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

Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: 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.

Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: 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.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great"for a while"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.

Title: national health care Content: I am curious why anybody would oppose national health care. As a nursing student, I am in the hospital on a routine basis, and have a really difficult time knowing the financial debt that people have to deal with once they get discharged. What's worse is when people get turned away due to a lack of sufficient insurance. Why would any person oppose the idea of national health care, especially since we are the only industrialized nation that does not offer this to our citizens? All of the other countries who DO have socialized medicine have been successful with the implementation of the program. What is holding us back? 68% of people filing for bankruptcy due to medical expenses HAVE insurance. Even the middle-class Americans are having financial difficulty! Wake up, America, and support a candidate who WILL give us national health care!

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: 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.

Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: 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.

Title: The 5/13/16 Dear Colleague letter of the DOJ & DOE re Student Transgender RIghts is Lawful Content: The May 13, 2016 Dear Colleague Letter ("DCL") by the DOJ and DOE regarding the rights of transgender students was lawful. 1.Issuance of DCLs by such agencies is commonplace. A quick Google search reveals that DCLs are often issued. For example, they have been issued by the DOE on issues such as the appointment of a Title IX coordinator (http://www2.ed.gov...). Twenty DCLs have been issued just this year on issues related to student aid. See, http://www.ifap.ed.gov.... In 2015, twenty-two were issued on a variety of helpful topics, e.g. the undue hardship discharge of a student loan in bankruptcy. See, http://www.ifap.ed.gov.... Reviewing this DCL might be very helpful to students in a hardship situation. 2.This DCL did not purport to expand existing statutes, e.g. the Title IX of the U.S. Educational Amendments of 1972. This guidance says what is otherwise the law - there can no expansion from a DCL, hence no overreach of existing law: "This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations." See, http://www2.ed.gov... paragraph 3. 3.Any state or school which disagrees with this DCL can either (i) disregard the DCL or (ii) seek relief in court. The DOE and DOJ have given clear guidance as to their position as to how trans students should be treated under existing federal law. Any party with legal standing can dispute this position and, in fact, eleven states did just that by filing an action in the United States District Court of Texas. See, http://legalclips.nsba.org.... A mere statement by an agency charged with enforcing a statute like Title IX of its own interpretation of Title IX does nothing to prevent any other party from taking an opposing position. Therefore, this DCL is not an overreach (or even really a "reach") at all. This DCL merely provides information as to DOJ & DOE positions. 4.The guidance provided by this DCL was consistent with earlier positions taken by both the DOE & DOJ. Nothing new to see here folks. Move along: The legal basis which under girds this DCL is the position that discrimination against a transgender student because that person is transgender is discrimination "because of sex" in violation of Title IX of the U.S. Educational Amendments of 1972. In April of 2014, the DOE made this position clear and also stated that its Office of Civil Rights was accepting complaints for investigation. See, http://www2.ed.gov..., section B-2. The DOE had taken this this position in 2012 in a Title IX investigation of the Arcadia School District which resulted in a complaint being filed in the DOE"s Office of Civil Rights. See, http://www.nclrights.org.... This was not a well kept secret. Similarly, the EEOC and the DOJ have taken the same position in an employment context, i.e. that discrimination against a transgender person because they are transgender is discrimination "because of sex" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Google Macy v. Holder, and the Department of Justice v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University for examples. (Courts have generally assessed Title IX discrimination claims under the same legal analysis as Title VII claims. Roberts v. Colorado State Bd. of Agric., 998 F.2d 824, 832 (10th Cir.1993) (Title VII is "the most appropriate analogue when defining Title IX's substantive standards"), quoting Mabry v. State Bd. of Community Colleges, 813 F.2d 311, 316 n. 6 (10th Cir.1987).) 5.The guidance provided by this DCL was consistent with an evolving body of federal law. The only United States Circuit Court of Appeals to make a recent determination on transgender student rights is the 4th Circuit in Grim v. Gloucester County School Board. See, https://www.aclu.org.... In a recent Title VII case, Judge Robin Cauthron of the Western District Court of Oklahoma (an appointee of President George H. Bush) rejected legal arguments which would have found the opposite. That case is set for trial in October of this year. Many more examples can be provided if this becomes a disputed issue. Note that this DCL is still lawful even if Court's ultimately disagree with the position taken by the DOE and DOJ. This DCL placed an important public issue in a position to be decided with finality in the court system. Litigation on these points was inevitable. Similarly, it is not my burden to show that these policies are desirable to establish that this DCL is lawful. However, while we are here, please note that around 15.5 million k-12 students attend school in districts with affirming transgender policies. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Kansas City, even Tulsa, Oklahoma all have affirming policies which are consistent with this DCL. Kids will be kids but nothing dire has happened in any of these situations. However, to repeat, I do not have to prove that these policies are the best possible policies for students to show that the issuance of this DCL was lawful and not any kind of federal overreach as argued by so many conservative commentators. I believe the policies are in the best interests of students but that is an issue for another debate.

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

Title: Free college education Content: 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...

Title: A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Content: 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.

Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: I accept.

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: I will start this round by pointing out some misunderstandings. Con misunderstands when he says that PRO takes the "when" as "irrelevant" . The debate is "if the growth continues" not "when does bankruptcy happen" PRO is saying that if present trends continue, the USA will again go into bankruptcy, but PRO is not giving a year or saying what generation it will impact. Con believes that the debt could be paid down. History says no. The national debt has not been reduced since 1957 . http://www.batr.org... Con again misunderstands when he says "It will not affect this generation as you have claimed. " PRO never claimed this . Con then concedes by saying "It will take another 30 to 50 years before it could really hurt us if what you said happens." Con cites data that supports PRO regarding the inability of SS to loan money after 2033. http://money.cnn.com... Con again misunderstands about "New revenue sources will be unavailable" He cites percentages of EXISTING sources. These are not new sources. Now on to items 4 to 6 #4 Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. In 2016 the effective interest rate on the debt was 2%. The government paid $242,000,000,000 in debt service. What is little known is that the actual interest charge was $432, 000.000.000. In other words the feds kicked about one half of the debt service into the next year. Here is a table on the growing interest cost of the debt.https://www.treasurydirect.gov... 2017 $458,542,287,311.80 2016 $432,649,652,901.12 2015 $402,435,356,075.49 2014 $430,812,121,372.05 2013 $415,688,781,248.40 2012 $359,796,008,919.49 2011 $454,393,280,417.03 2010 $413,954,825,362.17 2000 $361,997,734,302.36 Thus it is apparent that the debt has grown over time. At the same time, the debt service has grown and grown. #5 Default Default is a state where the government fails to meet its financial obligations in the short term. Primarily this happens when the USA fails to pay debt service obligations. "In October 2013"..investors seriously wondered whether the U.S. would actually default on its debt." https://www.thebalance.com... "There are... scenarios under which the United States would default on its debt. "...Interest rates would rise...The dollar would drop, as foreign investors fled the "safe-haven status" of Treasuries. ". The dollar would lose its status as a global world currency".The U.S. government would not be able to pay [obligations]. U.S. Government simply decided that its debt was too high, and simply stopped paying interest " https://www.thebalance.com... #6 Bankruptcy A nation becomes bankrupt when its "lifestyle" exceeds its ability to support that lifestyle. Greece is a good example of this situation, as is Argentina, and to a lesser extent, so is Iceland. http://flatheadbeacon.com... Additionally there are 14 countries on the verge of bankruptcy http://www.totalbankruptcy.com..., and the USA is on that list. http://247wallst.com... "Although not commonly known, the U.S. has declared bankruptcy five times, since its foundation. Once it could not pay its foreign debts, and four times could it not pay its internal debts. These bankruptcies had resulted from financial crises in the banking sector, the first of which was in 1790, and the last of which was in 1933."https://www.dailysabah.com...

Title: Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Content: 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

Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: 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

Title: college tuition too expensive Content: 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.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: 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!

Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: 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

Title: No debt Content: 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.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: 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!

Title: Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Content: 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

Title: Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo... Content: We need to keep in mind the fact that the need for debt relief is looked upon as a threat of bankruptcy. This means countries that are desperate enough to seek debt relief after a disaster may in future be seen as bad credit risks, and become unable to receive the loans they need in order to rebuild for the long-term after a natural disaster. It is also unclear what qualifies as a “natural disaster”. Earthquakes, hurricanes and tidal waves may be sudden and unpredictable, but as much or even more damage can be done by disease outbreaks such as AIDS, SARS or Avian ‘Flu, or by famine caused by crop failure. And why do disasters have to be “natural” to justify debt relief? What about countries affected by man-made disasters such as war? Tanzania and Chad have both suffered hugely from coping with massive refugee inflows following violence in neighbouring states (Rwanda and Sudan respectively).

Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: 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.

Title: Student Loan Debt Content: 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.

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

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

Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: 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

Title: The presidency of barack obama Content: I would first like to point out that I am not a republican and I will not argue that republican policies are what america needs. When Barack Obama was running for president he said that adding 4 trillion dollars of debt in 8 years was unamerican and unpatriotic. So five years into the Obama presidency and he has added 7 trillion dollars of debt. Obama was against the patriot act saying it harms our civil liberties and in 2011 he extends it and the NSA now stores all of our phone calls, emails, texts, etc... which is just another flip flop on Obama's part. The fast and furious program was a major failure. Giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels led to the killing of Brian Terry a US border patrol agent.The cash for clunkers program was designed promote environmentally friendly vehicles and fuel efficient cars. All it really did was destroy classic cars and release even more carbon emissions. The real reason he did it was to give people a reason to buy the new cars from the auto companies he bailed out. The green energy loans were also unsuccessful. He loaned billions of dollars to green energy companies that just went bankrupt. 535 million dollars to Solyndra and they went bankrupt. You can read about the green energy companies he loaned money to on this link. All the companies on this list are bankrupt or on their way out. http://blog.heritage.org......... What about the Stimulus? He promised it would keep the unemployment below 8 percent but the unemployment rate didn't go under 8 percent until September of 2013 and reports are out there now that the numbers were faked for political purposes. Not only did it take till September of 2013 to get the unemployment below 8 percent but the stimulus was supposed to get the unemployment below 6 percent in 2012. Didn't come close to meeting expectations. He promised that the stimulus would immediately impact. saying that it will immediately create jobs because there are shovel ready jobs across the country. He later had to admit in 2011 that those jobs were not as shovel ready as he thought. He said that the stimulus would life 2 million people out of poverty but instead it resulted in 6.3 million falling into poverty as of February 2012. As i stated before Obama gave 35 billion dollars to green energy companies to create jobs most of those companies are now bankrupt. It may not be 2015 yet but he promised that the stimulus would bring 1 million electric cars to the road by 2015 and the Chevy volt is selling way below expectations. http://www.usnews.com......... I believe obamacare is a disaster. The website took a long time to get up and running and today it still isn't fully up and running. according to theblaze.com http://www.theblaze.com......... The website cost more than 1 billion dollars. how does a website that costs 1 billion dollars to build not be able to handle more that 50,000 people at a time? The obamacare law itself is a bad idea. Obamacare forces you to buy health insurance and if you don't you pay a fine. Why should i have to pay a fine because i don't want health insurance? My parents compared plans on healthcare.gov and the cheapest obamacare compliant plan they got cost 300 dollars more per month. How is that affordable? I believe that if we allow the free market to control healthcare the competition will naturally drive down costs allowing people to buy a plan that fits your needs at a cheaper price. Instead Obamacare forces you to have to have a plan that covers maternity care. Why should a man have to pay for maternity coverage or an 80 year old man or an 80 year old woman? If I wanted that covered i would choose a plan that has that coverage. Obamacare has met its goal for the first six months of 7 million signups but the whole goal of the law was to get the uninsured people in america, insured. But the president lied about being able to keep your plan if you like it so more people lost health insurance. Not everybody actually paid for their plans either. http://www.theblaze.com... The IRS scandal is another reason why the Obama presidency is a failure. Why did former IRS head Douglas Shulman visit the white house 118 times in 2 years. There is no other reason that i can see other than working on a plan to target tea party groups. The Benghazi scandal is another flop by the Obama administration. All he had to do was say it was a terrorist attack and actually investigate it but instead he went to vegas for a fundraiser the next day. He said many times before the attack that Al Qaeda is on the run but actually its been growing since 911 and killing osama bin laden really didn't have a huge impact on Al Qaeda. The obama admin said said that osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive and then a few days or weeks later Al Qaeda attacks the Benghazi consulate. Susan Rice went on the sunday talk shows and said that it was a spontaneous demonstration because of an internet video. Hillary Clinton said it was because of an internet video that they had nothing to do with. Just the tone she said it in shows its a lie. It was a well coordinated attack that killed 4 Americans including our ambassador. Hillary clinton told patricia smith that she would find out exactly what happened the moments before her son died and she still has no answers. but the democrats and Obama pass Benghazi, IRS, NSA, as fake scandals. I await your response

