The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

studying is not the only way to get rich

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 660 times Debate No: 62734
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




some people are of the opinion that studying or collage degree is the only way to earn a good salary and have a successful life. I don't buy it.


I accept this debate. I hope this goes well. Pro didn't lay down rules for terms or anything. Because of this, I will state definitions of terms that will be used.

Salary - average earnings per year FROM A JOB

College degree - a degree of college, bachelor's or higher

Seeing as Pro has already posted some type of argument, I will choose to rebut his points and make my own arguments in this round. Pro is against those that think "studying or collage degree [sic] is the only way to earn a good salary." These people are correct. To earn a good salary, one must have better experience with their job and a better understanding of the pressure of a workplace. These are most commonly earned with a college degree. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that those with professional degrees earn more than three times those without a college degree. For those with less than a high school degree, the average weekly salary is just over half that of the average person.

Also, the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate. Without a high school diploma, the average unemployment rate is an astounding 11%. Compare this to the 2.3% rate of those with professional degrees, and you can clearly see that a college degree allows an individual to earn more money and have a more secure job.

Debate Round No. 1


I want to first say hello to my opponent. I never thought somebody would accept this debate that is why I didn't lay down the rules. I think my opponent has already made every thing clear so I wont repeat myself.
first of all, studying is one of the way to make money but not the only way. Education has become a less assuring and promising way for a prosperous life than it used to be. back in the days, there was more demand for educated workforce and less pull of graduates to meet those demands. but that image has changed . these days,we are facing a large pool of graduates with less jobs to accommodate them. not only that, education has also become very expensive, and in dealing with this rising tuitions fees students often find themselves at the mercy of student loans. out of necessity and cornered by financial problems ,they are forced to take out student loans often with high interest rates. what happens is that this debts gets accumulated over the course of whatever years it takes for the students to graduate. and when students are graduated ,they find themselves without a job an a ballooned debt to clear. some of these students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide.

and about the opposition argument that "uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts," that is not true. In 2013, for young adults ages 20"24, there was no measurable difference in the unemployment rate between males and females among those whose highest level of education was less than high school completion, those with some college education, and those with at least a bachelor's degree not only that, based on a poll carried out by ( than 40% of graduates are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions()The online survey of 1,050 workers who finished school in the past two years and 1,010 who will receive their degree in 2013 also found that many graduates, some heavily in debt because of the cost of their education, say they are in jobs that do not require a college degree. still this figure remains at staggering 60 percent! on global scale with Asians countries like china having the most unemployed in their graduates workforce. the bitter part is that despite studying for (4-10) years most of these graduates frustrated at finding a job end up working low paying jobs that need no degree for it like working as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers ,manual workers ,cleaners ....sending all those years off efforts and spending's down the drain.

so what is the point in studying for (4-10) years then ending up doing something that you could have already started doing without spending all those money and wasting those time ! you are literally no different than those without a collage degree except now you have a big ballooned debt to clear and (4-10) years to look back on in regret.

on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems to have a higher rating of success.
two of the most important ones, are Steve jobs and bill gates. of course these two are exceptions , but not impossible to duplicate. there are so many countless other people who made it big without following their path like a 30-year old college dropout Elizabeth Holmes who is now on the front page of Forbes newspaper for being worth 4 billion dollars! she spent her tuition to finance her self made company. yet you don't have to be that rich to be considered a success. I know people in my community who barely read and write but are super rich. also, people who are non graduate , have a more organized and planned lifestyle. they start a family sooner ,don't have to look for jobs like graduates, don't have to be worried about paying debt and have four to ten years to change their life around.

so education is no longer a safe investment for a prosperous life:
1. huge pool of graduates and less demand and jobs to accommodate them.
2. very expensive(student loan)
3. takes a long time to accomplish(4-10) and yet can guarantee no success.
4.collage level jobs too competitive .with sharply reduced wages cant be a hundred percent sure about securing the job with desired salary and might instead end up working alongside a non-graduate with low salary doing basic task like cleaning toilets, working as manual labor, a restaurant waitress/waiter, bartender, babysitter, name it

people who are holding jobs with no degree are more ahead with their life than their graduates counterpart

1. start a family sooner and have a more relaxed organized life style than graduates who are desperate and nervous to find a job to pay back their student loan.
2, don't have to pay debt(student loan)
3, have more time(4-10) years more to change their life around,



hope this information helps change your mind!


