Instigator / Con
3
1533
rating
18
debates
36.11%
won
Topic
#4036
The government should provide free college education
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
2
8
Better legibility
1
4
Better conduct
0
4
After 4 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
28
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description
Self explanatory
Round 1
Con
#1
One of the main arguments against free college education is that it would be too costly for the government. According to a report by the American Enterprise Institute, the cost of providing free college education to all students in the United States could range from $70 billion to $90 billion per year (McKay, 2016). This is a significant amount of money, and it would likely need to be funded through higher taxes, which could be unpopular with many taxpayers.
Another argument against free college education is that there are already programs in place that can help to make college more affordable for low-income students. For example, the Federal Pell Grant program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate students, and there are also a number of scholarships and other financial aid programs available. These programs can help to make college more affordable for those who cannot afford the full cost of tuition, and may be a more targeted and cost-effective way to address the issue of college affordability.
There are also concerns that free college education could lead to overcrowding at colleges and universities. If college becomes free, it is likely that more students will choose to enroll, which could lead to a shortage of space and resources at colleges and universities. This could lead to a decline in the quality of education, as there would be more students per instructor and
less individual attention for students.Some argue that free college education could lead to a decline in the value of a college degree. If college is free, it is possible that more students will choose to enroll, even if they are not academically prepared or motivated. This could lead to an increase in the number of students who struggle to complete their degree or who do not perform well academically. This could lead to a decline in the value of a college degree, as employers may become less likely to view it as a reliable indicator of knowledge and skills.
In conclusion, there are several arguments against the government providing free college education.
It would be costly, and there are already programs in place that can help to make college more affordable for low-income students. It could also lead to overcrowding and a decline in the quality of education, and could devalue the value of a college degree. While the idea of free college education may be appealing, there are significant drawbacks that should be considered.
Additionally, there are some who argue that free college education could have negative impacts on the higher education system as a whole. For example, it could lead to a decline in funding for colleges and universities, as they would no longer be able to rely on tuition revenues to cover their costs. This could lead to a decline in the quality of education and resources available to students.
Another potential issue with free college education is that it could lead to a decline in the number of private colleges and universities. Private colleges and universities often rely on tuition revenues to cover their costs, and if college becomes free at public institutions, it may be difficult for private
institutions to compete. This could lead to a decline in the number of private institutions, which could limit the options available to students.
Finally, some argue that free college education could discourage students from pursuing higher education in certain fields. If college is free, it is possible that more students will choose to pursue degrees in popular or lucrative fields, even if they are not truly interested in those subjects. This could lead to a decline in the number of students pursuing degrees in less popular or lower-paying fields, such as the arts or humanities. This could have negative consequences for society, as these fields can contribute to a well-rounded and diverse educational landscape.
In conclusion, while free college education may seem like a good idea on the surface, there are a number of potential drawbacks and negative consequences that should be considered. It could be costly for the government and taxpayers, and could lead to a decline in the quality of education, a decline in the number of private colleges and universities, and a decline in the number of students pursuing degrees in certain fields. These are all important factors to consider when deciding whether or not to implement a free college education program.
References:
McKay, D. (2016). The High Cost of Free College. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/publication/the-high-cost-of-free-college/
Pro
#2
I. Resolution Analysis
1. Definitions (from Merriam-Webster)
Government: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization
Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency
Provide: to supply or make available (something wanted or needed)
Free: not costing or charging anything
College: an independent institution of higher learning offering a course of general studies leading to a bachelor's degree
Education: the action or process of educating or of being educated
2. Interpretations
Immediately, upon reading the resolution, ambiguities become clear. In particular:
- What is “the government”?
- Does “college” refer to all colleges?
- “Provide free college education” to whom?
I will assume that the answers to these questions (since CON failed to clarify in the description) are:
- The US government
- Only public colleges
- To students in need
I am aware that the last assumption may be criticized by CON. However, I will lay out a three-point defense for why this assumption makes sense.
a. Students from low-income families
Much of the debate around free college education revolves around the unfairness of student debt to students from low-income families.
