query: Is a college education worth it?

positive: College is a Necessity to be Successful I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning "half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. "According to Wall Street Journal,"Paying for college never is easy, but it"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can"t afford a college education. That"s wrong. Most of them can." Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.

positive: College is a Necessity to be Successful The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to "Actually, College is Very Much Worth It" by Andrew J. Rotherham "College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans." College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates.

positive: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Due to recent events in our debates I have come to see that even though nationwide high schools now encourage students to strive for four-year universities and colleges I have come to ask myself if those four long years are really worth it? For many, a four-year college is an impossible option and other times for those who do strive for their education find themselves lost of what to now do with their acquired education. Seeing on the Debt.org website, an organization dedicated to aiding in college grads debt, that "...college graduates are left with a diploma and an enormous financial burden of credit card and student loan debt " and maybe no job in sight". Especially focusing not just on these student's debt but also how they may not be able to even find jobs. In order for this economy to flourish we need a stable working class, but if the majority are jobless and in debt our country will plummet. In order to evade such disaster perhaps it should be taken into account that these full college educations are not worth it and instead strive for an Associates that can still provide well paid working jobs for many; trade skill occupations.

positive: Governemt Should Intervene to Lower College Costs Here, I will attempt to prove that college costs are rising faster than the public can afford, and there is no forseeable decline, which necessitates government intervention. Con will attempt to prove that college costs are acceptable on their current path. Because of this, BoP is shared. I. Rapid Increase in College Costs and Student Debt The cost to go to college is becoming insurmountably large in the modern era, and is still increasing. College tuition is inflating almost twice as fast as the rate of baseline inflation in the economy[2]! What this amounts to is college tuition is rising far faster than purchasing power per capita (PPP) is increasing, saddling both students and their families with more debt after college. College costs, historically, have gone up about twice the rate of inflation each year, amount to approximately an 8% tuition inflation rate per annum, while GDP per capita (PPP) historically increases approximately 5% a year. This means that college costs double every nine years[2], while GDP per capita (PPP) has only gone up by approximately 25% since 2003, and this rate has also been historically constant[4]. Family incomes, meanwhile, increase on average by only 1% a year. With this wide disparity in increases, it would be foolish to suggest anything other than that debt among US students will continue to increase, saddling the "new competitors" of our globalized economy with more they will have to worry about, and more they will have to pay for. In fact, the average (this does not account any graduate programs the student might wish to partake in, nor does it take into account debt taken on by the parents of the student) debt after college was over $25,000 in 2010, over 5% higher than the average debt of 2009[3]. Of 1,100 schools surveyed under the Project on Student Debt study, 98 (9%) said that their students were graduating on average with $35,000 of debt[3]. However, as these numbers were voluntarily reported by the collleges themselves, the numbers have the potential to be significantly higher, and they will be significantly higher as college tuition continues to skyrocket and average GDP per capita (PPP) and family income remains growing slow and steadily[5][6]. II. Lack of Free Market Forces Normally Associated with Reducing Costs and Making Services More Affordable "Top institutions have chosen to maintain and increase quality largely by spending more, not by increasing efficiency, reducing costs, or reallocating funds"[1]. Normally, when business compete to gain a greater share of the market and attract more customers, they try to put out better products and reduce the cost of business, to make their products as cheap and attractive as possible to the consumer. However, as this quotation shows, colleges and universities are not doing this. In their drive to increase quality, they have thrown cost considerations out the window. Frankly, there is no incentive to do this for most colleges. Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, Rice, Johns Hopkins and many, many others will all have students apply to them, as it is becoming increasingly apparent a college education is necessary for survival in today's hypercompetitive economy (this will be further looked into next section). With this guarantee that they will receive business no matter what, the only thing colleges need to do to compete is increase the quality of their facilities. However, while this is all well and good, it costs money, money which is then dumped onto the backs of students in the form of additional tuition. Now, one might argue that this sort of competition is only for schools like the Ivys, and that less-well-known schools would be working on lowering costs to appear more attractive. Not so. On average, Ivy League schools have in increase in tuition per annum lower than the average tuition rate per annum of all colleges[7][8]. In reality, those lesser-known colleges are increasing their quality faster than the well-endowed Ivys to catch up to them, and they do not have the high level of endowments the Ivys are typically associated with. So here we have it; the high-level colleges and universities are incredibly costly already, and smaller schools are fast reaching that level of costliness. There are no free market forces going, "Wait, stop! This is too much! "; those students who wish to pursue a higher-level career cannot choose to not go to college, and as such there is no possibility of not buying the product as it is an absolute necessity. In fact, the free market forces present are driving the cost upwards; when cost is irrelevant as it is to the institutions of higher learning, quality is all that matters, further pushing the price upwards[1]. Meanwhile, the federal government, while it has the potential to be a positive force, has been a negative one. As the government has pressured universities to cut indirect costs rather than making advancements in efficiency, the price of research has skyrocketed, which has been dumped on tuition[1]. All of these factors are contributing to making the cost of higher learning skyrocket at a time when it is necessary more than ever. III. Necessity of a College Education Nowadays more than ever, a college education is a necessity. Beyond the well-cited benefits of even a bachelor's degree (between $250,000 and $500,000[10]) vs a high school diploma, there are vast social benefits, garnered by all of society, that result from students graduating college. When access to higher education was easier, a healthy middle class and US economic dominance resulted, long past the time when Europe and Asia recovered from World War II[11]. However, as student debt has soared, income disparity and a shrinking middle class have been the result[9]. Competition from Europe and Asia has increased, and while much of this can be attributed to growing Chinese economic might, at least some of it must be attributed to a more costly education system. Additionally, college grads are less likely to commit crimes, live longer, healthier lives, and make more informed political decisions, on average[12]. All of these things benefit not only the graduate, but society as a whole. Thus, it is more important now than ever to go to college, but as has been shown, college costs and student debt are increasing rapidly, putting a strain on students, their families, and society as a whole. IV. ConclusionsWith students, on average, coming out of college with $25,000 of debt (an article in the Wall Street Journal recently said that the total amount of education-related debt still circulated has surpassed $1T) and college and university tuition rising faster than family incomes and GDP per capita (PPP), the current education system is becoming too expensive to bear. At a time when a college education is being needed most, it is becoming harder and harder to get. Without normal free market forces available to drive prices down, the federal and state governments must take a hand. I propose state and federal governments act to best lower costs. Their hand should be minimal, but government monetary aid of some sort will be necessary to curtial these rising costs. It is also important to remember that this expenditure would be investment rather than another government program with no return in sight. Your turn, Mr. Franklin. Sources will be posted in the comments, as I do not have room here.

positive: College education is not necessary to become successful College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or "career". In order to get a "career" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .

positive: Going to college is worth Consider a smart person who is determined to be a lawyer. This person has a full ride scholarship, so education is free, and it is necessary for this person's life dreams and happiness to be a lawyer. A degree is required to practice law [1]. You cannot become a lawyer without being able to practice law, and so, since classes cost no money, it is totally worth it for this person to go to college. 1. http://study.com...

