The Instigator
TheProphett
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
zeromeansnothing
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The U.S. should make collegiate education free

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
TheProphett
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/8/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,234 times Debate No: 80724
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

TheProphett

Pro

Preface
Firstly, I would like to thank Hayd for graciously hosting this tournament. I think it will be a fun learning experience for the beginners, and it will allow us to learn the ropes. Secondly, I would like to thank my opponent, zeromeansnothing, for taking on this debate with me. I have no doubt that you will provide an intelligent and lengthy discourse, and I look forward to our contentions. Lastly, I would like to thank both of our mentors for agreeing to be our guides through this tournament. You have no idea how much that helps us in the learning process.

Full and Clear Resolution:
The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents.

Burden of Proof:
In this debate, and from the resolution, the burden of proof is shared. I, as Pro, must argue in favor of the U.S. putting into place a free collegiate education system. The job of Con is to provide ample reasoning as to why free collegiate education is not good. Violation of the previously stated guidelines could result in voting out of your favor.

Structure:
Round 1: Pro presents the framework and rules of the debate, and Con Accepts.
Round 2: Pro presents his case, Con presents his case.
Round 3: Pro rebuts Con's case, and Con rebuts Pro's case.
Round 4: Pro defends his arguments, Con defends his arguments.

Rules:
1. No semantics whatsoever. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided.
2. The burden of proof is shared. (More in-depth above)
3. Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting.
4. Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else.
5. No forfeiting of any rounds, unless approved by both parties (Pro and Con)
6. No new arguments in the final round.
7. Maintain a civil and calm discourse.
8. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks)
9. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate.
11. Failure to meet any of these specified rules will be taken into account during the voting period.

Definitions:
Free: without cost or payment.

Collegiate: of or relating to a college

Education: adegree,level,orkindofschooling.

Constituents: servingtocomposeormakeupathing;component. In this case, it represents the people of America.


In conclusion.... thank you for accepting this debate, and let's make this a memorable experience for both of us to learn from. May the best debater win!
zeromeansnothing

Con

I accept the framework and rules of this debate.
I congratulate my opponent TheProphett for his thorough preparation of same.


Debate Round No. 1
TheProphett

Pro

Introduction:

Once again, I would like to thank zeromeansnothing for accepting this debate, and Hayd, for hosting this tournament for us. I think it will be a good learning experience for both me and my opponent, and we will both be better off because of it. @zeromeansnothing, I also apologize for the minor misunderstanding in the comments, and that will in no way affect my argument. Without further ado, let us begin.


Framework:

The full resolution is, “The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents.” In order to fulfill my obligation to the burden of proof, I must prove why colleges should make their education free for all constituents of America. In order for my opponent to receive points and effectively present his burden of proof, he must argue why colleges should not make education free for all constituents of America. Failure on my part or my opponent’s will result in a deduction of points in the voting period.


The values on which I will be basing my arguments on represent core problems within today’s educational system on the collegiate level. Equality in education, Egalitarianism as a principle, social and upward progress being impeded, and the fairness/justness of the system itself.


Argument 1: The Virtue of Education; Social Advancement

Education, in all forms, should be free to the public because of its value to society. John Adams once stated that, “[T]he whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people, and must be willing to bear the expense of it.” (1) The government should take college costs into their hands, as an investment in the future of its citizens.


Egalitarianism is defined as, “An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect.” Even in our current form of government, egalitarianism is an ideal at which we follow in the systemic level. Equality as a principle was and still is an important advocate of the American government today. Making students pay for education and learning is against this philosophy. Everyone in the country should be entitled to free education because they are equal to their peers, and they are equal to all constituents of this country. More money poured into education should not affect the quality of education that is obtainable.


Argument 2: Government; The Guiding Hand


  1. Education, in its current respect, is cracked at the seams. A major problem in today’s system is that the government is not holding colleges accountable for their failure to provide students with quality education and a fair system. Increased government control at the foundations of collegiate education can make principles that are so desperately needed right now cemented. Almost all collegiate institutions rely on federal aid to fund their operations, yet costs have managed to rise, and quality of education has managed to stay the same or decrease in quality.This is often because federal grants to universities usually focus on funding research, instead of trying to improve the quality of education or addressing instruction (36% of students failed to demonstrate meaningful gains over four years) (2). With increased government involvement, or total involvement, universities can begin a rehabilitation process in which costs can be cut and focused towards the instruction and quality of learning. The resulting outcome is that more and more students are prepared to enter the job market, and will aid the United States economically in the long run.

