The Instigator
Tmdog3758
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

University education should 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...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,635 times Debate No: 63060
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Tmdog3758

Pro

First round is acceptance. Please use nfl rules. Also please share sources.
funnycn

Con

I like these original idea debates. It's nice to see a debate other than your typical ones.

Also, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Tmdog3758

Pro

University education should be free.

Education has long been seen as a principal source of economic mobility. But for years now public education, and especially public higher education, has been under attack.

American states now spend one-fifth less per public college student on average than they did a decade ago. In California, which once boasted a public higher education system that was the envy of the entire world, state funding per-student has been cut in half.

As a result, despite the fact that fees for tuition, room and board have been rising faster than inflation for the last 20 years, public universities in the US have been forced to make deep cuts in the programmes and services they provide to make up for this hole in their budgets.

Similar cuts have been made in the UK, where in the name of rebalancing the budget, the government seems determined to dismantle what has been an extraordinarily successful system of public-financed higher education and replace it with one modelled on the private debt-financed system of higher education that is already on the verge of collapse in the US.

Because neither the existing US nor the prior UK funding model seems to have much of a future in the current economic and political climate, what I propose is this: public higher education should be free at the point of entry.

Not means-tested, not cheap, not subsidised, but free. For everybody. Instead of cash up front, what would be required is a promise to pay a certain amount of one's taxable income " say 6% " for one's prime earning years (35-54) to the university that provides one's undergraduate degree.

These promises would then be stacked together for each university class or cohort (for example, the class of 2018), securitised, and sold to investors at home and abroad.

Through the securitisation process, investors would acquire an equity interest in the average income of the entire cohort. Because average income moves with inflation, these securities would be largely risk-free, and therefore would be very attractive to investors.

Indeed, with a 6% promise from every cohort member, the securities should sell now for at least enough to pay for the education of the entire cohort, thereby relieving the government of doing so and freeing up large amounts of resources to be redirected to primary and secondary education.

Some of these savings could even be returned to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. The payments ultimately made by each individual student would bear a strong relation to what turned out to be the financial value of their university degree, something that does not necessarily happen now. For those who earned more would pay more, and this would tie what one pays for one's education more tightly to the economic value one receives.

Payments would be made along with tax payments and processed by the relevant government tax authority (the IRS in the US and the Inland Revenue in the UK). They would provide enforcement services against those who failed to pay, but given that payments due are tied to income received, failures to pay should be rare. They should be far less than the default rate on student loans, which currently hovers around 7%.

And unlike the current system for capping and forgiving student debts, no contribution from the public purse would be necessary to ensure that these payments were affordable for all, for affordability would be built into the very nature of the promise.

Look at what this does. It satisfies the concerns of the left: everyone would be able to get a high quality higher education no matter what economic resources they or their families currently enjoy.

No longer would poor students have to choose between working long hours at menial low-wage jobs to finance their education, thereby jeopardising their ability to perform well in or even complete their courses, and taking on large debts they cannot begin to pay.

Under my proposal, no one would be forced to pursue high-income occupations in which they were not really interested for fear of being otherwise unable to pay their education debts.

And most importantly, the securitisation process would offer the giant, insatiable, worldwide pool of private capital " currently out there looking for a safe place to go " a way to invest in the earning potential of the product of the nation's public institutions of higher education.

Instead of merely being used to create economic weapons of mass destruction, the advanced techniques developed by the financial services industry would now be able to be used for a far more constructive purpose " creating investment vehicles of mass education.

Mark Reiff teaches legal and political philosophy at the University of Manchester School of Law.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Looking for your next university role? Browse Guardian jobs for hundreds of the latest academic, administrative and research posts.
-http://www.theguardian.com...
funnycn

Con

My opponent has refused to meet my demands about providing the NFL (National Forensic league) rules. I have no choice, but to ignore this request. If I violate an NFL rule, I shall be exempt as I do not know the rules and I could not find any rules and Pro never provided any link to the rules. Sadly, this had to be done. I apologize.

I'd like to state my opponent had plagiarised his entire argument (if that's an NFL rule it's an odd rule). This is plagiarism. I won't stand for it, he should lose the debate. I don't think plagiarism would be used in the NFL. However Pro can't prove plagiarism is used in the NFL without providing a source. Thus, he loses the debate unless he can provide the rules with a link. I will still have an argument.

i. University education should require payment

California's board of Education claims they have increased their prior balance for education by $1474 million from 2013-14. Their revenue has also increased by around $4,000 million.

[http://www.cde.ca.gov...]