My main point in this round will be rebutting your arguments, and possibly adding a few more of my own. First, I would just like to say that while your sources do relate to the argument and are useful for our side, I believe you may have misinterpreted some of them, not read them fully, or used sources that are unreliable and possibly inaccurate. And, as another point, your grammar and syntax is poor to the point where at some points I cannot understand your intent. I'm not saying this as a personal attack at all, but I would like the voters to keep this in mind as they read.

I'm going to approach this by going through each paragraph and each point you make one by one.

"studying is one of the way [sic] to make money but not the only way."

This is what the whole debate is based upon, but you don't seem to list any way to make money other than studying and having a good degree. You also state that education is not as assuring nowadays, which is clearly true. This is because our current economy is in a bad position, with high unemployment rates for everyone, not just a single group. Student loans are mentioned, which are unavoidable, so I can't really challenge that. There will be debt if someone decides to be educated. Your paragraph ends with saying that students can get desperate and eventually commit suicide. This is outrageous. You have no source for this, yet you try to say that there is a correlation between student loans and suicide rate. This is a completely invalid argument. There are high schoolers that commit suicide; there are post-war vets that commit suicide; there are parents from stable middle-class families that commit suicide. Everyone gets overwhelmed in their life at least once, and all that matters is how you deal with it.

"'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts'"

Major problem here. Don't quote me if it's not a real quote. I never said this in my argument. You go on to say that my argument is "not true" (I can quote this because you actually said it). Your argument to back this up is only based on people aged 20-24. I was arguing for the general population. Who do you trust more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics or a poll of around 2,000 people? Also, you saying that 40% of the group polled are unemployed is an example of misreading the source. The article (not the incorrect title) says that 40% are underemployed, not unemployed. In fact, the article even says that 68% of these graduates are employed full time. The next sentence is blatantly plagiarized and not changed at all. I don't know if this was intentional, but cite your sources if you're going to quote them. You then state that "this figure remains at staggering [sic] 60 percent!" What figure? Where is this from? I don't even know what the next statement about China is trying to say, so I'll discard that. "despite studying for (4-10) years most of these graduates..." Not most, according to the nydailynews poll. Not even a plurality, as the other 60% of people are employed comfortably. Unless you got this from another source, in which case you should have cited it.

"so what is the point in studying"

The point in studying is to get a better education, and ultimately a better-paying job. That is the point of this debate. Your decision that going to college gives you a job that is "literally no different" is inaccurate, as this is only the case for less than half of the population.

"on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success."

Really? Because according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (once again), you are wrong. Those with either some college experience but no degree or no college experience at all are below average in median earnings and have an above average unemployment rate. Then, you decide that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are two good examples. They both dropped out of college - after they had already started companies that were completely successful. These are bad representations of high school and college dropouts. The average person with no degree has a lower salary than the average person with a college degree. You also have people in your community who "barely read and write but are super rich." This is most likely inheritance money or some other form of income, but not a salary from a job. Because this debate is about salary (from your opening argument, not the title), then this is an invalid point.

Your lists at the end just reiterate the points that I have already, for the most part, disproved. I don't feel like I need to prove anything else as you have not challenged my main point whatsoever. You have not stated any way to get rich other than a college degree.

Sources: No new sources, just the BLS chart.

Debate Round No. 2


Hi back, before I move on to dismantle your uncited mostly assumption based arguments, I noticed you used logical fallacies like (unfair quotation, straw man, hasty generalization) to misrepresent my information. you may be able to trick the armature readers and writers into believing you by these unethical tactics but that is not goanna work on me.

lets start with my arguments that you opposed. first of all, about graduates suicide, i mentioned that "SOME OF THEASE" students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide "not all of them, and it is a real fact and not "OUTRAGIOUS" as you put it. the reason I didn't mention the source or cite anything is because it is general fact. but I give you a couple of or rather( comprehensive) examples to prove that.

