Question: Should there be a Simplified Process for Discharging Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy?

Student loan debt should not exist
University education should be accessible to all without the burden of debt. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the academic year of 2007-2008, the mean student loan debt for graduating college seniors was approximately $23,000. This implies that upon graduating from college, instead of working to build their financial future, graduates are working to repay their past. Although education paves the way for a brighter future, numerous students are entangled in loan repayment for years post-graduation, hindering them from pursuing experiences such as traveling, which students from countries with free education can enjoy. It is unjust that those not born into affluent families are saddled with loan repayment for an extended period. Meanwhile, their peers whose education was financed have the freedom to engage in activities like traveling, while those in debt are compelled to secure employment immediately, possibly in jobs they don't love, due to their financial obligations.

I'm going to begin by saying that my argument is going to be heavily based on economics. My opponent's initial argument is essentially that College graduates have more skills More skills lead to better jobs with more pay More pay leads to a boosted economy Boosted economy leads to technological and scientific development. Thus, the government should provide help to get most people into college. I find that this point of view is somewhat shallow and does not consider many of the details. I disagree with my opponent in that there ARE downsides. ************************************************************************* The government does not have an endless pool of money. Any funding it decides to give will come from the pockets of taxpayers. I will rule out the poor and the rich because the amount of tax money we get from both are negligible. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that the tax money comes directly from the middle class. Economically speaking, it is difficult to say whether or not we will get an economic boost from sending more people to college. Remember that the United States has an unemployment rate, meaning, there are more people actively seeking employment than there are jobs. My opponent's suggestion will basically enlarge the work force, putting out more workers with more skills. This will have a double effect. First, companies would hire more young, competent workers and fire older ones. This would probably shatter the lives of countless families in exchange for a minimal increase in output and a bit more profit generated from paying a young, fresh-out-of-college worker a lower wage than a seasoned worker. Second, job availability will shrink even further. If the government is funding college education for most people, competition will not go down since people are generally on the same level of competitiveness. People will still be unemployed, but now, college education may not be enough. 4 years of undergraduate would become a norm and in order to be hired for better pay, students might have to take several years of graduate courses just to make what they would consider "better pay". Thus, things would stay relatively the same if my opponent's plan to put the majority of people into college goes through. It's just that we would bankrupt the middle class in taxes by doing so. One year's college tuition is easily $25,000. Four years would be $100,000. And in order to keep paying for this education, everyone coming OUT of college and getting a job would have to pay massive amounts of taxes to pay for the people 4 years younger than they are. So they probably end up LOSING money since they gain very little and lose a lot. To pay the taxes, people will spend less, the demand curve shifts to the left. When demand shifts to the left, supply also shifts to the left. The market would essentially drop because people won't have any money to spend on anything but college.

Thank You for this debate, I disagree with your statement. Just because 1 student doesn't show the interest in learning it does not mean it effects the entire classroom. Teachers usually will have accommodations for those who are excelling in class, and for those who are struggling. I also would like the brief that Private schools charge parents heavily on tutiton . Most parents are hit with numerous fees that only a high class family can afford. Why? because private schools must generate their own funding, which typically comes from a variety of sources: tuition; private grants; and fundraising from parents, alumni, and other community members. Most public schools have programs these days like International Baccalaureate, which are designed for academically gifted schools. So parents don't have to send their kids to Private schools, because public schools already offer many different programs.

There are a few problems with my opponent's rebuttals: First off, Con mischaracterizes what's said about supply, demand, and price by purely focusing on the product market. He doesn't consider the labor market side of the equation which requires sustainability. There's no reason to believe that just because prices go down in one sector of the economy that wages will necessarily sustain in that same sector. This is especially in a society with free trade and free labor where not only can wages become skewed between sectors, but wages can also become skewed from domestic, towards foreign, labor supply. This is even more so in a debt, service, consumer economy where the international balance of payments has more expenses than revenues. A debt, service, consumer economy also discourages the long-term thinking required to appreciate what engineers do. Instead, people literally borrow money in order to live in the moment, and take engineering for granted. A classic example I give about this is how engineers don't make as much as Hollywood celebrities, especially despite how engineers design the very information, transportation, and energy technology used to catalyze consumption of film, music, television, and other forms of media. They also don't make as much as professional athletes whether in basketball, baseball, football, or elsewhere (and I'm assuming this is so blatantly obvious that it doesn't need citation). On the other hand, there's also what I call the "nerd paradox" in how the unmitigated exercise of engineering today inhibits the cultivation of engineering tomorrow. For example, let us say engineers design mp3 players. These mp3 players get purchased by students in school who engage in a popularity contest by consuming pop culture. In turn, serious proto-engineering personalities who lack effective language arts skills become socially alienated. One, the exhibition of pop culture via mp3 players is distracting in itself. Two, by being immersed in incompatible culture, proto-engineering personalities lack the rejuvenation required to "sharpen the saw" in their studies to avoid burnout. This can also take place in public and private schools alike; I'm not sure where Con came away with the impression that I said education is based on a free market. In fact, I agree with him about the student loan crisis, but he hasn't explained how that connects to the topic at hand. While it is possible for engineering careers to be lucrative, engineering graduates still need to network into the workforce. In fact, Russell Kirk and Harold Innis had much to say about the information technology revolution not being all that it's cracked up to be in terms of being self-destructive. That is because IT consumption discourages long-term thinking, the production of IT becomes unsustainable. Furthermore, the increasingly frustrated attitudes of engineers from society being filled with idiots leads to an alienating communication style that inhibits instruction to potential future generations of engineers: http://www.kirkcenter.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Lastly, in building off what I said about networking into the workforce and Con's rebuttal of my "nerd theory", Con's position (on Democrats) is just flat out wrong: http://www.salon.com... While I do agree that American cultivation of engineering is lacking, this is because of unmitigated consuming patterns as previously described. Without language arts, engineering will be used to indulge in hedonist, libertine, unsustainable pop culture instead. Interest in engineering will remain a will-o'-the-wisp. In fact, Korean Cheabol and Japanese Keiretsu (which we outsource to) are two examples of success from organically cultured conglomerates. On the other hand, China and India are notorious for reverse engineering.

Since my opponent has forfeited the final round, I have nothing else to say, refute, or add. I will close with a statement I whole heartedly believe.All children should have the right to a quality education regardless of circumstance.

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.

It is an obvious fact that the United States has a problem with mass shooting, and the root problem of this is the loopholes that are in the systems to buy a firearm. It is too easy for people to pass a background check, and even at certain gun shows you would not even need to go through a background check. One things that would help this problem would better background checks. Even though that would help, people who want to cause a mass shooting will still be able to acquire a firearm (ex. taking a firearm from a family member or a friend). A clear solution to this problem is to ban certain kinds of guns. This does work, and a clear example of this is how much it worked when Australia did it in 1996. They did a buy back system where the government would pay you to give your guns in. After doing this the homicide rate dropped by about 42%, and its firearm suicide rates dropped by 57%. I am not stating that this would solve all of the problems surrounding guns, but it would help it immensely. I think that if America followed in Australia's footsteps than student won't have to fear going into the school without being shot to death. Source for information: https://www.vox.com...

