The Instigator
WeaponE
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

More People Should be Helped by the Government into College

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,246 times Debate No: 3772
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (22)

 

WeaponE

Pro

Since the more education a person has in this competative job market the more money a person makes. Now, if everybody was able to go to college then more people would be making more money thus boosting the economy. This would also lead to a rise in scientists and thus more discoveries in all fields. Since this has no downside that is visible to me I eagerly await my opponents rebutle.
Kleptin

Con

I'm going to begin by saying that my argument is going to be heavily based on economics.

My opponent's initial argument is essentially that

College graduates have more skills
More skills lead to better jobs with more pay
More pay leads to a boosted economy
Boosted economy leads to technological and scientific development.

Thus, the government should provide help to get most people into college.

I find that this point of view is somewhat shallow and does not consider many of the details. I disagree with my opponent in that there ARE downsides.

*************************************************************************

The government does not have an endless pool of money. Any funding it decides to give will come from the pockets of taxpayers. I will rule out the poor and the rich because the amount of tax money we get from both are negligible. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that the tax money comes directly from the middle class.

Economically speaking, it is difficult to say whether or not we will get an economic boost from sending more people to college. Remember that the United States has an unemployment rate, meaning, there are more people actively seeking employment than there are jobs. My opponent's suggestion will basically enlarge the work force, putting out more workers with more skills. This will have a double effect.

First, companies would hire more young, competent workers and fire older ones. This would probably shatter the lives of countless families in exchange for a minimal increase in output and a bit more profit generated from paying a young, fresh-out-of-college worker a lower wage than a seasoned worker.

Second, job availability will shrink even further. If the government is funding college education for most people, competition will not go down since people are generally on the same level of competitiveness. People will still be unemployed, but now, college education may not be enough. 4 years of undergraduate would become a norm and in order to be hired for better pay, students might have to take several years of graduate courses just to make what they would consider "better pay".

Thus, things would stay relatively the same if my opponent's plan to put the majority of people into college goes through. It's just that we would bankrupt the middle class in taxes by doing so. One year's college tuition is easily $25,000. Four years would be $100,000. And in order to keep paying for this education, everyone coming OUT of college and getting a job would have to pay massive amounts of taxes to pay for the people 4 years younger than they are.

So they probably end up LOSING money since they gain very little and lose a lot. To pay the taxes, people will spend less, the demand curve shifts to the left. When demand shifts to the left, supply also shifts to the left. The market would essentially drop because people won't have any money to spend on anything but college.
Debate Round No. 1
WeaponE

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Now, on to business. You say that the government would be bankrupted because of this. But, if people were to make more money they would be paying a larger income tax and spending more money, thus improving the economy. Though I admit that there is an unemployment rate, this would not necessarily raise it. It would merely mean an increase of jobs that aren't common in America, such as physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Thus leading us to greater technological advancement. Then there are the kids who can't afford to go to college, who have the intellect, but not the dough. People would still have to meet the high standards of colleges to get accepted. Seeing how America is spending $1,000 dollars a second in Iraq it would stand to reason that we can send Americans to a better future in medicine or engineering or finances, instead of to their deaths!
Kleptin

Con

"You say that the government would be bankrupted because of this. But, if people were to make more money they would be paying a larger income tax and spending more money, thus improving the economy."

My opponent reiterates his point that larger incomes would lead to larger income taxes. I must repeat my point that incomes will not increase. Companies do not pay more for someone just because of a degree, they pay according to how much money they make and how much money they can afford to pay someone. Someone with a college education can beat out those with poorer levels of education for jobs. But when everyone has an equal shot at the same level of education, competition ceases to exist and the money difference is minimal. Hence, the cost to the middle class in terms of tax for this proposal is enormous compared to the nearly non-existent increase in pay.

"Though I admit that there is an unemployment rate, this would not necessarily raise it. It would merely mean an increase of jobs that aren't common in America, such as physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Thus leading us to greater technological advancement."

I hate to say this, but my opponent is incorrect in saying that those jobs are not common in the United States. Plenty of physicists, chemists, and engineers have trouble finding jobs. And I use those terms loosely. Many people who major in chemistry, physics, or engineering have trouble finding employment. Further saturating those fields would only lead to more hardship. Besides, larger quantity does not necessarily mean better quality. More on that later.

"Then there are the kids who can't afford to go to college, who have the intellect, but not the dough."

I say, "tough luck". The only beneficiaries of this would be the kids in extraordinarily poor neighborhoods. I don't mean to sound politically incorrect, but to pour money into that would be a gigantic waste. Professionals for the most part, arise from the middle class. The intellect required to be a professional comes from living in better environments and having a good childhood. Pouring billions of dollars into poor neighborhoods in the hopes that the one possible doctor or one possible lawyer will arise is just absurd because then you would cripple the middle class into forcing their kids into worse schools since their money has to go to paying poor kids to waste their time in some community college for a degree in underwater basket weaving instead of putting their own kid through medical school.

