be any number of other factors. For example, colleges may have had to raise tuition prices because their operating costs increased and federal student loans offset that higher operating cost. It could be that public universities receive less public funding, and therefore universities must offset that shortfall by raising tuition. It could be that universities just do more for students now, and waste resources on things like unnecessarily extravagant dormitories and facilities. It could be that university endowments just aren't as big as they once were and students have to foot the bill in consequence.Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...So, if tuition prices are something PRO wants to fix, he's ignoring the bigger picture. But, let's talk about the harm of abolishing student loans. Federal student loan interest rates range from about 3.86% - 5%, and their rates are fixed. Source: http://studentaid.ed.gov...Private student loans are usually considerably higher than that. Discover's fixed rate undergraduate student loan rates begin at 6.74% and can rise to 10.99%. Source: https://www.discover.com...Suntrust fixed rate student loans range from 4.751% APR to 10.415% APR. Source: http://www.suntrusteducation.com...Federal student loans more affordable for all students now because the interest rates are lower. If federal student loans were abolished, it is reasonable to infer as well that private student loan rates would increase because of both increased demand for them, and because private institutions would have the luxury to set their borrowing rates much higher. That would increase the overall cost of education much more for all students who must borrow to afford college, and amplify the long term harms that PRO is trying to remediate by abolishing student loans. PRO repeats himself with a second contention that "federal student loans have caused a rise in tuition." PRO contends that tuition prices have been artificially inflated because of government intervention. Yet, the evidence he offers for that, from the Cato institute, suggests that the reason for increased prices is because of supply and demand imbalances, such that because "more Americans have sought education" tuition prices are "higher." So, the cause of tuition increases has more to do with increased demand for higher education than the fact that the federal government makes college comparably more affordable than private lending institutions. PRO's other warrant offers another alternative cause: university greed. Pro cites Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, who said that "colleges and universities" set tuition "high enough to capture... funds" wherever they "can be extracted from parents." So, while it is the case that money to pay for college is easier to come by where federal student loans are an option, that does not mean that abolishing federal student loans is either going to reduce tuition rates or have any impact to lower the cost of higher education at all so long as colleges retain the incentive to charge higher prices and students have access to private loans. So, PRO's solution is not only insufficient to address the problem he's trying to solve, but it very likely could make the problem worse by increasing the overall cost of education -both tuition prices and interest paid on private student loans.PRO's final argument is that "federal student loans" have harmed students." PRO argues that because in 2012, 56% of bachelors degree holders under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed and that student loans are directly responsible for unemployment among those with bachelors degrees. He offers no causal link between student loans student loans and unemployment, however. He fails to consider that the number of people who are under the age of 25 who are unemployed or under employed would be higher if those people did not have a bachelors degree, and ignores the possibility that the extant US economic situation is more directly to blame for aggregate high unemployment rates among all Americans and especially among people entering the labor force for the first time. He likewise offers no explanation for how abolishing federal student loans will lower unemployment or underemployment. PRO contends that students are negatively impacted by debt, and therefore student loans should be abolished. But, what PRO fails to consider, which I have addressed earlier, is that in the absence of federal student loans, students who need to borrow to afford college must seek other means. The only other option for the vast majority of those students would be private lenders, whose interest rates are already higher than federal student loan rates and whose interest rates would skyrocket if federal student loans were abolished. The impact of this would be to raise the cost of borrowing money, which would profoundly increase the cost of higher education, which would exacerbate the problem pro is seeking to address rather than remediating it. PRO argues that federal student loans harm student's credit scores, which is just false. Students build credit while they are in college, and their scores are only harmed if they default. If students default on payments, that is because they did not pay back money they borrowed, not because they were leant money in the first place. Pro fails to account for this. Irrelevant AlternativesPRO's alternatives are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution is only about whether or not student loans should be abolished. That there are other alternatives PRO thinks are better than student loans do not help his case because his alternatives (tax credits and work study programs) can coexist along with federal student loans and we know this because, based on the evidence he cited, similar programs already do.I'll look forward to the next round.

Student Loan Debt I thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's "contention"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's college tuition. There are a couple problems with this: 1. Poor people often live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford to accumulate $96,000 in savings per child. [1] 2. This is still not enough money. Attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year, for example. [2] Even someone's parents who donated $24,000 per year would still need a student loan in the amount of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent says that without money, students are forced to join the military or go to community college--- He purposely ignores student loans here. Student loans are provided at extremely low interest rates and are tax deductible. [3] Student loans are the best possible deal someone could get while borrowing money. ---Con's "arguments"--- 1) My opponent offers a theoretical example of a poor family who makes roughly $25,000 a year. He subtracts the cost of housing and food for a family of two and says this would leave "Jimmy" with roughly $7500 a year to put in the bank for his child's college. My opponent forgets payroll taxes amounting to $1500 a year, cost of transportation amounting to $2500 a year, and cost of clothing amounting to $1250 a year. [4] [5] Assuming his employer provides health insurance, Jimmy will also pay $1500 a year out of pocket for his premiums. [6] Lastly, my opponent forgets to factor in the high cost of raising a small child, which amounts to roughly $3500 a year. [7] After all these costs are factored in, Jimmy is roughly $3,000 in debt per year. Jimmy has zero money left for savings and will actually owe $54,000 in debt by the time his adopted child reaches age 18. Conclusion: Jimmy cannot afford to pay for his child's college tuition. Student loans will be necessary if his adopted child wants to attend college. A) My opponent argues that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the Union. The poorest states in the Union have median incomes much closer to Jimmy's income. [8] In addition, all my opponent's arguments here assume that he has proven that even a family living on minimum wage can afford college tuition and is just being selfish and buying "cool knick knacks." Jimmy clearly can't afford tuition if you factor in all the costs. Keep in mind, also, that tax rates go up with income, and that food, clothing, and transportation costs are calculated as a percentage of income, so these costs rise as well with income levels, since the cost of living is higher in wealthier places. My opponent has yet to prove that someone with California's median income could afford full tuition payments. 2) My opponent essentially makes the argument that eliminating student loans will boost the economy However, student loans are just like any other type of loan – they allow people to defer immediate payment in order to engage in pursuits that will pay significant dividends further down the road (college, law school, medical school). In this way, loans make the economy more efficient. Imagine what would happen in the business sector if loans to entrepreneurs ceased to exist. No one would start new companies. The same will happen in technical fields if student loans cease to exist; there would be no more lawyers and doctors. 3) My opponent argues that student loans contribute to the national debt. However, the national debt is caused by accumulating federal budget deficits. Congress borrowing money is solely responsible for the national debt. Personal debt does not contribute to this national debt figure. 4) My opponent argues that people can get student loans if the costs are higher than average (his example is doctors) The average cost of tuition for a private 4-year college in the U.S. is $27,000. [9] The average tuition cost for medical school is $25,000. [10] Under his standard, doctors could not get student loans. 5) What my opponent is essentially advocating here (in his #5) is a collapse in consumer spending. A collapse in consumer spending would plunge us even further into recession. According to the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26th, "the collective purchasing behavior of American households may determine whether the nation continues to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression or slips back into recession." [11] When people buy clothes and toys, employers can start hiring again. Without consumer purchases, employers will have to continue layoffs. 6) My opponent argues for a regressive system Forcing people to save additional money for college each year, based on a regressive system, would have the same effect as raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. [12] ==My case== C1) Orphans Orphans have no parents, by definition. They require student loans if they want to go to college. C2) Parental rights The average parent in the U.S. spends a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child to the age of 17. [13] Parents have a right to enjoy their own incomes once their child reaches adulthood. If they get more satisfaction from taking a trip to the Caribbean before they die, parents should have the right to do this instead of being required to spend $100,000 on college tuition. If, however, parents get more satisfaction from helping their child pay for college, they should have the option of paying in full. But it should be the parents' right to make the decision of what to do with their money. Adult children are not entitled to this money as a birthright. This is a slippery slope. If parents must save money for their adult children for college, why not require parents to also set up a fund for their adult children to buy a home? How about a dowry fund for marriage? Why not legislate that parents must buy their children a car? C3) Paying the difference My opponent has not allocated enough money to college students to pay tuition for expensive private 4-year colleges and has not left many college students with enough money for room and board. Student loans would still be required to pay the difference between parental donations and what is still owed. C4) People who change their minds My opponent says that if a child does not attend college or drops out, parents can liquidate the college fund. However, people often change their minds and decide to attend college later in life. These people would not be able to afford college without student loans. C5) Stock market crashes Often, people save for college by investing their money in the stock market. A downturn would erase someone's college savings, necessitating student loans. C6) Lower attendance Since many people would now not be able to afford tuition, fewer people would attend college, law school, medical school, graduate school, and business school. Educational declines over a period of many years would erase trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy, as people become manual laborers instead of engineers, doctors, and lawyers. For all of the above reasons, I urge a Pro vote. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com...

The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.

The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.

This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you.

No debt University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.

Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Pro: "The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed." Exactly. So any "trickle down" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless. As a matter of fact, it makes all models useless, unless that model includes paying their debt off or giving them enough money to make a difference. If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500. All of these peoples' money is intercepted before they can even see it. People making say, $17 an hour , are living like people making minimum wage or less. Are they contributing to the economy? No. More than 25% of students who take on college debt are graduating with way too much of it, according to experts. And the repercussions could be lifelong. 25% of students are in the situation I described above. Fix this and you fix a giant heap of the economic unbalance in the U.S. today. Imagine if that 25% were not enslaved to the student loan system. How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference. time.com/money/4168510/why-student-loan-crisis-is-worse-than-people-think According to Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis, "There needs to be more accountability by schools who have been taking advantage of these kids, It makes me very angry.” -The average student loan balance among people with bachelor's degrees has risen from $15,000 in the mid 1990s to about $27,000, according to the Fed. "This is having a crippling effect on economic activity, says Barbara O'Neill, a specialist in financial resource management for Rutgers University." "A lot of things are being postponed. You've got what you call a crowding out effect. People only have so much money," she said. "There’s a lot of business activity that isn’t taking place ... It’s a drag on everything." "Fewer people are buying homes and cars, O'Neill says, because large portions of their income are being eaten up by student loans. They're also less likely to start the small businesses that provide jobs and services that drive the economy." www.businessinsider.com/3-charts-explain-the-effect-of-student-loans-on-the-economy-2015-5 http://www.forbes.com... * Students are having no luck finding jobs except in the service sector industry. For the first time in history, student loan debt now exceeds the total national credit card debt. One in every five young adults between the ages of 18 to 34 are in poverty. economyincrisis.org/content/the-root-cause-for-student-loan-debt * This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can’t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They’re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels. "Trickle down" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. It can't find its way to the middle class when it's intercepted to payoff student loan debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime anyway. It trickles down to...the government to try and recover their losses on irresponsible federal lending. The government caused a problem that no current economic model can overcome without the problem being removed or solved. * Supply Side Economics has worked and can work. In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, "1982-1999 was one continuous mega economic expansion." As it reached into 2007, this 25 Year Boom causef a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. families and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion in 2007. When an adjustment was made for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year stretch than in the previous 200 years combined. www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics

Student Loan Debt Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. I accept.

Student's have to think how they study. Making students think about the cost of their education would make them think harder about what and how they study. Many students would wait until they were ready for university, rather than join straight after school because they have no better plans. This is why so many students drop out of university quickly (often wasting taxpayers’ money). It would also mean that students chose to study subjects that were actually profitable for them, and useful for society (e.g. Medicine or Engineering) – rather than just interesting or fun for them (e.g. Art History, or Film Making) but of no practical use to society when they graduate.

The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549

The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Well, I guess that's that. Extend all arguments.

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. This round intentionally left blank, so as to give fair and equitable character space to both my opponent and I. I would request that judges not penalize my opponent for forfeiting that last round. Cheers

university education should be free The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder

university education should be free The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder

Many don't 'use' their degree after graduating, yet still end up in huge debt That is their prerogative. No one forces people to go into higher education, and the financial risks are clear from the outset. Young people should be free to make the decision about university study for themselves, not have an authoritarian state tell them who can and can't receive the great benefits (beside academic) that a university education provides.

debt unites students So you're saying that it's worth being in debt just so that you can have an extra conversational topic? People have conversations about natural disasters, homelessness and terrorist attacks that they see on the news, but that doesn't mean we want these things to continue.

debt unites students Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more "My Dad is richer than your Dad" bullying.

Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.

If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing Not every University is taking students with 3 D's and an E. Especially if a student wants to study a difficult subject. But many students, who have the ability to learn, willing to learn and gain everything, just can't afford it. Wouldn't the Government benefit from having more successful people, who pay taxes? I think that uni should be free, but the "taking in" rules should be harder.

Yummy debtors for lunch. Great argument! I concede. We're on the same page. How much should a professor with tenure be paid? What's a fair value in a failing country? $200k? When .gov provides the loans, yup.

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!

Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Your argument doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I fail to see the connection between the student loan crisis and supply side economics working? Even if there were no more student loans owned to the government, the rich would still keep most of that extra money. The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed. Reaganomics is not ineffective because of the student loan crisis. It is just an ineffective policy from the start. There really isn’t a whole lot more to it. Like I’ve said, Reaganomics is based on a flawed argument. Give more to the rich and they will spend it in a way that benefits the economy as a whole. That hasn’t happened. We haven’t seen noticeable job growth. We have seen wealth inequality and the national debt skyrocket. I feel like I can’t hammer this point enough. “Trickle down” economics was just a big scam to enrich the already rich.Please explain to me how supply side economics working and the student loan crisis are connected. The supply side approach did not work in the 1920s and we didn't have a student loan problem back then. So, why would it work today even without a student loan crisis? Here are some more rebuttals: 1. “But not for them. Why? It's all politics. The Democratic Party is notorious for pushing slavery. Why? It humors the masses on the left. Pander to them and keep power.”The Republican Party may have been the party that fought for civil rights for African Americans in the mid 1800s. However, a century later, which party fought for civil rights for African Americans? The Democrat Party. Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat) signed legislation granting African Americans civil rights while many Republicans opposed the idea. Is it a surprise that African Americans have shifted their support from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party? Political parties evolve. The Democrat Party may have supported slavery at one point, but that’s not how it is today. Although I’m not a huge fan of either of our two major parties, look at how much the Republican Party does for the rich. “Trickle down” economics is basically socialism for the rich. The GOP has to sell “trickle down” economics. So, the Republican Party still has to promote propaganda to get support. Look at all the right wing propaganda out there. Fox News is perhaps the most notable, but there are others out there. They try to sell a lot of the Republican beliefs that are there to keep the rich in power. Why does the GOP support Reaganomics? To keep the rich in power. Why does the GOP support cutting entitlement programs? Because it’s a part of the interests of the wealthy. It’s not because of fiscal responsibility. I find it funny how the Republicans blast the Democrats for spending too much on entitlement programs when they cut taxes on the rich and expand the military to the point where they too run colossal budget deficits. They are trying to appeal to the masses so that why they don’t figure out that they are truly trying to keep the rich in power. Of course, I don’t see the Democrat Party as the big hero either. They too have gone corporate as well. But, the Republican Party does it to a much larger extent. Why else is Reaganomics one of the core Republican beliefs? As Thom Hartmann would say, there are two types of Republicans, rich people and suckers. 2. “I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable."Supply side economics and the student loan crisis are two different problems. Even if nobody had student loan debt, supply side economics would not work. The rich would still get richer and the poor would still get poorer. I would say that the amount of debt that students are graduating college with is a problem. A lot of college graduates are sitting around looking for a job yet can’t find one. But even if college was free, the middle class would still be getting pissed on by Reaganomics. 3. “Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine.”But how would supply side economics work if we didn’t have the student loan crisis to deal with? I don’t see the connection between the two. The rich would still have extra money and not much of that money would be put back into the economy. Income inequality would still be high without the student loan crisis. The nation would still be trillions of dollars in the hole (because we’d still have tax breaks for the wealthy, unnecessary wars, and Wall Street bailouts to pay for). Student loans are not the primary reason why the poor and middle class are struggling these days. 4. “They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy.”Not all poor and middle class people have student loan debt. If those without student loan debt had that extra money, they most certainly would be able to put it back into the economy. Although we have a student loan problem, there are still a considerable number of students that have found jobs and are paying back their student loans. In fact, more students are in that position than are not. A lot of students are making progress on their student loans. If they had extra money, they would spend it. At least if a poor or middle class person has extra money, there is a very high chance it will be pumped back into the economy. Even paying back student loans could be considered “pumping it back into the economy.” Give extra money to a rich person and it will more likely than not just sit there. Look where the tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have got us. Trillions of dollars on the national debt can be accounted for by giving the rich a tax break (because tax breaks for the rich can basically be seen as an expense). GDP growth is said to be slower when the wealthy have more money. We had a recession caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. The poor and middle class are being pissed on by this economic policy. I think that when you mention student loans, you are thinking of a separate issue. I would agree that the amount of loans that students need to take out for college is insane (being more liberal on the fiscal side of things) but I would not agree that this would allow supply side economics to work. How would it? I fail to see the connection. Tell me how this is related. The rich would still get richer regardless of if there was a student loan crisis or not. The student loan crisis only further hurts working class and middle class people. It is not the sole cause of the struggling poor and middle class we see today. 5. “But any "trickling down" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it.”But a lot of poor and middle class recipients of that extra money would put it back into the economy. Even if they did use it to pay off student loans, it would still be a benefit to them because they would have less debt to worry about. The poor and middle class have been forgotten in this day and age, and any little bit of money you give them will make their lives better, even if it’s by a bit. I consider paying off student loans putting the money back into the economy. It’s not like it’s sitting there under one’s mattress. A lot of people who are poor and middle class don’t have any or much of any student loans. There are older adults out there who could use that extra money. They would probably spend it. They could use it. At least there’s a good chance it will be pumped back into the economy if you give it to a poor or middle class person. It’s a lot better than giving it to a rich person who will just let it sit there. Rich people already have a lot of the things they, so why do they need to spend more? There is no “trickling down” if a rich person just keeps onto that money. 6. “They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000.”What if they don’t have student loan debt or are doing fine with their student loans? Then they could use that money to buy other things. This would create demand. If we create enough demand, a business owner would have to hire more people to keep up with the demand. Even if they did spend it on their student loan, it would be better than a rich person just keeping onto it. If they do pay off their student loan, good for them. This would further benefit the poor and middle class. If a rich person gets a large tax return, where does the money go? It typically just sits there. What part of the sector would’ve made money then? What would the economy have seen? Where is the “trickle?"More sources: 1) http://www.foreffectivegov.org... 2) http://www.pewresearch.org... 3) http://www.alternet.org...

