The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
famousdebater
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The UK is not a good place to live:

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
famousdebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 89033
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

harrytruman

Pro

In Brittan, they don't have freedom of speech, they don't have the right to bear arms, the UK is a communist country, and threy have too much taxes.
famousdebater

Con

Given that my opponent has told me that these are his arguments and that he will clarify later. I'll use this round to also post my arguments.

Framework

The burdens in this debate lie on Pro. He is making a positive claim giving him the burden of proof. In order to meet his BOP my opponent must prove that the Uk is not a good place to live. He must do this by proving his arguments to be true and impactful on the resolution. He must also refute my arguments as if they remain standing they pose a barrier preventing him from fulfilling his BOP because these are reasons as to why the UK is a good place to live. In order to negate his BOP I must defend my arguments whilst also refuting his since without any of his arguments standing (and with my arguments standing) the UK cannot be considered a bad place to live.

Human rights

In the UK human rights are enforced. Meaning that everybody must treat everyone equally, with fairness, dignity and respect [1]. This means that in the UK everybody, by law established in 1998, has to treat everybody equally. This means that whoever you are, regardless of your background, religion or sexual orientation, you are welcome and are treated equally in the UK [1].

Health Care

In the United Kingdom we have a free National Health Service. This means that everybody regardless of income has the right to life and welfare. In other countries this is not the case. This means that the poor and less fortunate members of society are also treated equally and are given free health care [5].

Taxation

There is a myth that UK taxation is massively high due to policies such as free national health service. This myth is false. We have a savings taxation rate of 10% (now reducing to as low as 0%). We have a basic taxation rate of 20%. A higher taxation rate of 40% and an additional rate of 45% [2]. In the US the federal taxation rates are from 10% - 39.5% [3] In the UK the taxation rates are from 0% - 45%. The taxation rates are therefore only very slightly higher than in regards to the United States and they also go lower too.

How the UK compares

It is in the top 20% of countries in regards to wealth and income. It is in the top 20% for jobs and earnings. It is in the top 10% for personal security. It is in the top 10% of countries regarding social connections. And it is in the top 5% of countries regarding environmental protection [4].

18% of workers work long hours in the UK. In the US 16% of workers work long hours. In Turkey 50% of workers work long hours. In Japan 39% of workers work long hours. In Mexico it's 35%. In Australia it's 21%. The fact that the UK has such a low amount compared to all of these and is close in comparison to the US shows that it is not a bad working place. Given that it also has many job and earning oppurtunities as well gives it a large advantage over the other countries too [4].

The United Kingdom is ahead of the OECD average in regards to education across the world [4].

In the United Kingdom 64% of people claim to be "very satisfied" with their lives. 47% of people are happy to put their full trust in the government too (which is significantly higher than the US). The UK also performs above average on the OEDC standards used to assess quality of life [4]

Sources

[1] https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk...;
[2] https://www.gov.uk...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

I put it on a google document so I could post pitures:
https://docs.google.com...
famousdebater

Con

Please note that after my opponent posted the link to his doc he continued to edit. This is what I saw when I first clicked on the doc: https://docs.google.com... I will not be refuting anything other than what is presented on the first page because everything else that was added after this was done after he posted which is cheating. Pro may choose to make these arguments again when he posts his next round and I will respond to them then. But until then I will only refute what was provided after he posted.


Human Rights


My opponent argues that the US passed the same law but earlier to the UK. Firstly my opponent is wrong. The law that he references to that was passed in the US is a different law. Secondly, even if it was the same law it would be irrelevant. We are discussing whether the UK is a good place to live. Regardless of which country passed the law first is not relevant. They both ultimately have the same laws which are what we are discussing. We are discussing the present UK. Not the UK from the past.


