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

Should College be 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 80907
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I am pro, anyone can join, everything is fair game, no trolls.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


One of my arguments for free college is that many cannot begin to hope to afford college without student loans that would keep them crippled financially for their whole life. Many possible geniuses will not get an education because they cannot afford it. People who might have discovered the cure for cancer or Ebola, never to do so.


Under the argument that "College should be free", it is safe to assume that means all colleges would be public. However, this is obviously not the correct course of action. As we look at statistics and the outcomes of private vs. public schools, the private schools are obviously providing a more quality education. This is apparent to even the most inexperienced person in such a subject simply by looking at a list of private universities alongside a list of public ones.
(Not a complete list)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Notre Dame

As opposed to-

University of Michigan
University of North Carolina
University of Florida
University of Wisconsin
(And most state schools)

A list of these colleges can show you already which one is the obvious superior to the other. Now, if you make all Colleges free, and no profit is gained, all competition is eliminated. Think about it like this-

If Walmart and Target were suddenly effected by a new law from Congress that says they must give all of their products away for free, and in return for giving them away they will receive a salary from the government. Now, Walmart and Target have no reason to try to be better than each other by offering better products, deals, environment, ect. because whatever they do they are going to be held up by the government.

Now, another point about having all colleges be funded governmentally is that we simply cannot afford it. It costs money to run a university. Now, the government is already losing money supplying education at schools with minimal tuition. To eliminate tuition altogether would be heavily detrimental to the US budget. Not only would the taxpayers have to foot the bill for all the tuition's of public schools that previously brought in money, they would also have to pay for the massive new cost of funding all previously private schools.

While this is not only infeasible, it would undermine the good educations provided by colleges we know for being so effective; Harvard, Yale, MIT, ect. and therefore are undermining our entire economy.

Back to you Pro.

Debate Round No. 2


What I am proposing is not that ALL college would be free, but that only already public schools would be free, so if people had the money, and wanted a more advanced education they could pay to get into Harvard or another private school if they wished. So people who could not afford it, could get an education, and not have to be in debt their whole life. To solve the problem of the budget, is we could take some money OUT of the military, as we do net need nearly as much as what is in it at this point. Another option is what some countries in Europe do, which is have it so you get free schooling if you have a cumulative GPA of around 3.6, you would then get free college. so then not as much money would need to be funded to the people who did not make the cut.


As per your resolution "College should be free" we are debating college in general, not simply public schools. This was not part of the resolution or your arguments until the last round, therefore, your statement-
"What I am proposing is not that ALL college would be free, but that only already public schools would be free,"
Is actually untrue, being that you have not proposed that at all until just now.

In light of this, I will still refute the points made by Pro in their final round. In our capitalist society, there are some things, that while they may be unpleasant, you simply have to deal with. The whole point of success in our country is that you spend money to make money. So when you say-
"So people who could not afford it, could get an education, and not have to be in debt their whole life."
There is one thing that sticks out at me here. If you know that you cannot afford to go to college and you will end up paying debts for the rest of your life, they don't go to college. Not everyone is meant to be a skilled worker, and the whole point of going to college is to make more money in the long run. Obviously, if you are going to lose more money than you gain by going to college, there is no reason to go to college.

In response to your points about the budget, this isn't a problem of moving money around. Now I agree that the military is funded too much, but that money belongs with the people who rightly earned it, the taxpayers, not the government. Also, I am not sure you understand how much money this would end up costing in the long run.

Every year, 2.2 million new freshmen enter colleges around the country.

This is adding to the additional 2.2 million from the previous 3 years.

The average tuition in the United States (for public schools, for private schools it is much higher) is $16,064.

Now, without taking into account the massive influx (more on that later) of new college goers, who will now be able to afford college, that leaves us with 8.8 million people.

Then, multiply that by the average tuition and you have your grand total of 141 BILLION dollars EXTRA on to the United States budget and out of the taxpayers pockets, or at the very least taking it out of the budget of our military, the people who fight and often die to defend our nation.

Now, on the massive influx of people that will suddenly go to college. Now, only % of people who apply are let into Columbia University. They are charging a very large tuition for their students, , the highest tuition in the country. So why wouldn't Columbia want to expand and let in say, 90% of applicants and gain massive profits?
The reason is quality. With the massive influx of college goers, class sizes would increase while the quality of the education will decrease, and everything that makes schools desirable will deteriorate and even disappear completely.
In order to preserve the quality of our higher education, our own money, and the economy in general, colleges should not be free.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by WillRiley 1 year ago
I must apologize because I left out two figures I had meant to add into my last round regarding Columbia. The acceptance rate of Columbia is 7% and the tuition is $51,000.
Posted by MizuneKurosaki13 1 year ago
I agree with you, khalder. The reason student loans exist is because that way people can get into college or university, use that education to get a job and then pay back their debts. I think it will teach people to be responsible and teach them to keep their money in check so they can pay back their debts faster and move on in life.
Posted by khalder 1 year ago
The only reason I can think of why I as a taxpayer should pay for someone else's college education or why someone else should pay for mine is a dangerous lack of willingness to take charge of our own individual affairs and instead living off others. That's a recipe for encouraging individual irresponsibility and mass waste, as has been happening in many facets of our national affairs over recent decades.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bosoxfaninla 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Damn, what can I say. That comment comparing the universities never so much as crossed my mind listening to the last debate. Great metaphor with the target and Walmart (I will have to use that xD) I loved the how the con tied in capitalism and how you have to "pend money to make money". Also great prediction of the cost and tying that in to the equation. Subtracting points on conduct due to pro changing the terms of the debate in his closing argument.
Vote Placed by soccerisfun 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Neg wins on topicality. The Walmart Target comparison is not adressed and I liked that a lot. Aff makes very speculative claims while Neg gives analytics. I gotta vote Neg.