As of right now, they have about $109,391 million in resources (books, supplies, etc.). California's student loan debt is around...$20,000.

Since their revenue is $105,488 million this includes student loans being paid off. Imagine no more student loans. Around...60%-70% students go to college in California. Now, let's do the math. We can estimate in the future this will cost Universities in California about...$1,149 per person that attends college. Take this into account with the percentage of people that will go to college and the colleges will lose a lot of money. About a few million. Eventually, the colleges and universities will have to close, and then no more free university education. The population will not receive sufficient education due to this. While the idea of the free university education is to let the lower class go to college, it will eventually back fire to the point where not even the upper class will be able to go to college.
[http://quickfacts.census.gov...]
Final notes to Pro

1-Provide links to the NFL rules

2-Don't plagiarise.

Debate Round No. 2
Tmdog3758

Pro

First I would like to start this round by asking this question.
How am I plagiarizing a source if I quoted the source and gave a website I got the information from? I am using someone else's words to support my argument. That is not plagiarizing. Please disregard what my opponent said in the last round because that is not what happened. Here is some more evidence, non-plagiarized, that supports my argument.

The website for the national forensics league. http://www.neisd.net...
Page 9 displays the rules for a Lincoln-Douglas debate which this is,if you would like to check the rules.

First off for this round I would like to point out the fact that most college students have to work part time to get money to pay for college. If we aide with me on this those students could focus on their homework. The more time a student has to focus on homework the better they will do.

Here is what others have to say:
Yes! Yes! Yes! Knowledge should not come with a price tag. I actually wish it was how it was back in the days when people were taught their professions by other people while on the job, or accepted into schools based on high marks. Winning a scholarship should be attainable to all people who do well academically.

privilege and not a right, but not everyone has that privilege and with the way higher education costs now, less and less people will be able to go. Sure there's aid, but it's not enough to cover the rising costs without putting students into an insane amount of debt. There's only a limited amount of money one can take out without having that extra stress in their lives, and not everyone can get their parents to pay or help take out loans. For example, my parents couldn't cosign for me to take out student loans for college because their credit was so terrible (they lost their house a few years ago). I was then told by the financial aid office "you don't have to go to college if you can't afford it". Now a year has passed since then and I'm planning to drop out because the costs have risen even more and I'm getting less aid. Eventually this has to stop, because clearly the way things are going now don't work and they haven't for a long time now.

Yes Education is the most important thing you can have. You can go anywhere with an education. We as humans need currency to get around and basically live, you wont have that if you dont have a job. A (good) job is acquired through an education. If you cannot afford an education, then you're considered a failure?


Absolutely! Everyone should have access to college educational opportunities. Just because you can't pay for it doesn't mean you shouldn't go. If higher education were free, maybe some people would be a bit brighter. And in my very personal opinion, if you haven't gone to college, then you should have no vote in whether college is free or not...
Posted by: Collegekid1592

Higher Education should be free! some people cant afford it and if they really are showing intrest in getting a higher education they should be able not having to worry about the cost.

Higher Education should be free People have more opportunities for job and employment if they are educated meaning they have access to material conditions which they need for better life such as health care and some necessary services which give protection and safety. In addition, if someone from a poor background got educated, he or she can escape from the poverty cycle and generation gets improved with the help of jobs and being employed as a result of higher education. Higher education means good jobs and employment. If more people are highly educated, people will be more considerate, responsible, independent,and reliable for some reasons. All people should be given the rights to free education to get rid of poverty and inhumanity. It doesn't mean people who aren't educated are inhumane. Of course, there are some people out there who are way more intelligent and ethical then people who are educated.

Yes, Yes, and Yes. As more people get degrees, jobs that required a High School diploma are now demanding Associates and Bachelor degrees. The lower your degree the more years of experience are demanded from you by the firm you are applying to. As a result, a college degree is becoming a necessity for High School graduates in order to find a job that pays a living wage.

The government should fund the universities and colleges directly rather than give out loans to students so that the students will not be overburdened by debt and be forced to move back with their parents. People are more reluctant than ever to start a family because they feel they cannot handle the expenses of a child while the married couple have yet to pay Uncle Sam his money. People will be less likely to spend money, which is bad for the economy and businesses; especially when people are underemployed because of the current economic climate.

If the government wants to truly stimulate the economy, they will forgive student loan debt so that people can get that piece of paper that qualifies them for a job, start their lives, and get the money flowing out of the pockets and into the economy.

From a quality standpoint, making higher education a taxpayer funded entity will not diminish it's quality. What will diminish it's quality, however, are the individual professors that care more about their own projects and research than teaching students; which is what is happening today. The schools can remain prestigious by accepting those who meet their standards, prestige should not be based on how much money you spend for your degree.