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!

This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. To quickly recap They needed to prove that the 115th congress would pass they bill and I proved its impossible for the 115th Congress to do so.

financial stress is part of university life The argument opposite seems to centre around two principal points, the first being that it is fun to be in debt. I don't think anyone except a masochist would agree with that. The second point they seem to be making is that debt teaches self-sufficiency. Which is fair enough, only university fees are so large that they cripple students financially for much of the early part of their working life. There is a difference between undergoing minor hardship to teach carefulness with money and being saddled with crippling debt for years.

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's "forgiveness" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.

Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay It wouldn't be necessary for them to do this if the world economy didn't discriminate against poorer, relatively under-developed countries in the way that it does. We should drop third world loans and instead offer non-repayable support, meanwhile working to make the global economic system fairer for everyone.

college tuition too expensive Your statement saying that everyone should receive an equal opportunity to a adequate education is very true. However I believe the government and states are doing there best for what they got. Loans and other programs to get student to high end schools would just the nation in more debt. Again like before we as a nation are in debt and it would be a difficult task for the government to make it "EASY" for people to get the education they want. The government does have the lower class in their best interest seeing how the Pell grant program has not been cut, despite being one of the top contributors to our debt. The middle class are in a tough situation since it is hard for them to get the finical aid that the lower class gets. College tutition is too expensive but it is just a reflection upon the debt of the nation.

Free college education Student loans are a problem is society. They leave people in debt and it is almost impossible to afford college without loans and not be struggling to pay it off. Student loan rates have only been increasing and putting more people into debt. Take this fact for example from ProCon.org: "Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without. [35] In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). [38] Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the "transition to adulthood" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. [39" Student loans hold people back. And free college is possible. It is very likely in the near future we can have free college. "The Atlantic.com published an article in Jan 2014 that claimed the federal government would only have to spend "a mere $62.6 billion dollars" to make tuition at public colleges free for undergraduates in 2012." Sources used: http://college-education.procon.org... http://www.collegerank.net...

Free University Education "But that is the reason we have student loans! If one gets a university place, they will almost certainly get a student loan. This means that there is no immediate financial barrier to going to university. No matter if someone is living in poverty, they will be able to go to university because of student loans. Therefore, the statement that free university education is needed to make it available and accessible to all is just not true." "No immediate financial barrier" does not mean "no financial barrier." Many sensible people aren't going to throw themselves tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for college, and, due to these risks, won't go to college. If someone gave you a choice between getting one punch in the face, or some Tylenol and two punches in the face after you took it, you might very reasonably choose one punch in the face. The same principle applies. You may very well make up the money for the student loan eventually, but until that time it can be a very crippling long-term financial burden that can severely limit one's choices in life. Many people cannot take this risk, and so are therefore unable to go to college. Adding to this point, when risk is removed from the situation, people may be more bold in courses and careers that they choose to take, which could lead to the filling of high-demand jobs that require tertiary education, such as nurses or web designers. This gives back to society as a whole, further compounding on the reasons why this benefits the public and is worthy of tax dollars. My opponent continues to insist that people with degrees will refuse to work out of their degree area. I highly doubt, especially with the student loans that my opponent advocates, that graduates would rather sink into unemployment than, probably temporarily, get a disagreeable job. My opponent uses the U.K. as a representation of the world, even though it accounts for less than 1% of the world's population. My opponent's main point seems to be that we don't want more college students. As stated above, he uses numbers exclusively from the U.K. I could attempt to prove him incorrect within the U.K. specifically, but, as aforementioned, the U.K. is not representative of the world or even the West as a whole. Unless more applicable data is provided, I will assume that the provided data and the directly corresponding arguments are not valid. This allows me to move to more cerebral aspects of why we want more people in college than my opponent seems to think that there should be. For example, my opponent says that "Furthermore, those who choose not to go to university are not necessarily less intelligent, educated or well-informed than those who do go to university, as real-world experience often develops wisdom in a more beneficial way than theoretical education does." I absolutely, totally agree with this point. However, this entire claim is completely dependent on the word "necessarily." Of course people can educate themselves to a level equal to or even higher than that of college education. However, this is not by any means the norm, especially outside of isolated fields. If people normally educated themselves more than schooling did, there would be no schooling. "If a graduate doesn't take a graduate job, then the "27000 cost of a university course is essentially wasted." Even if college had no career benefits (it does, this is hypothetical) it has benefits outside of careers. People who go to college are exposed to more viewpoints and people and ideas than are most other people, and are given the skills to think critically. Reasons such as these are why people are taught seemingly inapplicable subjects in school such as history and art and philosophy and literature: they make us better people. Going to school is not all about getting a job. It is a big part of it, yes, but not the whole thing. A citizen going to vote who has been educated on history and consequences will be able to make a better decision than someone who hasn't been. Someone who has discussed altruism in a classroom setting may be more charitable than others. Someone who has been educated in art could make someone's day by articulately comparing their visage to Nascita di Venere. Someone who has read The Catcher in the Rye may have the drive to reach out to an antisocial or depressed person and help them. Education helps us in the business world, certainly, but it does so, so much more for us. The Civil Rights Movement, anti-war movements, and other vehicles of social progression all have their roots on college campuses. Tax dollars pay for things that are much more ridiculous than this. We could raise taxes just a little and provide not only equal career opportunity for all, but make people to be better. They might not get this chance otherwise, due to the heavy financial burden that they would undertake in doing so. To quote the French philosopher Emmanuel Jaffelin, "Let us remember that in Greek, the word 'School' ('skhol') means neither client nor debt, but 'leisure.'"(1) 1-http://sedulia.blogs.com...

College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. "Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.

University education is an investment. But the government does benefit from people going to University. People who go to University will earn more and therefore they will pay more tax. It is in the government’s interests to pay for people to go to university. They should see it as their investment, not ours. Regardless of whether the loans are available or not, people do see the finances as a hindrance to their education. Many will think that their family cannot support themselves and so they need to earn money to keep their family afloat. If the Government made education free, then these people would be enabled to go to university and they will be able to get educated. Surely an educated nation is in the government’s benefit as well? Therefore, the investment yields a greater return for them on their capital. And quite aside from the national benefits of an educated population, there are absolutely no guarantees of future profits comparable to the outrageous tuition costs of some universities (particularly in the US). President Obama paid back his student loans only after becoming a US Senator and publishing a best-selling book [[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/]]. How many far less successful and wealthy alumni are saddled with a comparable debt? Income is never guaranteed, while interest on student loans is guaranteed to accumulate.

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.

Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...

The recession is torturing students enough. Students were easily one of the best off during the recession, which has now after all ended. They don't pay tax and are given a steady reliable income. Graduates have been hit in the same way as everyone else looking for a job, but graduates are by definition no longer students. taking a bit longer to pay back their loans does not affect studetnts until after university, and then only marginally.

No debt Student Finance loans that are used to fund students during their university education should not be viewed as 'debt' in the conventional sense. Since 2010 in the United Kingdom tuition fees rose to £9,000 per academic year, equalling a grand total for your typical undergraduate degree £27,000 for tuition alone. This is not counting accommodation and living expenses which should increase your overall borrowing up to £40,000 or more. Those are some rough figures, which if you are applying for university make for some very difficult reading, however, there is a misunderstanding amongst the public and that in 30 years time, all the money you borrowed will be wiped clean. If you borrowed £40,000 from your nearest bank, then they would certainly slap interest on it and it would not certainly be cleared after an extended period of time. You also only start paying the loan back in small instalments if you start earning £21,000 per year, with monthly payments of about £20. If you are lucky enough to be earning £21,000 a year, even £20 a week wouldn't be much loss considering you probably used your degree to get the high paying job in the first place. If you are not so fortunate and you are in a low paying job paying you under £21,000 a year then you pay back nothing. That is right folks, you pay back nothing. Zero. The notion that you will be forever paying off your 'debt' is a weak argument once faced with the actual facts. This enables students to find say part time work during their three years of study to save up for a gap year of travelling, fun and adventures. You wont be followed by 'men in black' driving white vans with a Student Finance recovery logo on the side...

This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. They needed to prove that the 115th congress would pass they bill and I proved its impossible for the 115th Congress to do so.

The recession is torturing students enough. Students, along with everyone else, are suffering because of the recession meaning it is a lot more difficult for them to find jobs and careers and to live daily life without struggling financially. The last thing they need is to find out they will have to start paying more for their studies too, at a time when every penny counts. The recession is torturing the students enough without this added dilemma.

Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns £10,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business £100,000.

It is well known that the ‘education’ is often only a small part of the university experience. It is well known that the ‘education’ is often only a small part of the university experience. Students spend far too much time and money drinking, partying and wasting time. Even if there is an argument for funding higher education itself (which we doubt) then it is very hard to justify why low income workers should pay taxes to support the ‘student lifesyle’ of people who attend universities. As long as students don’t pay, or understand, the full cost of their tuition, they are more likely to take it for granted and be wasteful as they currently do.

College Textbooks Those elements do not make student's life easier. They will make their life harder because when they graduate they are accountable for all of the loans that will have to be paid back, including textbooks that have been paid or rented by credit card. Colleges should be around to give an education that adults can create a life and career out of. Textbook prices are one less thing to worry about for the struggling student that may not have a job when he/she graduates but plenty of loans.

A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest "student loans" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.

College should be entirely government funded. I understand the crime rate issue but you have to take into account that many students who currently receive financial aid only show up to get their book checks at the beginning of the semester and during the middle. Not everyone is cut out for school. Some students are in debt sometimes not cause they wanted to go to college but had no choice but because their relatives wanted them to go.

Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor I feel like this has been a discussion about student loans more so than Reaganomics. Both of us seem to agree that student loan debt is a big problem. But, where we disagree is supply side economics. What I’ve been trying to say is that more often than not, money given to poor and middle class people will be put back into the economy. Those who are defaulting on their student loans are a minority (although a noticeable one). Most of them would spend the money on something else since they are already paying off their student loans. If you give that money to a rich person, that money will just sit there and not be pumped back into the economy. The GOP claims that their platform will create jobs and opportunities for all. However, in reality, all it does is enrich the already rich. Look at all their corporate donors (I realize that Democrats have them too). Is it a surprise that they are trying to make them richer? You would expect them to serve those who are funding their campaigns first. If rich people are donating tons of money to their campaigns, then they are going to serve the interests of the rich. That’s why the GOP continues Reaganomics. Do you seriously believe that they are going to look out for the average person before their campaign donors? The Republican Party is the party of the rich. A lot of what you see promoting Reaganomics is corporate propaganda. The myth that wealth “trickles down” has been debunked so many times. Why doesn’t it work? I feel like I can’t say this enough, but it fails because the more wealth that goes to the top (and stays there), the less wealth that’s available for the middle class so less demand is created. This actually harms job growth, and this makes sense given studies done on it. Please, tell me how fixing the student loan problem will enable supply side economics to work. I’m still waiting for an answer. Wouldn’t that wealth just stay at the top? Why would the rich spend it if the poor and middle class aren’t burdened by student loans? I don’t get it. So, when can we expect to see a “trickle?” If the poor and middle class are supposed to benefit from supply side economics, then when will that happen? Why hasn’t it happened now? You’re telling me that supply side economics is supposed to benefit the economy as a whole. That hasn’t happened yet. The rich just pocket that extra money and don’t spend it because they don’t need to. What creates jobs is demand, and that’s how we benefit the economy as a whole. Cutting taxes on the rich decreases demand due to an increase in wealth inequality. Give it to people that would actually need it and you would see it pumped back into the economy. You’ve been arguing that this won’t happen because many are burdened by student loans. Although a noticeable minority is drowning in their student loan debt, many people would still be able to pump it back into the economy because they would need to spend it on other things. Most graduates do end up finding a job and paying off their student loans in a timely manner.I know that I intended this round to be a conclusion of our overall arguments, but I feel like I would just be repeating what I’ve said before. So, I’m going to do some more rebuttals. 1. “Exactly. So any "trickle down" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless.” But, as I’ve told you, a lot of people are already paying off their student loans in a timely manner, so if they were given extra money they would probably spend it on something else. There are also quite a bit of poor and middle class people that don’t even have student loans to pay back (either because they never got them or already paid them off). So, a lot of that money would actually be pumped back into the economy. Don’t you think that student loans are a separate problem? If we elect someone like Bernie Sanders, maybe something will be done about the problem of sky high college costs. I would agree that college costs are out of control these days and that we must do something. High college costs further burden the poor and middle class. But, look at what Reaganomics has done to them. Wealth inequality and the national debt have exploded. GDP growth is said to have been slowed down. Like I’ve been saying, if you give a rich person money, he or she won’t have the urge to go out and spend it. Why? Because he or she will not need to. So, you won’t see a trickle giving the money to the rich people, so why do it? At least giving money to poor and middle class people actually help them. They need it given the conditions of the economy today. 2. “If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500.” What if that person is working on paying off the student loan debt? The government doesn’t just take any money they acquire to pay off the student loan if they are already paying on it. If one defaults on the loan, then that could happen. Although a considerable number of people are burdened by student loans and may never pay them off, a lot of people are successfully paying them off. Remember that most people who graduate college do end up getting jobs. Those that do get jobs and pay off student loans are pumping that money back into the economy. 3. “How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference.” So, aren’t you admitting that giving money to poor and middle class people does go back into the economy (assuming they aren’t drowning in debt)? Then why not fix the student loan problem and give them more money? Or, at the very least, why not give them more money? It would help them and in many cases it would go back into the economy. More often than not it would be put back into the economy. It’s better than giving it to a rich person as it will not be pumped back into the economy. This wasn’t intended to be an argument about student loans. It was intended to be an argument about Reaganomics. What I’m trying to say is that when you give more money to the rich, it doesn’t get invested back into the economy, so what is the point? To make them even richer? Isn’t wealth inequality high enough these days? 4. “This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can’t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They’re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels.” It does but remember we are debating Reaganomics, not student loans. If a graduate is paying off his or her student loans, don’t you think that he or she could use some extra money? Don’t you think that he or she would pump it back into the economy by saving up for a mortgage, car, or whatever? Wouldn’t that money be pumped back into the economy? Remember that most graduates are paying off their student loans, so any money would be beneficial. 5. "Trickle down" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. But that new wealth at the top doesn’t circulate throughout the market. It just stays concentrated at the top. Look at the increase in wealth inequality since the 1980s. You will see that the rich just continue to get richer. All that money that they are keeping is not helping the economy as a whole. Why? Because the rich don’t pump that money back into the economy. They have no need to. Do you see the connection? 6. “In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history.” But that prosperity went to those at the top. Average Americans did not get a huge share of all the prosperity that was created. Look at how that economic boon ended. It ended in a crash caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. Millions lost their jobs and homes. So, was all the economic growth for those at the top worth it considering it ended up being a disaster for the poor and middle class in the end? Sources: 1.http://www.forbes.com... 2.http://fortune.com... 3.http://www.examiner.com... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://michiganradio.org...