Title: resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals Content: Some unexpected business came up. ==Rebuttals==PRO says "My partner first addresses life and he/she is saying that there are public institutions and public hospitals and even the fact that the government cannot take all these away from the people. Lets look at some government institutions/orders/rules. For example, affirmative action gives priority to certain races over others when applying to colleges. Sure this is promoting the democratic ideal of diversity, but now we are taking away democracy. Other institutions require some type of qualification. " 1) Student loans. .. Without the government, there would be no such thing as student loans, since students often have no collateral or credit history. This poses too much of a risk for banks, but our government has somewhat "co-signed" with the students to get the loans. This process happens by the government guaranteeing that the student will pay off the debt, as he/she cannot file bankruptcy.2)Affirmative actions doesn't neccessarly mean prioritizing one group, but rather policies that take factors including race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin. I don't see how we are taking away democracy, as everyone promotes diversity and against discrimination. 3) "Some type of qualification. " Every student belongs at a certain school. .. Elite schools would be too hard and useless for those in need of more basic education, and genius students will have nothing to do at normal schools. Qualifications are used to make sure that the student is right for that school. Pro says, "If everyone was entitled to money from the government then there would not be so many people on the streets as we see today. Even then government support does barely nothing to ensure equality among the citizens. "1) There are local organizations that provide a range of services, including shelter, food, counseling, and jobs skills programs. 2) Food banks exist to feed those in need.3) Since the 1950s, the US government has passed many laws to ensure equality between whites and blacks. . http://www.scholastic.com...4) Our government and we as a society ensure that criminals do not go unpunished.5) The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, banned slavery. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to all Americans, including women and former slaves. The 15th Amendment (1870) provided that voting rights of citizens “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Pro says, "My opponents states that the government cannot takes rights away from people, he is right, however, the fact is, in reality, the effect or leeway of these rights are more noticeable and correlate with the amount of money one has. Even hospitals, they are only legally obligated to treat you if emergency, after that if you don't have good any insurance then they can send you home. You could be dying of a cancer that they can sure, but if you don`t have proper insurance than they just send you home with "what to do with the rest of your life" pamphlet. And thus that point would reside with me, because of income disparity different people are given different healthcare and then possibly have unequal chances of living. "1) Several rights have nothing to do with the amount of money you make, such as the right to vote or the right to a trial.2) A public/government hospital is a hospital which is owned by a government and receives government funding. This type of hospital provides medical care free of charge, and this is covered by the funding the hospital receives. Poor uninsured patients receive their care for free. 3) Life-sustaining treatment and organizations that specifically research cures for cancer exist to help those with cancer. Whether or not they are rich, those with terminal diseases cannot be saved with current technology. I fail to see how money can cure diseases that have no cures. PRO says, "Moving on to liberty, they say that the government cant deprive you of freedom and everyone is given the exact same rights. This is true, however, again, because of this income disparity, certain people have a harder time executing these rights in a from to their pleasing. For example the article released form Princeton University specifically states how the rich are given more of a say. This shows how the rich can properly voice their opinion in the government as opposed to those with lower income. "1) First off, I'd like to mention that "voicing your opinion" has nothing to do with "freedom". Everyone has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.2) Now, there are some possibilities on how the rich can have a bigger voice. a) The Rich have better capabilities and more political power. b) The government benefits and prefers the rich over the poor/middle classes. Addressing point "A". ..1) Cantidates have "spending limits" on states. Here a the list of the spending limits for each state: . http://www.fec.gov...2) Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections. Addressing point "B". .. .1) The top contributors for each presidential cantidate is made public and for everyone to see. If there is corruption going on, then it would already be pointed out.2) Everyone has limits on how much they can donate. This prevents people from trying to gain favors from cantidates. . http://www.fec.gov...;3) Secret ballots currently help prevent cantidates from bribing people to vote for them, as the cantidate cannot know for sure whether or not they are voting for him/her. PRO says "My opponent then talks about the pursuit of happiness. Sure no everyone is guaranteeing it, but because of income disparity most people cannot. This pursuit of happiness should be encouraged by the government but is hindered but the lack of income. They then say we have an education system and a health system that help people succeed. Well that may be the case, but then again not all schools are equal and a lot of schools have are in bad neighborhoods and are not properly funded. In terms of health care, government paid health care does not cover most things, just items such as immediate care and medication. that's it. As i said before. "1) I only need to provide an example of people reaching "happiness", even though they are poor. One example is Bill Clinton and Lincoln. Happiness is defined as the state of being delighted, pleased, or glad. Just because you are poor, it doesn't mean that you cannot express human emotions, or that you cannot make friends. Pro says "They then talk about political rights and equality. Well, yes everyone is given the same rights, but again the ability to perform these rights is hindered by income. Th effectiveness of these rights in government is hindered as said before. New York time columnist and economist stated that people are given unequal shares in the government, and these "shares" are based on income. " 1) How, in any way, can exercising rights be stopped because of income levels? You can choose whether or not to exercise them, but they are not being prevented from you.2. PRO talks about "Unequal shares", but I've already stated before about how you cannot gain the benefit of the government.3) Representives are elected through majority vote. The rich are not the majority of America, but rather the poor and the middle classes. Pro says that people don't necessarly receive enough food. However he is conceding that they are receiving food from food banks. .. PRO also talks about how temples require money. These cultures are often supported by NPOs. And I've run out of space! D:

Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: 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!

Title: studying is not the only way to get rich Content: 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...

Title: Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Content: 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...

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

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: 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.

Title: No debt Content: 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...

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: 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.

Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: 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.

Title: Is Trump a good president(Pro is yes) Content: I must say Lots of Political Personal and business men/women have gone bankrupt. bankruptcy is actually Healthy for a growing business. it helps businesses learn from their mistakes and take those into account when they make their next business plan. on the 1 million dollar loan thing, nobody in their right mind thinks 1 million is small, but you have to remember this man grew up being rich. your version of the small loan and his version of a small loan are very different. being rich is one thing, being white has nothing to do with it. the richest man in the world is Bill gates who's father is native to Syria, so race has nothing to do with if you can make it in the world or not. The wire-Tapping scandal has some proof to the claims he makes. Wikileaks currently has a full page on vault 7 and how the CIA has all access to wire-Tapping or "hacking" into any person with a phone, a computer or even television with a microphone or camera. Obama ordered two "warrants" from the FISA court for who knows what reason. it asks the question, why would Obama ask for a warrant at the end of his term during the election. industrial wise for trump "according to Infowars and Breitbart news Trump has brought in a rough estimate of around 1 million jobs since his election. I don't think trump has made any "enemies" or any countries other than the middle east, and that's very common of a republican or liberal democrat to cause. (the middle east has hated us since bill Clinton.) China is the only possible enemy of trump. China only hates us now because we don't support their communist country anymore. when we were buying from china, that was the only reason their economy didn't collapse. Final words for Round two of this debateTrump will run this Country like a business not like a Politician. and you might think this a generally bad thing right? well if he runs this country like his businesses this country will hopefully have an economic boom relative to the USA in and after ww2Sources: http://indianexpress.com...https://wikileaks.org...https://www.infowars.com...http://www.cnbc.com...https://www.infowars.com...

Title: Tuition-Free College Content: If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.

Title: Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Content: 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...

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Okay, let me be clear here. Because your are misrepresenting the SSI part. I had two parts in it. The first part is the US government have to renegotiate deals every 10 to 14 years. To modify it, you know to make it better. So, yes in 2034 they meaning the SSI will be out of money. But that's only if the government don't renegotiate a new deal before then. And they always renegotiate a new deal 4 to 5 years before the old deal end. The second part of this you didn't even mention. Why Because it would hurt your argument. I said this "The total cost is now about 5% of the national economy, or GDP. That will rise to about 6% when all of the baby boomers are retired". So do you know what this means? It means if ever SSI actually did run out of money which is highly unlikely. It only a small percentage of the country's GDP. SSI running out of money will not dramatic hurt the national debt like some people want to make you believe. It's a fairy tale of lies. You are correct on this part you never brought up the When part. That's because it would hurt your argument. So, i brought it up for my argument. It does matter rather you like to admit it or not. You said "The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation" but when? It not happening right now nor anytime in the near future. So, why does it matter? It like global warming, we need to do something before it too late. But the too late part could take 50 years, a hundred years, or a thousand years. So, when you said the nation will go bankrupt, it doesn't make sense to me when you say this. It not happening immediately, nor no signs of this happening in the near future. You brought up the nation faults five different times. Okay that's true. And what happened to the United States since then? Oh they just grow to the most powerful nation on the planet. So tell me why does this matter? It kind of like the stock market it goes up and way up, and then it go down and even deeper down then it shy rocket again. This what happen every time the market had a crash. So, again even if its ever go down this far it will always go back up. "Many world viewers state that the United States would not go bankrupt because the world economy would not let it as the world economy allegedly feels a US collapse means a world economy collapse, and only God, Goddess, Allah, or other "creator" knows what would result". (10.) https://thelawdictionary.org... "Usually, the inability to pay debt means one has no money. The United States prints its own money. Yet, money used to pay debt is worthwhile only in terms of the debt it pays. If money holds less worth, it pays less debt. This means that it takes more money to pay the same amount of debt. It is a spiral that reduces the worth of money over time. Eventually, the US might run out of trees " to make paper". (11.) https://thelawdictionary.org... This is also true the world economy would not let the US go down this far. Because it would cause chaos around the world. So, China and japan the biggest dept we have is with them, and they would not let the US go down this far as you mention. Its way to much money they would be losing not just the US or the world. So, this bankruptcy of the US WILL not happen in our life times. And that does matter. Why are we talking about something that may or may not happen in a very very long time...

