Question: Is Pursuing a College Degree a Valuable Investment?

The cost of a university education should be eliminated.
Firstly, I want to clarify that utilizing sources and crediting them appropriately does not constitute plagiarism. I am merely utilizing others' words to bolster my argument. Please disregard any accusations of plagiarism, as that is not the case. Here is additional evidence supporting my stance.
The National Forensics League website (http://www.neisd.net...) outlines the rules for Lincoln-Douglas debates on page 9, should you wish to review them. My argument is that most college students are forced to work part-time to cover their education expenses. If we were to agree on this, students could focus more on their studies, potentially leading to better academic performance.
Others have expressed similar views:
Absolutely! Education is crucial for success. Without a job, one cannot earn a living, and without education, one is less likely to secure a good job. Should someone be considered a failure simply because they cannot afford an education?
Yes, indeed! Access to college education should be universal. Financial constraints should not prevent anyone from pursuing higher education. If it were free, society might benefit from a more educated populace.
Yes, yes, and yes! As more individuals attain degrees, jobs that once required only a high school diploma now demand associate or bachelor degrees. A college education is becoming increasingly necessary for high school graduates seeking employment that pays a living wage. The government should fund universities and colleges directly, rather than provide loans to students, to alleviate the burden of debt that forces many to move back in with their parents.
Free higher education is a fiscally and socially responsible choice that would ensure everyone has the opportunity to earn a degree without the financial barriers that currently exist. This could result in a well-informed and educated population that significantly contributes to our nation's growth.
In summary, making higher education free would benefit society in numerous ways. It would lead to better jobs, more knowledge, and technological advancements, improving the quality of life for all. The question remains: who will bear the cost? I propose that funding should work similarly to high schools and other educational institutions, with additional support from charity foundations and competitive events that raise funds for the schools. This would be a win-win situation for everyone involved.

Alright. The grammar is getting worse and worse, so I'll do my best. This third round for the Pro is grounds to give me S&G points. Looking toward the arguments. My opponent says that people are more likely to fail when getting forced to take classes, but this argument is non-unique because it happens in universities today when students are allowed to chose their classes. Furthering allowing this in the Pro world means that more students, not less are likely to fail. Therefore, vote Con. Simply saying that one should follow their dreams isn't an argument and can also be disregarded in the debate. The Pro has no offense in the debate and my points are untested. THEREFORE, VOTE CON. Thank you.

I'm sorry to see my opponent forfeit his third round argument, so I'll leave you with this thought... Is it really necessary to change the current curriculum, hire new staff and create vast numbers of new study material, all of which will be paid for by taxpayers, when all the information and financial help students may need is so readily available online. Students can easily find it as and when they require it. Thank you.

I only forfeited the previous round because I felt bad for you. While most NBA prospects do not get a college degree, it still helps them by going for the one year. The average career length of an NBA player is 4.87 years, meaning if they leave after one or two years they will be out of the league by the time they are around 25 (The average age of a player when he retires is 28). This means now they are without a job or a degree. If they skip college all together, they will be 24. They could go try to take classes at a college, but they would not get into a good school. If they already started taking classes, then the process would be easier to transition back. Another reason why the rule is a good thing is that it benefits the college. If a college has a superstar basketball player on their team, more fans will go to the games. If more fans go, then the more money the college will make. Also, the students who went to the same college as this star player will want to pay attention to him as he goes to the pros, which will give the NBA more of a fan base.

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

There is no thing as free college. Even in countries that students do not pay for college, their is still a cost. I will assume based on what my opponent has written that his premise is it is impossible for college to be incorporated into a system in a similar way as the public school education system. The education in these settings takes place is public funded so for the student there is no cost. For the sake of this debate I will take this position to mean "Free college education" or any other of the various semantics and euphemisms. My opponent seems to be making a case, that because the US is nearing 20 Trillion dollars in debt that does not leave any budget room for the government to offer a free education. The first problem with my opponents view is he feels the college system, the public college system should be Federally funded. The purpose of the federal government is NOT to manage or pay for the college system. The states, like with the public k-12 system is funded mostly through state property tax. Such a funding has nothing to do with the original thesis of my opponents position - the federal government can't afford it. State governments can make it work if the wanted to by raising property taxes or reducing benefits in other areas such as state funded healthcare, or food stamps. The priorities are there for the fixing and just because there is no room under the current budget does not mean the next budget would be unable to be revised allocating money into a different category. Lastly, I would suggest a different paradigm that allows for this to be completed in the public school setting. And one that would be less costly and more close to a real "free system". First I would suggest extending high school to grade 14. The students would be able to take college level classes taught by the current teachers. The teachers would then give the students state standardized tests. Those students who score a certain level are given college credit. After graduating highschool in the 14th grade, they would have enough credits for a BA. Secondly, online is a much cheaper system. There is little overhead. The course could be standardized with video sessions, online course work, and online exams. Successfully passing the final exam would equate to college credits. Enough college credits would allow the student to graduate from a state university/college.

