The Instigator
darkkermit
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Natalija
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Higher Education ought to be private and indiviuals ought to pay for it themselves.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Natalija
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,841 times Debate No: 12932
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

darkkermit

Pro

The first round will just be for accepting the debate and clearification of definitions.

private - Not owned by the state or government. This this not exempt them from regulations.

individuals ought to pay for it themselves - This definition also includes family members or those willing enough to pay for your eduction (e.g charity, employees, or friends) or banks giving out loans. However, this does not include the government or those forced to pay for higher education (e.g taxpayers).

higher education - Education after high school dedicated to teaching others.
Natalija

Con

Thanks my opponent for posting this debate.

I agree with definitions, you can start with arguments in next round :)

Good luck to both of us!
Debate Round No. 1
darkkermit

Pro

1) "There is no free lunch"
Teachers and administrative faculty will still have to get paid and teaching supplies (ex: labs, desk, classroom) will still need to be bought. Even if education is free, somebody will still have to pay for it, so it is not really free.
If the government pays for education, it is not really the government, because the taxpayers are the one's who pay for education. They do not voluntarily agree to pay for student's education but are forced to by the government. Educating somebody else does not benefit him or her as nearly as much as it does the student.
Individuals can help pay for somebody's education through the use of charity. One can give a student a scholarship. However, why force others to pay for something that does not benefit him or her? While it is one thing to force others to pay for a military or police service that benefits many people, it is another to force people to pay for others education.

2) A free education is a worthless education

In this video, Dr. Kelso has a lifetime supply of muffins. Since he has a lifetime of free muffins, he can use the muffin for any purpose, even throw it away "because he can" and there is no negative repercussions, as opposed if he did pay, in which he'd lose money for doing that.
The same logic applies to making education free. You do not have to take your education seriously since you will not lose anything in the process. If all people are given a free education, then most people will take it, because after all it is a free, why not? However a student does not necessarily have to go to higher education to "learn". He/she can attend for any reason. He or she might do it to find attractive people to fool around with, to party or any extra-curricular activities or sports that the school might offer. While these reasons are not necessarily bad it is because that learning is not a main objective that it becomes a problem. A student can go for these activities, and put minimal effort or no effort into learning. This cause many problems:
a)If a school contains many "bad" students the teachers will often dumb down the curriculum, be unsatisfied with his/her job because of these students.
b)Those students that do not want to learn will be disruptive, and will be a bad influence on those that are there to learn, bringing everyone down with him/her.
c)Extra resources are wasted on these students that will not reap the benefits that education is supposed to show.

3) A privatize higher education is guided by the "invisible hand" while a public higher education is not.
The "invisible hand" refers to how competition and supply and demand regulate a market, in this case the market for education. For example, Harvard University, University of Chicago, Yale University, and Massachusetts Institution of Technology are considered the best Universities in the world which many Nobel laureates graduated from. These are all private schools. In the face of competition, organizations will compete to create a better good at a lower price. This is a basic principle in economics. In this case, education is the good. By allowing the private sector, not the public sector, this good can be applied cheaper and better.

4) Education as an investment and other opportunity costs
In the basic theory of economics, there are four parts to production of goods: natural resources or land, labor, capitol (goods that produce other goods), and entrepreneurship (those willing to factor of the means of production together).
Higher education increases the value of your labor. Thus that is the benefit of higher education and why a good education can improve the economy and cause an increase in one's salary. However, the government could also improve the economy by raising capitol instead, buying natural resources, or creating projects that create new goods. However, the state is very poor at making these decisions, since it is not run by the "invisible hand". For example, the government could overspend on investing in labor, thus making the effects of higher education void.
In the United States, the country with the highest Gross Domestic Production, capitol, natural resources, and labor for businesses is raised from loans from creditors, and the stock market. The creditor and stockholders benefit from this since he or she will receive money for these actions. This financial system works well.

What's the point? If education does indeed cause labor wages to increase, if one pays for their education, and pays back creditor, everybody wins. The amount of skilled laborers is managed by supply and demand (if education has no benefit, then nobody would obtain an education). These skilled laborers will have enough money to pay back the creditors and still live a good life, and resources can be successful allocated between capitol, labor, and natural resources effectively.
Natalija

Con

1. Every country needs experts
Every society must invest in its own potentials in order to avoid the collapse that happened in Germany when they realised that they have no experts and that they have to accept that they must import foreign professionals from India and around the world. Interest of every society is to educate everyone for something that will benefit the whole community. If education is not free that means that it is available only to those who can pay. Thus society is losing many talented people who came from poor families and are not able to finance themselves. All men are born equal and everyone should have the same opportunity!