Based on our former debate, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT I WOULD OBJECT severely to a pedophile DOING ANYTHING BEYOND A PRISON CELL or MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE...DEATH, it would be ludicrous. I am speaking of MISDEMEANOR CHARGES and I was quite clear on that, there isn't a PEDOPHILE SCENARIO that would be considered MISDEMEANOR. And due to my BELIEF in the SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY (a relatively new concept in law that should have been enacted YEARS ago), I daresay that anyone with such a record COULD walk in front of school. The drug user that has a long criminal record or BACKGROUND of drug abuse and use certainly should not become a pharmacy technician, that too would be ludicrous. A drug abuser is fairly obvious, when quizzed on his/her last ten years it's difficult to insert, "Well I've been in treatment for the last year. I was a drug addict for nine years prior to treatment," which if manually checked is easily determined. Fortunately we can avoid that because as I type this ANY criminal offense would eliminate any sort of attempt to secure that type of employment. I am speaking of general misdemeanors. Of course I believe that any employer that makes the effort can be aware of an individuals past, but I do not believe that it should be used against that individual nor based solely on anyone's criminal record with all of it's inaccuracies and such. It's simple enough to determine if any individual is skilled to meet the demands of the job, POST that being judged, I believe that a past has an explanation, especially a past that occurred years ago. EMPLOYERS USE TO DO MANUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, this has taken it's place. However if MANUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS were still performed, one would know quickly if the person would be a desired employee. The entire principal of our corrections system is rehabilitation, if we accept that an individual has served his/her debt to society by release of whatever sentence he/she received, then why in the world would I want to continue to support him/her once released? I have to believe that rehabilitation works and that most people are good, that most people want to better their lives and because of this one POLICY (not law) a person is stripped of his/her ability to become a productive member of society, thus leaving most no choice but to return to what they may know, CRIME, as well as food stamps and the like. I personally know a TEACHER whom worked for the same school system for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS. His release of service came because of CUT BACKS. Back when he got the job the POLICY to use your criminal background as a condition of employment DID NOT exist. He was first laid off, then totally severed from the local school system SIX years ago and due his charge of "Possession of Less Than An One Half of an Ounce of Marijuana" THIRTY TWO YEARS AGO he has NOT been able to find equal and substantial employment since. His unemployment benefits extinguished four years ago, he is a fine teacher, a Deacon of his church, and was a shining star in the profession, but because of NORTH CAROLINA'S POLICY REGARDING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS he will NEVER work in the profession again, at least not here. He has attempted to expunge the record but HEAR THIS...TO EVERY ONE BUT THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THIS CHARGE WILL NEVER BE SEEN AGAIN, BUT to those AGENCIES, it will always be readily available. And you only get to do this ONE TIME in your life, expunge a record. It is unlikely that ANYONE would offer reference to any background that they may or may not have had, but truth is this, NO ONE CAN CHANGE ANY COMPANY'S POLICY REGARDING THIS ACT, but government can mandate that a criminal history that falls into certain guidelines NOT BE CONSIDERED, pedophiles excluded :) If employers are going to let a criminal background check be the be all in employment, then our welfare lines will get longer and hostility will continue to rein over us. As far as the safety of our communities, tell me young man, when do you think it would be good time to begin mandating backgrounds on our neighbors, after all a person MUST have a place to live.

I think the Federal Reserve should be abolished, but this debate is just to get 3 debates. It's still going to be a legitimate debate though. So, I will take the side of the brain dead bank-monger while you take the side of anyone with half a brain.

So I assume that what you are telling me is that you are Pro for allowing students to sell in school. Why should students sell in school? They are there to learn. With enough of our students slacking off in schools (compared to Asia and Europe), why should students have one more distraction to prevent them from learning correctly? Now to address your points: Students can learn about both of those in Business class or a Personal Finance class. Over to your Pro

To clarify, this is the LD debate topic for September and October of 2009. Both debaters shall be debating "resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. " This debate shall follow a slightly altered LD format. R1 is for introductions and no arguments. In R2-4, both sides will present cases, starting with Neg. The structure should follow: R1: Introductions R2: NC; AC/AR R3: NR; 2AR R4: 2NR; 3AR Both sides should present LD cases and argue in the spirit of LD (no plans/counterplans etc. ). This means that Aff and Neg must both present and argue for value structures in addition to their main body of arguments.


Question: Should Student Loan Obligations Be Simplified for Bankruptcy Discharge?

Personal Bankruptcy Contravenes Libertarian Principles

It appears I may be engaging in a solo debate for the next four rounds. My argument will expand on the premise that bankruptcy is not inherently negative but is, in fact, a positive mechanism that allows for debt forgiveness for individuals who find themselves in financially unmanageable situations. Without this option, they and their families could be perpetually enslaved to their creditors with no means of liberation. While it may seem unjust to creditors, they also have access to this same recourse, ensuring an equitable playing field. Moreover, effective management of debtor control is a fundamental business responsibility, minimizing the financial repercussions of debtor bankruptcy on businesses.

**Question**: Is it morally acceptable to consume meat?

**Documents**: Meat consumption is unethical
The act of consuming meat is fundamentally unethical. When we consume meat, we are directly responsible for the suffering and death of sentient beings. Animals raised for food are often subjected to inhumane living conditions, and their lives are cut short for our consumption. This exploitation of animals for human pleasure is unjustifiable and goes against the principles of compassion and respect for all living creatures. If we truly value the well-being of animals, we must reject the consumption of meat and embrace a plant-based diet.

**Similar Documents**: Meat consumption is morally indefensible

Engaging in meat consumption is inherently morally indefensible. By eating meat, we are complicit in the suffering and premature demise of sentient beings. Creatures bred for food frequently endure deplorable living conditions, and their lives are terminated prematurely to satisfy our dietary preferences. This exploitation of animals for human gratification is unjust and contradicts the values of compassion and reverence for all life forms. To genuinely prioritize the welfare of animals, we must eschew meat consumption and adopt a plant-based lifestyle.

My opponent provides no warrant for the free decision, therefore you can disregard his entire argument. Allowing students to chose their classes essentially disregards the purpose of the university because student's are more likely not to choose any classes rather than choose the ones that will actually help them.

My opponent states that my impact of not having an educated society is "overly dramatic", and she warrants that claim stating previous characters from the revolutionary era did not receive formal schooling. I agree that they were very intellectual in that they led the society into a productive form. i will present two arguments against that argument. 1. Today's economy is not a society in which students can just not be educated, and "lead a productive society". In order to lead a productive society, students MUST receive education that is in STANDARD to the era we are in. Thus, every societal action citizens take in today's society, is evaluated on their background or the extent of their education. We grade everything on how well the person is educated. 2. She warrants it with ancient characters that comes from a different era. This different era was when many of its inhabitants were either, illiterate, or non educated. Carrying my 1st argument above, today's economy is not a society in which we can afford non-education. Counter-Rebuttals 1. She states that there are other ways of identifying failing schools, and she gives examples such as "monitoring graduation rate, grade point average, teacher evaulation, hands on administration, etc.". The point that I am making is that YOU CAN NOT identify failing schools on a OVERALL level. What she is stating is that we can identify failing schools WITHIN schools, and that claim is nonsensical. As i stated in my intial case, we must have a national or state standard of identifying failing schools. I'll give an example. She states that we can identify failing school by looking at grade point average. That is ridiculous because a failing school, can give EVERY STUDENT, smart or not, a perfect grade point average to show the school in a good light. Thus, we need to uphold my standard of "monitoring education level in public high schools", because we NEED a standard to uphold education by. 2. Her 2nd rebuttal of private schools is completely not related to the topic, because the resolution that i am debating is "public high schools students in U.S. ought not be required to pass standardized exit exam to graduate." it specifically states "public high schools". So, as long as you have that down, this argument should be void. 3. My opponent states that we are forcing a test on students in the name of knowledge. She further claims that this discourages education and instead focuses solely on passing the exam. She never STATES A WARRANT in WHY DO THIS discourage education. I'll TURN that argument, arguing that standardized exam actually INCREASE education. The material required to pass the standardized exit exam is needed to real life, and the steps in trying to pass the Standardized exit exam, WILL educate the students. REBUTTALs 1. a.) My opponent states that not everyone performs this test well because they "choke, or panic". Well, although my opponent does not state this, but she is implying that this "panic, or choke" is bad. Well, I will present 2 arguments against it. 1. I will turn this argument stating that "choke, or panic" is GOOD. This is preparing the students for the real life, in which panic and choking will occur frequently. 2. I consider this argument non-unique, and non important. Students have EIGHT TIMES TO PASS the Standardized exit exams!!! So, in a case where a student "choke, or panic", they can always retake it, to pass it. Thus, her argument is mitigated. b.) My opponent states that some individuals are given a "more fair chance" at passing the Standardized exit exam. She further claims that this goes against my value and my criterion. I will present 3 arguments against this. 1. Exend my counter argument saying that this is non-important. As I stated, students have EIGHT TIMES TO PASS THIS EXAM. And the primary purpose is to simply PASS the exam, which is not too hard. The purpose is not the perform the VERY POSSIBLE best possible. Therefore, her argument is mitigated again. 2. This argument is terribly NON UNIQE. This means that her argument of having an "unfair advantage" happens in BOTH AFFIRMATIVE WORLD AND NEGATIVE WORLD. In the AFF world, whether or not we have standardized exi exams, non-fairness will ALWAYS occur. 3. She states this goes against my value and criterion. This claim is completely untrue. She never states any WARRANTS ON WHY it goes against my value and critrion. My value isn't fairness. It's educated society. And in no way, is non-fairness going against the value of educated society. And my criterion is monitoring education level. Once again, non-fairness is not in accordance with my criterion. 2. She states this this will discourage teachers from focusing on other aspects. I will present one arguments She also states that people are intelligent in different ways. Once again, she never states why those with "other intelligence" is important, and she fails to explain why that matters. So far in this round, i have explained what the standardized exit exam is beneficial to overall society, in that it will promote a "overall education." I defined my value of educated society as "MOST of inhabitants". Thus, if as the Negative says, we take away the standardized exam, we are not giving education to the MAJORITY and "giving education to those that has intelligence that is beyond what is examined on exam" 3. She states that as long as grade or class performance shows considerable knowledge, they should be given an alternative to graduate. I will present 2 arguments 1. If they do show a considerable knowledge, there's no reason to ASSUME that these students will fail the exam. If they DO SHOW a considerable knowledge, then they should def. pass the exam, because the exam is completely reasonable, in which it tests the students ON BASIC KNOWLEDGE. 2. She states that college require passing or taking several entrance exams like SAT. She never explains WHY SAT should be valued over Standardized exam, nor does she actually state why material on SAT is more beneficial to overall society. 3. Then she states that this gives a choice to students. This debate is not argued over choice of the students. An exam MUST be emplaced to correctly give A DIPLOMA and right to graduate, evaulating them on an external form of evaluation, which is the standardized exit exam. 4. My opponent states that the exam is not useful. 1. She once again, mishandles my value. Whether or not "military training students" will go in another direction does not impact my value. 2. The studies are misinterpreted, because it doesnt correctly display ALL states, nor does it state HOW it was conducted. 3. As i stated, THE STANDARDIZED EXAM IS NECCERAY TO EVALUATE STUDENTS ON WHETHER THEY DESERVE THE EXAM OR NOT. WE NEED THIS EXAM TO EVALUATE THE STUDENTS. It's a mean of a "evaluation" She misinterpreted this, because she wasn't looking at my case enough. So, as long as you have this down, all her arguments on whether or not "material" is important is non-topical. 5 She states that this will give unncessary money. I present ONE IMPORTANT argument. 1. This doesn't matter, becaue the government has an obligation to provide education to the students. Education outweighs Cost benefits. Education is the most important. 6. She states that if students aren't interested, they shouldnt have to focus on learning this material. I give two argument 1. Once again, refer back to my other rebuttals in which that material on standardized exit exam is important and it is needed to real life. 2. This exam is a method of evaluation on whether or not students are READY for the real life. Thus, you should definitely negate because my opponent argument doesn't meet my value or criterion, and she doesn't even HAVE a value or a value criterion, so all her impacts impact to nothing. She has no grounds to state arguments.

