Free college

University Proposition

College tuitions block some people from getting the education they need and want. University tuition is expensive. In some case of some prestigious college, the price reaches $60,000 only for the classes. Even for the public colleges, especially for international students, the price of education still lies high. So ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Speaker, we, the proposition strongly believes that university education should be free. To support our stance, we gave several reasons. First, we gave the number, the price of college tuition. The numbers about $10,000, which is quite high. Then we explained how the society, the nation can benefit from it. Our third reason concerns with the fair opportunity. If college education is free, students will not be limited to their choice because of their financial ability. OK. Now there were some major clashes here in the debate, first being the economics of this action and the second being the effectiveness of university education in creating opportunities and improving nations. For the first clash, we once again want to highlight the weight of the tuition. Students have large-sized tuition loans on their shoulders. They have to repay the debt for over many years. In the US, the students have total of one trillion in education debt. If something happens to them in their career, their credit rating and everything else will fall to the ground. They have to stay in job, maybe in one's they maybe not want for their profession for at least 10 years to repay their debt. The one's with scholarships, the opposition might mention, are the minority. The predicament that students face is serious. However, the proposition claims that the government will not have enough budgets for the program. But if the administrative cut expenditures for unsuccessful plans, I believe the government will be able to manage. Also, it's a fact that 60% of all students are already getting financial aid and people are only paying 1/2 of all tuition meaning that the government may be able to manage to pay for full tuition. The opposition might object that the people who don't need the benefits wouldn't pay the taxes for free higher education. But I would like to compare it with Obamacare, which is passed just a few days ago. Rich people fought against Obamacare but it was passes anyway. It goes with this Act. Free college education should be a social welfare, which should be paid by everyone. (Incase of EU, the problems comes from excessive social security. )(And for those of whom who feel that free higher education is excess, we can create laws that forces people to work for at least 4 years mandatora0lly to make use of their education.) The second clashes, which I mentioned as effectiveness of college education. The opposition explained that there is no increase in the number of university graduates and it wouldn't help to give everyone an opportunity for higher education. But we would like to comment that at least there would be no one who would be no one who would refuse college because of its tuition. This means everyone gets a chance to try out for college. The students wouldn't be limited to the choices either. The opposition then falsely claimed that the quality of education will drop. There is no evidence of that. For example, it true that Ivy colleges with high tuitions are the worlds best but public schools with lower tuitions like UCLA and UC Berkley also have high quality. Also, there are some private colleges where without scholarships don't have a good education system. This tells me that there is no real correlation between tuition and quality would also drop. About their final proposement, that since the availability of university education increases, the competition will also increase. We, the proposition believe it is a good thing and they might say many are jobless because of great competition but about 90% got jobs within 6 months. Young, smart people will have a better chance and because it is more competitive, the companies will have better assets on their sides. This will develop countries strength. We gave strong reasons for this clash, too. We explained society with many educated people would be more productive. For example, Sweden has the best students and is one of the countries with high GDP per capita. (The opposition also mentioned that free higher education will lower the motivation but the proposition has no evidence of it.) In conclusion, we, the proposition gave proper reasons for all of the two clashes to support the motion, providing free college education and that we have won the debate.

University opposition

Many middle class citizens are already suffering from taxes. Free college education will inhibit greater weight on their shoulders. We, the opposition therefore propose that college education should not be free. We gave 5 reasons to support our stance concerning the major two clashes, the economics of this action and the effectiveness of college education in developing education in developing societies. For the first clash, economics, we explained that the government couldn't pay for it. As I told you in the introduction, the middle class is already suffering from taxes. If free higher education comes into effect, there will be more taxes in addition to their normal burden. For example, there are high taxes in EU where many social welfare, like free colleges. However, the proposition just explained how students are suffering. They are ignoring the fact that the burden of tuition just moves from students to everyone. According to the Huffington Post, the students have more than $1 trillion in debt for education. This amount of money was just accumulated through loans-usually the government pays ½ of all tuition and some use up their college savings. If the government were subjected to pay everyone’s full tuition, cutting some unimportant expenditure wouldn’t be enough. Also, in terms of students’ economics, they don’t get great jobs right after they graduate. The EU has another problem, the citizens have less urge to study or to work which directly connects with the second clash, the effectiveness of college education for the good of the society. The proposition claims that society will improve upon well-educated population because of its increase in productiveness. Also they thought university education is a right of a person. (They thought that everyone should be allowed to attend college. ) For the first part of what they have proposed, we would like to argue with an example of Denmark. The difference in earnings of university graduates and non-graduates averages about $73,000. This amount is very minimal compared to the US $315,000, according to the CNN. If this situation continues, the students would have less motivation and reason to attend college. As our second speaker has explained, the students will only care about going to a university so the grades that students will get will be lower. In addition, colleges wouldn’t be able to support a good quality classes., In the first world countries, quality is far more important than quantity. The colleges would definitely receive less money from the government than from the students. This may lower salaries for professors or other types of research grants. This may directly affect good quality instructors to leave fro good private colleges where they can be paid more. And the colleges may only teach about money- making subjects which may also help decreasing the quality and actually disfame the reputation of the country, making it “a country that only provides cheap, technical education.” If this happens, the universities lose its purpose and thus fail. (Now for the point about the ‘opportunity’, I would like to once again restate what the proposition spoke about. They provided the idea that there will actually be no increase in university graduates. If this happens, the poor will be poorer because to enter a university, there will be more competition. And as the proposition stated, the might have to work, giving them less time to prepare for college entrance exams.) By this we have successfully defrayed the propositions arguments. And plus we would like to once again point out that students wouldn’t work as hard, because they don’t need scholarships and that people without kids wouldn’t pay taxes or agree with the laws to support these free colleges. And there are alternatives; more scholarships and financial aids and don’t forget to remember that university education is not the only way to happiness. In conclusion, with all these reasons, we, the opposition strongly believe that college education shouldn’t be free, that motion shouldn’t stand and since proposition made many mistakes, that we have took the debate home.