Should we lower the costs of college, law school, etc.?
Debate Rounds (5)
Note: These are preliminary arguments, sort of like an opening statement in court. Thus, I will not prove these points to be true by offering evidence, I am simply laying out a road map for future arguments I will make, so the judges have an easier time following the debate.
First off, I would ask how we would force colleges to lower their tuition cost. They obviously would not want to lower the cost for no reason, as colleges need to pay their employes and many are for profit organizations. We would have to force them to lower tuition costs.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that the more valuable something is, the more costly it will be. If my opponent has not heard of scarcity in economics, I'd be glad to explain it in the second round.
Next, I want to make clear what the Government has a duty to do and what it should not do. It is my opinion that Government's job is to enforce, to protect the rights that we have. These rights are 1) Life, 2) Liberty, and 3) Property. These rights cannot be contradictory, i.e. my right to liberty does not infringe on anyone else's rights. However, other supposed rights, such as higher-tier education (college) which is what my opponent advocates for, contradict these rights. The "right" to education infringes people's right to property, as someone's earnings are being plundered by the Governemtn and given to annother college student. The term for this is "Legal Plunder." Keeping this in mind, when we state we have a right to education, we are infringing people's rights to be secure in thier property. If Pro would like me to explain these rights further I would gladly. Here is a link to my blog, I have written on this subject already (1).
My final argument is more of a conclusion.
1) If trade is free from force, then it is fair.
2) If trade is forced, it violates the right of liberty (freedom).
3) If the Government sets a price, then the trade involves force from the Government.
4) Per arguments 1-3, if the trade involves force from the Government, it is not fair.
5) In conclusion, if the Government sets a price for trade then the right of liberty has been infringed.
First, I'll rebut my opponent's arguments, and then I will further mine.
1) The President will come into action to lower the tuition cost.
First of all, thank you for answering my question. However, your answer poses many difficult problems. This would mean the President would have to create an executive order, meaning that he would need to make tuition costs above a certain amount illegal. You would be put in prison for setting your own price. This would undoubtedly not only cause many universities to go bankrupt, but also it will cause many jobs lost in the process. In addition to those above reasons to not create an executive order to force tuition cost is that it will necessarily interfere with the buisness' right to liberty. He will not be free to set a price that he sees fit as a result of his expenses.
2) The President has the right to do anything anytime, not just those few bullets you posted.
The President does not have the right to do anything anytime. He does not have the right to break the law or infringe upon people's rights. Speaking of rights, we also have the right to impeach the President if he violates the constitution. He is kept in check by the other two branches of the Government.
3) Colleges get enough money to pay for their employees.
Absolutely they do. Currently, they have enough money to pay for all their expenses, including scholarships, utilities, taxes, etc.. However, you want to force them to make less income. If you force them to lower their income? They will undoubtedly suffer, the quality of teaching will go down. Teachers will be let go.
4) You are at over millions of dollars.
5) I don't think that there are that many employees that they have to pay.
Really? On a typical college campus, there are many jobs, and thereby many employees. Would you like me to list them out for you?
With that said, I'll further my arguments.
1) Scarcity = value (No, I'm not vi_spex)
When sometihing is scarce, it means it is more valuable. It's why silver is not as valuable as diamond. Scarcity takes into account 2 concepts: supply and demand.
Supply is the amount of goods, and demand is the, well, demand there is for the goods. When demand is high and supply is low, the goods are extremely valuable. However, when demand is low and supply is high, the goods are not valuable. As an example for each, take the housing industry. When there are many houses, but there is not many people who want to buy, the value of those houses is very low. The owners of those houses will sell the houses for a very low price. However, if there are not many houses, but many people want to buy, the value of those houses is very high. The owners can sell for a lot more.
Keeping this in mind, let's apply that to our situation with the college tuition. We know certain colleges are quite valuable, like Yale or Harvard because of their prices. It means that there is not that much supply, but a lot of demand. However, if we force prices to go down, we will make college a lot less valuable. There will be just as much supply, and a lot of demand, even more than before (as we forced prices down). This means that the college will nessesarily suffer.