It makes sense, when thinking of free college education, to focus on students truly in need. CON’s case is based on strawmanning free college for the entire US college system, an unrealistic system that would only magnify inequalities.
b. Status quo
Currently, the US awards need-based grants to students in need – this is certainly one form of government-provided free college education, so I have no idea why CON thought mentioning it would possibly help his case.
c. Maybe you shouldn’t have made the resolution so ambiguous
Recall the definition of provide: “To supply or make available (something wanted or needed)”
Clearly, by the definition of provide, the US is hardly obligated to make college free for everyone. Instead, it could make college free for only those who truly need it.
3. Winning conditions
PRO must prove that the US should provide free college education (to students in need)
CON must prove that US should not provide free college education (to students in need)
4. Scope
CON, in his resolution and description, has not stated that college should be free for all students - only that it should be "provided". Reasonably, I can assume that the resolution is whether free college should be provided by the government at all.
As such, I will be focusing on grant-based programs, which give free college education to students in need.
II. Constructives
In this section, I will show why the US should keep its current free college education programs – in particular, the Pell Grant program.
First of all, the Pell Grant program provides free college education (for many students in need). On average, it provides $4312 to students attending 2-year public universities, the most common type. [1] In most states, the cost of tuition and feeds (combined education costs) is below that, thereby making a Pell Grant a government-provided free college education for many students. [2]
Second of all, the Pell Grant program is beneficial for the US. According to the nonprofit organization Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [3],
“By expanding college access, Pell Grants help narrow the postsecondary achievement gap between low- and moderate-income students and those of greater means. They boost college enrollment, reduce drop-out rates, and improve student outcomes. By enabling students to work less and take more courses, they also help accelerate graduation and improve college completion rates.”
Furthermore, the Pell Grant program also avoids some of the most commonly cited problems with universal free college, including the high cost to taxpayers. By only giving targeted financial aid to those who truly need it, the Pell Grant program reduces inequality, benefits graduates in the long-term, and increases the share of educated workforce in America as a whole.
III. Conclusion
In this round, I have:
- Analyzed the resolution, and shown my interpretation
- Demonstrated why my interpretation is more reasonable
- That is, the interpretation that the government should provide free college – to whom? - of course, those who truly need it
- Demonstrated how current need-based free college programs benefit the US
I will rebut my opponent's arguments next round. I look forward to my opponent’s response. Vote PRO!
IV. Sources:
Round 2
Pro
#4
I. Rebuttals
“One of the main arguments against free college education is that it would be too costly for the government. According to a report by the American Enterprise Institute, the cost of providing free college education to all students in the United States could range from $70 billion to $90 billion per year (McKay, 2016). This is a significant amount of money, and it would likely need to be funded through higher taxes, which could be unpopular with many taxpayers.”CON’s argument assumes fully funded college for every student in the US, in contrast to the plan I showed, of government-provided free college for students in need only.
In 2021-22, the US government spent a comparatively paltry $25.9 billion on Pell Grants. In addition, this government investment generates a high rate of return, in the form of a more educated workforce.
“Another argument against free college education is that there are already programs in place that can help to make college more affordable for low-income students.”
Extend R1 – CON’s strawman plan for the government assumes providing free college to all students, in contrast to the more reliable and cost-efficient plan I showed.
“There are also concerns that free college education could lead to overcrowding at colleges and universities. If college becomes free, it is likely that more students will choose to enroll, which could lead to a shortage of space and resources at colleges and universities. This could lead to a decline in the quality of education, as there would be more students per instructor and less individual attention for students.”
Under the current Pell Grants program, colleges appear to be doing just fine. According to the Natural Center for Education Statistics, the average student-to-faculty ratio in colleges and universities is 14-1.
“Additionally, there are some who argue that free college education could have negative impacts on the higher education system as a whole. For example, it could lead to a decline in funding for colleges and universities, as they would no longer be able to rely on tuition revenues to cover their costs. This could lead to a decline in the quality of education and resources available to students.”
