The Instigator
Pro (for)
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Public college education in the United States should be tuition-free.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,024 times Debate No: 55048
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




Hello, everybody. First round for acceptance and questions about round. While I feel the topic is straightforward generally, I will provide a few caveats:
1) Public college/university: Any college/university that receives state funding and that falls under the eventual jurisdiction of each state"s department of education, via a board of appointed trustees and/or commissioners.
2) Tuition-free: Without tuition alone; that is, not having to pay for classes themselves. Room and board charges and book charges, along with other extraneous charges, would still apply.
3) Do not change admissions policies; that is, admissions would still be based on merit, affirmative action, or whatever the current policy of the university is. The universities would, however, have the option of admitting more, but still qualifying, students if they so chose.
4) Funding would originate from, but not be limited to, a combination of federal grants to the individual states for education, research, state funding sources, out-of-state tuition charges, and alumni donations.
5) This free tuition would apply only to those students who are classified as "in-state" for a given public university.
6) Universities would have to cap out-of-state students at 25% of each incoming class.

Thanks, and good luck!


Greetings. I am here to argue against tuition free college. This is a very interesting topic and I am glad to express my opinion as well as to here your argument as well. I am assuming that in the next round you will give your reasons and then I will give you my reasons against yours.
Let the debate begin.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, and hopefully we can have an interesting, lively, and informative debate

My first contention is that the government has an obligation to the taxpayer. I will first discuss social contract theory. The government of the United States arouse out of the public signing of a social contract, in which members of society forgo some of their rights as present in the state of nature in order to foster more optimal outcomes for the whole of society. This contract can be most clearly seen through the United States constitution, particularly in the preamble, which promises to "promote the general welfare." These more optimal outcomes can take a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, the enactment of civil rights, the provision of public goods, etc. The government therefore has an obligation to uphold this social contract by fostering more optimal outcomes for the whole of society.

I will next discuss the provision of public goods. One important mechanism that upholds the social contract, upholds the public welfare, and creates legitimacy in a government is the provision of public goods. These public goods, like national defense and infrastructure like roads, are necessary for those in a democracy to exercise their natural rights and civil rights as granted by the state. Essentially, these public goods are those that are non-rival and non-excludable, that foster optimal outcomes, and are necessary for rights protection. Education, as will be warranted later, is an important mechanism for citizens to access all of their civil and natural rights, and is unparalleled in fostering the public good, in a multitude of fashions. Therefore, the state has an obligation to its citizens to provide such a good, regardless of cost, practicality, and other factors. However, under the status quo, the word public has taken on another meaning; if you listen carefully, you can hear the social contract tearing. Taxpayers pay for public colleges and universities; yet, due to the nature of colleges now, many cannot access them. This is a direct affront to the idea of "public" and a disservice to taxpayers who pay for these colleges. Creating a system paid for by the taxpayer, but that is only accessible by those taxpayers with sufficient funds, is a direct example of the government neglecting its duty to its taxpayers.

My second contention concerns equality of opportunity. One of the most important ideas behind the founding documents of the United States, especially the Constitution, is equality of opportunity. While the government does not have an obligation to ensure equal results at the end of the day, it does have a responsible to ensure all citizens have equal access to programs necessary for them to achieve their maximum potential. I will first discuss the idea that the status quo is income-discriminatory. As is common knowledge, a university education in the United States is often grossly expensive, to the point of being prohibitive. Due to this high cost, many of the poor and middle classes are unable to access education fairly. Education is a public good in the United States, indeed, a liberal, Western democracy, one that must be provided to foster governmental legitimacy, because it fosters the public good and allows access to rights. We see this manifested through free, compulsory K-12 education, which is funded by the taxpayers in order to foster the public good. The line between high school and college is arbitrary and dangerous; we see that the government has an obligation to educate its citizenry, but, for some reason, the United States stops this after high school. By continuing this arbitrary distinction and making college tuition extant, the United States is deliberately and tangibly restricting education to those who cannot afford it. Allowing the status quo to continue deliberately and tangibly violates the standard of equality of opportunity, as outlined in the nation"s founding documents. In fact, this policy of charging tuition encourages inequality by restricting access to an important resource necessary for economic and personal fulfillment.