positive: University education should be free First I would like to start this round by asking this question.How am I plagiarizing a source if I quoted the source and gave a website I got the information from? I am using someone else's words to support my argument. That is not plagiarizing. Please disregard what my opponent said in the last round because that is not what happened. Here is some more evidence, non-plagiarized, that supports my argument.The website for the national forensics league. http://www.neisd.net... Page 9 displays the rules for a Lincoln-Douglas debate which this is,if you would like to check the rules.First off for this round I would like to point out the fact that most college students have to work part time to get money to pay for college. If we aide with me on this those students could focus on their homework. The more time a student has to focus on homework the better they will do.Here is what others have to say:Yes! Yes! Yes! Knowledge should not come with a price tag. I actually wish it was how it was back in the days when people were taught their professions by other people while on the job, or accepted into schools based on high marks. Winning a scholarship should be attainable to all people who do well academically.privilege and not a right, but not everyone has that privilege and with the way higher education costs now, less and less people will be able to go. Sure there's aid, but it's not enough to cover the rising costs without putting students into an insane amount of debt. There's only a limited amount of money one can take out without having that extra stress in their lives, and not everyone can get their parents to pay or help take out loans. For example, my parents couldn't cosign for me to take out student loans for college because their credit was so terrible (they lost their house a few years ago). I was then told by the financial aid office "you don't have to go to college if you can't afford it". Now a year has passed since then and I'm planning to drop out because the costs have risen even more and I'm getting less aid. Eventually this has to stop, because clearly the way things are going now don't work and they haven't for a long time now.Yes Education is the most important thing you can have. You can go anywhere with an education. We as humans need currency to get around and basically live, you wont have that if you dont have a job. A (good) job is acquired through an education. If you cannot afford an education, then you're considered a failure?Absolutely! Everyone should have access to college educational opportunities. Just because you can't pay for it doesn't mean you shouldn't go. If higher education were free, maybe some people would be a bit brighter. And in my very personal opinion, if you haven't gone to college, then you should have no vote in whether college is free or not...Posted by: Collegekid1592 Higher Education should be free! some people cant afford it and if they really are showing intrest in getting a higher education they should be able not having to worry about the cost.Higher Education should be free People have more opportunities for job and employment if they are educated meaning they have access to material conditions which they need for better life such as health care and some necessary services which give protection and safety. In addition, if someone from a poor background got educated, he or she can escape from the poverty cycle and generation gets improved with the help of jobs and being employed as a result of higher education. Higher education means good jobs and employment. If more people are highly educated, people will be more considerate, responsible, independent,and reliable for some reasons. All people should be given the rights to free education to get rid of poverty and inhumanity. It doesn't mean people who aren't educated are inhumane. Of course, there are some people out there who are way more intelligent and ethical then people who are educated.Yes, Yes, and Yes. As more people get degrees, jobs that required a High School diploma are now demanding Associates and Bachelor degrees. The lower your degree the more years of experience are demanded from you by the firm you are applying to. As a result, a college degree is becoming a necessity for High School graduates in order to find a job that pays a living wage. The government should fund the universities and colleges directly rather than give out loans to students so that the students will not be overburdened by debt and be forced to move back with their parents. People are more reluctant than ever to start a family because they feel they cannot handle the expenses of a child while the married couple have yet to pay Uncle Sam his money. People will be less likely to spend money, which is bad for the economy and businesses; especially when people are underemployed because of the current economic climate. If the government wants to truly stimulate the economy, they will forgive student loan debt so that people can get that piece of paper that qualifies them for a job, start their lives, and get the money flowing out of the pockets and into the economy. From a quality standpoint, making higher education a taxpayer funded entity will not diminish it's quality. What will diminish it's quality, however, are the individual professors that care more about their own projects and research than teaching students; which is what is happening today. The schools can remain prestigious by accepting those who meet their standards, prestige should not be based on how much money you spend for your degree.Making higher education free is a fiscally and socially responsible decision that will ensure everyone has a chance to earn a degree without having to jump through hoops in order to get enough money to attend a college/university. This country could enjoy a well-informed and educated population that contributes a great deal to our nation. As it stands today we as a country are one of the least educated among first world nations, and I firmly believe that this is because higher education is out of reach for so many. This needs to change.This is a no-brainer. All we are hearing, is news of tuition rates increasing. This is not setting a very good example of the incentives for attending college. People need to be motivated, and feel inspired. College, is much more than memorizing key terms, for a quiz, suffering from sleep deprivation, and stressing over getting a 'REQUIRED' course cancelled at the last moment.The focus, needs to be on the student's. Give student's the opportunity, and drive to discover the true joy of learning, without imposing all of the monetary constraints that have become so commonplace.Plus think of it. Free education, better jobs, more knowledge, better tech, more advancements, and life just keeps getting better and better.The question is who will pay for all of this?I say payment should work out the same as high schools and other schools. Plus there should be a charity foundation per school. Also they could do competitions where people pay to compete in games and activities. All of this money goes to the school. It works out for everyone in the end.

positive: State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state 1) "There are countless potential college students who don't get the opportunity to go and get this higher education because of the outrageous costs"Um, not all colleges cost $140,000 for four years, in fact according to the US department of education the average cost for colleges are slightly less than $90,000 which is about $22500 a year or $11250 a semester...Now does not being able to easily pay off loans mean that students dont get to go to college at all? Nope... Close to 70% of high school graduates are currently enrolled in college, so the picture the Pro is painting saying that there are "countless" people being denied college is a sorely overdramatic description of reality. 70% of high school graduates get into a college or a university even though many of them cant afford it. Just because college is expensive, it doesnt flat out deny people from going to college, it only scares away a couple of very low income families. High school graduates can easily get into a college these days, and the numbers reflect that. Want to know something interesting? recent trends actually show that more and more american high school graduates are making their way into collegehttp://www.bls.gov...http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...-http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...So at this point let me emphasize 2 points1) 70% of all high school graduates have already gotten into college implying that financial costs is not a big setback to attendance rates2) The percentage of high schoolers getting into college despite growing tuition costs has steadily GROWN for years now"The government provides oil companies with billions of dollars to explore for oil, why can't we shift that money towards college tuition?"???? Where the hell did oil companies come from?2) "But much of our tax burden goes to fund unemployment, welfare and other programs to assist the unemployed"does 17% count as "much"? You can see by the graph below that only about 16% of all US taxes go to funding unemployment benefits and welfare This means that a fraction of our taxes go towards unemployment benefits....."One reason for unemployment is because most of the businesses are looking for employees with specific skills and talents, most of which can only be obtained through an college education."Maybe you havent noticed, but another reason that unemployment happens is because at one point the economy was really sh*tty and jobs started disappearing and people who had college educations are getting fired....."it is in the taxpayers best interest to get as many young adults, and older ones for that matter, into college to gain this knowledge"So you think that Americans who 1) Already pay too much taxes should double or triple their tax rates so that 2) the measly 16% of expenses that the government does spend on welfare and unemployment benefits would be expanded 3) To let only another 30% of the population get a CHANCE at a college degree 4) in an environment where jobs were being lost not because of favoritism for college graduates, but because of a bad economy in the hopes that 5) It might fix it when instead we could be 6) making our tax dollars more efficient or try to address more concerning education problems.....3) Pro agrees that not everything in life is guaranteed and that graduating college is one of those, other than that..."you may not have what it takes to get through a college curriculum" - Thank you"So allow students to try and fail" - Thats what I want to do, the Pro wants to take taxpayer funds to make people go to college and try or fail for free, and if they fail than they have to repay EVERYTHING"Colleges also offer vocational courses for plumbing, welding, electrical, etc. " - And taxpayers would be pretty pissed paying a 60% tax rate so that a few people could go to plumbing school"So maybe paying back the cost is not a good idea" - But you want people who end up failing college to pay for something they dont even have anymore that they were promised would be free...."Although I don't have the specifics on how to get this funding from the Federal and/or State governments" - Oh we all know where they will get the funding, from our wallets....."it still makes the most sense to me to have the American society assist in making higher education affordable and available to everyone" Higher and affordable education is a good idea, what I am questioning is your idea that taxpayers should endure 60% taxes to try do that when other solutions are available"Education should not be for the "privileged" few who can afford it, but to the masses who need it."When did 70% of all high school graduates who are going on and becoming enrolled in college count as "the few?"Number of dropped arguments,1) College is not a right2) Colleges may recruit out of state more than in state for guaranteed funding which could lead to acceptance discrimination among college applicants.3) That cutting costs may impact the quality of education one would otherwise receive4) That college kids dont always succeed in getting a degree5) That threatening kids to pay back an enormous cost of college should they fail could be seen as extreme6) That there are other alternatives to improving education if the goal is to out-compete other nations7) That taxpayers already pay too much in taxes and that if college were free, this tax rate would double or triple8) That colleges would stop focusing on perfecting education and focus more on accepting people to get oodles of government funds9) That disagreement could arise over how much taxpayers should pay, how much the government should give to schools, and how much the schools really need10) That colleges, the government, and taxpayers would viciously fight for what they think is right11) That the government may not provide the funding colleges want12) That some college majors arent very useful economically

