Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

A College Education is Essential for Success
After conducting my own research on this topic, I discovered that according to Money College Planning, "approximately half of college graduates assert that the education they received was worth the expense." The Wall Street Journal also reports that "while financing a college education is never simple, it's more manageable than most people believe." Despite this, some politicians and commentators argue that students can't afford college. This claim is inaccurate. The majority of students can indeed afford it. It's true that college tuition can be substantial, but the majority, if not more than half, of college graduates believe that their education was well worth the investment. We all aspire to earn substantial income to cover our necessities and desires, and being a college graduate significantly enhances your prospects of securing a higher-paying job, thereby increasing your likelihood of fulfilling more of your aspirations.

I am opposed to the position that college should be free. There are numerous solutions to those who cannot pay out of pocket for college. I will wait for my opponent's arguments in the next round before I go any further with evidence to back up my position.

A unique topic by pro is presented here. Though I am not even in high school yet, I believe I have enough to formulate a reasonable opinion regarding this topic. Henceforth, I negate the resolution that University Education should be free. Since no definitions were presented by pro in the first round, the definitions are open. Below are the definitions to be used for this debate. University Education: A school/university that grants degrees. College. Free: Free of pay; not having to pay money for. ==Framework==Since the resolution lacks clarity, I assume that the instigator suggests all university education should be free. I also assume my opponent means an absolutely free education, which would exclude working on campus to pay off cost. This would also mean that the tuition is free, as is all cost of materials, classes, etc. I will be arguing against a completely free university education. Due to the nature of this debate, we can establish that the BoP is shared. Whoever meets their BoP better will win the debate. To specify, the BoP both con and pro must meet are depicted below. Pro's BoP:That University Education should be Free. Con's BoP: That University Education should not be Free. With all that said, I eagerly look forward to my opponent's opening case, and I hope for a good debate! I accept.

College athletes work hard. Their athletics require long hours similar to a full time job while they also take classes, which prevents them from getting jobs and being able to support themselves. Paying them is fair and teaches fiscal responsibility. Since athletes already receive scholarships and other benefits, they are essentially being paid. Why not determine their value like you do in the real world? One's monetary value is often based on how much revenue they generate. College sports is very lucrative. Advertisements, sponsorships, video games and ticket sales lead to huge profits for college teams worth tens of billions of dollars [1]. Many college athletes suffer injury that prevents them from moving on with their college or professional athletic career. They put their bodies on the line every day. If they can make money while playing the sport, they should be able to. [1] http://finance.zacks.com...

This resolution brings into question whether we should keep the current system of teaching students, or replace it with things such as communication and paying taxes. In my school, communication class (speech) is a requirement. However, since this is a cheap shot, I would rather just clarify this topic in order to have a meaningful debate, as opposed to me just using some cheap fallacious trick to win. I assume this debate will be about whether we should keep education how it is, or replace it with an education that involves paying taxes and starting a business. The voters should notice the use of the word, replace instead of adopt, because the resolution includes the word rather. So it's this or that, not this or this and that. Now as for my case, I would like to begin with the claim that current education is as necessary, if not more necessary, than things such as paying taxes and starting a business. To clarify, I hope we can agree that things such as paying taxes, is generally more easily learned, than our current studies. I would say that paying taxes, shouldn't take two semesters. This is why I venture to say that we should learn how to pay taxes, outside of our normal routine education. This does not exclude the possibility of having a class on how to pay taxes, as an extra. The current educations teaches us how to even do math, in order to pay taxes. Without my opponent's proposal, we would all learn how to start a business and pay taxes, but not know how to plan out assets and liabilities in terms of business. Therefore we wouldn't be able to maintain the business. Without history, we wouldn't be able to know how successful businesses have been able to prosper. How did Bill gates get to where he is? The list can go on. The current education is a prerequisite to starting a business and paying taxes. And because of current studies being a prerequisite to real world problems, not knowing the current studies itself must be a real world problem.

Good day, Connoisseur. Where would we be without the English language? In America, the English language is citizens' primary form of communication. It gets things done. Say you are on the brink of death from malnourishment. Because we have the English language, you can go to the grocery store and tell an employee working there, "I want to buy [insert food of choice here]." You know that you want something to eat, but you need to know how much it costs in order to pay for it. The cashier scans the item and tells you, "that's going to be one dollar." Yes, there is a number in that sentence, and that's math, but if you didn't understand the word "dollar", you wouldn't understand that they wanted one dollar bill instead of one penny or one quarter. Plus, you couldn't understand the sentence the cashier spoke if you didn't comprehend English. In my high school English class, no one ever asks the teacher, "when are we going to use this in life?" Almost everyone can see when and how knowledge of the English language is valuable to life after school. But it's different with math. In math class, the question "when are we going to use this in life?" comes up on almost a daily basis. That's because math isn't used in many aspects of life. For example, nobody express emotions with numbers. No one says, "I'm feeling the square root of x today." Here's another example. You can ask someone handing out $100 bills, "may I have some money please?" Because of the wonders of the English language, they'll know you want money, and presumably will give you some. But if you walk up to them with "45 x 2 = 90" written on a napkin (remember, no spoken communication) and show them that equation, then they'll only know that you want them to understand that 45 x 2 = 90. What would you rather have: at least $100, or a napkin with the product of 45 and 2 written on it? Math might be the universal language, but English as a language gets more done for the people who use it. Thanks.

I will argue that your university's mission statement falsely advertises what the school can actually do. In other words, that the statement includes claims and ambitions that are impossible to actually accomplish through a university. For this debate, my opponent will use the first round to post the name of their university, and mission statement of said university. And then, in round 2 and 3, we will present our arguments. And again, I will argue that your university's statement has ambitions that go beyond the scope of the university's potential to carry out.

This is an argument against the common belief that STEM is the way out of the current financial crisis and into a new age of prosperity. To be clear, I used to personally agree with the belief, but have changed my mind after reflecting about labor economics. As much as any other market, labor markets adhere to how when supply goes up, price goes down. The key to modern prosperity, therefore, is not to increase supply. Raising the supply of STEM in America would only depreciate its value. Instead, we need to resolve the supply we have while outcasting supply from abroad. America today has plenty of nerds who simply cannot network into the workforce despite succeeding in science and math classes while growing up. They are neglected by social alienation due to the deconstruction of humanities and pervasiveness of consumerism, and ignored due to outsourcing and Asian immigration. In order to facilitate their networking, nerds need to be enabled through elevated language arts and discourse ethics. That way, they can actually socialize, communicate, interact, express, and talk their way into a workplace. Likewise, employers need to be motivated to remain socially responsible not only by employing domestic natives first, but also by not supporting the unweaving of social fabric through consumerism. We need to ensure that Americana is preserved through organic, holistic, sustainable folk community where people can thoroughly celebrate who they are. This will ensure that American students remain focused on their studies as well as have rejuvenating outlets so they don't suffer from burnout. It will also give them something to study for while involved with STEM so they're not stuck wondering, "What am I going to need this for?" The bottomline is American nerds lack social skills, not technical skills. STEM education facilitates the wrong skill set.