2. Knowledge is not a commodity! Education is not for sale!
Even education is free it's not everything free. Student still have to pay accommodations, food, transport, etc. Every university which is free for students have regulations which prevent 'ever study'. This means that there is a norm that every student must meet if he/she wants to continue education. If he/she doesn't meet norm education is not free anymore (except in cases of serious illness or another strong valid reason). This prevents problems such as 'bad students', 'dissatisfied teachers' and many others.

3. Possibility of choice
Possibility of choice should always exist. If you're not satisfied with free University and you have money and you don't want to someone else pays for you you can always go to Private University. It is important that you had a chance choose the best way for yourself. Everyone should be allowed the opportunity of free education and each individual should choose its own way.

As a good example of the state with free education we have Denmark. In Denmark education (primary and secondary but also higher education) is absolutely free. After High school when you start University, if you're moved from parents you have right to the scholarship which is approximately 500 EUR per month. If you still live with parents you also get the scholarship (little less than 500 EUR). In both cases state is paying you! You can get scholarship as many years as it is standardized length of study + one extra year. If you are a female and become pregnant, then for each child you get double scholarship one year after the birth of a child + extend your right to a scholarship for a year for each child. This scholarship is a gift from the state because it is something that you get and you should never return.
It's true that tax is bigger than usual but system works very good because no one is depend on parents and their salary and absolutely everyone has the same right to higher education. So, if the entire life your parents were unemployed and social cases for any reason, you have absolutely the same opportunities for education as well as anyone else.

Here you can see students protests worldwide against commercialisation of education: http://fading-hope.blog-city.com...

Sources:
http://www.emancipating-education-for-all.org...
http://www.eng.uvm.dk...
Debate Round No. 2
darkkermit

Pro

Rebuttal

1.Your right, every country needs experts. I am not sure what collapse of Germany you are referring to, considering that Germany still exists as a country and has a powerful economy. If you're referring to the economic problems it had after World War I, this was because Germany had economic turmoil from the devastation of World War I and also had to pay war reparations, as well as their own debt from war spending. This is the major theory for the source of Germany's problem, not the ‘lack of experts' that CON has claimed, without any proof.

However, although shortages of experts are bad; surpluses of experts are bad for the following reasons:
a.A surplus of experts causes their wages to decrease (economic theory of supply of demand)
b.This artificial surplus will cause employers to hire cheap experts than use more efficient ways to produce goods and services instead.
For example, a surplus in medical professions might cause a hospital less likely to invest in technology or medical supplies, or other companies might be less likely to invest in technology. (Ex: Software that cause solve mathematical problems, simulators, etc.)
CON also mentions that those from poor backgrounds will not be able to afford an education. However there are many ways a person can pay for an education. One can get a loan from a bank. Since one is expected to obtain more money after graduating, this is an investment for the higher educated graduate, and will benefit him or her in the end. Potential employers can finance one's education, since these employers will benefit from a better worker. Military personnel can pay for college in exchange for them to serve a certain amount of time in the services. Private charities can offer financial aid and scholarship to those who want a higher education.
Also, those that come from "rich" families might not even decide to get a higher education, since he or she might feel better investing money in other forms, rather than for education itself. This is what I mean by "education as an investment". By deciding whether it is more profitable to invest in companies or one's own ability and through what medium, one can make effective choices that allocate resources that overall benefit everyone. This is essential how one can create the balance between having too many experts or too few experts and how much education should cost (Ex: Online schools are becoming increasingly popular due to it being a lot less inexpensive compared to traditional forms of education).

2) CON has not cited any examples or sources of these regulations so I do not have anything to refute. I expect CON to show these examples or sources in the next round, otherwise this point is null.

3) CON actually shows some support here of private education. 16% of Denmark's populations go to private education.
I would also like to note that point: "All men are born equal and everyone should have the same opportunity!" and "If you're not satisfied with free University and you have money and you don't want to someone else pays for you can always go to Private University" contradict oneself, since the option of private university is a different opportunity based on your logic that the poor cannot finance private education for oneself.