2) Rights cannot be infringed by the Government.
I think I've already disscussed this enough. If you think it was not sufficent, I'd be happy to explain further.
3) Argument for liberty
My argument still stands:
1) If trade is forced, it violates the right of liberty (freedom).
2) If the Government sets a price, then the trade is forced by the Government.
3) Therefore if the Government sets a price for trade then the right of liberty has been infringed.
1) Paraphased: You rebuted my arguments incorectly by taking them one at a time.
No, no I didn't. That is answered by the voters, not by either of us. Also, I'm unaware of how "You are over millions of dollars" and "I don't think that there are that many employees that they have to pay for" are complementary statements. One is gramaticaly inccorrect and one is complete speculation.
2) It doesn't cost billions and billions of dollars to pay for water, electric, and food, and also to pay for employees.
No, obviously not. That's why colleges aren't charging billions and billions of dollars for tuition. Or can you provide specific evidence of colleges charging "billions and billions of dollars?" Because at this point your arguments have been pure speculation and personal opinion.
3) Go ahead, list all the important jobs that take role in an average college.
First off, you left the term "average college" undefined, so I am unaware of what you mean by "average." I'll do my best to guess, though. Let's list off the potential employees that would be needed on a college campus, excluding other positions off-site. There's:
-And many others.
Remember, empoyees are not the only expense for a college. Utilities, land costs, schollarships, taxes, etc. must all be taken into account. You cut thier income down by half, even a quarter? Massive lashback.
Scrictly rebuttals this round.
Your definition of "average college" doesn't answer my question. You simply give a circular definition (a college, nothing fancy about it).
Your anyalisis of "colleges are being paid billions and billions of dollars" has two problems:
1) You have brought no evidence whatsoever to prove this, and
2) You need to show that every "average college" gets paid "billions and billions of dollars."
I can show that both of these are false. In the average private college, college tuition only makes up for around 40% of a college's income (1). That effectively means that cutting that down by half would mean missing 20% of thier income, or 1/5th of thier income would simply dissapear. But it seemed that you were also concerned about where that money goes, right? According to the same website, almost all of that money comes back for instruction (37%), and the rest goes to over 10 different areas (1). It sure seems that the colleges need that money to support those students, wouldn't you say?
Your views have had no evidence to support them. You have simply stated what you think, and no evidence on the issue. You haven't given us a link to a breakdown on how much money it costs to pay for college (scholarships included), a run down on the average expenses for a college, nothing. Just you stating " I don't think that there are that many employees that they have to pay," and " So, I am actually stating in my opinion that there are not that many employees that they have to pay for and including water bills, electric etc.." You admit it youself: your argument is your opinion, but does not have any evidence to back it up.
Yes, you do need evidence for it, and no, it's not just common sense.
Seeing that this is the final round, I'll conclude with an overview of the entire debate, and ask for a vote.
1) In order to lower college costs, you must force colleges to not set their own prices.
You concede to this point.
2) Scarcity is a good thing, as it makes something more valuable.
You dropped this argument as well.
3) If the Government sets a price, it infringes upon the college's right to liberty.
You have also dropped this argument.
Now that I have gone over my contentions (all of which you have dropped), I'll go over yours, and my responses to them.
1) It's too expensive.
This was essentially your entire beginning argument. I rebutted it by stating that forcing colleges to lower tuition costs (contention 1) would infringe their rights (contention 2), and thereby the Government should have no power to do so (contention 3). You responded with a strange red herring: that they get enough money right now to pay their employees. I refuted this by stating that yes, this is indeed true, but that you were forgetting that employee fees are not the only expenses that colleges must pay (1). You ignored this in your final argument by trying to show how much revenue colleges get from tuition, which does not respond to my refutation.
With all this taken into account, it ought to be clear who you should vote for. Pro was
a) nowhere near meeting his BoP (burden of proof),
b) was unable to sufficiently strengthen his own arguments, and
c) dropped ALL of Con's contentions.
Therefore, I ask you to vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.