no they should not my brother could not read until grade three for example because he had dyslexia and he would have failed grades 1 and 2 if this was true

My opponent brings up some good points as solutions for children who are clearly a drain on the public education system. Below I will quote my opponent's proposed solution and refute it. I also assume my opponent is talking about American public school as when one looks at his profile it says he is from the U.S. I would also like to wish my opponent the best of luck on his first debate. My opponent's resolution of which he is defending. "The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military." I accept my opponent's definition of questionable students. My opponent says that if a student does not take school seriously then putting them in the military and consequently giving them a stake in this nation's national security will fix the problem. //"Such students are a liability to other students who wish to further themselves but are being held back. By sending them off to the Military they can be taught discipline and skills according to the job they get in service."// My opponent believes that giving a problem child a stake in the U.S. military, which is publicly funded just like the public school system, will somehow take the burden off of the American taxpayer. Taxpayers already pay over 655 billion dollars every year on the military budget not including veteran benefits or the "war on terror"[1] My opponent has yet to show why taking troubled children out of the educational system and giving them a stake in national security will solve anything. [1]http://www.warresisters.org...

I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess. So you propose that we lower the bar for licensing, protect doctors more from lawsuits, and decrease gov't regulation to lower costs. I could possibly consider going along with this, but I don't know if the rest of the country would - an interesting subject for new debate. I see now what Republicans mean by "destroying the best healthcare system in the world". Kind of like that flashy german car you were talking about, they don't want to see the changes you are proposing take effect. Possibly, the changes you are proposing WOULD take effect if we did switch over to a socialized medical system. They would be forced to. Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system? The best one in the world, that's so good that more and more people can't even afford to use it? So how do we pay for the obvious rises in health care costs that would be accrued to actually take care of the physical health of our citizens? I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about? Or wait, I've got an even better idea! You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens! Let's see here... 50 Billion dollars per year for the war on drugs... The WoD doesn't due a scrap of good for anyone, and the money we spend on imprisoning all the non-violent drug offenders will save us even more! Let's see here, it costs as much as a harvard college education per year to keep each drug offender in prison. We have more people in jail, percentage-wise and absolute number-wise than any other country, so we probably have a few people to spare. - 249,400 drug offenders in federal prisons(2006) - 93,751 drug offenders in state prisons(2006) - $19,002 per year for each one - It costs over 6 and a half billion dollars to keep drug offenders in prisons each year, and this does not take into account jails at all. The war on terror, which also isn't doing anybody any good, costs 260 billion per year. With 317 Billion dollars of extra revenue each year, we ought to be able to keep our health care system working just fine. And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically! While you're considering answering the questions I posed to you in round 2, consider 1 more question as well: What are the wacky liberal policies you would rather get rid of to pay for a better health care system?

No. You go to school to learn. Why waste the mind that God gave you. Got to school, graduate or get you GED and goo to college for chits and giggles. I believe it is a sin to waste the mingd God gave you and will take my own advice.

All points extended. This concludes my part of the debate. I now ask the voters, in the sense that I have debated with no worry of rebuttals and nothing to stand against my arguments except two forfeits, that you vote for me. I also open up my arms to my opponent in hopes that they will use the opportunity to post their arguments. I'm very interested in seeing how they were, or would prove that free college is a good idea. At this point I have nothing further to say.

I accept. http://www.youtube.com...I also request that Pro clarifies who we are debating it is good, or bad, to; the student, parents of the student, the teacher, society or the government?

I will start off with the following 3 questions. 1. Is it fair that insured Americans should pay for an increase medical costs in a hospital to pay for the treatment of uninsured Americans? 2. Is it fair to say that guaranteeing universal health care may bolster entrepreneurship, and encourage job growth? 3. Is it accurate to claim that medical costs contribute to 62.1% of American bankruptcies with 78% of people that filed for bankruptcy had medical insurance?

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.


Question: Should there be a Simplified Process for Discharging Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy?

Student Loan Debt and Bankruptcy Discharge
I appreciate Evolution078 for bringing up this topic. ==Burden of Proof== As the one who initiated the discussion, my opponent must prove why making student loan debt easier to discharge in bankruptcy is problematic. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's "contention"--- My opponent appears to propose a plan where all parents should contribute $24,000 annually to their child's college tuition. However, there are several issues with this proposal: 1. Many low-income families live paycheck to paycheck and cannot save $96,000 per child. [1] 2. This amount is still insufficient. For instance, attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year. [2] Even if parents contributed $24,000 annually, their child would still need a student loan of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent argues that without financial aid, students are forced to join the military or attend community college--- He neglects to mention student loans, which are provided at low interest rates and are tax-deductible. [3] Student loans offer the best borrowing terms available. ---Con's "arguments"--- 1) My opponent provides a hypothetical example of a low-income family earning around $25,000 per year. He calculates that after housing and food expenses for a family of two, they would have roughly $7,500 left for college savings. However, he overlooks payroll taxes of $1,500 per year, transportation costs of $2,500 per year, and clothing expenses of $1,250 per year. [4] [5] Assuming the employer provides health insurance, the family would pay $1,500 per year for premiums. [6] Additionally, he ignores the high cost of raising a child, which is about $3,500 per year. [7] After accounting for these expenses, the family would be $3,000 in debt annually. By the time their adopted child turns 18, they would owe $54,000 in debt. Conclusion: This family cannot afford to pay for college tuition. Student loans would be necessary if their child wishes to attend college. A) My opponent claims that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the country. The poorest states have median incomes closer to the low-income

Since my opponent has forfeited the final round, I have nothing else to say, refute, or add. I will close with a statement I whole heartedly believe.All children should have the right to a quality education regardless of circumstance.

This is exactly how they want you to think. You have become a slave to money and you think the only way to be successful is by going to school and having a high degree. Your house and your car, you will have to spend at least 25 years of your life to get them, becomes if you buy a cheap car it will be done with in 5 years, as for the house, the cheapest apartments cost over 600 $ and that is if you live alone. Some people have never been to school and they have become billionaires. The whole system is made to trick you. School is only a trap. As for my goals, one of them would be to prove to people like you that you are wasting your childhood.

