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

Affordable education

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: 12/2/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 105484
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




We can say that education is a vehicle for individual and social advancement. If we look back in time, we recall that earlier education was available only to rich people. Education was a luxury that not everyone could afford. But time does not stand still, the present education is open to everybody, the main thing is desire and diligence. But every year it becomes easier and easier to get higher education: the number of places is increased every year (though only for paid tuition). In this regard, the question arises: is it correct that higher education has become so easily accessible? Our education has become so depreciated precisely because it is very easy to get. The diploma has ceased to be appreciated, because everyone has it. It is not necessary to make huge efforts to receive it. At the same time, there are too many qualified candidates for work in the labor market, but at the same time there are few really capable and truly professionals, because the quality of education has been significantly "suffered" from so many students. Teachers simply cannot give proper attention to each student, not speaking about offering some advanced courses.
Everybody strives for higher education, because it is prestigious, but no one thinks that besides this there are technical colleges, after which people also can find themselves in the real world easily.
So, what do you think, is it ok, that it's very easy to get education?


Pro Case:
-Welcome to the learning society where students are subjected to ceaseless testing, training, and learning in order to activate their "potential." The organizing principle of this society is to optimize the productivity of each student, so that they can be valuable and contributing members of a risk-filled economic system.
Lewis 11 " Tyson E. Lewis, PhD. in educational philosophy from UCLA
The learner is the one who is not yet complete, not yet knowledgeable, not yet skillful, not yet competent, not yet autonomous. The discourse of learning emphasizes education as an economic transaction, the learner is the consumer, who has needs. The teacher, the educator, or the educational institution is the provider there to meet the needs of the learner, and education itself becomes a commodity to be provided or delivered by the teacher or educational institution and consumed by the learner. The learning society is within a society driven by capitalist production and consumption, political life has been overcome by the eternal return of laboring life. Learning becomes an organizing principle for optimizing labor productivity, the citizen becomes first and foremost a learner within a flexible, knowledge economy that demands constant retraining or reskilling to fulfill high-tech, informationally rich jobs. We live in a situation of permanent threat, threatened with exclusion. The learner must be capable of continual adaptation to an unstable economic world where unemployment is always right around the corner. Education focuses on correcting their potentialities in order to maximize competencies and efficiencies. Potentialities within the learning society are connected to self-directed, self-managing behaviors in a form of governmentality of the self. The battery of tests which the individual undergoes help to identity, classify, train, and actualize their unrealized potential as students, workers, and citizens. Agamben"s theory of study enables us to retain our impotential, if the lesson of learning is to become a self-regulating entrepreneur then the lesson of study is to become nothing at all but rather remain within a pure capacity.
-In opposition to this learning society which demands that we become good and productive students, I affirm a study of the topic. Instead of activating our "potential" we prefer the role of the studier, withdrawing from the normative pressures of the education system. This interrupts the ultimate demand of the learning society, either be productive or be abandoned.
Lewis 15 Tyson E. PhD. in educational philosophy from UCLA
If we think of education as oriented towards the measurability of determinate, reliable skill sets, studying suddenly appears to be a useless activity, devoid of quantifiable significance in the life of the student. Studying is a paradoxical state between education for subjectification and for desubjectification. To study is to undergo a certain inoperativity where we are exposed to all its thoughts possibilities and yet are undestined to any one or any set of them. The underlying normative pressures on the studier to project into certain possibilities relation to certain ends are deferred, delayed, and perhaps forgotten. Studying suspends in order to open up new uses within the present. This zone is a real educational state of exception that is issued from below and as such is a challenge to any form of sovereign decision over and against life. The offence here is not one of making overt demands on or against the sovereign but rather is one of studying the law which, renders it inoperative and studying does not directly confront the power of the sovereign. The most threatening gesture to the power of the law is that which is most polite, most inconspicuous, most inoffensive. Without a will to battle against, sovereignty quietly retreats from the scene, ashamed of its own powers. The studious life is a blight on the order of things that quietly prefers not to submit to improve, perfect, and so on. To further disengage the figure of the student from the docile consumer is an activity of sabotage and refusal of the dominant form of capitalist production today: governance. To struggle to study is to struggle to regain the freedom of impotentiality. "We prefer not to" does not make instrumental demands or appeals for reforms, thus frustrating any attempt on the part of the learning apparatus to negotiate. Its struggle is an immanent embodiment of a freedom to come. Contemporary society is indeed infested with the law of learning, then collective study destabilizes its fundamental injunction: either be productive or be abandoned.
Pro Responses:
-Earlier Education Was for the rich
Education needed now, proper pedagogy necessitates focus on strategies to solve oppression "education is a starting point for demanding solutions for oppression and reordering power structures. Giroux 15 Henry A. Giroux, 3-17-2015, Truth out
Education must be understood as a democratic sphere which enables students to claim their agency, and learn to respect the rights of others. Education has a responsibility to educate students to make authority accountable Democracy places civic demands upon its citizens, and such demands point to the necessity of an education that is, critical, students, rather than disengaged spectators, must be able to demand a reordering of power arrangements