  2. Another shortcoming in the educational system is finance based attendance. Scholarships and fellowships allow students to attend universities, but there are not enough grants to go around that don’t leave students in thousands of dollars of student loans debt. More often than not, two results are present; students cannot attend universities because of tremendously steep costs, or they go into deep debt to acquire and obtain a degree (25% of people who graduate will end up with $30,000< of debt accumulated) (2). One tactic by students is to work while continuing their education, but this most always proves to be stressful to students. Colleges often favor those who can accommodate for the cost of education. In this current scenario, admissions are then based upon economic status, not the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based. This only reinforces my claim that government funding can not only eliminate the wealth status factor, but it can also return college admissions to its rightful state. Graduating free of debt and economic impediments, citizens are able to immediately start contributing to the growth of America as a whole by obtaining jobs, buying houses, and paying taxes.


Conclusion:

This argument has been funded by the National Tea Party Patriots. Thank you @Hayd and @zeromeansnothing. This will be a fun debate, and I look forward to our following rounds. I have supplied my burden of proof by suggesting that government control of education will be beneficial, our current system is not a working one, and that free education will benefit the American economy as a whole. Now it is your job to supply your burden of proof. Thanks!


Sources:

  1. http://blogs.berkeley.edu...

  2. http://www.thirdway.org...
zeromeansnothing

Con


Con: The U.S. should not make collegiate education free


1: The Existing System Works

(a)The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing it's collegiate system in a responsible manner. Overall, the U.S. injects a higher percentage of it's GDP into education than Germany does.

(b)The U.S. collegiate system in it's present form is working effectively, in a manner that reflects wider societal norms for the facilitation of opportunity and personal advancement.

'Increasing numbers and percentages of Black and Hispanic students are attending college. Between 2000 and 2013, the percentage of college students who were Black rose from 11.7 to 14.7 percent, and the percentage of students who were Hispanic rose from 9.9 to 15.8 percent.'

(c) The U.S. collegiate system has earned international approval.
Total international student enrollment: 886,052 (2013-2014)

(All significant statistics indicate that the above three points are essentially correct.)


2: The Role of Government within Third Level Education

Government has a responsibility of tenureship, regarding college education, that requires it to be consistent when confronted by egalitarian postulation. Deflections caused by these promptings are usually the antithesis of considered reform. Government makes demands, on behalf of its citizens, insisting that elements such as parity and fairness remain obvious within the facilitation arena that is 'college education', A fees component within the system allows a basis for effective control of the entire presentation of third level education option types in a manner that helps protect the tax payers patriotic contributions.


3: A collegiate qualification is hard currency.

In a modern world the bill must be paid by the person who is most likely to benefit. Student loans are an excellent method of insuring that this payment is made in a structured way. Grants and scholarships based on socio-economic deprivation, counterbalance the advantages that normally accompany affluence. The norm is a large number of fee paying students who tenaciously claim their right to be well educated and privileged.

'In 2013, median earnings for full-time year-round working young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor's degree were $48,500, while the median was $23,900 for those without a high school diploma or its equivalent, $30,000 for those with a high school diploma or its equivalent, and $37,500 for those with an associate's degree. In other words, young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school diploma or its equivalent (103 percent more) and 62 percent more than young adult high school completers. Additionally, in 2013 median earnings for young adults with a master's or higher degree were $59,600, some 23 percent more than the median for young adults with a bachelor's degree'



(I have examined the Pro case to date. It ignores commonplace understandings of Rules 1, 3,4,and 8, while attempting to attach moral positives to its position. I will rebut Pro's case in my next submission as per Rules Structure.)


Sources:


http://nces.ed.gov...
http://data.worldbank.org...
http://www.iie.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheProphett

Pro

Introduction:

Thank you to my opponent for posting his Round 2 argument. While I may disagree on most all of your points, I must applaud you for your effort. Thank you for not forfeiting, and proving to be a good opponent to go against. Once again, may the best debater win.


Addressing Rules Concerns:

In his earlier round, my opponent stated my violations of rules one, three, four, and eight. All things considered, I do not know why he accused me of the rule breakages. Let’s go over them.