positive: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation I'm typing this on my phone so sorry in advance for any typos/terrible sources. Thus debate has been quite problematic as... 1) whilst the premise 'higher education is outdated for the millennial generration' is clear enough, I wasn't clear on what my argument would be on - that higher education is outdated and needs serious reform whilst being maintained. 2) con accepted the debate believing that higher education was indeed, outdated for the millennial generation, and accepted anyway believing that he would argue for 'pro education' (if my interpretation is correct) 3) this confusion was found out after my first argument as shown in the comments. Hence I suggested and we agreed to compromise so that my argument would be 'higher education is outdated, and therefore not worth it to everyone'. Sadly I later found myself arguing for a position I did not personally believe in, but I will maintain this position for the sake of this debate. CON RE: millennials care more about contributing to society, and college education opens up more doors to help society that High school cannot. (E.g. Nursing, doctors) 1- Yes, nursing and doctoring can definitely improve our quality of life - yet does this really create a big social impact? According to 80000.org (1), each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime. Medicine has extended everyone's quality of life for 7 years. Yet, 1) the amount of good medicine has done is overestimated 2) increase in age is not mutually exclusive to increase in disabled life - hence a full quality life is not completely true. 3) doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine. (Researchers, managers, scientists, nurses) In the end, we can save 6 times the amount of lives a doctor saves by simply donating 10% of our income wisely to a worthy foundation. 2- You don't need to go to university without creating a big social impact (the idea that these are mutually exclusive is false) examples : Stephen Spielberg, Mark zuckerverg, Bill Gates 3-Medicine is not the only way you can solve world problems it is sometimes not even the best way. What about electricity? Or education? Or government? CON RE: if college is not worth it, why are more millennials going to college than any other generation? They must be going for a meaningful degree that can help society. Millennials are going to college more than any other generation because they have the most opportunity to go, because they are pushed (45%) by their parents to go, perhaps because they believe it can lead them where they want to be also. However millennials are also expected to only be able to repay their debts in the next 11 years, 37% students regret going to college, and 49% graduates believe that they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree. (2) RE: there exists alternative pathways to college education - Con argues some fields do not have alternatives, and alternatives are not needed if college education becomes tax funded. 1- yes some fields do not have alternatives, but it is increasingly clear today that college is not necessary for everyone and not worth it for everyone. Commerce, arts and in some cases even in science. Con uses the doctor argument again, yet it is revealed above that medicine is not as influential on the quality of life than investing and utilising your money to elsewhere for society, which millennials care more about. Additionally one field of practise is not enough to validate the value of higher education for the entire pool of millennials as a whole. Only 0.27% of the population are doctors, for example. (2) 2-Con suggests that tax payer money be used to fully fund college education. Whilst that is the case for Germany today, and even Australia in the past, I personally don't believe this is possible in America. It is a strong liberal democracy that values it's small government. It also strongly advocates for the freedom of the people from 'corrupt officials' etc. To believe a call for such a huge reform with such major repercussions on the people to become successful would be too idealistic. One would have to convince the president-trump, Congress (which I imaging would be near impossible) and the judiciary to even consider this. Not to mention the inequality that exists in the US today already - to ask for more tax paying money would be difficult. RE: Skill can be better used as a qualifier for job performance - Con argues you often develop your skills from college and not every employee will give you an examination, and hence college is necessary to indicate your skills. Yes many develop skills from college but this is only because it forces people to keep working. Your own resolution to succeed is what is important. Hence, you do not need a college degree to develop your skills. No, usually a career in these fields do not require an examination, but rather an example of their work (e.g. A photograph, a piece of writing, a translation, a conversation in French etc.) which I believe speaks louder than certifications of a degree. RE: statistic argument Sorry as you didn't exemplify that you averaged the two statistics I only guessed that you compared each statistic with the general statistic of 23.5%. Yes I admit my calculation was wrong but I didn't really trust that addition of the two percentages anyway and it was used more of an example as to why comparing 2 independent means together is unreliable. As to why your calculation is unreliable - I don't have my computer here but it seems to be that you don't know the sample size of any of the statistics that you used (undergraduates with anxiety or depression, postgraduates with anxiety or depression, adults with anxiety, adults with depression) and hence am unable to make a reliable statistical comparison between any of the figures. You don't know if these population sample figures are normally distributed either, or independent from each other. Hence you cannot come up with a reasonable T statistic to accept or reject the null hypothesis which is - are the means of postgraduates with anxiety or depression the same with the means of adults with anxiety or depression? (Or likewise with undergraduates) not to mention that adults with anxiety or depression have two different sample sizes being from different sources. I have also taken statistics as a unit this year (3) Also, Thanks for this debate con! I enjoyed it despite our confusions haha. I have developed a lot more insight about millennials, about the past, and about college and higher education in general. 1) https://80000hours.org... 2)http://www.forbes.com... 3) https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu...

positive: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation I would actually agree that higher education is outdated for the millennial generation, but I believe it is still necessary. The first point I shall make is that, while I agree that there is probably not much to gain from a college education since we have access to all of the information at our fingertips through the internet(though, I would argue that in many ways the internet has made us dumber; however if you're smart, you know how to find high quality articles on matters, such as using google scholar instead of plain google) the formality of going through a college education does have a lot of bonuses to it.1) What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. While what my opponent said that a college degree earns you less than it did in the past, it still is a fact that a college degree earns you more than a high school degree does today. "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering: High school drop outs: $18,734 High school graduates: $27,915 College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206 Advanced degree holders: $74,602" [1] Now, while a high school graduate will be able to earn more money upfront, whereas a college student will be spending a lot of time on college, probably after a few years of a college graduate being in the workforce will ballance out to the money that the high school grad earned. If you take these numbers(which are not what the person makes first out of college or first out of high school, so these numbers would be lower for that, but I'll use them anyways).Suppose you have person A who is going to college before doing any kind of work, and Person B who started working full time right out of high school. Person A is not earning anything while Person B is earning money. Person B, in 4 years(the amount of time the average college degree takes to earn) would earn $111,660. At this point, the college grad would then be able to start working in the work force, and they would be getting $51,206 a year. After another 6 years the college grad will have earned 307,236, while the high school graduate, in 10 years(4 years of working while person A was in school, and 6 years while both were working) of working will have earned 279,150. So, in the long-run, a college education will earn you much more. And that's not taking into account that as a college student, you can easily have a part-time job while going to school full-time. I did this myself and still retained excellent grades.I suppose Person A, however, may have a lot of college debt, which my opponent mentioned that higher education is very expensive. However, this is not true for every college graduate. Some had such good grades that they earned scholarships, others came from a family that was well off enough to afford to put them into college, and others went to a community college(which are much more affordable than 4 year universities) and then transfered to a 4 year university and saved a lot of money going that route. In addition, this is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.However, now that I looked into the average debt a college student has when coming out of college, it's $30,100[6]. This amount can be paid for by less than two years of work, since the average college student makes $24,000 more per year than a high school student. Sure, for the first year and half, they would in reality be making the same as a high school graduate since they have to pay off their debt, but after that they will catch up to the high school graduate in less than 10 years and surpass them in the amount of money they gained over the years.Here's another example where a college education would greatly benefit a person. Depending on what field a person goes into, they will earn a lot more than others too. So, people could easily choose the higher-paying careers. For example, I'm currently going to school to become a psychiatrist. This takes an addiitonal 4 years after a bachelor's degree to complete, usually. The average annual salary a psychiatrist has is $193,680.[2] A psychiatrist earns more than double the amount the average wage for advanced degrees, and doctors and other specialists are in the same boat. If more people were to consider going into the medical field, they would earn a lot more and it would definitely be worth it. There are also other fields which pay well as well. 2) College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. Now, if you take a high school graduate who learned everything online, there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in. Unless employers started giving some sort of examination on their field of work instead of requiring a bachelor's degree, a high school graduate who learned all of the necessary things for that career via online with no degree is at a disadvantage for getting that job, and probably will earn around the average a high school graduate makes. So, in order to make what my opponent proposes come true, where people could just self-educate themselves via the internet instead of a formal education, we would have to force employers to stop looking for college degrees from people and have them hand out some sort of examination to test if the person is qualified for the job. There's no guarantee employers would do this either, unless we forced them to. 3) College education helps you go into a career you really wantAs mentioned in the previous point, to get a specific career, it's often the case you need a college degree. Even if it's not earning enough to ballance out the fact that maybe you have some debt and that you weren't earning more money while you were going to college, it still means you got to go into a career you enjoy which you may not have been able to if you didn't have a college degree. RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. As for my opponent's argument that university causes depression and anxiety disorders, I would like to point out that the study they linked to says " The estimated prevalence of any depressive or anxiety disorder was 15.6% for undergraduates and 13.0% for graduate students" [3] while my opponent was slightly off for the numbers, that's not what my point is going to be about. Let's compare that to the anxiety and depression rates of the general population. In the general population 18.1% of adults have an anxiety disorder[4] while 6.7% of all adults have depression[5] for a combined total of 24.8% of the general population with either. In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. This is a good thing that the rate of depression and anxiety is lower amongst college students than the general population. It indicates that college is not as big of a stressor on people than events later on in life. Sources:[1] http://howtoedu.org...; [2] https://www.bls.gov...;[3] https://www.researchgate.net...;[4] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...;[5] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...;[6] http://ticas.org...;