The fact that there are protests for privatization of education is irreverent, since it is an Argumentum ad populum fallacy (appeal to the majority). There are also protests for lowering taxes, something that can be achieved if education is privatized. The KKK also protests white supremacy. That does not mean that white supremacy is overall good? No.
Natalija

Con

1. Collapse in Germany
Improvement of the German economy could be threatened by long-term lack of professionals, especially engineers, showed a study published in the Institute for the German economy. They specified that in the technology companies (from which export depends, therefore improvement of the economy) in July 2010 were missing 36,800 engineers. They said that part of the problem could be solved by "importing" experts. Estimates are that this shortage in the coming months could increase. The problem is more serious if it is known that in the Germany are the lack of students who opt for technical education, which could jeopardize long-German position on the world market. 'The situation with youth is particularly bad in the high-tech industries such as machinery, automobile and chemical industries, which are carriers of the German economic take-off', according in Institute. Per thousand employed engineers comes just 35 graduates. Therefore they are looking for experts from abroad. Economy Minister advises companies to offer a cash award to entice skilled experts from abroad.
http://www.automobil-industrie.vogel.de...
http://www.onejournal.de...

2. There is always job for those who wants to work
I will quote PRO:'For example, a surplus in medical professions might cause a hospital less likely to invest in technology or medical supplies, or other companies might be less likely to invest in technology. (Ex: Software that cause solve mathematical problems, simulators, etc.)'
Rebuttal: Every hospital and medical centre (which are financed by state) have constant sum of money for medical research, and that money could not be used for paying workers. So surplus will not affect investing in technology etc. Also, nowhere in the world exist company which will employ more workers than its needed and more workers than can be payed. So there is no dangerous for reduced investments.

3. A loan from bank
I'm very interested in this system of loaning and later return, I really don't know how it works for 'educational loan' because that not exist in my country. I saw what PRO said in second round, but I still don't understand some things. Here, when you want to get a loan from a bank you have to mortgage something or to have constant work and payments , and someone still needs to guarantee for you as endorser. What one student can mortgage? What happens if he/she finish University and not get a job? What happens if he/she decide to stop studying? What happens if female stay pregnant? Will bank wait forever?

4. Everyone should have the opportunity
Everyone should have opportunity to go to University. Knowledge is not a commodity. Education is not for sale.
Of course that rich people have some extra benefits, they can choose between Private and free University, but most important thing is that those who don't have money can be educated. What happens if you don't have free University? A lot of talented people can not go to University because they don't have money! Sad...

Education is one of the most important things in people's lives.
Every men are born equal and everyone deserve opportunity for better life!
Debate Round No. 3
darkkermit

Pro

1)Germany is not going to collapse. This might be a minor problem, but Germany is not going to collapse. It is funny that you argue that Germany is going to have a problem not finding experts, considering that higher education is public and many of the universities are free "Most colleges are state-funded. In 2010, five of the 16 states of Germany charged tuition fees at state-funded colleges, while in 11 states tuition was provided free of charge"

2)"Every hospital and medical centre (which are financed by state) have constant sum of money for medical research, and that money could not be used for paying workers. So surplus will not affect investing in technology etc. Also, nowhere in the world exist company which will employ more workers than it's needed and more workers than can be paid. So there is no dangerous for reduced investments."

You're missing the point. There are two problems. First off a large supply of experts creates a low demand for them, thus lowering their wages. This causes experts to spend many years in school and gain very little in the end.
Second, economics is all about allocating goods and services efficiently. There are three main sources (some consider creativity and entrepreneurship to be a fourth category) that those come from: labor, capital goods, and natural resources. These sources can be distributed in anyway; however some ways are better than others. In a capitalism society, businesses do this by figuring out which method is most profitable. It would be more profitable for a business to use labor instead of capital goods or natural resources, because labor is UNDERPRICED! So where is the hidden cost coming from? It is because education is free and taxpayers pay for the education, thus society loses in the end. This is analogous to everyone getting a cheaper iphone because the government subsidies iphones. Sure it might seem great for everyone, however since people are paying it through tax money, it does not work out that well.

3)If you're referring to how banks make sure that you will pay your debt. Well, interest rates are based on your credit score. If you have a low credit score, it is considered risky, and you will either not receive a loan or receive a loan at high interest rate. Sometimes, one's parents can use the house as collateral. Also, if one does not pay back money at the right, then he/she will have to pay more money later. If the person cannot pay for the loan, then he or she can declare bankruptcy by a court. In bankruptcy, assets are liquidated and/or part of one's debt is partially or completely relieved.