Title: College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. Content: Thanks Con. DEFENSE1) Students have no moneyCon misrepresents her source's statistics. While her source[3] says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans. There is a huge difference. 47% of all families reported borrowing to pay for college. So, we know free transport would benefit at least half the college students because they are in debt. The average college graudate has a debt of $19,000 [4]. The already high price of tuition continues to increase [5]. Con says the debt hasn't affected them yet but it will. Students cannot increase their debt by buying cars or paying full price for public transport every day because it will snowball once they graduate. They need every sort of free service they can get.Unemployed people might have low money as well but their requirement for transportation is lower than that of college student as I show in point 2. Lower income people are able to work full time so despite their hourly wage being lower, they can earn more cash than college students and also don't have a staggering amount of debt. Paying for a car or transportation necessitates that students work longer hours. College students working more than 20 hours a week on campus or off negatively affects students' academic performance [6]. College students should be allowed to focus on their academics by having transportation taken care of.2) RequirementPeople who have jobs will be able to afford cars or at least be able to afford public transport by paying the full price. College students have a large amount of debt and limited time to work and so have a higher need for free transportation. They also need to travel far more frequently to class and back than someone who is just unemployed. My opponent says her school provides free transportation. My school on the other hand just cancelled the service[1]. Instead they work with the county's public transport agency to provide free transport to students. The ability of a University to provide transport is unreliable but if they work with their state, it is far more reliable as it is funded by the government. 3) Pay after graduation Taxes are used for many purposes, not all of which benefit the person paying the taxes. For example, if part of your taxes are being used to construct freeways, but you don't have a car and never use the freeways, can you legitimately complain that it is an "unfair financial transaction" or that it is "theft"? Taxes are meant to benefit society as a whole and this is a great way to give benefits to people who need them.4) University owes themPart of the reason students pay such a large amount of money to Universities is not just for tuition but for the facilities the University offers. My school [1] works with the public transport agancy and makes a deal with them for students to be allowed to ride free at taxpayer's expense. Universities should be doing this in all counties because this is a facility that is really needed.REBUTTAL1) Other uses Con would rather use taxpayers money for Social Security and debt. Carpooling, she says, is good for the evironment. Public transport is actually better since more people will use a bus than can fit into a car. Public transportation also saves 1.4 billion gallons of gas a year [2]. This would actually help pay the US debt on oil. Walking may be good for health but people cannot realistically walk long distances to class.2) Increased useCon says free transportation would increase use to the point of being too expensive. Not the case if only college students are given free transportation. The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full. In Riverside, California, college students ride for free [1] and there is no problem of overloading as the public transport is still running (though University operated transport closed for unrelated budget reasons). Sourceshttp://bit.ly...

Title: Strengthening US Immigration Regulations Content: 1) "Education for the children of illegal immigrants constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion." While the average college student debt is around $29,400 for borrowers in the class of 2012. That money could be used to fund college students who are citizens of the United States. (http://citizensforlaws.org...) 2) If we don't enforce illegal immigration or strengthen current regulations, it will inevitable make it easier for terrorists to come into the United States undetected. Conclusion- We should strength immigration regulations for illegal immigrants.

Title: The debtor countries knew what they were signing up for when they took the loan Content: Surely the richer countries should be looking to help out the poorer ones? The world is growing smaller with live worldwide news coverage and international travel becoming easier. Surely in these global times we can't stand by and let the poorer nations suffer?

Title: Student Loan Debt Content: 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...

Title: Domestic spending to prevent recessions is a form of investment. Content: Individuals take out loans to pay for an education or home in order to improve their standards of living. We would not discourage a student from attending college because they will have temporary debt; this debt will pay off in the long run as they will be able to getter a better job if they have graduated from university. Similarly, when a government invests in better roads, education, or economic stimulus, it helps society to be more productive, thereby generating more wealth.[1] The harmful effects of refusing to generate debt can be found in Russia, which is heavily criticized for failing to use temporary deficits to stimulate long-term growth.[2] [1] Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. “National Debt for Beginners.” NPR, February 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343 [2] “Russia: Forecast for the Next 12 Months,” The Association of International Credit and Trade Finance Professionals, 2011.

Title: that the united states should implement universal health care modeled after the french system Content: to wrap up this debate what I'm trying to prove is that we should adopt universal health care modeled after the French because as I have stated earlier that we have a 2.3 trillion debt due to health care and France has a 9 billion dollar deficit do you can clearly see the difference between the two and I do agree with my opponent that we would go bankrupt with this universal health care but what I'm also trying to say is that even if we don't take in the universal health care we still would be going bankrupt. but by taking in universal health care we wouldn't go into bankrupt so quickly. my second point is that it could be possible to work universal health care in the united states, in Kentucky they had done a similar thing like universal health care but they stated it did not work due to the low number of citizens. so if we were to take in universal health care which would include every one then we could possibly work universal health care into our system this are my two main points on why I should win this debate thank you masterzanzibar for such a great debate no one has ever bring up this kind of information and you should tell me what framework has to do with this debate

Title: Barack Obamas presidency Content: When Barack Obama was running for president he said that adding 4 trillion dollars of debt in 8 years was unamerican and unpatriotic. So five years into the Obama presidency and he has added 7 trillion dollars of debt. Obama was against the patriot act saying it harms our civil liberties and in 2011 he extends it and the NSA now stores all of our phone calls, emails, texts, etc... which is just another flip flop on Obamas part. The fast and furious program was a major failure. giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels led to the killing of Brian Terry a US border patrol agent. The major failure known as the cash for clunkers program was designed promote environmentally friendly vehicles and fuel efficient cars. All it really did was destroy classic cars and release even more carbon emissions. The real reason he did it was to give people a reason to buy the new cars from the auto companies he bailed out. A big failure of the Obama administration was his big green energy loans. He loaned billions of dollars to green energy companies that just went bankrupt. 535 million dollars to Solyndra and they went bankrupt. You can read about the green energy companies he loaned money to on this link. All the companies on this list are bankrupt or on their way out. http://blog.heritage.org... What about the Stimulus? He promised it would keep the unemployment below 8 percent but it didnt get under 8 percent until September of 2013 and reports are out there now that the numbers were faked for political purposes. Not only did it take till September of 2013 to get the unemployment below 8 percent but the stimulus was supposed to get the unemployment below 6 percent in 2012. Didn't come close to meeting expectations. He promised that the stimulus would immediately impact. saying that it will immediately create jobs because there are shovel ready jobs across the country. He later had to admit in 2011 that those jobs were not as shovel ready as he thought. He said that the stimulus would life 2 million people out of poverty but instead it resulted in 6.3 million falling into poverty as of February 2012. As i stated before obama gave 35 billion dollars to green energy companies to create jobs most of those companies are now bankrupt. It may not be 2015 yet but he promised that the stimulus would bring 1 million electric cars to the road by 2015 and the chevy volt is selling way below expectations. http://www.usnews.com... Obamacare i believe is a disaster. the website took a long time to get up and running and today it still isnt fully up and running. according to theblaze.com http://www.theblaze.com... the website cost more than 1 billion dollars. how does a website that costs 1 billion dollars to build not be able to handle more that 50,000 people at a time? The obamacare law itself is a bad idea. Obamacare forces you to buy health insurance and if you dont you pay a fine. Why should i have to pay a fine because i dont want health insurance. my parents compared plans on healthcare.gov and the cheapest obamacare compliant plan they got cost 300 dollars more a month. How is that affordable? I believe that if we allow the free market to control healthcare the competition will naturaly drive down costs allowing people to buy a plan that fits your needs at a cheaper price. Instead Obamacare forces you to have to have a plan that covers maternity care. Why should a man have to pay for maternity coverage or an 80 year old man or an 80 year old woman? If i wanted that covered i would choose a plan that has that coverage. The IRS scandal is another reason why obamas presidency is a failure. Why did former IRS head Douglas Shulman visit the white house 118 times in 2 years. There is no other reason that i can see other than working on a plan to target tea party groups. The Benghazi scandal is another flop by the obama administration. All he had to do was say it was a terrorist attack and actually investigate it but instead he went to vegas for a fundraiser the next day. He said many times before the attack that al qaeda is on the run but actually its been growing since 911 and killing osama bin laden really didnt have a huge impact on al qaeda. The obama admin said said that osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive and then a few days or weeks later al qaeda attacks the benghazi consulate. Susan Rice went on the sunday talk shows and said that it was a spontaneous demonstration because of an internet video. hillary clinton said it was because of an internet video that they had nothing to do with. Just the tone she said it in shows its a lie. It was a well coordinated attack that killed 4 americans including our ambassador. Hillary clinton told patricia smith that she would find out exactly what happened the moments before her son died and she still has no answers. but the democrats and obama pass benghazi, IRS, NSA, as fake scandals. I await your response

Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: debt unites students

Title: Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs Content: If you ever really looked into student loans you will see that the teenager would have to pay of the loans that they got from the college.When the student of the college gets a loan they will need to pay back the school after that semester that they are doing.Also, some of the families cant afford getting loans because of how poor they are, with the transportation issue they could always get s ride from some one or they can have their own permit on a 4-wheeler or a golf cart, they really dont need a drivers license.

Title: There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care. Content: "Scholarships available" I am so tired of that argument. Yeah school is free, that why the country is drowning in student loan debt. Besides that ti doesn't matter who's paying for it, the debt still has to be paid. And beyond the cost is the time. Which again even if it's free is extremely limiting. The restrictions in place contribute to the conflict of interest, why those restriction exist is irrelevant. Having a broken radiator is not like being in screaming agony from an abscess. They don't put you on narcotics when your fan belt snaps. There are no tooth repair option at walmart, period. There are stop gaps to delay your dentist appointment and the only reason you would delay something like that is because of the expense or fear. And even if I have the dental skill I'm still most likely going to have to go to the dentist. The plasma innovation is a surgical one and is not related to conflict of interest because that innovation only applies after the teeth have failed to the point of surgery. And Oral surgery is not dentistry, its oral surgery, hence the alternate name. Oral surgeon are not dentists, they are surgeons that specialize in the mouth, surgeons have no conflict of interest like dentists, if at all. The assumption that regulation equals safety is a debate in and of itself, one could easily argue intense regulation is a blight on safety in the long term by inhibiting innovation. Did you not state that dentist have a free market? So which is it? They are totally regulated and safe or the market weeds out ones that are not. Mexico has laws against incompetence in the field of medicine just like every other developed country. It's not a desert full of mud huts and savages you know. I don't know, usually when I'm in excruciating pain I don't stop to run a back ground check. Being poor I don't have many "elective" procedures done. Assuming the American way is the best way does make you ethnocentric and elitist. Prove that the Mexican system is less effective. If anything I'd say it's more effective against incompetence because the Mexican judicial system is quite harsh compared to ours. you screw up someone's face you might get harsh jail time there, not a law suit. I'm ignoring your weird tangent on racism, I was speaking to the potential claim that Mexicans make lousy dentists. "If dentists did not fix problems with teeth, there would not be any dentists for very long." Do you know that having teeth pulled was once done at your local barber, along with blood letting? Even tribal villages have someone that would pry teeth out if needed. People put up with what they have available, because to do nothing is torturous, and they have no concept of what the alternative could be. Dentists tell us "sorry, this is just the way it is" and we have to trust them. Compared to the advance of medicine dentistry is hardly advancing at all as judged by change of basic approach. We recently transplanted a whole face. What dramatic advances have happened in dentistry recently? Virtually every medical field except density has had remarkable visible progress in the past 10 years. So if tooth decay is so well understood why can't it be cured or utterly prevented? You know what else we understand? Polio. Small pox. Leprosy. Yellow fever. Malaria. I respect Wikipedia as a source. If tooth decay is well understood which I grant, then the lack of a cure could indicate a lack of interest in a real cure. I mean really, tooth care amounts to poison baths and scraping. I think we should be able to do better. I don't blame dentists for causing tooth decay I blame dentists for not presenting better alternatives of prevention and repair. Yeah they've told us not to eat sugar, and heart doctors tell us not to eat fat, but they still go right on increasing the quality of heart care, so effectively in fact that the life expectancy continues to rise. I don't think you understand the word innovate. Telling me not to crash on my bike to prevent head injury is not an innovation. A helmet is. "This arguement is only good for tooth decay." Yeah, and that's the topic of this debate. (Spell check man, I'm not stabbing, seriously, I spell SO badly unaided, it'll cost you votes. People are stupid generally and think lack of spelling skill equals a lack of intellect which is as absurd as using Japanese fluency as an intelligence indicator.) The government watching, is not good enough, they are politicians and bureaucrats, they know about as much about dentistry as I do, they have to hire people, dentists. Even if those dentists are completely honest and doing their level best, which I suspect they are in the vast majority of cases, that's only a prevention of negative pressure. The nature the this conflict of interest can be equally exploited by inaction. So long as everyone agrees to not innovate the money will flow in, this is not a crime, or incompetence, it's just shady. The government sets no regular goals for innovation. "Proving that the entire industry is on the up and up has nothing to do with this debate. You cannot attempt to re-define or widen the terms of the debate after you have posted them." I've already won the original debate, we're arguing about whether or not dentists have exploited the conflict of interest, not that the conflict exists. By arguing that they do not exploit it you already have implied that the conflict is there. By noted the need for regulation you note the conflict's existence. "I simply have to prove that a conflict of interest does not exist when dentists as a professional body advise on tooth care." That's not what you've been arguing. Can a dentist profit from failing to innovate, yes or no? Can a dentist convince a patient that an improper course of action is the proper one, yes or no? Can a dentist blame his patent convincingly for his own failure, yes or no? Do dentists make money from tooth decay, yes or no? There is a conflict, and you know it.