positive: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Rebuttal 1:The millennial generation can be characterised as being ‘interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns’, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that ‘money is the best measure of success’, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2) - lighth0us3This is true, though there are also many opportunities to be able to obtain a degree for a career that helps society out. For example, one can't become a nurse without a nursing degree, and not only is higher education necessary for doctors and specialists, who also help society, but post-higher education is as well. With a high school diploma, one is very limited in what they can do, so a college degree opens up many ways in which millennials will be able to help the community in some way. Also, if college education is truly outdated for millennials, why are there more millennials than any other generation going to colllege or who have a college education?[7] They must be getting a college degree for some reason, and it would be logical, that since the millennial generation is more interested in doing a job that is helpful to the community, that they go to college for a meaningful degree that will lead them to a career with which they can do much for the community. Rebuttal 2:P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college – so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. - lighth0us3Well, this isn't the only reason to get a college degree. There are plenty of other reasons, which I gave a few others already. If this was the only reason to get a college degree, then yes, college would be outdated. Agreement 1:P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) This is why I think, perhaps, I misunderstood what con was supposed to be arguing for, because I agree that college education should be reformed to be available to everyone regardless of income. This isn't a concession, because I believed this before I began the debate, so I'm not sure that this should be a reason why voters should vote against me, since I simply may have misunderstood what con was arguing for. Again, I was thinking along the lines of that con was arguing that college education in general(and not how it necessarily is currently) is not outdated for the millennial generation. It wasn't clear upfront (to me at least) that con would be arguing that how college education is currently executed is not outdated for the millennial generation. I would agree that how college education is currently executed is outdated, and I agreed with that before the debate began, so again, I'm not sure if we should continue this debate or not. Either I misunderstood still, or this point is irrelevant because it can be solved by making higher education tax-payer funded.Rebuttal 3There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don’t even have to go to law school – you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years – you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. -lighth0us3 But I don't believe it works that way for every field. To become a doctor, for example, I don't think you can just do something similar: Pass examinations and sit with a practicing doctor for a few years. Maybe one can do this, and I don't know that one can. Even if it does also work that way for doctors, there are so many fields out there and I doubt all of them work that way. Not to mention, if we did make college tax-payer funded, then either route is just as viable as the other as neither cost money for the student.A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified – experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). -lighth0us3 Yes, but it's often the case that one doesn't obtain the skills needed unless they have a college degree. Not every employer will give you an examination to see if you're qualified and have the skills for the job, so a college degree is necessary to indicate to them you have the skills needed.Rebuttal 4/Agreement 2Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. -lighth0us3 The only thing I have to rebut here is the cost wasted you brought up. No matter how you go about getting experience within a field, it will cost money. There's nothing that can be done about that some people will waste money. Whether you waste it on paying for classes that are going to be useless because you changed career paths, or do it by paying for some sort of career workshop or really any alternative to education but later change your career path, you're still spending money and it costs money to teach people in a specific field or give them experience. I agree that there should be something done to change the pressure to decide a career path immediately, or at least some sort of class or something that will give people experience in a given career field. I also agree with what you said in the following paragraph that reform is needed. Again, this might be due to that I wasn't clear on what con is arguing for. I absolutely agree, and would have from the beginning before accepting this debate, that education should be reformed. Rebuttal 5This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) -lighth0us3 Well, yes, the statistic I used was a survey of adults 18+, but if teenagers were included it would likely only lower the percent a little. Either way, the point was that adults, in general, have more instances of anxiety or depressive disorders than university students. Really, the problem with my statistic is that it includes university students(those who are 18 or older). That would lower the percentage since the percent of university students with depression or anxiety is lower than for adults out of college. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected.Those numbers cannot be combined though, as they represent two completely different populations. The 13% statistic is those who are in undergratuate education with depression or anxiety, and 15.6% is those in graduate school with depression or anxiety. It's not 28.6% of college students(of both grads and undergrads) that have depression and anxiety, rather, it's the average of the two numbers(though it's a little more complicated than that because the number of undergraduates outnumber the number of graduate students in education). First, we need to take into account how many graduates there are in post-graduate school, then add it to the number of undergraduates. That's the total number of college students in either undergratuate education or post-graduate education. Now that we have that, you take the number of graduate students who have depression or anxiety(15.6% of the total number of graduate students), add it to the number of undergradute students with depression or anxiety(13% of the total number of undergraduate students), and then divide that by the total number of graduate and undergraduate students. Adding the percentages does not work, and the actual percentage of college students(including both graduate students and undergraduate students) with depression or anxiety is somewhere in between 13% and 15.6%; it would be closer to 13% than 15.6% since undergrads outnumber graduate students(I don't think I need a source for that undergrads outnumber graduate students right? That should be common knowledge that most people stop after 4 years of college education) Source:[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov...

positive: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation RE: What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. I don’t doubt these statistics and agree that it is probably true one with a college degree earns more than the amount a high school graduate can earn. It is beneficial for society as a whole to earn a college degree rather than without. However, in the context of this debate it is important not only to ensure that millennials are not being exploited by college degrees, but that they are using them in alignment with their core values/ ambitions, for higher education to be worth it for them. Therefore, the fact that one can earn more than a high school graduate is only a good thing for millennials given that: P1: Millennials aim to utilise university to generate the most income The millennial generation can be characterised as being ‘interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns’, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that ‘money is the best measure of success’, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2). Hence, if most the millennial generation are not pursuing high income earnings directly this point is not enough alone to argue the worth of a college degree for millennials. RE: College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. ‘there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in.’ P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college – so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) ‘this (college debt) is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.’ I agree with the latter, but disagree in the former as I believe the fact that con agrees this issue can be solved by making college tuition free reinforces my point that college education needs reform (I would say the total eradication of fees is considered serious reform) P3: There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don’t even have to go to law school – you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years – you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. Abraham Lincoln himself says ‘if you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done…it is a small matter whether you read with any one or not; I did not read with anyone...Always bear in mind your own resolution to succeed is more important than anything’ (4) P4: A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified – experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). RE: College education helps you go into a career you really want I admire those who know what they want in a career and go after it. I agree that a college education may help you reach there – having a college education is perfectly fine here. Especially if you know you want to be a teacher, doctor, engineer etc. What I have a problem with is many young people do not know what they truly want. We are characterised as the ‘indecisive generation’ because we have so many more options than previous generations available to us. By 2010 nearly 60% of employed millennials had already switched their career at least once. Whilst the possibility exists that some people equated a ‘career change’ with a ‘job change’, it could also mean that millennials are considering alternatives and many options when it comes to finding a career pathway either due to personal preferences or societal pressures (rapidly transforming jobs etc. as elaborated in A1, P3). (3) Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. Hence, reform is necessary to allow students to experiment and experience practical work culture etc. instead of allowing vulnerable youth to pursue something they are not interested in/do not know much about under the pressure from their parents etc. RE: RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. ‘In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population.’ There is a simple observational error. My opponent has compared a statistic I used (anxiety or depression affection 13% U/G and 15.6% P/G) (6) that was recorded in 2005 with results that were measured in 2015 (6.7% of the general population affected by depression). Additionally, whilst the statistic used in regards to anxiety affecting the general population being 18.1% is verified, 1) This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) 2) There is a problem with the method of calculation. According to con’s calculations, an accurate representation would be 18.1% of the general population in 2005 have an anxiety disorder + 5.4% of general population in 2005 with a depressive disorder(7)=23.5% affected. Therefore as 23.5% is greater than 13% and 15.6%, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected. This is higher than the average anxiety or depression disorders existent in the general population, and hence you can argue that anxiety or depression is higher among college students than the general population. This is an example of why this form of comparison is not very good. It is better to quote research involving direct comparison between college students and non-college students. Final Remarks I’m sorry I could not add additional arguments to this debate. Although the bit about college education increasing inequality might be considered one, I’ve mostly only included rebuttals this round due to time constraints as I’m currently travelling. Thanks for your response con, I look forward to continuing this debate! Sources: 1) https://www.brookings.edu... 2) https://www.brookings.edu... 3) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... 4) https://priceonomics.com... 5) http://www.nbcnews.com... 6) https://www.researchgate.net...... 7) https://www.cdc.gov...