-Education has been depreciated
Refer to the Lewis 11 card showing that the learner society has been the real cause for depreciation in the education system, putting emphasis on education as a commodity has determined "acceptable learning" which has depreciated the purpose education serves. Tenure also harms education:
Tenures hurt student"s education and are ineffective, Vergara v. California proves
Boutros et al, Theodore J. Jr. McRae, Marcellus A. Lipshutz, Joshua S. 2015
Vergara v. California, the Los Angeles Superior Court declared its statutes violate the fundamental right of students to education. The laws create inequalities in educational opportunities being afforded to students the court issued findings. The court found three statutes pertaining to teacher dismissal make it virtually impossible for districts to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom once they obtain tenure. Finally, poor and minority students are relegated disproportionately to classrooms with less effective teachers. These students fall further behind their peers, which exacerbates the achievement gap.
-Overcrowded Labor Market
STEM jobs aren"t being filled
Joint Economic Committee 14 " US Senate Joint Economic Committee, STEM Education for the Innovation Economy January 2014
The increase in demand for STEM skills means that there is a shortage of workers for STEM jobs. The predicted shortage is amplified by the high concentration of baby boomers in STEM occupations. These STEM opportunities will require more education and training than they did in previous decades. Although the federal government has directed significant resources toward STEM education the US is not on track to train enough STEM-capable workers to fill future job opportunities. The economy will need approximately one million more STEM professionals than the US will produce at the current rate. The U S would need to increase the number of students receiving STEM degrees by 34 percent annually.
-Not enough teachers
Schools can"t attract teachers with current salaries.
Eric A. Hanushek 2015 Hoover Institution, Stanford, California
Doing something about teacher salaries is high on almost everybody"s reform agenda. Teacher salaries have fallen relative to salaries for other college-educated workers, schools cannot attract a sufficiently high-quality teaching force without raising salaries. The concern raised is that salaries are not giving good signals to the best teachers. This in turn is not only harming the strong teachers but also doing real damage to US society and to the economy.
Debate Round No. 1


I understood your point of view, thank you for the answer.
1. Of course, we live in a complicated world. Everyone needs to be able to think logically, to be able to compare facts, and we will not forget about critical thinking. Yes, higher education ennobles a person, but why is it necessary for a person if he does not even use his diploma in the future? Only the ejection of money, the time spent. You can develop yourself with the help of courses, thanks to life experience, and not only through higher education.
2. Nobody says that it is necessary to restrict a certain class of people in education. The point is that you need to reduce the number of places in universities. Yes, education conditions should be equally equal for all, definitely. Higher education is exactly what you need to strive for, what should be a reward for diligence. After all, if a student is motivated to gain knowledge, then he will work and develop, which will make educational institutions more effective, they will focus not on the average student, but on really tuned to high results of students.
3. There are a lot of graduates in the labor market, but not all of them are competent in their specialty. We can say that the choice, at the same time, is broad, but it's not up to anyone to choose. At the same time, there are not enough drivers, electricians, plumbers, builders and so on. Vocational colleges are considered non-prestigious, so few people go there. The question is also that these professions are simply poorly paid, although it is quite difficult to master them, but in society they are very necessary.
4. Despite the attrition of teachers, few young people want to master the profession of a teacher. The question, again, is in prestige and wages.
It used to be difficult to become a teacher. It was a very honorable profession, it was there were the most difficult exams. But now it's very easy to enter a teacher. And there are those who just want to get a diploma. Looking at this situation, it becomes scary who will teach the new generation of children in the future.


Thanks for the cool debate topic fam good to be back in the game!

First, extend the entirety of the pro case as it went unaddressed by my opponent. Then move on to my opponent"s latest responses in the order they were presented.
1.What about those that don"t do anything with their degree?
Again, refer to the Lewis 11 card of the pro case. The reason the con is so concerned with what others do with their education is because we are conditioned to not waste our "potential" under the threat of being "abandoned" or unemployed as stated in the Lewis 15 card. The pro removes these concerns of wasted potential or wasted resources by shifting away from the conditioning of the learner society, while the con continues to blame the affordability of schools and how people make use of the education they receive.

-Courses and life experience result in the same development.
If this argument were true in the slightest than I"d have my dream job of teaching my own debate team, instead I must sell my current achievements just to be able to be considered for a temporary assistant coach position. The fact of our learner society is diplomas talk. So, in order for this argument to make any sense the con must advocate for more affordable and accessible education to allow for more potential to work under the current system, or they concede to the rejection of the learner society and the shift to the studier society.