Title: debt unites students Content: 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.

Title: Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Content: I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... 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. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any "trickling down" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend.

Title: College Textbooks Content: 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.

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Yes, this debate is finally getting over with. It has been what like a week and a half. But it has been fun. So, I guess i should start now. You kept on saying SSI is going to dry up by 2033, and i already told you it won't. Just because the old deal will end by then, doesn't mean it will dry up the money nor will it end SSI. Nor will this cause a meltdown of the financial institution. I told you the government will renegotiate a new deal before then. And they always renegotiate a new deal 4 to 5 years before the old deals end. Another part like i said before SSI is a smaller part of the GDP, you also didn't provide any proof of how big SSI is on the GDP, I have. "In fiscal year 2016, the federal government spent $3.9 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation"s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $3.9 trillion, over $3.3 trillion was financed by federal revenues". (12.) https://www.cbpp.org... Only 24 percent of SSI actually go toward the budget, And like i said before you thinking SSI will fall out of money is flawed, it won't. The government will issue new deals, and new tax breaks, and do whatever it take to keep SSI up and running. "The treasury will then have to sell 50% more bonds to compensate for the loss". Again you are assuming, with no real proof to back it up. You think if the national debt will increase, it would turn out to be a financial crisis and thinking it would be the end of the US. When in fact, the world economy is interchain with the US, so the world would not let this happen. Another important part you keep on ignoring is the US print their own money. Yes the US is over 20 and a half trillion dollars in debt. But is this hurting the Economy? the answer is no... So, you say it will one-day lead to a total meltdown of the Economy. Again this is wrong. Why because the world would lay out their hand to help the US again. If the US get in trouble again, the US will simply buy out the banks again and will turn to other nationals to help. China and Japan are our biggest debt collected and yet haven't done or said anything. Why because they still get paid, The US is still the biggest economy in the world. And if or when the US slip to number two, it will still be a great economy. You also assume the US at their current pace of spending will not be able to pay off their debt. When in fact you have shown no evidence of this 20 trillion dollar debt or any higher amount would be hurting the US. Yes, I will agree with you on this part, the US will have another downturn in the economy because it can't stay up forever. But just like in the past the US will be able to rebound, and after some down years, then after some stable years then the US will be able to start thriving again. Another factor you still want to avoid is the when part, on why it so important. It important because you are trying to assume the future of the downfall of this economy. By saying overspending will hurt us within time. But how will it hurt us in this up and thriving economy? You say by taxes, or by the government not making any more money. But you are forgetting the US federal reserve print their own money and this will never stop. Even if the US is overspending, it will still very unlikely the US will go bankrupt over time. the US will repeat this process over and over, it has been doing this for over 70 years, and will continue for another 40 to 50 years. So, yes the WHEN part is important. You were making it look like the next financial crisis is coming soon, but when in fact it not even close on happening and differently not because of the national debt. The US has a lot of options if things start to look bad, it will not happen overnight. I will say you are right it does matter if the country goes bankrupt, but you were ignoring the facts it won't be trouble anytime soon or how other countries could help the US in time of crisis. Thank you for this.

Title: National service could be offset against student loans Content: Young people might feel cornered into signing up for financial reasons when they otherwise wouldn't. There should be no financial incentive for risking one's life.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) "Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful."OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. "First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things."I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a "pre-paid" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. "It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring." If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. "Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit."Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you."LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment."If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank."With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car."Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects."I didn't cheat anybody. I "borrowed" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.

Title: Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available Content: The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: My opponent asks " how long does this deficit have to go on before it actually starts to hit the economy. " He then goes on to quote sources that say it already has impacted the economy where he cites " A study by the World Bank found that if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77 percent for an extended period of time, it slows economic growth. Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 1.7 percent in economic growth." (1) He then states "Most of the experts think this deficit won't affect us too much just our kid's children, to their children and grandchildren." Note that PRO did not cite an exact year for the bankruptcy. The argument is that IF things do not change there will be bankruptcy.Whether it takes place during our lives or our children"s lives is irrelevant in terms of this debate. He then cites this statement ""The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 104 percent. But that's not a critical for a country which can issue debt in its own currency. The United States can simply print more dollars to pay off the debt. For this reason, the risk of default is very low" but avoids the rest of the quote".to wit"."On the other hand, the debt holders wind up with money that's worth less. This will eventually make them avoid U.S. debt." (2) Given in rough numbers, for 2017, federal income was $3.5 trillion. Mandatory spending was $3 trillion, so at that point there was a $500 billion surplus. Then Congress spent the $500 billion ( discretionary spending and debt service) and borrowed an additional $600 billion ( to spend on additional discretionaries) .Total spending amounted to $4.1 trillion. At this point the equation is $3.5 trillion (revenue) minus $4.1 trillion (spending) = a negative $600 billion (deficit). The $600 billion ( deficit) is borrowed. $400 billion is raised through the sale of bonds. $200 billion is borrowed from the Social Security Administration. The $600 billion ( deficit) is then added to the $19.4 trillion ( previous debt ) to arrive at the current debt of $20 trillion. The borrowed money must be repaid with interest, thus increasing the future deficits and future debt, and so on and so on. Here is where the problem lays. In 2017 the US will spend $242 billion on debt service. That number may reach $1 trillion by 2020. Several scenarios could disrupt this procedure and could eventually bankrupt the nation. Scenarios #1 Investors stop buying bonds. #2 Social security no longer has a surplus to loan #3 New revenue sources will be unavailable #4 Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. #5 Default #6 Bankruptcy #1 Why would investors stop buying? "Because" T-Bills offer relatively low returns compared to other debt instruments. In fact, rates on T-Bills can be less than most money market funds or certificates of deposit (CDs). The returns from T-Bills are only realized when they mature, making them a somewhat less attractive income vehicle " especially for investors seeking a steady cash flow." (3) #2 Social security will no longer have a surplus to loan after 2033 (4) #3 There are no new major revenue sources I will deal with 4, 5 and 6 in the next round. https://www.thebalance.com... https://www.thebalance.com... https://www.investopedia.com... https://www.inquisitr.com...

Title: Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school. Content: David Lat. "In Defense of Going to Law School." Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: "4. Not everyone graduates with debt (or with as much debt as some people think). I was lucky enough to graduate law school debt-free; my parents paid for my college and law school. And I’m not alone. According to the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (figure 7), over 10 percent of law students will graduate with zero debt, and another 5 percent or so will graduate with less than $20,000 in student loans. So somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of law school graduates leave school with little to no debt — and a valuable professional degree to show for their efforts. There are several reasons why perhaps a fifth of law school graduates have little or no debt. Some have parents, grandparents or spouses who are willing to help out with educational costs. Some have savings from pre-law-school careers, in lucrative fields such as finance or consulting. And some attend reasonably priced state schools and/or receive very generous scholarship money. The dean of one top 25 law school told me earlier this year that about two-thirds of his school’s students receive some form of scholarship aid from the school. [...] So the 'sticker price' of law school, in terms of the cost you see on the law school website or in brochures, can be misleading. Many students aren’t paying full freight — and many of the students who are paying full freight can afford to."

Title: College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. Content: -- REBUTTAL -- 1. College students have very little money. Pro explains, "Most college students have taken student loans or had their parents take mortgages on their house to pay for college tuition, rent, food and textbooks." This is factually inaccurate and misleading. First, 1/3 of college students have their costs completely covered by their parents' income and savings. An additional 45% cover costs via their own savings, assistance from relatives, grants, scholarships and with help from parent borrowing [1]. While 23% do take out loans, the student is not obligated to pay back those loans until they are finished with school. As such, it doesn't make sense to reference student debt (which is obsolete until graduation) as a reason for them being financially challenged, because it hasn't affected them yet. Moreover, college students are not the only demographic with "very little money." People who work low-income jobs or who are unemployed have little to no money -- why should transportation not be free for them? This is especially true once you consider the following: people with low-income jobs ARE tax payers, therefore Pro is suggesting that these people (often far less well off than college students) pay for other people's rides despite being similarly or even more disadvantaged. Additionally, many college students in fact hold jobs, meaning they are not necessarily struggling more than others. In fact, almost 80% of college students work on average 30 hours per week - almost full time [2]! Therefore, it makes no sense to suggest that college students deserve this special privilege based on how much money they have in comparison with other demographics. 2. Students have a huge requirement for transportation. Many transportation services already provide discounts, but most importantly, it would be Pro's burden to explain why students have a higher need than anyone else, particularly others with or who are looking for jobs. Additionally, many colleges already provide methods of free transportation for students. My school provides buses that take students not only through the campuses to get to class, but even through the city where the school is located to various other convenient checkpoints. There are also free shuttles that essentially act as cabs in some instances [3]. 3. Students would pay for it after graduation.That is not a fair exchange; people will likely pay a disproportionate amount to what they "owe" based on use. A fair financial transaction is one based on a mutual agreement. It should be up to the person paying whether or not they accept a service or good in exchange for payment. Some students with cars will not need this "free" transportation, yet wind up paying for others to use the service through taxes. That is equivalent to theft. 4. The university owes them. This contention is irrelevant considering Pro wants the tax payers and not the school to fund the transportation. I also disagree with Pro's bare assertion that it is up to the university to alleviate financial burdens for the student as much as possible; they have their own agenda. -- ARGUMENTS -- In addition to what I've already argued above in my rebuttal, 1. There are more important or useful things we could put tax payer money toward than free transportation; i.e., our debt, social security or other flailing aspects of our economy. Additionally, many people would still find a way to get places such as carpooling or walking and biking places, which contributes toward good personal and environmental health. 2. Free transportation would increase use, thereby necessarily drastically increase the cost of providing the service (i.e., more buses, trains, drivers, gas, electricity, etc.) to alleviate demand. It would be FAR too expensive to maintain, and create another huge tax payer drain. -- SOURCES --http://www.debate.org...

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Okay round 2 you decided to go by key terms. Which is fine it just not what i really wanted to hear. Why because when your title says "The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation". I want to know why, when and how it going to bankrupt up the nation. I know some of the key terms you mention are important such as Federal revenue, Mandatory spending, Debt service, Deficit, Discretionary spending. And yes they are important but failed to mention the WHEN part. The When the part is very important because you failed to mention how long does this deficit have to go on before it actually starts to hit the economy. Most of the experts think this deficit won't affect us too much just our kid's children, to their children and grandchildren. The debt-to-GDP ratio is important to understand as well... "The debt-to-GDP ratio compares a country's sovereign debt to its total economic output for the year. Its output is measured by gross domestic product". (1.) https://www.thebalance.com... This ratio is used as a tool for investors, leaders, and economists. "It allows them to gauge a country's ability to pay off its debt. A high ratio means a country isn't producing enough to pay off its debt. A low ratio means there is plenty of economic output to make the payments". (2.) https://www.thebalance.com... " The estimations establish a threshold of 77 percent public debt-to-GDP ratio. If the debt is above this threshold, each additional percentage point of debt costs 0.017 percentage points of annual real growth. The effect is even more pronounced in emerging markets where the threshold is 64 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. In these countries, the loss in annual real growth with each additional percentage point in public debt amounts to 0.02 percentage points. The cumulative effect on real GDP could be substantial. Importantly, the estimations control for other variables that might impact growth, such as the initial level of per-capita-GDP". (3.) https://elibrary.worldbank.org... The best element an investor has is the faith in a government's solvency is the yield on its debt. When yields are low, that means there is a lot of demand for its debt. It doesn't have to pay as high a return. The United States has been fortunate in this regard. During the Great Recession, investors fled to U.S. debt. It is considered ultra-safe. As the global economy continues to improve, investors will be comfortable with higher risk because they want higher returns. Yields on U.S. debt will rise asdemand falls. "The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 104 percent. But that's not a critical for a country which can issue debt in its own currency. The United States can simply print more dollars to pay off the debt. For this reason, the risk of default is very low".(4.) https://www.thebalance.com... Debt service reserves are cash assets that are designated by a borrower to ensure full and timely payments to bondholders. Debt Service Reserve Funds (DSRF) have been used for many years by private businesses and public entities to support debt issues. Look at the economy is doing great. The job market doing well, the private sector is going well, the economy is building new business, and the housing market is going well. And not just here but globally. So, the national debt is over 20 and a half trillion dollar right now. That doesn't matter much it could go over 30 or 50 trillion and it won't matter too much. As long the economy is going well, and the federal reserves keep on printing money out. It will not affect this generation too negative. It just a number and that all it is. You say the National debt going to bankrupt up the nation. If that is true, When? and why does it matter to this generation?

