Higher Education (Full Resolution in R1)
Debate Rounds (5)
The Resolved for this debate shall be
==Rules and Voting==
This debate will use a "Select Winner" Voting method. This means you evaluate arguments and evidence above all else and should vote solely off of that. Now onto the rules
Any questions may be presented in the comments and I will answer them.
I stand for a solid affirmation of the resolved 3 key reasons. First, Necessity. The second, Societal benefits, and the third, economic benefits. With that I will begin on 4 pieces of overview which will lay the framework for the affirmative case.
==Contention One: Necessity==
===Subpoint A: Costly Colleges have Limits and harms===
According to a study backed by the Lumina Foundation, 29% of Low Income, High Scoring 8th graders finished college compared to 75% of their high income counter parts. (1) Furthermore, the US department of Education finds that when students are worried about the costs of college, they are less likely to attend (2) The Economist Reports that college graduates make more money than their peers with just a high school diploma. (3) When you negate, you maintain the status quo and you allow these costly colleges to continue to have their limits. This perpetuates income inequality, because as the Washington Post reports, increased access to higher education would allow the growing income inequality to be moderated. This is going to be important because the Washington Post outlines that income inequality increases tuition costs, increases spending, and increases the needed amount of financial aid. This puts the negative world into a viscous cycle. By voting aff, you break this cycle. (4)
===Subpoint B: The Government Must intervene===
Before I get into the evidence and analysis, lets look at this logically. The Federal Government is the only actor who has total jurdisticion, and despite any current economic woes, no other actor willing to take action has the same amount of funding as the federal government. Furthermore, the government is obligated by the Social Contract to act in a way that is best for its citizens. Now lets look at some evidence here.
In the Status Quo, market forces are allowed to dictate prices. These market forces are more geared towards profits and higher fees than what the people need. (1) Secondly, the federal government is the best actor in this situation. According to a study published by Harvard and the Brookings institute, the federal government is the superior actor to provide educational subsides. State Governments, when choosing to provide educational subsides, they must directly take funding from another area. The federal government doesn't have the same drawback, and even if the negative convinces you that they do, because they are so much larger than any of the 50 state governments, the federal government could better mitigate the costs. (5)
==Contention 2: Higher Education benefits Society==
By exposing people to new events and experiences, higher education provides several benefits to society. First, The Bedford Group finds that those with higher education are more racially tolerant. (6) Racism decreases social cohesion and leads to numerous harms. The Australian Human Rights Commission finds that racism decreases physical and mental health, reduces productivity, and reduces life span. (7) Going further, those with higher education are healthier. Studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found similar results, with their findings concluding that, on average, every additional year of schooling extends one’s life by roughly half a year. (8) Finally, according to a study published by the College Board, those with college certifications are more likely to get proper exercise than those without. (9).And finally, those with higher education are less likely to be depressed and have better mental health. (10) What this means is that by increasing access to higher education, you better society. On that you vote pro based off the fact that we better the people directly.
==Contention 3: Jobs and Wages==
As already stated, those with a higher education make more money. But to go further. A report by Georgetown University states that by 2020, 55 million new jobs will be created. Of those Jobs, 35% of these will require at least Bachelor's Degree and 30% of jobs will require an associates degree or some college. This means that a grand total of 65% of jobs will require at least some higher education. (11) Going further, Women who finish 2 years of college have 37 to 39% more income than those with a high school degree. A similar, but less extreme trend was observed with men. (12) In the status quo, the Atlantic reports that 600,000 jobs went unfilled because of a lack of skilled labor. (13)
To break the cycle of income inequality, to better society, and to fill the current and future job gap, I can only see an affirmative ballot. I wait patiently for the negative case.
My sources for the previous round are in the comments. I apologize for any inconvenience or trouble this has caused. I will also link those sources again at the bottom.
My opposition drops my entire case and presents no arguments of his own. His only argument is that he asks the voters to dock me conduct and source points. recognize a few things here. First, the rules clearly outline that this debate will use a "Select Winner" system, not a 7 point system that he seems to be alluding to. Secondly, as outlined in the rules, this offense is not enough to justify a loss, I have underlined the relevant parts
When possible, links must be provided to the full, original source within the body of the argument. However, that is not always possible. In the event that either party forgets, they should begin their next case by telling voters that their evidence is in the comments. The first time this happens, voters should note is as a misconduct. The second time voters should give the offending party a loss. (14)
Now let me further explain why you are voting aff in this debate. First, Governments need to act. Costly Colleges have their limitations and clearly limit lower income students. Secondly, higher education provides societal benefits. If the government can expand access to higher education, the government will better society. Third, their exist job gaps in the status quo, and in the future more and more jobs will require higher education. For these reasons, this is going to be a clean affirmative ballot.
The Neg fails to provide any actual arguments. Vote Aff.
In this Round I'm going to write your ballot for you.
Lets start on what he just argued in his last round. Recognize that by accepting this debate, he accepts all of the rules I lay out. Look to the second rule of this debate. I have bolded and underlined the relevant parts.
Extend every single piece of evidence, every warrant, every impact. At this point, this is a very clear Affirmative ballot. Thank you all for reading.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.