Let's start by clarifying my value structure. I value Progressive Post-Industrialism, which is a movement in society towards human rights and justice. As much as we would like to believe that the U.S. has reached this point in society, it is false. In my case, I show the myriad benefits of a P P-I society, none of which have been rebutted. Pro never says that P P-I is a bad thing, he just attacks the link to my case. Because it is easy to see that P P-I is fundamentally good, we must use it as the value in this round. Furthermore, Pro never gives a bright line, or even attempts to. I give a specific pathway to P P-I and societal progress. Similarly, Pro ignores my link to the criterion of accountability. We are not using the United States' current weak multiple choice tests. Not only do these go against the values of a P P-I society, they are, as we both agree, ineffective. Instead, we are looking to the free response, high level tests that DO take place in P P-I societies. It's not only through economic progress that we achieve P P-I. By mandating higher level SEEs, society is showing its commitment to education and that it values equality. Educated and empowered students go on to strengthen society economically and socially. Their increased skill in communication reduces violence and disputes. Better understanding of the world reduces negative stereotyping and racism. While such changes may seem cheesy and overly optimistic, much research has shown that P P-I societies experience this positive growth largely because of their strong educational system and accountability structures. As you evaluate the attacks that Pro makes on my case, and the extensions he makes on his, there is one very important factor to keep in mind. All the problems that he keeps harping on are NOT with the SEEs that we should be putting in place. They are not problems with critical-thinking free-response tests that P P-I societies put it place. They are problems with today's multiple choice tests. The Neg completely does away with all these problems and harms with the proper tests. Let's look at my Contention 1 now. Pro completely skips over my analysis and evidence which shows that the new economy requires students to have skills which schools fail to impart! The Hart card is from 2007, when less than 50% of schools had SEEs. He continues to completely drop the Esping-Andersen card which states that P P-I societies in Europe have stronger economies BECAUSE of their rigorous, free response tests! This is a huge reason to vote Neg! Pro's attacks on my C2 are also misplaced. The Barry and Finley card clearly states that high-stakes tests are more reliable than low stakes tests, nothing more, nothing less. This point is completely dropped. Furthermore, if we take a high-stakes system and further enhance it by making it free-response and high-level, we circumvent the problems that Aff provides. Let's move on to the Aff side. The value for this round is Progressive Post-Industrialism. Aff never states that it is bad, and never shows why societal progress should be preferred. Because Aff never attacks the actual link I make between accountability and P P-I and instead strawmans my side, we need to prefer my criterion over his. Furthermore, he doesn't show exactly how the Aff reaches a valued diploma. How do I know when an Affirmative student has achieved competency? What means do we use? The Aff never provides the link or shows how this would be done. In fact, this goes the exact other way! I showed with the Hart card that the kind of system that exists on the Affirmative side leads only to failure. The definition for this round is also the Neg's. Aff's definition doesn't specify that the exams are state-based. He doesn't source it either. Furthermore, the reason we need to prefer my definition which puts the power in the federal government's hands is that a national level test is what will lead to success. As such, I am not defending state-level tests. The Affirmative C1 now completely falls. He doesn't attack my arguments at all. All Aff does is weakly restate his claims. He doesn't even extend his evidence! Remember that he's talking about multiple choice, low-level graduation exams that are being put into place across the U.S. I'm talking about free-response, critical thinking tests. His entire contention is attacking the wrong thing. He fails to attack my arguments on his second contention too. Exit exams, particularly in P P-I societies that value education, are reflections of the curriculum, not the other way around. Exit exams test the curriculum to make sure it is being taught. All that will happen as a result of SEEs is stronger curriculum alignment and an empowered workforce. Remember, these are the kinds of exams we're putting in to place: English Paper I: http://www.examinations.ie... English Paper II: http://www.examinations.ie... Math Paper I: http://www.examinations.ie... Math Paper II: http://www.examinations.ie... There's no worry about teachers 'teaching' to such exams. First, they cover such broad subject area that teachers are just going to end up teaching the whole curriculum. Second, they test critical thinking and analysis that are vital in the job markets. These are the kind of tests that lead to successful economies. Ultimately, this round should go Neg for two reasons. First, there are numerous benefits to P P-I societies. These include, "quality of health care for the disabled, poor and old...[reduced] aggression towards other racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic subgroups...[and] economic and social survival", as Gosta Esping-Andersen writes. The Neg is the only one who can achieve these benefits, because as Professor Esping-Andersen continues, it is "the standard of education in post-industrialist societies...[and] the rigorous testing taken by those exiting the secondary education system" which access these benefits. Second, Aff's entire case is a giant strawman [1]. He attacks a set of exams which I am not supporting. With that, I'll give it back to Aff for his final speech. [1]http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

By your statements, I agree that education can be free for everyone, but for a "limited time" only. For if the government will reserve all its funds for education for all the students in a country that would count to millions of chair, table and etc... -That will surely cost millions, or even billions of money. Then where will the government have the money to spend for -> Protection (Police, National Defense, Fireguards) -> Pension (Old age & Sickness) -> Health care -> Other Spending (Waste management, sports, and leisure) -> Let's even add the corrupted people in the government that steals money from the it. Then how will our country rise up if some of its needs is not fulfilled because of lack of funds due to reserving it all for education? If there is lack of protection then there will be many crime events. Can you think of a country with schools that has free school tuition fees but without protection (no police, no national defense). That is why the government funds is divided to many spending. That shows why the government won't make education free for all. -by the way I'm just a 13 yr. old don't use too much deep vocabularies. (PLEASE :)

Furthermore, I will attempt to illustrate the importance of schooling as it relates to education. Due to Pro's lack of clarification regarding the Round rules, I will refrain from posting my argument in order to give Pro a fair opportunity to state their full argument. However, I will state for the record that I do agree with Pro's notion that education and school are different concepts. They are distinct, although not mutually exclusive, and certainly not distant relatives, as I believe Pro was attempting to convey.


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

A College Degree is Essential for Success
The importance of a college education cannot be overstated. Despite some arguments against attending college, the benefits are significant. A college degree opens up more employment opportunities, leads to higher salaries, and improves job quality. High school graduates should consider college as a priority, as it enhances job prospects and earning potential. Pursuing higher education is not a negative choice; in fact, it is likely to benefit you in the long run. It increases your chances of securing your dream job and makes finding employment easier. As Andrew J. Rotherham states in "Actually, College is Very Much Worth It," college graduates earn more and are more likely to be employed, which is particularly crucial for some Americans. College-educated individuals typically earn more than those with only a high school diploma and have lower unemployment rates.

Scientific evidence has shown that in most situations, it doesn't matter what level of education you have to be homeless. I'm not saying that all children should leave school, I'm just saying that it is better for some students to leave.

yes, companies DO want educated blacks in their system to avoid lawsuits and to APPEAR as if they promote diversity. but really what they want is 1 or 2 black people to say AHA! SEE! THERE IS A TANIQUA BROWN WORKING UNDER OUR EMPLOYMENT. NO DISCRIMINATION HERE. MOVE ALONG... but that's not enough. hiring one or two black people for the sake of avoiding legal controversy is disgusting. there are thousands upon thousands of black people in this counttry receiving an education. yet most corporate leaders are white. do you think that's a coincidence? i understand that affirmative action is like reverse discrmination. however i think that's almost necessary to reverse the ideology for hundreds of years that black people are inferior. again, the reason why i say affirmative action is necessary is because it should be TEMPORARY. it should be a stepping stone towards equality. giving black people the opportunity to utilize the education they have fought to receive and show that they are competent workers, instead of the lazy criminals that the media and society portray them as, IS and SHOULD BE considered necessary for the benefit of our society. right now we are not taking advantage of our educated and willing black citizens, but are instead opressing them by keeping them to low-paying jobs and making their advancement in this country harder and harder with each passing generation.