Title: college tuition too expensive Content: Tamar Lewin published an article "Burdens of College Loans on Graduates Grows" in the New York Times. It reflects on some of the statistics based from 2008 students taking out loans to pay for their education. The facts show that people that have to pay more money for school will be less likely to finish school and be able to provide for their families in the future. Since our economy is doing bad all the big institutions have to raise their tuition to survive in this harsh depression. Many believe that when it comes to education the price for it should not matter because, we live in a society that is education is very important. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and fastweb.com compiled evidence from students taking private and federal loans to cover their education while in school. It came to the starling amount that two thirds of bachelor recipients were in debt about 24,000 dollars. For many people with low income it will take them about twenty to thirty years to pay off their school loans. Mr. Kantrowitz coming up with the statistics to show how from 1993 the tuition was less than half of 2008. Even though there are some ways to go to college without being in big debt, many people do not want to go to junior colleges then to a university. This is a long process and some people want to really get the college experience. As a student here I do have several friends that took that route and one of the main problems with that was having your courses transferred over to your major. In places like Georgia that do pay for your tuition if you have a 3.5 or higher is a great thing, but other states do not have it. Either way you look at it people are going to have to pay back some money. When you graduate you never really graduate with any money because college is a grind.

Title: the presidency of barack obama Content: When Barack Obama was running for president he said that adding 4 trillion dollars of debt in 8 years was unamerican and unpatriotic. So five years into the Obama presidency and he has added 7 trillion dollars of debt. Obama was against the patriot act saying it harms our civil liberties and in 2011 he extends it and the NSA now stores all of our phone calls, emails, texts, etc... which is just another flip flop on Obamas part. The fast and furious program was a major failure. giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels led to the killing of Brian Terry a US border patrol agent. The major failure known as the cash for clunkers program was designed promote environmentally friendly vehicles and fuel efficient cars. All it really did was destroy classic cars and release even more carbon emissions. The real reason he did it was to give people a reason to buy the new cars from the auto companies he bailed out. A big failure of the Obama administration was his big green energy loans. He loaned billions of dollars to green energy companies that just went bankrupt. 535 million dollars to Solyndra and they went bankrupt. You can read about the green energy companies he loaned money to on this link. All the companies on this list are bankrupt or on their way out. http://blog.heritage.org...... What about the Stimulus? He promised it would keep the unemployment below 8 percent but it didnt get under 8 percent until September of 2013 and reports are out there now that the numbers were faked for political purposes. Not only did it take till September of 2013 to get the unemployment below 8 percent but the stimulus was supposed to get the unemployment below 6 percent in 2012. Didn't come close to meeting expectations. He promised that the stimulus would immediately impact. saying that it will immediately create jobs because there are shovel ready jobs across the country. He later had to admit in 2011 that those jobs were not as shovel ready as he thought. He said that the stimulus would life 2 million people out of poverty but instead it resulted in 6.3 million falling into poverty as of February 2012. As i stated before obama gave 35 billion dollars to green energy companies to create jobs most of those companies are now bankrupt. It may not be 2015 yet but he promised that the stimulus would bring 1 million electric cars to the road by 2015 and the chevy volt is selling way below expectations. http://www.usnews.com...... Obamacare i believe is a disaster. the website took a long time to get up and running and today it still isnt fully up and running. according to theblaze.com http://www.theblaze.com...... the website cost more than 1 billion dollars. how does a website that costs 1 billion dollars to build not be able to handle more that 50,000 people at a time? The obamacare law itself is a bad idea. Obamacare forces you to buy health insurance and if you dont you pay a fine. Why should i have to pay a fine because i dont want health insurance. my parents compared plans on healthcare.gov and the cheapest obamacare compliant plan they got cost 300 dollars more a month. How is that affordable? I believe that if we allow the free market to control healthcare the competition will naturaly drive down costs allowing people to buy a plan that fits your needs at a cheaper price. Instead Obamacare forces you to have to have a plan that covers maternity care. Why should a man have to pay for maternity coverage or an 80 year old man or an 80 year old woman? If i wanted that covered i would choose a plan that has that coverage. The IRS scandal is another reason why obamas presidency is a failure. Why did former IRS head Douglas Shulman visit the white house 118 times in 2 years. There is no other reason that i can see other than working on a plan to target tea party groups. The Benghazi scandal is another flop by the obama administration. All he had to do was say it was a terrorist attack and actually investigate it but instead he went to vegas for a fundraiser the next day. He said many times before the attack that al qaeda is on the run but actually its been growing since 911 and killing osama bin laden really didnt have a huge impact on al qaeda. The obama admin said said that osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive and then a few days or weeks later al qaeda attacks the benghazi consulate. Susan Rice went on the sunday talk shows and said that it was a spontaneous demonstration because of an internet video. hillary clinton said it was because of an internet video that they had nothing to do with. Just the tone she said it in shows its a lie. It was a well coordinated attack that killed 4 americans including our ambassador. Hillary clinton told patricia smith that she would find out exactly what happened the moments before her son died and she still has no answers. but the democrats and obama pass benghazi, IRS, NSA, as fake scandals. I await your response

Title: Should Puerto Rico become the 51st state Content: First of all, the mainland US had its own problem. It has 17 trillion dollars of debt, health care problem, etc. Therefore, giving Puerto Rico 20,000,000 a year would make US bankrupt. It's Pert Rico's fault that they have $70 billion dollars (Or more) debt. They sell bonds carelessly,so why should US mainland help them when they brought the crisis to themselves? Also, "The unemployment rate won't go down, it would go up" Isn't the lower the unemployment rate is, the better? Unless I am misunderstanding something here? "Independence would make them poorer" The 1998 showed that 50% of the Puerto Rico want nothing changed.

Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: No debt

Title: The U.S. Government Should Allow the Big Three Automakers to Go Bankrupt Content: 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this debate, the "Big Three" are General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. "Bankrupt" is a legal state of financial insolvency whereby (a) stockholders lose all of their equity investment, (b) future contract obligations of the corporation are voided, and (c) creditors are apportioned the corporate assets under court supervision. It is within the scope of the debate to permit modifications to the existing law, a "special" bankruptcy, so long as the three provisions of the definition are broadly maintained. Welfare assistance to unemployed workers may be provided by the Government, separate from any bankruptcy. What is at issue is the Government providing loans or grants, a "bailout." to one or more of the Big Three solvent in order to avoid bankruptcy. 2. A bailout would at best postpone inevitable failure. Automobiles can be manufactured profitably in the United States. Foreign-owned automakers such as Toyota have many plants in the U.S., and those plants manufacture profitably. There are two reasons why the Detroit-based Big Three are failing: (a) their labor costs, in Michigan and other northern states, are approximately double that of the plants, mainly in the South, run by foreign manufacturers, and (b) the Big Three has many billions in legacy costs accrued from labor contracts that provide lavish pensions. A bailout will do nothing to remedy these basic problems because the contractual obligations for both will remain intact. Only bankruptcy can remove the continuing obligations. Thus a bailout will ultimately waste the taxpayer's money. "G.M. has an unfunded liability of $85 billion in today's money to cover future health care costs for workers and retirees. That is seven to eight times the market value of the whole company. ... G.M.'s pension plan has also been a drain. Since 1992, G.M. has plowed $56 billion in stock and cash into it. ..." http://www.nytimes.com... 3. A bailout will set a precedent whereby Congress will be obliged to bail out other companies that failed in the free market. There are currently 35 automakers in the category of making more than 200,000 vehicles per year, and all of the top 17 sell products in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org... At a time when there was little international competition, unions demanded high wages and benefits and U.S. automakers granted them. These were extremely unwise decisions that led to failure of the companies. However, in a free market, the companies that cannot compete should fail and cede the market to successful competitors. Having the government subsidize non-competitive companies is a bottomless pit. Even if the bail out were to work, by some miracle, in the auto industry, there would be a very long line of other failing companies demanding equity by receiving a similar bailout. The precedent should be avoided. 4. The impact on U.S. jobs will be less than feared. One may ask why the auto companies in Japan and Germany have decided to build manufacturing plants in the United States. Clearly, the economics favors domestic production. It only favors it, however, when companies have a clean slate in formulating wage and benefit packages and selecting tax-favorable states for operations. Having the Big Three go bankrupt will not change the fundamental economics that favors domestic production. Industry analyst Rich Folts states, "But because of the weak dollar versus the euro and some of the other currencies around the world, manufacturing may see a resurgence here -- perhaps not in Detroit because it's still high cost, but in other parts of the country such as the Deep South where unions aren't as prevalent. ... Working with global European suppliers, I see a greater emphasis on moving operations to the U.S -- particularly the South. They see the potential to expand because we're still the largest economy in the world. It provides them the opportunity to increase their capacity at a lower cost and be closer to their customers." http://www.manufacturing.net... 5. We should not fight the markets. It may be the case that ultimately auto manufacturing will become uneconomic in the United States. It isn't clear because the increased productivity from high tech automation helps compensate for increased labor costs. If that turns out to be the case, then attempting to forestall the inevitable would be a terrible mistake. In 1900, 92% of American jobs were in agriculture. Now it is about 4%, although substantially most food is produced. Suppose the government had, in 1900, decided to do everything possible to keep all of the jobs in agriculture? that isn't the path we should adopt now. We should let the market determine the best allocation of resources. 6. Easing dislocation is a proper government function. There is the potential for substantial economic dislocation during the realignment, however, the resolution allows the government to ease that dislocation. The methods for doing that including a phased selling of the auto company assets to new owners who can profitably keep the production lines running. Also, the government can provide for unemployment benefits and retraining of workers. 7. Industry transitioning can succeed. There is an excellent example of a similar situation. North Carolina was once heavily dependent upon textile manufacturing and tobacco growing. those industries became largely non-competitive. Rather than receiving bailouts, the state successfully transitioned to new industries, including finance, pharmaceuticals, and technology. 8. Conclusion. The government can help the Big Three transition to new ownership under a bankruptcy sale and redeployment of their assets. The union pensions already have billions in funding, and they would get more as creditors in the sale of the assets. The government can also provide aid in unemployment benefits, retraining, and relocation. What the government should not do is waste taxpayer money in a vain attempt to postpone the inevitable.

Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: 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.

