The Instigator
rike619
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LiberalHoyaLawya
Pro (for)
Winning
67 Points

Should there be Universal HealthCare?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
LiberalHoyaLawya
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,659 times Debate No: 19705
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (13)

 

rike619

Con

Rules: Please provide counter arguments for each statement, and do not ignore them, or your statements will be addressed as abscent, until you make an effort to provide a response.

There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors. Consider the health care bill passed by the Obama administration in 2009--it's over 2000 pages and barely scratches the surface for how the law will be implemented!

• "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?

• Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

[mod note, assertion of plagiarism made here]
LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

I was really looking forward to debating this topic, but that was before I discovered that my opponent plagiarized his ENTIRE ARGUMENT, WORD-FOR-WORD, from a website post authored by a different individual. Compare my opponent's arguments with the first three bullet points under the "No" section below:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org...

I refuse to waste my time arguing with a lazy cheater; I win by default.
Debate Round No. 1
rike619

Con

rike619 forfeited this round.
LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

My cheating opponent hasn't bothered to defend himself. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
rike619

Con

rike619 forfeited this round.
LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
rike619

Con

Oh yes, the likes of you are that of a half-wit imbecile. Plagerism is state in which a piece�of�writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work. I did not specifiy that this was my own work. You have violated the terms of this debate by not accurately tackling the Cons of Universal HealthCare. Instead you have made comments exerting that you will not waste time, but yet you appear to be supposably wasting time on each round commenting.

Judging from the your poor ability to profit from your egocentricity, I have concluded you are unable to present a argument worth tackling. To make the atmosphere more simple and of comfort to you, I shall at my own expense follow your inclination by not using a third party to sponsore my argument. Now instead of channeling your idiocy into a malformed reaction, I encourage you to translate it into a force to debate. I'm also willing to apologise for my abscence, I had other matters at hand. Since this will be my first debate on this website, I expect to you to show me the value's of this website and debate in accordance with them.
LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

No wonder you had to plagiarize your entire argument; you can barely communicate at all. Far worse than your numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, however, was your ridiculous defense of your actions. You wrote:

"Plagerism [sic] is state [sic] in which a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work. [sic] I did not specify that this was my own work."

Wrong. Plagiarism is defined as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author." [1] When you use someone else's writing without citing the original source of that material, you are committing plagiarism. The mere fact that you "did not specify that this was [your] own work" is no excuse.

According to plagiarism.org, all of the following are considered examples of plagiarism:

* turning in someone else's work as your own
* copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
* failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
* copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not [2]

You are guilty of all of the above. By failing to cite the fact that you had lifted your ENTIRE argument from someone else, you committed an act of fraudulent misrepresentation that undermined the integrity of the whole debate. Given your obvious guilt, I am astonished that you had the audacity to accuse me of violating the terms of the debate by failing to "present a argument [sic] worth tackling." Why should I take the time to post an original argument, when you didn't post an original argument yourself? You disqualified yourself before I even started writing.

Finally, you mentioned that this is your first debate on this website. I suggest that you make it your last. This community won't miss a borderline-illiterate cheater.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.plagiarism.org...

Debate Round No. 4
rike619

Con

rike619 forfeited this round.
LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
Pro, I understand that Con plagiarized. However, it is perfectly fine to plagiarize arguments as long as you acknowledge that it is not your own work. Con did, and you supplied the source (working towards his side). If you had simply provided an argument related to the resolution, I would've voted for you but unfortunately at the end of the day you didn't even bother to refute anything related to the topic thus leading to my Con vote. Conduct for ad ridicul by Con and forfeits by Con. Let this be a lesson for you Pro; I believe you are a competent debater.
Posted by rike619 5 years ago
rike619
Thank you for alarming me of that.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
use your source balanced politics, copy and pasting is a no-no. So next time put the source balanced politics.com.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
darn I wish you where pro
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: WOW CON.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism is an automatic forfeit no matter if pro responds or not
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism, forfeits, and true intelligence shined through rike when he made his response in his own words (I like how his statement that "Plagerism [sic] is state [sic] in which a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work. [sic] I did not specify that this was my own work." Has three spelling errors in, and how him not specifying it was his own work, nor specifying it was lifted, actually constitutes what plagiarism is. Top 10 debate fails
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented no independent arguments of his own, as demonstrated by Liberal HoyaLawya....Moreover, his conduct was notably poor; not only did he plagiarize, but he forfeited most of the debate but used his his second round to insult his opponent. Granted, however, both received a tie in arguments: Con after all chose not to write one himself, and the majority of Pro's arguments focused on the issue of plagiarism, not on the resolution itself.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: -.-
Vote Placed by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I am basically awarding points to Pro because Con plagiarizerd. All Con had to do is give appropriate attribution for their material. As such I have taken no consideration as to substance of the argument its self due to the plagerism problem. Next time time when you copy some one elses argument make sure you make it clear it some one elses work.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct should be obvious. Calling your opponent an imbecile is not an argument. That and the forfeits plus plagiarism equals obvious conduct to Pro. On arguments, Con's arguments are moot because they were not Con's own (he could have just summarized them really). This means Con could not uphold his BoP as instigator and thus the arguments go by default to Pro.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con claims that Pro did not respond to his arguments, however Con never made any arguments of his own for Pro to respond to. There is nothing wrong with copying and pasting some arguments but Con abused it and did nothing to support his own case afterward. He can not claim that Pro dropping his arguments is any reason to vote for him when he dropped his own arguments. Conduct to Pro for insults, and sources is obvious.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
rike619LiberalHoyaLawyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Three forfeits outweigh any drops that may have been made.