Yummy debtors for lunch. The professor is only eating off the salary paid to him by the college. The U.S. Department of Education is actually eating off your Indebtedness. The next question you need to ask is "do I really owe a debt"? Is there even a debt to begin with? The college loan in brought into existence by your signature on a promissory note, which springs the money into fruition, which pays the school right away. Then the U.S. department of Education then demands that you pay them, with interest from money that they never in fact gave you to begin with. What's your next step? Challenge the validity of the debt. See if there is actually a bilateral contractual obligation that requires you to pay the debt. See, I laugh at all these Bernie Sanders supporters that demand that we have free college. If they understood how our entire phony fiat currency system works, then they might learn that college is already free in a sense. Not to mention all the grant money, pell grant and everything else that the government already subsidizes. We don't need Bernie's socialist plans to further enslave us all. I would put references, but that was all just off the top of my head. If I get an intelligent response to this, then I might be forced to do a tiny bit of research.

Student Loan Debt I am interested in the topic at hand. I wish to debate it only for an exchange of opinion so in the end I can come to a conclusion based upon rationality. Con's Contentions; Parents should be forced to contribute at least an average of $24,000 a year for 4 years towards their child's higher education needs, This would be per child. I understand there are a lot of scenario's as to why a child may not receive money towards a higher education. The child is then left with a couple options, military, scholarships if they do well in school or they can choose to go to a community college if they choose to obtain a higher level of education. My arguments are debated below. Argument; 1. ) The average adult begins their college education at the age of 18 or 19, this is generally some time after the completion of high school. If a parent saves $5,400 per year for 18 years, they would accumulate $97,200. This would be sufficient to pay for the average higher education fee of about $24,000 per year, $96,000 for 4 years. -Let us use a fictional character named Jimmy. Jimmy works a construction job full time (40 hrs a week) making $13.00 an hour. Jimmy is a single dad who resides in California. He then decides that he would like to adopt a child, he knows that he will have to contribute $5,400 a year to their child's higher education. Jimmy's annual salary is $24,960. When I had lived in California my rent for a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house was $700, utilities usually would be $300. So we will go on to assume that Jimmy pays $1,000 a month for housing. This then leaves Jimmy with $7,560 a year. Between my wife and I, we consume $400 a month on food. Annual rate is $4,800, we will assume Jimmy uses the same amount on himself and his child. This leaves Jimmy with $2,760 a year. A. ) "The median household income in the United States is $46,326. Here in California people have a hard time understanding that yes, 50 percent of our population live on $46,000 or less a year. Dual earner households have a higher median income at $67,348. " It is apparent that some one making a below average income is capable of paying for their child's higher education. Now you ask your self, why would any one want to work their butt off only to pay for some one elses well being? The answer is essentially an opinion, maybe the joys of having a child supersedes their will to own all the cool "Knick Knacks". 2. ) What would this do for our families, our society, and our nation as a whole? If Jimmy's parents had paid for his education. Jimmy would not have student loan debt, Jimmy then could pay for his child's education so on and so forth. B. ) The average student amasses over $20,000 in student debt toward their first degree. This being true the $96,000 Jimmy had saved for his child to go to school would eliminate this debt. I am no expert in this field, but wouldn't eliminate student debt keep money flowing in the economy & essentially keep it growing? Not only that but Americans would not have to fear living a life in debt. 3. ) C. ) Let us take a look at our national debt; $13,736,959,182,346.04 (13 Trillion) "The estimated population of the United States is 309,464,240 so each citizen's share of this debt is $44,389.49. " After looking at these statistics & reviewing the average students debt after a higher education, its apparent that student debt is a large contributing factor to this nations overall debt. What If your parents do not want to pay for your education? It is called scholarships, work hard & be rewarded. Military, serve your country and you will reek the benefits of the GI Bill. 4. ) Finally let us take a look at the fact that different levels of education will cost various amounts. Those that require much more money than an average higher education should be allowed to take student loans. This is as long as they are on track to graduate, and their profession should allow them to pay back their loans quickly & offer the society much more. For example; Doctors. 5. ) Why not just let families decide if they would like to pay for their child's education? My rebuttal is this, Human beings are selfish. Maybe selfish is an inadequate word to portray my thoughts. But essentially humans want all the cool things without the baggage. We want to own a BMW, A Lexus, a brand new Ford F350, pop out 8 kids while we eat Applebees every night. My point is humans live outside their means. They end up straining our society by contributing little to nothing. If we didn't make it mandatory for them to contribute the $5,400 a year they wouldn't. Make our nation stronger & smarter by contributing to education. If your child chooses not to obtain a higher level of learning then you now have $96,000 eliminating any other debt you may have obtained. 6. ) Families should pay different amounts based on household income. I realize that making a individual pay $5,400 on a $24,000 is unreasonable. The lack of money could lead to more crime in our society. In this scenario the family should only be charged $1,500 so on & so forth. If you fall under $18,000 a year you should be exempt from fees. Conclusion; Again I would like to thank the Pro for taking this debate. I am interested in the response. For Pro to win this debate I would like him/her come up with logical and rational reasons why my argument is unreasonable. Resources; A. ) . http://www.mybudget360.com... B. ) . http://www.visualeconomics.com... C. ) . http://www.brillig.com...

This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. There are a few problems that the Pro presents The first is the use of the word "Would" Would is defined as the following used in auxiliary function to express probability or presumption in past or present time "would have won if I had not tripped" That is defined by merriam-webster This means that the Pro is stating that 115th congress will not should pass a policy Next is the use of the phrase "this house" Here are some problems with that First is the fact that it is literally impossible the 115th congress is not in session and when Congress reconvenes it will be after January 3rd this means that it will be the 116th congress in session. The House writes on December 20, 2018 https://www. House. Gov/legislative-activity A new Congress begins at noon January 3 of each odd-numbered year following a general election, Unless it designates a different day by law. A Congress lasts for two years, With each year constituting a separate session. A congressional calendar is an agenda or list of business awaiting possible action by the House or Senate. Second is that even if there was an emergency session of congress the current house has no wish to reduce student debt empirics" show Newsrepublic in August of this year writes Nearly everything DeVos has done inside the Education Department has shown indifference (if not worse) for college students, Particularly those most likely to struggle with debt. While Trump"s budgets incorporate his income-based repayment concept, DeVos last year proposed canceling the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, The most generous income-based repayment that the government offers, Which forgives payments after 10 years for those who choose public-sector careers like law enforcement, Social work, Teaching, Or legal defense. This means that the 115th congress will not do anything in concerns with education policy You are going to voting against the Pro because of the Errors they have made policy making requires one to be precise with words and the Pro"s proposed policy has to many holes. To recap The first is that when the pro uses the word would instead of should it means we are now debating about whether or not the bill will pass not should it The second is that when the Pro used the phase "This House" that means we are talking about the current congress which is the 115th however they are not currently in session and unless there is an emergency the next time congress convenes it will be the 116th congress not the 115th congress and like I said before when the Pro uses the word would all I have to prove is that the 115th congress won't pass the policy I do that in two ways 1. Its actually impossible no bill can be passed before January 3rd and by that time according to law it will be the 116th congress 2. Even if there is an emergency session of congress the newsweek evidence proves that no education policy will pass a republican controlled congress

Governemt Should Intervene to Lower College Costs Here, I will attempt to prove that college costs are rising faster than the public can afford, and there is no forseeable decline, which necessitates government intervention. Con will attempt to prove that college costs are acceptable on their current path. Because of this, BoP is shared. I. Rapid Increase in College Costs and Student Debt The cost to go to college is becoming insurmountably large in the modern era, and is still increasing. College tuition is inflating almost twice as fast as the rate of baseline inflation in the economy[2]! What this amounts to is college tuition is rising far faster than purchasing power per capita (PPP) is increasing, saddling both students and their families with more debt after college. College costs, historically, have gone up about twice the rate of inflation each year, amount to approximately an 8% tuition inflation rate per annum, while GDP per capita (PPP) historically increases approximately 5% a year. This means that college costs double every nine years[2], while GDP per capita (PPP) has only gone up by approximately 25% since 2003, and this rate has also been historically constant[4]. Family incomes, meanwhile, increase on average by only 1% a year. With this wide disparity in increases, it would be foolish to suggest anything other than that debt among US students will continue to increase, saddling the "new competitors" of our globalized economy with more they will have to worry about, and more they will have to pay for. In fact, the average (this does not account any graduate programs the student might wish to partake in, nor does it take into account debt taken on by the parents of the student) debt after college was over $25,000 in 2010, over 5% higher than the average debt of 2009[3]. Of 1,100 schools surveyed under the Project on Student Debt study, 98 (9%) said that their students were graduating on average with $35,000 of debt[3]. However, as these numbers were voluntarily reported by the collleges themselves, the numbers have the potential to be significantly higher, and they will be significantly higher as college tuition continues to skyrocket and average GDP per capita (PPP) and family income remains growing slow and steadily[5][6]. II. Lack of Free Market Forces Normally Associated with Reducing Costs and Making Services More Affordable "Top institutions have chosen to maintain and increase quality largely by spending more, not by increasing efficiency, reducing costs, or reallocating funds"[1]. Normally, when business compete to gain a greater share of the market and attract more customers, they try to put out better products and reduce the cost of business, to make their products as cheap and attractive as possible to the consumer. However, as this quotation shows, colleges and universities are not doing this. In their drive to increase quality, they have thrown cost considerations out the window. Frankly, there is no incentive to do this for most colleges. Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, Rice, Johns Hopkins and many, many others will all have students apply to them, as it is becoming increasingly apparent a college education is necessary for survival in today's hypercompetitive economy (this will be further looked into next section). With this guarantee that they will receive business no matter what, the only thing colleges need to do to compete is increase the quality of their facilities. However, while this is all well and good, it costs money, money which is then dumped onto the backs of students in the form of additional tuition. Now, one might argue that this sort of competition is only for schools like the Ivys, and that less-well-known schools would be working on lowering costs to appear more attractive. Not so. On average, Ivy League schools have in increase in tuition per annum lower than the average tuition rate per annum of all colleges[7][8]. In reality, those lesser-known colleges are increasing their quality faster than the well-endowed Ivys to catch up to them, and they do not have the high level of endowments the Ivys are typically associated with. So here we have it; the high-level colleges and universities are incredibly costly already, and smaller schools are fast reaching that level of costliness. There are no free market forces going, "Wait, stop! This is too much! "; those students who wish to pursue a higher-level career cannot choose to not go to college, and as such there is no possibility of not buying the product as it is an absolute necessity. In fact, the free market forces present are driving the cost upwards; when cost is irrelevant as it is to the institutions of higher learning, quality is all that matters, further pushing the price upwards[1]. Meanwhile, the federal government, while it has the potential to be a positive force, has been a negative one. As the government has pressured universities to cut indirect costs rather than making advancements in efficiency, the price of research has skyrocketed, which has been dumped on tuition[1]. All of these factors are contributing to making the cost of higher learning skyrocket at a time when it is necessary more than ever. III. Necessity of a College Education Nowadays more than ever, a college education is a necessity. Beyond the well-cited benefits of even a bachelor's degree (between $250,000 and $500,000[10]) vs a high school diploma, there are vast social benefits, garnered by all of society, that result from students graduating college. When access to higher education was easier, a healthy middle class and US economic dominance resulted, long past the time when Europe and Asia recovered from World War II[11]. However, as student debt has soared, income disparity and a shrinking middle class have been the result[9]. Competition from Europe and Asia has increased, and while much of this can be attributed to growing Chinese economic might, at least some of it must be attributed to a more costly education system. Additionally, college grads are less likely to commit crimes, live longer, healthier lives, and make more informed political decisions, on average[12]. All of these things benefit not only the graduate, but society as a whole. Thus, it is more important now than ever to go to college, but as has been shown, college costs and student debt are increasing rapidly, putting a strain on students, their families, and society as a whole. IV. ConclusionsWith students, on average, coming out of college with $25,000 of debt (an article in the Wall Street Journal recently said that the total amount of education-related debt still circulated has surpassed $1T) and college and university tuition rising faster than family incomes and GDP per capita (PPP), the current education system is becoming too expensive to bear. At a time when a college education is being needed most, it is becoming harder and harder to get. Without normal free market forces available to drive prices down, the federal and state governments must take a hand. I propose state and federal governments act to best lower costs. Their hand should be minimal, but government monetary aid of some sort will be necessary to curtial these rising costs. It is also important to remember that this expenditure would be investment rather than another government program with no return in sight. Your turn, Mr. Franklin. Sources will be posted in the comments, as I do not have room here.

financial stress is part of university life As much as students may moan about the mounting costs of education, what being a paying student provides is a sense of pleasure. Students will often congregate to talk about their financial worries. Some may form protest groups. However, as much as they complain about it,they find a certain satisfaction in being in such a predicament. It is almost a form of pleasure to see the loan accumulate. What it provides them with ultimately is a sense of self sufficiency which they would not6 get if University education was free.