Title: Economic Understanding should be Acquired Before Exercising Union/Voting Powers Content: Today, there are evident flaws in our system of democracy. These flaws are exemplified by the bankruptcy of Greece. To win votes, politicians must "bribe" citizens with promises, and often times, these promises place heavy strains on the country"s economy. Today"s citizens want higher wages, better welfare, less working time, and lower taxes - often simultaneously. Evidently, this is impossible. The government borrows heavily to finance the spending. This spending is unsustainable. Eventually, investors will realize that the country"s debt to GDP ratio is unsustainable. They will sell their bonds en masse. Bond prices will plunge, interest rates will spike, and the currency will crash. In the words of Barry Eichengreen, "if this happened all at once, the results could be devastating". To illustrate this, in 2013 the unemployment rate of Greece and Spain were over 25%. Austerity measures are implemented and governments must cut spending, which means cutting jobs and reducing pay. The people, in their wisdom, riot and go on strike during a recession (Yes, the very people who were lucky enough to retain their job). That"s what happened in many European countries, Canada, and the United States during the Great Recession. The pain is so great that Bloomberg declared it "politically impossible" to pay off the debt. Politicians are tied to the voters; they must promise voters benefits. And as long as voters are ignorant of the true well-being of the country, the country can never prosper over the long term. Eventually, its false prosperity will collapse, and poverty will take its place. Another incident of sheer idiocy occurred during the Great Recession in Windsor, Ontario. Union workers went on strike because their payroll took a dip. These were workers who were earning $28-30 dollars/hour. In the end, these enlightened people not only didn"t get their increase in pay, but lost their jobs as well. The United States $17.075 trillion debt is further evidence of the ignorance of the American Public. Mr. Obama, who promises better welfare for the poor, continues America"s exorbitant spending. Ironically, those who shout out "human rights" and demand a long list of benefits from politicians and governments are denying future generations those rights. One of the problems is that today, many Westerners do not understand concepts of finance of economy. 34% of the people in a survey did not even know how long it would be before they would be out of debt. Polls have shown that many Americans do not even know what government deficit is. I believe one way we could circumvent these problems would be to make financial and economic literacy a mandatory prerequisite before being able to vote or exercise voting problems. This requirement would eliminate politicians" outrageous promises, as they now have to meet the demands of a more worldly-wise audience. For union workers, having economic and financial understanding will not only protect themselves from their own follies, but also the economic securities of future generations as well as the general well-being of society. For instance, going on strike during a recession will cause the economy to spiral further downward. (Workers on strike have less money to spend and businesses will lose money as they see the number of their consumers decrease. This in turn will cause businesses to cut more workers.) Today, in most countries, there are age restrictions regarding voting. These restrictions are in place because most 10 year olds do not understand worldly issues. The fact that most Americans are as ignorant of economics as when they were young means that new restrictions should be imposed. Basic economics and financial in voters and union workers can help the country prosper, and in turn the individual will prosper. https://www.google.ca... http://rt.com... http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com... http://www.cardfellow.com... http://www.businessinsider.com... Barry Eichengreen"s book Exorbitant Privilege

Title: Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos Content: Daniel Gross. "In Defense of Detroit". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - "is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions."

Title: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to... Content: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.

Title: US should make low interest loans to automakers Content: Steven Pearlstein. "The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - "the best of a set of bad options might be for the government to step in and provide the Big Three with low-interest long-term loans, just as it did years ago with Lockheed and Chrysler. The government should insist that its loans get first priority and be used only for investment in new technology that can be shared with competitors, or in new plants and equipment that could be sold to other car companies in the event of a bankruptcy. The government might also insist on further cuts in shareholder dividends, executive salaries, blue-collar wages and retiree benefits, at least until the current crisis has passed."

Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies will be unable to raise new money and this can have a “domino effect” on the whole economy. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans – such as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.

Title: Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts Content: Michael Jackson's recent demise was premature and unexpected. Indeed, he was due to embark upon a series of concerts at London's O2 Arena next week. At this this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers must be with those people who have suffered a tragic loss of money as a result of his untimely death. As you may know, Jackson passed away over $400 million in debt, so his assets will be auctioned off to the highest bidder in order to help discharge this vast financial liability. http://www.nytimes.com... Unbelievably though, nobody has yet suggested that the three pet children Jackson ordered to be specially bred for him should be included in the sale. These are 12-year-old Michael Joseph "Prince" Jackson Jr., 11-year-old Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and 7-year-old Prince Michael II Jackson. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Now, before you think that these children should be exempt from the sale, please consider the facts: nobody knows who his pet kid's biological parents are but Michael Jackson certainly wasn't their father and, furthermore, he never legally adopted them. Therefore, they are not his legitimate children, they are merely play things that he bought and paid for. http://www.tmz.com... http://www.tmz.com... It is morally imperative that the people that lent Jackson cash in good faith should get their money back and his pet children should be treated in the same manner as his other assets in order to minimise his creditors' losses. The inclusion of Jackson's pet children in the auction could attract wealthy bidders from around the world. Interested parties might include homosexuals who are ineligible to adopt, Arab sheiks looking for child camel jockeys and drug-addicted, middle-aged pop stars with severe mental health problems and kiddies' fairground rides in their back gardens who are in the market for young children to share their beds with. Now, while his pets might not fetch enough to cover all his debts, every penny helps and I therefore affirm that Jackson's kids should be put up for auction along with all his other possessions. Thank you.

Title: Student Loan Debt Content: 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...

Title: This house would make public college free Content: Free college would be amazing I would love a life free of student loans but people don't understand how impossible free college is. Sure other nations have free college but no those nations are not 18 billion dollars in debt

Title: Should Tuition Fees Be Non-Existent!!! Content: Bean 2 needs to post his second argument. He forfeited last round and if he does it again vote for pro because con fails to debate me. He needs to post his argument. To help him I am going to ask him a few questions for him to answer.Is it right that some people are not able to go to university because of the costs?Does he have anything to say against the abolishment of tuition fees and if so what?For the first question please dont answer that people can take a student loan because we both know that no - one wants to be in debt for a long period of time. For instance if you study architecture at university the full course takes seven years. Wo wants to be in debt of £80,500. It would take many years to pay off that debt.

Title: Debt Content: Will the U.S. ever be out of Debt?

Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If companies know that they can count on the government to bail them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act differently. This is known as “moral hazard”; being reckless in your lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.

Title: Trump made his money through bankruptcy Content: Trump uses the chapter laws as stated: Chapter 7: stops all operations and liquidate company's assets. Chapter 11: reorganize a company. Chapter 13: Plan to repay debt. He will continue to make more money from bankruptcy thanks to these laws and as his reputation of a presidential candidate and a billionaire. Regardless if he loses the money he gets from his father, 40 million, he'll still be a billionaire. Trump has good credit, but his organization has bad credit. Explain to me why he'll lose a few billions if he lose 40 million?

Title: Free University Education Content: I did not know that my opponent would be focusing on the U.K. I agree with him that it is exceedingly difficult to find statistics that represent the world, and so, in light of my opponent's focus, before I move onto my broader argument, I would like to point out a few things that *are* true about college education in the U.K., particularly regarding how little people are actually able to afford college these days. - 3/4 of U.K. students will not be able to pay off their student loan debts. (1) - My opponent said that someone would typically end up paying about 27,000 pounds in student loans. However, this was under the old system, which was removed some time ago. Under the new system, the average is 44,035 pounds. (2) - "While tuition at public universities in Japan is considerably less than American colleges and universities, tuition in the United Kingdom is more on par with that in the U.S."(3) This doesn't sound terrible until you realize that U.S. college students are now over a trillion dollars in debt. (4, 5) That's right. Tra-tra-tra-trillion, people. That's more student loan debt than the amount of money possessed by most *countries,* and the U.K. is charging rates similar to this in a *smaller economy.* Less than a fifth the size of the U.S.'s, in fact.(5, 6) Either the government needs to force universities to stop charging such ridiculously high sums of money for education that is given for free in most developed countries, or they need to pay the money for their decision to allow universities to keep prices that high. "'It is quite unfathomable for most Europeans that you would start your adult life tens of thousands of dollars in debt,' says Oberle, who researched higher education systems in countries such as the U.K., Hungary, Argentina and Turkmenistan for her book 'College Abroad.'"(3) Thus, my opponent's repeated claims that student loans are affordable, even in the heavily socialized U.K., are rendered invalid. Now I move on to a broader focus. My opponent insists, time and again, that college students will refuse to ever work low-paying jobs, when statistics clearly show that the number of college students working low-paying jobs has actually been increasing at an alarming rate. In the U.S. alone (I know what I said about using one country as a global representation, but my opponent and I seem to have come to an agreement on that XD) "the number of college graduates working minimum wage jobs is nearly 71 percent higher than it was a decade ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest figures. As of 2012, 284,000 college graduates were working at or below the minimum wage, up from 167,000 in 2002..."(7) My opponent makes a valid point regarding job experience vs college education, saying that employers often hire pepple who have job experience before they hire people with college degrees and no job experience. However, plenty of people with degrees have or have had jobs. Also, this preference for people with job experience is only present in certain fields. My opponent also points out that a degree only educates in a certain area. I would like to point out that people usually take more than one course in college, and that working at a single job gives a similarly narrow field of expertise. My opponent says that my points in the last paragraph of my last entry are correct, except that they advocate for free-schooling in general and not necessarily college. However, this is not the case, as I specifically mentioned college campuses, putting special emphasis on them being the centers of major cultural shifts such as the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. A point that I would like to make is that the quality of life, as well as the happiness of the citizenry of countries wherein tertiary education is free or nearly free is higher than that of countries where it is expensive. People are more easily able to delegate their finances and not stress about the future when they don't have back-breaking student loans to pay off. I would also like to again stress the fact that education is not only to prepare us for work; it is also to make us better people. Martin Luther King Jr. said that "the function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education."(8) We spend tax dollars on so much that is immoral and illogical today. We pay for drones that spy on and kill civilians and wars that benefit those who took the money from us in order to pay for them. These things are wrong, but we have a chance to get something right. We can pay just a bit more than we already are, even if it's only for the tuition, or even if it only lowers the coast, not removes it, and in exchange we'll get a brighter, more enlightened, more open-minded future. We don't even have to pay it, actually, as long as we're willing to tell those Harvardized schmucks that beating the little guy in the face with a baseball bat-sized pipe wrench and then emptying his pockets so that they can go pay a different little guy a nickel to shine their shoes is a total (insert nickname for Richard) move. Conclusion: I would like to once again thank my opponent for this intriguing experience. Prior to the debate, I hadn't really seen any compelling arguments for his case; however, he has definitely brought up points for me to ponder further, and I am grateful for the experience and broadening of my perspective. I remain unwavering, though, in my assertion that college education, or at least the tuition or room and board, if not both, should be free, or else the entire coast should be dramatically reduced. 1- http://www.independent.co.uk... 2- http://www.bbc.com... 3- http://www.usnews.com... 4- http://www.forbes.com... 5- http://www.usdebtclock.org... 6- http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org... 7- http://www.usnews.com... 8-http://www.brainyquote.com...

Title: Free University Education Content: "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...

Title: Assuming the two are mutually exclusive, pure capitalism is preferable to pure communism Content: To all who read my previous statement I apologize. That is an extremely brief description of communism, I could have gone much further in depth but to save your time I did not. I also failed to mention I will be using statistics from different nations which followed Marx's teachings. In capitalist countries all across the world, debt is one of the greatest problems the people face. http://nypost.com.... More people are in debt now than ever before in history, students have crushing student loans and in the housing market prices are skyrocketing. Millenials fresh out of college have to take out tremendous loans just to afford housing. https://www.cnbc.com.... How do we expect youth to be able to pay off these debts in a job market that is a challenge to get into? If you get a serious illness or injury the medical bill could be impossible to pay off https://www.theatlantic.com.... In Karl Marx's theory of communism, these debts are not existent in both socialism and communism. For example In Cuba, The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea health care, education, and housing are/were all provided to the people. Taxes are increased but only so future generations can prosper and advance the world forward https://www.internations.org..., http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org..., https://en.wikipedia.org.... In pure communism since money is abolished all of these would be free as well, without the tax increase. The second part of my debate is jobs themselves. Forcing someone to awaken at six in the morning, forced to carry out routines, and drink performance enhancing beverages just to afford to provide for themselves or their family is sickening. Forcing someone to get a job or starve and go homeless is only a problem existent in capitalism. Since housing is provided to you in both socialism and communism there is no fear of losing a job. A common fear amongst the proletariat in capitalist society is the AI replacement of human jobs. Once again this is not a fear is socialist or communist society as necessities are provided to the people so there is no fear of losing your job to a machine. I hope you were able to understand my debate. I apologize if you couldn't English is not my first language.