Thanks for your arguments, Pro. I will start with a few rebuttals, then introduce arguments of my own.Rebuttals "But the many that can't find work because of the increased minimum wage are forced to go on welfare." ~ProThroughout American history, there has been no real connection with increased minimum wage and unemployment. Infact, if you look through the years when the minimum wage was increased, and the employment rates of those years, a majority of the years where minimum wage was increased, there was actually an employment increase in the following 4 years! (would use sources but not aloud)."Why do you think many corporations moved out of America?" ~ProNo large corporations have recently moved out of the United States."Not to mention lowering the minimum wage will also make nearly everything cheaper." ~ProA lowering of the minimum wage would also make less people be able to pay for different products, even if they are cheaper. Different companies that sell products to the lower class would see a decrease in sales, because of the inability of minimum wage earners to pay for these products."So like I said before, sure you give one guy a job with this minimum wage but there are 10 other guys that didn't get the job that are now forced to go on welfare." ~ProThere is no real link between minimum wage raising and unemployment. This becomes evident if you look at the history of minimum wage increases, and the employment levels of the following years."Because of the massive supply of workers and the low demand for unskilled work it drives people to work for a lesser wage to become competitive." ~ProAs companies grow so do their demand for unskilled workers. In the retail industry there is need for retails sails people, cashiers, janitors, etc. In the food industry there is need for waiters, cashiers, cooks (people who put your hamburger together at McDonalds, not chefs), and janitors. In the manufacturing industry there is need for factory workers. In the technology industry, there is need for factory workers, and store workers (ex. apple store employees). As these, and other industries continue to grow, so do demands for unskilled labor. Increasing amounts of people going to college and university also make the supply of these workers smaller."Experience is invaluable. Even at the most basic levels, like following a schedule,money management, paying bills, social relations and leadership skills. Perhaps your wage will be less, but you will gain lifelong experience money can't buy." ~ProBut these skills still do not let these low wage earners get a better job. Most minimum wage recipients did not go to college, and without this further education, many companies would not accept them."( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")"YepOverall, throughout history it is evident that a minimum wage and employment levels do not coincide.Argument I: Welfare SpendingWith no minimum wage, many Americans would be forced to work at decreased wages, lowering their income. A result of this is rising National welfare costs. As the wages decrease, more people would have to become reliant on welfare to support them and their families. These welfare costs would put the nation in more debt. This also has a domino effect, where lowering the wages in one, low earning sector, can also greatly lower wages in another sector. Lets say the minimum wage is taken away, a store is forced to sell their products for less, as a decreasing amount of people are able to afford them. The store has to sell them for less, forcing the farm from which the story bought its product to sell their items for less, so the store still buys from them. Decreased income for the farm means decreased spending power, less people would buy tractors, so tractor manufacturing companies would have to pay their workers less, and they would need to get the metal for cheaper, decreasing the amount of money mining companies sell them metal for. All this would greatly lower wages, and increase welfare dependency. With a decreased income, many Americans would not be able to pay their rent, or buy a house, increasing the homeless population. This would make the government spend more money on government housing. The government would also have to spend more money on Medicaid and other health care programs, as diseases would spread faster as homeless population grows.Argument II: Stock Market and Buy powerNo minimum wage would force many Americans to earn far less. This would greatly hurt the amount of money each low wage earning citizen would have to by different products, and invest in the stock market. This would lead to a significant worsening of the American economy, and stock market. The stock market going down, would make many of investors scared to invest in different companies, and would make a stock market crash, enough to ruin the American economy.Argument III: Tax MoneyWith the decreased minimum wage, many families would bring in less money, bringing in less taxes. Minimum wage being taken away would make the quality of life for many of the United States citizens drastically worse. As a result, many American citizens would leave the US, to a country that has a minimum wage. These people would not pay taxes for the US, as they have changed their citizenship. The number of people leaving the country would greatly decrease the amount of tax money going towards the government.ConclusionThrough increased welfare costs, decreased stock market investments, decreased spending on different products, and less total tax money, it is clear that taking away minimum wage would hurt the American economy. It would create a stock market crash, make many Americans leave the United States, and make many more dependent on welfare. Overall, a no-minimum wage system would be bad economically. Thanks for reading, I await your response, pro.

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

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

The relationship between scholastic and athletic participation we have here in the United States is unique to this country for one key reason: in a country this massive, schools provide the infrastructure necessary for competent athletic competition. Beyond this, the ties between an education and the multibillion dollar behemoth that is college sports is nonsensical. Because of how ingrained sports are with the university system in the United States, separating the NCAA from the schools remains impossible. Regardless, I have three reasons why the ideal way to mitigate the effects of forcing these athletes to also be students is making football, basketball, and other profitable college sports undergraduate degrees. 1. The commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. 2. Unmotivated athletes take up valuable seats in classes they have no business being in. 3. A degree in a sport would allow athletes to truly become students of the game, and more easily get to the next level. I will expand on these points as the debate continues and demonstrate why college athletics and academics would improve with the introduction of sports degrees. I am looking forward to hearing what the other side has to offer.

Oh. Well you should have to graduate to get into a college. I'm pretty sure no college will accept you. Well the big colleges won't. If you want to be successful in life, I recommend graduating from school.


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

State-funded universities should offer free education to residents.

1) "Numerous potential students are denied the chance to pursue higher education due to exorbitant costs." However, not all colleges charge $140,000 for four years; according to the US Department of Education, the average cost is slightly under $90,000, or approximately $22,500 per year or $11,250 per semester. Does being unable to easily repay loans mean students can't attend college at all? No. Almost 70% of high school graduates are currently in college, so the claim that "countless" people are denied college is an exaggerated representation of reality. 70% of high school graduates enroll in a college or university, even if many can't afford it. Just because college is expensive, it doesn't automatically prevent people from attending; it only deters a few very low-income families. High school graduates can easily gain admission to college these days, and statistics reflect this. Did you know something interesting? Recent trends show that an increasing number of American high school graduates are entering college. (Sources: bls.gov, education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com, newsblogs.chicagotribune.com, huffingtonpost.com)

Let me emphasize two points:
1) 70% of all high school graduates have already enrolled in college, indicating that financial costs are not a major barrier to attendance rates.
2) Despite rising tuition costs, the percentage of high school graduates attending college has steadily increased for years.

"But why can't we redirect the billions of dollars the government gives to oil companies for oil exploration towards college tuition?" Where did oil companies come from?

"Much of our tax burden funds unemployment, welfare, and other programs for the unemployed."
Does 17% qualify as "much"? As shown in the chart below, only about 16% of all US taxes fund unemployment benefits and welfare. This means only a fraction of our taxes goes towards unemployment benefits.

"One reason for unemployment is that most businesses seek employees with specific skills and talents, which can only be obtained through a college education."
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but another reason for unemployment is that the economy was once in a dire state, causing jobs to disappear and people with college degrees to lose their jobs.