Rule 1: “No semantics whatsoever. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided.” I can understand why an inexperienced debater would interpret my argument as a play on the resolution, but I can assure you that arguing from a value standpoint is perfectly allowed within the provided resolution, rules, and definitions. Therefore, I was not breaking the rules because I did not provide a policy-based argument, which my opponent was anticipating.


Rule 3: “Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting.” We hold these truths to be self evident that I did in fact post my acceptance and structure of the rules in Round 1. This claim is irrelevant, and voters should consider it so.


Rule 4: “Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else.” This accusation also has no basis because I did provide my sources and any final conclusions within the boundaries of my argument, not anywhere else.


Rule 8: “No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks).” Lastly, this accusation is not a valid one because running a value contention is not a kritik. I suggest my opponent read up on Kritik’s in debates, and understand them.


Contention 1: The Existing System Works

  1. In the first part of his first contention, my opponent states that, “The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing its collegiate system in a more responsible manner.” He follows up this quote with the statement that the U.S. injects more of its GDP into education than Germany does. While this is true, it provides no real value to the debate, as we are arguing over college education, not general spending. My opponent’s evidence of spending provides no evidence to his claim of responsibly managing the collegiate education system.

  2. In his second part of Contention 1, my opponent states that the current U.S. collegiate system is already accommodating for opportunity and personal advancement. How can it be that one fourth of current students graduate with upwards of $30,000 dollars in debt, and 36% of students still show no meaningful gains over four years? If our system is so just, and so efficient, our students would be graduating with flying colors and no debt. Implementing free collegiate education would greatly reduce the burden placed upon students at every college.

  3. I acknowledge the fact that the U.S. collegiate education system is praised around the world. It does not change the fact that implementing a free education system would only increase the potential students have after completion of college.


In succession to the “b” contention, he posts a quote that shows increased college attendance in African Americans and Hispanics. This is not necessary, for I am not arguing about minority attendance in colleges.


Contention 2: Role of Government in 3rd Level Education

In his second contention, I think my opponent means the convey the message that: “The government does have a responsibility in maintaining the fairness and justness in the collegiate education system. It should act on behalf of the citizens to address apparent issues so that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.” My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present. Yet, he does not acknowledge the fact that collegiate education can either lose or gain from increased government involvement in the event of free education. More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality, which I suggested in my last argument.


Contention 3: College Education is Hard Currency

My opponent argues that student loans are a perfect way to pay for college. He also says that socioeconomically disadvantaged grants and scholarships can counter the wealthy applicants, so that there is an egalitarian sense to college admissions. Those who do not receive scholarships or grants for their college education, and are not inherently wealthy, often graduate with substantial student loan debt. There needs to be a common ground, or a median, in which all applicants, regardless of wealth, scholarship/grant eligibility, and race, where admissions is not based upon the cost, but the merit displayed by the applicants. The way to solve this is to implement free education. My opponent then goes on to talk about the advantages of getting a degree, and the greater results that better degrees yield. This is not of value to the resolution described in the first round of the debate.


B.O.P. Analysis:

Throughout my opponent’s arguments, he implements evidence and statements that have little to no value in regards to the resolution. My opponent’s job, as Con, is to argue that college education should not be made free for constituents of the U.S. Quotes of degree-salary relations and increased minority acceptance are among the suggested items. I would like voters to take into consideration that he as not fully fulfilled his share of the Burden of Proof.


Conclusion:

Thank you to my opponent for accepting and participating in the debate, and to my mentor Whiteflame for helping me become better informed on debating tactics. I have no doubt that this will develop into an interesting and engaged debate, and I wish my opponent the best of luck.

zeromeansnothing

Con

Rule 1: “No semantics whatsoever.'

TheProphett states: 'In the first part of his first contention, my opponent states that, “The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing its collegiate system in a more responsible manner.” He follows up this quote with the statement that the U.S. injects more of its GDP into education than Germany does. While this is true, it provides no real value to the debate, as we are arguing over college education, not general spending. My opponent’s evidence of spending provides no evidence to his claim of responsibly managing the collegiate education system.'


If you check my source from Round 2 you will find that the (U.S.- % of GDP- Tertiary Education Spend) is also higher than that of Germany. Nobody considered general spending except you. General spending refers to an overall fiscal budget including non educational sectors. Why such wordplay?