(Extended Arguments) and just for the viewers information when I said America learning discipline I meant how America is behind in education already.

First of all, allow me to thank you for taking up my challenge in a thoughtful, intelligent, and eminently debatable way. It is always gratifying to have a good opponent. Now, to the issue at hand. I shall respond to your arguments in the order in which you presented them, with the exception of your major point (no proven effectiveness of a personal finance class), which I shall address last. 1)"You cannot prove that people would take this class seriously, learn from it, or even use its teachings to help themselves." I agree completely. Without extensive research, it is impossible to PROVE most if not all claims satisfactorily. I will, however, present some logical arguments. Firstly, the classes you listed that students supposedly forget and do not apply to their real lives (namely Calculus and Spanish) are neither as pervasive nor as basic as finance. Most of us will likely go our entire lives without having to find a derivative or apply the Pythagorean Identity outside of school. Similarly, living in a society that accepts English as a primary language in most instances, Spanish is not a necessity. Everyone will have to pay bills. So who is to say that they will not retain the teachings of a necessary class as they do not retain those of a class that relys on principles not necessarily applicable to everyday life? I am sure that mathematicians still understand Calculus, because they must. And we all must understand personal finance. 2) This is listed under your first point, but I shall address it separately. You said, "we already have mandatory classes (health) and programs like D.A.R.E. that do little to nothing to prevent people from acting a certain way or engaging in risky behavior." If you require proof for my previous points, then I shall do the same. Is this opinion or fact? Who is to say that Health and D.A.R.E. do not prevent risky behavior? If we removed them, isn't it completely possible that the said problems would worsen? There is simply no evidence that they don't work. 3)Next, you stated "don't make [the class] MANDATORY. Doing so might interrupt current school systems or high school curriculums." You went on to say that there are already mandatory classes that teach similar concepts. To begin, I should say that I do go to a private Catholic school, and thus may have a different view of a modern American education, but I also have solid friendships with people who go to a variety of public schools in the area. And I have never heard of a Macro Economics requirement. What I have heard of is a requirement for a certain number of practical classes, such as Welding, Home Ec, or Computer Applications. In many schools, including my own, Personal Finance is offered as an elective to fill that requirement. Therefore, the change in the system would be slight: say two credits of practical classes were required. Further require one of those to be a personal finance class, the other an elective of choice. That does not disrupt the curriculum, but rather solidifies it. 4)"We are all different and come from different financial backgrounds... how can a class incorporate aqequate diversity (while still functioning correctly) to attend to each students unique situation where different strategies may be necessary?" In the resolution, it was never stated that I was mandating one curriculum; rather, I am mandating one class, the content of which (within the obvious limits) to be decided by the teachers and administration at each school. Furthermore, isn't this how school normally functions? We all have different intelligence levels and learning styles, but there have been schools that have successfully adapted without fracturing into a multitude of individualized classes. Broad concepts (such as how to balance a checkbook), are applicable no matter a person's tax bracket. 5)"And on a final note, our country has been in economic crisis in the past, and somehow we have always found a way to overcome it WITHOUT mandating this type of class." I will address this in conjunction with your first point, that "you cannot prove that requiring a Personal Finance class in high school would change [the economic crisis]." Certainly, there have been recessions in the past, and we have overcome. Without a Personal Finance Class. But this does not mean that the government did not pass mandates to help us overcome. For my evidence, I cite The Great Depression. Often, President Herbert Hoover is criticized because of his lack of action during the beginning (and, to a degree, middle) of The Great Depression. His personal philosophy of rugged individualism impeded a move toward government involvement. Those laws that he did pass were weak and ineffectual. Then came Franklin Delano Roosevelt. What is remembered about his inaugural speech is his famous quote "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." What people don't remember is that FDR threatened to take dictatorial power if Congress did not comply with his wishes. This lead to unprecendented Congressional cooperation during the first 100 days of his tenure, during which time 15 bills were passed. These bills included the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act), which authorized the government to do everything from stimulate the economy to create codes of business. This was a mandate with a vengeance, designed to stop irresponsible business practices. And the result? Both the GDP and employment rose. So, mandates have been effectual in the past. Perhaps they were not "this type of class", but history makes it clear that mandates are required. Furthermore, you may well argue that a strictly defined law is different than a nebulous class, and you would be right. But take then a more similar situation: FDR's Fireside Chats. The President took the time to sit down and talk to (i.e. teach) the American people about the problems in the economy. He implored them not to withdraw their money from banks. And bank deposits rose. FDR took a counterintuitive measure (after all, it was the closure of banks and subsequent loss of the populace's deposits that caused the Depression to spiral out of control in the first place), with mostly long-term results and little immediate appeal, and applied it. People listened, they complied, and the results were enormously beneficial. Teaching, even when not mandatory, has worked in the past. When the problem and the solution are clearly explained, the results are tangible. Finally, I would like to close by saying that with the current economic situation, any chance of relief should be explored. As I stated before, foreclosures are a driving force behind the current recession. I also, however, mentioned consumer spending power, or retail sales. That is 70% of our economy, and thus a major concern. If Americans continue to be irresponsible with their money, and can no longer buy the goods that provide the foundation for nearly our entire economy, than the results will be disastrous. And retail sales have suddenly, and unexpectedly, declined. Foreclosures may have started it, but I for one will be watching Walmart's profits. I have shown that a class (in effect if not in name) has worked before, and it is imperative that we implement any measures that might work now. Already, the dollar is declining. Deficits are growing. And the Federal Reserve Board has twice cut interest rates in recent weeks. That is a measure to prevent a depression. And it (so far) hasn't had tangible results. We need this class, and anything else that will do an ounce of good.

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.

Thanks again to Logic_on_rails. Let’s make this short and sweet. First point: Pro , The Instigator of this debate, determined his resolution and the rules for this debate. Pro has attacked me for not rebutting his arguments in my Second Round. Readers will recall the rules, as provided by Pro. Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, Resolution / Model Outline and Definitions Round 2: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals (see below on this) Round 3: New Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments) It is my opinion that in the spirit of debate we should follow the rules set by the instigator, criticizing me for not attacking his round two arguments with my round two arguments (which is clearly outlawed by the instigator) is not very sporting and is an outright misinterpretation of his own rules. This is likely an attempt to distract readers from my argument and its merits and cast doubt among readers as to the competency and validity of my arguments. Know this, my Burden of Proof is ONLY to prove that the Benefits of maintaining the status quo with regard to the current school day/homework model sufficiently outweigh the benefits of extending the school day and simultaneously decreasing homework assigned. I need not refute every one of pro’s arguments ( My arguments in Round Two were meant simply to show the merits of Homework and the potential consequences of adding time to the school day. With regard to Pro’s rebuttal of my arguments: Pro’s argument and rebuttal seems much more concerned with my inability to attack him and his policies than with stressing the merits of his own. Consider some of the guidelines written by Pro: Dropped arguments are not concessions. Logistics, on the school level, is not meant to be a crucial issue in this debate. The greatest overall good resulting from these policies is to be preferred when judging. School Day: Pro has attacked my evidence and claims regarding length of school day. He has stated several times that logistics are not the primary concern of this debate, yet he continues to retreat to the intricately laid-out School day model, supporting his claims and attacking mine by arguing logistics. It is not necessary to get bogged down in major details in this debate. Readers are challenged to consider the implications worldwide of imposing extra school hours, no matter how they are spent. On Pro’s rebuttal of my ‘Merits of Homework’ argument: Homework done at school IS NOT HOMEWORK, IT IS BY DEFINITION SHOOLWORK. It does not make sense for Pro to argue that we should reduce homework yet imply that homework can still be assigned as schoolwork. This is a waste of resources and is largely impractical. On that note, we will quickly address some additional arguments. Feasibility: School Systems in many parts of the world, including the United States of America, struggle to fund their departments and their staff as is. With a nominal increase of even one hour to the School Day, we would see Teachers laid-off because School Boards could not afford to maintain their already meager budgets with an increase of roughly 5 to 6 additional man-hours paid per employee. This would send hourly employees into overtime and would add additional unpaid work hours to salaried professors’ already gruesome worked hours vs. pay ratio. Teachers will become increasingly dis-satisfied with their work and will either voluntarily leave the workforce in favor of other jobs or will provide a lower standard of service to students or their performance will suffer because of the exhaustion of an increased workload on already poor salary. Also: More teachers cannot be hired because of budget constraints, which means that Pro’s argument regarding the benefit of School Teachers assisting with ‘homework’ (school work) means an unreasonable student/teacher ratio in most schools. (Not Plausible) It is my hope that readers will consider the simplicity of this debate. My burden of proof is not to disprove that school is good, it is only to prove that maintaining the status quo is better than making an unreasonable and less than pragmatic change. Homework offers benefits as does the school day at its current length. Neither need be changed.