Despite the fact that it was irrelevant I’ll defend the issue since I have quite a few characters to spare. My opponent attempts to go back to ancestors of human rights in the US but by doing this he puts himself in a difficult situation because as many people are aware, The UK established its earliest form of human rights (the bill of rights) in 1689 whereas the US’ earliest form of human rights bill was set in 1864 (as my opponent states) - almost 200 years earlier than the US! [1][2]


Taxation


My opponent drops this point. They may choose to respond to this next round as there are no round rules. I assume that they were initially intending to finish this round off after they posted it but as I said at the beginning. Once they have posted they can’t continue to edit because this extends their allotted time to post.


I extend this point.


Healthcare


I wasn’t using this as my only point. It was merely one of many points contributing to one conclusion - that the UK is a good place to live. My opponent drops the fact that I explained that free health care is good and important. Therefore it’s impact still stands.


The only objection raised is that North Korea also has free health care. The problem with North Korea’s healthcare system is that whilst it is free there are other factors that make it bad. For example, North Korea doesn’t enforce human rights (like the UK does) and regarding health care, North Korea only spends 3% of its gross domestic income on health care which is considerably lower than with the UK [3].


The argument stands.


How the UK compares


Instead of critiquing my arguments Pro makes some of his own. It is true. The US has a formidable military. Nobody is denying that. What I’m denying here is how having a large military makes a place better to live. Until my opponent is able to prove the correlation between having a large military and a place being a good place to live then this argument bears no weight upon the resolution.


Whilst the US does have a significantly higher GDP in comparison to the UK it is also important to note that the US has $19,200,000,000,000 ($19.2 trillion) of debt [5]. The UK is in £1 trillion in debt [6]. That means that the US has 1900% more debt than the UK does!


My opponent tells me how good the US dollar is instead of actually critiquing the UK. Even if my opponent manages to prove that the US is preferable to the UK, that doesn’t mean that his burden is fulfilled. He must prove that it is a bad place to live. This is irrelevant for the simple fact that they are both, in essence, equal in value. To put this into an analogy: A mile is 1.6 kilometers, but that doesn't mean that a mile is a better unit of measurement. Whether you ran 26 miles or 42 kilometers, you still ran the same marathon.” [7]


My opponent makes the hyperbole that that the fact that 64% of the UK are very satisfied is irrelevant because 100% of the slaves said that they were satisfied. Firstly, this is not sourced and I very much doubt that 100% of the slaves stated that they were happy. Furthermore, many slaves were forced to say that they were satisfied. In the UK there is no evidence suggesting that this is the case. My opponent responds to my statistic stating that 47% of people in the UK trust the government with a quote. This is a massive appeal to authority. My opponent commits the logical fallacy of ad populum by thinking that because a famous person said something that makes it true. I provided a strong statistic with a strong source backing it up. My opponent has provided a quote with no explanation provided by himself. This argument has no weight.


Everything else that my opponent states should not be considered as dropped due to the fact that they were added AFTER the doc was posted (the print screen provided in the first paragraph confirms this).


The resolution is negated. Vote Con!


Sources


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.ourdocuments.gov...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk...

[6] http://www.usdebtclock.org...

[7] https://www.quora.com...
Debate Round No. 2
famousdebater

Con

I gave my opponent ample time to expand upon his R1 arguments (which he said he would). So now I will refute them.


Round 1 Rebuttal


The UK does have freedom of speech. As I said previously, human rights are enforced in the United Kingdom. My opponent has objected to stating that they were enforced earlier in the US however that’s nonsensical since we are referencing to the United Kingdom and the United States in the present not the past. My opponent has already conceded in the debate that the human rights are currently enforced in the UK so this contention is already negated given that human rights include freedom of speech [1].


My opponent states that we don’t have the rights to bear arms. This is correct however this is benefits us. Since this contention isn’t explained it bares no impact anyway, however guns kill many thousands of people yearly. In the US you are 3250% (approximately) more likely to be killed by a gun than in the UK [2]. Which makes the UK a significantly better place to live in than the US as the chances of being killed by a gun are extremely low.