2.School shouldn"t be restricted by class.
The con argues this, but it is more of a pro point, by arguing against affordable education the con is inherently arguing for education separated by the classes seeing as if we make school unaffordable, as is the con stance, then only the richer class would be the only ones who could afford education. The pro rejects this elitist idea best by moving away from the commodification of education that happens in the status quo to a more open and pure form of education where no one is restricted by anything or anyone and everyone is free to study without normative pressures.

-We need to focus on high performing students, not the average student.
This is a very biopolitical argument from the con. The con is essentially determining which life is valuable and which life is not only differentiated by a standard that the con arbitrarily sets. Those who are deemed "average" or achieve high but just not high enough are now pushed into the unemployment line and abandoned by society. Not only is biopolitics extremely bad in this instance, but the con also directly links back to the pro case with the logic of who is valuable based on, what is deemed by them as, potential. The pro case is a better option in this situation as it not only avoids the biopolitical determination of life, but it also provides individuals the autonomous decision to make regarding their personal education path without the outside pressures and standards of the con.

3.No one is competent
Don"t make the mistake that is the students fault that they are incompetent. The pro clearly depicts the con"s students, the learner is the one who is not yet complete, not yet knowledgeable, not yet skillful, not yet competent, not yet autonomous. This is clearly the fault of the system not the student. It is the teachers job to change this in the con"s world, but because we put so much emphasis on diplomas and the "you have to go to college" mentality, we overlook competency for that piece of paper saying we know something. Again, the pro proves that removing education as a commodity opens up new, real, potentials instead of the factory that is the con pushing out flawed drones for money. Studying is a form of inaction that releases educational activity from particular outcomes and educational standards.

-Vocational schools are not prestigious and low paying jobs are frowned upon in society.
The reason we see prestige and wage difference is because we are conditioned to look through the lens of the learner society to feel pity for those who aren't as filled with "potential" or value as ourselves. In the pro world we would see less prejudice because people aren"t influenced by where you went to school or what job you like because the ever-present pressures of the learner society is removed and then replaced with a more curious, studier society. This results in a more open and pure form of education where each is free to study whatever without being tied to one subject, and we truly achieve our impotentialiality.

4.It was harder to be a teacher in the past now it is easy.
In 1872 the only requirements for a teacher were that they fill lamps, bring a bucket of water and coal for the lesson, make pens, work 10 hours, don"t marry during your teaching contract, pay your benefits, and don"t smoke or drink. But I assume the con isn"t referring that far back. Yes, it may be "easier" to become a teacher now with the requirements being a bachelor"s degree and a teaching certificate in most schools, but teachers now have much more expected of them. Teachers now have to deal with keeping up with the advancing technology, the ease of and how frequently parents are able to contact them, increasing their workload, the increase of their workload compared to say 25 years ago has caused more stress to be placed on teachers now, new Ofsted inspections have created a much more scrutinized environment, more after school classes have appeared and the list goes on and on. With the system we have created, it is no one but our own faults of who teaches the next generation. The pro however offers a breath of fresh air by sifting pressure off teachers and students and allows for us to grow as a society.

-Those who are just there to get a diploma.
This is exactly the point the pro is making. Our education system has become such a cycle of commodification that you see students choosing diplomas in fields they are disinterested in just so they can feel like their 30+ thousand-dollar education (without any financial aid) results in a diploma with potential return rather than disappointment. In the situation of teaching, when students do "resort" to teaching then this cycle of dissatisfied education starts over and continues into the next generation. The pro world has a better outcome because we get the real choice of what we want to study and what we want to do while the con only gives you the illusion of that choice.

As this debate comes to an end with only one more round to go we clearly see that the pro has met their obligation in this debate through extending and defending the pro case and properly responding to each of the cons arguments. The final round will contain no new arguments from myself unless necessary to respond to new arguments from the con, instead the final round will be primarily for closing arguments and weighing the impacts of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Here the problem follows one another. Due to the fact that education is so affordable, the diploma is devalued. And as to get an education in our time, you do not need to work hard. Consequently, the quality of the knowledge obtained is not very high among the majority of students. Therefore, at work there can be much more problems about the competence of a specialist.
-Of course, it is believed that education develops and expands our horizons. But at the same time, let's not forget that in our time most students are unmotivated. They came only for the diploma, and not, unfortunately, for the knowledge. And they do not expand their knowledge boundaries, because they do not need it.
2. The question is not at all in this. We do not make education inaccessible. The bottom line is that we would like to make it more qualitative and valuable. The world is chasing the number of qualified specialists, but at the same time the quality of education is lost.
-Anyone who is inclined to study, even if he does not possess superintelligence, will achieve much by diligent work and perseverance. He will achieve a high level. And whoever does not want to lose the years spent in pursuit of a diploma, which in the end will not be useful to him.
3. That's it, that attention is paid to everything: installations, budget, reforms. But not knowledge and their quality.
Nevertheless, still a lot of people have a stereotype that studying at the university is prestigious, but in a vocational school there is not. Although no one thinks about how much really need to study the guys.
4.Of course, we do not take what was several centuries ago. But it is obvious that the situation is changing with every decade. Now absolutely other professions are prestigious and highly paid, and, unfortunately, the teacher's profession is not on this list. It is also understandable why many do not want to receive it. But nevertheless, changes in this sphere are definitely needed.