Greetings & Good Luck! Because the character limit restrains me from providing an adequate opening argument, instead I will get right to the punch: In regard to my opponent's first point, I agree with him entirely that young minds are like sponges that are able to absorb knowledge and information at a higher rate than older individuals. Therefore it is necessary to promote education at a young age. However, one must ask themselves why receiving an education is so important in our society and around the globe. History and Anthropology alike show us that one's education has a lot to do with their success in life; brain power is increasingly becoming favorable over brawn, even in blue collar jobs where workers are now required to read and write more than ever before, in addition to working with computers and dealing with a large amount of paperwork. Additionally, higher levels of schooling lead to new job opportunities and open more doors for an individual. This is a fact. Over time, different aspects of education were included to reflect the views of society. For instance, religious education was taught in public schools during the colonial era in the United States; at other points in history it was essentially required that women attend finishing school to learn proper etiquette. However the subject matters that have withstood the test of time regardless of the times are indeed the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Rather than spending time in the classroom finger painting or singing (this could be an option during recess, but should not take up valuable class time), I would rather children in this country practice and improve on those three R's for a number of reasons. First, it has come to our attention that education in the United States is lacking in comparison with countries from other nations. This type of set back, while not too threatening now, could pose a huge problem in the future if other nations including our enemies use their superior education to promote actions and ideas that could hurt the United States. Second, the job market in this country is becoming more and more competitive with each passing year. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain a good job and earn a decent living without receiving higher education, particularly a college degree (at least). Because it is absolutely true that one's value in the workforce is almost always judged at least somewhat by the institution they receive their education from, admission into "good" colleges is becoming more and more competitive. One of the main ways a college admission group determines whether or not a student is eligible to receive admittance into their university is that student's performance on the infamous SAT exam. The current SAT exam is divided into three parts that are composed of the three R's - not art or music. Thus, I have proved that reading, writing and arithmatic are more important than the arts. If my opponent wishes to argue that participation in regards to art and music helps stimulate the brain to better perform the three R's, I would like them to prove to me that NOT participating in art or music actually HURTS your performance in those areas. Chances are Pro will not be able to supplement such a request. This is because while some studies show that art and more specifically music can improve one's grasp of certain skills, not only is it not a guarantee but children and adults alike are just as capable of succeeding and excelling at the three R's regardless of whether or not they have any comprehension of music or art. Additionally, I would like to counter this argument by also stating that becoming so fascinated with art and/or music can actually hurt or hinder a student's performance. You see or hear of it all the time -- students becoming more interested in the arts than they are with other aspects of their education. Furthermore, not every student is artistically inclined. While this also leads to a subjective grading experience, it can also deter students from wanting to go to school or participate in other activities because of their embarassment at not being good in these particular fields. Not only will this hurt the child emotionally, but it can also lead to teasing, frustration, and the rejection of school in general. Keep in mind that grade school refers to young children; they might not have the capacity to understand why they are being forced to participate in activities that do not interest them or have any practical use in their every day lives. And finally, just because learning about art or music can help a child better grasp other aspects of education does not necesarilly mean that we should implement it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. For instance, certain video games (not just 'educational' ones) have been known to help children learn communication skills, hand-eye coordination, strategy, levels of math including statistics and of course reasoning. Not to mention that video games can also promote social skills such as winning gracefully and being a good competitor. However, would you, Pro, want to see video games included in the mandatory curriculum as well? At last I get to move on to my opponent's second point. I couldn't disagree more that an artist who took art classes in grade school had a greater competitive edge over the ones that didn't. So first, I ask that Pro show me proof that this is the case. That said, let's be real -- we don't learn advanced art techniques when we are little kids. In grade school art classes, we color, finger paint, draw, and make shapes out of pipe cleaners. Now, it is true that one who learns a skill from a young age has more of an advantage over a later learner, however, this is not always the case. Typically the skills learned that would even be useful when reaching a level of competitive art (getting into art school...?) would be taught later on in a child's life anyway, say in HS or during other outside art lessons. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that it is fair to say a child who learns a skill and then refines it throughout their life has a definite advantage. Example: Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams who have each been playing their respective sports since the age of 2. However, neither golf nor tennis is part of the mandatory curriculum in grade school. Therefore, if one wishes to hone a talent, they can do so outside of the parameters of school. On that note, I will move on to my opponent's third point: elementary knowledge of music --> composers that provide entertainment. Maybe, but not always. I'm willing to bet that not everyone who knows 'Every Good Boy Does Fine' can write or even play an arrangement close to Bach's. And speaking of Bach, do you think he learned his skill at grade school? (No, his brother taught him). My point is that while not everyone who can write will pen a best seller, writing is a functional skill that individuals apply to their every day lives, whereas reading, writing and playing music in particular are not as useful or necessary. Also, even without music education in grade school, composers and musicians will still find a way to flourish. Some of the greats don't even have ANY formal training! This negates my opponent's fourth point that jobs in art and music would be limited. If he is referring to education specifically, then yes, but otherwise artists can still be artists regardless of whether or not they are teachers. Regrettably I have run out of characters! However in this round I have responded and refuted each and every of my opponent's points as well as made an abundance of my own. In the next round I will continue by addressing how art and music education affects the economy and tax resources, as well as alternative options to removing them from the curriculum. I welcome my opponent to address these topics first if he so chooses.

Obviously, I am aware of NCAA rule: "It is a violation of the NCAA rules for athletes to accept money or gifts while intending to remain eligible." If that wasn't the case, this argument would not have even been raised. When it comes to the scholarships given, on average a student athlete, at Florida State University for example, receives 1,500 dollars a semester for meals and books. A meal plan will add up to 1,200 dollars a semester leaving the student athlete 300 dollars for books. Depending on their major, this would not even cover there books. With this in mind, depending on the athlete, he receives less money than a regular student on scholarship. Some student athletes are not even on scholarship. It is indeed a benefit that students get to travel; however it is more of a hindrance than a reward. When the average student has a big test coming up, they could choose to call in sick to work or have a friend cover. Student athletes do not have that luxury. When there is a game in Ohio, the student athlete has to go. During the game there is no studying. Traveling also causes them to miss class time, sometimes several days in a row. They miss tests and specified instruction that cannot be made up. Depending on the time of the year, student athletes can really fall behind on their studies Also, you said you work 26 hours a week, a college football player can easily put in 30 hours a week and not receive any form of payment for it. This is not including game days or summer training. There are special faculties for student athletes because there are certain regiments that they need to specialize in. It would be hard to fit over 125 football players on campus facilities, with most of the athletes weighing close to 300 pounds. As for trainers, there are not any special trainers accessible to the athletes. The coaches make the workout regiments for athletes to follow through with. These "trainers" serve more as doctors. They are needed in case an emergency, broken bones or head injuries, occur. Schools are given a certain amount of money a year, and they choose how it will be spent. Schools should make better decisions on what needs to be built and spend the money more wisely, like on student athletes that bring in multi-million dollars through their services. Football players do not see any of the thousands of dollars that they are compensated for. A week in the life of a college football player is more time demanding and also physically demanding. At my university, the average time spent per week exceeds the time of any campus or off campus job. While they work less hours they choose what happens with their money.

1. You need to understand that education needs money to learn. Such as books, teachers and stuffs. 2. It depends on one behaviour, because that mean you are telling that playing games make you addicted to it, but depends in on behaviour 3. Not all school have computer, but it didnt mean that computer didnt have the significant reason. People thesedays still use computer, but you only look in one national. You need to look more than one nation. Plus computer has been use in all jobs now

What a peculiar debate... In my statement, I did say that Classics were interesting and but I could also understand why to some this might be a burden. Of course, English assignments are based on one's ability to analyze and examine the text properly, and for those who don't like reading, or those with difficulties such as dyslexia - it certainly can be a problem and that is what I am saying. I by no means am saying that reading classics could not get you a good job or is bad, but what I did mean was that it can be difficult, and as the title suggested in the poll - boring. I hope you understand my point. REFERENCES: http://www.debate.org... http://bookriot.com...

People who are merely a warm body, doing menial tasks, in a job that doesn't require a high school education, that takes little to no skill to fill, deserve to be paid rock bottom wages because they are contributing next to nothing to society. Hard working, responsible people, who make short term sacrifices to get educations and acquire skills that make them valuable to society are rewarded with the sky high wages that they deserve. My opponent says that the supply of workers will always be out of pace with the demand of companies to hire people. It's actually the minimum wage that puts the demand of companies to hire people out of pace with the supply of workers because as the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. Wyoming has one of the lowest minimum wages in the country at $5.15/hr. Their unemployment rate is 4.5%. Oregon has one of the highest minimum wages in the country at $8.40/hr. Their unemployment rate is 12.1%.

I agree, corruption is a major issue in this case, especially in my country, Kazakhstan. Billions and billions dollar every year are stolen from state treasury. But it is another issue and off course, government still have to finance other industries except education. but it doesn't mean that government will take money asgd for pencion or hospitals or something else and send them for education. Government at first should think about his nation and what nation will be if we can't even go to univercities we wan't study at? what future expects this country? how will we improve medicine, policy and other industries if we can't study at specialized places because of high cost?

No, education is not the most powerful weapon. The power of choice is stronger, because you have the power to make a choice of what kind of life you want, who you want to be, and who you wish to marry. Education doesn't always make life better, because if you are given education, but don't use it, than that would be the power of choice, you would choose not to use it, and work at Mickey D's.

Pro forfeited. I don't believe he has given enough time for anyone to argue. Anyway, Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that physiological needs that I mentioned in my last argument such as food, shelter, safety, homoeostasis and water are at the foundation of a human's well being. [1] If we are using Maslow's hierarchy as a reference, education would fall under esteem needs. There are physiological needs that ought to be fulfilled; as mentioned earlier as well as safety needs and love/belonging needs before esteem needs make a difference to a person's well being. [2] Sources [1] http://psychclassics.yorku.ca... [2] http://www.simplypsychology.org...


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

The Value of a Full-Time College Education is Questionable

Reflecting on the current discussions, I've realized that despite the widespread encouragement for students to pursue four-year college degrees, I'm questioning whether those years of study are truly worth the investment. For some, attending college for four years is simply not a feasible choice, and even for those who do dedicate themselves to their education, many find themselves uncertain about what to do with their degrees. As highlighted on the Debt.org website, which is dedicated to assisting college graduates with debt, "...college graduates are often left with a degree and a substantial financial burden from credit card and student loan debt, with no job prospects in sight." This concern goes beyond just the debt burden on these students, but also their ability to secure employment. For our economy to thrive, we need a robust workforce. However, if the majority of college graduates are unemployed and in debt, our nation's economic stability is at risk. To avert this crisis, perhaps we should reconsider the value of a full college education and instead advocate for associate degrees, which can still lead to well-paying jobs in skilled trades.

