[Anonymous]

Hello,
I am in a debate club this year, and I had a few questions about the topic. This is the resolution.

The United States Federal Government should reform its policy or policies for student financial aid for post-secondary education.

We have to debate both sides, but on the affirmative side, we’re advocating for change, so we have to have a mandate and then harms and advantages to our plan.
What are some of your ideas for cases?

Thank you,
Juliana Bibawy

[gutzmank]

I don’t understand your question. What do you mean by “ideas for cases?”

[Anonymous]

So I need ideas of mandates, like how the current system should be changed in the topic of student financial aid for post secondary education.

Thanks!

[sheyboer]

This may be too late, but I like the idea of abolishing any role the Federal Gov’t has in funding higher education.

Harms of the status quo:
1. high cost of tuition
2. poor students (meaning, the funding offered by the fed. gov’t encourages some people to go to college who shouldn’t be – not college material; as a result they eventually drop out and end up with a bunch of debt).
3. Violates property rights (fed. gov’t has no authority to take person A’s money and give it to person B)
4. Unconstitutional (no enumerated power granted to congress to fund higher education – or any education for that matter; now you’re going to have to be able to argue why following the constitution as ratified is a good thing)

Advantages:
1. less violation of property rights
2. one less abuse of the constitution and federalism
3. tuition costs will drop
4. non academic students will be more likely to pursue other avenues of achieving success other than college (trade school, tech school…) or start working or start own business…

hope some of this helps!

[Author]

Posts