positive: Free tuition for college students through government taxation should be supported. While my opponent wastes valuable time disputing that the cost of college is one of the most expensive things people will ever "buy," I'd just like to point out that of the people that have a college education, that education cost vastly more money than any other thing they will ever buy. This is to say that the average person will spend more on college than they will on their cars, watches, prostitutes, etc... unless somehow the average person shells out $100,000 for their watch and car. While the restrictions I speak of do not necessarily follow the resolution to the letter, I'd also like to point out that we've been given a terrible resolution for implementation in the United States and to implement it here would mean the introduction of compromises and restrictions, and indeed, many social programs in foreign countries are contingent upon certain conditions - the government in the UK won't pay for a student with a High School GPA of 1.8 to go to college. It's simply a waste of money. In these restrictions, I mentioned the lack of need to give tax money to millionaires. If they're not receiving the benefit of the tax, why should they pay it? Everyone pays social security tax, yet many people don't use it. We all pay taxes used to provide welfare, yet most of us don't use it. Therefore, it would follow that there is no change in the system to tax people for social programs they won't use. Everyone would pay the tax, and the usage of the program would depend on income level. I also mentioned that outrageously priced institutions should not benefit from this resolution. This of course makes perfect sense in the current system. Food stamps do not pay for persons to buy fillet mingion every night. As with that program, this resolution should provide a basis for education. The education from a state school such as Purdue University or Iowa State is perfectly acceptable - in fact, some of these schools are much better than more expensive private institutions (Purdue in engineering, Iowa in political science). >> "If free tuition through taxation were to be a reality, then all college students should be able to benefit equally." Why? Not all college students ARE equal. This is quite clear in the fact that colleges turn down students based on academic performance or provide financial aid to those students who otherwise would not be able to pay for college. Why should the 4.0 student recieve the same benefit as the 0.8 student? That's ludicrous. Why should the millionaire get the same ammount as the student who is also using food stamps. That's ludicrous as well. >>"Unfortunately, per the restrictions assumed by JCMTarzan, the Dept. of Education calls you up and tells you that you cannot attend because it is too expensive. The program didn't really work in your case, did it? A highly specific example, but it makes the point." It makes the point that this program can easily be adapted to suit individual needs, not that the program is fallacious. Obviously, if the student is of a high enough caliber to be accepted to MIT, then there's no reason the government can't put them in a higher strata of assistence. This is done with hundreds of government programs - why not this one? >>"There is no guarantee that such a huge investment, which could only happen by way of taxes increasing, as my opponent admits, would prove to be worthwhile." It is a fact that persons with a college education make more money (on average) than those that do not. When people make more money, they pay more taxes. It's pretty clear that there is a relation between education and tax income for the country. >>""There is a definite correlation between the investment in education and the literacy rates and success of a country." -What might this correlation be?" It would seem self evident that when a (successful) investment is made in education that literacy and competency rates in a country would rise. Foreign governments outspend the US on education, an the US finished LAST in the most recent international physics olympiad. >>"Whatever happened to self-made men (or women), self-reliance, and self-responsibility? The primary problem with socialism is that once you are getting the "free ride," as it were, that many, many people do not want to get off. Shall the government in turn provide graduates of their free-tuition system with jobs if they are unable to find one themselves? Why not: they got them into college in the first place." I'm not entirely sure what the self-made man and self-relienace has to do with this as a whole. Those are American philosophies, and you admitted in the previous sentence that this resolution did not deal with the United States exclusively. Therefore, introducing American philosophy is fallacious and irrelevant to the argument writ large. >>"I agree that the applicant pool will be larger; of higher calibre I am not so certain: the more applicants there are, the lower their average calibre would be. That's a simple law of statistics. More students, larger classes, etc, less quality of services rendered (education)." I will admit you have a point with the higher caliber issue - I must admit I misspoke. The pool itself will not be higher caliber, but the accepted pool will be. Institutions will take the best they can until they are full. The pool will increase, but there is no reason that schools will reduce the quality of their education - if they grow proportionally and maintain the ratios between students, classes, and professors, the quality will not change. >>"Universities now have breeding programs in line with Social Darwinism? A shock, to say the least ;)" Actually, that would be quite welcome... I merely meant the American workforce. >>"-OBVIOUSLY not. If more people go to school, then more are educated. Of course, educated is not synonymous with intelligent, hard-working, or even contributory in any way to the overall well-being of society." I see - therefore, according to you, the Chinese, Brits, Spainards, Poles, etc... must all be more intelligent than Americans. It has nothing at all to do with their education system and the fact that their college students are of higher caliber on average. >>"Someone somewhere is getting the raw end of the deal - paying the taxes but not having children, paying the taxes while having children but not seeing them benefit because of good economic status, etc. Other societies do as they like, sure, but in providing "free" tuition do they not devalue the education that is sought? Whatever is worth having is worth earning, worth working for, sacrificing for; do we not appreciate what we have worked hard for more than what is simply "given" to us (while at the same time being taken from others)?" The very nature of politics is that there are ALWAYS going to be winners and losers. Are not the losers in the current system those who cannot afford to go to college at all? Why should they be denied a college education in the same country where a high school education is free? Other societies DO do as they like, and their results seem to be eclipsing the United States. Is their education devalued? I'd say not. Our Chinese foreign exchange students at my college spend about 3 or 4 times as long studying for classes as American students because they view their education as so important. >>"Reread "The Republic,"" Indeed, please do. Education in The Republic is the responsibility of the state. >>"and side CON" Indeed please don't. The nexus of Con's argument is that it is "unfair" to people. All political processes are unfair to someone. This is not new news.

negative: Life is worth living I accept funwiththoughts challenge, and will endeavor to postpone my demise until after posting my fifth round. It my not be worth it to me personally, but I accept the pain it will cause me in the interest of the public good.

negative: Life is worth living My opponent is correct, I cannot show that every life is worth living. I am ceding this debate.

negative: Should colleges be free Colleges should not be free because of the following reasons: 1) How will the colleges pay for the teachers and professors that teach the students the course and material without having the students pay for their education fee? 2)Do you really you think with the capitalist society America is rooted on that anything at the most part will be free? Sure there's public education. You still have to pay taxes for that. Virtually, colleges cannot be free. This leads to my third point. 3)There's this thing called community college. It's cheap and inexpensive. Most people that go there either need to save money or just extend their studies before they transfer to a better college. 4)Scholarships help a lot with loans. Most students can get a scholarship. Not the big flashy "Bill Gate Scholarship", but a small one that pays for a part of your tuition. All in all, the way colleges run is that they provide education in return for money. Also, public colleges are funded by the state. Private colleges aren't. This is why they are usually more expensive and in return you get better education. And that's pretty much it for my side of the debate.