Businesses do not expect the government to give them money to start up businesses. Instead they expect to get their money through investors. Why shouldn't the same logic apply to individuals who want a higher education? Both higher education and businesses help the economy, yet businesses do not receive help from the government yet higher education does. And the reason has to do with my original points.

CON has not addressed many of my original issues (1, 3, and 4) and still hasn't explained or given details how universities make sure that "bad students" do not enter or are removed from higher education. I await CON's response.
Natalija

Con

1. It's not point in Germany as country, Germany is given as example whats happens in countries which have no enough experts, which supports my argument 'Every country needs experts' as answer on your original issue 1.

It's not all black and white with paying tax. Tax system is 'if you have a lot of money - you pays more, but if you have nothing you also pays nothing' and that's normal. Your education is paid from someone who is also got education paid from someone... On this way you are basicaly paying for your children's education. And there is always one thing- it's much more better that taxpayer's money goes for someone's education than to go on same 'dark ways'. When money goes for education you exactly know where money is going, so this reduces possibility for misuse.

2. Who can guarantee that the same thing will not happen if education is not free? Nobody! Even worse, you have to pay education and you have to returns loan but you don't have job or your job is underpriced! With private Universities you are not solving this problem, you just makes problem worse.
Education is not like iphone. We are talking about serious things and you banalize this. Iphone is something that does not affects your future (your salary will not be addict to fact that you don't have iphone).

There is always job for those who wants to work!

3. Your description of banks and loans means only one thing- THOSE WHO REALLY NEED LOAN CAN'T GET IT!
All that you said means that poor people or alone student can't get a loan because it's risky. And I completely agree with bank's theory, it's normal. So in your system,where free University does not exist, I as alone student without parents support, can not get education. I didn't even got a chance! What more to talk about?

4. I don't know what happens there with private business, but here businessmen gets money from government to start up business. I don't know exactly how much they gets (it's depends on many things) but they get some kind of help from government. (For example, someone can request that country provide guarantee for their job abroad, and country often provide that)

5. Your issue 1 was explained.
About issue 3:' In the face of competition, organizations will compete to create a better good at a lower price. This is a basic principle in economics. In this case, EDUCATION IS THE GOOD. By allowing the private sector, not the public sector, this good can be applied cheaper and better.'

EDUCATION IS NOT GOOD IF IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE! How educational system can be good when the main thing in the whole system are money?! Education is not for sale! Knowledge is not a commodity!

About issue 4:'However, the government could also improve the economy by raising capitol instead, buying natural resources, or creating projects that create new goods. For example, the government could overspend on investing in labor, thus making the effects of higher education void.'

And again - Knowledge is not a commodity! Education is not for sale!

6. I actually explained how Universities make sure that "bad students" do not enter or are removed from higher education in round 2, but I will write that again.
Every university which is free for students have regulations which prevent 'ever study'. This means that there is a norm that every student must meet if he/she wants to continue education. If he/she doesn't meet norm education is not free anymore (except in cases of serious illness or another strong valid reason). This prevents problems such as 'bad students', 'dissatisfied teachers' and many others.

Education is one of the most important things in people's lives.
Every men are born equal and everyone deserve opportunity for better life!
Knowledge is not a commodity!
Education is not for sale!
Debate Round No. 4
darkkermit

Pro

1)Free education is not the solution to more experts. This much is evident. In fact, since free education makes it difficult for one to have a ‘second chance' it could cause just as much as a problem. Also not the argument of education as an investment and capitalism is a self-regulatory market, so even if there is a shortage of experts, increasing the salary of these experts or finding alternative ways to find experts will work itself out better than a free education.

2) The market is self-regulatory. It follows basic supply and demand. If one wants a higher paying job, he or she can invest in an education. While some forms of labor are "overpriced" and some forms of labor are "underpriced" people will switch fields or decide that a degree in a certain field is not worth the salary and decide not to pursuit it. Some people might decide not even to pursuit a degree. Eventually people will make choices not only by salary but by ‘easiness of field', benefits and job satisfaction and the market will work itself out. This is known as the "efficient market hypothesis".
http://en.wikipedia.org...
For example, I like chemistry, but I am getting a degree in Chemical Engineering over chemistry. Why? Chemical engineers make more money than chemistry majors and also need less years of schooling.

3)If your years in higher education cannot be paid off by a lifetime of work (Which one can get a higher paying job or find a job), then obviously one should not bother with higher education and higher education is not helpful to the economy in the first place. Also one can find cheaper alternatives, like online education.