Ending Education Subsidies I have 3 opening contentions to make which I listed below. If the contentions are true, then the conclusion is true as well. After that, I will refute my opponent's round 1 arguments.1) College is absolutely required for the vast majority of people who want to be successful. 2) The majority of people cannot afford to attend college unless subsidized loans are given. 3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill this need. Conclusion: Therefore, subsidies are required. OPENING CONTENTIONSC1) College is required for successIt is a well-known fact that college graduates earn a lot more money than high-school graduates. According to the U. S. Census Bereau, high school graduates make approximately $28,000 a year while college graduates make approximately $51,000 a year, nearly twice as much [3]. There are of course exceptions but for the vast majority of people, going to college has a positive effect on their earnings potential. Now, the ideal scenario in this case would be for everyone to go to college since for the majority, college is required in order to be successful. C2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsAccording to the US Department of Education, 2/3 of undergraduate students recieved financial aid [4]. This shows that the majority of students cannot afford the cost of college and require loans and financial aid in order to attend college. A student who just graduated from high-school will barely have enough money to afford college. Therefore, they must seek it from elsewhere. The options they have would be to either get federal aid, or have their parents finance their education. Most American families are unable to afford the huge amount of money required for college. According to the College board, it costs $105,000 for a 4 year degree in a private university and $7020 in a public university [5]. However, this is just the tuition fees. Students often have other living expenses. For instance, the total cost of 1 year at UC Berkeley is $32,000 if you live in a residence hall [6] or $120,000 for 4 years with all expenses included. Such staggering amounts are difficult to procure without subsidies. C3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needThe primary problem with unsubsidized loans is that they charge interest from the time the money is first disbursed until it is paid in full. The interest is capitalized, meaning that you pay interest on any interest that has already accrued. One way to minimize how much interest accrues is to pay the interest as it accumulates [7]. Now a full-time college student cannot afford to pay interest on their loans since they will be busy with class and have living expenses, the need to buy textbooks, etc. With an unsubsidized loan, they are paying interest on money right from the minute they get the loan. If they do not immediately get a job right after graduating, it will snowball into a huge amount of money that is difficult to pay off. This severely discourages students from going to college. Since college is highly beneficial, it must be encouraged and the government must do what it can to increase the number of students going to college. This can be achieved by subsidizing education. Conclusion: Subsidies are needed. REBUTTALS R1) Human CapitalPro's argument here is that the knowledge learned in college does not translate to higher productivity. He specifically singles out Sociology as an example but I am assuming he is talking about Humanities in general. In any case, let's go with Sociology. Sociology is the study of people and how we interact with each other [1]. A degree in sociology helps students have a better understanding of human relationships. This helps them in a wide variety of careers that involve social interaction such as social workers, community affairs workers, consellors, and teachers [2]. My opponent cites studies to show that learning is highly specific. He claims that the studies show that learning algebra won't help you at a job that has nothing to do with Math. In essence, my opponent is arguing against general education requirements. The key here is that general education (breadth) requirements exist to give students knowledge of the topics at hand as opposed to prepare them to work in that particular field. A college student taking a sociology degree might have to take a math class. While his Sociology class might help at a future job, the Math class might not. However, breadth classes often have skills that are basic enough that they can be applied across various fields. Students also have a lot of choice in which classes they want to take. Pro's studies show that skills aren't transferable. But he is operating under the assumption that colleges claim that teach people how to think. Since I haven't made that argument and am arguing instead that classes in a student's major are actually useful, the studies have limited value. Pro's studies are pre-emptive to arguments that I did not make and are therefore irrelevant. R2) SignallingPro says that the reason college graduates earn more is that college is a signal, and it signals that the graduate has qualities that the employer is looking for. Of course I won't argue with the point that a college degree is a signal. My argument is that college is not just a signal, but much more that that; because it offers many other skills that can be used in the real world such as the ones I mentioned in R1 regarding sociology. My opponent says that people that go to college tend to be smarter and harder-working than those that don’t. However, he offers no evidence to prove this point. It is just as likely that people who go to college are smarter and harder working because they go to college and have learned to take on the load of a college degree, participate in extra-curicular activities, and meet deadlines. R3) Useful Education Pro says that degrees that are useful need not be subsidized. However, there are many degrees like Sociology which are useful and pay a lot more than what high school grads are paid but may not be enough to cover the cost of unsubsidized loans. Pro divides the categories into "useful" and "not useful" but it is not a dichotomy. There is a wide range of usefullness to a college degree, from just a little more financially beneficial than high school to many times as much depending on the degree, and the student in question. So, a sociology major might earn a lot more by going to college but it may not be enough to cover unsubsidized loans. Sources[1] . http://sociology.uoregon.edu...[2] . http://www.soc.cornell.edu...[3] . http://howtoedu.org...[4] . http://nces.ed.gov...[5] . http://www.collegesurfing.com...[6] . http://students.berkeley.edu...[7] . http://www.csus.edu...

This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Your voting Con They needed to prove that the 115th congress would pass they bill and I proved its impossible for the 115th Congress to do so. The pro never does

Higher Education ought to be private and indiviuals ought to pay for it themselves. 1. Collapse in Germany Improvement of the German economy could be threatened by long-term lack of professionals, especially engineers, showed a study published in the Institute for the German economy. They specified that in the technology companies (from which export depends, therefore improvement of the economy) in July 2010 were missing 36,800 engineers. They said that part of the problem could be solved by "importing" experts. Estimates are that this shortage in the coming months could increase. The problem is more serious if it is known that in the Germany are the lack of students who opt for technical education, which could jeopardize long-German position on the world market. 'The situation with youth is particularly bad in the high-tech industries such as machinery, automobile and chemical industries, which are carriers of the German economic take-off', according in Institute. Per thousand employed engineers comes just 35 graduates. Therefore they are looking for experts from abroad. Economy Minister advises companies to offer a cash award to entice skilled experts from abroad. http://www.automobil-industrie.vogel.de... http://www.onejournal.de... 2. There is always job for those who wants to work I will quote PRO:'For example, a surplus in medical professions might cause a hospital less likely to invest in technology or medical supplies, or other companies might be less likely to invest in technology. (Ex: Software that cause solve mathematical problems, simulators, etc.)' Rebuttal: Every hospital and medical centre (which are financed by state) have constant sum of money for medical research, and that money could not be used for paying workers. So surplus will not affect investing in technology etc. Also, nowhere in the world exist company which will employ more workers than its needed and more workers than can be payed. So there is no dangerous for reduced investments. 3. A loan from bank I'm very interested in this system of loaning and later return, I really don't know how it works for 'educational loan' because that not exist in my country. I saw what PRO said in second round, but I still don't understand some things. Here, when you want to get a loan from a bank you have to mortgage something or to have constant work and payments , and someone still needs to guarantee for you as endorser. What one student can mortgage? What happens if he/she finish University and not get a job? What happens if he/she decide to stop studying? What happens if female stay pregnant? Will bank wait forever? 4. Everyone should have the opportunity Everyone should have opportunity to go to University. Knowledge is not a commodity. Education is not for sale. Of course that rich people have some extra benefits, they can choose between Private and free University, but most important thing is that those who don't have money can be educated. What happens if you don't have free University? A lot of talented people can not go to University because they don't have money! Sad... Education is one of the most important things in people's lives. Every men are born equal and everyone deserve opportunity for better life!

A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable A graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.

Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Here's the rules: This debate will follow a loose Lincoln-Douglas style format. Round 1: each opponent will give a small introduction, a display of definitions, and the two or three grounds upon which each argument is based. Round 2: each side will elaborate fully upon their argument. Round 3: refutations will be given to both initial arguments. Round 4: arguments will be defended against refutations. Round 5: small refutation of round 4 and conclusion. Please participate, but only if you are willing to strictly follow this format. This format is designed to give the debate more structure, which will lead to stronger arguments, and a clearer line of persuasion. I have read too many confusing debates that get off track. Let's make this clean and professional. Also, please use quotes, and not links to resources. This will allow for a more effective refutation, and easier evaluation for those voting. Thanks, and looking forward to the debate. Resolved, that American college students should receive free education. This is a controversial view, one with strong socialistic ties, but it could perhaps be the answer to many problems American citizens have. According to Bernie Sanders, a democratic senator from Vermont, "Colleges must control costs and the federal government must provide the necessary assistance so every person in this country " regardless of income " can get a college education." He proposed on his official website that "[the government should] provide $47 billion in federal funding to incentivize states to increase investments in their public higher education systems and eliminate tuition for undergraduate students." American tuition rates are rising, and so is the national student debt. Free college for undergraduates could be just what this country needs. Definitions: College: an institution of higher learning, especially one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. Students: a person formally engaged in learning, especially one enrolled in a school or college. received: to have (something) bestowed upon or conferred. free: clear of obstructions or obstacles. education: a degree, level, or kind of schooling. American College students should receive free education because it would 1). help to relieve the terrible student debts in the country, giving young graduates the ability to persue a graduate degree and attain financial security, and 2). would encourage more Americans to attend college and better not only themselves, but society as well by doing so.

Affordable education Pro Case: -Welcome to the learning society where students are subjected to ceaseless testing, training, and learning in order to activate their "potential." The organizing principle of this society is to optimize the productivity of each student, so that they can be valuable and contributing members of a risk-filled economic system. Lewis 11 " Tyson E. Lewis, PhD. in educational philosophy from UCLA The learner is the one who is not yet complete, not yet knowledgeable, not yet skillful, not yet competent, not yet autonomous. The discourse of learning emphasizes education as an economic transaction, the learner is the consumer, who has needs. The teacher, the educator, or the educational institution is the provider there to meet the needs of the learner, and education itself becomes a commodity to be provided or delivered by the teacher or educational institution and consumed by the learner. The learning society is within a society driven by capitalist production and consumption, political life has been overcome by the eternal return of laboring life. Learning becomes an organizing principle for optimizing labor productivity, the citizen becomes first and foremost a learner within a flexible, knowledge economy that demands constant retraining or reskilling to fulfill high-tech, informationally rich jobs. We live in a situation of permanent threat, threatened with exclusion. The learner must be capable of continual adaptation to an unstable economic world where unemployment is always right around the corner. Education focuses on correcting their potentialities in order to maximize competencies and efficiencies. Potentialities within the learning society are connected to self-directed, self-managing behaviors in a form of governmentality of the self. The battery of tests which the individual undergoes help to identity, classify, train, and actualize their unrealized potential as students, workers, and citizens. Agamben"s theory of study enables us to retain our impotential, if the lesson of learning is to become a self-regulating entrepreneur then the lesson of study is to become nothing at all but rather remain within a pure capacity. -In opposition to this learning society which demands that we become good and productive students, I affirm a study of the topic. Instead of activating our "potential" we prefer the role of the studier, withdrawing from the normative pressures of the education system. This interrupts the ultimate demand of the learning society, either be productive or be abandoned. Lewis 15 Tyson E. PhD. in educational philosophy from UCLA If we think of education as oriented towards the measurability of determinate, reliable skill sets, studying suddenly appears to be a useless activity, devoid of quantifiable significance in the life of the student. Studying is a paradoxical state between education for subjectification and for desubjectification. To study is to undergo a certain inoperativity where we are exposed to all its thoughts possibilities and yet are undestined to any one or any set of them. The underlying normative pressures on the studier to project into certain possibilities relation to certain ends are deferred, delayed, and perhaps forgotten. Studying suspends in order to open up new uses within the present. This zone is a real educational state of exception that is issued from below and as such is a challenge to any form of sovereign decision over and against life. The offence here is not one of making overt demands on or against the sovereign but rather is one of studying the law which, renders it inoperative and studying does not directly confront the power of the sovereign. The most threatening gesture to the power of the law is that which is most polite, most inconspicuous, most inoffensive. Without a will to battle against, sovereignty quietly retreats from the scene, ashamed of its own powers. The studious life is a blight on the order of things that quietly prefers not to submit to improve, perfect, and so on. To further disengage the figure of the student from the docile consumer is an activity of sabotage and refusal of the dominant form of capitalist production today: governance. To struggle to study is to struggle to regain the freedom of impotentiality. "We prefer not to" does not make instrumental demands or appeals for reforms, thus frustrating any attempt on the part of the learning apparatus to negotiate. Its struggle is an immanent embodiment of a freedom to come. Contemporary society is indeed infested with the law of learning, then collective study destabilizes its fundamental injunction: either be productive or be abandoned. Pro Responses: -Earlier Education Was for the rich Education needed now, proper pedagogy necessitates focus on strategies to solve oppression "education is a starting point for demanding solutions for oppression and reordering power structures. Giroux 15 Henry A. Giroux, 3-17-2015, Truth out Education must be understood as a democratic sphere which enables students to claim their agency, and learn to respect the rights of others. Education has a responsibility to educate students to make authority accountable Democracy places civic demands upon its citizens, and such demands point to the necessity of an education that is, critical, students, rather than disengaged spectators, must be able to demand a reordering of power arrangements -Education has been depreciated Refer to the Lewis 11 card showing that the learner society has been the real cause for depreciation in the education system, putting emphasis on education as a commodity has determined "acceptable learning" which has depreciated the purpose education serves. Tenure also harms education: Tenures hurt student"s education and are ineffective, Vergara v. California proves Boutros et al, Theodore J. Jr. McRae, Marcellus A. Lipshutz, Joshua S. 2015 Vergara v. California, the Los Angeles Superior Court declared its statutes violate the fundamental right of students to education. The laws create inequalities in educational opportunities being afforded to students the court issued findings. The court found three statutes pertaining to teacher dismissal make it virtually impossible for districts to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom once they obtain tenure. Finally, poor and minority students are relegated disproportionately to classrooms with less effective teachers. These students fall further behind their peers, which exacerbates the achievement gap. -Overcrowded Labor Market STEM jobs aren"t being filled Joint Economic Committee 14 " US Senate Joint Economic Committee, STEM Education for the Innovation Economy January 2014 The increase in demand for STEM skills means that there is a shortage of workers for STEM jobs. The predicted shortage is amplified by the high concentration of baby boomers in STEM occupations. These STEM opportunities will require more education and training than they did in previous decades. Although the federal government has directed significant resources toward STEM education the US is not on track to train enough STEM-capable workers to fill future job opportunities. The economy will need approximately one million more STEM professionals than the US will produce at the current rate. The U S would need to increase the number of students receiving STEM degrees by 34 percent annually. -Not enough teachers Schools can"t attract teachers with current salaries. Eric A. Hanushek 2015 Hoover Institution, Stanford, California Doing something about teacher salaries is high on almost everybody"s reform agenda. Teacher salaries have fallen relative to salaries for other college-educated workers, schools cannot attract a sufficiently high-quality teaching force without raising salaries. The concern raised is that salaries are not giving good signals to the best teachers. This in turn is not only harming the strong teachers but also doing real damage to US society and to the economy.

federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more Hold on a minute, this argument is not over whether a university degree is a right; it"s over whether or not it should be subsidized by the government. To answer the question over why college should be subsidized, it follows as such: as education becomes more necessary, the government subsidizes it to make it easier to attend. This precedence was set in the 1840s when the government started organizing and paying for school for students who attended, because an elementary education was necessary then (and those without the means to attend would only be able to if school was subsidized). As secondary education such as high school became necessary, the government funded this too. The argument for it is that schooling would improve citizenship and produce the leadership needed for modernization (Jurgen Herbst). As a post-secondary education becomes more necessary as the nation develops further (I"ll get into that later), the government has (and will continue to) follow the precedent set. Students without the means to attend college through no fault of their own are able to attend by federal and state grant money. This allows them to both become better leaders and better citizens, as well as being able to get a decent paying job. Now to get to the issue over whether college is necessary, since you obviously want to debate that, I"ll point to the brilliant Robert B. Reich. According to his article, "Why College Is Necessary But Gets You Nowhere", he notes that ""people with college degrees continue to earn far more than people without them." College not only allows people a higher paying job, but it gives higher job security and increases the chances that a person will have the tools necessary in today"s world to succeed. I need only point to the Bureau of Labor Statistics graph on http://ygraph.com... to prove this is true. While it is true that it is not as easy as it once was to get a job with a college degree, it"s still much easier to get employment with a degree than without. Classes in college are both more condensed and more efficient than a high school education. My son is an engineer at a university, all of his classes are relevant to engineering, and he cannot get an engineering education at a trade school. Trade school and college both have their merits, but they are vastly different from each other. Some people cut out for college are not for trade school, and vice versa. The reason college is able to combat poverty is only because of government subsidy. There is a cap on the amount of loans someone is able to take without a cosigner, and if one"s parents are in poverty, there may not be a cosigner to be found. Loans are both problematic and inefficient for this purpose, as some institutions are greedy, sell a student"s debt to a collector, or change the interest rates without warning. I noticed that you"re arguing two arguments that are mutually exclusive. In the first round, you mentioned that you actually want to restrict the amount of LOANS given. This is counter to your argument in round two, where you state that college doesn"t combat poverty. By restricting loans to people only in the top bracket in their high school, you exclude people who cannot excel in high school due to issues at home. Furthermore, some people mature after high school and benefit from education then when they didn"t do so well in high school. In closing for this round, I"d like to assert that college combats poverty and increases chances to be employed over just a high school education. I point to all my sources to make this assertion. Some people may go into debt after college, but subsidies such as grants help to alleviate this problem and reduce the scale of student debt. Welfare isn"t always the most glorious option for people who are working hard to earn their money, but student welfare is very useful in making productive members of society, and this has been proven time and time again. Jurgen Herbst, The Once and Future School: Three Hundred and Fifty Years of American Secondary Education (1996) Reich, Robert B. "Why College Is Necessary But Gets You Nowhere." Why College Is Neccessary but Gets You Nowhere. N.p., 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 June 2015. College Education vs. High School Education Salary Comparison. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008. Web. 30 June 2015.