negative: Electoral college Con's "a"Whether it is ethical or not is not in question. If a fool is elected, then it really isn't ethical, is it? I find this fallacious because it assumes because x is ethical, then y, which is from x is right/also ethical. We could go on about if Democracy is ethical but I don't want to. All in all, it doesn't touch on the reason for elections."b" I don't really get what Con is getting at,but I suppose he is saying I am taking in, so to speak, too many parts of the government at once?A reasonable government governs. Simply put, there is no reason a group of elects cannot do what NPV can"c" Sorry, what I meant is that the EC curbs the single issue voter. There is also the issue of Joe Schmoe appealing to Urban issues and bring a token effort for rural areas, which would happen if NPV is applied. Pro does not contradict #2. I agree with this, but to the rest of that paragraph, you basically are assuming the population cannot be wrong which is an ad pop. argument. Thus why it is baseless.I have not seen an answer to why the population is magically right, but electors are not, and why NPV is so right. Or even why there are elections in the first place. There has been plenty of lynch mobs and all that sweet stuff, so people are not magically ethic or right then. So I ask Con why the population is right and why their views matter. Do not strawman this as a support for authoritarianism.

negative: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. I extend all of my original arguments and following arguments as my opponent has forfeited the round.

negative: The life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child. Zz.

negative: Merit pay for teachers Teachers should be paid more; based on merit

negative: MBA MBA graduates are generally paid very well

negative: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Please feel free to ask any questions that you might have abut the resolution/debate in the comments section or by messageing me. I look forward to debateing!

negative: Does homework have any benefits Homework is waste of time. And children are forced to do loads of it each year, what's your opinion?

negative: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!

negative: Animals are worth more As my opponent points out that animals follow their instinct of survival and doesn't care about anything else. He also says that wolf attacks occurred a lot in some countries but that it has decreased. He mentions that they have developed the tendency to stay away from people, this means that they want nothing to do with humans. When the attacks occurs it's in the habitat of the wolf. A wolf doesn't go in to a city and attacks someone for fun. They attack or defend themselves if they feel threatened like every other animal and humans. Obviously they attack when we enter their territory and their home, so would we if someone entered our home and we felt threatened by them. Wolfs are pack animals, meaning that they live in groups of 5 - 11 wolfs. They are social animals, they live with their family and their mate and they hunt together as a group. My opponent mentions that 7,600 fatal attacks happened over a period of 520 years, in the year of 1883 about 1,386 wolfs were killed from hunting or poison in Central Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent asks me why would a snake kill his owner? A phyton can grow up to almost seven metres long. Keeping it in a small terrarium is not fair and it doesn't fulfill its natural needs, if it is a long phyton it cant even move properly. Therefore it might attack its owner it it feels trapped. Not all animals are fit to be pets, if you keep a dangerous animal as pet you cant expect that it wont feel threatened.

negative: College is worth it I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate, I had several unexpected events come up. All votes should go to my worthy opponant and if he sees fit to re-issue this debate, someone more worthy than me should accept.

negative: Abortion should be legal up through the second trimester, regardless of circumstance Rebuttal 1A: This case was more of a defense; just in case you claimed that death by abortion was lesened by Roe V. Wade.Rebuttal 1B:My opponent tries to debunk my statsitcal evidence by quoting from his ownn source. He claims they are "one of the most pretigious medical journals on Earth". However, this study does not reflect his claim. Let me give you information about a woman's eligibility for the study from his own source excludes many women.In a study regarding egtopic pregnancy and early birth, they exclude women who had an egtopic pregnancy that originally was in their study. They excluded women who had more than one abortion. They exclude large groups of women to where only 1.1% remain. This allows for the study's data to be easily manipulated. They excluded women, as I have shown, that would contradict their study. I would like voters to disregard this source; as it is obviously manipulated. My source is a compilation of over 59 studies; while his study is faulty and only has one. I urge voters to hold this point in my favor.Rebuttal 1C:The site itself is not the problem. If the study itself is credible, there is no need to deny it. The study itself is from the Journel of Reproductive Medicine. This study is a compliation of 59 studies. This proves its validity. He ignores the 2007 study as he claims that other studies I quoted were irrelevant since some of them were in the past. The studies covered the times from the 70's to recent years. that is what makes that study so reliable. Thank you for that. Rebuttal 1D:My opponent quote a study that seems to be flawed. As my other study explains:" Abortion increases a woman's overall risk of breast cancer by 30 per cent. The risk is likely much higher in women who have a first abortion at a young age, or who have a family history of breast cancer. Since 1957, 23 of 37 worldwide studies show an increased breast cancer risk with abortion, a risk as high as 310 per cent. Ten of fifteen U.S. studies confirm the abortion-breast cancer link. The biological rationale for breast cancer development is related to the woman's unprotected internal exposure to estrogen when a pregnancy is abruptly terminated early in gestation. The magnitude of the risk has, until recently, been hidden by studies of poor quality, many of which have failed to separate induced abortion from low-risk spontaneous miscarriage. The medical establishment is often slow to accept and respond to emerging data, slowed further, in this case, by the conflicting politics of abortion. A history of previous induced abortion(s) may play a role in cancers of the reproductive system and rectal cancers. Inconsistencies between studies and countries where the studies are done, in addition to the fact that in the literature, spontaneous and induced abortions are often not separated, make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Recent studies have connected a higher risk of cervical and ovarian cancers to previous abortions, though the degree of risk varies from study to study. A consistent finding has been the protective effect of full-term pregnancies against the onset of cancers of the reproductive system. Researchers have found a connection between abortion and rectal cancer. With reproductive and rectal cancers on the increase in women, more studies are needed, specifically to examine the connection between abortion and cancer. Subsequent pregnancies are negatively affected by induced abortion. The main complications are: cervical incompetence leading to future miscarriages; uterine perforations and placenta previa with serious implications to the health of the woman and her child(ren) in later pregnancies; and ectopic pregnancies which, if undiagnosed and not treated, can lead to a woman's death. Forty-nine studies of preterm or premature births from Europe and North America found increased risks ranging from 30 per cent to 510 per cent. The consequence of this significantly increased risk of prematurity after abortion is that the rate of cerebral palsy among premature infants weighing less than 1500 grams at birth is 38 times greater than among the general population. Induced abortion, in other words, is directly responsible for many thousands of cases of cerebral palsy - in North America alone - that otherwise would not have occurred. Despite the data which point to the link between induced abortion and future serious health risks, many North-American research studies fail to point these out. Numerical data should be carefully compared to research abstracts and conclusions because they often do not correlate; in other words, where data clearly indicate increased health risks, they are often minimized in the abstracts and conclusions of medical articles. In light of the growing knowledge of the impact of abortion on the rate of prematurity, abortion providers soon incur greatly increased liability for obtaining informed consent for women contemplating abortion. Women die from abortion-related problems but, owing to irregular and biased reporting, it is difficult to know how many. Reasons for maternal mortality related to abortion are many, including hemorrhage, infection, embolism, ectopic pregnancy, and cardiomyopathy. Coding deaths in hospitals and reasons for death on death certificates frequently record only the presenting problem as the cause of death, which results in many abortion-related deaths going unreported. The American Medical Association (AMA) relies on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for its statistics concerning abortion-related deaths and, given that the CDC uses hospital and clinic records (which underreport maternal deaths from abortion) for its data, the AMA does not recognize the full extent of abortion-related deaths. At most risk of abortion-related deaths are African-American and other minority women. A large-scale, authoritative Scandinavian study establishes post-pregnancy death rates within one year that are nearly four times greater among women who abort their pregnancies than among women who bear their babies. The suicide rate is nearly six times greater among aborting women than among women who give birth. These findings refute the oft-heard claim that induced abortion is safer than childbirth. There is an urgent need for independent studies of maternal mortality related to abortion, and medical facilities should be required to keep more accurate and informative records so that women may be better served in this area." (1) Obviously, Pro's sources are not correct.Mental Health Rebuttal:I will let my source do the talking:" Women who have abortions are at risk of emotional difficulties after the procedure, especially those with pre-existing factors such as relationship problems, ambivalence about their abortion, adolescence, previous psychiatric or emotional problems, pressure by others into making a decision to abort, or religious or philosophical values that are at odds with aborting a pregnancy. The prevailing interpretation of post-abortion grief, depression, guilt, anger, and anxiety in abortion clinics and research studies in North America is that they are due, not to the procedure, but to a woman's pre-existing disposition to psychological problems. Where support through counseling is offered (for example, in Sweden) to pregnant women who are not sure if they should or can carry their pregnancy to term, they are more likely not to abort. Given the evidence that women in certain risk groups are more emotionally vulnerable after an abortion, should abortion clinics and medical facilities consider recommending against abortion in their cases? This question has become crucial given recent findings that women who abort are much likelier to commit suicide. Informed consent for the psychological well-being of women, post-abortion, is an issue which health care professionals should address. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide and attempts at suicide; mutilation and various forms of punishment (including repeat abortions and sterilization); drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse; and eating disorders as a way of denying or minimizing the guilt, pain and numbness they feel. Women who abort often have trouble bonding with the children of future pregnancies and have a higher chance of eventually abusing them, which leads to a cyclical pattern of abuse-abortion- abuse. It seems clear, given the frequency of negative behavioral outcomes for women after abortion, that more thought needs to be given to appropriate therapy for women (and their children) who are at risk. Many women seek support in recovering from post-abortion distress, often years after the abortion. Project Rachel, The Healing Choice, and The National Office for Reconciliation and Healing are among the many therapeutic options that have evolved in the wake of widely- practised abortion. Women's marital or partner or family relationships can be significantly affected by abortion. After abortion, many relationships come to an end, and if the woman stays with her partner or husband, sexual dysfunction often results as does difficulty bonding with children born later on. When a woman or adolescent girl has been coerced into having an abortion, typical reactions include feelings of betrayal (by partners or family members), anger, depression, sadness, and breakdown of trust and intimacy in relationships. Some men are negatively affected and sense a loss of control and pride, especially when their partner has had an abortion without their being consulted "Suppressed mourning" has very negative outcomes, often leading to feelings of numbness and/or hostility and anger, and to difficulties in forming future relationships and in bonding with later-born children; in some instances, post-abortion trauma can lead to actual abuse of later children. (1) It is clear my case has a better logical, ethical, and moral basis than Pro's. Vote Con.Anime OP:http://tinyurl.com...;1. http://tinyurl.com...

