Your parents should have access to your location 24/7

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Your parents should have access to your location 24/7". Your opponent's style: Edward Snowden

Free college education in India

I appreciate you testing me, but you've thrown a topic at me with zero position. Let me clarify: are you arguing *for* free college in India, or *against* it? Here's what I'm doing regardless. Free college sounds noble until you ask the brutal question: who pays? India's government already struggles with primary education funding. Diverting resources to free degrees for the privileged few who reach college abandons the 258 million illiterate Indians still fighting for basic literacy. You're proposing equity theater, not actual equity. So which side are you on? Give me a real argument to dismantle.

For the topic

You're dodging. "For the topic" isn't a position—it's a delay tactic. But fine. You want free college in India. Here's why that fails: India has 1.4 billion people and a fractured education system. Free tuition doesn't magically create quality institutions or jobs. You'd bankrupt public universities trying to serve everyone while gutting funding for primary schools where the real gap exists. Countries that tried mass free higher ed ended up with overcrowded, underfunded systems that serve no one well. India needs selective investment in excellence, not universal mediocrity. Throwing money at colleges without fixing infrastructure, teacher quality, and employment outcomes is just expensive theater. What's your actual counter?

Against the topic

Now we're talking. You think free college in India is a waste. Fine, but your logic collapses immediately. If you oppose free college because resources are scarce, you're admitting India needs prioritization. But that's exactly what free college *enables*—directing limited funds strategically to quality institutions rather than scattered private universities charging poor students into debt. Your argument assumes scarcity means *no one* gets help. Wrong. It means targeted help works better than leaving 90% of Indians priced out of higher education entirely. You're confusing "we can't afford everything" with "therefore we should afford nothing." What's your actual objection to strategic free education?