The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Charlie_Danger
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points

Free Health Care is realistic for the United States in 2009

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,661 times Debate No: 7994
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (13)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I stand in negation of the resolution. As my opponent is affirmative, I will allow him/her to frame th debate as they wish. I will only define the following terms.

Free- provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment

Realistic- interested in, concerned with, or based on what is practical

I leave the opening argument to my opponent. Good luck!
Charlie_Danger

Pro

I'm gonna just debate this impromptu style...wish me luck.

I affirm "Resolved: Free Health Care is realistic in the United States in 2009"

Observation 1:
The resolution asks if free health care is realistic for the US, not that it necessarily is in the best interest of the US government, citizens, or macro-economic structure. Because the resolution is lenient on this issue, it is not the affirmative's burden to provide an economically sound or good-looking point of view on the issue of free health care.

Contention 1: "Obama has already given out sh*t-loads of money"
President Barak Obama has, before even completing his first 100 days in office, given away several trillions of dollars to economic stimulus and other similar issues that were aimed at aiding the average American citizen. Although it is easily debatable on weather or not this is a good idea, we are here to debate about health care. According to "The Liberty Papers" in January, 2nd 2009, "...free health care would cost less than the latest economic bailout did, and unlike the bailout, it would give back by allowing Americans to spend more freely, get out of their debts, ... maintain domestic security in their jobs, no matter how low paying or dangerous they may be." When taking this into consideration, we can see that Free Health Care for American citizens would not only be realistic in cost, but would be overall beneficial to the US also. Even if you don't agree or buy that free Health Care (HC) would be beneficial, the Affirmative has still fufilled its burden by proving, at this point in time, free HC is realistic because America has the economic stability to fund said program.

Contention 2: "Health care would only be given to legal citizens"
According to the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Immigration Statistics, there are over 11.6 million illegal immigrants in the US out of the 300 million total in 2006 alone! This is a ratio of 1 illegal for every 30 legal citizens. When you subtract all the illegals from this population equation, the idea of free HC becomes far more realistic, since we are only paying for LEGAL citizens. And furthermore, any American who can afford their own health care is not forced to, meaning any good Samaritans or financially stable persons in the country will be paying on their own. Although we cannot realistically measure how many citizens this would be, even if it is ONE, we get one baby-step closer to having a financially stable HC system. After removing all these variables from our economic situation, it becomes not only realistic to have free HC, but beneficial.

Because our nation can take the financial burden of providing free health care, providing health care is beneficial to the economy, and because we don't have to pay as much as you would think, I urge all of you to cast your ballot for the Affirmative.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

I apologize, but I will not have time to post for round two. I will address all point fully in round three. Thank you.
Charlie_Danger

Pro

Cool.
At this point in the debate, I encourage an affirmative ballot due to my opponent's inability to respond to my arguments.

Ha, just kidding.
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, well I will first apologize for my lack of argumentation last round. School is almost out, and I will have plenty of time then. On to the debate!

I agree with AFF's observation, that he only needs to prove that free HC is realistic.

His first contention is a bit hard to follow. His opening and closing statements are drastically different from one another. His first, that Obama has given out a lot of money, is true. His closing, that our economy is stable, is not.
"Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, has warned that the American financial system remains unstable and indicated that the world's largest economy will not return to growth until well into the next administration."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
As I am sure you all have realized, our economy has taken huge hits in the past months. Malls are no longer crowded, businesses are closing, and people can afford to buy fewer things. Does that sound like a stable economy to you?

In his second contention, he states that HC would only be given to legal citizens. I fail to see how this makes a difference. The US Census Bureau estimates around 306,346,328 legal citizens inhabit the US at this time. http://factfinder.census.gov...
OK, so HC would only be given to legal citizens. Does that bring down the number of people that HC would be given to? Yes. Does it make free HC realistic? Absolutely not.

I would like to revisit a key definition in this debate, that of "free." It is defined as: provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment. What you must realize is that going to see a doctor is very expensive. Do you really think that they would provide their services for free? Of course not. Well, my opponent says that Obama will pay for it. Where does he get the money? Taxes. Who pays the taxes? The American citizen. If the American citizen pays, is the service free? Again, of course not. Someone always have to pay. Since this is the case, the resolution is negated.
Charlie_Danger

Pro

I'll go down the flow here:

Okay, my first contention is not that the economy is stable, in fact I didn't waste my precious space getting research to prove it, I thought it was a given that the economy is crap. I just prove that we CAN afford to fund free health care, even if it hurts the economy. Let me give you another example: I have only five dollars. I spend three dollars on candy. Although the act of getting the candy was generally stupid since I need to use the money to pay for more important things, but it didn't kill me or cause me to go completely broke. Because he has no longer an attack against my first contention, it flows through and proves that Free Health Care is indeed realistic.

As great as my opponent's stats may be, we have to look at exactly which is more legitimate: THE US GOVERNMENT or A random third party. This shouldn't be to difficult to decide. Minus the conflicting stats, he simply claims that it would not make health care any more realistic. This, as I've proven, is unwarranted. Lets go back to the metaphor I've stated before: I am about to buy that three-dollar candy, but because the demand for candy is low, I buy it for two dollars instead. This greatly lessens financial load I have by having that extra dollar.

My opponent makes a final and BRAND NEW argument in his last speech which should be dropped just because it is new (and COULD have been presented in the speech he conceded), but nonetheless you reject this argument for three reasons:
1) Nothing is free, this is an unfair and abusive argument against the affirmative.
2) Like Volkov clarified in the comments before the debate started, it is impossible to debate over this unless we agree that taxes aren't a part of this definition
3) A political power is not obligated to abide by webster's dictionary, for instance, the definition of liberty is the power to do as one pleases (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) but that doesn't mean that we let people do whatever they want. (Hence laws and guidelines)
4) While we're making unwarranted and abusive arguments, you MUST vote PRO in this debate because my opponent COLD CONCEDED TO EVERYTHING I SAID IN HIS SECOND SPEECH. If you accept his final argument, than you must accept this one as well.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Hmm, still seem realistic?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Fair. Thank you Roy. Anyone else?
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The compelling argument is that having the government pay for it does not make it free. It would be free to the consumers if the government obtained money by some method other than taxes, but they don't. Con forfeited one round, which is bad conduct. Pro was insulting, also bad conduct. There was nothing in the challenge specifying the rules of the debate, so Pro's complaints about when arguments were added were not applicable.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Hey guys, can you please post RFDs? Thanks.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
There are three rounds for a reason bud. Life happens, post next round.

*your stuff
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
"Wow, really? I don't EVER remember saying that."
That's the point. You DIDN'T say anything.
I don't think its fair, but it's still technically acceptable for me to get up and say you dropped everything because you couldn't get you stuff done in time.
Again, only vote off of that if you consider his last argument as well.
Posted by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
"Like Volkov clarified in the comments before the debate started, it is impossible to debate over this unless we agree that taxes aren't a part of this definition"
Did both debaters agree on this? No.
Was it in the definitions? No.
How can you say that? You accepted the debate! You aren't debating Volkov!
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
"my opponent COLD CONCEDED TO EVERYTHING I SAID IN HIS SECOND SPEECH."
Wow, really? I don't EVER remember saying that.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
http://www.debate.org...
Vote for me please.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Thank you for your support of my bravery.
:D
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dobsondebator 7 years ago
dobsondebator
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Riley09 7 years ago
Riley09
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Refer_Madness 7 years ago
Refer_Madness
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Marine1 7 years ago
Marine1
rougeagent21Charlie_DangerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07