4)In the United States, one finds investors or banks to loan money to start up a company. The system works fine.

5)Sorry, but I do not believe I made it very clear what I meant by good:
a.Good – something that can be bought or sold that has a value. For example, food is a good.
The slogan "Education is not for sale! Knowledge is not a commodity!" is just that, a slogan. It has no reasoning behind it. It's just an appeal to emotion argument. Of course education has a cost. Teachers, school supplies, and administrative have costs. Of course Education has a value. Why has something that does not have a value?
Also, knowledge is actually quite readily available. It's called the internet and libraries. I can go onto Wikipedia and Google and find almost all information I want. I can even find more information at the library.

6) People will find ways to work around these ‘ever study'. Every system that can be corrupted will be corrupted. Those students that are there not to learn will just try to do the bare minimum to stay in higher education. Also, you also run the risk of trying to figure out how strict these regulations should be. What is permissible to be considered expelled? What's an appropriate punishment for the act? If one for some reason does badly for a semester or makes a mistake, should you expel him or her forever? How do we determine if someone deserves a ‘second chance'? If someone makes a mistake, he or she will no longer be able to get into higher education again, causing a major problem for that person. However, if we do give the person a second chance, people will take advantage of this system.
Having students pay for education is the best method to solve this dilemma. Students will be able to have a second chance if they make a mistake or fail but at the same time take their second chance more seriously since he or she will have to pay for education.
Furthermore, by setting behavioral regulations on education you increase the cost of enforcing these regulations. The more money education costs, the worst society is off.

Conclusion:
Privatization and individuals paying for education is the free market at work. The free market has been very effective in regulating itself. I have given many examples of how this system is effective in education as well. Education is available to everyone, contrary to CON. It's just that one has to go to the banks, charities or other financial markets to pay for one's education. Businesses run on the same principle and it works out fine for them. One might not be able to pay for the best school in the world, however the best school in the world, however the best school in the world cannot be provided by the public sector anyhow. Someone is always paying for the education anyways, so education is never free. The fact is, education IS for sale, since someone is PAYING for it.
Education is not a commodity, since there are many different types of education. However it is a "good" since it does provide utility and costs money to produce.

Allowing free higher education is a form of socialism. Socialism has been proven throughout history to be a failure.

The resolution is affirmed. VOTE PRO
Natalija

Con

This is last round and I will recap.

1. Interest of every society is to educate everyone for something that will benefit the whole community. If education is not free that means that it is available only to those who can pay. Thus society is losing many talented people who came from poor families and are not able to finance themselves. Tax system is 'if you have a lot of money - you pays more, but if you have nothing you also pays nothing' and that's normal. Your education is paid from someone who is also got education paid from someone... On this way you are basicaly paying for your children's education. And there is always one thing- it's much more better that taxpayer's money goes for someone's education than to go on same 'dark ways'. When money goes for education you exactly know where money is going, so this reduces possibility for misuse.

Description of banks and loans means only one thing- THOSE WHO REALLY NEED LOAN CAN'T GET IT!
All said above means that poor people or alone student can't get a loan because it's risky. And I completely agree with bank's theory, it's normal. So in system where free University does not exist, I as alone student without parents support, can not get education. I didn't even got a chance!

2. Every university which is free for students have regulations which prevent 'ever study'. This means that there is a norm that every student must meet if he/she wants to continue education. If he/she doesn't meet norm education is not free anymore (except in cases of serious illness or another strong valid reason). This prevents problems such as 'bad students', 'dissatisfied teachers' and many others.
It is possible that some students try to achieve a minimum, but the minimum is quite sufficient. Achieve a minimum does not mean achieve nothing. Achieve a minimum means achieve enough to continue education.
If someone does badly for a semester or makes a mistake loses right for free education, and if he/she wants to continue education he/she have to pay education. That one had a chance and didn't use it so now have to pay.

3. Everyone should have the opportunity
Everyone should have opportunity to go to University. Knowledge is not a commodity. Education is not for sale.
Of course that rich people have some extra benefits, they can choose between Private and free University, but most important thing is that those who don't have money can be educated. What happens if you don't have free University? A lot of talented people can not go to University because they don't have money! Sad...

EDUCATION IS NOT GOOD IF IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE! How educational system can be good when the main thing in the whole system are money?!