negative: Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors Following the same logic you present every time, every college major is worthless. English isn't much use in getting a maths degree. Art isn't going to help you get a degree in Science. Maths is no more guilty of not helping in other classes than any other subject (with the possible exception of English, which is fundamental in many classes.) So by your logic, college should consist of English lessons, and absolutely nothing else. If most maths degrees were all about basic maths, we wouldn't know half the mathematical theorems we know today. If a PhD is just a matter of understanding the basics well, it would be ludicrously simple to have a doctorate, which makes the people who actually earned their degree will suddenly have a degree that's common as dirt. They will have written up thousands of words in an original thesis- it's like taking someone's life work and making it suddenly worthless. It's just wrong to think that stopping a few people having to do a little maths here and there is worth losing the value of millions of people's life works. In response to your point upon how understanding of stats in depth is not vital- you'd be surprised. The deeper the understanding, the better the whole report becomes- and it shows. As such, employers try to get people who not only can manipulate the English language well, but can also understand properly how stats work- both at the basic levels and at the advanced levels. As well as this in response to what you say on the negating sides opinions on the fields- I don't believe that has any relevance whatsoever, as I see little to no opinions in any of my arguments. I note what you say about office jobs- thank you for informing me that I was repeating the same argument. I will mention some of the countless jobs outside office jobs where you need more than the basics. 1. Statistician- be this for sport, for tallying votes, statisticians need to properly understand statistics. A basic understanding can be enough, at times- but knowing more about it helps. 2. Scientist- and here is in fact an example of where maths does help in other areas. Science and maths are intricately linked. Science is at it's core, pure mathematics. To be a decent scientist, you need to know maths well. 3. Youtuber- now this may come as quite a surprise to some. But Youtubers have viewer statistics. They have to understand it, so they can manipulate it to maximize views. Can you manage without this? Probably. Does it help? Certainly. There are countless other examples. The fact of the matter is that the surprising use of Youtube says a lot- that practically any job requires a lot more mathematic knowledge than actual classes for it show. Musicians need maths to understand the patterns that work- Artists need maths to understand the angles that look best. Kinesiologists have to understand how movement works, which is science. And science, I repeat, is intricately related to maths. So maths may in fact help you a lot more than you think. Are one or two of the subjects borderline useful? Probably. But to say that just basic maths is all that should be important is sickening, even if it only applies to a handful of degrees.

negative: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits My opponent and I have decided to forgo this round on the account that I am ill with food poisoning.Thank you.

negative: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits We are cutting out the round used to defend our own cases. This round will be used for con to attack my case, and then round 5 will be final rebuttals/summary.

negative: Public vs Private Education Public Education is better then private education in an economic viewpoint because it is given to everyone that is physically able to go to school. This means that opportunity is given by the individual state governments to every single U.S resident. People seek to get an education, now a days, any way they possibly ca if financial value is not present to a certain family or individual.

negative: Going to college is worth I accept, and will be arguing that college is worth it for some people.

negative: One Sentence Debate The point is that knowledge that is not practically applied is not really education.