"It is in the taxpayers' best interest to encourage as many young adults and older individuals to attend college to gain this knowledge."
So you think that Americans who 1)

I thank you for your response...Firstly, my point regarding the Sophists was not a personal attack. It was a reference to the use and manipulation of education to con less savvy peoples. The money was just a bonus. I do not purport to know the intent of your rhetoric. Tables such as the one you presented only serve to validate the arbitrary status claimed by the 'upper' class, as the measurements or standards are based on culturally biased assessments. As for work. I agree it depends on one's definition as there are many to choose from. However, implying that intellectual capacity is labor worthy of more 'remuneration' is flawed as it assumes bankers are able to act on their own thought. Bankers are defined as mediators or safeguards who must go by the guidelines of the Federal Reserve, to ensure customers may withdraw their money from their accounts without disruptions. Who are they safeguarding? Who are they representing as mediators? - the upper class. Bankers actually are used as tool to prevent undesired individuals from obtaining money and they remunerated well for their espionage. Whereas, a street sweeper, though still a cog in the system does not protect the interests of the upper class. This willingness to protect and maintain the status quo is why the banker receives more wages and also the true intent of his highly accredited academia or should I say training. A good metaphor would be doctors, who although they know the effectiveness of natural medicine are explicitly instructed to sell the public on pharmaceuticals. Capitalism is about making money not productivity. As such, the so called 'upper' class could care less about the widening poverty gap as long as they remain in the upper tier. The widening gap just provides more excess labor in their opinion and provides them the opportunity to lower wages even more based on the principles of supply and demand. This lack of efficiency through over-productivity is illustrated by what I termed surplus of resources. A reason why most of the populace is urged to consume so as to feed the machine. The under class does not require the upper class' labors they require access to the resources that are unequally and unjustly guarded, manipulated and regulated by the so called 'upper' class. Honestly, the upper class rarely works, they monitor and manipulate. They desire others to do their dirty work for them for a host of reasons. The one issue you didn't mention is perhaps most key in the upper class' maintenance of the status quo. That would be the inequality in education - or the difference between public and private schools. Students in certain public schools are economically destined for the lower class based on their zip code. This has come to be defined as the school to prison pipeline. A pipeline that is just one of the many hypocrisies that destroy the false concept of the American dream. The truly wealthy are not wealthy from there normal well paid jobs, they are wealthy from historical abuses of power or 'old money'. A fact that you alluded to as a "screwed historical interpretation of *how* a class imbalance was perpetrated." As for the periphery debate regarding the night and the day. Let us degree that there would be no distinction for light if dark did not exist. I look forward to your response...you made some interesting remarks....

Schools are meant to be schools, and not exactly places that provide undergraduate degrees for sports. By considering the fact that less than 2 percent of NCAA Athletes actually go into pro sports (Business Insider), this would easily show how sports like football and basketball should NOT be undergraduate degrees. Not only such, but it would degrade the fact that schools are actually places for learning things instead of places where people go to play sports. Athletics are a great way of providing optimal health and people who are very motivated to do good things. But one thing is without a doubt. Sports have no place in the scholar community. They have no benefit to society, and the only jobs available for football and basketball are pro. That is why many people who play these in college still put school ahead of other things such as football and basketball. This would be to show many things about it. But also saying that a scholarship is not about that, but also consider who would go in for these undergraduate degrees. Very few people would actually do such for many reasons, such as many kids who get a scholarship or want to get a degree understand that there are more reasons than football that they would accept the degree. They want a successful future, and that is the very important thing to them.

Be that as it may, if college athletes go payed, they could earn money. Remember that an average college athlete practices 40 hours a week and with studying, it leaves no time for an actual paying job! So, that means if they do a good job they get paid $50, if they suck they get paid $10

Since my opponent did not specifically define any terms, I would like to note that my primary arguments will be in defence of financial aid to college students, grants, loans, scholarships and so on.

Thank you for your reply, however much of what you write appears to be a potentially screwed historical interpretation of *how* a class imbalance was perpetrated rather than *why* it is requisite for American capitalism to flourish. To pass comment upon this part therefore may only server to distract us from the initial assertion and its pertinent analysis. If I may be permitted to quickly counter a couple of the your assertions however: sophists wouldn"t be the best example of profit motivation since if you think my rhetoric is sophistry I can assure you that this website is not paying me anything for my contributions. :-) And as for the more expensive universities only producing students more arrogant rather than better educated, a simple published league table would show that Oxford and Cambridge are indeed justified as the pre-eminent educators, as this one does for example: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk... I am interested in why you dispute that a street sweeper might labour as earnestly as a banker (since you provide no argument as to why it might not be so). I would say it depends upon how you specifically define hard work. Would you consider one element to be the hours worked? One would be lucky to find a high-street bank still open after 16:00. Would work that is physically tiring be considered laborious? In which case the banker does no physically demanding work at all! Would the conditions be at all relevant? The street sweeper endures all the elements of every season whilst the banker would likely not even walk through them on the way to his or her office. What about the intellectual exertions of the job? Ah, here I may be able to throw you a bone after all! Perhaps you see this as the definition of labour worthy of greater remuneration. Please, by all means let me know if this is the one and only true definition of how the worth of a man"s labour should be judged. I would be delighted to show the weakness of such an argument if you chose to adopt it. You go on to describe the un-evidenced means of how a modern class divide is maintained, but unfortunately once more without saying why it is strictly necessary. If we look to the poverty gap from the middle of the last century onwards it is clear to see it widening without any benefits to the capitalist economy at all, indeed it proves to be counter productive. In the 1950s when America was the world"s most powerful economy there was a much greater equality in living standards. In the modern world where China has stolen that mantle of pre-eminence we see economic decline in America and the weakening of the US dollar. To draw direct correlation would be to rely upon the tenuous evidence of bivariates, but since the aim of my thesis is merely to disprove that an underclass is necessarily requisite for American capitalism to function, it proves adequately that a more equal society would not only function as efficiently, but function better. I could go further and postulate upon a capitalist based society with an inequality so slight as to be almost indefinable, but I don"t need to go that far, only as far as proving that an oppressed underclass is not required. Although therefore arbitrary, it was the permanence I had disputed by reference to the American dream, which I had always interpreted as the concept of anyone from any class of society having the freedom and opportunity to achieve whatever their aspirations wished. Conceptually I"m sure that would be indisputable. If, however, you wish to challenge its practical application, there would be grounds for debate there too I"m sure. There does seem to be some contradictory statements proffered, for example, wealthy people most often are wealthy from having well paid jobs, thus a wealthy person wouldn"t be "sweeping streets or flipping burgers for wages" because their wages would come from their normal, well paid jobs. I can"t therefore see your point. Also, do you not say that the under-class are required for their labour, but then you say the "upper class creates a surplus of resources" and were they to "overprice them to sell to those in need" then those in need wouldn"t be able to afford them. I"m sure you suggested the under-class was required so that the upper-class could enjoy the fruits of the underclass" labour, not the other way around. I was only really being flippant about the night and day issue, but if you really wanted to pursue it, then Antarctica does indeed eventually become shrouded in perpetual darkness as well, but that comes in its winter, thus it is more the changing of the season rather than the changing of the day which alternates the light and the dark. Beyond the bounds of the solar system there is indeed the light of the stars, which we define as part of the night, thus perpetual night without day. I can"t see any additional light being shined upon the argument by your counter unfortunately. By all means try again though. :-)