Title: 5 point economic plan for New Zealand Content: I'm glad to have faced such a serious challenger! Now to my summary. In this debate I raised five points. First, I proposed that New Zealand indexes tax brackets to the inflation rate. My opponent was so impressed by this point that even he conceded it was "reasonable", with no further rebuttals. Secondly, I said that income tax on the rich should be reverted to pre-John-Key levels. Con objects that there is a lack of evidence that our economy is currently undertaxed. First of all, it's not so important how much tax revenue is received, it's more important who's giving it - the idea is to reduce inequality. Secondly, I actually provided such evidence in round two, when I explained that all other more successful economies around the world have higher personal tax burdens, and indeed the only one that has a lower personal tax burden is Mexico. Third, it's theoretically bad for the economy if the government keeps spending money it doesn't have, running up a deficit year after year, both because that causes inflation, and because that bankrupts us. Thirdly, I said interest-free student loans should be swapped for student allowances. Con countered that the government does not need to borrow to spend. That's factually incorrect, especially the part about invented money - the government's books are audited and the money all comes from somewhere. The New Zealand government had over $71 billion of debt at the end of 2011 (. http://www.stuff.co.nz...). Since the RBNZ never prints money, the government cannot conjure money out of nothing. If it's money being "held" by the RBNZ, they need to get it off them by borrowing from them to their account (which is held by Westpac bank). The other option is to use bonds. How much is borrowed from the RBNZ and how much sold in bonds is not determined by the RBNZ but a unit in the Treasury called the New Zealand Debt Management Office. The crucial thing about this system is that the RBNZ reserve is separate from the government's account. That would be like saying the assets of a bank are equal to the money that all of their clients have banked with them. So when the government pays interest to the RBNZ (at the OCR), that's a deadweight loss. No student gets a benefit from that, and neither does any taxpayer. When the government uses bonds there's interest on that bond - bonds are like a "give me $100 and I'll pay you $110 in a year" kind of deal. Either way, there is a deadweight loss when the government has to spend all this extra money to keep student loans interest free. Why not give that money directly to students? That would seem like a more fair system, even if the government wasn't losing money off it (which they are). Fourth I said New Zealand could save a lot of money by abolishing the military. Con says that's laying off 12,000 people (actual number 13,795 plus 1608 bureaucrats, of which about 2500 are part-timers with other full-time jobs - see . http://www.nzdf.mil.nz...). Excellent! Right now the rest of the country are short on many areas of skilled labour that military people are trained to provide, such as engineering and ICT, and particularly for the civilian units, doctors (. http://www.immigration.govt.nz...). It's not like they'll leave the military and become beneficiaries for life - these are people who are likely to help fill our crucial shortage of police officers, or our shortage of skilled mechanics. It's better for the economy if they fulfil that for the market than that we spend the money and they don't really provide a service for anybody in return. Fifth I said that we need a capital gains tax. Con uses exactly the same objections as for my second point, which I have already rebutted. It seems, therefore, that my points will overall lead to a fairer and stronger economy for all. Con also gave you five points. First he proposed "monetary reform", that is, arbritary tax rates and unlimited government spending. This has been tried and has failed so often (Zimbabwe, communist China etc) that it's surprising anybody still advocates it. Most dangerously, it means the government stops guaranteeing the value of money. That's bad because the financial system collapses. Secondly he said the government should be an employer of last resort. I showed that this comes with the opportunity cost of looking for real jobs. Thirdly he advocated free engineering in in-demand faculties, which creates all sorts of perverse incentives, making my far superior. Fourth we heard about more hi-tech grants, which the government already does, except more of it. That's essentially a promise the government cannot afford to keep. Fifth he talked about establishing a charter development bank, which we already have. So as voters you have two alternatives. One is a stronger economy. One is worse. The choice is simple.

Title: it should be compulsory for all school students to participate in a team sport . Content: I think that sports should not be compulsory because 1. some people have disabilities and can not do it 2. lots of sports clubs can go bankrupt 3. some people have bad sportsmanships and when they play sports they could be sore winner or sore losers

Title: A Canadian-style National Healthcare system would be a good thing for the United States to have. Content: To prove why a Canadian-style Health System would be more beneficial to The United States, I must begin by pointing out the overly costly health care bills most Americans have to Pay compared to those in other countries. In Canada, for example, an average of $917 is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, in the United States, an average of $3,372. As a result of the increasingly high health care prices, 50% personal bankruptcy in America is due to medical bills. It is believed that less than 1/2 of all the medical care in the U. S. is supported by concrete evidence that it works accordingly to its price according to the Congressional Budget office, in other words, it is not proven for a fact that its efficiency meets its price. Due to the high prices, health insurance coverage is extremely high, so about 40% of Americans do not have health insurance. 1/4 of those who are uninsured, claim that such high hospital bills changed their lives in a negative way, violently increasing their debt. Also. .. talking about bankruptcy, a study in Harvard shows that the average debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000, and 68% of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. .. yeah. But YET, life expectancy in Canada (who as I mentioned earlier spends a significantly less that the U. S. ) is still higher! And infant mortality rate is still lower!

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Okay, so you think the When the part is irrelevant. But in fact, you are wrong on saying this. Why? Because the When part is very important on this subject. It like you are saying, the nation will go broke soon in a year to 5 years. But in fact, you don't have proof of When or Where it going to happen. The nation could very well continue to drive up the national debt. Or this could stable itself out or could actually decrease the national debt within time. With the economy going well, and could even see the economy doing better in the years to come. So, it has the potential to decrease the national debt. You only dismiss the When part because it would ruin your whole case on why the nation would go bankrupt. This bankruptcy of the nation will take a lot longer than what you have claimed. It will not affect this generation as you have claimed. This process, of continually overspending what the nation actually put out, will take a long time. Just like global warming, it not going to really affect this generation. It will take another 30 to 50 years before it could really hurt us if what you said happens. One more thing you thinking nothing can change over time, and it will continue to get worst. But in fact, you don't actually have proof it will continue negatively over time with the national debt. You said this" Social security will no longer have a surplus to loan after 2033" for your second part of your Scenarios. "Social Security is fully funded until 2034, and after that it is about three-quarters financed. Considered alone, the DI Trust Fund is projected to become depleted sooner than the combined Social Security funds". (5.) Social Security is "the total cost is now about 5% of the national economy, or GDP. That will rise to about 6% when all of the baby boomers are retired. That increase, 1% of GDP, is less than the nation"s increase in spending for public education when baby boomers were children". (6.) There are two important factors in here, one is they the Government always have to renegotiate every 15 to 20 years to get the math right, because it always changing, not because it will help the nation go broke. the other thing is SSI is actually a small cost of the national economy. The third reason you list in your Scenarios is " New revenue sources will be unavailable" Why is this even true? The federal government collected revenues from all aspects, such as INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, CORPORATE INCOME TAX, FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES, "The federal government also collects revenue from estate and gift taxes, customs duties, earnings from the Federal Reserve System, and various fees and charges". (7.) "In fiscal year (FY) 2016[1] the federal government collected revenues of $3.3 trillion"about 17.8 percent of GDP. Over the past 50 years, federal revenue has averaged 17.4 percent of GDP, ranging from 20.0 percent (in 2000) to 14.6 percent (most recently in 2008 and 2009)". (8.) The sixth Scenarios you haven't said yet until the next round. But I will jump ahead and give my input on it. You think the nation might one day become Bankrupt. Um, that not going to be true at all at least not what you going to say about it nor the timing of this bankruptcy. let me give you a quote on why it won't. "The reason why it's not true is because we live in a fiat currency system, where the United States government can create an infinite number of dollars at no cost to meet its obligations. A Treasury bill is a promise that the government will give you US dollars--something that the United States government can produce infinitely and at no cost".(9.) Sources 5&6 https://blog.ssa.gov... 7&8 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... 9 the Link won't fit on here, so I will post it in the comment section. i will look forward to what else you may have.

Title: Free College Tuition Content: (1) Free college would be too expensive. (1a) Fiscally speaking, free college would be a burden to bear for all American taxpayers. In fact, estimates and economical calculations have come to conclude that student loan debt relief would cost the federal government $22 billion alone. A staunch supporter of the idea of free college, Bernie Sanders, seems to have convinced many young students that his economic policies are stable. But it is quite the contrary. Sanders' plans are estimated to raise the debt ceiling to $36.9 trillion over a span of ten years. (2) Free college is immoral. (2a) It may seem ironic that giving American students free college is ironic, but it really is not when broken down. Simply put: stealing the money of a working American who *earned* their money just to distribute it to a subsidized education system that is barely affordable to the government is heinous and incredibly rights-infringing. Why should the average American taxpayer have to risk not only their own -- but their whole country's -- financial and economic stability so some American college students can go to school free of debt and burden? (2b) Free college would give more of a sense of entitlement to the many already entitled millennials who use college campuses to create 'safe zone' bubbles of Cultural Marxism and political/economic ignorance. There is reason to believe that by expanding on free college, many millions of these free college liberals would continue flooding dorms and obscuring the First Amendment rights of students and guest speakers. SOURCES CITED (1a) . http://www.politico.com... . https://consumerist.com... (2b) . http://www.usnews.com... . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.breitbart.com...

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: I am for the proposition that the growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation.

Title: Plan is a huge setback in human rights Content: The Proposition was quick and honest to acknowledge that their "proposal would restrict the freedom of newly-graduated medical personnel to cut and run without compensating the home nation for the costs of their training", and then they "If the employee changes their mind and wants to change careers they simply buy themselves out of the contract by reimbursing their employer. If they do so after a year or two, they repay a proportion pro rata. Once they have 'worked off' the cost of the investment they become free agents". It is in their second turn or speech that the troubling view of the Proposition on how to enforce their scheme came to light and so its tragic implications. What they are basically advocating is that medical education should not be provided for free anymore -and instead generate some sort of debt or obligation- in developing and even in developed nations (from the Philippines to England). It would no longer be free if it comes with strings attached, medical staff are supposed to pay for their education by working their debt off or else pay for the remaining of their contract. Their system is an perverse and degenerate implementation of only allowing student loans for students of medical professions, since at least under a student loan scheme students know how much debt they are acquiring, and interest rates are regulated, these debts are even subject to bankruptcy law in some jurisdictions, the state acts as a guarantor of citizens rights against banks, but the efficiency of government funding is lost due to the cut the banks take for themselves, students however are free to emigrate or switch professions and jobs, provided they pay their loans with their new job or from their new location. There is a reason states choose to provide free education and it's that charging tuition fees, as a Scottish Education Minister once said, "[prevents] young people from poor backgrounds going on to university for fear of getting into debt"[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554455/Scotland-to-abolish-student-fees-despite-debts.html]]. On the other hand under the Prop. scheme the burden of the contract would be placed upon the students, who are much more vulnerable than the state, the universities and the employers, since they have fewer monetary resources and thus access to legal counsel. The medical professionals will be "[subjugated] to a controlling person or force"[[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bondage]] in this case their government, so that they are "obliged by contract to work for a stated number of years"[[http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/refserv/html/servant.html]], and are somewhat "bound to the land" as if they were owned by the state (not too many feudal lords left)[[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=serf]]. In colonial times people became indentured servants in exchange for a trade and a passage to the Americas or other colonies, and nowadays they propose to rescue this unfree labor practice, adapting it so people would be doing it for a career in medicine and an air ticket to the West instead. Just as people in debt bondage, indentured servants and slaves, they could be sold to new masters (in this case either countries or employers). The only way out of this brutal oppression is for the medical personnel to buy themselves out of the contract, a right they could hardly have been denied since even slaves were allowed to buy their own freedom. They finally deigned to clarify whether the compensation was paid to the home country before or after the personnel left the country by saying "his new employers must reimburse the cost of this training in advance". The thing is, enforcing these contracts means that the home and host countries have to be able to restrict the medical staff from leaving. Else they have no guarantee of compensation once they leave since sanctioning, embargoing or invading a richer nation seldom makes sense, and a medicine professional running off to a poorer country would be free -as a slave who escaped from the US South to a Northern state- because there would be no compensation to work off any more (since the Prop. plan is not a general migration compensation scheme, but rather a richer country compensates poorer country scheme). If no such measures are implemented then workers would just migrate as they do in the SQ and the plan would not make any significant difference whatsoever, except for driving immigration to a black market where the rule of law would be non-existent and migrants would be have to turn to smugglers and human traffickers to reach their dreamed destinations, and then suffer the hardships of being illegal aliens, and they would also be able to send less money back home, because of their immigration status. No root causes of Brain Drain solved, worst conditions for migrants, less remittance money (that does reach the population, unlike the corruption-vulnerable compensation): All pain and no gain without ensuring enforcement. However, these draconian measures go against the Declaration of Human Rights[[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml]], Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 13.2 "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country", Article 23.1 "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment". The Proposition scheme amounts to servitude, and so it is a violation of human rights no matter if the contracts are enforced or not. Putting a price tag on the right to leave the country that currently holds the contract, switching jobs, careers or just quitting equals the suspension of these human rights, and thus of human dignity. Ensuring enforcement of this plan is a way to try to solve "unfairness" by suspending human rights, an oxymoron and harm like no other.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: "A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt." Chapter 13: "U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years." Chapter 11: "a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts." http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: "It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks." It is not "free money". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn"t "created" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you"re right. It"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I"d appreciate it if you didn"t insult my intelligence. "With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car." No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called "Exempt Property". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I"ve seen it before. It"s not worth it.