first I want to start by some real stories:

i want to start with Jason yoder an American graduate who had been a graduate student in organic chemistry at Illinois State University but after incurring $100,000 in student loan debt, he struggled to find a job in his field. one night, Jason, 35, left the family"s mobile home and his body was later discovered in one of the labs on his university's campus. he was declared dead due to nitrogen asphyxiation. The sad part is that suicide didn't end his student loan nightmare and student debt collectors were still phoning his mother about the money her son owed.( this story is all over the internet no source is needed)

here are some more real tragic stories

Toby Thorn from England, had "8,000 in debt when he killed himself. a Temple University student named Roswell Friend committed committed suicide because she defaulted on her student loan., In 2008, 34-year-old science graduate Claire Ashing killed herself after being pursued over "40,000 she owed, as did mechanical engineering student Marc Wadjas, who could not afford to buy food. In 2006 computer student Geraint Banks-Wilkinson ended his life after his bank called in his "1,000 overdraft, and in 2005 26-year-old Lisa Taylor did the same because she felt she would never be able to pay back the "14,000 debt accrued while studying for her degree. She left a note blaming her depression on debt.The number of students who took their own lives in England and Wales rose by 50% between 2007 and 2011 "" from 75 to 112. source(

Cryn Johannsen of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project writes about the spectre of suicide in connection with student debt:

Suicide is the dark side of the student lending crisis and, despite all the media attention to the issue of student loans, it"s been severely under-reported. I can"t ignore it though, because I"m an advocate for people who are struggling to pay their student loans, and I"ve been receiving suicidal comments for over two years and occasionally hearing reports of actual suicides.

In accordance with the World Health Organization, over one million people every year die from suicide. Suicidal tendencies are often associated with divorce, depression, ill-health, alcohol or drug problems; student loan debt being the most significant among them. A majority of the people who seek counseling advice are people who see suicide as a way out of private student loan debt problems. source:

here is a note from a suicidal student from America

"I plan to douse myself and light myself aflame on the
Capitol steps, to draw attention to the dire situation of the millions
of indentured educated citizens who, like me, have no options, plus a
predatory banking system coming after us.
There is no political solution to this problem . . . I will be
setting myself on fire, and the student debt debacle will hopefully
come to the forefront of public consciousness." source:

that is not the end of the story, student loan has interest rate that get built up ,and if you cant pay them on time or default on them, you will be penalized which will be added to the actual debt over time, and you end up realizing the student loan debt is with you forever -- you can't discharge it in bankruptcy. In fact, "Up to Our Eyeballs" notes that about 9% of Americas aged 45-64 still have student loan debt! as the case happened with At 47, John Koch who is still living with his elderly parents in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Koch originally borrowed $69,000 in 1997.Koch struggled to find steady employment and eventually he defaulted on his loans. He was immediately slapped with $50,000 in penalties. For years, he had been filling out deferment forms every six months to buy himself more time but in 2009, Sallie Mae declared him in default. At the time of this writing, Koch owes over $320,000. That sounds staggering but it's hardly unusual. Once a person defaults on a student loan, the balance grows exponentially, with interest compounding on interest, penalties and fees. By the time he "retires," in 23 years, Koch figures he will owe close to $1.9 million!. He can't get even subprime credit, he tells me, and it's not like there's any way out of his trap: student loan debt cannot be absolved through bankruptcy. That is why suicide is becoming a debt payment option. source: I could go on this topic.................

ok, hopefully now you are convinced that student loan leads to suicide and is expected to increase hugely in the next few years. You should also be convinced to agree with my statement that says "on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success." not having an ever increasing debt on your back for the rest of your life that deprives you of a lot of things like a house, car, marriage and most importantly "peace of mind", is a huge plus in ones life. and did you know that those" successfully hired graduates" some of those hired part time (16%), have to pay back a large amount of their salaries every month to student loan for up to 10, to 20 years or even in some aforementioned cases until they are like (47-68) years old?

you also did say "'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts" in this sentence (the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate)

also you said I quoted wrongly and, 40 percent of graduates are "underemployed" not "unemployed" I think your eyes have some serious problems. I post the title of the source for you and others again to see it properly it reads"Today's students graduate from college with heavy debts, and many aren't reaping the benefits of that education "" a poll shows recent grads often find jobs that don't require a college degree. More than 40% are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions" here is the source again : look back maybe your eyes work this time.