1) All arguments dropped 2) " Looks like you have lost this debate not just out of sheer ignorance, but out of a lack of interest in TRUTH."Oh I am interested in the truth, I did actual research into your claim, found several fallacies in your logic, presented those fallacies to you, and you ignored them like a 4 year old....3) "Try this for an article reference: http://endoftheamericandream.com...;I checked out this article, and I must say it is rather unreliable and biased, how do I know this? These are some of the other headlines that have come from this same website... - 1 - "35 Shocking Facts That Prove That College Education Has Become A Giant Money Making Scam" - 2 - "All Hail The United States Of Germany? The Rest Of Europe Is Facing Either German Domination Or Financial Collapse" - 3 - "17 Reasons Why A Vote For Mitt Romney Is A Vote For The New World Order" - 4 - "You Won't Believe How Corrupt, Lazy And Stinking Rich Our Congress Critters Have Become" - 5 - "10 Reasons Why Lindsay Lohan Is Right About The Federal Reserve And The Price Of Food" - 6 - "12 Very Disturbing Examples Of Radical Social Engineering By The U.S. Government" - 7 - "Solid Proof That Weather Modification Projects Are Being Conducted All Over The United States" - 8 - "Fukushima Is Continually Blasting All Of Us With High Levels Of Cesium, Strontium And Plutonium And Will Slowly Kill Millions For Years To Come" - 9 - "Edible Microchips, Biometric Identity Systems And Mind Reading Computers" - 10 - "Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya" - 11 - "Will The Newly Created "Killer Bird Flu" Someday Be Used As A Bio-Terror Weapon To Reduce The Population?" - 12 - "How Globalism Has Destroyed Our Jobs, Businesses And National Wealth In 10 Easy Steps"These are the headlines that come from this website..... So I think it is safe to say this is a very biased source that the Pro is basing his entire "argument" on.....4) "And don't make me hold your hand while exposing you to the truth about mainstream media and politics."You havent shown anyone anything..... Other than your sub 40 IQ level.....5) "And I thought you knew something about the way the world runs."I thought this would be a good debate with a sensible sane person.......... So it looks like we're both disappointed.....6) All my arguments still stand....

Reason 2 Benefits For This Generation With the past generation from the baby boom aging, or dying, the next generation of people is starting to bear great responsibilities. According to the International Data Base (IDB) the highest percentage of the Earth's population is kids age 0-4 with about 631,170,308 people. As all of these kids grow up, some of these are going to aspire to be like college players one day. Studies have shown that people look up to people who they see the most. With college sports playing on media, kids (even if they aren't into sports) are bound to see, or hear about college sports in some way. College athletes can be beneficial role models for kids, expecially if the athlete used to have a poor background. Henry Ford, founder of Ford once said, "If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own." Many may ask why student athletes are positive role models. Although there are cases of athletes getting into drugs, crime, etc, there are positive aspects of college athletes that outnumber the bad aspects. First, college athletes are good role models because they worked hard to get where they are (as discussed in round 1). Many college athletes had to work hard to meet the athletic requirements for a college to want them. They also had to work hard with grades. (I will not go too in depth because round 1 explains it good enough.) Secondly, college athletes make good role models because of their position. They are at the top of fame during their athletic years, and sometimes their sports get as much attention as the pro leagues. They are in a position that many kids want to be in. Getting a free, or cheap education, and being famous. That's something that a kid would want one day. They teach kids that anything is possible. Finally, college students make great role models because of their values sometimes. Sometimes, college athletes want to help people with cancer, people who are poor, etc. This teaches youths to help others in need if they can which can not only benefit them, but benefit society. In summary, college students are inspirational, and make role models because of their morales, position, etc. Reaction To Con So Con forfeited, therefore I win. I am not done yet, however. If I was to forfeit, I would get no benefit out of this, and I would not learn to give my all. Con, I am guessing just made his account, started this debate, and only posted for round one, and never came on again. So Con most likely did not give up in this debate, but just stopped going on his account. Therefore Con is most likely going to forfeit again, and again until the debate is over so I am assuming I won, unless Con makes a major move, however since his account is account is inactive, I am doubtful of it. I could just forfeit now, and I would still win, but I want to get full benefits out of this debate, and improve on source citing, reasoning, etc even though Con gave up. Sources("View Quotes", Brainyquotes)("International Data Base", U.S Cencus Bureau, 2014)(Krob, Jim, "Motivating Today's Student Athletes", NFHS)(Rosenberg, Matt, "Baby Boom", GeographyEd, March 27, 2009)(Wilson, Gregory, Pritchard, Mary, "Comparing Sources of Stress In College Student Athletes and Non-Athletes", AthleticInsight)(Mayo Clinic Staff, "Performance-Enhancing Drugs and Teen Athletes", Mayo Clinic)(Coakley, Cathy, "Athlete Development", UNH)(Marobella, Paul, "Social Media In Sports: The Athlete", Havas Discovery, March 16, 2009)http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...