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.

I am sorry my arguments were stupid is was my first debate on this site but I will try my best to refute your arguments. 1.Popular/Generates Revenue First of all books do not generate money for the goverment therefore it can not lower debt. If anything these types of books would generate revenue for the authors and publishers of the book. So this is a false accusation. This is actually all i can refute and i await to see the results.

I never asserted that I knew for a fact that Williams did not understand the terms of the contract but simply that due to the complex language within the contract she may not have been able to fully understand them and may have signed the contract not knowing or understanding the full meaning of all the terms. She may not have fully known what some of the terms within the contract meant and could have signed it unknowingly which meant that she did not really give consent. If she had known the real meaning she would not have given her consent. You say that according to Dworkin if there is no fraud then the person cannot later relieve himself from the burden. What is fraud and how is it determined? There are other things that determine unconsionibility besides fraud. Unconsionability can be determined by absence of meaningful choice (512.5.1). Another way is through lack of consent to terms along with unfair contractual contractual terms (513.1.1). How is this not fraud? Non-fraudulent misrepresentation is the negligent or innocent misrepresentation by one party to a contract or to agree to terms to which the party would not have agreed had the person known the truth. (504.5.1) non-fraudulent misrepresentation has the same elements of fraudulent misrepresentation (504.5.2). According to Lynn Berat, "a party who has been persuaded by misrepresentation to enter into a contract or to accept terms to which he or she otherwise would not have agreed is entitled to relief if the representation was intentional, negligent, or innocent," (503.5.3). What about exploitive contracts? The dissenting opinion Circuit Judge, Danaher stated that Congress needed to establish legislation to protect against such exploitive contracts as the one presently before the court (513.4.2). This indicates that there was evidence of exploitation on the part of the Furniture Company in some way. We cannot just dismiss the fact that the Walker-Thomas contract had records of William"s financial situation, the fact that she had seven children and her social worker"s name on the back of the contract. Why collect this information if they do not turn down customers? Although there is risk the furniture company could have chosen to use this information to work out a better contract for Williams instead of repossessing her items. The total initial value of all the items the Williams purchased came up to $1,800.00 but the total she would be paying the store to gain the title of the items was $14,000.00. If this is not exploitive or unfair then what is? You say that the stereo was not a necessity for her but people differ in judgments about what is necessity and luxury. What might be considered luxurious to one person might be a necessity for others (513.6.1). Do you think that there should be limitations on the spending of relief funds? A stereo set might not seem like a necessity for some but for others it could be their only way of hearing the news in the morning, or hearing weather alerts and government warnings.

Because I believe that education should not be subjected to government control, I affirm today's resolution: "Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized test exams to graduate." The value for the round is education, because it is implicitly stated within the context of the resolution. The criterion is prevention of government monopoly, which means to restrict total government control of schools as much as possible. Contention One: The current government monopoly in the public school system is ruining education. The United States government's control of the public school system is extraordinarily strong. The state governments run public schools; after all, they are the ones who collect the tax dollars to fund such schools. John Stossel, former co-host of 20/20, 1 elaborates, "This should come as no surprise once you remember that public education in the U.S. is a government monopoly. Families send their kids to schools the government chooses. If you don't like your public school? Tough. If the school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it is good or bad." This puts students and parents in a troubling dilemma. No matter what problems the school they are sending their kids to may have, they must send their student to that school; the government orders them to do so. Not attending the school gives the child the label of "truant." This enforced education is bad, but it's not anywhere as bad as the problems with the schools themselves. Sub-Point One: Government schools fail to give the students a good education. Often times, student laziness and teacher incompetence are cited as the cause of low test scores and graduation rates. However, it's pretty hard to believe that all across the nation every teacher and student is being lazy. The problem with public schools is not the teachers or administrators: it's the government. John Stossel 2 reports, "I agree. It's the schools. At the age of ten, students from twenty-five countries take the same test and American kids place eighth, well above the international average. But by age fifteen, when students from forty countries are tested, the Americans place twenty-fifth, well below the international average (see chart, page 109). In other words, the longer American kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from much poorer, less-developed countries, like Korea and Poland, which spend much less on education than the United States." For a country so advanced, the U.S.'s numbers shouldn't be so low. The U.S. shouldn't have to deal with an illiterate population of 27 million , but it does. However, this is because of the government's strict control over the schools. The government decides exactly how education runs, and this monopoly is making the students pay for it. Mark Harrison of the CATO Institute writes, "The U.S. public school monopoly is guilty of seven deadly sins: It wastes resources, discourages good teaching, inhibits parental involvement, suppresses information, stifles innovation, creates conflict and harms the poor. Just as the seven deadly sins correspond to weaknesses in human nature, the sins of public education are inherent in the nature of the existing system -- that it is controlled, operated and funded by government. The politicians and bureaucrats who control government-owned schools do not have the strong incentives or the information necessary to satisfy consumers, control costs, innovate or encourage good teaching." Sub-Point Two: The government will not change the way it operates public schools currently. Because the U.S. government is a monopoly, it will not so easily change the way it runs its schools. The government thus leaves its students in a place where they cannot remedy the situation. John Stossel 3 furthers, "Monopolies don't innovate. Why does the school year run from September to June? Because the public schools still use the farm calendar as a model of when kids should be in school. In 1830, kids needed the summer off to plant and weed the crops. Andrew Coulson, author of Market Education, points out, "Of course, we're no longer an agrarian society and so demands for schooling have changed, but public schools are not an organization that is responsive to consumer demand." No kidding. Some parents would prefer year-round schools. Today less than two percent of families get their incomes from farming. Has the education system responded? No." Not only is the problem that the U.S. government's monopolistic control is blind to innovation, but the officials in the government who run the schools are not held truly accountable. John Stossel 4 writes, "Accountability? The head of a government monopoly has the nerve to talk about accountability? Accountability is why private schools perform better. Every day they are held accountable by parents, and if they fail the kids, the school administrators lose their jobs. Government schools are accountable only to politicians. It's why almost no school is ever closed, no matter how bad it is. No one loses his job when the kids fail. It's not news that government monopolies perform poorly. The fall of the Soviet Union is not a secret. Why would we think a monopoly would work for schools?" Contention Two: Exit exams strengthen government control on schools and thus only more problems will be caused for these schools. The exit exams that are used in the United States are government mandated and created. These tests are not the mastermind of a group of educators; these exams are merely another stringent requirement the state creates for its students. Thus, requiring students to take an exit exam to graduate only strengthens the government's control of public schools; as evidenced my previous contention, more government control is the last thing that these schools need. Exit exams are only a small part of a bigger system. However, if that bigger system is bad and is causing students not to learn, then it is very obvious that using these exit exams upon students actually harms education. These exams are not a step forward for students; they are in fact another step back into monopolistic control of government schools. These standardized test exams, much like the governmental system they are under, are also largely ineffective. John Robert Warren and Eric Grodsky of the University of Minnesota report: "This same basic pattern of exit exam policy evolution has played out in a number of states. States begin by setting moderate to high standards and then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars designing exit exams that purport to hold students to these standards. In short order, however, high failure rates and much-publicized legal challenges built on inequities in states' education systems test the political will of policymakers to hold students to these standards. In the end, politics wins out over principle and the exit exam, the passing threshold, or both are altered to increase the share of students that passes the exam. In the end, most states set the bar for passing exit exams at a point that is too low to make any real difference for academic achievement or workplace preparedness but just high enough to prevent a modest number of would-be graduates from obtaining diplomas."


Question: Should there be a Simplification of the Process for Discharging Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy?

The concept of personal bankruptcy as a means to alleviate unsecured debt is a valid one. Credit card debts are considered unsecured because they are not backed by any collateral. Many individuals are raised with the belief that failing to repay a loan is akin to theft, but this does not apply to credit card debt for two reasons: first, the money "borrowed" from a credit card is essentially created by the bank out of nothing, meaning that any repayment is pure profit for the bank; and second, the exorbitant interest rates of 20% or higher can be seen as exploitative, especially when compared to the 1% interest offered on savings accounts. The only real downside to declaring bankruptcy is the mark it leaves on one's record, but this is not as detrimental as it might seem, as after seven years it becomes largely irrelevant.