negative: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices Part One is the problem.A new face of childhood terror is sweeping across the metaphorical playground. Bullying has taken on an entirely new approach. No longer is the face of bullying a few thuggish kids on the playground demanding your lunch money, but a more insidious form of bullying from which there is no safe refuge, no escape from the torture. Webster[1]: Cyberbullying refers to bullying through ... technologies ... such as ... text messages, emails, phone calls, internet chat rooms, instant messaging – and ... social networking ... Cyberbullying is a fast growing trend that ... is more harmful than typical schoolyard bullying. Nearly all of us can be contacted 24/7 via the internet or our ... phones. Victims can be reached anytime and anyplace. For many children, home is no longer a refuge from the bullies. “Children can escape threats and abuse in the classroom, only to find text messages and emails from the same tormentors when they arrive home.” And, this is a problem that's impossible to escape from and impossible to find help for. Victims are afraid to ask for help from their parents or school officials because of the backlash or inability for school officials to help. Agatston et al.[2]:' Students indicated that the majority of the incidents occurred outside of the school day, with the exception of cyber bullying via text messaging. Students indicated that they were unlikely to report cyber bullying to the adults at school, as it ... occurs via ... phone use, and it is against the school policy to have ... phones on during school hours. ... Students also indicated that they did not think the adults at school could help them if they were experiencing cyber bullying. ... students also indicated that they were reluctant to report cyber bullying to parents because they feared the loss of online privileges Keith and Martin[3] furthers: Part of the problem in combating cyber-bullying ... is that parents and kids relate to technology very differently. ... adults approach computers as practical tools, while for kids the Internet is a lifeline to their peer group. "Cyber-bullying is practically subterranean because it lives in the world of young people," ... Kids ... fear ... not only that the parents' response may make the bullying worse, but that the adults will take the technology away." And, solving cyberbullying is difficult to do. Anonymity is the bully's primary and most effective weapon, from which there is no escape. Keith and Martin 2: It can be much more difficult to identify bullies in cyberspace. ... screen names ... hide a person’s true identity. It is easier to bully someone you don’t have to face. With no boundaries or tangible consequences, children are using technology to vent ... frustrations in ways that can become very destructive. ... home was a place where a kid could go to escape ... With advances in technology, home is no longer a haven. ... today’s bullies use technology to spread rumors and threats, making life miserable ... throughout the day and night. ... They cannot escape their bully because he can now follow them home. This is the new reality. Part Two is the Impacts:Cyberbullying is a serious mental health issue. It creates psychological problems and compounds already existing psychological issues. DeHue et al.[4]: ... being cyberbullied can ultimately result in serious physical, social, and psychological problems, such as serious depressive symptoms and stress. ... It has also been reported that youngsters with depressive symptoms experience more emotional stress as a consequence of being cyberbullied than do youngsters with less or no depressive symptoms. And, these psychological problems have multiple impacts on adolescents. Weisz et al.[5]: Depression in ... adolescents ... is a significant, persistent, and recurrent public health problem that undermines social and school functioning, generates severe family stress, and prompts significant use of mental health services ... Youth depression is also linked to increased risk of other psychiatric disorders ... as well as drug use and suicide ... which is the third most common cause of death among adolescents ... by the age of 18 years, some 20% of youths will have met criteria for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder at least once ... Prospective longitudinal research has shown substantial continuity of youth depression into adulthood, with impaired functioning in work, social, and family life, and markedly elevated risk of adult suicide attempts and completed suicide ... And, in the status quo, adolescents aren't getting the help they need to recover. Day and Flynn[6]: The paucity of mental health services means that many children, adolescents, and their families do not receive the psycho-therapeutic treatment that they need. The consequences fo this may be mental illness in adulthood and genearational psychological disturbance and abuse. If ignored, these social and psychological problems do not simply go away. Indeed, they are likely to increase the demands on adult mental health services ... children who have symptoms of depression and anxiety are referred less frequently to mental health serviecs ... yet we know that children and adolescents with symptoms of depression are three times more likely to make a suicide attempt or be hospitalized ... Part Three is the Solvency:The plan text is this: The USFG will grant adolescents the medical autonomy to seek treatment for mental health issues without parental concent if necessary. Autonomy is the key to treatment. Without it, adolescents won't go get treatment. Driggs[7]: Confidentiality is also an issue in the treatment of mental health problems. Some states have recognized the fact that many minors might not seek help with problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and other psychiatric care if parental consent were required. These exceptions to the general rule are considered by some to be an outgrowth of the emergency treatment for minors and the states' role in the protection of minors ... studies indicate ... factors such as family stressors and parental psychopathology may play a part in the mental health care decision. These exceptions are nto absed on the level of maturity of the minor, but rather are based on on the issues of the possible transmission of venereal disease, in increase in teenage pregnancy, and confidentiality. And, treatment effectively solves the problem. Mallot and Beidel[8]: Most studies and meta-analyses examining treatment outcome reveal consistent support for exposure-based congnitive behavioral therapies (CBTs). In fact, the outcome data are so consistently positive that CBT is recognized as the treatment of choice for adolescents with anxiety disorders ... the core element of CBT are seen as equally applicable to separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, and GAD as these disorders share many features and appear to be distinct from other anxiety disorders. Sources:[1] - http://www.cyberbullying.info...[2] - http://arvin.kernhigh.org...[3] - http://bienestaryproteccioninfantil.es...[4] - http://www.researchgate.net...'_experiences_and_parental_perception/links/00b49514a0e932ab87000000.pdf[5] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] - Day, Lesley, BA, MSc (Econ), MSc (Psychotherapy), head of services @ Cassel Hospital, adult psychotherapist, prof @ Brunel University, and Flynn, Denis, Consultant psychotherapist, trained philosopher and social worker, eds. Internal and External Worlds of Children and Adolescents : Collaborative Therapeutic Care. 2003. ProQuest.[7] - Ann Eileen Driggs, R.N., J.D., “The Mature Minor Doctrine: Do Adolescents Have the Right to Die?” Health Matrix, Vol. 11:687[8] - Michael A., pf of psychology @ UCF, and Beidel, Deborah C., pf of psychology @ UCF. “Anxiety Disorders in Adolescents.” in Comprehensive Evidence Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents. 2014. Wiley.

negative: The Electoral College is a logical system Many say that we are not a Democracy, But a Republic, But actually we are both. A Republic is a form of Government. Democracy is the method of selecting the representatives of that government, People don't understand that. Because people particularly Americans tend to be stupid. If we are not a Democracy then why dowe even bother with elections? In order to have a proper election, We need to insure it is represetative, One man one person one vote. The electoral college is an onerous anachronism from an undemocratic and backwards era >

negative: College is worth it This debate will be over whether or not college education is worth the time and expense. I will take the position as pro, arguing that college is worth it. My opponent will take the position as con, arguing that college is not worth it.Note: I live in America, so we are discussing college in America.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals

negative: Religion is more important than education In my opinion religion is as important as education and without education religion would make no sense neither have any value. According to my religion gaining knowledge results to you going to the heaven, and the person with knowledge is always better than the person who spends time in the church/mosque with no knowledge.

negative: Raise the school leaving age to 18 (Junior) More Education Brings More Opportunities

negative: University Fees Should Be Scrapped financial stress is part of university life

negative: It's not worth having children True, true... but there is one thing that redeems reproduction... In order for us humans to evolve, we are required by the laws of nature to knock each other up and get preggerz so we can continue the human race's existence. Unless, like, we gave birth to robots that ruin the woman's "anatomy" forever during birth. And so what if they cause grief? I'm sure there's plenty of masochistic parents out there. Why else would they have children in the first place other than to continue our existence? They enjoy the grief. So, in the end, it's a beautiful cycle in the grand scheme of things. We get to experience the pleasure of knocking each other up, the pleasure of getting yelled at for 18 years, and the pleasure of watching it all happen to them. On to my opponent!

negative: Raise The School Leaving Age To 18 More education brings more opportunities

negative: Free college education My opponent has failed to provide evidence to back up his claim, I have.

negative: Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US The deciding factor of the matter is this: is the cost of free education worth the benefits? Here are the benefits for free education: 1. Education will be widely available for all 2. The Tertiary education rate in America will go up Cost for free education: 1. More taxes overall, which lowers the value and potency of the economy, gradually destroying the US economy. As John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." 2. Educators will be paid less/Knowledge will go down in value because that which is widely available is worth less. 3. Takes away more rights of the people. The depth of the matter is this: 66% of jobs in the USA does not require a college degree. If we were to offer free higher education for all, and if 70% of graduating students moved on to college, half of those students who got a degree will not find a job that would relate to their degree, and the money spent on that degree will be wasted. What is the point of providing free college education if most of it will be wasted?

negative: Should The Age of Adulthood In America Be Changed When the accepted age of adulthood was set at 18, most jobs in America did not require anything more than a high school diploma. In essence, the government provided young adults with the necessary education to succeed in their world by ensuring that they could obtain the education to get them into the careers they need. Colleges, back then, were extras, for overachievers who wanted more. Thus, colleges were attended by those who had the financial means to afford it and the intelligence to perform at a high enough level to obtain a degree and become integral parts of society in its more important positions. In America today, however, most non-poverty wage jobs require post-secondary education. In today's society, the secondary school diploma is worth as much as a primary school diploma, and a bachelor's degree is worth as much as a secondary school diploma was worth a few generations ago Because of this, most young Americans need to attend college so as to be able to be a part of the middle class. The government, however, does very little if anything at all to help young adults attain college, and therefore, forcing young adults to fend for themselves, causing them to accrue large debts, and forcing college-bound students to work exorbitant hours in jobs where they only can earn poverty wages, because they don't have the degree that would afford them the opportunity to work in jobs that would pay decent wages. In short, the American government does not afford its young citizens the necessary education to succeed in today's world anymore, instead asking them to take the burden of getting their own education by themselves. The sad truth of the current state of American society is that the Millennial generation constantly gets blamed for acting entitled, when we only act that way because we are the first generation that hasn't had the basics afforded to us by older generations. We have actually had to work and pay to get the bare minimum. While individual parents have been pockets of hope, not everyone has a good set of parents. It is for this reason the free public education exists, and with the age of adulthood being pushed back a few years, free public education could be raised to include underclass post-secondary education.

negative: Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child) As far as I understand:My opponetnt is trying to argue the point that parents "live through" thier child's life by teaching them the philosophy of entering college after teaching them to follow their dream. My opponet feels that this is wrong and asks "is your life worth it when your parents live through you? "So my question to my opponent is this: Is your life worth it without your parents trying to push you to succeed? Many orphans wish they had a parent to do this to them. It only makjes sense that your parent would try to get you to go to college and earn degrees. Yes, it is true that they want you to "follow our dream" and college might not be your dream; but can you follow your dream without further education? No. (unless you want minimum wage). You must work for your dream. Parents are not trying to live through their child's life. They are trying to help you develop the life they might not have.