There you go, you just proved that you are wrong and you have proved to me that you have been brainwashed. You want money because you know you can't resist it! Have you ever been to a school? Please don't tell me you loved it I am sure you hated it , but if you did like it, it means you have been brainwashed! And you have become greedy and a money sucking pig just like everyone else! One day you will loose your money and tell me how school will save you! Nobody cares about you! And what kind of nice things do you want to buy? A robot girlfriend hahaha XD! Stupid Idiot!

oh ok to me it is fair because if we all die today education is not going to make a hill of beans sports players should live life to the highest peek you would if you were a sports player or can you play any sports at all the point is tomorrow is not promised so live every day it its you last !!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS YOU

Did you really just overtly shift goalposts on the last turn? The first question is, relative to the big picture, how does a significant change in GDP matter in relation to effectiveness of an educational initiative? (hint: it doesn't. ) Fortunately Pro decided to not back that portion and therefore not back the conclusion making it a leap in logic since saying that all person's do better and the GDP actually increases is not equivalent to claiming that the GDP is a sound measurement of the effectiveness of AA. Red Herring and Non-sequitur and shifting goalposts, and then finally my opponent just admits that they don't care anymore in their "final words". What a waste of time.


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

Higher education is becoming increasingly irrelevant for the millennial generation. Let me clarify my stance by stating that I believe higher education is outdated and requires significant reform, though it should not be abolished entirely. My opponent appears to have misunderstood the debate's premise, believing that I am arguing against education in general. However, my argument is that higher education is outdated and not worth it for everyone.

Millennials prioritize contributing to society, and college education can open doors to fields that help society, such as nursing and medicine. However, does this really create a significant social impact? According to a study by 80000.org, each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime, and medicine has extended everyone's life expectancy by 7 years. Yet, the impact of medicine is often overestimated, and an increase in age does not necessarily equate to an increase in quality of life. Furthermore, doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine's success, as researchers, managers, scientists, and nurses also play crucial roles. In the end, we can save six times the number of lives a doctor saves by simply donating 10% of our income wisely to a worthy foundation.

Moreover, you don't need a college degree to make a significant social impact. Examples of successful individuals without college degrees include Stephen Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates. Medicine is not the only way to solve world problems, and sometimes it is not even the best way. What about electricity, education, or government? Additionally, more millennials are going to college than any other generation, but this is because they have more opportunities and are often pushed by their parents. However, 37% of students regret going to college, and 49% of graduates believe they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree.

While some fields may not have alternatives to college education, it is increasingly clear that college is not necessary for everyone and not worth it for everyone. Commerce, arts, and even some science fields are examples of this. Additionally, one field of practice is not enough to validate the value of higher education for the entire millennial population. Only 0.27% of the population are doctors, for instance.

My opponent suggests that tax-payer money be used to fully fund college education. While this may work in some countries like Germany, it is unlikely to happen in America, which values small government and individual freedom. Asking for a significant reform with major repercussions on the people would be too idealistic. One would have to

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

Free college would be amazing I would love a life free of student loans but people don't understand how impossible free college is. Sure other nations have free college but no those nations are not 18 billion dollars in debt

Thank you for your reply, however much of what you write appears to be a potentially screwed historical interpretation of *how* a class imbalance was perpetrated rather than *why* it is requisite for American capitalism to flourish. To pass comment upon this part therefore may only server to distract us from the initial assertion and its pertinent analysis. If I may be permitted to quickly counter a couple of the your assertions however: sophists wouldn"t be the best example of profit motivation since if you think my rhetoric is sophistry I can assure you that this website is not paying me anything for my contributions. :-) And as for the more expensive universities only producing students more arrogant rather than better educated, a simple published league table would show that Oxford and Cambridge are indeed justified as the pre-eminent educators, as this one does for example: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk... I am interested in why you dispute that a street sweeper might labour as earnestly as a banker (since you provide no argument as to why it might not be so). I would say it depends upon how you specifically define hard work. Would you consider one element to be the hours worked? One would be lucky to find a high-street bank still open after 16:00. Would work that is physically tiring be considered laborious? In which case the banker does no physically demanding work at all! Would the conditions be at all relevant? The street sweeper endures all the elements of every season whilst the banker would likely not even walk through them on the way to his or her office. What about the intellectual exertions of the job? Ah, here I may be able to throw you a bone after all! Perhaps you see this as the definition of labour worthy of greater remuneration. Please, by all means let me know if this is the one and only true definition of how the worth of a man"s labour should be judged. I would be delighted to show the weakness of such an argument if you chose to adopt it. You go on to describe the un-evidenced means of how a modern class divide is maintained, but unfortunately once more without saying why it is strictly necessary. If we look to the poverty gap from the middle of the last century onwards it is clear to see it widening without any benefits to the capitalist economy at all, indeed it proves to be counter productive. In the 1950s when America was the world"s most powerful economy there was a much greater equality in living standards. In the modern world where China has stolen that mantle of pre-eminence we see economic decline in America and the weakening of the US dollar. To draw direct correlation would be to rely upon the tenuous evidence of bivariates, but since the aim of my thesis is merely to disprove that an underclass is necessarily requisite for American capitalism to function, it proves adequately that a more equal society would not only function as efficiently, but function better. I could go further and postulate upon a capitalist based society with an inequality so slight as to be almost indefinable, but I don"t need to go that far, only as far as proving that an oppressed underclass is not required. Although therefore arbitrary, it was the permanence I had disputed by reference to the American dream, which I had always interpreted as the concept of anyone from any class of society having the freedom and opportunity to achieve whatever their aspirations wished. Conceptually I"m sure that would be indisputable. If, however, you wish to challenge its practical application, there would be grounds for debate there too I"m sure. There does seem to be some contradictory statements proffered, for example, wealthy people most often are wealthy from having well paid jobs, thus a wealthy person wouldn"t be "sweeping streets or flipping burgers for wages" because their wages would come from their normal, well paid jobs. I can"t therefore see your point. Also, do you not say that the under-class are required for their labour, but then you say the "upper class creates a surplus of resources" and were they to "overprice them to sell to those in need" then those in need wouldn"t be able to afford them. I"m sure you suggested the under-class was required so that the upper-class could enjoy the fruits of the underclass" labour, not the other way around. I was only really being flippant about the night and day issue, but if you really wanted to pursue it, then Antarctica does indeed eventually become shrouded in perpetual darkness as well, but that comes in its winter, thus it is more the changing of the season rather than the changing of the day which alternates the light and the dark. Beyond the bounds of the solar system there is indeed the light of the stars, which we define as part of the night, thus perpetual night without day. I can"t see any additional light being shined upon the argument by your counter unfortunately. By all means try again though. :-)