"People would still have to meet the high standards of colleges to get accepted."

That's ridiculous. As there are very demanding colleges, there are also colleges where the only prerequisite for admission is being able to breathe. There are plenty of colleges where students just show up to lecture and take tests as a formality, learning absolutely nothing and coming out with a garbage degree.

"Seeing how America is spending $1,000 dollars a second in Iraq it would stand to reason that we can send Americans to a better future in medicine or engineering or finances, instead of to their deaths!"

I agree. This is why I am in support of granting free acceptance to state colleges for all college age men and women enrolled in the military. However, your reasoning is that by throwing money at poor people, we can turn them all into doctors and lawyers.

***********************************************************************

I think this debate has gotten quite confusing because of all the different issues. Let me simplify them:

1. My opponent's plan would take middle class kids out of college and put poor kids into college. There are more productive middle class people than there are potentially productive poor people. Overall, we LOWER the amount of skill in the work force.

2. My opponent's plan would increase unemployment because it would skyrocket the number of people majoring in things they expect to pay off while the number of jobs available remain the same.

3. My opponent's plan would raise taxes massively and it wouldn't be fair. How would people who don't want to go to college benefit from this? How would older individuals who have already graduated benefit from this? What about people who don't want to have children?

There is absolutely no foreseeable, positive outcome from my opponent's proposal. All of it is guesswork based on shallow reasoning and naivet´┐Ż.
Debate Round No. 2
WeaponE

Pro

The only reason that people who have advanced degrees aren't getting work are because they're being beat out by outsourced people who are willing to work for more hours with less pay. So If you apply your "Tough Luck" persona, then they can go out there and decide to work for themselves. Of course the government wouldn't be paying for ALL of the college. Just the part of the tuition the family couldn't offord.

Students for everything EXCEPT community college take only the top half and up. Hell, UCLA only takes the top eighth. So for GOOD colleges the competition would increase. And think of all the people who were penniless, but received education and became great americans? Like Frederick Douglass, he was born a slave, was taught to read, escaped, and read and preached and learned whenever possible.

And the unemployment rate would not go up if there is still the same number of people. They would simply have a better education and thus have a better understanding of the world. And how on EARTH would this raise taxes more than they already are? Now, we're already in a massive deficit. We can pull ourselves out of it with QUALIFIED people to lead America to a brighter future.

"However, your reasoning is that by throwing money at poor people, we can turn them all into doctors and lawyers." I must say that this doesn't make you look that sympathetic to the unemployed. Now, there is a lot of evidence that people who are in a better environment work and behave better. Thus, in your terms, throwing money at poor people would turn them into doctors and lawyers.

I now leave you to th closing argument.
Kleptin

Con

My opponent has made quite a few changes to his argument. I will address them as they pop up.

"The only reason that people who have advanced degrees aren't getting work are because they're being beat out by outsourced people who are willing to work for more hours with less pay."

Yes. Outsourced people who can do the same job, just as well. It's not illegal for a private business to want to minimize costs, that's why letting more people get college degrees won't necessarily land them a job. It won't even make the chances better. I thank my opponent for validating my point.

"So If you apply your "Tough Luck" persona, then they can go out there and decide to work for themselves."

My opponent is sorely mistaken. Outsourced workers are not getting unfair pittance from companies. On the contrary, they are working better and harder than American workers who expect benefits and minimum wage. My opponent is trying to mislead this debate by joining two totally unrelated topics. Please allow me to refocus this debate. How would sending more people to college ensure more jobs or higher wages when private companies have decided that wages are too high already?

"Of course the government wouldn't be paying for ALL of the college. Just the part of the tuition the family couldn't offord."

My opponent introduces this NEW proposal in the very last response. One wonders why he did not make this proposal clear from the very beginning, but I shall address it anyway. However, my point still stands. How would we determine what people can and cannot afford? The poor families can send their children to all sorts of wonderful schools without the burden of money whereas the middle class must give up 25% of their lifesavings to send their kid to a typical school. Hey, they can afford it, but they pay HELL of a lot more than the poor. Especially when the most statistically probable scneario is that the poor kid is going to come out with an undergrad degree looking for 6 figures while the middle class kid has to find some way to get into medical school without bankrupting his parents.

"Students for everything EXCEPT community college take only the top half and up. Hell, UCLA only takes the top eighth. So for GOOD colleges the competition would increase. And think of all the people who were penniless, but received education and became great americans? Like Frederick Douglass, he was born a slave, was taught to read, escaped, and read and preached and learned whenever possible."