The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits First, let me show give you some definitions to you JudgeWe would like to define ‘costs’ We would like to define ‘costs’ as the tuition, textbooks, time, and the government’s money we’ll explain in depth later.The standard or Weighing Mechanism for today’s debate should be EfficiencyWe use Efficiency as a standard or weighing mechanism for today’s debate. We would like to state that colleges are good for individuals, family, and our society Judge, all of our contentions will refer to the observation that colleges are good. Please don’t let our opponents trick you into believing that we, as the Affirmative, think that colleges are bad. We chose efficiency because we think of colleges as good, but they have too high prices. Imagine college education as a stock. One buys a stock and they hope their stock will rise in value so they can sell it for a better price. You may not buy a stock that has a high price since the probability of selling the stock later for higher is very little. The same thing is with a college education. You may buy a college education if the prices are low with a better chance of gaining a well paying salary in the future but you may not if the prices are high with a chance of a low paying salary in the future. This is why we argue Efficiency.With that we have 3 main arguments. Contention 1. The Individual Staindpoint We are worried that the costs of a college education will ruin someone’s life...or rather more than one. According to the New York Times, college graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn’t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education. That isn’t even half! Obviously the cost is not worth the benefit. Carl E. Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University said to the Huffington Post that "Not every graduate program leads to a guaranteed job. You likely already have debt and you're going to incur more debt and what's it going to translate into down the road?" asked Van Horn. "While it's okay to major in cultural anthropology, understand that you may not end up as the next Margaret Mead. You may end up as the manager of a Sports Authority." This quote shows that not all graduate degrees will guarantee you a job, much less a well paying salary or a job that requires a college degree. You will most probably always be in debt. Contention 2. Government StandpointLoaning to high school graduates is all fine but this is not an efficient way to do things. This money that is going to the high school graduates’ loans but they are being wasted with all the unemployment rates of college graduates being in debt. These college graduates are unable to pay their debt. This has led to parts of the Occupy Movement. These graduates are protesting to the government and asking them if they can not pay back the loans. If you, Judge, were looking at these protesters from a government standpoint, you would see all that money being wasted in the loans for the high school graduates and taking care of the protests.“It's a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up” - startribune.com. This says that if there are government subsidies, the price grows. Since right now, we have government subsidies and that is what is bringing the costs up. Contention 3 - Societal BenefitsAs I stated in my second argument, subsidies are a waste. This money spent on subsidies could be used to improve public services including airports, roads, and the k-12 Education. Obama himself said in a recent speech that airports, roads, and bridges needed more money, according to CNS News. If we take away these subsidies, the extra money could go to there public services. Also, building and bettering airports, roads, and the k-12 system could supply more jobs, stimulating the economy, which, Judge, we all know is in very bad shape. The k-12 system especially needs some help. Only 7% of US students performs at an advanced level in math putting us behind 25 other countries. Only 32% of US students are proficient in math, placing us 32nd in the world-newsweek Aug 2011As you can see, abolishing college subsidies goes a long way.

federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more engineering is a subject that can be taught in a regular degree, as could nursing and some other fields. we dont need people from the bottom of their class in these fields. some people might not do good in high school and are late bloomers, but we can have ACT or SAT to compensate. not everyone is good at tests, but this is just life, as a far out general rule, those tests test what is needed. the degree is dilluted because so many people attend. if we stopped people from attending, nothing would change much except whether they have a dilluted degree. again we are curtailing federal spending and doing right by kids if we have trade schools for most people. if college is as cracked up as you say it is, students again should be able to pay back their loans. this takes the responsiblity off other people to pay for your own needs and is thus fairer. the only ones who would be in poverty with loans are people at the bottom of their class if we did things as you argue for.

College Textbooks The students job is to get an education. With that education he/she can can earn a degree, get a job and pay off their debts. That's what most people do after they graduate. Textbooks are also a key necessity to further learning. Students can also borrow books from friends/peers who have taken the class. There are also free readings of the books online that's always available.

Students are forcing themselves through university even when it is not right for them Not everyone should be spending their time in academic study. As well as requiring certain skills, it also requires that the personality of the student be suited to it. They must be capable of manufacturing a sustained interest in a subject, or they will not be able to drag themselves through three or more years of thinking about little else. Some people are, by nature, not that kind of person – they may think in a short-term way or simply not be curious about the world. It also requires a level of intelligence which some people simply don’t have. These people will gain very little from spending time at university. In fact, at some (typically less prestigious) universities, dropout rates can be as high as 20%, meaning students will literally gain nothing.[1] Many people are putting themselves through university despite it not being right for them. Partial blame for this lies with employers – the large number of graduates means a culture has developed among recruiters of using the presence or absence of a degree as a default filter for applicants; 78% of leading employers filter out anyone with less than a 2:1.[2] We should discourage this. By implementing this policy, we create a different and better way to measure someone’s employability. This will make employers more likely to hire these people, and allow them to follow a path through life better suited to their personality. [1] Paton, Graeme, ‘University drop-out rate soars by 13pc in a year’, The Telegraph, 29 March 2012 [2] Tims, Anna, ‘Get a third-class degree? Time to turn on the charm’, The Guardian, 11 September 2010

Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges Greetings, I congratulate Con (aka Inquisitor) for truly making an excellent speech. To be sure, Con's speech is above averaged compared to the debaters I've argued against in the past. I am honored to be a part of Con's first debate here on Debate.org. Hopefully, this is first of many debates for Con. Likewise, I have many responsibilities to fulfill, so I will be succinct in my refutation. Con provided two main arguments in defense of his/her position. I will counter them individually. I. "Student financial aid is most definitely necessary...for people less privileged or unable to pay..." The crux of Con's argument is that underprivileged students should receive federal student aid in order to afford going to the educational institution of their choice. Thus, Con argues, for-profit colleges should not be excluded. Con, please correct me if I misrepresented you. There are two problems with this argument: 1. Underprivileged students should be able to go wherever they want regardless of ability. The problem here is that it discourages prudence in favor of excess. That these student are able to go to even one college is itself a major improvement. 2. It ignores other gov't subsidized alternatives, like community college or vocational/trade school. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that people who choose not to go to college are privileged. After all, they're not the ones who will exit school with an average of $25,000 in debt and, more often than not, a worthless liberal arts degree. II. "[For-profit] colleges are more suitable for students." The crux of Con's argument is flexibility. I am forced to agree. For-profit colleges are much more lenient than their counterparts. But why? That is where things start to get sinister. I submit that for-profit colleges are more flexible than their counterparts precisely because it encourages their students to be financially inefficient and thereby maximize the college's profits. Let me elucidate this point. Students who earn the least amount of college credit per semester with graduate the latest and will spend more money at school (because of having to attending more classes). However, student who earn the most amount of college credit per semester (including CLEP tests) will graduate the soonest and will likely spend the least amount of money at school. This juxtaposition should be a self-evident truth. Now, regarding flexibility, it makes sense that for-profit colleges would not be as strict as their counterparts because allowing students to graduate slower translates into more profit for the institution. The United States should not allows this implicit exploitation. How? By removing financial aid from for-profit colleges and, thus, removing the incentive to be inefficient with one's college years. Con's argument of flexibility actually supports my position. Having refuted Con's arguments, I await Round 3.

education should be for everyone and not based on social background In the United States higher education is so expensive that only people with wealthy families or scholarships can afford going to school. If you do not have money to pay you have to borrow money from the government which will give you a huge loan which you have to pay back after university is done. It is also important to remember the cost outside the school with housing and books. This is unfair for the people who do not have the family money or the wealth that other people have. This will lead to poverty in generations because your parents will not earn enough money to go to school, therefore you will not get education and have to say yes to a lower paid job and cannot pay for your children education again. If education is free everyone can go to school if they want to and that can help form the next generation too. If will strengthen families and the society. In the countries in Europe where education is free social background does not matter. If you have money and want to spend them on education you can choose to study at private universities that cost a lot of money. We live in a society where everyone should have equal rights, therefore education should be free.

The debtor countries knew what they were signing up for when they took the loan The governments of the debtor countries knew exactly what they were signing up for when the took out the loans! Why should the loans be dropped just because they are struggling to pay? A bank wouldn't drop a customer's debt if they were unable to pay!

Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com... Shareholders’ interests are poorly protected if at all in Chapter 11-style bankruptcies. Usually, such a process will substantially reduce or even wipe out altogether the shareholders’ interest in the company (in which case they typically pass to the creditors). This is a court-backed removal of their property rights. It is not fair that the interests of the creditors or other parties should be put ahead of the interests of the shareholders in this way, especially because the shareholders like the creditors perform an important role in providing the risk capital which is necessary for businesses to function and grow.

Student's have to think how they study. Attending university is probably the biggest decision most young people make for themselves, and most think very deeply about it. Students drop out of university for many reasons – often personal or emotional. If anything, adding a huge fee to the process of starting university would just increase the pressure on students and make any problems worse. Also, it is not clear that what makes money is necessarily the same as what is ‘good for society’. Nursing is very important for example, but very poorly paid compared to ‘marketing’. Do we really want to direct people away from such important jobs? And many subjects such as art may not be profitable, but still possess great cultural value which is important in other ways.

Paying for their education gives students sovereignty and responsibility for it If students are made to pay for the tertiary education they choose to undertake it gives them a greater responsibility over their studies. This means that they will be more likely to perform academically and are less likely to do anything that will jeopardize the substantial investment they would have made into their education. In the long run this will also teach university graduates to be more responsible over things like their families and jobs. In summary, making students pay for their tuition fees will encourage academic performance, and therefore increase both the long term and short term benefits of undertaking a graduate degree

college tuition too expensive Your right, not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to afford a four year institution but that does not mean they must "do what they gotta do" and settle with an inferior junior college education. Everyone should be given an equal opportunity to receive an adequate education. However, this is not at all what happens with the financial aid process at most schools. Those students who come from wealthy backgrounds and can afford expensive tuition don't have to worry about graduating in debt, like the two-thirds of the rest of the college population. The "financially needy" students, who come from homes that don't have a stable financial situation, also don't graduate with as much debt because the financial aid they receive is very significant. Tuition, room and board, and sometimes even books is often times covered for these students. Therefore, it is the middle class students who represent the two-thirds of students who graduate with at least 24,000 dollars in debt. It is not fair to these students to have to settle with junior colleges because they also have to work and go to school to pay for there schooling at their junior college.

Free University Education Thank you Pericles :)Cost of universityMy opponent's main argument is that the cost of university disproportionately harms the poor, and hence university education isn't "generally available and equally accessible to all."But that is the reason we have student loans! If one gets a university place, they will almost certainly get a student loan. This means that there is no immediate financial barrier to going to university. No matter if someone is living in poverty, they will be able to go to university because of student loans.Therefore, the statement that free university education is needed to make it available and accessible to all is just not true.'My opponent has stated that college is for only the brightest in our society to do the most cognitively challenging jobs, such as that of a physician, lawyer, architect, etc., while himself admitting that nearly half of people (not sure where he's referring to, though) have attended/are attending/will attend college according to current rates.'I do not contradict myself, because the former is what university should be and what it was designed for, and the latter is what university has actually turned out to be.Until 1997, university was just for those who required specialist education to do the most cognitively challenging jobs, but when Tony Blair became Prime Minister in the UK, he instigated a 'student drive' that wanted 50% of young people to attend university (1).So the concept of university education being the norm is a relatively new one, and it has had negative consequences - namely regarding the over-saturation of the graduate market. There are simply too many graduates.'My opponent has stated that making college free is unfair on those who don't attend college. This is a self-disproving argument, though, as, if college were free, these people who don't attend college would be able to remedy the issue by, you guessed it, going to college. For free.'Well yes, but as I have made very clear, we do not want everyone to go to university! Only 27% of jobs require a degree, so the last thing we need to be doing is encourage everyone to go to university by subsidising it.Value of universityMy opponent argues that those who do drugs and party excessively will be filtered out of the system. I agree with this, but generally those who don't take university seriously are only kicked out at the end of the year (i.e when they fail the year), by that time two things have happened:1. £9000 has been wasted2. From the government's perspective, they have lost one year's worth of tax revenue from a person partying at university instead of working.So, although those who don't take university seriously will eventually be kicked out, it is better to have university fees so:a) They are less likely to attend a university in the first placeb) They will be less likely to waste £9000 if they have to foot the bill.'And countries where college is free generally have a higher population percentage with degrees, so obviously most people don't behave as my opponent has suggested.'The reason for that is simply that more people go to university in countries with free university - I still maintain that more people would use university as a three-year party.Benefits of university?'My opponent has stated that attending an absolutely free university that only serves to widen your options is a bad thing somehow. He seems to believe that this will decrease the size of the pool from which countries draw unskilled labor. It won't. 'Except most graduates don't think like that. If someone has spent three years extra in education, being told they will get a graduate job, they would naturally feel entitled to a graduate job and will often refuse to work in other jobs.Moreover, they would generally only want to work in a job that accords with their degree (for example, a law graduate would only want to work as a lawyer), so instead it seems that a degree actually narrows one's prospects - at least from a psychological perspective.'those who don't manage to land one will just end up doing lower-paying jobs'Even if graduates do decide to do this - if they are just going to go into low-paying jobs eventually then why shouldn't they just go straight into them after high-school? If a graduate doesn't take a graduate job, then the £27000 cost of a university course is essentially wasted.'Plus, these people with low-paying jobs will have a degree that gives them increased potential to advance their status and makes for an educated, intelligent, well-informed populace.'But if these people want to 'advance their status' then they will not be committed to doing the low-paying job they are doing now, also, if people doing low-payed jobs are always looking for a chance to get a better job, then any resembelance of stability will be lost from these industries.Furthermore, those who choose not to go to university are not necessarily less intelligent, educated or well-informed than those who do go to university, as real-world experience often develops wisdom in a more beneficial way than theoretical education does. Evidence for this is how employers generally value experience over qualifications.Universities, on the other hand, only really cater to educate someone in a specific field, instead of the holistic education that is needed for a well-functioning member of society. Moreover, the anarchism that is rife in student communities can even foster a desire to not conform to society.'My opponent says that going to college breeds a sense of entitlement, and that graduates won't want to work low-paying jobs. Some will have to, though, if, as my opponent said, there is only a set number of academic careers.'Or, as is shown by the high-levels of graduate unemployment (2), they will just resort to claiming benefits until their 'dream job' turns up.'This is true, except for people who can't afford to pay for college.'These people do not exist, because there is such a thing as a student loan.'Plus, if education is free, this whole point can be disregarded because *everyone can attend college.* They don't have to stay at a disadvantage if they don't want to.'And we definitely do not want everyone to go to college. Considering that only 27% of jobs require an associate degree, it is economic madness for a government to spend £27000 per person to be educated for a job that likely does not exist.__________________________________________________________________________________________(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(2) http://www.independent.co.uk...

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!

University education is an investment. Education of this higher level should be seen as investment, not just of time but also of money. A person who gets a University education can expect to earn more in their life time than someone with just A levels. If we stopped making excuses and put the effort in, we could all afford to go to university, even if we did have to take out personal loans and credit cards. We just have to acknowledge that the three years of living on the breadline is worth it for the future profits that the degree shall reap. Such an investment is not one that the government should have to make on our behalf. It is for our benefit, therefore we should stump the costs. The amount of students leaving university and struggling to get a graduate level job is increasing, therefore why should the government fund free university education when the amount of jobs for graduates are running low?

Balanced society. The rich should have to pay because it is the money they get, in large part, from the poor that allows them such a priveleged position. Where else would the money come from? Let us also not forget that the poor also pay taxes. If it was not so a very definite elite class would emerge, becoming virtually impenetrable for all without. The facilitation of a path to higher education for lower income students is vital to maintaining, or even creating, a more balanced society.