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

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

Pro says I did not make any attempt to disprove his first opening statements, even though clearly in the 1st round it says "Con may offer rebuttals as to why he disagrees in order to help build his own case". See here it says "may". I will now counter attack all of Pros statements. It's not even about the money but it's about so many other things. Yes it's a nice idea that college athletes get paid but they're so many negative aspects to it. If the athlete were to get paid there must be a contract. Lets say this athlete goes to UCLA & signs a contract for 4 years ok? Now two years into his contract he already becomes a college basketball sensation and NBA teams want to draft him already. They can't though because he's signed to contract! Also college is for education, not to gain athletic popularity. It gives the wrong message to younger kids. These athletes are going to ask for million dollar contracts, if you thought the 30 year olds in the NFL were bad, what about a 18 year old with the chance to acquire a multi-million contract. They are just not mature enough to carry that much money. My last statement brings me to my next statement. It'll completely take away all NCAA competition and scholarships could disappear. Reason is because bigger well-known universities will have more money, a bigger reputation, etc. It would make Div 2 teams weaker because they do not have the money to buy top prospects, making it very difficult for lower teams to negotiate if they don't have the money. Now what about the female athletes? Don't forget about community college as well. Do they have to pay high school athletes as well to bribe them to accept their school and no other school? Yes athletes are a big resource to income money, but in high school that's why they have athletic program. This sets a wrong representation for college & high school athletes. College athletes ARE NOT professionals!! The reason for college is to train the athlete for next level of play. For example in football you go from little league, to higher age group, to varsity, to college to professional. Also how would this benefit other students on campus? Who's going to pay the athlete? If the college does then this could raise the tuition rate for a non-athlete. If a professional team paid the college athlete then that'd break the NCAA Benefit Rule. Also, which athletes get paid? There's tennis, soccer, baseball, chess, etc. It's not fair if only popular sports got paid. Basketball and football, the most visible of high school and college sports, have a very low percentage of athletes who play in high school and then eventually move up to the professional ranks. In men"s basketball, for example, there is only a .03% chance of a pro career. This means that of the almost 156,000 male, high school senior basketball players only 44 will be drafted to play in the NBA after college, and only 32 women (.02%) out of just over 127,000 female, high school senior players will eventually be drafted. In football the odds are slightly better, with .08% or 250 of just over 317,000 high school senior players being drafted. http://www.thesportdigest.com... Keep in mind this is just the NCAA, as the numbers are selective but in high school the number is wider because there's more opportunity. So the chances of a high school player skipping college and becoming pro is very low because they are not going to have the skills or experience from a lower level of play. How do they know if they can compete with other college level players? To wrap this up, paying college athletes would just be unjust. It would not be fair for the many reasons I've stated above. This debate is about college athletes being paid & I provide more than enough information as to why they should not be paid. My argument literally speaks for itself.

As I said doploma is just a piece of paper, so most of the billionaires hadn't an education exept school and for example Bill Gates or Donald Trump and etc. So, education it is just a wasting of time. By the work of accountant you couldn't achieve your goals or dreams and you should try everything and have risk everytime instead of just sitting in university or college.

Students already get paid from scholarships. Scholarships are worth a ton of money.

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.


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

Higher education might be outdated for millennials, but it remains indispensable. I concur that higher education might seem outdated for the millennial generation, yet I still believe it's essential. Firstly, while I agree that the internet has made a college education less necessary, as we can access vast amounts of information instantly, the formal process of higher education offers significant advantages. The earning potential with a college degree is nearly twice that of a high school graduate. Although the value of a college degree has diminished compared to the past, it still offers a significant salary advantage over high school graduates today. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average annual income varies widely by education level: High school dropouts earn $18,734, high school graduates earn $27,915, college graduates with a bachelor's degree earn $51,206, and holders of advanced degrees earn $74,602. Initially, a high school graduate might earn more than a college student, but over time, the college graduate's higher earnings will balance out and surpass the high school graduate's income. Moreover, a college student can easily work part-time while attending school full-time, as I did myself while maintaining excellent grades. While my opponent mentioned that higher education is expensive, this is not true for all college graduates. Some received scholarships for excellent grades, others came from wealthy families, and some attended community colleges before transferring to a four-year university, saving a significant amount of money. This issue can be addressed by making college tuition free and funded by taxes. The average college student's debt upon graduation is $30,100, which can be repaid in less than two years of work, given that college graduates earn $24,000 more annually than high school graduates. Although they must pay off their debt for the first year and a half, they will catch up to high school graduates in less than ten years and surpass them in terms of lifetime earnings. A college education can greatly benefit a person, depending on their chosen field. For instance, I am currently studying to become a psychiatrist, which requires an additional four years of education after a bachelor's degree. The average annual salary for a psychiatrist is $193,680, more than double the average salary for holders of advanced degrees. Doctors and other specialists also earn significantly higher salaries. If more people pursued careers in the medical field, they would earn considerably more, making higher education well worth the investment. College education also signals