Extend my entire case to this round. To add, another way in which computers can be beneficial to education is the fact that one can register for college classes or particular colleges which they wish to attend. Once more, an advantage which a book doesn't even come close to reproducing.

For the record, I am in complete agreement with you and wish that I was on the pro side. For the sake of the debate I will accept the con side in order to point out reasons why society makes it difficult. Your assertion is that "High school dropouts can succeed as much as graduates". The debate hinges on the definition of "succeed". If you mean that a high school dropout can just as easily become a laywer or a doctor then I might have to disagree. If you mean that one can become successful in the eyes of God then I would completely agree. Please define what "success" is from your perspective.

Unfounded ClaimsSo pro makes the claim that "Americas current education system caters to the needs of a wealthy minority and leaves the majority of Americans cannot afford the education that they need to survive in the real world." This is an unfounded and fallacious argument as basic school education is free and actually mandatory up to a certain age (16 in most states). This type of schooling provides all that is needed to "survive" in the real world. While college is very costly and does help get higher paying jobs this does not necessitate it's type of education for survivial. The initial claim that is caters to the needs of a wealthy minority doesn't actually outline what those needs are or HOW it actually caters to them so it's really not worth responding to. http://c2.com...https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov...This next sentence doesn't actually make sense because of how poorly it's written. I'm sure theres a point in here somewhere but until it's actually apparent I don't think I can even respond to it. Again I've addressed that there actually is no cost for getting a quality education and considering you've done nothing to define quality I can just discredit this as a subjective argument. The Education System Inherently Leads to Nothing More Than KnowledgeSo on to my own personal arguments. Classism: A biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. Well by this definition and pros assertion then the school system must be teaching them things to have them form a discriminatory attitude towards those in other classes (Keep in mind that this does not mean LOWER classes this means DIFFERENCES in class so by definition poor people could be classist of higher class people.) right? This is plainly false. School does nothing more than to provide knowledge to students in areas such as English, math, science, social studies, art, and technology. Just take a look at required cirriculums for all these states. Nowhere in here is the class that teaches "Poor People Suck" or "Rich People are Awful 101". http://www.education.state.pa.us...http://www.michigan.gov...http://www.usg.edu...;School doesn't inherintly lead to anything other than the gaining of knowledge. Does going to school help in getting a job and becomming sucessful? Of course! But this does not mean that going to school GUARENTEES you a job. The converse is true also, does NOT going to school hurt your chances of getting a job? Yes but it also doesn't GUARENTEE you won't get one.

In my personal opinion IT Education is important as the world is evolving into a very technological era. I think that from children to young adults, IT should be a enforced subject. Most jobs nowadays involve using a computer, whether it being online registers for schools, or just simply emailing in any other positions. If the generations to come do not learn how to use a computer in the most basic ways, there will be even less opportunities for the young people, leaving university and struggling to find a job.

Once again, you are posing hypothetical situations that have a much lower chance of happening than the inevitable need for a job. Why would you even get dropped out of a helicopter? One does not simply fall out of helicopter unless hit by a projectile, in which case an explosion will be likely, and there is a good chance that one might die from it. In addition, falling from that height, there is a better probability of fatality than otherwise, and the overall chances of surviving more than a few minutes from the initial hit, along with the particular situation actually occuring, are just too low to give any real consideration into investing into survival education. The most likely cause of losing your home would be foreclosure, and that is caused by the homeowner failing to pay the mortgage, which can be averted by *ahem* getting a job, and being educated about debt and money management, rather than yet another hypothetical situation in which perhaps terrorists take over your home, in which case, well, call the police.

It is an exact statistic, and I don't see you making any arguements besides "they get paid in education" and saying I should be disqualified; take it easy. You're right, there's a reason they call them student athletes and not the other way around but what's the difference from any other student getting extra compensation from their school? There are countless jobs for students where the college pays their salary. Athletes are providing a service to their school where the school benefits financially so therefore they should be paid, end of story. Athletics for most of these students is a full time job and they are already put at a disadvantage from everyone else by giving up their time for their school. You can say they get paid in scholarships and education all you want but the fact is only a small percentage of student athletes receive athletic scholarships. Colleges are exploiting their athletic programs for financial gains and in the end, the ones benefiting aren't the ones doing all the work.

REBUTTAL (Note: Where is your response to my statements?) "When it comes to the scholarships given, on average a student athlete, at Florida State University for example, receives 1,500 dollars a semester for meals and books. A meal plan will add up to 1,200 dollars a semester leaving the student athlete 300 dollars for books. Depending on their major, this would not even cover there books." In regards to this I stick to my $10,000 for the average scholarship for student athletes. Therefore, it does in fact cover meals and books. Furthermore, as this is for just football players the average from my source from before says that this number is even higher once you discount tennis, volleyball and soccer. Football players in general receive the largest scholarships in the athletic scholarship arena. "Some student athletes are not even on scholarship." However, I will disregard this because our topic clearly says "College scholarship football players". Students without a scholarship are not included in this debate. "It is indeed a benefit that students get to travel; however it is more of a hindrance than a reward. When the average student has a big test coming up, they could choose to call in sick to work or have a friend cover. Student athletes do not have that luxury. When there is a game in Ohio, the student athlete has to go. During the game there is no studying. Traveling also causes them to miss class time, sometimes several days in a row. They miss tests and specified instruction that cannot be made up. Depending on the time of the year, student athletes can really fall behind on their studies" The same is true for debate teams, science clubs and any clubs involving animals. It is the price students pay for doing extra curriculars. I choose to be a part of the finance board at my school and have to miss classes for the privilege. I put in extra time for my clubs and for the finance board that has no real compensation than the fact that it opens more doors for me (as does football for football players) and for the love of my hobbies. "Also, you said you work 26 hours a week, a college football player can easily put in 30 hours a week and not receive any form of payment for it. This is not including game days or summer training. I work 26 hours a week its true. However, I also have extra-curriculars (as stated above) that I put in time for without any compensation. "There are special faculties for student athletes because there are certain regiments that they need to specialize in. It would be hard to fit over 125 football players on campus facilities, with most of the athletes weighing close to 300 pounds. " Are you claiming that a football player can't fit in campus facilities because of their size? I don't understand this statement. Yes, there are special facilities for football players because they need to specialize in it, but what about the other students needs. The other students education. "As for trainers, there are not any special trainers accessible to the athletes. The coaches make the workout regiments for athletes to follow through with. These "trainers" serve more as doctors. They are needed in case an emergency, broken bones or head injuries, occur." Even small, unathletic focused schools such as The Evergreen State College has not only a athletic trainer for their athletes (exclusively), but coaches and assistant coaches to help students improve and expensive thing to have. At The Evergreen State College it is not the ADMINSTRATION that pays for these assistant coaches and athletic trainers, but STUDENT FEES that pay for them. Many schools follow this practice. "Schools are given a certain amount of money a year, and they choose how it will be spent. Schools should make better decisions on what needs to be built and spend the money more wisely, like on student athletes that bring in multi-million dollars through their services." Schools are required by law to cover some things. As I said in my previous post schools HAVE TO pay for women sports because of Title IX. Furthermore, most schools have many expenses because teachers, staff, student employees, librarians all have to be paid. To pay athletes the school would have to cut much needed funding for students who do have to pay the full scholarship. They could even cut trainers, assistant coaches and things that effect the student athletes. Much of the activities you see such as childcare centers and many athletic programs are in fact paid for with STUDENT FEES. Again administration is unlikely to foot the bill, but if student fees cover it then student fees will have to increase for every student to pay for the difference. To claim that schools are not utilizing their money is the statement of one who does not know how finances work. Many schools in several states are in the debt. Furthermore, again I will state that schools would have to raise tuition for everyone to pay athletes. In further response to this I doubt that you've bothered to ask your school to show you the spread sheets for expenses for athletics to figure out if there are really is multi-millions at stake. While football teams bring in revenue they also are expensive to run and net-profits are lower than you would think (Rose). Besides most sports are in the red for revenue which is what footballs profits can help cover. "Football players do not see any of the thousands of dollars that they are compensated for." I don't believe this is what you intended to say. I think you meant to say that they are NOT compensated for. As I said before I think the things that football scholarship athletes recive is more than enough to compensate them for their amerture playing. Facilities, free travel (including food, hotel and transportation which adds about to about $100,000 assuming only 120 athletes), trainers and coaches for support, money for college, and an education. " A week in the life of a college football player is more time demanding and also physically demanding. At my university, the average time spent per week exceeds the time of any campus or off campus job. While they work less hours they choose what happens with their money. " I think this is rather assumptions of you to assume that your work is more demanding per work the "any campus or off campus job". I'm sure your campus has mothers/fathers or people with many demands on their finances that work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. Furthermore, I'm sure there are professionals at your school who work 40-60 hours a week at their job. I feel that to claim you work harder than them is to give them a great disservice. Rose, Adam . "Football is big breadwinner for USC athletics | All Things Trojan | Los Angeles Times."ï¿½Top of the Ticket. LA Times, 15 Oct. 2008. Web. 29 Mar. 2011. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...;.

