In the united states College is Necessary
Debate Rounds (5)
-Above all keep in mind that these rules may be bent with-in reason, I only ask you keep you head when attempting to use semantic analysis; if it's too far out there it's abusive. But otherwise I feel like it's a necessary and useful technique to employ.
1. No semantic definitions, when speaking of colleges, I mean secondary education beyond high school. Semantic interpretation is okay with-in reason.
2. I want there to be some evidence, at least one link; but I do not want this to be an evidence debate. If evidence is supplied I want analysis on it, otherwise it is irrelevant to the debate
3. forfeit of a round 3-5 counts as a forfeit of all seven points in the round.
4. Catty/Offensive demeanor automatically forfeits the conduct voter.
5. arguments that are not extended are only counted as dropped arguments if they are attacked. If a point is not attacked, there is no reason to extend it, the point has been made.
Because I do not want to hinder any kind of exchange of ideas I won't offer much here as pre-round framework. I simply want to say that I'm wanting to debate whether secondary education is really necessary within the united states.
I ask that whomever accepts this debate be courteous, and keep their heads about them. If you're on this site, you're smart enough to be able to use your own God-given common sense.
Con- Rules/clarifications/Round Structure
Pro- Acceptance/ questions about the resolution
Con- Definitions/ Answers to pro's questions
Clash/rebuttals/ final statements
My sole question is this:
While I affirm the necessity of higher-level education in the United States, college is obviously not for everybody. Would my opponent not therefore agree to restrict the motion to applying to:
a) U.S Citizens
b) who are willing and
c) mentally able to go to college?
I think these three qualifications are quite reasonable because (a) you've already restricted it to U.S colleges, and this clearly isn't an IR motion; (b) this debate is about the necessity of the colleges, not of their obligatory attendance; and (c) those mentally unable may fit into the definitions above and should be excluded for the greater benefit of other students, as under the status quo which I support.
I look forward expectantly to my learned opponent's response.
a) Yes, it is indeed restricted to US citizens. that being persons whom have graduated high school, and are either legalized immigrants, natural born citizens, or persons who are in the process of becoming naturalized us citizens
b) I will not concede to this point. it would be utterly silly to try and win the Con side of this debate by advocating those who simply aren't willing to go to college.
c) I will not concede to this point. However I do not feel as though it will be an issue of debate. via rules 1 and 2 there shouldn't be any underhanded tactics by this point.
 College: an institution of higher education created to educate and grant degrees; often a part of a university
 Necessary: absolutely essential
First, I said I will argue that while college is not necessary for everyone, that does not make it un-necessary. Rather, I will contend that so long as people are willing and able to go to college, there should be colleges. While trying hard not to do a semantic analysis, the motion calls for me to defend the necessity of the colleges, not of their compulsory attendance. Therefore it is reasonable to restrict the motion so that not everyone in the United States goes to college. What is puzzling to me is why my opponent agrees with me on this issue (as the opposite is "utterly silly" and an "underhand tactic") but then refuses to "concede the point." Surely if my opponent had some reason for not conceding the point he would have told us, but he has absolutely none. By contrast I gave you a full paragraph of analysis as to why this is reasonable. I'm glad my opponent does not see this as an "issue," but am at a loss as to why he can't concede points that aren't at stake anyway. I really hope this isn't an indication of how the rest of the debate will run - when asserting points, I think according to rule #2 my opponent should provide us with the link as to WHY he will not concede my reasonable restrictions, just as I provided analysis as to why this is reasonable.
Second, my opponent introduced a restriction I didn't ask for - high school non-graduates. I would like to state that I agree wholeheartedly with this restriction, and think it is very fair. I really don't see how a mentally incapable person would manage this, and so do still wonder even more about your response to (c), but never mind.
I would like to finish by thanking my opponent for his wish of good luck, and returning it to him. I'm very excited to hear what my opponent has to say in his substantive. Let the debate (properly) begin!
I ask that my opponent kindly follow the rules of the run, and wait until the proper time before offering observations.
By doing this out of turn, I am put in a rather akward position of debating already having prior knowledge of where my opponent stands.
that said I will now begin with my constructive arguments.
Obs1: Necessary- the resolution states "In the United States College is Necessary" as the Con, it is my job to prove that it is not a necessity, not to prove that it is bad or ought be done away with.
In our society, we have many things that while not necessities, aren't bad. Computers, Cars, and Air conditioning are to name a few
Obs2: BoP- the Burden of Proof in this round is shared. both I and my opponent have a stance to prove before we can be considered the winner. If one of us disproves the other, but never actually establishes out point then that person has not won.