Making higher education free is a fiscally and socially responsible decision that will ensure everyone has a chance to earn a degree without having to jump through hoops in order to get enough money to attend a college/university. This country could enjoy a well-informed and educated population that contributes a great deal to our nation. As it stands today we as a country are one of the least educated among first world nations, and I firmly believe that this is because higher education is out of reach for so many. This needs to change.

This is a no-brainer. All we are hearing, is news of tuition rates increasing. This is not setting a very good example of the incentives for attending college. People need to be motivated, and feel inspired. College, is much more than memorizing key terms, for a quiz, suffering from sleep deprivation, and stressing over getting a 'REQUIRED' course cancelled at the last moment.

The focus, needs to be on the student's. Give student's the opportunity, and drive to discover the true joy of learning, without imposing all of the monetary constraints that have become so commonplace.

Plus think of it. Free education, better jobs, more knowledge, better tech, more advancements, and life just keeps getting better and better.

The question is who will pay for all of this?
I say payment should work out the same as high schools and other schools. Plus there should be a charity foundation per school. Also they could do competitions where people pay to compete in games and activities. All of this money goes to the school. It works out for everyone in the end.
funnycn

Con

"How am I plagiarizing a source if I quoted the source and gave a website I got the information from? I am using someone Else's words to support my argument. That is not plagiarizing. Please disregard what my opponent said in the last round because that is not what happened. Here is some more evidence, non-plagiarized, that supports my argument."

Plagiarism: to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

You used the words of the article and passed them off as your argument.

Even if it was not plagiarism, you still stole the argument and had not presented a single fact that was yours, as well as failing to use quotation marks to show it was someone else that said it. I say you should still be held accountable.

As for the rules, I will not follow them half way through the debate. I gave you half an hour last night to send me a link to the rules or post them in the comments. You failed to meet my request, I fail to meet yours.

"First off for this round I would like to point out the fact that most college students have to work part time to get money to pay for college"

Not entirely true. While most students do work part time, it is not usually for college. That's what student loans are for. Usually, you work part time to get some extra cash or to pay rent then after college get a well paying job to pay off the loans.

"Here is what others have to say:"

While you did say who posted it, you didn't present a source from where.

This is not ethical either, if not plagiarism.

"Higher Education should be free People have more opportunities for job and employment if they are educated meaning they have access to material conditions which they need for better life such as health care and some necessary services which give protection and safety. In addition, if someone from a poor background got educated, he or she can escape from the poverty cycle and generation gets improved with the help of jobs and being employed as a result of higher education."

Not entirely true either, if you support the idea of more materials, healthcare, and other services prepare to pay more taxes. You won't escape the poverty cycle for long, because you'll end up paying for someone's education, not to mention the fact if they fail, the student got into a college for free, didn't do anything and became a nobody you just wasted the time and money of the university.

" Higher education means good jobs and employment. If more people are highly educated, people will be more considerate, responsible, independent,and reliable for some reasons."

Not if the job market is bad because everyone now has "the best" education.

"All people should be given the rights to free education to get rid of poverty and inhumanity"

Poverty is not related to inhumanity.
"The government should fund the universities and colleges directly rather than give out loans to students so that the students will not be overburdened by debt and be forced to move back with their parents"

As said earlier, you get a decent job, THEN pay off the loans. If you can't hold a job your parents aren't going to pay it off for you.

"People are more reluctant than ever to start a family because they feel they cannot handle the expenses of a child while the married couple have yet to pay Uncle Sam his money."

Can you prove this?

"If the government wants to truly stimulate the economy, they will forgive student loan debt so that people can get that piece of paper that qualifies them for a job, start their lives, and get the money flowing out of the pockets and into the economy. "

Until you realize the higher taxes. More money to the government but poverty on the people. It will seem nice for a little while then you'll realize your $15 per hour job is replaced with a $10 to pay for the entire country's higher education. You might as well work for minimum wage.

"I say payment should work out the same as high schools and other schools. Plus there should be a charity foundation per school. Also they could do competitions where people pay to compete in games and activities. All of this money goes to the school. It works out for everyone in the end."

You know what I just said about higher taxes? They're going to sky rocket now. When you have to fund the charity, you have to fund the competitions, and when you fund the other schools everyone will now be very poor, not being able to pay for the taxes.


ii. The taxes

As mentioned often through this argument, the taxes.