Universities are a place for people to learn, And they prepare people for the real society. Are you saying that too many people are prepared? Isn't preparing for something crucial to living good? Those who don't study well and hard, Will as you said "serve cheeseburgers at a takeaway store" Those who choose bad jobs will ultimately suffer in society. Society and Universities are working together to make people choose the right jobs, And the right decisions. In the past, The only people that went to universities were rich people (most often males). Those who didn't ended up with very low paying jobs and often didn't know how to read or write. Universities help people, Not hurt them. So, If less people go to a university then more people would "die in debt", With the same, But harsher result of the society rejecting a certain job. You will end up hurting the society more, Not helping it.

To become a lawyer or doctor, for example, would be nearly impossible without the proper education. That's not to say that a high school dropout is less intelligent or lacks the ability or potential. These professions are defined by attaining certain levels of education and certification. You simply must go through the effort and expense of higher education in order to obtain that type of "success". Talent is a different matter. One can take their God given talent and with passion, practice, and a great deal of effort become the best in their "field". Take your rapping talent for example. There are many rappers out there. Only those that have the drive and the dream to push past the average rapper will even have a shot at fame. Do you need a high school education to be in the entertainment business? Perhaps not if your talent far outweighs your lack of education in a field where education is not required. Even though there are a few places where a high school dropout can excel, I wouldn't agree with your assertion that high school dropouts can succeed "as much as graduates". If you have such a talent, I would encourage you to strive to be the very best in your field. Be original and push beyond the average consistantly. Still, while you're doing that, you need to also focus on education. Soja Boy might be hot now but their fame and fortune will be short lived. There is much more to life that money. Not having an education in this society is like having a handicap. Yes, you can push past it but the effort to do that far outweighs the effort to stay in school and get a good education. This increases your chances of success greatly and doesn't rely on a fluke MySpace hit like Soja Boy experienced. For every Soja Boy out there you will find a million rappers thinking that they are just as good and ought to be able to make it. Obviously that's not the case as only a few with the right talent at the right time and in the right place get "picked" for fame. In short, don't count on it. Staying in school increases your odds of making a good steady living, owning a home, raising children, and getting them educated. Do that and you can call yourself a "success" every time.

This was a great debate. I had a ball discussing this topic with you, I think we both made good points, and I believe we both had logical, valid arguments. I understand that there are avenues that you can take that don't include college to make a good living. What your point doesn't address is the people that still MUST work in menial jobs. These jobs need to be filled or society doesn't work. If there were enough good jobs that only high school students were left to do the menial jobs then that would be okay, because those high school students would still be supported by their parents. Unfortunately, there are people trying to support families on those jobs. As far as self-reliance goes, the minimum wage doesn't have anything to do with self-reliance, it has everything to do with fairness. We had a minimum wage in the 1940's and unless I'm wrong, I thought that the generation that lived through the depression and won World War II was pretty self-reliant. I guess they weren't self-reliant enough to live without a minimum wage though. My point about managers is not that they are useless, it's that we overvalue their importance. There are a few examples of great managers, and you've listed some. I could run out a laundry list of managers that ran their company in the ground while banking millions of dollars in salary and bonuses. I think that you understand my point, though, so I won't do that. Just as a head coach of a football team is an important piece of the puzzle, I believe that they get too much credit when the team is good and too much blame when the team is bad. It is the players on the field that must perform. The same is true of CEOs, they make important decisions, but companies would fail if they had no work force. A company's goal is always going to be to pay the lowest amount of wages possible and still have people interested in working for them. That is how business works, lowering wages lowers overhead and means more profit. That means there must be a check on a company's natural tendancy to do this. The minimum wage helps the economy as well, if the minimum wage were destroyed the economy would suffer greatly. The economy is always strongest when the middle class is strongest, because there are millions of middle-class people and they are all raveneous consumers, which drives the economy. If the minimum wage were eliminated many people would fall out of the middleclass, because as the minimum wage dropped the salaries of other employees would drop as well. There would exist a casam between those that made millions and the rest of us. This would destroy society as we know it. As to my point about hard work. What I'm saying is that CEOs and hedge fund managers are rewarded on a much higher scale than other employees for the work they do. I'm not saying what they do is easy, but it doesn't produce anything. There is no tangable good that they produce. They have an ability to manipulate numbers and create wealth for their company doing so. The reason that we are in the economic mess we are in now is because this line of thinking got out of hand and it was pushed too far. What I'm saying is that we used to reward people that actually made something useful, like a car, or a television or a table. That is what we should be rewarding, that is what matters. It is a mistake to put too much faith into the paper wealth created by stock market gurus. The real wealth exists in what you can make. Take the bailout for example, the bankers and insurance companies got whatever they wanted. They produce absolutely NOTHING. When the car companies went to Washington they were made to feel like dogs and they had to agree to a host of stipulations before they got any money. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be stipulations when the government is giving out billions of dollars, what I'm saying is that I find it interesting that they treated the bankers so much differently. The car companies actually produce a real good, something I can see and touch. We have already lost our ability to make shoes and televisions in this country because we started letting other countries dominate us in those fields. If we let our ability to make cars die then we are going to be giving another huge industry over to someone else, probably China and Japan. Then what? What will we be actually able to produce in this country? That is what I'm talking about when I say rewarding work. It's how it used to be done in the fourties and fifties. Those times didn't seem so bad. The minimum wage is a necessary check on corporate greed, pure and simple. Instead of hurting the economy is actually helps it by giving people enough money to purchase the very goods they are helping produce. Which is the other aspect of eliminating a minimum wage. You said that if the minimum wage was eliminated companies would be able to hire more people and produce more goods. While that might be true, they would also sell fewer goods because people would have much less money to buy things. Since they would be selling less, they would have to lay-off some people, which would cause sales to fall even more. You can see where this is going. Eventually there would be an equilibrium and we would have probably a slightly higher unemployment rate than we do now (because people would be making less and thus be able to buy less) and people would be poorer than they are now, that's all that would happen. I understand that many people think the government isn't a solution to every problem, and I agree, but the government has to do something right, it can't be all bad, or else how would it have lasted as long as it has, and how would we be able to be such a successful country? This was a fabulous debate; I had a lot of fun with it.


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

Governments Should Act to Reduce College Costs
In this argument, I will demonstrate that college costs are rising at an unsustainable rate, far beyond the public's ability to afford them, necessitating government intervention. The opposing side will attempt to argue that college costs are acceptable as they are. As such, the burden of proof is shared. I. Rapid Increase in College Costs and Student Debt The cost of attending college has become unmanageably high in the modern era, and continues to rise. College tuition is increasing at nearly twice the rate of baseline inflation, resulting in a tuition inflation rate of approximately 8% per annum, while GDP per capita (PPP) historically increases by around 5% a year. This means that college costs double every nine years, while GDP per capita (PPP) has only gone up by approximately 25% since 2003, and this rate has also been historically constant. Family incomes, meanwhile, increase on average by only 1% a year. As a result, student debt among US students will continue to increase, burdening the "new competitors" of our globalized economy with more they will have to worry about, and more they will have to pay for. In fact, the average debt after college was over $25,000 in 2010, over 5% higher than the average debt of 2009. Of 1,100 schools surveyed under the Project on Student Debt study, 98 (9%) said that their students were graduating on average with $35,000 of debt. However, as these numbers were voluntarily reported by the colleges themselves, the numbers have the potential to be significantly higher, and they will be significantly higher as college tuition continues to skyrocket and average GDP per capita (PPP) and family income remains growing slow and steadily. II. Lack of Free Market Forces Normally Associated with Reducing Costs and Making Services More Affordable "Top institutions have chosen to maintain and increase quality largely by spending more, not by increasing efficiency, reducing costs, or reallocating funds". Normally, when businesses compete to gain a greater share of the market and attract more customers, they try to put out better products and reduce the cost of business, to make their products as cheap and attractive as possible to the consumer. However, as this quotation shows, colleges and universities are not doing this. In their drive to increase quality, they have thrown cost considerations out the window. Frankly, there is no incentive to do this

The government may appear to be benevolent with what they provide but seem to be inconvenient to me when receiving money from the public whether it's educational or tax related. Tax rates are too high and student loans appear to be unattractive. I came across an article explaining how graduates from high school that received the highest ranks and A+ grades are applying for jobs instead of university courses. They apply at places such as accounting and law firms among many more respectable jobs and are accepted. They receive work experience and training which will broaden their skill-set and will be able to mention these on their resume. Training, experience and education seems to be more favourable to the employer than a University Degree. Universities seem like a government scam for money. With the internet available many can gain knowledge easily so where does that leave University? Some organisation that provides you with a paper called a 'degree' that says you paid for your course, passed your exams and sat through your lectures? Knowledge can be learned online and the sense of 'community' that university provides can also be arranged on the internet so why not just have an exam for a job instead of a degree? why not have an exam to show a company that you are eligible for a position, and that you have the available skills? also what are your views on social democracy?