How did the following 'addition' happen?

How did the extra word 'more' occur when you misquoted me. The actual quote from me was ''The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing it's collegiate system in a responsible manner.'

(All this becomes tedious and disappointing to any sincere observer of your argument.)
...........................

Allow me to summate your presentation to date.

You nail your argument to the door that is 'egalitarian principle', while simultaneously engaging in kochian Tea-Party sponsored kite flying.

(i)You want students to have no debt.

(ii)You want the country to prosper.
(iii)You plead for the return of ' the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based.',
(iv)Your posturing leads you to suggest that 'More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality'
(v)Etc, etc ,etc.


Remember that you, TheProphett, requested within comments to restrict our debate to deal with 'public colleges only'. It is credible to believe that you would have persisted in this 'removed' manner without the slightest whim, while surveying a public college model in isolation.Why discuss the 'have nots' without reference to the 'haves'. How can we endorse your credentials in all this?
The actual quote from your friend John Adams that is relevant here is the following.


“Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.”


In Conclusion:

You agree with me that the existing system is working.

TheProphett:'I acknowledge the fact that the U.S. collegiate education system is praised around the world.'

You agree that Government is as it should be in all this.

TheProphett:'My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present.'

With regard to Contention 3

Your proposal is little more than to advocate the correctness of the mantra of ' the succession of wealth and privilege '. If you want to create equality within an educational system you do it by investing tax dollars into the roots of that system,( ie in pre-school schemes within disadvantaged areas). We all know that by the time the 'Constituents' have reached 17 yrs of age, that 'the die is well and truly cast.' You, on the other hand, want to raise the downtrodden by pulling the top upwards.

You make no suggestion with regard to funding within your submissions.

You fail to prescribe a real implementation hypothesis for dealing with the elemental implications of your opposition to the status-quo.

zeromeansnothing

Sources
:(as previous)


(The poor have to labour in the face of the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France)

Debate Round No. 3
TheProphett

Pro

Introduction:

This has been a fun and engaging debate, and I would like to thank my opponent for being such a worthy contender. On a side note, Hayd has done a wonderful job moderating this debate and making sure people get votes. Now, I will present the defense of my arguments.


Argument 1: The Virtue of Education; Social Advancement:

My opponent lists off my points of attack as:


(i)You want students to have no debt.

(ii)You want the country to prosper.

(iii)You plead for the return of ' the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based.',

(iv)Your posturing leads you to suggest that 'More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality'

(v)Etc, etc ,etc. (No Idea what this means, specify please?)


All of these reasons, which my opponent has graciously provided, are why education should be made free. It addresses these four key points, and wipes out the current faults in the system. An egalitarian presence in the system is important because it provides equal opportunity for social and economic advancement for college graduates and applicants.


  1. Debt is an increasing factor in the collegiate education of United States citizens. With more than a quarter graduating students coming out of college, having upwards of 30,000 dollars in debt, it greatly impedes upon their social and economic advancements. If the debt factor is removed through free education, it would remove a great deal of stress from graduating students, and would allow them to accumulate wealth faster than previously possible.

  2. I do want the country to prosper, because free education plays a big role in prosperity of every country. When the government invests in the education of its citizens, and fully funds it to maximize government involvement and quality, then government has fully fulfilled their duty to their citizens; providing a quality education to last them a lifetime.

  3. Free education would return college admissions to what they were designed for, merit based admissions into collegiate institutions. If college was free, it would eliminate socioeconomic status and the cost factor. When this is complete, college admissions can be based purely upon the merit of applicants.

  4. Government control can and would greatly increase the quality of education. Right now, most of federal funding in education in the U.S. is focused on research and development (sources from previous arguments) in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education. With government heading the system, they would be able to provide the improvements and aid to the critical areas that truly do need it.