I will next discuss the idea that the status quo tangibly restricts rights. As previously stated, a college education is unattainable for many of the poor and middle classes who seek it due to prohibitive costs. This lack of access is a direct affront to the complete access of first amendment rights and complete engagement in the democratic system. In fact, this lack of education, and its prohibitive cost, is a direct tax on rights and benefits. In order to access economic well-being and rights, as mentioned earlier, citizens must pay this tax. Thus, those who cannot afford a college education are doomed to a lesser economic class and lower personal fulfillment, through no fault of their own. This is unacceptable in the United States, as it deliberately violates various sections of the Constitution and contradict founding principles of the United States.

My third contention will concern the importance of education. I will first discuss the private benefits that education can confer. A college education has many benefits to the citizen, benefits that foster public good by increasing the welfare of each citizen that receives this education. These private benefits can, essentially, be grouped into two areas: personal and economic. Personal benefits include the idea that learning, for its own sake, is an important experience; it fosters personal growth, both through responsibility and mental capacity. These benefits foster a sense of happiness and knowledge in the individual citizenry, and accrue into increased happiness, discourse, and even quality of government, across society. The clich" "knowledge is power" is the tagline of this line of thinking; indeed, more education empowers citizens to make responsible decisions and fosters a sense of fulfillment in each person.

I will next discuss the idea that, across a society, education has many important impacts, which will be further warranted later. These include increasing the quality of a democracy by fostering knowledge of politics and the electoral system, increasing the quality of life through fostering innovation and technology, and increasing the economic well-being of its citizenry. Another important societal benefit includes decision-making; college educated citizens tend to have higher voter turnout, lower rates of teenage pregnancy and drug use, and higher rates of financial literacy. Since all of these foster more optimal outcomes for citizens, and since education is a public good that provides access to these rights and benefits, the government has an obligation to provide college education.

My fourth and final contention concerns economic impacts. I will first discuss innovation. Education fosters innovation through increasing the education and knowledge necessary for technological growth to occur. This has two main impacts: economic growth and increased quality of life. Increasing technology directly results in lives saved, which the government has an obligation to do, and outcomes bettered. This leads to economic growth. Due to this increased innovation, along with the increase in college degrees among both the general populace and among the poor, economic growth will increase. Innovation will lead to an increased GDP per capita by fostering technological jobs that are higher paying and that create products that can demand more from the marketplace. Increasing college degrees generally will lead to higher wages and higher standards of living for the general population. More college degrees among the poor will lead to increased economic equality, thus eliminating deadweight losses and fostering a healthier and more stable economy.

I will next discuss the elimination of student-loan bubble. Since a college education is so expensive, many students are forced to take out massive student loans to pay for it. These massive student loans have a negative effect on the economy due to the high rate of default on these loans, due to high interest rates and the inability to liquidate this debt through bankruptcy, in addition to the decreased spending causing by accruing this debt. These lag on the economy, foster deadweight losses, and, thus, create an inefficient economy that remains stagnant and ever on the edge of a "popping" of the student loan bubble.

For these reasons, public college education in the United States should be tuition-free. I look forward to the Con arguments!


Glad to be here, I just finished reading your arguments and now I am ready to post mine.

First off, the government does have an obligation to the taxpayer, but is not obligated to allow this type of free higher education. If the constitution intended for taxpayers to have tuition-free public universities, wouldn't we have just had tuition-free public universities. Why would they forget to put in a mandatory obligation if they intended it?

Second of all, college is not meant to be a free right of being a citizen. It is suppose to be place of higher learning that not all people get into. You are suppose to be able to work hard during high school to meet the college's requirements, fill out an application, apply, and enter a place that is meant for people who are smarter and will be the people in society that will make sure that our civil and natural rights are carried out. Taxpayers pay for these universities so that the best can get an education and not just some person who is not interested in learning after high school.