For college students with student loan debt, bankruptcy does not provide relief, but one can use credit cards to pay off these loans. Similarly, if you owe money to the IRS, bankruptcy will not clear this debt, but you can use credit cards to settle your tax liabilities. If you have a significant amount of debt, say $50,000 in student loans or IRS debt, it would be simple to pay these off with credit cards and then declare bankruptcy. Starting fresh with no debt is preferable to being burdened with a $50,000 deficit. If bankruptcy is not an option, it would take 20 years to pay off the debt, leaving you at zero; with bankruptcy, you could save money and potentially be in a positive financial position due to interest earned.

Even for those without college or IRS debt, it can be worth using the $50,000 to purchase a new car, travel, or acquire new clothes and electronics. Upon declaring bankruptcy, these items cannot be seized. The car should last seven years, eliminating the need for another car loan. Instead of spending two decades repaying the debt, you can start with a clean slate, $50,000 richer in possessions, and begin saving money instead of repaying loans. Not only is this a wise decision, but it would be irrational not to take advantage of this opportunity. You receive $50,000 worth of goods and services in exchange for a temporary mark on your record that becomes insignificant after seven years. It's a no-brainer!

If a student knows what they want to do when they grow up (IE;teacher) they should have schedules more based towards helping them. For example Algebra will not be required if a student wants to be a lifeguard when they grow up. or a student will not need Gym for if they want to be a librarian. They need to become more self dependent and be able to make the right choices. If you know what you want to do when you finish school you should set up your schedule. For example someone who wants to be an athlete should have multiple gym classes. or someone who wants to be an artist should have multiple art classes and less science classes.

The topic simply means that people should have a basic understanding of economics and basic proficiency in financial literacy before being able to exercise voting and union powers. I am not going to argue about whether or not such an option is implementable, but only whether or not it should. By "basic proficiency" I mean that people should know how to compound interest, what government debt and deficit is, how a bank works, how a credit card works, etc. Things we will encounter in our daily lives as well as economics 101. DISCLAIMER: I am not challenging human rights. I simply believe that there are problems in the current US system. What these flaws are, I am not certain. I believe some discussion is merited in an attempt to find these flaws and amend them. Hopefully this debate will bring out some new ideas. First round is acceptance. Second round is opening argument. Third round is rebuttal and conclusion. I look forward to a civil debate.

Hello everyone it's been awhile hasn't it....don't think any of you remember me. Any way I think my opponent for making this an LD debate and wish him luck in further rounds. Lets get started I affirm the resolution Resolved: Public High School students in the United States ought not to be required to pass Standardize Exams to graduate. Before we start this debate I would like to define the following: Required: By necessity or law Public High School: A secondary school in the United States supported by public funds and providing free education for children of a community or district. Standardize Exit Exams a test a student may be required to take in high school in order to show proficiency in a class or to exhibit basic proficiency in math, English, Science and other core subjects to gain a high school diploma. Graduate: To be granted an academic degree or diploma Moving on to my value for this round, I will be using that of Societal Progress. By having a Standardize test that is supposed to measure the quality of education be flawed, which I will further elaborate in my case, and do more harm than good does not help education the slightest bit and adds no value to high school diplomas that students have to take standardize test to achieve. Students are walking away with diplomas in hands but with limited knowledge. This is because the tests are extremely easy and can be lowered to the states liking which awards the school and not the students. If we were to get rid of Exit exams we would have students actually walking away with valued diplomas that can actually contribute to society bettering it as a whole than those who have none. For my criterion I will be using that of Pragmatism. In an ideal world we would have just one national Standardize Test so that the states wouldn't have control over them so the couldn't fluctuate the bar to make it unchallenging and extremely easy. But unfortunately we don't and unfortunately they do. There are studies showing that Exit Exams harm students and teach them nothing. So if we were to be pragmatic about this we would see that these are not working and not helping society progress and need to be rid off. Con 1: Exit Exams are flawed and do more harm than good to students. Even though students are passing Exit exams, according to the National Center for Education Statistics 40% of college students are taking remedial education. Texas colleges reported in-state high school graduates needed more, not less, remedial classes after high-stakes testing was introduced. Also the success of the schools is dependent on the performance of the students. The federal funds are given only to those schools that perform well, which adds an incredible amount of pressure on public schools to constantly evaluate their performance or fluctuate the bar that has to be passed. What this leads to is an increase in school dropouts. Harvard University found that students in the bottom 10% of achievement were 33% more likely to drop out of school in states with graduation test. The National Research Council found that low-performing high school students who are held back do less well academically, are much worse off socially, and are far likelier to drop out than equally weak students who are promoted. What is happening here is that students who are passing exit exams are going on to college but needing remedial courses, which defeats the purpose of them in the first place. What they are supposed to do is filter out students who know what is required to from those who don't but it still passes those who don't know because the states have the bar so lowered that the students don't learn anything and need remedial classes. All it's really doing is raising the dropout rates and hurting their education. Being pragmatic about this and getting rid of them would set a realistic bar for students to pass and not have as much pressure on them therefore having more students walking away with diplomas to help contribute and progress society. Con 2: Do to Exit Exams, curriculum flexibility is limited. The state requires teachers to teach a curriculum that is related to the test. This leaves a very narrow opportunity to teach non-related test material. Because the test are so basic and are only multiple choice they don't make the students analyze situations, think critically nor do they make them conduct research which are important attributes, according to the National Research Council, that students need in college. Also Susan Brooks-Young reports that every teacher expresses frustration about no having time to allow students to explore and create their own meaning through project base learned activities. As a result the joy of learning and teaching has been significantly diminished what the exit exams are doing is getting rid of the most important skills that a student needs in college. They lower the bar so low that anyone, without the knowledge thy need, can be able to pass it. If we were to remove exit exams teachers can teach the skills that are required for college and help society progress. I will now end Round 1 and pass it over to my opponent

In a debate, we are tasked with more than stating an opinion. You must support your opinion with your own logical reasoning and in the face of rebuttals from your opponent. Opinion or not, you have chosen to disregard my arguments or even respond to me thru two rounds. Your closing also failed to support your opinion as you have not substantiated any of these claims by citing reliable sources. As such I will rest my case on your lack of compelling evidence and my arguments from round one.

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are lesser? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.