We should not spoon feed adults There is a huge unemployment crisis in our midst. We can not simply ignore this by claiming something along the Neanderthal lines of : every man fend for himself. As Thomas Hobbes declared and I paraphrase: Institutions bring out the civility in all of us; where civility is covering our short,mean,ugly and competitive selves with a veneer of kindness. If we forget to care; we all lose out as in Prisoners' dilemma: Nash equilibrium. We cannot let the brutish spirit that rots our very souls deny justice and humanity towards fellow human beings. We are aware of corruption/nepotism/luck/the-continuing-stable-discrepancy-between-economic-classes. We know that life isn't fair and therefore cannot stand and watch as these factors, which are no fault of the students; determine their/our fate.

The U.S. should make collegiate education free While I may disagree on most all of your points, I must applaud you for your effort. Thank you for not forfeiting, and proving to be a good opponent to go against. Once again, may the best debater win. Addressing Rules Concerns: In his earlier round, my opponent stated my violations of rules one, three, four, and eight. All things considered, I do not know why he accused me of the rule breakages. Let’s go over them. Rule 1: “No semantics whatsoever. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided. ” I can understand why an inexperienced debater would interpret my argument as a play on the resolution, but I can assure you that arguing from a value standpoint is perfectly allowed within the provided resolution, rules, and definitions. Therefore, I was not breaking the rules because I did not provide a policy-based argument, which my opponent was anticipating. Rule 3: “Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting. ” We hold these truths to be self evident that I did in fact post my acceptance and structure of the rules in Round 1. This claim is irrelevant, and voters should consider it so. Rule 4: “Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else. ” This accusation also has no basis because I did provide my sources and any final conclusions within the boundaries of my argument, not anywhere else. Rule 8: “No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks). ” Lastly, this accusation is not a valid one because running a value contention is not a kritik. I suggest my opponent read up on Kritik’s in debates, and understand them. Contention 1: The Existing System Works In the first part of his first contention, my opponent states that, “The U. S. is already sponsoring and managing its collegiate system in a more responsible manner. ” He follows up this quote with the statement that the U. S. injects more of its GDP into education than Germany does. While this is true, it provides no real value to the debate, as we are arguing over college education, not general spending. My opponent’s evidence of spending provides no evidence to his claim of responsibly managing the collegiate education system. In his second part of Contention 1, my opponent states that the current U. S. collegiate system is already accommodating for opportunity and personal advancement. How can it be that one fourth of current students graduate with upwards of $30,000 dollars in debt, and 36% of students still show no meaningful gains over four years? If our system is so just, and so efficient, our students would be graduating with flying colors and no debt. Implementing free collegiate education would greatly reduce the burden placed upon students at every college. I acknowledge the fact that the U. S. collegiate education system is praised around the world. It does not change the fact that implementing a free education system would only increase the potential students have after completion of college. In succession to the “b” contention, he posts a quote that shows increased college attendance in African Americans and Hispanics. This is not necessary, for I am not arguing about minority attendance in colleges. Contention 2: Role of Government in 3rd Level Education In his second contention, I think my opponent means the convey the message that: “The government does have a responsibility in maintaining the fairness and justness in the collegiate education system. It should act on behalf of the citizens to address apparent issues so that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. ” My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present. Yet, he does not acknowledge the fact that collegiate education can either lose or gain from increased government involvement in the event of free education. More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality, which I suggested in my last argument. Contention 3: College Education is Hard Currency My opponent argues that student loans are a perfect way to pay for college. He also says that socioeconomically disadvantaged grants and scholarships can counter the wealthy applicants, so that there is an egalitarian sense to college admissions. Those who do not receive scholarships or grants for their college education, and are not inherently wealthy, often graduate with substantial student loan debt. There needs to be a common ground, or a median, in which all applicants, regardless of wealth, scholarship/grant eligibility, and race, where admissions is not based upon the cost, but the merit displayed by the applicants. The way to solve this is to implement free education. My opponent then goes on to talk about the advantages of getting a degree, and the greater results that better degrees yield. This is not of value to the resolution described in the first round of the debate. B. O. P. Analysis: Throughout my opponent’s arguments, he implements evidence and statements that have little to no value in regards to the resolution. My opponent’s job, as Con, is to argue that college education should not be made free for constituents of the U. S. Quotes of degree-salary relations and increased minority acceptance are among the suggested items. I would like voters to take into consideration that he as not fully fulfilled his share of the Burden of Proof.

Higher Education (Full Resolution in R1) I stand for a solid affirmation of the resolved 3 key reasons. First, Necessity. The second, Societal benefits, and the third, economic benefits. With that I will begin on 4 pieces of overview which will lay the framework for the affirmative case. The sole burden of the affirmative is to prove in a cost benefit analysis that the people of the United States would be bettered by the Federal Government ensuring higher education is affordable. It is not my burden to prove solvency at any point in this debate. If I am being held up at gun point, it would be in my best interest to stop my attacker because then I live and keep my stuff the attacker is trying to rob me of. But just because it is in my best interest doesn't mean it is possible. However, if it becomes needed I reserve the right to introduce a plan for solvency later in the debate. Higher education refers to any education above the high school level. Whether it is technical certification, an associates, bachelors, masters, or doctoral education. All of them are applicable. There is a divide between what is best for the people of a nation and the government of a nation. For example, if the Neg proves that the government loses soft power or that a certain party is weakened by affirming, unless they tie is back to the people of the United States, they get no offence. With that I will begin. ==Contention One: Necessity=====Subpoint A: Costly Colleges have Limits and harms===According to a study backed by the Lumina Foundation, 29% of Low Income, High Scoring 8th graders finished college compared to 75% of their high income counter parts. (1) Furthermore, the US department of Education finds that when students are worried about the costs of college, they are less likely to attend (2) The Economist Reports that college graduates make more money than their peers with just a high school diploma. (3) When you negate, you maintain the status quo and you allow these costly colleges to continue to have their limits. This perpetuates income inequality, because as the Washington Post reports, increased access to higher education would allow the growing income inequality to be moderated. This is going to be important because the Washington Post outlines that income inequality increases tuition costs, increases spending, and increases the needed amount of financial aid. This puts the negative world into a viscous cycle. By voting aff, you break this cycle. (4)===Subpoint B: The Government Must intervene===Before I get into the evidence and analysis, lets look at this logically. The Federal Government is the only actor who has total jurdisticion, and despite any current economic woes, no other actor willing to take action has the same amount of funding as the federal government. Furthermore, the government is obligated by the Social Contract to act in a way that is best for its citizens. Now lets look at some evidence here. In the Status Quo, market forces are allowed to dictate prices. These market forces are more geared towards profits and higher fees than what the people need. (1) Secondly, the federal government is the best actor in this situation. According to a study published by Harvard and the Brookings institute, the federal government is the superior actor to provide educational subsides. State Governments, when choosing to provide educational subsides, they must directly take funding from another area. The federal government doesn't have the same drawback, and even if the negative convinces you that they do, because they are so much larger than any of the 50 state governments, the federal government could better mitigate the costs. (5) ==Contention 2: Higher Education benefits Society== By exposing people to new events and experiences, higher education provides several benefits to society. First, The Bedford Group finds that those with higher education are more racially tolerant. (6) Racism decreases social cohesion and leads to numerous harms. The Australian Human Rights Commission finds that racism decreases physical and mental health, reduces productivity, and reduces life span. (7) Going further, those with higher education are healthier. Studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found similar results, with their findings concluding that, on average, every additional year of schooling extends one’s life by roughly half a year. (8) Finally, according to a study published by the College Board, those with college certifications are more likely to get proper exercise than those without. (9).And finally, those with higher education are less likely to be depressed and have better mental health. (10) What this means is that by increasing access to higher education, you better society. On that you vote pro based off the fact that we better the people directly.==Contention 3: Jobs and Wages==As already stated, those with a higher education make more money. But to go further. A report by Georgetown University states that by 2020, 55 million new jobs will be created. Of those Jobs, 35% of these will require at least Bachelor's Degree and 30% of jobs will require an associates degree or some college. This means that a grand total of 65% of jobs will require at least some higher education. (11) Going further, Women who finish 2 years of college have 37 to 39% more income than those with a high school degree. A similar, but less extreme trend was observed with men. (12) In the status quo, the Atlantic reports that 600,000 jobs went unfilled because of a lack of skilled labor. (13)To break the cycle of income inequality, to better society, and to fill the current and future job gap, I can only see an affirmative ballot. I wait patiently for the negative case.

The cap would deprive individuals with bad credit of possibility to borrow The opposition's argument here is a masterclass in flip-flopping. On one hand they support 'rationally' (we use this term VERY loosely) made risky loans, on the other they demand government-provided education for borrowers. On one hand they believe the debt spiral is not worth government intervention, on the other hand they demand more transparency in loan agreements. The reality is that cleanly spelled out theory does not capture the dangers that risky loans have for both the borrower and broader society (that third party that DOES suffer). First, the state often intervenes when people make bad decisions that have consequences for themselves (drugs, suicide, sometimes gambling, seat belt usage). We do this because: (a) rationality is very hard to prove - when someone is in a debt spiral they are *not* rational, they are desperate and act out of desperation, as our sources show (and actually as the opposition concedes when they say this is a 'last resort'); (b) those people who are making bad decisions become easy prey for people looking to bleed them dry, and thus they need state protection; (c) damages to an individual's life generally have broader consequences for families and friends who are *not* implicated in the decision making process. Second, there is tangible third party harm - the harm to society that we outlined at the beginning. Risky loaning is dangerous (as the last 12 months have shown - bankers being ABLE to make dangerous risky loans that are never going to be paid back) and undercuts savings. Third, the opposition's soft support actions (education and information and transparency) are (a) not mutually exclusive with our policy, and (b) unlikely to be able to help - information campaigns have failed, unequivocally, to prevent the massive growth of drug abuse in most parts of the world (and the spread of AIDS/HIV, and the proliferation of gambling addiction, etc etc etc). Finally, the reality is that people cannot live and survive on credit or loans, and any society that endorses this is bound to run into problems (blossoming debt crises across the world, as we cited earlier). Eventually debt will come back to bite the borrower, sooner or later. The later it is, the more deadly the venom.

State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state Almost every young adult today is expected to have a college degree. It is a social norm in todays society. Many people have a lot to consider when applying to colleges. Things such as location, size of the school, its reputaion and its majors are things that will decide whether you will attend or not. But the most important thing that people have to consider is the cost. Whether a community college, private college or state college, this educational expense can affect families and students. Even State colleges can cost up to about $30,000 a year. This leaves students coming out of college with extreme debt. This is causing a major issue in today's society. After college, young adults are expected to live on thier own and fend for themselves. After leaving school, students realize that they will not be able to afford the expensies of living on thier own and they soon find themselves moving back at home with their parents. College is supposed to teach young adults to be independent. This is not going to be happening if they are forced to move back home as soon as they are finished getting their degree. With an average cost of $30,000 per year for college tuition, a four year degree will cost the student $120,000. This is a tremdous debt for anyone to burden, much less a young adult who has just graduated college. Adults purchasing a house take on this level of debt and then arrange for it to be paid back over twenty to thirty years. Many of the loans afforded to students are required to be paid back in much less time. How, with little to no experience to speak of, can a new graduate get a job paying enough to both support themselves and pay back this enormous debt. They cannot. So, the student ends up living at home with their parents to speed up the process of paying back their loans. If the former student gets a job paying $40,000 per year, their take home pay will be about sixty percent or about $25,000. Now if you take all of these earnings and put them towards the outstanding college loans, it will take about five years to pay back the loans. However, this is not reality so it will take much longer. Most likely, the pay back of the loans will be more like $10,000 per year. With this pay schedule, the payback is now up to twelve years. I'm also assuming that these loans carry no interest. Not likely! How can you even think of going to a bank to obtain a credit rating or another loan with this much debt on you? Other countries don't put this burden on their young adults. If education is a priority to get our economy running again the way we need it to, then the education of our youth is a top priority. That being said, how can the education of youth be a priority if the cost prohibits so many students from attending and getting a college education. In this economy, a college education is not an option, it is a requirement. By making state colleges free for students living in that state, we will make college education available to anyone who wants this education.

Affordable education Thanks for the cool debate topic fam good to be back in the game! First, extend the entirety of the pro case as it went unaddressed by my opponent. Then move on to my opponent"s latest responses in the order they were presented. 1. What about those that don"t do anything with their degree? Again, refer to the Lewis 11 card of the pro case. The reason the con is so concerned with what others do with their education is because we are conditioned to not waste our "potential" under the threat of being "abandoned" or unemployed as stated in the Lewis 15 card. The pro removes these concerns of wasted potential or wasted resources by shifting away from the conditioning of the learner society, while the con continues to blame the affordability of schools and how people make use of the education they receive. -Courses and life experience result in the same development. If this argument were true in the slightest than I"d have my dream job of teaching my own debate team, instead I must sell my current achievements just to be able to be considered for a temporary assistant coach position. The fact of our learner society is diplomas talk. So, in order for this argument to make any sense the con must advocate for more affordable and accessible education to allow for more potential to work under the current system, or they concede to the rejection of the learner society and the shift to the studier society. 2. School shouldn"t be restricted by class. The con argues this, but it is more of a pro point, by arguing against affordable education the con is inherently arguing for education separated by the classes seeing as if we make school unaffordable, as is the con stance, then only the richer class would be the only ones who could afford education. The pro rejects this elitist idea best by moving away from the commodification of education that happens in the status quo to a more open and pure form of education where no one is restricted by anything or anyone and everyone is free to study without normative pressures. -We need to focus on high performing students, not the average student. This is a very biopolitical argument from the con. The con is essentially determining which life is valuable and which life is not only differentiated by a standard that the con arbitrarily sets. Those who are deemed "average" or achieve high but just not high enough are now pushed into the unemployment line and abandoned by society. Not only is biopolitics extremely bad in this instance, but the con also directly links back to the pro case with the logic of who is valuable based on, what is deemed by them as, potential. The pro case is a better option in this situation as it not only avoids the biopolitical determination of life, but it also provides individuals the autonomous decision to make regarding their personal education path without the outside pressures and standards of the con. 3. No one is competent Don"t make the mistake that is the students fault that they are incompetent. The pro clearly depicts the con"s students, the learner is the one who is not yet complete, not yet knowledgeable, not yet skillful, not yet competent, not yet autonomous. This is clearly the fault of the system not the student. It is the teachers job to change this in the con"s world, but because we put so much emphasis on diplomas and the "you have to go to college" mentality, we overlook competency for that piece of paper saying we know something. Again, the pro proves that removing education as a commodity opens up new, real, potentials instead of the factory that is the con pushing out flawed drones for money. Studying is a form of inaction that releases educational activity from particular outcomes and educational standards. -Vocational schools are not prestigious and low paying jobs are frowned upon in society. The reason we see prestige and wage difference is because we are conditioned to look through the lens of the learner society to feel pity for those who aren't as filled with "potential" or value as ourselves. In the pro world we would see less prejudice because people aren"t influenced by where you went to school or what job you like because the ever-present pressures of the learner society is removed and then replaced with a more curious, studier society. This results in a more open and pure form of education where each is free to study whatever without being tied to one subject, and we truly achieve our impotentialiality. 4. It was harder to be a teacher in the past now it is easy. In 1872 the only requirements for a teacher were that they fill lamps, bring a bucket of water and coal for the lesson, make pens, work 10 hours, don"t marry during your teaching contract, pay your benefits, and don"t smoke or drink. But I assume the con isn"t referring that far back. Yes, it may be "easier" to become a teacher now with the requirements being a bachelor"s degree and a teaching certificate in most schools, but teachers now have much more expected of them. Teachers now have to deal with keeping up with the advancing technology, the ease of and how frequently parents are able to contact them, increasing their workload, the increase of their workload compared to say 25 years ago has caused more stress to be placed on teachers now, new Ofsted inspections have created a much more scrutinized environment, more after school classes have appeared and the list goes on and on. With the system we have created, it is no one but our own faults of who teaches the next generation. The pro however offers a breath of fresh air by sifting pressure off teachers and students and allows for us to grow as a society. -Those who are just there to get a diploma. This is exactly the point the pro is making. Our education system has become such a cycle of commodification that you see students choosing diplomas in fields they are disinterested in just so they can feel like their 30+ thousand-dollar education (without any financial aid) results in a diploma with potential return rather than disappointment. In the situation of teaching, when students do "resort" to teaching then this cycle of dissatisfied education starts over and continues into the next generation. The pro world has a better outcome because we get the real choice of what we want to study and what we want to do while the con only gives you the illusion of that choice. As this debate comes to an end with only one more round to go we clearly see that the pro has met their obligation in this debate through extending and defending the pro case and properly responding to each of the cons arguments.