They use college as a comparison to joining the military. “Teenagers have about 5 years’ worth of actual life experience”. Not practical adult life experience, which is what counts. “Would it be wise to say our college students are impulsive? ” Absolutely it would. If you sign up for college without a plan or even a major in mind (as your source has indicated), you really should sit out until you can figure it out. A major difference however is that you can leave college whenever you want (although if you are far along it is not advisable). Not so with the military, you are locked into a contract (5 or 6 years are common) and can’t get out except in very special circumstances. In college you get the major you sign up for, in the Military you MO can change without your choice. Part of the problem is everyone thinks they have to go to college. “Would it be rational and beneficial to teens if we delay admission to college until their 21? ” In many cases it would, particularly if you haven’t decided on a major. My opponent mentions not all jobs in the military are dangerous, that is true but it is far more dangerous than college. Yes it is true the military does pay for college and that is why many join for that reason rather than they fully believe in the cause or they are thinking more about the money than the risks involved. [1]I think for college something you learn in high school should be to have a plan, other countries deal with this easier by having a track system. This could lead to a whole new argument in itself, but it can actually be an effective means of dealing with these problems. The biggest downside being the lack of choice later on. [2]I wish I had made another round but I didn’t so that does it for my argument. I feel I have demonstrated my case. So vote for me if you are convinced. Thank you. 1 . http://sundial.csun.edu...2 . https://www.usnews.com...

My argument is fairly simple. The U.S. spends roughly 20% of its budget (about $530 billion) on the military, as opposed to education, which receives 2% of the federal budget ($53 billion) [1]. In order to make a more productive nation economically, and therefore capable of devoting the same amount of money, but on a lower percentage, to the military, we should invest in education, at least temporarily, by diverting excess funds from the military. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Hey the education is because of choice is wrong. As you can see, that this education is the one that has made your choice. Then will choice appear by it self? Well no. EDUCATION IS THE ONE THAT IS TAKING EVERYBODYS THINKING!!!!! Well that is what I am talking about.

My argument stands from before. I have used Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out that education would fall under esteem; certainly not love/belonging, safety and physiological and so is not the most important thing. This is through an existential sense, an individual's perspective on importance. Pro has not given any further arguments, I am guessing this is because of the incredibly short time he set for the arguments, which I did not notice until I accepted the challenge. All judges should take this into consideration, we had only 15 minutes to post our arguments, hence my rushed responses and possibly explaining why Pro forfeited; though he was the one who set the time to be so short in the first place.

I do not understand why you would forfeit the round, but I will still post an argument for you to consider for the next round if you do not forfeit that one as well. The question itself is rather vague. I am going to assume that by 2 year tuition you are referring to Community College, and most 2 year colleges offer an Associates Degree. Firstly, I will start off by stating that I do not believe that government should play a part in education, as they are morbidly inefficient with people's money. Secondly, I will state that college is demand based. If there is more incentive to do something, then the cost will go up. Government subsidizes and created incentive to go to college, which means that the cost of the goes up tremendously. Additionally, Community Colleges already cost a very little amount compared to private universities since they are paid for by the state. The education is of course not as good, but it is also not as costly. Thirdly, I do not understand what you mean by "maintains the 4yr. college debt." For whom? If the government decides to go in to private universities and force them to lower tuition then that will violated the Constitution and most likely the universities will sue. If the government goes in to Community Colleges then that will be okay, but they will have to pay more money. Since we are in a deficit, and currently hold very little money, we would need to increase taxes to pay for this lowered tuition. No one should subsidize other people's lives. You should pay for college on your own. If government left college altogether the demand would go down and so would the cost. This is okay, because some people who attend college are rather stupid and drop out either way.

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

1) All arguments dropped 2) " Looks like you have lost this debate not just out of sheer ignorance, but out of a lack of interest in TRUTH."Oh I am interested in the truth, I did actual research into your claim, found several fallacies in your logic, presented those fallacies to you, and you ignored them like a 4 year old....3) "Try this for an article reference: http://endoftheamericandream.com...;I checked out this article, and I must say it is rather unreliable and biased, how do I know this? These are some of the other headlines that have come from this same website... - 1 - "35 Shocking Facts That Prove That College Education Has Become A Giant Money Making Scam" - 2 - "All Hail The United States Of Germany? The Rest Of Europe Is Facing Either German Domination Or Financial Collapse" - 3 - "17 Reasons Why A Vote For Mitt Romney Is A Vote For The New World Order" - 4 - "You Won't Believe How Corrupt, Lazy And Stinking Rich Our Congress Critters Have Become" - 5 - "10 Reasons Why Lindsay Lohan Is Right About The Federal Reserve And The Price Of Food" - 6 - "12 Very Disturbing Examples Of Radical Social Engineering By The U.S. Government" - 7 - "Solid Proof That Weather Modification Projects Are Being Conducted All Over The United States" - 8 - "Fukushima Is Continually Blasting All Of Us With High Levels Of Cesium, Strontium And Plutonium And Will Slowly Kill Millions For Years To Come" - 9 - "Edible Microchips, Biometric Identity Systems And Mind Reading Computers" - 10 - "Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya" - 11 - "Will The Newly Created "Killer Bird Flu" Someday Be Used As A Bio-Terror Weapon To Reduce The Population?" - 12 - "How Globalism Has Destroyed Our Jobs, Businesses And National Wealth In 10 Easy Steps"These are the headlines that come from this website..... So I think it is safe to say this is a very biased source that the Pro is basing his entire "argument" on.....4) "And don't make me hold your hand while exposing you to the truth about mainstream media and politics."You havent shown anyone anything..... Other than your sub 40 IQ level.....5) "And I thought you knew something about the way the world runs."I thought this would be a good debate with a sensible sane person.......... So it looks like we're both disappointed.....6) All my arguments still stand....