My opponent states that my impact of not having an educated society is "overly dramatic", and she warrants that claim stating previous characters from the revolutionary era did not receive formal schooling. I agree that they were very intellectual in that they led the society into a productive form. i will present two arguments against that argument. 1. Today's economy is not a society in which students can just not be educated, and "lead a productive society". In order to lead a productive society, students MUST receive education that is in STANDARD to the era we are in. Thus, every societal action citizens take in today's society, is evaluated on their background or the extent of their education. We grade everything on how well the person is educated. 2. She warrants it with ancient characters that comes from a different era. This different era was when many of its inhabitants were either, illiterate, or non educated. Carrying my 1st argument above, today's economy is not a society in which we can afford non-education. Counter-Rebuttals 1. She states that there are other ways of identifying failing schools, and she gives examples such as "monitoring graduation rate, grade point average, teacher evaulation, hands on administration, etc.". The point that I am making is that YOU CAN NOT identify failing schools on a OVERALL level. What she is stating is that we can identify failing schools WITHIN schools, and that claim is nonsensical. As i stated in my intial case, we must have a national or state standard of identifying failing schools. I'll give an example. She states that we can identify failing school by looking at grade point average. That is ridiculous because a failing school, can give EVERY STUDENT, smart or not, a perfect grade point average to show the school in a good light. Thus, we need to uphold my standard of "monitoring education level in public high schools", because we NEED a standard to uphold education by. 2. Her 2nd rebuttal of private schools is completely not related to the topic, because the resolution that i am debating is "public high schools students in U.S. ought not be required to pass standardized exit exam to graduate." it specifically states "public high schools". So, as long as you have that down, this argument should be void. 3. My opponent states that we are forcing a test on students in the name of knowledge. She further claims that this discourages education and instead focuses solely on passing the exam. She never STATES A WARRANT in WHY DO THIS discourage education. I'll TURN that argument, arguing that standardized exam actually INCREASE education. The material required to pass the standardized exit exam is needed to real life, and the steps in trying to pass the Standardized exit exam, WILL educate the students. REBUTTALs 1. a.) My opponent states that not everyone performs this test well because they "choke, or panic". Well, although my opponent does not state this, but she is implying that this "panic, or choke" is bad. Well, I will present 2 arguments against it. 1. I will turn this argument stating that "choke, or panic" is GOOD. This is preparing the students for the real life, in which panic and choking will occur frequently. 2. I consider this argument non-unique, and non important. Students have EIGHT TIMES TO PASS the Standardized exit exams!!! So, in a case where a student "choke, or panic", they can always retake it, to pass it. Thus, her argument is mitigated. b.) My opponent states that some individuals are given a "more fair chance" at passing the Standardized exit exam. She further claims that this goes against my value and my criterion. I will present 3 arguments against this. 1. Exend my counter argument saying that this is non-important. As I stated, students have EIGHT TIMES TO PASS THIS EXAM. And the primary purpose is to simply PASS the exam, which is not too hard. The purpose is not the perform the VERY POSSIBLE best possible. Therefore, her argument is mitigated again. 2. This argument is terribly NON UNIQE. This means that her argument of having an "unfair advantage" happens in BOTH AFFIRMATIVE WORLD AND NEGATIVE WORLD. In the AFF world, whether or not we have standardized exi exams, non-fairness will ALWAYS occur. 3. She states this goes against my value and criterion. This claim is completely untrue. She never states any WARRANTS ON WHY it goes against my value and critrion. My value isn't fairness. It's educated society. And in no way, is non-fairness going against the value of educated society. And my criterion is monitoring education level. Once again, non-fairness is not in accordance with my criterion. 2. She states this this will discourage teachers from focusing on other aspects. I will present one arguments She also states that people are intelligent in different ways. Once again, she never states why those with "other intelligence" is important, and she fails to explain why that matters. So far in this round, i have explained what the standardized exit exam is beneficial to overall society, in that it will promote a "overall education." I defined my value of educated society as "MOST of inhabitants". Thus, if as the Negative says, we take away the standardized exam, we are not giving education to the MAJORITY and "giving education to those that has intelligence that is beyond what is examined on exam" 3. She states that as long as grade or class performance shows considerable knowledge, they should be given an alternative to graduate. I will present 2 arguments 1. If they do show a considerable knowledge, there's no reason to ASSUME that these students will fail the exam. If they DO SHOW a considerable knowledge, then they should def. pass the exam, because the exam is completely reasonable, in which it tests the students ON BASIC KNOWLEDGE. 2. She states that college require passing or taking several entrance exams like SAT. She never explains WHY SAT should be valued over Standardized exam, nor does she actually state why material on SAT is more beneficial to overall society. 3. Then she states that this gives a choice to students. This debate is not argued over choice of the students. An exam MUST be emplaced to correctly give A DIPLOMA and right to graduate, evaulating them on an external form of evaluation, which is the standardized exit exam. 4. My opponent states that the exam is not useful. 1. She once again, mishandles my value. Whether or not "military training students" will go in another direction does not impact my value. 2. The studies are misinterpreted, because it doesnt correctly display ALL states, nor does it state HOW it was conducted. 3. As i stated, THE STANDARDIZED EXAM IS NECCERAY TO EVALUATE STUDENTS ON WHETHER THEY DESERVE THE EXAM OR NOT. WE NEED THIS EXAM TO EVALUATE THE STUDENTS. It's a mean of a "evaluation" She misinterpreted this, because she wasn't looking at my case enough. So, as long as you have this down, all her arguments on whether or not "material" is important is non-topical. 5 She states that this will give unncessary money. I present ONE IMPORTANT argument. 1. This doesn't matter, becaue the government has an obligation to provide education to the students. Education outweighs Cost benefits. Education is the most important. 6. She states that if students aren't interested, they shouldnt have to focus on learning this material. I give two argument 1. Once again, refer back to my other rebuttals in which that material on standardized exit exam is important and it is needed to real life. 2. This exam is a method of evaluation on whether or not students are READY for the real life. Thus, you should definitely negate because my opponent argument doesn't meet my value or criterion, and she doesn't even HAVE a value or a value criterion, so all her impacts impact to nothing. She has no grounds to state arguments.

"You previously said, "the banking system cannot be oppressive since there is no real oppressor, that is, a group of people exercising power over another"" in the banking concept of education there is clearly a person(s) who have power over others. The teachers have complete control over everything concerning the classroom. They choose the material that is taught and the students must learn it. They perceive that the students know nothing and they know everything. Freire says "narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into "containers", into "receptacles" to be "filled" by the teacher." Students are therefore degraded to less than human while the teachers are elevated to positions of power because students regard them as essential to their education. In the banking concept of education students are not truly learning what they are doing is storing information. Since students do not possess the knowledge to change their environment they must adapt to the reality created for them by the oppressors. For the student to not be oppressed they have to be given power through knowledge which the banking concept of education does not provide.

First, some definitions. Sarbanes-Oxley Act: An act signed in 2002 mandating stringent and expensive corporate reporting standards for the sake of protecting investors. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Similar Legislation: Any other act mandating reporting standards for the sake of protecting investors. Social Benefit: A benefit to society as a whole external to a select group. Social Cost: A cost to society external to a select group. I have three reasons for believing that Sarbanes-Oxley and similar legislation should be repealed. First, the "social cost" of corporate failures are borne almost solely by the investors and the employees and therefore are not a concern of the people. Second, investors and employees are perfectly capable of policing said corporations without the help of the government, making government help in doing so something of a public subsidy to the corporate sector. Third, corporations that fail due to an inability to prevent fraud and negligence through organizational control or ability to boost morale and loyalty deserve to fail and should not be prevented from doing so by the government. My first point is that the costs of corporate failures are borne by a very select group of people, the employees of the failed corporations and their investors. The public does not really suffer from organizational collapses in anything but the short term. Factories are sold off, employees find new jobs, office buildings are re-branded. The fact that the suffering is limited to a select group of people would not, of course, normally stand on its own, since murder victims are also a select group of people. It is, however, substantially strengthened by my second point, that investors are perfectly capable of policing their investments themselves. Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was flagged by a small investment advising firm called Aksia long before it collapsed. . http://www.bloomberg.com... This goes to show that investors have all the resources needed to ensure the soundness of their investments and then some. Of course, the fact that investors are able to defend themselves from fraud does not mean that the government shouldn't step in. After all, even if one carries a gun, one can still reasonably expect the police to help him if he is mugged or robbed. However, if one is to assume that the government should protect investments, where does it end? Should the government have a hand in making sure that employees spend their time as productively as possible, that secretaries don't make personal calls and swipe office supplies? Yes, embezzlement is theft, but technically, so is goofing off on "company time". And finally, corporations that are unable to prevent fraud, either through intelligent policy or through inspiration, should fail. In either case, the shareholders are simply incompetent. Incompetent people simply should not benefit from a capitalistic society, especially if they are at its apex. Corporate enforcement by the government is, in many ways, subsidized management. Corporations are meant to be self-interested capitalistic entities; they should not receive subsidies of any kind. Ultimately, the only real purpose Sarbanes-Oxley and other legislation of its kind really serve is that of legally cementing shareholder control. They transform the corporation, normally a free-market entity, into an authoritarian one. Actions that are normally motivated by rational self-interest become instead forced by law. The virtue of capitalism is that it ensures cooperation not through punishment, but through reward. To bring the legal system into the world of corporate governance is to betray this principle.

Fiction: To date the american people have been viewing the bill as a "bailout" bill. . Fact: If a big financial firms fails, it will place the firm into receivership. Its sharholders will be wiped out and it management will fired. Most importantly the Taxpayers will be protected Fiction: the Bill will allow the financial stability council to deem any firm without regarding the bankcrupt law. Fact: Only the failed financial firms who poses a big threat to the U.S. Economy would be subject to bankcrupt process.

I am arguing the contrary position. Your argument is that there should be restrictions. My argument is that there should not be restrictions. Do you forfeit?


Question: Should there be a Simplified Process for Discharging Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy?

Individuals should have the option to file for bankruptcy on educational loans. I firmly believe that bankruptcy ought to encompass college loans, given that financing them is incredibly challenging due to the exploitative practices of both lending companies and educational institutions. The current state of the job market is dire, leaving many individuals struggling to make ends meet. This situation is patently unjust.

To clarify, this is the LD debate topic for September and October of 2009. Both debaters shall be debating "resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. " This debate shall follow a slightly altered LD format. R1 is for introductions and no arguments. In R2-4, both sides will present cases, starting with Neg. The structure should follow: R1: Introductions R2: NC; AC/AR R3: NR; 2AR R4: 2NR; 3AR Both sides should present LD cases and argue in the spirit of LD (no plans/counterplans etc. ). This means that Aff and Neg must both present and argue for value structures in addition to their main body of arguments.