My opponent is trying to mislead people again by stating that since we can name a few famous people who went from rags to riches, it is the majority of cases. I must appeal to common sense and say that for the most part, there are MANY, MANY, MANY more successful people arising from the middle class than the lower class because of environmental factors. My opponent only proposes we aid students with college fees. The lower class environment would still be miserable because they cannot afford to give their children the intellectual stimulus that the middle class can. My opponent assumes that by making college free for all the gangsters, prostitutes, and drug dealers, we can turn them into refined scholars. Will there be miracle cases where a street kid becomes a doctor? Of course. But as a whole, the cost burden would be placed on the middle class, stifling an entire group of people who have, in totality, much greater potential.

"And the unemployment rate would not go up if there is still the same number of people. They would simply have a better education and thus have a better understanding of the world."

My opponent is incorrect because he does not understand the economic principle of unemployment. Unemployment rate is calculated based on the percentage of the workforce actively searching for jobs. The number of people would be the same, but the number of people who are LOOKING for jobs would increase. Lower class citizens who had a free ride to college, did a mediocre job, and who came out with a college degree will ignorantly assume that they deserve a high paying job. They will then hold out for said job, depriving our economy of what we normally view as lower-tier working class jobs. In other words, the college degree will have less value in the eyes of businesses (since it's free for basically everyone) but people will keep on being unemployed because they won't settle.

"And how on EARTH would this raise taxes more than they already are? Now, we're already in a massive deficit. We can pull ourselves out of it with QUALIFIED people to lead America to a brighter future."

My opponent made a very awkward statement because he is lacking in several economic concepts. The fact that we are in a deficit has little to nothing to do with taxes. I will reiterate my point as to why taxes are to be raised if his proposal is to go through. My opponent is proposing that all citizens get government aid for tuition such that they only have to pay what they can afford. Thus, the entire lower class (a HUGE portion of the American population) would pay nothing and lose nothing. The upper class would pay a lot but lose nothing (they are filty rich), while the middle class gets shafted because they have to pay for their wn kid, get relatively little in return, and still have to pay for all the poor kids.

Taxes would have to be raised in order to pool money together to pay for this program. My opponent must remember that money does not come from thin air.

"I must say that this doesn't make you look that sympathetic to the unemployed. Now, there is a lot of evidence that people who are in a better environment work and behave better. Thus, in your terms, throwing money at poor people would turn them into doctors and lawyers."

Incorrect. Although my opponent uses the word "thus" to seemingly link two thoughts together, there is absolutely no logical connection between those thoughts. First, my sympathy towards a certain group has nothing to do with this debate. Second, yes, people who are in a better environment work and behave better, this is true.

However, I must remind my opponent of his own argument, and his own topic of debate. My opponent is proposing government aid for college tuition, not for living. So poor people would still live in terrible conditions, in terrible environments, it's just that they all have the opportunity to go to good schools for a low cost.

********************************************************

The more I continue with this debate, the more ridiculous it seems.

My opponent has used 3 arguments to defend his position but has gotten nowhere. His proposal is counterproductive and I have made it very clear.

I now try to make my position even clearer:

My opponent wants MOST people to go to college and get big government funds.

I say, only SOME people should get those funds. The best and brightest, regardless of how much money they have, should get full scholarships. So instead of wasting money on poor kids who probably won't benefit that much from it anyway and robbing the middle class of the money it needs to generate successful professionals, we should put the money up for grabs. The best and brightest get it. Thus, we can pinpoint the few miracle kids from the lower class while not burdening the middle class like my opponent wants.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro never attempted to show that there were people who were both qualified and motivated to go to college who could not attend due to lack of funding. Con never questioned the unspoken premise that there were. For additional government help to benefit either the individuals or society, there must be significant numbers of people who could use the benefit to good effect. Maybe there are, but it wasn't established.
Posted by LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
too long an arguement but i'll vote for emmet
Posted by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
The tough luck part was because those who are outsourced are doing better for less!
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Great arguments, Kleptin. I had a similar debate for that tournament. Excellent job staying moderate enough to appeal to the majority of voters.
Posted by xsweetlove 9 years ago
xsweetlove
We don't live in a socialist country. If we don't have universal healthcare in this country, the government shouldn't throw money in to fund "universal" college educations either.
Posted by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
I'm sorry for bringing the war into the issue.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Lol I just did a bunch of my financial aid today, I feel like taking the Con on this debate would just be owning myself more than I already feel.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Are you arguing for more financial aid, or help in other areas?
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
WeaponEKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
WeaponEKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
WeaponEKleptinTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
WeaponEKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
WeaponEKleptinTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
WeaponEKleptinTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
WeaponEKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
WeaponEKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by eight-AM 9 years ago
eight-AM
WeaponEKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MaxHayslip 9 years ago
MaxHayslip
WeaponEKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03