I agree with you on this one. And even then it is not something that you or I would have have to option of experiencing if it went in effect any time soon considering we will be graduating soon enough.

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

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


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

Higher Education is no longer relevant for the millennial generation.

Rebuttal 1: It's true that millennials prioritize societal impact, community involvement, and corporate social responsibility over material wealth. In fact, only 12.5% of millennials agree that money is the sole measure of success, compared to 22% of the general population. However, this doesn't mean that higher education is outdated. Many careers that contribute to society, such as nursing, require a college degree. Additionally, more millennials are attending college than any other generation, suggesting that they still see value in higher education.

Rebuttal 2: While it's true that some students pursue college for the sake of a degree rather than an education, this doesn't mean that college is outdated. There are many reasons to pursue a college degree beyond job qualification, such as personal growth and intellectual curiosity. Furthermore, if college is truly outdated, why are more millennials attending college than any other generation?

Rebuttal 3: There are alternative pathways to career success, such as passing exams for actuary or apprenticing with a lawyer. However, not all careers offer such alternatives. For example, becoming a doctor requires a medical degree. Even if alternative pathways exist, making college tax-payer funded would make both routes equally viable.

Rebuttal 4: It's true that many students change majors and that not all students graduate within four or five years. However, this doesn't mean that college is outdated. It simply means that the current system needs reform to better support students in their career exploration and decision-making.

Rebuttal 5: The statistic that excludes those who entered higher education below 18 years doesn't significantly impact the argument. The point remains that adults, in general, have more instances of anxiety or depressive disorders than university students. While it's true that combining percentages for undergraduates and graduates is not possible, the actual percentage of college students with depression or anxiety is still somewhere in between 13% and 15.6%. This suggests that college is not a significant contributor to mental health issues. Source: [7] https://www.whitehouse.gov...

Education is important for all people who wants to do a succesfull career. Also all skills which person got from school and university experience are needed in life and work. Many employers now require education for employment. If person did not learn accounting how person can work for position of accountant? How employer can know is potential worker know his work well if he does not have any diploma? All high-paid work required high education now. It is rule. Without diploma no one cannot find a good high-paid job. http://healthcareers.about.com...

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

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.

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

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

Your claim regarding education funding seems to be false. http://nces.ed.gov... There seems to be an unspoken and hidden agenda to change the public education system to where it's not even recognizable. It's right out of the playbook of a national movement to eviscerate government in favor of private and for-profit enterprises. Vouchers are a plan to put tax money into private hands, it's not about education at all. Only the religious right will go along for the possibility of teaching biblical science in schools not subject to constitutional scrutiny. The voucher and online school plans are a product of ALEC, and are designed to profit ALEC members. In the shared experiences of public school, we form a unity of culture, and of purpose. Public schools are where we build citizens. If we only think of schools as places to learn facts, history, and skills, then we risk undervaluing the other, equally important functions that schools perform. Lately, there has arisen a pattern of denigrating and underfunding public schools while at the same time allowing easier withdrawal from the public system in favor of private schools and in-home education. This should not be allowed to continue. If the shared experience of public school builds citizens and nations, education outside the system works against those goals. Whether or not they intend it, home schooling and private schooling serve to separate us rather than bringing us together. As long as a home schooled child can do academics at a minimum level, there is no control regarding what else the child is being taught. Children of white supremacists can be educated as white supremacists. Children of radical fundamentalists can be educated as radical fundamentalists. The result is a fragmented population with no common purpose or shared values. The nation weakens, and the culture that makes us Americans is fading away. We must not destroy the public school system, and in fact we must restore it to its' traditional efficiency and function. Do not allow home schooling except in cases where the child cannot, for good reason, attend a public school. Private school curricula should be closely monitored to be sure that divisiveness is no part of what is taught. No public funds should go to support either home schooling or private schools of any kind, excepting only specialized facilities for special needs children. http://billmoyers.com...

In my communications classes I have repeatedly debated the topic of paying college football players because they are unable to work. Due to how much time is spent in the off season as well at in season. I am a college football player myself and find it hard to support my personal expense. Toiletries, clothes, food other than the dining and even a night out once and a while. Having school paid is indeed a big burden off my shoulders but school alone is not the financial issue of any college student. Theres also the fact that university's make so much money off the athletes that a portion of should go to the players. After all they are the one's people come to see. College coaches make allot of money, just half their salary without incentives would be more than enough to help out the players.

young people struggle for jobs. It is ridiculous for people to be paying money for education when they need money for rent, food, and daily needs. Also, some people need to sacrifice one of them... job or schooling? Of course schooling. This is one reason they couldn't achieve their dreams, like opening shops, being a singer or so on, because of the lack of money. Generally, many youngsters want good universities. Free unis might not be the dream school or fulfill their needs. So I believe this motion shall stand. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201486

Now, on to business. You say that the government would be bankrupted because of this. But, if people were to make more money they would be paying a larger income tax and spending more money, thus improving the economy. Though I admit that there is an unemployment rate, this would not necessarily raise it. It would merely mean an increase of jobs that aren't common in America, such as physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Thus leading us to greater technological advancement. Then there are the kids who can't afford to go to college, who have the intellect, but not the dough. People would still have to meet the high standards of colleges to get accepted. Seeing how America is spending $1,000 dollars a second in Iraq it would stand to reason that we can send Americans to a better future in medicine or engineering or finances, instead of to their deaths!

P1. Again its still not relevant because we are talking about the US not global. Yes it is a little but not enough to put the burden on those who managed to do well for themselves. P2. Well if you read the article posted preciously you would know the answer to that question. If you are given money there is no point to seek for a job because the government is providing for you. P3.Public schools wouldn't be considered informal schooling. Public schools are great. The poor are not on those that have master degrees but those who have no education and/or job skills. Conclusion: By considering these premises, the United States federal government should not substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.