Then there is equality of opportunity. College is not part of the basics in ensuring equal opportunity. The idea is that you learn in grade school in high school and those who are willing to put that extra effort to get a higher education can get ahead. Besides, college does not guarantee success. Having a knowledge of majors that are more likely to guarantee success, working hard, and giving your best effort is what guarantees success.

On your next point of attainability of college because of costs can be easily fixed. Colleges just need to trim out all of these useless classes that do not grant success at all such as Philosophy, Arts, and Music. College is meant to be a place to train the greatest minds in the country for the real world and help them succeed in their career goals, not just some place where typical losers can go, not have any responsibility, spend four years singing and dancing, and wind up with a bunch of debt that will leave them very poor and probably will not ever be able to be paid back.

With the importance of education, like I have said before, college is not for everyone. Simply going to college does not guarantee success. Right now almost half of all graduates with a bachelors degree are in jobs that do not require the degrees they have obtained. Simply going to college will not make you a better person, you need to be able to set goals and achieve them. Success in getting a good job and working hard is what makes you a better person.

Education is an important thing but look at it this way. Most of these people that do not vote, get pregnant when they are teens, and do drugs have chosen their lifestyle. Putting them in college does not help them in their life. These kind of people slacked off in high school and will probably slack off in college. I like to think of college like having a baby. Only a few qualified and intelligent people should really do it but everyone does because it is fun.

On the economic impact, how does college guarantee success? If they get one of the useless degrees that I mentioned earlier, they will have as much success as someone who did not even go to college. Also college is not as important as you might think. Yes, it might help you in applying for a job if they see you went to some fancy college but they just want to see you have a degree in the field you are applying. Even then just look at all the millionaires who just never went to college or just did not finish. As long as you are determined, work as hard as you can, and stay focused on your goals you will reach success sooner or later.

As for the student-loan bubble, that can easily be fixed. Too many people go to college, never finish or get a degree that will not help them in life, and wined up with a bunch of debt that they will never be able to pay back. This then makes the tuition go up even more as they need to balance out the money the college's are not getting back. Its people's stupidity that causes tuition costs to rise and will eventually lead to the student loan bubble popping.

That is why I disagree with you and do not think that we should have tuition-free colleges.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I get into the flow of this debate, I would like to begin with an overview. Con has given us no substantive reasons why the resolution ought not be adopted; they simply make nebulous claims about the nature of higher education and mitigating factors that attempt to downplay the benefits I have so clearly demonstrated. I hope to see more substantive claims in the next round. I will, then, move down the flow.

Con first tells us that the government does not have an obligation to the taxpayer to provide free higher education because this provision is not in the Constitution. Two responses: 1) Public universities, indeed, public education, did not exist at the time the Constitution was written. In fact, a philosophical leader of the new Republic, Thomas Jefferson, would, several years later, go on to found the University of Virginia, the first public university in the fledgling nation. 2) Simply because the Constitution lacks a provision does not mean that the state ought not provide it. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal government must provide infrastructure, funding for such programs as welfare, or, even, free primary and secondary schooling. However, we see that the Federal government does have a duty, on the macro, to foster better outcomes and equality of opportunity, meaning that all workers enter the workforce with at least some standard degree of skills. Previously, this was seen as grade school. Now, it is high school; however, this is an arbitrary distinction that robs many willing applicants of the ability to self-actualize, which accrues to deadweight losses as people fail to fulfill their maximal potential.

Con then tells us that college is not a right because it is meant for more motivated and intellectual students. Three responses: 1) A caveat in my case construct was that universities would not change their admission policies; that is, they would still admit on at least some degree of merit, 2) Many people who do work hard in high school cannot attend college because they simply cannot afford it, and 3) Simply because some students are not as intellectual does not mean that we should not assist them in self-actualizing and acquiring skills; that is why community college and lower-tier state schools exist - these people, when given more skills, can still help our economy and create better lives for themselves.

Moving on to my second contention, Con tells us that college does not concern equality of opportunity. It is never really clear why this is the case; I have demonstrated that having a college degree is often necessary to even gain access to certain labor markets. Sure, a degree does not guarantee success, but not having one decidedly limits it. Moreover, there is a reason that college graduates make significantly more, on average, than those with less education.