and your funny question about why I didn't mention about non-degree jobs. Because there are thousands of them if not millions to list . and there isn't simply enough space for me to do that. but to give you and idea, check this source for the 40 highest job without a degree : interestingly the title of the source completely destroys your stance on education. it reads "In today's uncertain economy, a college education no longer guarantees you a high-paying job. But on the flip side, if you don't want to go to college, you don't have to "" you can still get a high-paying job without a bachelor's degree"

with all those said, I know people in my community some of them with even master degree, selling vegetables and managing grocery shops. and by the way ,not all uneducated people got rich by inheritance. that is completely false. I personally worked for a man who owned a global shipment company who had over 400 transportation trucks in his own account, he used to sell potatoes on the street when he was young.

I repeat again, what is the point of wasting (4-10) years of your life in college, building up a formidable debt on your shoulders that bogs you down ,hold you back in life , brings nightmare in your dreams every night. And takes every pleasure away from you. debts that takes a life time to clear if lucky. if not then suicide would be a last dark option.

I really enjoyed the debate and want the readers to evaluate both side's arguments before making decisions. I also want to thank the opposite side for his or her participation and would like to know more about him or her (nationality ,age .major.....)


Thanks for a great debate, Eric. I'm going to try to do the exact same thing you just did - dismantle your arguments one by one. I fear this round will be quite a bit tougher than the last one, but here goes.

I'm just reminding the voters that again, I believe his spelling and grammar are not up to par. This is part of the voting system, and it is important to keep this in mind.

Your first argument paragraph is a direct response to my rebuttal of your suicide point. You state that only some students commit suicide and not all of them. I never said that all students in debt kill themselves as a way to escape financial debt. You didn't cite a source in round 2, because apparently it is a "general fact." I have never noticed a correlation here, and I have definitely never heard of a distinct and certain one being reported in the news.

Some examples are then stated showing that student loans can affect one's opinions on suicide. These are mostly valid examples, but I would just like to point out something. The only reason you hear about suicides due to student loans is because someone died. No news story is written about a graduate who found a solid job out of college and is now starting a family. I'm sure this happens more often than suicide, but because it is not shocking or interesting, nobody writes a story about it. The paragraph about Jason Yoder is partly plagiarised, but not sourced. I don"t know if this falls under conduct or sources in the voting process, but it is a big issue. I found the article that you copied from, too (strangely enough, you cite it as a source 3 times later, although one of them is incorrect).

More stories follow, such as Toby Thorn's tragic death. At least one of the sources I have found (1) seem to be shocked or confused because the debt was only 8,000 pounds, or roughly the equivalent of $13,000USD. Also, Thorn had only about $8,000 in student loans - the rest was debt from overdrawing his account. Roswell Friend, who is male and not female, may have committed suicide, and for an unknown reason at best. He had received a job offer from Comcast and would have been able to help his mom pay off her debt (2), so I don't think it was because of his own student loans. Claire Ashing's case is sound, yet people are blaming the bank for allowing her loans to run up this high from just ten thousand pounds. However, like your next piece of evidence in Marc Wadjas, this is still a good example. Next is Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a student who had suffered from depression repeatedly (3) and was only one thousand pounds in debt, as you said yourself. Lisa Taylor was a poorly documented case (or just a common name) and I could not find any evidence other than the source you posted. I realize now, as I am typing this, that most of the previous paragraph was plagiarised yet again from your Guardian source. I think you intended to have quotes in the paragraph, but I don't know where they were supposed to go.

Next paragraph. Your two quotes from C. Cryn Johannsen are valid points and I don't have the evidence nor the time to disprove or even argue her. Also, the note is very true and moving, but I doubt the accuracy of his words.

Continue on to the next paragraph. You talk about how student loans will accumulate over time and the debtor will be penalized for not repaying their debts. Isn't this obvious? This is not a new idea about debt only relating to student debts. This is how all debt works. "In fact, 'Up to Our Eyeballs' notes that about 9% of Americans aged 45-64 still have student loan debt!" I don't necessarily disagree with this evidence, but I don't know where "Up to Our Eyeballs" comes from. Then, you plagiarise/don't have quotes on the section about John Koch.