From ancient time education was inseparable part of human development. If our ancestries sat in front of stones and wrote with sticks and now we are sitting in classes with hi-tech equipment we still have the same aim-to get knowledge for future life. Education is a guarantee for successful work and well-paid job. We pay a huge amount of money to our universities and it increases from year to year. Government should give a chance for everyone to take attainments and stable tomorrow. If not, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

First off you need SCHOOL because you can't even spell. the word and school does a lot of things like giving people the opportunity to play sports make good grades and also have a good career starting from college to retirement to make money for yourself. By the way how did you even post this A computer, A tablet, A phone? How do you think those were made from 5 year old or 15 year old no a educated man who went through school and college and got a job and you telling me they should be nuked! Well lets see your idea No school mainly and that would mean no phones no tech-knowledgeably and no lifes all i haft to say is good plan.

From what I read, it seems like you are arguing the the banking system is indeed oppressive. I did not see anything boosting the value of the banking system. One more quote to support to oppression of the banking system from Hirsch. He talked about having background knowledge on the things we actually learn. His example was knowing the difference between two different words. You know how to identify the words based on things you know, but you have no other knowledge outside of that. You may know the big word but what is the power behind the word? We only know what we were taught. Anything learned outside of that seems very oppressive to me.

It seems like you are trying to win the debate by simply throwing numbers around without any meaning. It doesn't matter what age they retire at: if they stay one year in college or don't go at all then they will be "without a job or degree" either way. This rule should not be put in place with the hope of benefiting colleges. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry that benefits solely off of amateur athletes who aren't allowed to make money off of their own name. The NCAA uses these kids for one year to make money, but at the same time prevents the athletes from making money. If this rule wasn't in place, then so many student-athletes would not have to endure the hypocrisy that is the NCAA.

Ya I enjoy debating, but I"m dyslexic so if don"t focus I mess stuff up. Most of the time Word catches it for me, and no one ever see it. No big deal, I think debating has more priority than messing up a little bit on words and whatnots. The biggest supporting factor for the devaluing of labor is production. Between 1973 and 2013 production grew by 74%, but compensation only grew by 9%. https://www.theatlantic.com... And what small gains have been made in compensation get gobbled up as the purchasing power of the dollar continues to fall. http://www.pewresearch.org... When we look at the GDP we see wages accounted for 50 percent in 1975 but in fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. http://www.nytimes.com... Also I think we can all remember when one income could support a family and provide for a retirement. But the cost of living has increased dramatically. http://reason.com... This has created an environment where even with both parents working it"s still difficult to make ends meet. https://www.nytimes.com... There has been a systematic devaluation workers. The minimum wage was implemented years ago but as with wages, has stayed stagnant. As inflation pushes the cost of living higher and the purchasing power of the dollar lower, the workers of this country's value is deflated more and more. We can all see the difference of the past versus the realities of the present.

If money were given equally, it would have no value. It would be the same thing as nobody having any money. And educating yourself is often highly inneffective for those who lack motivation to do something with their lives, and younger children most certainly cannot "educate themselves". Without schooling there would be few, if any, doctors, scientists, engineers, etc. If you want to waste away in McDonald's that's fine by me, but don't drag society down with you. Thank you for this...insightful...debate.

I will argue that your university's mission statement falsely advertises what the school can actually do. In other words, that the statement includes claims and ambitions that are impossible to actually accomplish through a university. For this debate, my opponent will use the first round to post the name of their university, and mission statement of said university. And then, in round 2 and 3, we will present our arguments. And again, I will argue that your university's statement has ambitions that go beyond the scope of the university's potential to carry out.

Resolution: The US government (and state governments) should end all subsidies to college education. BOP is on Pro.

Look at our wasted society, war , hunger, greed, accidents, School and money are behind that. And Education might be useful ONLY for jobs, but school is not education it is a waste of time because we learn stupid things like 'when was the war of japan?' And if you fail an exam they think your stupid! Who the hell wants to wake up at 6AM to go spend and entire day learning about POETRY or.... FRACTIONS , boooooooooring, !!! All you people who got to school you just want money! Greedy savages


Question: Is Pursuing a College Degree Considered Valuable?

A college education isn't always required for success. Investing in a college education can often feel like a fruitless expenditure of time and money. Most individuals who pursue higher education find that their associate’s or bachelor’s degrees do not yield the high-paying jobs or "careers" they were promised. To truly secure a "career," one must often pursue additional education, such as a master’s degree or a PhD. Numerous examples exist of highly successful individuals who never completed college, including Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, and Abraham Lincoln.

So why not sell it to the Ivory Tower? Sign up for yer education here!

To start off, I'd like to remind my opponent that their objective is to prove that free college is a good idea. I'm also going to define a few terms. Free- without cost or payment . https://www.google.com... Idea- a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action . https://www.google.com... Section 1: People have been talking about "free college" for a long time. There are a ton of expectations of what free college should be, the most popular of which is subsidizing tuition to $0. One could literally right a full essay on the different conceptions of "free", especially other things that people expect to be free. In the link that I will post beneath this round, it claims that one of the disadvantages of a free college system, is how disproportionately well-off backgrounds/futures are in the current college system. There are rich and poor kids in college, with the rich mostly found in 4+ year and private colleges and the poor commonly found in public 2-4 year colleges. With these differences, setting up a free college system would almost nearly mean giving more money to the students of rich families than the students of poor families. Even with special benefits granted to people, the richer kids would always end up with more money. This is one factor that student benefit protesters never look at, so if they accomplish in setting up a free college system, they'll be in for a big surprise. . https://newrepublic.com... Section 2: In this section, I shall go over 10 reasons why free college is a bad idea. 1. It is technically stealing. People work really hard for their money, and the government would take large proportions of that money because someone has to pay for those colleges. In the link, an angry parent states that her money should go to her kids, not some 18-year-old who's too lazy to get a job so they can pay for their own college. If this becomes a case, which is very likely, college students may become lazy, because they'd no longer have to work to stay in college, so they won't get jobs when they leave. Heck, in one video I watched on YouTube (I will post the video's link below), a supposed "rich guy" believed that he gets paid, just because he graduated college and has a degree. With free college, this could be all college graduates. But at the moment, that outcome is just a theory. 2. No one owes us anything. We've all spent our lives getting things that other people have paid for. And we want that to count for college too? Giving your kids what they want because they whine is considered "bad parenting". Kid's can get used to this, and if they do, they'll expect everyone to pay for whatever they want. This will make going out into the real world really hard for them. Setting up a free college system, will not help them join the "maturity club". 3. Free college, like Obamacare and Medicaid, is a Socialist idea. Looking back through history, one should come to realize that Socialist ideas never succeed. If one can't realize this, they might as well be uneducated and I'm sure there are a lot of students who don't want uneducated people trying to change their education system. 4. Only 21% of people graduate community college. Why would we make something free, if people are just going to waste their and the teacher's time with it? 5. We're not ready to change anything about our colleges. Federal surveys have shown that current "college graduates" can only read at a 7th grave level, and this level has been decreasing since 1992. This goes to show that we should focus on Middle and High school so that we can have a better education going into college so we can "advance" our education. 6. If colleges become free, a 2-year degree, would become worth as much as a High School diploma. "If too many people easily obtain a college degree, then the value of that degree becomes equal to what a high school degree had been for future employment purposes" - Lloyd Bensen IV 7. Everyone can already afford a community college, even with a 40-hour minimum wage job. Even after paying their college fees, people still have enough money to pay for gas, food, and other necessities and luxuries. Why fix what isn't broken? 8. College is close to being un-necessary. People are finding ways to get a job they enjoy, without having to go to college to do so. If we encourage this, we'd no longer have a need for college in the first place. So why make something we don't necessarily need free? 9. Our economy doesn't need the free college. With most jobs requiring no less than a 2 year degree, and many new jobs that only require a high school diploma on the verge of being created, colleges are yet again, not needed. So, making it free would just be pointless. 10. This is one of the big reasons why free college is bad. We are far in debt. Our national debt currently rests at *18.1 trillion and counting. Adding "free" college wouldn't help any. It's bad enough that the government can't pass a budget and cut expensive programs such as Social Security and Medicare, both of which are sending us into a fiscal hell. Making colleges free would just increase our current debts, which isn't really helping the economy either. We would literally achieve nothing from this. . http://thefederalist.com...

i spent the time and effort to get a PHD just to discard it for entertainment purposes? i think your head may be missing a few screws, If you like i could help you find them.