Current student aid programs allow the government to pay the cost of tuition, rendering this irrelevant.
“Finally, some argue that free college education could discourage students from pursuing higher education in certain fields. If college is free, it is possible that more students will choose to pursue degrees in popular or lucrative fields, even if they are not truly interested in those subjects. This could lead to a decline in the number of students pursuing degrees in less popular or lower-paying fields, such as the arts or humanities. This could have negative consequences for society, as these fields can contribute to a well-rounded and diverse educational landscape.”
Source?
II. Extension
Extend all arguments from last round, as my opponent forfeited.
III. Sources
Extend sources from R1.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
plagiarism and ff
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeiture.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeiture by CON
LOL!
All this coming from the guy who is upset that his constant snitching and brown-nosing was insufficient to be rewarded the promotion of middle-manager.
Your schoolyard bully mentality is not gonna help you out in life.
Perhaps you developed an understanding that sucking up to the other popular jerks is a smart way to stay ahead or something, I see a lot of trauma signs showing in you including the constant deflection to joking when your 'mean' or 'aggressive' side doesn't quite work out.
What I wonder is is that just a shell with a caring person inside or are you just a true sociopath that's too far gone? I will enjoy finding out as your time here ensues, most people are easy to read.
Your level of self-awareness is admirable.
And you're an established bootlicker of anyone with authority here so far so kinda loses the sting to that punchline.
“You do YOUR DUTY and I shut up and accept what you do.
That is all you wanted us to be and all we are. You do your decisions, I inform and report”
So you’re an established snitch?
same to you with your frustration, move on. xoxo
Then why are you still tagging me in messages where you express your frustration? Move on.
I am not sure how you think you are coming across but it sounds like I should be afraid to inform you of activity as you whine at me that what you think you should do is not in line with what I think you should do.
I don't matter, I am not the president. Call your own shots. If I was the president, my only job would be to stop you going too far. You are the shotcaller, you are the boss.
I did MY DUTY and informed you and Barney since we all know Supadudz is not doing much at all.
You do YOUR DUTY and I shut up and accept what you do.
That is all you wanted us to be and all we are. You do your decisions, I inform and report.
And I'll warn him not to do it again. That doesn't mean that I'm going to retroactively change this to unrated to deny Austin a win. Wylted's forfeits are not Austin's failings, but you sure make it sound like that's how I should treat them.
this is a website ambassador, the president, plagiarising and destroying what rating means.
Unfairly... what?
Wylted forfeited several rounds. That's been the basis for practically every vote against him, not the plagiarism. If you view that as the problem, then there have been an awful lot of people absolutely gaming the system since this site started.
his opponent is unfairly gaining a win, you are absolutely RIDICULOUS but do not worry.
You want a broken system, enjoy your shithole. That is the end of that discussion.
so his opponent gained rating unfairly and his own rating deflated.
This is intentional gaming and devaluing of what rating means.
On top of that it is plagiarism and using a bot to do one's debates.
Not sure what you want us to do here. If he was gaining points off of plagiarism, I'd agree that we should change this over to unrated, but he forfeited every round after the first and he's getting hammered for it in the votes. It's not like we're going to ban him for doing this anyway, and I'm not going to change it over to unrated when his opponent is the only one benefitting from this being rated.
No, it doesn't, that's the one person the president can't overturn punishments for.
It’s too late to prosecute him. The Presidency grants him immunity.
Well played.
It really is debatable whether that is plagiarism or not. I would say no. I know some people also consider AI art plagiarism as well, which is very odd.
PLAGIARISED ROUND 1 RATED
Education needs to be free
Don’t reveal your plans in the comment section. It could strengthen the opposing case. You want to be stronger than your opponent.
Really not helping your case there with "the center of the world" comment.
College education is where people attend college to learn from teachers. Also America is the center of the world
I could certainly make a case involving the ambiguity of "the government." Seriously, how Americentric is it to assume that "the government" automatically refers to the US government?
What government? What counts as education? "Self explanatory" my ass, nobody should win by purposely knowing something they wouldn't give to their opponent.