Title: Free University Education Content: IntroductionFirst I would like to clarify that, even though this debate is applicable to all countries, I am focusing on Britain since I am British; and furthermore this debate pertains to Britain particularly as there will be a general election next month and tuition fees are an oft-debated subject between opposing political parties.Britain is also the birthplace of the university, with its institutions setting the mould for universities worldwide.Finally, it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics that are representative of the world population, so I have to pick a country from which to draw statistics, despite one country not being representative of all other countries.Therefore, I request that I am forgiven for using UK statistics.Financial benefits / costsMy opponent cites the large amount of debt that is the result of university. However, the fact remains that student debt allows anyone go to university no matter how poor. So the assertion that university fees make it inaccessible remains refuted.Furthermore, a graduate is generally more likely to get a higher paying job than a non-graduate, so this would cancel out the debt acquired at university.Finally, student debt is one of the most moderate forms of debt there is:1. If you earn less than £16910, then you don't have to repay the debt (1)2. You only pay 9% of what you earn (2)3. If you don't pay it off within 25 years, then it's written off (3).To summarise, student debt isn't some life-destroying, crippling financial burden - it is actually very manageable and will be likely to be completely offset by the salary increase from a graduate job.There is very little actual risk involved; if you don't earn enough to repay it, then you don't have to. And if you can't pay it off after 25 years, then you don't have to.But considering the personal financial benefits that university can give, a mild form of debt is a very generous form of payment for it.GraduatesMy opponent doggedly insists that graduates would be willing to work in undesirable jobs, but the high level of graduate unemployment suggests otherwise (4).Besides, when was the last time you saw a fresh-out-of-college graduate working in a low-paying job? I can't remember.Pro makes a valid point regarding how graduates are more likely to be more educated than non-graduates.But this is only theoretical education, not real-world, practical wisdom. Employers consistently say that experience is more valuable than theory. (5)Moreover, a degree only provides education in a specific area. For example someone with a degree in ancient history will only be highly educated in ancient history. Therefore graduates would only be significantly valuable to the job areas that accord with their degree, which limits their options in the job market.I agree with pretty much everything my opponent writes in his last paragraph, but people can study civil rights, philosophy, history, science etc.. in high school. One doesn't need to go to university to become educated in these matters.Ultimately, my opponent's last argument is an argument for free schooling, not necessarily for free university. ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for the debate, it is certainly an interesting subject with more aspects than I initially predicted. But overall, I maintain that my opponent has not given sufficient reason why the government ought to pay for university education instead of the beneficiaries themselves. (1) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com...(2) ibid.(3) http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk...(4) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...(5) http://www.theguardian.com...

Title: Tax Policy Content: My opponent has made several false claims. I will take this round to refute his dishonest arguments and then go back to the countless benefits of the Trump tax plan. I have quoted his points below. "I will point out that his companies have filed bankruptcy 6 times, at least partly because of using excessive debt financing." Trump has an extensive track record of successful businesses. He has created hundreds of companies/products that have succeeded. You have only cherry picked 6 companies that failed. The vast majority of his companies have prospered showing he has the skills to run our economy. "wouldn't it be a great idea to have him making decisions with a higher amount of tax income?" No because what he has learned throughout his business experience is that low taxes can drive growth. This has been proven by economic research. A free market, capitalist approach is the best way to grow the econ. Big gov is inherently wasteful and counterproductive. "According to studies for happiness and GDP, 7 of the top 10 countries ranked by happiness were socialist, while the United States came in at number 14 (2014-2016) and 4 of the top 20 countries, including the #2 country) were socialist. 70% and 20% of those groups." Not sure if there"s a meaningful way to calculate happiness. What we do know is the US has a superior economy, superior technology innovation, better medical research and of course much higher GDP than those socialist nations. Our free market system sets us apart and that"s a good thing. Those successful socialist countries have: 1.Much lower population than the U.S. This is a critical distinction because the more people you have in a country the harder it is to pay for expensive socialist programs 2.Population that tends to commit less crime and have lower single motherhood rates 3.Often got rich from abundant natural resources relative to population size 4.Higher educated workforce, more hard working workforce on average 5.Have virtually zero military spending; require the US to provide them w/ military protection. This frees up their budget to spend on wasteful social programs 6.Are running unsustainably high national debts (take the example of Greece) This is simply an apples to oranges comparison. Furthermore, the USA destroys those nations in technological advancements and entrepreneurship. "If the will of the populace is for more socialist policies, they are free to pursue tax policies to reflect that as we live in a representative democracy." If the will of the people was for socialism they would have voted for Bernie Sanders. The American people overwhelmingly voted for a Republican president, republican senate and republican house. They willingly gave full control of the government to the GOP. Trump said he was going to have huge tax cuts. GOP congress always favored high tax cuts. The people wanted Trump because he would deliver free market, capitalist policies that would spur economic growth - like this policy. People in poverty are counting on this tax policy to pass. "Sure, the top 1% contribute a large % of the taxes, because their income is so much more. I suspect if we could total up all the benefits people get from taxes, we would see that the 1% get a large % of those as well." This is wrong" the rich don"t benefit more from social programs versus the poor. In fact they never collect welfare, medicaid etc. If there was free college the rich would probably send their kids to private colleges. Therefore, the rich definitely don"t receive more benefit from the government versus the poor. They just pay a hugely unfair and disproportionate portion of the taxes. "The 1% are often more capable of exploiting loopholes in the current tax system to avoid paying the same rates that hard working Americans are required to." Trump"s policy doesn"t create loopholes in fact it tends to try to remove them. The plan greatly simplifies the tax code which helps to remove those harmful loopholes. The ultra rich will continue to use loopholes under Bernie Sanders. "Many "charities" are more form than substance. That is, they give only a small % to the actual causes they claim to represent, while at the same time paying large salaries to employees, and creating tax deductions for the 1%. I'm not against charity, certainly not real charity, but these tax increases aren't so large to eliminate contributions." Proof? "the people (taxpayers and their children/grandchildren) receive little to no benefit from the taxes collected." High taxes take money from the rich and let the gov do whatever they want with the money. This leads to very wasteful spending. The federal government is very inefficient because they are not using their own money" they waste other people"s money. The free market is a much better way to benefit society. Jobs, jobs, jobs will really improve the lives of the American people. My Case - Individual Tax Cuts: Now I will give a hypothetical case study about Bernie"s plan for raising the taxes on hardworking Americans. Let"s look at Paul the famous brain surgeon, a member of the top 1%. Paul is extremely successful, saves many, many lives (including young children) and is paid 2 million a year in salary. He is also a savvy investor and makes an additional 2 million from the stock market/real estate. Total Income: 4 million a year. He lives in San Francisco, California. Let"s look at what percentage Paul pays under my opponent"s plan: Income Tax: Since he makes 4 million Paul pays at least 45% for income tax New Healthcare Premium Tax: 2.2% New Family and Medical Tax: 0.4% California State Tax (highest bracket): 12.3% California Mental Health Tax: 1% Fica Tax (Social security, medicare): 12.4% (1). Total: Around 73% The government steals 73%... the vast majority of Paul"s hard earned wealth when he is alive" and up to 65% (estate tax) of his remaining wealth when he is dead" Is it fair for the government to take 73% and later an additional 65% of someone"s hard earned money" after that individual likely contributed greatly to the country through creating many jobs and investment? We have a wonderful word that perfectly describes my opponent"s tax policy: communism. Keep in mind what happens to Paul if he refuses to pay most of his wealth. The government will literally put a gun to his head, handcuff him and lock him away in jail" and then gleefully take his money. It is NOT freedom to have most of your wealth STOLEN by a greedy, greedy government". A government full of gratuitous waste, fraud and abuse" a government where politicians get filthy rich from taxpayer money. One word sums this up: SAD! Let"s look at this from an economic standpoint. Christina Romer was a famous economist that was chosen by President Barack Obama to run the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). Christina Romer and David Romer (another economist) decided to perform a study about tax increases. Romer writes "an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent. These output effects are highly persistent"(2). She also states that "indeed, the strong response of investment helps to explain why the output consequences of tax changes are so large"(2). As the government raises taxes they cripple the productivity of our workforce. They seek to crush incentives for people to invest. My opponent"s plan will cause irreversible damage to the U.S economy, believe me. I will add more about corporate taxes in future rounds. Sources: [1] https://taxfoundation.org... [2] http://www.nber.org...

Title: The EMF could work like the IMF. Content: The IMF was effective at pulling irresponsible countries with debt, like South Korea and recently Greece. The worry and speculation among investors on a Greece bankruptcy sent shockwaves through the international market and even reached South Korea, a remote country which has only limited contact with Greece. If South Korea can be shook by even a small fear of bankruptcy, then imagine how bankruptcy can affect the world market. After Greece, there are more jittery European countries like Hungary, Portugal, Spain, and even Italy, the fourth largest economy in the Euro Bloc. To save these countries and the world economy, the EMF should exist. The EMF would work much like the effective IMF which stopped enormous bankruptcies to ensure the world economy's safety. The only difference is the the EMF's protection would only reach to Europe

Title: College should be entirely govt funded Content: Americans spent almost $100 billion last year to send students to public colleges and universities. When you account for all student loan programs, grants, tax breaks the government is already paying for almost half the tuition, so why not the rest? The country should also tweak spending budgets to account for govt funded schools. So a complete reform would need to take place to avoid us going deeper into debt. Schools can also cut costs in various ways such as letting qualified volunteers teach

Title: Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay Content: 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.

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Just wanted to say thank you Bigdave, for this opportunity to debate you on this matter. Since you only stated your position in round one i will do the same. You said you will be pro on this matter by saying the national debt is going to make America broke. So, that leave me with being con. I will argue why the national debt will NOT make America broke, and why it just a number so politician to make policy for the added debt or to decrease the national debt. I can see you change 3 rounds to 5 rounds. Have to say i like the move. So, i guess round 2 to round 5 will be just debating, And rebutted. So, i guess lets get started then.... Good luck to you.

Title: Should (k-12) Tests be easyer Content: I think that tests should be easier

Title: debt unites students Content: 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.

Title: National service should be re-introduced Content: National service could be offset against student loans