The Instigator
ilhamrashif
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

free education brings more harm than good!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,516 times Debate No: 70137
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

ilhamrashif

Con

i am disagree with that because,we can share knowledge for free to people who can not afford.what would happen if they do not get an education ?they will be stupid,don't know anything
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

I accept.


C1) There is no such thing as a free lunch

CON's case falsely assumes that we could have "free" education for everyone, but the truth is that nothing is ever free: the money has to come for somewhere. Obviously, the government would fund this form of "free higher education"--it will either do so in the form of higher tax rates, which hinder consumption, investment, and economic growth--and thus directly harming private univerisites in particular, causing cutbacks and layoffs, as well as public universities, who will be hurt by the loss of tax revenue--or through higher deficits, which increase expectations of future taxes and thus dampen consumption, investment, and hiring decisions.


C2) "Free Education" devalues education

This is simply an economic reality--if everyone has something, that something can no longer differentiate people from one another. For instance, let's say that people with a Bachelor's degree were in high demand for job X. Then the government steps in and wants to make sure that everyone gets a Bachelor's degree. Now, that no longer becomes a distinguishing characteristic. Instead, that job will raise its standards and requirements--for instance, you'll now need a Master's degree. If the government steps in and funds that, you'll need a PhD, or some sort of on-job training, ad infinitum. This will only result in an infinite loop where we have to ask to what extent is CON willing to go. Truth be told, this will not in any way improve a job application's skill or chances of earning a promotion or higher wages, because he or she will simply be swamped with more competition.

C3) More competition in the job market

This by itself is an impact in my favor. Not only will it be harder to get a job under this system, but the pool of applicants applying--provided that they aren't completely crowded out by increased requirements, which they may be, but CON's case presumes they will be, and certainly they'll be applying for *some* job--will increase significantly. As labor supply increases, this applies downward pressures on wages. In other words, each person's incomes will tend to fall, which is obviously undesirable because it bears on consumption and standards of living. It gives all the power to the employees and virtually none to the employer.

C4) "Free Education" by no means promises quality applicants

My adversary assumes that there's a near infinite supply of people who would go to college if only they could afford it, and upon receiving that education, they'll soar--but this is simply not the case. We cannot make the assumption that people will even take advantage of this option, or that those who do will necessarily be more qualified than someone with a high school diploma or who graduated from trade school. The problem isn't necessarily a lack of education, because there is no linear link between education and success, but rather a lack of jobs and opportunity, meaning that people spend all their time earning liberal arts degrees only to graduate without job prospects--thus invalidating the entire purpose of earning that degree. College degrees do not and cannot create success.


C5) "Free Education" would increase tuition prices

Basic economic analysis tells us that, as the demand for something goes up, its prices also goes up. The government can borrow and spend as much as it wants, so if it funds education, prices can go up ad infinitum--and provided that the policy is place, it will not be revoked, at least not readily, because people have been promised free education. Therefore, you'll see increased price pressure throughout the education system, even on private institutions, which will provide public schools a monopoly on education, which always them to raise costs and erode quality all they want because there's no competition.


Rebuttals

The only argument that CON seems to make is that people without an education would be "stupid," but this is far from the case. Plenty of people can achieve their version of success--yes, success is an inherently subjective concept--without an education: they may take up their family business, learn via online resources, take up a trade, learn from their family or friends, and other ways. This by no means leads to them "not knowing anything," nor is this an honest description of the world without free education. In my world, education isn't free, but it's affordable and of high quality because the private market, via competition, holds down prices and improves quality. That is the system we ought to strive for and which would yield the best, most efficient outcomes.
Debate Round No. 1
ilhamrashif

Con

ilhamrashif forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ilhamrashif

Con

ilhamrashif forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ilhamrashif

Con

ilhamrashif forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ilhamrashif

Con

ilhamrashif forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
ilhamrashifResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ilhamrashifResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by TheAdamb99 2 years ago
TheAdamb99
ilhamrashifResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has only argued in Round 1.