I want to get on with this debate, so I'm going to move on. You state that I should agree with the fact that dropouts are more successful than college graduates. I don't even know how you can logically say this. I'm not going to be able to find a source for this, because nobody keeps track of the college graduates that are doing perfectly fine and have a job, a car, a solid marriage, and a house.

Just a semantic argument here because I am getting a little aggravated. You keep putting numbers in parentheses, such as "(47-68) years old?" This is not relevant to the argument at all, but I was just getting a little annoyed with this.

You then try to defend your quote even after admitting that I never directly said the quote. You can't use quotation marks when I never really said it word for word.

In round 2, I said you misquoted the source because the title in the source was incorrect. If you had read through the whole article, you would notice that it does say "underemployed" as opposed to "unemployed" (4). Ad hominem attacks like telling me that my eyes aren't working most definitely fall under conduct in the debate ruling. I don't know what you mean by my "funny question" about jobs. Is this relating to your previous China statement? If so, I still don't understand what you meant; if not, I don't know what you are referring to.

The Business Insider list is a great source, but it is about jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, not a degree in general. Granted, many of the jobs listed don't require a college degree, but most of them have requirements that are not easy to fulfill. The majority of the jobs either require an associate's degree, are hard labor, or require previous experience in the field. So yes, these jobs are available, but not to just anyone who wants them.

In the next section, you talk about people selling vegetables and becoming rich. You go on to imply that I said all uneducated rich people gained money through inheritance. I never said nor implied this in Round 2. I said that they "most likely" got money through inheritance or other income, but because I didn't have details, I was not sure about it. Another point you have is that one of your previous employers sold potatoes at a young age and came to manage over 400 trucks. Cool! I used to sell lemonade on the streets most summers, and I also used to mow lawns and shovel driveways for people. This doesn't mean anything. For all I know, the man that used to sell potatoes could have gone to Oxford or Harvard or some prestigious college and had a masters degree.

Your round ends with saying that college is not worth it because debt weighs you down and suicide is an option. This argument is a far cry from the original debate that studying is not the only way to have a good salary. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that there are other ways to obtain a good salary, but you have not provided any alternative methods of getting a solid job. And as a side note, these debts do not take "a life time [sic] to clear if lucky." College debts can be paid off in most situations rather easily. My parents both paid off their debts within 8 years of graduating and getting their degrees.

To conclude, I believe that I have refuted your points and, because the BOP is on you, I have no need to explicitly state my own points. This has been an enjoyable debate, and as my opponent said, I hope the voters are not distracted by anything and keep themselves unbiased in this argument. I think I have won on grammar and spelling, and also conduct due to Pro's personal attacks. Please take the time to read through both sides though.

(3) (near the bottom, under Self-harm)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ericschatzker 2 years ago
Zanomi3, I know you were my opponent and it was a forgone conclusion that you would vote against me. but if you think I am goanna let you go, you have got another coming! I am goanna set the record straight and even with you.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Interesting debate. I will definitely keep posted on this and eventually give my vote.
Posted by ericschatzker 2 years ago
I agree, you don't have to go through mountainous student loans and waste (4-10) of your life to secure a financially successful life. there are way too many other ways to get there.
I want people to read my argument and the opposite side 's than cast a fair vote.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
There are no billionaires that became that rich because they had a degree.All a degree will do is point you in that direction. And I do not think that getting in debt way over your head will point you in the right direction no matter how smart you think it was.Student loan debt is a weight around a person.s neck that can hold you back for years.Unless you are waiting for government to step in and say you do not owe it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A well thought out and presented debate by both individuals here. However, my vote goes to Con for a few reasons. Concerning conduct, plagiarism, misquoting, and Ad hominem attacks are not allowed. These can all seen in Pro's arguments, therefore conduct goes to Con. Spelling and grammar is important, especially in these debates where the arguments are lengthy. This also goes to Con, seeing as there were many spelling mistakes (some distracting) by Pro. Finally, more convincing arguments. As stated by Con, and agreed to by Pro, the BoP falls on Pro. He failed to provide alternative forms to receive a salary, and Con was able to refute most (if not all) of Pro's points. Sources remains a tie, as both used a decent amount of reliable sources. Thanks to both for giving us a great debate to read!