Credibility and a Play on Words:

As the voter can see, I did ask in the comments if we could narrow it down to a specification. My opponent denied, in a rather hostile way I might add, so I left it at that. Now, my opponent brings it up as a serious issue in my arguments. This is unnecessary and inconsequential regarding the outcome of the debate. The contender also takes a shot at my “credibility” in his rebuttals. He is wrong in saying that I did not address the beneficiaries, for I created a whole argument based on the principle that there are not enough grants and scholarships to level out the debt issue facing our students today. From seemingly out of nowhere, my opponent extracts this quote, completely out of context from my argument, ““Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” This was a total play on words, and irrelevant in the context of his rebuttal. The quote means that the government should pay no heed to expenses of education when it benefits their constituents. What my opponent did is underline six words of the quote to serve his own purpose in the rebuttal. This should be seen as a manipulation of my argument.


On Conceding:

When I said that the current U.S. system is praised around the world, and he in return replied with the statement that I agreed with him that the current system worked, he was wrong. I was not conceding anything, but stating a widely known fact gleaned by looking at any internet statistic. Whether or not the U.S. collegiate system is praised around the world has no relevance to the resolution over whether college education should be free. Conceding that the current system is good does not mean that the faults are gone, which I have repeatedly stated in all of my arguments. Just because we are known around the world, doesn’t mean it is for the right reasons. Even if I conceded that the U.S. collegiate system is good, it does not mean that it is perfect. If free education will improve the collegiate system in its current form, then it is a major benefit in my case that my opponent fails to respond to. In fact, this was in my rebuttal, not my main case. I hope my opponent knows that rebuttals are covering your opponent’s case, not their rebuttals.


My opponent also wrongly interprets one of my statements as a concession when I said that, “My opponent is correct in identifying the purpose of government in education regarding the present.” He, in return, stated that, “You agree that the government is as it should be in all of this.” This is yet another play on words. I merely stated that you identified the presence of government in modern education. Yes, I did concede how the government is used in collegiate education in its present, yet faulty role. The government’s role in education in the status quo is too weak and uninvolved. You did not address the core problem that I addressed, “it is not as it should be.” This was also contained within my rebuttals, not my main case. In all honesty, I am tired of addressing your rule violations. Voters, this is a clear breach of the structure, and should be taken into consideration during the voting phase.


Contention 3 (of my rebuttal*):

My proposal is not to merely target the elimination of wealth-based admission, but the evening of the playing field, and providing applicants with equal opportunity, focused on merit based admissions. Free education effectively does this by eliminating any cost factor in admissions, and removing any favoritism of applicants. Putting taxpayer dollars into funding of early education is what the United States already does, and when constituents reach the age of eighteen, and it is time to apply for college, the funding of early education has done, quite frankly, nothing to aid their circumstances. Of course we should try to work on improving all aspects of education, but one aspect of education is not all we should focus on. In this debate, college education is specified, and that is what we should discuss, not other aspects. The die is not, “well and truly cast.” This is not a correct representation of the United States early education system; just inserting a piece of text that is overtly insulting, implying that students cannot escape from a weak educational background. Are you saying that we should give up on the current generation of students? Should we even bother if the die is “well and truly cast?”


Students have an opportunity to show their ability and academic prowess to prospective colleges during the application process. With free education, things like wealth, race, or socioeconomic status will not play a role. Overall, free education increases the versatility of admissions and focuses on the academic ability of applicants. In his last piece of his rebuttal my opponent states, “You, on the other hand, want to raise the downtrodden by pulling the top upwards.This is the exact opposite effect of what free education would have on the system. Actually, it would even the playing field, by lowering those perched on top and raising those stuck on bottom.


Framework:

The resolution states the following, “The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents.” The burden of proof, which my opponent is bound by the rules to uphold, has been violated. My opponent makes requests for funding and implementation plans, yet my job is to argue why free education SHOULD be implemented. I have successfully upheld my share of the BOP. All I am required to do is show the benefits of free education and why it should be implemented over the current system. In my arguments I have outlined equality, egalitarianism, and social progress. Therefore, my share of the BOP is upheld, and I have proven that free education is greatly beneficial to society. The contender, on the other hand, has failed to answer his part of the BOP: why free education SHOULD NOT be implemented. He did not provide a value to follow, and all of his arguments were a scattershot attempt to find flaws in mine. He did not provide an unified basis to follow, and he has failed to provide any valid arguments supporting his side of the resolution.


Conclusion:

Thank you to my opponent for engaging in this debate with me. I would like for voters to take into consideration this fact: His rebuttals are flawed, they do not follow the specified debate structure, and he did not uphold his share of the burden of proof. I outlined the benefits and proved that free education should be implemented. For these reasons, vote Pro!
zeromeansnothing

Con

TheProphett states: 'The contender also takes a shot at my “credibility” in his rebuttals.'


TheProphett continues: ' Right now, most of federal funding in education in the U.S. is focused on research and development (sources from previous arguments) in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education.'

I decided to investigate these 'previous sources' regarding this assertion, as the stated conclusion above was, in direct contradiction with the findings of my own source links.

TheProphett, provided two sources and I checked them both for the above assertion.
In the first, the Berkeley Blog, all that I could find was this interesting sentence.

'We need more public investment in higher education, but free public college tuition for all is not the best use for such funding.'
(Why Pro would use this is to push 'the opposite' is a matter for him to consider.)

We are then left with the second source provided by TheProphett, (TheThirdWay.org) to substantiate his declaration regarding research and development spending. On examination of the source link I found that the word research was used within it (30 times in total, three of which had contextual relevance to the point in question)

(i) I found this generalization

'Federal policy seems almost intended to shield colleges at the expense of students and their families by blocking access to critical performance data, not doing enough to hold colleges responsible, prioritizing research but doing next to nothing on instruction, and defraying without holding down rising college costs.'

(ii) I found this generalization

'Enmeshed in these dismal outcomes is the federal government, which, as one of the principal payers of college tuition, could have immense and unique leverage over post secondary education. It controls access to valuable data and oversees the accreditation process, funds significant university research, and administers a massive loan and grant infrastructure. In fact, the federal government spends around $126 billion per year on undergraduate student aid, contributing 69% of total state, local, federal, and private aid. But Washington has neglected to use that leverage.'

(iii)This, on the other hand, is positively shameful. Please read it with care!

'If one took its cues entirely on the federal government, the conclusion would be that colleges exist to conduct research and publish papers with student instruction as an afterthought. For every $100 the federal government spends on university-led research, it spends twenty-four cents on teaching innovations at universities. While the federal government awards $33 billion a year incentivizing quality research, it spends just $79 million a year in a way that incentivizes quality teaching—a ratio larger than 400 to 1.'



This is one of those articles that reads like a tabloid newspaper. You know the type, where you get the sensationalist heading repeated continuously within the text and then the article is posthumously back filled with word cladding. What is 'teaching innovations'? What is 'ways that incentivize quality teaching'? They have the audacity to suggest a ratio. This is TheProphett's source for his statement regarding spending on research. He too has the brashness to tell us to check this out.

Nowhere is ''most of federal funding in education in the U.S. is focused on research and development in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education.'

All reputable sources state the opposite. Here are the actual statistics of this

In 2013 the federal government spent nearly $76 billion on higher education, while states spent about $3 billion less, according to the "Federal and State Funding of Higher Education" study. Federal support include nearly $25 billion in research funding obligations, which are paid over a series of years depending on the length of a research project.

https://www.insidehighered.com...

In truth, it has been difficult to engage with Pro on this subject. I have had to spend too much time monitoring his Tea-Party Antics. His case would have been better served by offering a 'shoot from the hip' student-eye view of the populist notion of 'no fees'. I thank Pro for inadvertently directing my attention to the political outlook of John Adams, the second president of the U.S. This man was an enigmatic person, to all his contemporaries but upon reflection I consider him to have been a political genius with a strong moral pragmatism. He was at loggerheads with most people and the overall impression given is that of a public servant filled with honesty and integrity. I doubt if we would condone his name being used to promote the Pro argument here, especially in the deceitful matter highlighted above.

"kritiks" are debating boomerangs and when you introduce Tea-Party Sponsorship and an American President to the mix you had better be aware of the danger of these things backfiring on yourself. Here is our friend, John Adams again.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams

Better still would be to adhere to your own exactitudes, ie Rule 8 No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks)

In Conclusion

The dynamics of a good Educational system are complex and interrelated. They throw up statistical information regarding their efficacy. I have provided source references for this material. There is no impetus or urgency for the introduction of a 'free College Education Model' to be extracted from these statistical trends. It is a non starter for government for the reasons highlighted in my first submission and it is promoted only by the truly mischievous to gain popularity or by those wishing to hone their debating repertoire. I thank all who have read the literature of this exchange and I hope that it has been both beneficial and informative. My regards go to my opponent in all this, ie TheProphett.

zeromeansnothing
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
On reflection I feel that my castigation of TheProphett's argument in this debate was unnecessarily harsh, given the circumstances, and as such it was an approach that was detrimental to my own cause. He will have many more debating successes which I will observe with interest. With that I retire 'vanquished' from this fray, to lick my wounds and to come back to debate another day.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
Hi bsh1,

You patently show that you do not understand the meaning of the word 'most'. You may have made an error in your last post which is not something I will point out in detail( perhaps a rewrite might help, read it back). You have added to my list of adjectives, ie unnecessarily hostile, belligerent, uncivil, personal, and patently rude .