Con also states that, to make college more affordable, universities could just trim costs; in doing this, he cites Philosophy as an area of waste. As a philosophy student, I find this argument misplaced and lacking in perspective: philosophy endows students with a skill set that can transfer to such places as law school, or, when paired with such degrees as neuroscience, create an extremely powerful combination, holding tangible allure in the workforce. The same is true of music and art; training in these fields is not for "losers" who do not have any career goals, but is for the next generation of talent to hone their abilities. Students should feel free to pursue these degrees without being coerced by faux-financial arguments, like the one Con is presenting. Finally, trimming costs still ensures tuition, even if the bill is smaller. ANY tuition prices out consumers on the margins who are unable to pay, but have the skills necessary to attend. Any such marginal losses ought to be eliminated.

Next, Con states that college is not for everyone. While this may be true, that does not mean that everyone should not have access to it. This line of thinking which pervades Con's arguments is non-responsive, and I have dealt with it more meaningfully above.

Con's discussion of those who have made poor choices is important, but is not developed. When taken further, it is clear that, when taken to its logical conclusion, it supports Pro. This is the case because people who have made these choices need some way to escape the vortex of unfortunate circumstances that threatens to turn their existence into a drag on society, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. If these people had an opportunity, when they saw fit, to go to college, free of charge, then they could change their trajectory in life from despondence to success. Moreover, those who attend college are generally better citizens; they drink and use illegal drugs less, they vote more, they are better-read, etc. These bad life choices can be averted by attending college.

Con then tells us that college does not guarantee economic success. This is empirically true. However, college ensures that everybody has equal access to the labor market. Also, college graduates DO make more, on average, than those of lesser education, thereby increasing the probability of economic success. A few success stories who did not attend college does not negate the argument I make and is, writ large, non-responsive.

Finally, Con states that the student loan bubble is due to too many people getting "useless" degrees or not finishing college; in fact, Con claims that student loans are the reason for tuition increases. The first part of this argument clearly is misguided; society should not be in the business of coercing people into pursuing a field solely for financial success. Moreover, many people who acquire "good" degrees, even such degrees as a J.D. or an M.D., are saddled with debt, though they are pursuing "prestigious" degrees. These loans act as both a weight on the economy, due to lesser spending, and as a grenade, which threatens to explode and send the institution of higher education tumbling down. Moreover, it is clear that ever-expanding campuses and services are the primary blame for tuition-hikes, not student loans. And, even if student loans cause tuition increases, then that alone is a reason to adopt my proposal.

I will not spend too much time reiterating my case, but would like to point out several arguments which go under-addressed. Con does not engage with the idea that the social contract of public goods provision necessitates free tuition; the most important idea here is that if everyone pays for something, then everyone should have access to it. I have, above, reiterated my argument regarding equality of opportunity.

My points about the importance of education personally and across society, which coalesce into economic benefits, was not dealt with meaningfully. Remember: more degrees means less inequality, more innovation, increasing GDP, and a better standard of living for all Americans.

I am proud to propose.


Alright I just got done reading your post and so these are my comebacks.

First off, You say that public education did not exist at the time and the one of the philosophical leaders, Thomas Jefferson, founded the University of Virginia. Well, then why isn't the University of Virginia Tuition free? If he is one of the philosophical leaders that thought education should be free, why did he make a college that is not free? Just because it says its "public" does not mean it is free. You still have to pay a tuition and the taxpayers have to pay for all these people to go to college.

You then say that they would not change their admission policies and that people can't get in because they can't afford it. Well you know that is the reason why student loans exists and while you may argue that some people can't male the payments, in most circumstances you can just adjust your monthly payments in a way that is comfortable to your financial status. Also, there are many people who do not have the intellectual skills and do not go to college who do just fine on their own. If they do not have the intellect to perceive higher careers, then what are they going to do in college? Are they just going learn how to get a job which sadly is not just taught in high school? High school is suppose to get kids ready for the real world but is sadly just a broken system that does not. We need to be more focused on fixing that so the people can be ready to get some kind of job after they graduate.