I personally do not believe that illegal immigrants should receive college tuition assistance. They are here illegally and it is very unfair for the people that are going through the admitting process to be apart of the country and for the American people in general. They should have to wait in line like everyone else. Our own citizens cant afford college, but yet we have money to give to illegal immigrants. Our troops have suspended tuition assistance, but we can give them money? I don't have a problem with people coming to this country to try and live a better life. I don't care what race you are. I don't care what the color of your skin is. If you do things the right and fair way, I do not have a problem with them receiving financial aid for college, but if you are going to come here illegally, then I do not agree that you should receive the aid.

Should colleges be free, I think they should because then it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you can still have an education. Or just be free just for the 4 years of college.

On the subject of grading this debate: There is a difference between a competition and education, and between score and grade. A grade pertains to ones performance in an academic endeavor, but a score pertains to the rating of someone in a competition, like a debate. Saying that people voting on a debate is giving us a grade, is like saying that a soccer game is graded. One indication of this is that anyone who votes can give certain categories to one person and other categories in favor of another, and is not giving an objective rating to each person individually. Rebuttal to point #1: Instant gratification isn’t a good thing. People do better in life if they can work towards a more concrete, important goal further down the road [1. ] This goal can be to learn enough to pursue a career they are interested in, or to learn something interesting about the world. Grades detract from ones ability to think this way because they force people to do less difficult activities. This whole argument plays right into a lot of the contentions that I brought up because all of your ideas focus on the idea that any motivation is as good as any other motivation and that as long as a student is motivated, you are doing something right. The whole point of my fourth contention is to show that extrinsic motivation is detrimental to important intrinsic motivation, as well as bringing a host of other problems with it. In the case you mention with the student Bobby, there are a few things that you don’t account for. Firstly it doesn’t account for the fact that Bobby, instead of being motivated to get the grade, is motivated to get the PS3. This makes things even worse, now getting the A doesn’t give Billy a sense of accomplishment, getting a PS3 does. So now the motivation to succeed in any intellectual way is completely gone. Secondly, this means that Bobby is more likely to forget what he learned, as my earlier study shows. And thirdly Bobby doesn’t do the more difficult problems and doesn’t take intellectual risks because he is only interested in getting the grade. This also means that Bobby doesn’t do more work than is necessary for things that he is interested in because it could harm his A. You state that “Even if this motivates students to learn indirectly they are learning. ” But they aren’t retaining what they are learning, and aren’t learning in a meaningful way, aren’t striving to know more. Grades (along with rote memorization and standardized curriculums and testing) are what Carl Sagan meant when he said “Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. ” Kids file knowledge away as ‘learned’ instead of ‘interesting and useful’ and ask questions like ‘will we need to know this for the test’ instead of, can we learn more about that. Rebuttal to point #2: I see two problems in this contention. Firstly, this contention is irrelevant. This debate is about whether or not education is benefited, not whether educators are helped to make decisions. Even if you accept that as a valid argument, once again we as a society are putting ease and comfort above education. The other main problem I see with this argument is that the whole idea of needing an objective way of determining between students results in the detraction from the overall quality of the students. It is like a college cutting off a child’s hand and then using how well they can withstand pain. The students who are best at handling get to go to college, but all the students are worse for it because they don’t have a hand. If in setting up a standard on which to choose people, you make everybody worse, it isn’t a good standard. Colleges can look at narratives and work more on the basis of interviews. As fare as your one campus switched argument, the fact that one campus switched doesn’t mean that they were right, or that all non-grading campuses should follow. Hampshire College does not employ grades, and MIT doesn’t grade for freshman year to reduce stress, and foster student’s interest in the subject matter. Rebuttal to point #3: Once again, grades reduce to the least common denominator. You may be able to show students that they aren’t learning well slightly more effectively, but it comes at the cost that on average, all your students will score worse on the quiz, and forget more of the material. Additionally students can tell from their professor’s comments whether or not they understand material, but in this case are motivated to fix what they did wrong because they are interested in the subject, and not merely trying to get a grade. Rebuttal to point #4: Firstly, I don’t see how grades remove a bias. Teachers that are more likely to say that a student they like is better than a student they dislike are also more likely to give a better grade on an essay to a student they like than to one they dislike. Additionally, students who are learning for a grade are less likely to talk because they feel they are constantly being matched up to their classmates and to some arbitrary objective standard, and are therefore more afraid of making mistakes. If class participation is being graded, then students worry about their comments level of complexity, when adding what they have to say to a conversation is the first step to getting their ideas tested and coming up with more complex ones. I personally talk with friends about things that I am not quite sure about, and may seem somewhat absurd, to use them as a sounding board. I have a more interesting, developed, objective standard because I have taken the time to voice my opinions in setting where I don’t feel threatened. As a result of this, I am more confident about stating my ideas in class; I am not worried about a grade, but about having an interesting conversation. In this way, taking away grades gives students spontaneity, creativity and collaboration, all of which are essential. Narratives are just as biased as grades, but they tell more. In conclusion, I would like to state two things. Firstly my opponent’s second third and fourth arguments all rest on the idea that students, teachers colleges and/or parents need a way of discerning whether or not a student is learning, and that the only way to do this is to grade them. Not only have I already stated that there are other alternatives that allow for this, but I have also showed a myriad of ways in which the practice of grading is detriment to students. Unless my opponent can show that these other forms of judgment pose the same detriments to Education, he looses these three points. This follows from the fact that, when comparing my alternative, which doesn’t have any detriments to its name (and is in fact more indicative than just assigning a student a number or letter) and my opponent’s, which does; it is a fairly clear choice in favor of my alternative. Secondly, my opponents first argument is erroneous in that it rests on ideas that I have already disproven, namely that all motivation is equal, and that none is detrimental. If my opponent can not directly show that his form of motivation (grades) do not cause the harms that I have laid out he looses this contention as well. This covers all of my opponent’s contentions. To ensure that students are, on average, more creative, intrigued and intrinsically motivated, and to increase their retention of knowledge, their ambition and their inquisitiveness, I urge a pro ballot, thank you. [1] . https://www.apa.org...

My opponent brings up some good points as solutions for children who are clearly a drain on the public education system. Below I will quote my opponent's proposed solution and refute it. I also assume my opponent is talking about American public school as when one looks at his profile it says he is from the U.S. I would also like to wish my opponent the best of luck on his first debate. My opponent's resolution of which he is defending. "The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military." I accept my opponent's definition of questionable students. My opponent says that if a student does not take school seriously then putting them in the military and consequently giving them a stake in this nation's national security will fix the problem. //"Such students are a liability to other students who wish to further themselves but are being held back. By sending them off to the Military they can be taught discipline and skills according to the job they get in service."// My opponent believes that giving a problem child a stake in the U.S. military, which is publicly funded just like the public school system, will somehow take the burden off of the American taxpayer. Taxpayers already pay over 655 billion dollars every year on the military budget not including veteran benefits or the "war on terror"[1] My opponent has yet to show why taking troubled children out of the educational system and giving them a stake in national security will solve anything. [1]http://www.warresisters.org...

http://www.debate.org... Keeping it simple for round one.

I am sorry my arguments were stupid is was my first debate on this site but I will try my best to refute your arguments. 1.Popular/Generates Revenue First of all books do not generate money for the goverment therefore it can not lower debt. If anything these types of books would generate revenue for the authors and publishers of the book. So this is a false accusation. This is actually all i can refute and i await to see the results.

Exactly. I agree. If the people have to wait 10 months to see a doctor. And when they finally see the doctors they have to pay so much money that should not be paid. They should not have to pay at all for the poor treatment they are given. The doctors do go to school for a long time but what's the point they see patients for very little time. While they were in school they should of learned about the rights people are given.

Hello my friends. Thanks for your attention to this topic. I really thank you. So, going to college for career, making connections, or getting degree or whatever doesnt really mean anything. It is totally waste of money and time. FYI, each year, tuition and fees increase anywhere pretty much. Bring it on if you are disagree with the statement ! ha

If a student knows what they want to do when they grow up (IE;teacher) they should have schedules more based towards helping them. For example Algebra will not be required if a student wants to be a lifeguard when they grow up. or a student will not need Gym for if they want to be a librarian. They need to become more self dependent and be able to make the right choices. If you know what you want to do when you finish school you should set up your schedule. For example someone who wants to be an athlete should have multiple gym classes. or someone who wants to be an artist should have multiple art classes and less science classes.