You do realize that those billionaires have gone to school? Maybe not college, but school none the less. Unless of course, they inherited it, but that doesn't reflect any of their accomplishments, only their predecessors, who most likely did go to school. And of course houses and cars take 25 years of your life to get because of the amount of money they cost. And considering you can only get your first job, most likely at minimum wage, at 15-16 years old, that's only 10 years. And you still have about 60 years of life left after that. Did you finish school, or did you drop out of high school? And if you dropped out, how do you expect to get a job that can support yourself and a family? Most high school dropouts live in poverty because nobody wants to hire them due to the fact that they have shown a lack of motivation and don't have the skills necessary for anything other than a minimum wage job.

however, if that person the university forced to him by study another fiel with doubt he failed. More over , to improve your self i.e. you finish and develop your skills by your decision that you are gonna take it here when you take decision you already know your skills and you follow your dream to achieve it .

Thank you for your opinion, I see your point of view. But let's take into consideration public schools that financed by government and money for salaries for the teachers, repair and new furnishing they get from state. It proves that education can and SHOULD be free. From my point of view, it's unfair to gauge the amount of knowledge with a person purse, and not even his, with his parents money. we can't get a good job with high salary without a diploma. so, everyone should have a chance to get quality education.

I am opposed to the position that college should be free. There are numerous solutions to those who cannot pay out of pocket for college. I will wait for my opponent's arguments in the next round before I go any further with evidence to back up my position.

Scientific evidence has shown that in most situations, it doesn't matter what level of education you have to be homeless. I'm not saying that all children should leave school, I'm just saying that it is better for some students to leave.

Everything that you do today can be useful to you in the future, often in ways that you never expected. Many people seem to think that hobbies are a waste of time. Let's say a scientist enjoys public speaking in his free time. Twice a month he attends a Toastmasters club to practice. His daily activities most of the time in the lab, does not involve speaking to a crowd at all. Sure, maybe in a year, he will probably speak in front of an audience once during a research convention. But that's it. By any logic, the scientist's hobby is a complete waste of time. It doesn't translate into any rise in income. It does not gain him any followers on social media. He's not going to win any public speaking tournaments soon. By any measure, there is no way to quantify how exactly this hobby is useful to him. However, in a person's life time, you never know when exactly some skills could be useful to you in the future. The scientist, with a polished skill of being able to speak in public, could potentially find a new line of work. Without that skill, he could open doors he never even thought of before. Imagine if he had never had this hobby. He probably would not even have the ability to imagine working as something else. My second argument is that something which makes you feel good or something which interests you is, by itself, already worth doing. Success can never just be measured by income. Being happy, meeting friends, and challenging yourself to be better every day is also a big part of life. When a person tells another person that what he is doing is a waste of time, often, that person is just measuring the action by the amount of money it can produce. However, what cannot be measured should also be taken into account. When a person is happy, this motivates him to be a better individual every day who can contribute something to the society. Imagine if everything we do which does not directly translate into money is a "waste of time". That would be a sad life.

Students in the US are subjective to having to learn things that are not needed. It would be best that a student learns the necessities in life too. I'm not saying that the education is bad it's just that the students don't know how to communicate or pay taxes. They don't know the way into making a successful business. They need to learn how to become successful too.


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

Attending college can be highly valuable.
Take the example of a highly motivated individual with aspirations to become a lawyer. This individual has secured a full scholarship, making their education essentially free. Moreover, obtaining a degree is a prerequisite for practicing law [1], which is essential for fulfilling this person’s life goals and achieving personal happiness. Without the ability to practice law, becoming a lawyer is simply not possible. Considering that their education is cost-free, it is absolutely worth it for this individual to pursue a college education. 1. http://study.com...

Builds IndependenceI agree that independence can be a (very) positive thing in academics. While the ability to work independently is a good trait to have, students must also develop skills that allow them to work together with others. In this day and age, workers must increasingly work together, rather than independently, to get projects done. Many, if not most, companies specifically look for those that can work well on a team, especially in high-tech industries (http://www.forbes.com...).Allows Passions to SpreadRegarding "Forced Education" - As I understand it, Con argues that simply because a lesson is not needed, means that it should not be taught. Perhaps this is the case in theory, however, there are many practical issues with this position. Colleges, especially prestigious ones, typically have requirements for classes a student must take before the college will admit him or her. As both Con and I go to Colorado colleges, I will mention the Higher Education Admissions Requirements as an example. HEAR "establishes state-level admission standards for both first-time freshmen and transfer students at each of the Colorado baccalaureate public institutions" (http://highered.colorado.gov...). These standards must be met, regardless of how useful a particular course will be for the student. This is just one example of why "Forced Education" can be necessary. Regarding giving kids the freedom to direct their own learning - While this can allow motivated kids to learn the skills they need on their own, it can be risky, allowing the child to direct his or her learning. For example, if a student decided that he didn't need to do math for a year, because he wanted to be a botanist, and the next year he decided instead he wanted to be an engineer, he would be put at a disadvantage and would have to catch up. Students in traditional schools can also pursue their passions: there are many stories about kids coding in their free time, etc.For example, Daniel Chou was able to create an iOS app in his free time, and at the time of the writing, he went to Lenski Elementary, a public school (http://denver.cbslocal.com...).Help Kids Learn When Having a Mental ConditionI concede this point.