You say that it is a concern of equal opportunity and that people with college degrees make more money than those who do not, but that is the thing. Many people apply to very prestigious, expensive, and hard to get into colleges thinking it will more guarantee success. This is not the case as most employers do not care where you got your degree, they just want to see that you have a degree. They want to see that you will get the job done and not just sit around boasting about how you went to some school.

On the next argument, you say that philosophy is not a useless class because it can be used in other careers like law school. Honestly, I have never heard of some one majoring in philosophy and then going to law school. Most people just go to law school if that is what they want to be rather than pay more money so that you can be given this supposed edge in the field. Also I would like to know how philosophy applies to neuroscience? You then say that these majors like art and music are training the next generation of talent. Think of it this way. Look at all the famous and popular musicians out there. Do most of them have college degrees, and if so what will make them successful is their talent, not the fact that they have a degree. You then say that even if we cut costs people will still have to pay tuition and might not afford it. Well I guarantee you that we could cut them to the point where pretty much anyone can afford it, the government just does not know how to do so because of their incompetence which leads to wonder why we put them in charge of education at all.

I then stated that college is not for everyone and you then said we should at least give them the option. Why should anyone pay more in tax money just so someone who should not even be in college go to college?

Next, you say that people who have made bad choices should be able to go to college and get themselves out of the vortex. Why should I pay for someone else's mistakes? While you may argue that people can not be a drag on society and live in poverty. Well this is why we can not give people handouts. We need to teach people that their mistakes will have consequences and not just always catch them when they fall. If we had a society with this mentality, we probably would not even have tons of people in poverty. Finally how does going to college make you immune to bad choices. Most people who do not go to college and use drugs had no interest in the first place of going to college. They would still choose not to go even if it was free as they have chosen their lifestyle, and there is not much else we can do about it.

I still stand by my statement that college is not for everyone. Why should we give access to people in labor markets that they are probably not even interested in. College is for those people who want to be in those markets. People who are not meant for those markets should not go to college and therefore why bother paying for schooling that is just going to be put to bad use.

Lastly on the student loan bubble. College is meant for financial success. Why would you put yourself in debt simply because you are passionate about something that you know will grant you no success. What is most important in the end it the economy and if the economy is bad because the student loan bubble pops, then you and your dreams will suffer as well as most would rather buy food and clothes in bad economic times rather than go to a play or other things that do not grant financial success that people decide to pursue in college. We need to be focused that the loans do not go up rather that to adopt a system that will just cause us to pay more for people who may not stimulate the economy in any way.

I have made my points and will wait for to write back.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you so much for an entertaining and informative debate. I will begin with another overview, and then I will move into several points of crystallization that will attempt to frame the key issues in this round, and demonstrate why Pro has won them.

Con's arguments can, almost exclusively, be grouped into two categories: 1) Is/ought fallacies, and 2) Assertions and rhetorical questions. Repeatedly, we hear about what public means, student loans, what the state of the American educational system is, what the implications of a college degree are, and that college is not for everyone, among other things. None of these are arguments about why the system should be one way or another; they are simply observations about the current state of affairs, regardless of their correctness. Secondly, Con repeatedly makes absurd assertions and asks nonsensical rhetorical questions; for instance, "I have never heard of anyone pursuing philosophy and then going to law school," "We should not just give people handouts," or "Why should I pay for someone else's mistakes." I am sorry; these are not arguments that attempt to explain why something should or should not be.

1. Role of the State

I have, in this round, set up a consistent framework whereby the state has one key role: to fulfill the social contract. To fulfill this contract, the state must provide public goods, which are paid for by everybody through taxation. These public goods include national defense, clean air, and, to this point, education before college. I have argued that, due to the changing nature of our society, that college is quite equivalent to what high school once was and, as such, should be provided to better societal outcomes. I have also argued that it is intrinsically wrong for citizens to pay for a public good, but to not have access to it, simply by nature of their poverty. None of these arguments have been refuted.