As this is the final round the pro will be going over what still stands in this debate as well as weighing the impacts.

First extend the pro case, the con concedes it and did nothing to refute it, the pro has shown that an affordable and accessible form of education is the best way to solve for the issues the con argues. This is important because we will be impacting the con arguments as advantages to the pro. Next, we look to the con arguments and see that the con has consistently taken the middle ground in this debate and has no real impacts coming from the con side. Finally, we will look to each argument from the past response and impact these for the pro side:

1.Because school is affordable the diploma is depreciated.
The pro has already responded to how this is not the case. In the pro case we show that because we view education as a commodity and because we focus on optimizing productivity (or the value of a student in the pro case), we have a consistent frame of thought because of it. Go to college or you"ll do nothing with your life. The pro however takes this argument from the con and shows that if we shift away from the learner mentality and more to a study mentality we see the education itself, not just the diploma, gain back the value it once had.

-Students are only there for a diploma.
This falls back under the pro argument for the previous point. Students go for the diploma because that is what they are conditioned to do. Students even overlook diplomas in areas of work that they like for the more "productive" diplomas. The pro takes away this stigma and has students study what they want with no outside pressures. We create a true educational environment unlike the con. The more affordable and accessible the education system the better.

2.The con does not make education inaccessible, we want better quality.
The con position in the debate about affordable education is that affordable education fails and should not be implemented the pro is the opposite, we want more affordable and accessible, thus by definition you make school less accessible. Even if you didn"t make school inaccessible by making it less affordable, the quality argument coming from the con is extremely biopolitical. The only way that the con sees bettering quality is by determining who is valuable enough to the larger body to get a higher education. This puts those who don"t meet the cons standards at a clear disadvantage in life. Because the con does nothing to remove the negative stigmas over other learning institutions as well as labor heavy jobs, we see those deemed not worthy fall into those categories and in turn live lives they didn"t particularly want. The pro however removes these stigmas and allows everyone to study what they want by shifting away from the status quo and to a new form of education that allows all to be truly equal in their educational endeavors.

-If you study you will do well.
This is exactly what the pro is arguing. Study is the purest form of education rather then the unaffordable version of the status quo the con presents. Instead on focusing for paying for an education and comparing who went where who learned what, we see that in the pro world students only care about pursuing knowledge because it"s affordable and accessible, all they must do is study. The con world we see that studying is deemed as only a step to true learning while the pro shows that studying is where you truly educate yourself, the example in the pro case being Agamben"s view on Bartleby.

3.We focus on to many other things than quality of education.
The pro will concede that we do focus on reforms that ultimately fail but that only proves the pro case further. Otto Nuerath"s boat is the best example I can give when it comes to fixing the education system. Reforms only plug up the holes in the boat until land where we can rebuild, but this system never hits land so we can reconstruct, we just keep plugging up the holes. The pro studier society is how we reconstruct, we move away from the boat we had and we have built a new one of better quality, to fix the problems with the old. The only true bettering of quality is happening on the pro side.

4.Change is needed and the con is how we do it.
The cons way of changing is to exclude those who are not deemed worthy by the con"s system. The pro takes the opposite approach we try to fix the system, we don"t exclude we include to have more voices and opinions on problems in the world. We ignore what others deem productive or valuable and we study what we deem important. Through the pro world we fix all the issues of quality and depreciation through not exclusion, but inclusion. Affordable and accessible education is the only way we will see each other prosper instead of deeming who is valuable and who is not by what they learn or what they want to learn.

In this debate we saw that the con offered up arguments against the current system and that only through making school less affordable and deeming who is worthy of university learning will we see any quality change. The pro has shown that all these arguments on quality and depreciation will be changed for the better is we reject the system now and make it more affordable and accessible while avoiding the biopolitical tones of the pro case, inclusion is the best approach for education, studying without judgement and achieving our true impotential is how we fix what is wrong with this system.

A thank you to my opponent for a great debate and the judges/voters who take the time to read this debate and vote.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro by default.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.