The U.S. should make collegiate education free On a side note, Hayd has done a wonderful job moderating this debate and making sure people get votes. Now, I will present the defense of my arguments. Argument 1: The Virtue of Education; Social Advancement: My opponent lists off my points of attack as: (i)You want students to have no debt. (ii)You want the country to prosper. (iii)You plead for the return of ' the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based. ', (iv)Your posturing leads you to suggest that 'More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality' (v)Etc, etc ,etc. (No Idea what this means, specify please? ) All of these reasons, which my opponent has graciously provided, are why education should be made free. It addresses these four key points, and wipes out the current faults in the system. An egalitarian presence in the system is important because it provides equal opportunity for social and economic advancement for college graduates and applicants. Debt is an increasing factor in the collegiate education of United States citizens. With more than a quarter graduating students coming out of college, having upwards of 30,000 dollars in debt, it greatly impedes upon their social and economic advancements. If the debt factor is removed through free education, it would remove a great deal of stress from graduating students, and would allow them to accumulate wealth faster than previously possible. I do want the country to prosper, because free education plays a big role in prosperity of every country. When the government invests in the education of its citizens, and fully funds it to maximize government involvement and quality, then government has fully fulfilled their duty to their citizens; providing a quality education to last them a lifetime. Free education would return college admissions to what they were designed for, merit based admissions into collegiate institutions. If college was free, it would eliminate socioeconomic status and the cost factor. When this is complete, college admissions can be based purely upon the merit of applicants. Government control can and would greatly increase the quality of education. Right now, most of federal funding in education in the U. S. is focused on research and development (sources from previous arguments) in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education. With government heading the system, they would be able to provide the improvements and aid to the critical areas that truly do need it. Credibility and a Play on Words: As the voter can see, I did ask in the comments if we could narrow it down to a specification. My opponent denied, in a rather hostile way I might add, so I left it at that. Now, my opponent brings it up as a serious issue in my arguments. This is unnecessary and inconsequential regarding the outcome of the debate. The contender also takes a shot at my “credibility” in his rebuttals. He is wrong in saying that I did not address the beneficiaries, for I created a whole argument based on the principle that there are not enough grants and scholarships to level out the debt issue facing our students today. From seemingly out of nowhere, my opponent extracts this quote, completely out of context from my argument, ““Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. ” This was a total play on words, and irrelevant in the context of his rebuttal. The quote means that the government should pay no heed to expenses of education when it benefits their constituents. What my opponent did is underline six words of the quote to serve his own purpose in the rebuttal. This should be seen as a manipulation of my argument. On Conceding: When I said that the current U. S. system is praised around the world, and he in return replied with the statement that I agreed with him that the current system worked, he was wrong. I was not conceding anything, but stating a widely known fact gleaned by looking at any internet statistic. Whether or not the U. S. collegiate system is praised around the world has no relevance to the resolution over whether college education should be free. Conceding that the current system is good does not mean that the faults are gone, which I have repeatedly stated in all of my arguments. Just because we are known around the world, doesn’t mean it is for the right reasons. Even if I conceded that the U. S. collegiate system is good, it does not mean that it is perfect. If free education will improve the collegiate system in its current form, then it is a major benefit in my case that my opponent fails to respond to. In fact, this was in my rebuttal, not my main case. I hope my opponent knows that rebuttals are covering your opponent’s case, not their rebuttals. My opponent also wrongly interprets one of my statements as a concession when I said that, “My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present. ” He, in return, stated that, “You agree that the government is as it should be in all of this. ” This is yet another play on words. I merely stated that you identified the presence of government in modern education. Yes, I did concede how the government is used in collegiate education in its present, yet faulty role. The government’s role in education in the status quo is too weak and uninvolved. You did not address the core problem that I addressed, “it is not as it should be. ” This was also contained within my rebuttals, not my main case. In all honesty, I am tired of addressing your rule violations. Voters, this is a clear breach of the structure, and should be taken into consideration during the voting phase. Contention 3 (of my rebuttal*): My proposal is not to merely target the elimination of wealth-based admission, but the evening of the playing field, and providing applicants with equal opportunity, focused on merit based admissions. Free education effectively does this by eliminating any cost factor in admissions, and removing any favoritism of applicants. Putting taxpayer dollars into funding of early education is what the United States already does, and when constituents reach the age of eighteen, and it is time to apply for college, the funding of early education has done, quite frankly, nothing to aid their circumstances. Of course we should try to work on improving all aspects of education, but one aspect of education is not all we should focus on. In this debate, college education is specified, and that is what we should discuss, not other aspects. The die is not, “well and truly cast. ” This is not a correct representation of the United States early education system; just inserting a piece of text that is overtly insulting, implying that students cannot escape from a weak educational background. Are you saying that we should give up on the current generation of students? Should we even bother if the die is “well and truly cast? ” Students have an opportunity to show their ability and academic prowess to prospective colleges during the application process. With free education, things like wealth, race, or socioeconomic status will not play a role. Overall, free education increases the versatility of admissions and focuses on the academic ability of applicants. In his last piece of his rebuttal my opponent states, “You, on the other hand, want to raise the downtrodden by pulling the top upwards. ” This is the exact opposite effect of what free education would have on the system. Actually, it would even the playing field, by lowering those perched on top and raising those stuck on bottom. Framework: The resolution states the following, “The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. ” The burden of proof, which my opponent is bound by the rules to uphold, has been violated. My opponent makes requests for funding and implementation plans, yet my job is to argue why free education SHOULD be implemented. I have successfully upheld my share of the BOP. All I am required to do is show the benefits of free education and why it should be implemented over the current system. In my arguments I have outlined equality, egalitarianism, and social progress. Therefore, my share of the BOP is upheld, and I have proven that free education is greatly beneficial to society. The contender, on the other hand, has failed to answer his part of the BOP: why free education SHOULD NOT be implemented. He did not provide a value to follow, and all of his arguments were a scattershot attempt to find flaws in mine. He did not provide an unified basis to follow, and he has failed to provide any valid arguments supporting his side of the resolution. Conclusion: Thank you to my opponent for engaging in this debate with me. I would like for voters to take into consideration this fact: His rebuttals are flawed, they do not follow the specified debate structure, and he did not uphold his share of the burden of proof. I outlined the benefits and proved that free education should be implemented.

college should be entirely government funded yes. agreed that kids that do well in high school do get much needed financial help in college. What about the kids that parents earn too much to receive any state help? Parents might make 60k a year and that is too much for a kids to receive any help at all. with a blow like this kids become discourage to even attend college at all, and let put it like this : more college debt = less college graduate. less college graduate, the harder time this child would have at finding a decent job.

College should be entirely government funded. You might have a valid point but does that show that every student that has their college tuition payed by the government have the same mentality ? Do they all do the same? Do they all have low gpa's ? Is not fair to those that want to go to college and do something with their lives to be judged by those careless and reckless students, who only attend college to get check disimbursements from financial aid.

Governemt Should Intervene to Lower College Costs R2 Theme: http://www.youtube.com...I'll address Pro's arguments in sectioned line-by-line format.Tuition Hikes and Debt Burdens1. Correct, costs are increasing. The question is why? Pro doesn't make the case that we have an unregulated market in education, which is what would be required to make the normative argument that we ought to begin intervening. As I will soon argue, there is already a heavy political interest in increasing access to education.2. Analogy to the pre-crash housing market: like higher ed, housing was also the subject of political interest. Unsatisfied with the natural rate of homeownership, programs were instituted to expand access to buyers, many of whom would otherwise be unable to afford it. These measures include tax credits, loan subsidies/purchases [1], and low interest rates. Similarly, in higher ed, there are tax credits for being a full-time student, subsidized loan programs, Pell Grants, etc.The story is the same for both industries--the natural rate of participation isn't "enough" according to a political (non-market) calculation. To remedy this, programs are enacted to incentivize participation. The market operates through signaling--market participants send signals carrying information about what's profitable, where capital should flow, which investments are safe/risky, and so on. This is how the price mechanism works for supply and demand--when production exceeds demand, prices drop in response to the surplus. Participants leave the oversaturated market, investment declines, and prices equilibrate as capital goes elsewhere. When politics interferes with signaling, incentive structures are modified, altering what signals are sent/received. This is how bubbles are created. In housing, cheap capital, low rates on mortgages, the state's participation in the secondary mortgage market, tax credits, etc. created an environment in which capital flowed into the housing industry--subprime lending, construction in excess of real demand--rather than being efficiently allocated based on healthy signals. The result? High default rates, near-collapse of the financial services industry, insolvency, record foreclosures, declining property values, and a lot of debt left to people who had no ability to pay, and no business buying an expensive home.What about higher ed? With politics having restructured incentives to move capital to ed, we see many of the same signs ignored during the housing boom--record highs in participation [2], low interest rates, massive subsidy/ loan programs, high debt burdens, and cost increases (climbing home values paralleling cyclical tuition hikes). In short, as with housing, incentive distortions shift capital into ed to the exclusion of other investment opportunities. Even people who denied there was a housing bubble admit the problem exists in industies like healthcare, where big subsidy nets lead to "unconstrained demand" [3]. Intervention beget similar conditions in higher ed, where people who otherwise couldn't afford it are able to enter. This is bad for numerous reasons:A) Students and parents end up with massive debt which, being required to make access to education tenable, is often difficult or impossible to repay, as evidenced by default/delinquency rates [4][5]. For those who do pay off loans, the principal + interest-over-time also tends to diminish the advantage of any increase in income they might see. And this assumes that their degree is productive and marketable (i.e., that it involves useful skills and isn't connected to an industry in which there is a labor surplus).B) Since subsidies and loans permit [an increasing quantity of] students/applicants to meet tuition, universities can increase the pace at which they inflate tuition until public funding can't keep pace with cost increases. If my story is true, then public financial assistance for borrowers is actually partly responsible for tuition hikes.C) The relationship between subsidies and pricing--especially the rise in pricing for the non-subsidized--is already well-documented: health care, formal housing, and even in niche markets like rent vouchers for low-income housing [6]. So, not only do subsidy programs endanger the people who use them as the same assistance endangered prime and subprime borrowers in the 2000s; they also raise costs for "prime students" who otherwise would not be required to borrow money. Since tuition increases outpace the savings and inflation rates (also given the Fed's current policy of minimizing interest rates), families who would have been able to save enough to put their kids through college are being ushered into subsidy and loan programs which are themselves responsible for runaway tuition increases, creating a weird feedback loop where cheap, subsidized money leads to cost increases, and cost increases outpace savings and inflation to such an extent that affluent families come to rely on subsidies to make up the difference."Market Forces"None of this is actually an argument for intervention--Pro is only contending that costs are going up, and that universities have no incentive to cut costs. But, given a) his lack of an interpretive framework apart from "research", and b) my story about bubbles, capital allocation, and the cost-subsidy link, which explains the incentive distortions and guarantees of business, this section is ammunition for my thesis. Plus, many of these private universities which bump up tuition tend to have 90-100% financial aid rates [8], often because they're smart about their scholarship/grant funding and getting contributions. Harvard, for instance, gets a lot of private funding, and has basically eliminated loans from its funding program [9], and still give massive funding to 70% of their students [10].The Value of a Degree1. Using politics to determine the value of a degree is detrimental--investing the time/money makes degrees a signal of higher productivity, and focusing on maximizing the quantity of education devalues the investment for people to whom it would otherwise be valuable, since it just increases the supply of degrees without worrying about whether that education increases productivity, or whether it's a good investment for everyone (which can't be determined politically).2. Access to education is higher/easier than ever, so Pro's nostalgia about "easier times" is unwarranted.3. Degree surplus is evidenced by the high rate of unemployment/jobs which are unrelated to or don't require a degree [7]. Some of the degrees also aren't marketable, e.g., art therapy, music, but, even if they were all high-skill degrees (ex: if we selectively subsidized only engineering, computer science, math), we'd just end up with a surplus of engineers, computer scientists, etc., driving down income level and driving up unemployment in those fields. Subsidizing, which floods the market with degrees, and inhibits their capacity to act as signals to employers (disadvantaging those for whom a degree would be a good investment), is just a way of distorting the price mechanism that determines how much of any good/service, including education, needs to be "produced" (ex: how many degrees the market can handle before oversaturation occurs and the price of labor drops, which degrees are best to invest in), which means that political administration will be less efficient, a priori, than permitting the market to send signals unhindered about where capital--including human capital--ought to go. Politics screwed up housing by directing excessive amounts of capital into that industry, to disastrous results, and it'll screw up education if signals continue to be ignored. Pro's case just assumes "education good", then attempts to maximize how much we get without consideration for how much is socially optimal, or even which degrees are the best to invest in. College is great, but it's not right for everyone, and enticing everyone to sign up will only lead to ruin.Your turn, Pro.

Students should be free to choose to play to their strengths. Students should have a fundamental freedom of choice when it comes to all but the most necessary subjects. If students want to specialise in for example Science and drop foreign languages in order to be able to do this then they should have this option, a choice which is likely to be beneficial for their chosen career. Students’ progress in their most successful subjects should not be hindered by the burden of language learning. It is not the case that students do not desire to engage in languages because they are lazy, narrow-minded or blinkered. Rather, because they demonstrate real strength in other subjects they do not wish to be constrained in those subjects by ones where they do not excel. A standard complaint is quoted by Ehrman; “(learning languages) affects (all study) a lot! I’m finding it just depressing to have to study, when my only reason for being here is to meet a requirement…it really annoys me to have to waste my time on this, when I could be learning something I’ll use after graduation…The pressure’s just too much for me!”[1] Students should be allowed and encouraged to channel all their energy and enthusiasm into the subjects they are best at and most enthusiastic towards. [1] Ehrman, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties’, 1996, p.136

Publicly tax paid post-secondary/college education in the U.S. The way financial aid works in the U.S. is not very efficient and is more difficult than need be- I believe that all or at least a majority should be paid through taxes. This would allow even those who would otherwise be unable, to attend college and better there lives. California is an example of a state that uses to do this through property taxes. Several countries including Norway, Brazil, Sweden, and France do this and has proved to be very effective. Taxes initially would be high (up to 50%-60%) but this can also be fixed by taxing corporations more than the individual and favoring the benefit of society. And as time goes on, the benefit will go up in compared to the amount invested. As the wages of those who take advantage of this goes up, society as a whole also will make more money- Leading to everyone eventually benefiting. Over about a ten year period, the cost to invest will go down and the country will still continue to show improvements in wages and lower poverty rates. While this is great- There still need to be some control over the situation. Colleges should be cost controlled. Spending needs to be made more economical as to reduce the total needed while still being effective. The government also needs to NOT cut costs/spending in general, but to find better ways to spend and alternatives to currently inefficient spending plans. This would greatly improve society and the way we live- imagine if education became more accessible to the masses. There would no longer be that "middle of the road" where you make just enough money to no longer be eligible for financial aid but still cannot afford college and lose potential future opportunities. This is a debate where I feel a younger generation should be able to put in there input as they are the ones mainly affected by the current financial aid situations as they look to forward there education now or in the future.

A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.

University tuition fees should be abolished. I strongly believe that University tuition fees should be abolished. Currently, people in the United Kingdom pay around "60,000 for 4 years at University, including accomodation. This results in many students coming out of University with heavy debt. Now, this leads on to more homeless people, and people who rely on charities until they can pay back their loan (presuming they have one). People may say, 'Why don't they just work before going to University', but there is a lack of jobs available. The Government NEEDS to make getting a job ALOT easier. So what other benefits would abolishing tuition fees have? More people will go to University, which makes people get better jobs, wich means they can pay their taxes as they have a good job. Thank you.