I have also stated that members of the Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention did not include such a provision in the Constitution since such a system was not in existence at the time. Con claims that the University of Virginia having tuition now proves that Jefferson did not believe such things. On the contrary, Jefferson simply, in the early 1800s, could not secure sufficient funding, a problem which persists to the present day [1].

Thus, if I have proved that the state has an obligation, under a social contractarian framework, to provide education, then I win this round.

2. Rights and Equality

I have argued, throughout this debate, that tuition abrogates equality of opportunity because it prevents people from both self-actualizing and from accessing labor markets. Con has attempted to negate this by arguing 1) That student loans exist, 2) That college should just be made cheaper by cutting departments, and 3) That some people are just not meant for college.

Firstly, student loans are not optimal for many of the reasons I have listed previously. They act as a drag on the economy due to decreased spending, they form a bubble which could pop and seriously harm the integrity of the institution of higher learning, they coerce students into choosing careers that are perceived to be financially-rewarding, and they price students on the margins out of higher education. Con claims that monthly payments could simply be adjusted; this is often not possible, and any payment still prices those on the margins out. Even worse, student debt cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy; it follows a person until they die or until the debt is paid.

Con next argues that college could be made more accessible by cutting departments, incredulously claiming that nobody, literally nobody, that pursues philosophy goes to law school. If this is the case, then I suppose that I do not exist. In fact, statistics show that philosophy is tied with economics for the highest LSAT score [2]. The same sorts of arguments go for arts and music; training in these fields still can benefit society and the person pursuing them. Any anecdotal claims by Con to the contrary do not have any bearing in this round.

Con finally argues that some people are not meant for college. I will further expound the benefits of training more people later on, but this argument is faulty on face. The fact that some people are not as intelligent does not mean that they do not have the same right to equality of opportunity as everyone else. Con has never dealt with this line of thinking, and it will prove damaging.

I have stated repeatedly that preventing people from having the opportunity to self-actualize or access labor markets equally is anathema to the idea of equality of opportunity, and we have never really heard a response from Con on this point. If I can prove that tuition impinges equality of opportunity, then I win this debate.

3 . Benefits of Education

College education is a sound financial investment [3]. On average, graduates make more money and have lower rates of unemployment than non-graduates. This accrues to more spending and increased GDP, which raises the standards of living for all Americans. Con has never negated this.

Instead, Con argues on two main fronts: 1) College does not guarantee success and 2) Some people are not meant for college. Both of these arguments are faulty.

Firstly, I have demonstrated that college increases the probability of financial success, even if it does not guarantee it. I have never argued for absolutes, but, on the macro scale, it is empirically true that college is beneficial for one's earnings. A few anecdotal counterexamples does not disprove this.

I have several responses to the second argument. Firstly, training people, even if they are less intelligent than others, has many advantages. I have already demonstrated that college graduates are better citizens and make better decisions than non-graduates [4]. This is better for society, and, when combined with the increased earning potential and ability to innovate, make for truly compelling economic reasons to educate more people. Secondly, some people will not be successful in college, some people will major in less financially-successful careers. However, if we agree that everybody should, independent of themselves, have equivalent rights claims, and if we agree that education has value, economically and for self-actualization, this is irrelevant. All majors can contribute to society, many in unique ways. Less people majoring in theater, arts, music, philosophy, etc. has serious implications for the place of the US on the global cultural landscape. Not everything is solely financial. A few people who abuse the system, which occurs in the status quo all the same, does not negate rights claims and general economic arguments. Finally, though Con claims that we should not have to pay for others' mistakes, a college education that can be had for free allows those who are trapped in poverty to self-actualize and to be able to contribute to society. So, rather than paying for mistakes, we are investing in human capital. The returns for such, as I have already stated, are huge.

Throughout this round, I have argued that education is good both intrinsically and economically, both personally and across society. It leads to better behavior, increased GDP, more innovation, more lives saved, and a higher standard of living. Con has, quite literally, never argued against this. If I have proved the benefits of college education, then I win this round.