Greetings & Good Luck! Because the character limit restrains me from providing an adequate opening argument, instead I will get right to the punch: In regard to my opponent's first point, I agree with him entirely that young minds are like sponges that are able to absorb knowledge and information at a higher rate than older individuals. Therefore it is necessary to promote education at a young age. However, one must ask themselves why receiving an education is so important in our society and around the globe. History and Anthropology alike show us that one's education has a lot to do with their success in life; brain power is increasingly becoming favorable over brawn, even in blue collar jobs where workers are now required to read and write more than ever before, in addition to working with computers and dealing with a large amount of paperwork. Additionally, higher levels of schooling lead to new job opportunities and open more doors for an individual. This is a fact. Over time, different aspects of education were included to reflect the views of society. For instance, religious education was taught in public schools during the colonial era in the United States; at other points in history it was essentially required that women attend finishing school to learn proper etiquette. However the subject matters that have withstood the test of time regardless of the times are indeed the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Rather than spending time in the classroom finger painting or singing (this could be an option during recess, but should not take up valuable class time), I would rather children in this country practice and improve on those three R's for a number of reasons. First, it has come to our attention that education in the United States is lacking in comparison with countries from other nations. This type of set back, while not too threatening now, could pose a huge problem in the future if other nations including our enemies use their superior education to promote actions and ideas that could hurt the United States. Second, the job market in this country is becoming more and more competitive with each passing year. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain a good job and earn a decent living without receiving higher education, particularly a college degree (at least). Because it is absolutely true that one's value in the workforce is almost always judged at least somewhat by the institution they receive their education from, admission into "good" colleges is becoming more and more competitive. One of the main ways a college admission group determines whether or not a student is eligible to receive admittance into their university is that student's performance on the infamous SAT exam. The current SAT exam is divided into three parts that are composed of the three R's - not art or music. Thus, I have proved that reading, writing and arithmatic are more important than the arts. If my opponent wishes to argue that participation in regards to art and music helps stimulate the brain to better perform the three R's, I would like them to prove to me that NOT participating in art or music actually HURTS your performance in those areas. Chances are Pro will not be able to supplement such a request. This is because while some studies show that art and more specifically music can improve one's grasp of certain skills, not only is it not a guarantee but children and adults alike are just as capable of succeeding and excelling at the three R's regardless of whether or not they have any comprehension of music or art. Additionally, I would like to counter this argument by also stating that becoming so fascinated with art and/or music can actually hurt or hinder a student's performance. You see or hear of it all the time -- students becoming more interested in the arts than they are with other aspects of their education. Furthermore, not every student is artistically inclined. While this also leads to a subjective grading experience, it can also deter students from wanting to go to school or participate in other activities because of their embarassment at not being good in these particular fields. Not only will this hurt the child emotionally, but it can also lead to teasing, frustration, and the rejection of school in general. Keep in mind that grade school refers to young children; they might not have the capacity to understand why they are being forced to participate in activities that do not interest them or have any practical use in their every day lives. And finally, just because learning about art or music can help a child better grasp other aspects of education does not necesarilly mean that we should implement it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. For instance, certain video games (not just 'educational' ones) have been known to help children learn communication skills, hand-eye coordination, strategy, levels of math including statistics and of course reasoning. Not to mention that video games can also promote social skills such as winning gracefully and being a good competitor. However, would you, Pro, want to see video games included in the mandatory curriculum as well? At last I get to move on to my opponent's second point. I couldn't disagree more that an artist who took art classes in grade school had a greater competitive edge over the ones that didn't. So first, I ask that Pro show me proof that this is the case. That said, let's be real -- we don't learn advanced art techniques when we are little kids. In grade school art classes, we color, finger paint, draw, and make shapes out of pipe cleaners. Now, it is true that one who learns a skill from a young age has more of an advantage over a later learner, however, this is not always the case. Typically the skills learned that would even be useful when reaching a level of competitive art (getting into art school...?) would be taught later on in a child's life anyway, say in HS or during other outside art lessons. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that it is fair to say a child who learns a skill and then refines it throughout their life has a definite advantage. Example: Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams who have each been playing their respective sports since the age of 2. However, neither golf nor tennis is part of the mandatory curriculum in grade school. Therefore, if one wishes to hone a talent, they can do so outside of the parameters of school. On that note, I will move on to my opponent's third point: elementary knowledge of music --> composers that provide entertainment. Maybe, but not always. I'm willing to bet that not everyone who knows 'Every Good Boy Does Fine' can write or even play an arrangement close to Bach's. And speaking of Bach, do you think he learned his skill at grade school? (No, his brother taught him). My point is that while not everyone who can write will pen a best seller, writing is a functional skill that individuals apply to their every day lives, whereas reading, writing and playing music in particular are not as useful or necessary. Also, even without music education in grade school, composers and musicians will still find a way to flourish. Some of the greats don't even have ANY formal training! This negates my opponent's fourth point that jobs in art and music would be limited. If he is referring to education specifically, then yes, but otherwise artists can still be artists regardless of whether or not they are teachers. Regrettably I have run out of characters! However in this round I have responded and refuted each and every of my opponent's points as well as made an abundance of my own. In the next round I will continue by addressing how art and music education affects the economy and tax resources, as well as alternative options to removing them from the curriculum. I welcome my opponent to address these topics first if he so chooses.

Counter One: "And for something to be "useful" it must tangible (definition of useful: "of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs"; From dictionary.com)" That definition is definition two. I used definition one, which I believe is definition one because it's either better or more commonly used. I would more commonly use definition one, but that's just my opinion. Can we try not to turn this into a definition argument? How about we just use both since they both define useful (see the link to the definition in round one). Counter Two: "Picking up something YOU got out is not performing a service to someone else, it is balancing a dis-service. As for doing chores, no-one I know actually did any meaningful chores(that I know of) until they hit their early teens." But if you balance a dis-service, then it is made a service. Maybe we need to define surface. We really need to stop getting into semantics. Whatever, here's one. Service(1): An act of helpful activity; help; aid: to do someone a service http://dictionary.reference.com... So, while the fact that the child hasn't put their toys away until then still remains, actually putting them away is still helpful, for my reasons stated in round one. It really doesn't matter if anyone you know has done any meaningful chores, for two reasons. The people you know are not the majority of children. Plus, would someone randomly say "Hey man, I just got a chore done, and it was meaningful!" Anyway, even if a child did some kind of meaningful chore, like cleaning their room once in their childhood years they would not be considered a parasite. The majority of children have done that. Counter Three: "Now onto school. Public school is not actually free, you must pay taxes in order to finance it. As for the assertion that schools teach discipline, it is irrelevent. Wether the parents teach disciplin, or the schools do, the child is still benefitting from it at a cost to society. Moving onto what would happen if children weren't educated, through most of human civilization education was either non-existent, or reserved for the wealthy, and yet: here we are. Formal Education is not neccisary to succeed. In fact, Andrew Jackson(president of the U.S.A.) had very little formal education." Okay, I forgot about that. But nevertheless, education is still helpful to a parent for my reasons in round one. Even if you say discipline is irrelevant, it's not. The child may be getting education from a cost to society, but discipline is still helpful for my round one reasons. If it's helpful, then it's a service, so it's useful, and so not parasitic. Counter Four: "Yet again, we come to an irrelevant point. Wether a child is allowed to work has NOTHING to do with wether he/she is parasitic." I agree with you on that, but you still have to counter all of my points above. Counter Five: "Wether people like or want children is also COMPLETELY irrelevent." No it isn't, because if someone wants children, then obviously they believe they would benefit them in some way. Whether that be love, traits to pass on, or the reasons above, it is still relevant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: I don't think I need any. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: In conclusion, you should vote Con. Also, the spell check isn't working. I'm sure some people know that already, and they probably know that it's irrelevant.

Students in the US are subjective to having to learn things that are not needed. It would be best that a student learns the necessities in life too. I'm not saying that the education is bad it's just that the students don't know how to communicate or pay taxes. They don't know the way into making a successful business. They need to learn how to become successful too.

For the record, I am in complete agreement with you and wish that I was on the pro side. For the sake of the debate I will accept the con side in order to point out reasons why society makes it difficult. Your assertion is that "High school dropouts can succeed as much as graduates". The debate hinges on the definition of "succeed". If you mean that a high school dropout can just as easily become a laywer or a doctor then I might have to disagree. If you mean that one can become successful in the eyes of God then I would completely agree. Please define what "success" is from your perspective.

Accepted. Of course, toddlers don't pay for their education; their parents do. So any free education "goodies" are aimed at parents. Who do vote.

College is a place to learn, but not all people can go, and people can actually save money and buy thing for themselves or there family. Also so people don't have to worry about loans. I did some research and the government would pay for the teachers and supplies for the colleges.

This is an argument against the common belief that STEM is the way out of the current financial crisis and into a new age of prosperity. To be clear, I used to personally agree with the belief, but have changed my mind after reflecting about labor economics. As much as any other market, labor markets adhere to how when supply goes up, price goes down. The key to modern prosperity, therefore, is not to increase supply. Raising the supply of STEM in America would only depreciate its value. Instead, we need to resolve the supply we have while outcasting supply from abroad. America today has plenty of nerds who simply cannot network into the workforce despite succeeding in science and math classes while growing up. They are neglected by social alienation due to the deconstruction of humanities and pervasiveness of consumerism, and ignored due to outsourcing and Asian immigration. In order to facilitate their networking, nerds need to be enabled through elevated language arts and discourse ethics. That way, they can actually socialize, communicate, interact, express, and talk their way into a workplace. Likewise, employers need to be motivated to remain socially responsible not only by employing domestic natives first, but also by not supporting the unweaving of social fabric through consumerism. We need to ensure that Americana is preserved through organic, holistic, sustainable folk community where people can thoroughly celebrate who they are. This will ensure that American students remain focused on their studies as well as have rejuvenating outlets so they don't suffer from burnout. It will also give them something to study for while involved with STEM so they're not stuck wondering, "What am I going to need this for?" The bottomline is American nerds lack social skills, not technical skills. STEM education facilitates the wrong skill set.

Having the college tuition rate lowered will have a successful completion rate of graduating a two year college because it is so affordable while also having lowered the debt collection at the beginning of a four year college. The cost of attending college has skyrocketed and is moving faster than the economy today. There are more students who attend college even if they cannot afford to attend which means taking out students loans and making the decision of not having a home loan when it is time to decide to do so in the future (Anderberg). .

i spent the time and effort to get a PHD just to discard it for entertainment purposes? i think your head may be missing a few screws, If you like i could help you find them.