C1: College is not a necessity-
a. As we have already seen, a necessity is something that is absolutely essiential. An absoute essiential is something critically necessary foor one's own survival. Food, water, and Air are the three things usually deemed as essientials. Of course in the united states this is even expanded to Gas, Electricity, Heat, etc. College however, simply isn't necessary for survival. Whether in the united states or otherwise, college is a luxury.
C2: Maslow's hierchy of needs-
Maslow's hierchy of needs is a five pronged approach used to achieve self-actualization. The first level is Physiological, the second is safety, the third is love/belonging, the fourth is esteem, and the fifth and final level is self actualization
-College is not the sole criteria of achieving any one of these five levels.
-Unless my opponent can Prove that college is the only way to achieve any of these, they cannot prove college as being a neccesity.
Brief as this is, I feel these argument make the point I'm wanting to make. Thus at this point I hand the debate back over to my opponent.
I have, as yet, offered no substantive material in support of my contention. I have simply pointed out some things about my opponent's definitions that might not be immediately clear to voters. I fail to see how my opponent can call my material in round two non-applicable to the debate, since it was a commentary on his definition, unless his own definitions are non-applicable also. I also fail to see how I am in breach of the agreed round structure. I am only talking about definitions, which is the very thing I was allowed to talk about. Since I offered no substantive material this is no ground for loss of conduct. Of course my opponent has prior knowledge of where I stand - and that isn't the issue - but he has no idea what arguments I am going to run in order to get there. Personally I see this as a weak response to the fact that I proved last round my opponent had already broken his own rule, #2, based on the fact he is now aggressively searching for a way to win on the rules rather than his arguments, which are only described very shallowly as I will show.
In terms of my opponent's extension to framework I agree entirely with everything. I think it is also reasonable for obs2 to be extended to all subsequent rounds, rather than just this one, because burden of proof should be maintained until the end of the debate, as otherwise this would make the rest of the debate rather pointless.
My opponent offers two contentions, but really they are the same thing. He claims that college does not fulfill any role that is absolutely essential, for psychological reasons (including survival), safety, belonging, esteem and self-actualization. He tells us these needs are drawn from the famous hierarchy by Maslow. I have two responses.
First, under my opponent's own framework, his burden of proof is to show WHY college does not fulfill any of these needs. This is further reinforced by his own second rule, in round one. My opponent offers absolutely no analysis that college showing why college does not fulfill these needs. Rather, he simply asserts this (bullet point one), and then shifts his burden of proof on to me (bullet point two), in clear violation of his own rules and structure, not to mention logical reasoning. Therefore my opponent hasn't really offered a contention yet, just a blind assertion.
Second, even if my opponent did provide analysis that college did not meet these needs, he still doesn't show WHY Maslow was correct. He doesn't even offer a citation! According to his own rule, again number two, the evidence he supplies from Maslow needs to be backed up by analysis. My opponent, however, also does not show why Maslow is the most appropriate way of working out needs. Famous studies such as Wahba and Bridgewell (1976) have indeed proven that no hierarchy such as that described by Maslow exists. They drew on their research which showed that the hierarchy was nothing but a perfect individualist, but was statistically insignificant in collectivist society.
Nonetheless, in my substantive I will show why college is so important. I just want voters to remember that it isn't enough for my opponent to simply rebut me - he actually needs to logically substantiate his own case as well.
1. Research is necessary
Humans have a way of stuffing things up. For example, right now we are stuffing up our environment, our governments and so on. Colleges are the only forum where researchers can solve these problems, because privately-funded research always has a huge bias, because of the need to support whoever is funding it - for instance one could look to all the suppressed research recently discovered to have been with-held by cigarette companies. These problems have at least the potential to be devastating to our world. Therefore it is necessary that clever people are able to have a forum where they can work together to review and solve these problems.
2. Learning is necessary
There are many fields of work that simply cannot be accomplished successfully without the training provided by higher-level education providers. Obvious examples might include nuclear physicists, who power the nuclear plants that keep much of the USA running. Another might be structural engineering. Even apprenticeships fall under my opponent's definitions of colleges, because apprenticeships happen through standards bodies to ensure apprentices are indeed qualified, and as a result offer qualifications. Thus a society with no college is a society without electricians or plumbers. Indeed, the vast majority of skilled work is dependent on at least one institute of higher education. Only colleges are capable of offering this, because only colleges are going to be able to set a consistent standard - if everyone decided to self-qualify as able to set standards, standards would not exist and that skilled profession would be therefore fatally undermined.
Of course, my opponent will contend that it isn't absolutely essential for any given individual not to do manual labor or other unskilled work. However one cannot ignore the needs of the collective. We depend every day on the skills that only colleges can teach. Therefore they are necessary.
I look forward to hearing my opponent's response.
Wahba, A; Bridgewell, L (1976). "Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (15): 212–240.
BangBang-Coconut forfeited this round.
BangBang-Coconut forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
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.