To pay for EVERY college in the USA for every one's education is costly. Not to mention the supplies, services, and possible transportation for each college. This will have a backwards effect on the economy than what is expected. Instead of people getting jobs, they'll start losing houses. A simple $15 per hour job can get pushed down to a $12 per hour job to pay for the education. As the population grows, this tax is supposed to increase to match the amount of people that need an education. Eventually expect $10 per hour jobs. Businesses will eventually close down, thus getting rid of HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of jobs. Eventually, colleges will close because the government won't be able to fund them because no one will have a job to pay for the tax that funds them.
Debate Round No. 3
Tmdog3758

Pro

Here awesome sources I have used through this debate. I hope that once you read these we can side with me and say all yes college should be free.

College free and affording it
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

67% of the population agrees with me and what people have to say
http://www.debate.org...

Do the Math: Free Public Higher Education Should be Considered
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Should college education be free? Yes.
http://www.denverpost.com...

Should college be free for everyone?
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

How we could solve the riddle of higher education funding
http://www.theguardian.com...

Why Education Should Be Free
by Scott Hines, Co-Founder, President and COO, World Education University
http://gettingsmart.com...

There are so many ther sources that also say free college is a great idea. Just go to google and type this phrase I. The search engine. "why college should be free". Read through all the pages and see what they and others just like us have to say about free college.

Also once again free college, more study time, better grades, more knowledge, more graduates, more people helping us advance our ways and become better people in a better place. Please side with pro on this debate.

Here is a few links to the rules.
http://teachers.sduhsd.net...
http://www.nflonline.org...
http://www.neisd.net.... (Page 9)
funnycn

Con

My opponent has failed to present an actual argument but just threw sources into this round. He kept repeating "College should be free" and "it should be free". This is not an argument, I will say he forfeit.

Now my summary

College should not be free for these reasons.

i. University education should require payment

California's board of Education claims they have increased their prior balance for education by $1474 million from 2013-14. Their revenue has also increased by around $4,000 million.

[http://www.cde.ca.gov......]

As of right now, they have about $109,391 million in resources (books, supplies, etc.). California's student loan debt is around...$20,000.

Since their revenue is $105,488 million this includes student loans being paid off. Imagine no more student loans. Around...60%-70% students go to college in California. Now, let's do the math. We can estimate in the future this will cost Universities in California about...$1,149 per person that attends college. Take this into account with the percentage of people that will go to college and the colleges will lose a lot of money. About a few million. Eventually, the colleges and universities will have to close, and then no more free university education. The population will not receive sufficient education due to this. While the idea of the free university education is to let the lower class go to college, it will eventually back fire to the point where not even the upper class will be able to go to college.
[http://quickfacts.census.gov......]

ii. The taxes

As mentioned often through this argument, the taxes.

To pay for EVERY college in the USA for every one's education is costly. Not to mention the supplies, services, and possible transportation for each college. This will have a backwards effect on the economy than what is expected. Instead of people getting jobs, they'll start losing houses. A simple $15 per hour job can get pushed down to a $12 per hour job to pay for the education. As the population grows, this tax is supposed to increase to match the amount of people that need an education. Eventually expect $10 per hour jobs. Businesses will eventually close down, thus getting rid of HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of jobs. Eventually, colleges will close because the government won't be able to fund them because no one will have a job to pay for the tax that funds them.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
Pro included the link to the article he plagiarized
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
20 minutes left. Pro, please provide a link to the NFL rules. If you don't I must ignore your request as I wouldn't know the rules of this debate and it would be unfair if you were to "win" because I broke a rule I didn't know existed.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
If you do not respond within a set amount of time, I will have no choice but to ignore the NFL rules as no links to the rules were provided, and I can't debate without knowing the rules. Fair enough?

You have 30 minutes.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I could not find any official rules on the internet. Are you willing to ignore that rule? If not I need a link to a website of, from, or any affiliation to or with NFL rules. If not, the rule must by default.
Posted by Tmdog3758 2 years ago
Tmdog3758
Nfl. National forensics league that all speech and debaters must apply by.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
That would be great. All we have to do is get the teachers and administrators to quit taking money for their time. And the utility companies to donate their energy. And the grounds keepers need to quit taking money.Then you can get a free education.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
PS what is NFL rules? National Football League rules?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Tmdog3758funnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro plagiarized, so conduct to con. Most of his arguments were trying to prove sources rather than the other way around, as ER noted in his vote, so arg's obviously to funnycn.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Tmdog3758funnycnTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO, in the future, should you choose to debate again, please use sources to support your arguments, not arguments to support your sources. Do not plagarise. Thank you.