Conclusion:
Education is free and that not means that it's bad. Usually all best students are going on free university because they are sure that they can meet the norm and as a reward for their hard work it's all free!
You should not buy your diploma as you're buying clothes or chocolate. There is always possibility that some owners of private universities would like only to take money from you and sell you a diploma, not to give you good education and it's all legal because of the system. In the system where universities are free main thing is not money. Anyway, free universities provide an opportunity for everyone, regardless of its financial status.

All men are born equal and everyone should have the same opportunity!
Everyone should be allowed the opportunity of free education and each individual should choose its own way.

Education is not for sale!
Knowledge is not a commodity!

Education is one of the most important things in people's lives.
Every men are born equal and everyone deserve opportunity for better life!

Thanks everyone!

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rengstrom6147 6 years ago
rengstrom6147
Oh shut the hell up sieben. I'm so tired of the Cross-x debate nazis running around telling everyone how to debate using cross-x or policy as the guideline as to how you should debate. (and I mean that in the most loving way :P) That being said I do agree with Sieben on somethings. In round two some good arguments were made that kind of disappeared, that was disappointing.

I think what the debate came down to was a contrasting of two different things:
Would private education be better for the individual? and
Would private education be better for society?

Using economic terms, kerm argued that society would be better off if we privatized education, whereas Natal argued that doing so would suck for the individual because they wouldn't have access to the loans needed to pay for an education (and really kerm, when was the last time you heard a bunch of investors getting together to fund someone's education?)

In the end I was kind of forced to bridge the gap in your guys arguments. Kerm, in order to win the debate you had to prove to me that a completely private university system would function just as well or better than our current system. Your models sounded nice, that perhaps a private system would produce fewer experts, but that that was good. On the other hand I was kind of left wondering if hardly anyone but the rich would be able to afford an education if we privatized it all together. So I thought that neg had more compelling arguments in that I believe in a private system it would be hard to get loans, so not only would the population of experts drop, but it would drop dramatically.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Ya I read it, And I am not telling anyone to vote pro or con. I said I wont vote officially because I don't want to award points to an argument I believe to be inferior. Spelling and grammar don't improve an argument, conduct does not improve an argument. Sources are part of the argument.

"No one is entitled to anything, including an education." Making me pay for your education against my will is imoral.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Even though your telling people to vote PRO, I can not accept your 'unofficial vote' that requires others to vote bomb and is based solely on your opinion. I want to win fairly, so voters read the debate and choose who you think is the better debater.
Did you even read the debate?
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Don't vote officially anymore, I refuse to give any points to who I believe to be the loser. So unofficially I give all seven votes to pro. vote bomb vote bomb vote bomb vote bomb vote bomb vote bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
No one is entitled to anything, including an education. But if you tell any lie long enough people will believe they are entitled to a bugatti.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
In all fairness, I think the spelling and grammar part should be tied between us.
Posted by Natalija 6 years ago
Natalija
Thanks for advice :)
I am from non-english speaking country and I am really giving my best... I am really trying to make my arguments understandable... I really need time to first translate PRO's arguments, then to write mine on my language and then translate them into English.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Thanks for the advice!
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Considering that both of you dropped ALL of the opening arguments from Pro, which were actually pretty good... this round is pretty bad.

You also waste a lot of time niggling over evidence. "My opponent made a bare assertion about germany. I will make the counter assertion with no evidence. My opponent did not present any evidence so disregard her." You all present evidence later, but hey you could just put it in up front.

Pro, you shouldn't even need evidence since your opening case is philosophical. You should "perm" (permutate, or run inside ur own case) basically all of her arguments. If germany reaallly needs more educated people, you just argue that your plan results in better education.

Since I've given pro advice, here are some strategies/tips for con

You have to clash with his case, not just the resolution. You usually split your response into addressing his case, and then building your own. If he were a better debater he would just have extended his own case in every round.

You need to proofread your rebuttals. I see you are from a non-english speaking country, but spelling and grammar are very important to your credibility.

My impression of you is that you are not very familiar with arguments for and against government intervention. Its something that comes from experience... try reading academic papers. All the mainstream stuff is intellectually bankrupt.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
I'm so flattered Sieben.
You really think we did that badly?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KevinW 6 years ago
KevinW
darkkermitNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Wise8231 6 years ago
Wise8231
darkkermitNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
darkkermitNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rengstrom6147 6 years ago
rengstrom6147
darkkermitNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by bss10506 6 years ago
bss10506
darkkermitNatalijaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00