The U.S. should make collegiate education free I think it will be a good learning experience for both me and my opponent, and we will both be better off because of it. @zeromeansnothing, I also apologize for the minor misunderstanding in the comments, and that will in no way affect my argument. Without further ado, let us begin. Framework: The full resolution is, “The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. ” In order to fulfill my obligation to the burden of proof, I must prove why colleges should make their education free for all constituents of America. In order for my opponent to receive points and effectively present his burden of proof, he must argue why colleges should not make education free for all constituents of America. Failure on my part or my opponent’s will result in a deduction of points in the voting period. The values on which I will be basing my arguments on represent core problems within today’s educational system on the collegiate level. Equality in education, Egalitarianism as a principle, social and upward progress being impeded, and the fairness/justness of the system itself. Argument 1: The Virtue of Education; Social Advancement Education, in all forms, should be free to the public because of its value to society. John Adams once stated that, “[T]he whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people, and must be willing to bear the expense of it. ” (1) The government should take college costs into their hands, as an investment in the future of its citizens. Egalitarianism is defined as, “An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. ” Even in our current form of government, egalitarianism is an ideal at which we follow in the systemic level. Equality as a principle was and still is an important advocate of the American government today. Making students pay for education and learning is against this philosophy. Everyone in the country should be entitled to free education because they are equal to their peers, and they are equal to all constituents of this country. More money poured into education should not affect the quality of education that is obtainable. Argument 2: Government; The Guiding Hand Education, in its current respect, is cracked at the seams. A major problem in today’s system is that the government is not holding colleges accountable for their failure to provide students with quality education and a fair system. Increased government control at the foundations of collegiate education can make principles that are so desperately needed right now cemented. Almost all collegiate institutions rely on federal aid to fund their operations, yet costs have managed to rise, and quality of education has managed to stay the same or decrease in quality. This is often because federal grants to universities usually focus on funding research, instead of trying to improve the quality of education or addressing instruction (36% of students failed to demonstrate meaningful gains over four years) (2). With increased government involvement, or total involvement, universities can begin a rehabilitation process in which costs can be cut and focused towards the instruction and quality of learning. The resulting outcome is that more and more students are prepared to enter the job market, and will aid the United States economically in the long run. Another shortcoming in the educational system is finance based attendance. Scholarships and fellowships allow students to attend universities, but there are not enough grants to go around that don’t leave students in thousands of dollars of student loans debt. More often than not, two results are present; students cannot attend universities because of tremendously steep costs, or they go into deep debt to acquire and obtain a degree (25% of people who graduate will end up with $30,000< of debt accumulated) (2). One tactic by students is to work while continuing their education, but this most always proves to be stressful to students. Colleges often favor those who can accommodate for the cost of education. In this current scenario, admissions are then based upon economic status, not the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based. This only reinforces my claim that government funding can not only eliminate the wealth status factor, but it can also return college admissions to its rightful state. Graduating free of debt and economic impediments, citizens are able to immediately start contributing to the growth of America as a whole by obtaining jobs, buying houses, and paying taxes. Conclusion: This argument has been funded by the National Tea Party Patriots. Thank you @Hayd and @zeromeansnothing. This will be a fun debate, and I look forward to our following rounds. I have supplied my burden of proof by suggesting that government control of education will be beneficial, our current system is not a working one, and that free education will benefit the American economy as a whole. Now it is your job to supply your burden of proof. Thanks! Sources: . http://blogs.berkeley.edu... . http://www.thirdway.org...

studying is not the only way to get rich Thanks for a great debate, Eric. I'm going to try to do the exact same thing you just did - dismantle your arguments one by one. I fear this round will be quite a bit tougher than the last one, but here goes. I'm just reminding the voters that again, I believe his spelling and grammar are not up to par. This is part of the voting system, and it is important to keep this in mind. Your first argument paragraph is a direct response to my rebuttal of your suicide point. You state that only some students commit suicide and not all of them. I never said that all students in debt kill themselves as a way to escape financial debt. You didn't cite a source in round 2, because apparently it is a "general fact." I have never noticed a correlation here, and I have definitely never heard of a distinct and certain one being reported in the news. Some examples are then stated showing that student loans can affect one's opinions on suicide. These are mostly valid examples, but I would just like to point out something. The only reason you hear about suicides due to student loans is because someone died. No news story is written about a graduate who found a solid job out of college and is now starting a family. I'm sure this happens more often than suicide, but because it is not shocking or interesting, nobody writes a story about it. The paragraph about Jason Yoder is partly plagiarised, but not sourced. I don"t know if this falls under conduct or sources in the voting process, but it is a big issue. I found the article that you copied from, too (strangely enough, you cite it as a source 3 times later, although one of them is incorrect). More stories follow, such as Toby Thorn's tragic death. At least one of the sources I have found (1) seem to be shocked or confused because the debt was only 8,000 pounds, or roughly the equivalent of $13,000USD. Also, Thorn had only about $8,000 in student loans - the rest was debt from overdrawing his account. Roswell Friend, who is male and not female, may have committed suicide, and for an unknown reason at best. He had received a job offer from Comcast and would have been able to help his mom pay off her debt (2), so I don't think it was because of his own student loans. Claire Ashing's case is sound, yet people are blaming the bank for allowing her loans to run up this high from just ten thousand pounds. However, like your next piece of evidence in Marc Wadjas, this is still a good example. Next is Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a student who had suffered from depression repeatedly (3) and was only one thousand pounds in debt, as you said yourself. Lisa Taylor was a poorly documented case (or just a common name) and I could not find any evidence other than the source you posted. I realize now, as I am typing this, that most of the previous paragraph was plagiarised yet again from your Guardian source. I think you intended to have quotes in the paragraph, but I don't know where they were supposed to go. Next paragraph. Your two quotes from C. Cryn Johannsen are valid points and I don't have the evidence nor the time to disprove or even argue her. Also, the note is very true and moving, but I doubt the accuracy of his words. Continue on to the next paragraph. You talk about how student loans will accumulate over time and the debtor will be penalized for not repaying their debts. Isn't this obvious? This is not a new idea about debt only relating to student debts. This is how all debt works. "In fact, 'Up to Our Eyeballs' notes that about 9% of Americans aged 45-64 still have student loan debt!" I don't necessarily disagree with this evidence, but I don't know where "Up to Our Eyeballs" comes from. Then, you plagiarise/don't have quotes on the section about John Koch. I want to get on with this debate, so I'm going to move on. You state that I should agree with the fact that dropouts are more successful than college graduates. I don't even know how you can logically say this. I'm not going to be able to find a source for this, because nobody keeps track of the college graduates that are doing perfectly fine and have a job, a car, a solid marriage, and a house. Just a semantic argument here because I am getting a little aggravated. You keep putting numbers in parentheses, such as "(47-68) years old?" This is not relevant to the argument at all, but I was just getting a little annoyed with this. You then try to defend your quote even after admitting that I never directly said the quote. You can't use quotation marks when I never really said it word for word. In round 2, I said you misquoted the source because the title in the source was incorrect. If you had read through the whole article, you would notice that it does say "underemployed" as opposed to "unemployed" (4). Ad hominem attacks like telling me that my eyes aren't working most definitely fall under conduct in the debate ruling. I don't know what you mean by my "funny question" about jobs. Is this relating to your previous China statement? If so, I still don't understand what you meant; if not, I don't know what you are referring to. The Business Insider list is a great source, but it is about jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, not a degree in general. Granted, many of the jobs listed don't require a college degree, but most of them have requirements that are not easy to fulfill. The majority of the jobs either require an associate's degree, are hard labor, or require previous experience in the field. So yes, these jobs are available, but not to just anyone who wants them. In the next section, you talk about people selling vegetables and becoming rich. You go on to imply that I said all uneducated rich people gained money through inheritance. I never said nor implied this in Round 2. I said that they "most likely" got money through inheritance or other income, but because I didn't have details, I was not sure about it. Another point you have is that one of your previous employers sold potatoes at a young age and came to manage over 400 trucks. Cool! I used to sell lemonade on the streets most summers, and I also used to mow lawns and shovel driveways for people. This doesn't mean anything. For all I know, the man that used to sell potatoes could have gone to Oxford or Harvard or some prestigious college and had a masters degree. Your round ends with saying that college is not worth it because debt weighs you down and suicide is an option. This argument is a far cry from the original debate that studying is not the only way to have a good salary. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that there are other ways to obtain a good salary, but you have not provided any alternative methods of getting a solid job. And as a side note, these debts do not take "a life time [sic] to clear if lucky." College debts can be paid off in most situations rather easily. My parents both paid off their debts within 8 years of graduating and getting their degrees. To conclude, I believe that I have refuted your points and, because the BOP is on you, I have no need to explicitly state my own points. This has been an enjoyable debate, and as my opponent said, I hope the voters are not distracted by anything and keep themselves unbiased in this argument. I think I have won on grammar and spelling, and also conduct due to Pro's personal attacks. Please take the time to read through both sides though. Sources: (1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2)http://temple-news.com... (3)http://news.bbc.co.uk... (near the bottom, under Self-harm) (4)http://www.nydailynews.com...

The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all. Universal college is an investment in the 2/3s of our youth that require financial aid. In our era, college experience is a necessity in order to progress in life. We are living in the era where students who are not financially secure that want to pursue the American dream are deterred by student loans. The United States of America is the wealthiest country in the world. The Federal Government has a GDP of 17.43 trillion dollars. America's assets are the equivalent of 223 trillion dollars. The Federal Government spends 800 billion dollars to create the most powerful military in the history of mankind. Yet, almost every modern western nation provides universal college for all. Our country has always been capable of providing free college due to our excess in wealth. Instead of bestowing money to countries with a significant amount of human abuses; we should bestow our citizens with proper education to better equip them for the future. This case will go over the exact plan for community colleges, how it will receive funding, and the advantages our civilization is capable of accessing if the implementation were ever to occur. C1: Plan 1. Make Tuition Free at Public Colleges This is not a reckless decision. Many countries have already implemented this step. 39% of young people are expected to graduate college. All European countries have above 80% of young people graduating college. 2. Put an end to the federal government acquiring profit off of student loans Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. The implications of such an absurd action by our government is a long term waste of ambitious young people who could benefit America with their more competent skills rather than manual physical labor. 3. Allow Students to participate in work study programs This is a necessity for those that want to acquire proper experience. 4. Cease acceptance of students below the GPA of 2.8 to 3.0 range. In order for this program to be beneficial, than GPA caps must be put in place to insure this program is not a depletion of money. 5. This program will be funded by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculators. The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. How many students require these services? Fifty-two percent of students received grants, at an average of $4,900, and 38 percent obtained student loans, taking out, on average, $7,100. A significant portion of students require these services. Everybody receives advantages an educated population. Works Cited: http://www.businessinsider.com... https://berniesanders.com... http://chronicle.com...

The U.S. should make collegiate education free Con: The U.S. should not make collegiate education free1: The Existing System Works (a)The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing it's collegiate system in a responsible manner. Overall, the U.S. injects a higher percentage of it's GDP into education than Germany does.(b)The U.S. collegiate system in it's present form is working effectively, in a manner that reflects wider societal norms for the facilitation of opportunity and personal advancement. 'Increasing numbers and percentages of Black and Hispanic students are attending college. Between 2000 and 2013, the percentage of college students who were Black rose from 11.7 to 14.7 percent, and the percentage of students who were Hispanic rose from 9.9 to 15.8 percent.'(c) The U.S. collegiate system has earned international approval.Total international student enrollment: 886,052 (2013-2014)(All significant statistics indicate that the above three points are essentially correct.)2: The Role of Government within Third Level Education Government has a responsibility of tenureship, regarding college education, that requires it to be consistent when confronted by egalitarian postulation. Deflections caused by these promptings are usually the antithesis of considered reform. Government makes demands, on behalf of its citizens, insisting that elements such as parity and fairness remain obvious within the facilitation arena that is 'college education', A fees component within the system allows a basis for effective control of the entire presentation of third level education option types in a manner that helps protect the tax payers patriotic contributions. 3: A collegiate qualification is hard currency. In a modern world the bill must be paid by the person who is most likely to benefit. Student loans are an excellent method of insuring that this payment is made in a structured way. Grants and scholarships based on socio-economic deprivation, counterbalance the advantages that normally accompany affluence. The norm is a large number of fee paying students who tenaciously claim their right to be well educated and privileged.'In 2013, median earnings for full-time year-round working young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor's degree were $48,500, while the median was $23,900 for those without a high school diploma or its equivalent, $30,000 for those with a high school diploma or its equivalent, and $37,500 for those with an associate's degree. In other words, young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school diploma or its equivalent (103 percent more) and 62 percent more than young adult high school completers. Additionally, in 2013 median earnings for young adults with a master's or higher degree were $59,600, some 23 percent more than the median for young adults with a bachelor's degree'(I have examined the Pro case to date. It ignores commonplace understandings of Rules 1, 3,4,and 8, while attempting to attach moral positives to its position. I will rebut Pro's case in my next submission as per Rules Structure.)Sources:http://nces.ed.gov...http://data.worldbank.org...http://www.iie.org...

More money will pumped into the economy, helping to overcome the recession. Is the government really that desperate for funds to help restructure its economy that it is willing to practically steal from students? Desperate times call for desperate measures, but depriving students of all people of a significant amount of money is wrong and most definitely not the best solution to an economic recovery. A few million pounds increase in fees given to the government will not make a substantial difference to the situation. There are numerous other, more effective and more moral ways to get money and to fight the recession.

Education Should Be Free to All Hello, and thanks for started this debate! I will explain my contingencies, then label them alphabetically. Contingency A. When something becomes free, quality drops. This is because there is no money to be made. If music legally downloaded on iTunes was free, then artists would stop making music, simply because there is no money to be made. Contingency B. Education above a high school degree isn't something that you are entitled too. While it would be nice, it's not something essential to survival. Student loans were designed with low interest rates to help students pay for college. While we need to work on bringing the price of tuition down, making it free would be detrimental. Contingency C. There is no such thing as 'free'. The money has to come from somewhere. It may not directly be coming out of person A's pocket, because now it's coming out of ours. While I believe there are times where it is appropriate to use government money to make essential things free or cheap, this is not one of those times. Yes a higher education is important, but it's a privilege, not a right. I understand that education is an amazing thing, but there is no simple way to make it free. If free education is an option, then everyone will take it. You can live off a high school degree. While it may not be much, people do it. What's next? Should we pay prisoners bail? If the government has to pay to put people through college, the quality of education will drop, and the federal deficit would explode. Thanks, I now stand open fro cross examination.

University Education should not be free The only harm that you have mentioned is that taxes of the country go out to free universities. Response to that below: 1- If the argument is only about taxes being used to fund free university education then please note, this is not really a harm. Eventually, the purpose of taxes is to be spent for the welfare of the country. You have to show that in countries where university education is free, taxes could have been allocated in areas with greater benefit to the society at large than free university education. 2- My argument in favor of free university education is: It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that every citizen rich or poor is provided equal opportunities to be able to pursue a successful life. The benefits of university or higher education are immense.. Economic benefits to society of higher level education include increased tax revenues, faster economic growth, greater innovation and labour market flexibility, while individuals profit from higher earnings, lower unemployment and higher productivity. Costly university education becomes an impediment for the individual and the society at large to be able to reap these benefits. The cost of obtaining a U.S. degree is among the highest in the world and rising, which burdens local and international students with heavy student loans. The average amount of student loan debt again crept up for the Class of 2013, and is approaching $30,000, according to a new report from the Institute for College Access and Success. In its ninth annual report on student loan debt, TICAS found nearly 7 in 10 graduating seniors in 2013 " 69 percent " left school with an average of $28,400 in student loan debt, an increase of 2 percent from 2012. But the amount of student debt and the likelihood of graduating with debt varied greatly between both states and colleges. Some states had average debt amounts as low as $18,656, while others topped $30,000. Between different colleges, average debt amounts ranged from $2,500 to $71,000. Government has a responsibility that citizens are empowered with higher education through a free university education system to start giving back to the society. Students must not have the burden of costly debts over their shoulders for years and years after they graduate.

Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality