The Instigator
LeilaAshley
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

This house woud ban university fees

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,155 times Debate No: 29507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

LeilaAshley

Pro

Throughout your whole life you are basically being paid for. Why would you want another couple years feeling like your just a toy, a ten pound toy which will be thrown away with no legacy, no memory. Paying for what you do is when you finally realise for what it's worth.
There was a boy, he was in set 6 for everything. Then when it came to GCSE he failed miserably and had to another four years of work, because he had not thought of the future, he had wasted his life (four years) because he did not see the advantage.
Why then let millions of hopeless kids enter a school, which has mostly every learning possession you need without them understanding the value.
They also keep children aware of the economic state, if they stroll around all day by the shops, and one day ending up a cheap old hag who spent his life making NOTHING out of it. Then there. Ban children from understanding the future. Stick to that thought. Think of that boy. Think of the economic state. THINK.
jh1234l

Con

Throughout your whole life you are basically being paid for. Why would you want another couple years feeling like your just a toy, a ten pound toy which will be thrown away with no legacy, no memory. Paying for what you do is when you finally realise for what it's worth.

You are ten pounds throughout your life. Sounds legit.

Plus, you should realize what life is worth. Money cannot describe what life is worth.

Wait...your argument was not about university fees (the resolution of the debate), so I assume that this is only an opening statement.

There was a boy, he was in set 6 for everything. Then when it came to GCSE he failed miserably and had to another four years of work, because he had not thought of the future, he had wasted his life (four years) because he did not see the advantage.

The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is an academic qualification awarded in a specified subject.[1] I do not see how failing at it has to do with banning university fees, though. The problem in this case is his score, the university fee did not cause him to fail.

Why then let millions of hopeless kids enter a school, which has mostly every learning possession you need without them understanding the value.

So you want kids to pay for university to understand his value, but you are on the pro side for banning university fees. Therefore you have contradicted yourself.

They also keep children aware of the economic state, if they stroll around all day by the shops, and one day ending up a cheap old hag who spent his life making NOTHING out of it. Then there. Ban children from understanding the future. Stick to that thought. Think of that boy. Think of the economic state. THINK.

THINK of making this debate stickto the resolution. LINK the source of where you found your information. THINK about how this debate is about banning university fees, not about banning children from understanding the future. THINK!

Arguments for university fees:

Universities need money to operate. Post secondary education in some countries does not recieve money from the government. [2]Therefore, universities need to charge fees.

Sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
LeilaAshley

Pro

Thank you even though you have written a good argument but you have only commented on mine, you prove nothing.
I would like to raise that if universities are banned from charging people from their education the half of the best university will go bankrupt. Not only are you willing to ban university fee's but your willing to close down half of our top universities. My argument enables more investment in universities. It will also help attract and keep the best teachers and researchers. Banning the fees universities will have to raise revenue privately then will have to respond to market signals. e.g. Getting sponsorship from the corporate sector may encourage universities to supply course of relevance to the modern world.
The fee's will exclude those who do not care about education, those who are eager and wanting to go to university and get their degree, the fee's will increase the income rate of jobs, those who pay will realise how important it is and will willingly learn hard enough to get a degree and be employed.
Those who cannot pay will still have a chance, apprenticeships are also available.

'Universities need money to operate' is your argument, how exactly are they meant get that type of money? Sponsorships will not give over a million pounds. They need a fee. 'Post secondary education in some countries does not receive money from the government', is your last argument but what does it prove, it helps my argument. It states that education higher than secondary school does not receive money from the government, then those schools such as college and university have fee's also. This is why we need fee's. The government cannot help our whole lives, then they will go bankrupt.
This is why universities should not change and charge students.
My point is proven.

Grammar mistake: 'recieve' is spelt 'receive', 'stickto' is 'stick to'.
jh1234l

Con

Thank you even though you have written a good argument but you have only commented on mine, you prove nothing.

You are Pro, you say that university fees should be banned, therefore the Burden Of Proof lies on you.

I would like to raise that if universities are banned from charging people from their education the half of the best university will go bankrupt. Not only are you willing to ban university fee's but your willing to close down half of our top universities. My argument enables more investment in universities. It will also help attract and keep the best teachers and researchers. Banning the fees universities will have to raise revenue privately then will have to respond to market signals. e.g. Getting sponsorship from the corporate sector may encourage universities to supply course of relevance to the modern world.

Congradulations, you have proved my case. I am con, therefore I shoud argue against a university fee ban. However, you are arguing for my side, therefore I have won.

My points have been proven by my opponent.

Resolution: This house woud ban university fees

My opponent argues against a university fee ban, even though he is pro.

Thus, my opponent has argued for the con side.

I am con.

Therefore, I win.
Debate Round No. 2
LeilaAshley

Pro

LeilaAshley forfeited this round.
jh1234l

Con

Pro forfeited, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by LeilaAshley 4 years ago
LeilaAshley
im really sorry! but I accidentally pressed pro when opening this debate, but I meant con, and I haven't realised that till I was told of it!! but im really sorry, I feel so dumb!
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
It's poorly worded to be sure, and the opening argument is nigh incomprehensible, but that's what I got from it.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
Is that what the debate says? I had no idea. The title says fees should be banned. I wonder how faculty will eat and pay their mortgages.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I agree with this. Education from preschool up to college graduation should be paid for by the government.
No votes have been placed for this debate.