Is it rude to expose a lie? Is it rude to highlight a continuous flow of underhandedness?. I think that you do TheProphett a disservice in all this by underestimating his craft. It is as simple as this. For the above statement of his to be true the government would have to be spending 50.01% of its tertiary funding on research ie a ratio of 1:1 In actuality the ratio is approx 1:6. How do you proceed to debate against such undercurrents. I have little (no) ,concern for the outcome of this debate but demonizing me in this manner should be done after much more careful examination of the facts. I am not in this to be popular, just to debate.

You voted on this debate to the best of your ability and I feel that there may be wider 'public interest' in the logic by which you arrived at your conclusions. I thank you for your honest response to all this and it is this honest clarity that makes this a subject for consideration. A guy tells a lie, his clear misquoting of my position is so subtle that you dismiss it as a typo, he provides at least 5 burdens of proof for me to aspire to, .................. and you still vote for him because his opponent is tiresome and belligerent, Fair Enough!

Are these two sentences saying the same thing.

John is behaving himself in a responsible manner.
John is behaving himself in a more responsible manner.
Which John would you give a job to, bsh1? Yawn!
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
@Zero

This is the excerpt you quoted: "For every $100 the federal government spends on university-led research, it spends twenty-four cents on teaching innovations at universities. While the federal government awards $33 billion a year incentivizing quality research, it spends just $79 million a year in a way that incentivizes quality teaching"a ratio larger than 400 to 1.'"

This was Proph's claim: "most of federal funding in education in the U.S. is focused on research and development (sources from previous arguments) in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education.'"

Obviously, if 24 cents to every 100 dollars of federal money is spent on research rather than education, it is correct to say that "most of federal funding...is focused on research and development...instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education." It's a truism.

And, the issue is not that you dispute Proph's facts. The issue is that you do so in an unnecessarily hostile, belligerent, uncivil, personal, and patently rude fashion.

If you have an issue with my vote, feel free to report it.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
Hi famousdebater,

Simple question: Is this a lie? Yes or No? Put your shoulder to that wheel and enlighten us.

' Right now, most of federal funding in education in the U.S. is focused on research and development (sources from previous arguments) in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education.'
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
I would have also voted for Pro however I cannot due to the fact that I am a contestant in the competition.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
bsh1 states: Con, on the other hand, uses virtually his entire round to rebut one claim Pro makes, and does a very poor job of that rebuttal, since the third excerpt Con quotes does substantiate Pro's claim. I agree that the "ThirdWay.org" doesn't really sound too reliable, but I am certain Pro didn't lie or invent his statistic.

If he did not lie or invent the statistic that you are sure about then where in his sources did he get it from? Explain how the third 'excerpt' substantiates his claim if you are up to it. Where do untruths come from? Are they angels?
You can do this in comments if you like. You have walked all over them anyway. This is not 'sour grapes', just a challenge to you to 'put your money where your mouth is'. Is it 'chronic poor conduct' to call a lie in modern debate. Lies need to be hunted down and eliminated. Look at this bsh1 if you refute my assertion.
http://www.nytimes.com...
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Conclusion

I vote Pro for several reasons:

1. Con was unjustifiable hostile, and displayed chronically poor conduct, that merits castigation in the form of a loss.

2. Con dropped most of Pro's offense, leading me to conclude that there are issues with the system and the free education can address those issues

3. Pro's standard of egalitarianism was never clearly rebutted, despite being heavily flawed. Since his system maximizes egalitarian/meritocratic structures, I have to vote Pro when using this weighing mechanism.

Both debaters have room for improvement. I wish them luck in this tournament and in future debates, and I hope my comments were helpful.

