Paid-for college should be available to all high school graduates that require the financial aid
Debate Rounds (4)
1st Aff Rebuttal
1st Neg Rebuttal
2nd Aff Rebuttal
2nd Neg Rebuttal
College- "a part of an American university that offers courses in a specified subject"
Baseline, college is effective if you take 4 years. This will cost roughly $36,000 per student.
financial aid - "Money to support a person or cause"
This is very flexible, how do we determine who should receive handouts?
I can imagine nearly every student will apply for financial aid, and we can simply not afford to give everyone $36,000.
You also give no requirements, so I must assume there are none. Why should a student who is not qualified be given a handout? Why should a lazy person be handed what ever he needs?
As for total cost, ill assume that 50% of people under the poverty line would like to take advantage. I feel this is generous because if an entire group of people was offered something free, more like 99% of them will take it. None the less, i feel like 50% proves my argument enough. If 22.5 million people wanted $36,000 dollars in college, the total would cost about $810,000,000,000.
That money has to come from somewhere? Where do you want to make cuts? The military? Medicare and medicaid? The only problem with cutting those things is that people like those programs. So you essentailly would have to defund the entire government to give everyone free college.
You think people who graduate always make more money? Why are people with degrees unemployed while people without them with jobs?
You've failed to actually prove how these things would work, so of course i will argue that they make no sense what so ever.
I have a few voting issues that I would like to bring up.
1. My opponent has failed to several arguments, which must mean he agrees with all of my arguments.
2. He really has not taken a stance. When I said something wouldn't work, he only talked about one thing in his argument. I would quote it, however it happened in every round, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find.
3. He ignored the specific numbers I gave, presumably because he knew there was nothing he could do about them. He merely said he understood it was "expensive", but he failed to explain how all $810 billion would instantly make it's way back to the government.
4. I would also like to point out that his second round was absurd. I had no where to rebut, and clearly he wasn't going anywhere either.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are fine, but Pro doesn't provide enough substance to affirm the resolution. Whilst: "The money would of course find its way back into the government," seems fine in theory, it needs to be supported with things that show me this, such as statistics and further arguments. To further add to this problem, Con's counter-arguments brought about great question as to where the money would come from (albeit those arguments were unreferenced). Therefore, I have to give arguments to Con.
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.