Throughout this round, you have seen a dichotomy in argumentation. On Pro's side, you have seen cogent argumentation and rebuttals; on Con's, you have seen assertions and non sequiturs. I have repeatedly argued that the government philosophically should provide education, that equality of opportunity should be maintained regardless of an individual's characteristics, and that education has myriad benefits. Con has presented many arguments, but they can all basically be summed into the following: there could be some bad apples. This is not responsive to my resolution, as this debate is on the macro scale, and is equally present in status quo; all the resolution changes is the ability of willing and able students to attend college.

Thank you very much for this excellent round, and I urge a Pro vote.




I thank you as well for the interesting and informative debate. I understand some of the problems you had understanding what I was trying to say, so I make it a little more clear as to what I am trying to get across.

You see, I am very critical of the college system. It seems to me that while some work hard and eventually graduate with a major that they can use to be successful in life, many just come to slack off, have fun, and really have no goals for the future. Personally, I think the idea of tuition is good. I think it gives people more of an incentive to work hard, get scholarships, and succeed as they do not want to end up with a bunch of debt. I think that if we allow a system where college is essentially free, we will just have too many people in the colleges with not enough classes or professors to fill them. We are already seeing a similar problem in universities as many students can not find available classroom seats in courses that they need to graduate which leads to students having to be in college for five years or even more. I also believe that the government just does not do as good of a job as the private sector in really anything. Right now in the nation is about a trillion dollars deep in student loan debt and of that money only about 100 billion is from private universities. If anything it's the government who is giving people all these loans that they will never pay back. If we continue to allow the government to control the educational system nothing will ever get better. While Thomas Jefferson did not have sufficient funds to have a tuition free university, I still do not see why him founding a public university makes him support tuition-free college. You also never went up on one my statements I made earlier that almost half of all college graduates with a bachelors degree are in fields that do not require their major. This is a major issue as it spawns the question I ask. What was the point of these people going to college. It did not seem to help in them following their dreams, it did not really help in rights and equality, and it also did not help them in getting any benefits in higher education. We need to leave education to the private sector. We also need to train kids in grade school in high school better when it comes to being able to find a job. If we do that then only those seeking training for more specialized jobs can go to college, those who do not can enter the workforce, and those who are not interested can pay for their consequences. College has become not a place of higher education and rather some mandatory thing in being able to get ahead in life rather than simply being a place of higher education. If we can resort things back to the old system we should be fine. However, if we continue on the path we are going, free-tuition college may be the least of our worries. Just remember, a government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it away.

It was a pleasure debating with you and I had fun. I hope this has been an eye-opener to you and for anyone else reading this.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheBathead 3 years ago
So the debate is over, and Con made a good comeback, but I think it was too late to win the debate. Perhaps had a fifth round been allowed, Con would have won. But without that extra round, Pro dominated the debate. I look forward to seeing whom people vote for.
Posted by TheBathead 3 years ago
It's halfway into the debate, and things are not looking good for Con. All his arguments have been rebutted by Pro, many almost perfectly. I'm not sure if Con can defend his arguments or counter Pro's successfully.
Posted by TheBathead 3 years ago
I will be interested to see how this debate turns out.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no reasons to negate. Pro backed up arguments better.
Vote Placed by joepbr 3 years ago
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makesbetter arguments overall. While Con resorts to assertions based in little more than his personal feelings, Pro offers some sound rebuttals and is the only one to provide sources. Also, I had the impression that most of Con's arguments actually supports more Pro's claim than refute them, for example, when he says that universities need more intelligent people. Tuitions don't select beople by their intelligence but just by the amount of money they can pay, so replacing the barriers for student entrance in the university from essentially money based to intelligence based would actually be preferable under Con's logic. Pro, however prefers to argue for a proposal that would elliminate, rather than replace those barriers, but if he had followed this line of argumentation, the resolution would still be supported.
Vote Placed by MB17 3 years ago
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that con has won this debate as pro has failed to realize that if a college education is tuition free, then obviously more people will go to college, as more people go to college the value of a college degree will go down, many college graduates today already have unemployment problems due the shortage of jobs, and increasing the number of qualified people will do no good. Also if college is tuition free, than why would students give any effort in high school. Free college is called a scholarship, that you earn in high school, you don't get it handed to you by a welfare program.