/endrfd
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Part 5

I think that the finger-pointing on the play on words, Pro, was a bit silly and didn't do much to help you. But, otherwise, I think you handled that last round well. I got a clear summary of the faults of the system in the U.S., a clarification of your so-called concessions, and an explanation of how free education was egalitarian rather than biased towards those in the lower echelons of earnings.

Con, on the other hand, uses virtually his entire round to rebut one claim Pro makes, and does a very poor job of that rebuttal, since the third excerpt Con quotes does substantiate Pro's claim. I agree that the "ThirdWay.org" doesn't really sound too reliable, but I am certain Pro didn't lie or invent his statistic. But, even if I dismiss this statistic, with Con dropping everything else on the flow, I am not sure now how I cannot vote Pro. All Con needed to do was say: "Pro's sources here are unreliable because X." He could've said all that in about 1-3 sentences, and still addressed other issues. Con didn't do that. Con also maintained an unacceptably hostile, insulting, aggressive, and uncivil tone throughout this round.

Part 6

Just some tips for future debates. Pro, make sure you warrant all your claims. Focus less on sounding nice and more on having the substance that really matters. It is best to have both, but if forced to choose, substance must win out over style. Con, BE POLITE! And, if you cannot learn how to be polite, don't debate. I can assure you, Pro is no tea partier. I would also suggest working on clarity of communication--you were often overly verbose, hard to understand, or difficult to read.

For both of you, you focused a lot on what was right or wrong with the current system, but there was almost no discussion on whether free college education would actually solve the problem. I would've liked to have seen a better discussion on solvency, and the real impact implementing the reoslutional policy may have had.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Part 4

Con, your accusation that Pro used semantics is laughable in it's absurdity. Frankly, I am not even sure how the supposed rules violation can be reasonable construed as semantics. Pro's meaning (general education spending) was obvious. Moreover, "semantics" typically refers to debating the meaning of words such as to make the meaning more favorable to you; I don't see that happening here at all. Pro just was referring to total education spending, and you were referring to tertiary education spending; this communication from Pro missing the latter subdivision in your source. And the addition of "more" neither significantly changed the meaning of the quote, and is easily explainable as a typo. You need to be way less uptight about the rules, because you're being patently ridiculous here. And accusing someone of a rules violation on such a trivial basis is, itself, poor conduct. The rest of your analysis in round 3 persists in an unreasonably snarky tone and in an unacceptably personal manner (verging on ad homs), which only further alienates me as a judge.

As for the rest, I don't see how you make the leap from your "summary" and selective quoting of Pro's arguments to the conclusion that he agrees with you. You just strawman everything he says, and ignore relevant portions of his statements; I just don't see any analysis beyond that there whatsoever. Agreement on somethings, conditional agreements, and concessions of irrelevant material do not constitute overarching concurrence. It's like you just threw a tantrum in this round, and refused to proceed further in a reasonable, logical manner. I can safely tell you that throwing fits of pique in rounds is not a good way to win.

Your defense of Contention 3 is largely incoherent.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Part 3 (Cont'd)

Suffice it to say, it was a poor strategic choice to talk about rules at that juncture.

Regarding your refutations of his first argument, I think it was smart to point out that his evidence (re: GDP spending) wasn't actually about collegiate spending, but education spending generally, and to point out that spending levels don't actually support the claim Con was making about responsible management. Your response to Con's second point was less compelling--why is debt necessarily unjust? Furthermore, Con seemed to be focusing on issues of minority rights here, and I would've liked to have seen you address that evidence (because it was what Con was getting at). You kind of were talking past Con here by failing to address the real substance of his claim. Your rebuttal of the third point wasn't bad, but it could've been more thorough.

Pro, you write: "More government involvement would allow for increased focus on areas of concern and value, such as instruction and educational quality, which I suggested in my last argument." I am not sure if your evidence really supports this, since free college =/= a greater focus on education in terms of resource allocation. But, we'll see what Con says about this.

Your responses in general need more data. Where is your research? You make a lot of claims about what "is" the case, but rarely do you actually note any evidence that backs it up. You're making a whole lot of totally unsupported assumptions.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
TheProphettzeromeansnothing
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters! :) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NsO7zpTx6nWc0dwAZkb88YGXLF_YNUgkQW-aMo71b60/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
TheProphettzeromeansnothing
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. I vote Pro.