The UK is not communist as my opponent states [3]. People make different wages based off of the jobs that they do and they also must buy their food and their properties. Some people are rich and some people are poor. This is impossible in a true communist country [4].


Human Rights


My opponent misses the point of my objection. It doesn’t matter who enforced rights first. It matter about the present day and what the rights current are. My opponent states that because the bill of rights from the 17th century seems outdated it doesn’t count as the first step towards rights. My opponent states that “it doesn’t count” because it was before the US existed. This is not technically true because the US still “existed” however I understand what my opponent means by this claim. My opponent’s logic is nonsensical. If the UK enforced human rights (as they are today) in the 17th century would my opponent say that it doesn’t count because the US didn’t exist? If he did then the claim would be considered as absurd since it obvious that it was enforced in the UK first. The same applies here. We are looking at who formed the first official set of rights - the UK or the US. The UK clearly does. If my opponent, subjectively, disagrees with what it says that doesn’t mean that it can be deemed invalid because it is hypocritical for one person’s disagreement to invalidate an entire rights document as being considered meaningless and irrelevant.


Taxation


As I stated previously, which my opponent drops, we do not pay unreasonable taxation. He states that we pay 95% of our taxes to the feds. The BBC reports that just under 25% of our taxes go to police force and social protection [5]. My opponent provides no source for this claim either so this contention should automatically go in my favor.


Health Care


My opponent does something incredibly confusing and unnecessary here. He states how much the UK spends on health care in Euros and US dollars. The one currency that matters (Pound sterling), was ignored.


The US is 40 times larger than the UK in size [6]. This means that logically the UK should be spending 40 times less money than the US in order to be spending the equivalent amount per person. The UK spend just under 10 times less than the US does (according to my opponent’s statistics). This means that if the US and the UK were proportionally scaled up in so that they were equal in size. This means that the UK would spend 400% more money on healthcare than the US does (because it spend 4 times more than it should if it were proportional to the uk, which is demonstrated by it being 10 times smaller as opposed to 40 times, this means that it is 4 times larger which is the amount of that the US spends {100%} multiplied by 4 to make 400%).


How the UK Compares


Extend all the statistics that my opponent drops that I provided in my initial arguments. Please bare in mind that my opponent has NO sources so this automatically completely removes virtually all credibility from my opponent’s statistics and claims that require sources.


My opponent begins by claiming that the military is good for the economy. This is untrue. Masses of money is spent on the military whilst people live in poverty, education gets worse, job standards get worse, etc.. It does present more jobs however the UK spends it’s money on creating more jobs in places other than the military. This means that people still get the jobs, the work force still benefits and the economy is boosted (unlike with the military, more specifically the US military). [7] In the past the military has been a good thing (ie. world war 1 and 2) however it is unnecessary now - yes some military is needed, no such a large amount of money isn’t necessary to be spent on the military. Furthermore, this objection is off topic. The military doesn’t change whether or not the UK is better or worse to live in than the US. Given that there is no major threat of war upon us there is no reason as to why a military with such a high quantity of money is necessary.


Obama did NOTHING like what the UK has. Just because he tried to implement policies that are sometimes affiliated with socialism, doesn’t mean that you should automatically assume that he is implement comparable policies to the UK. It is made obvious that the UK’s policies are not the causes of debt due to the fact that the UK is in significantly less debt than the US is. As I stated in the previous round (which my opponent drops), the US debt is 1900% larger than the debt of the UK [8][9].


My opponent still provides no source suggesting that 100% of the slaves were happy. This is still bare assertion and I cannot refute a point of this nature without sources from my opponent.


Extend my point regarding my objection to my opponent’s quote. Originally my opponent provides a quote stating that the government cannot be trusted. I pointed out that this was an appeal to authority because you haven’t actually explained anything yourself. Merely quoted somebody and assumed that they are correct. My opponent drops the point and says that I still haven’t questioned it which is incorrect.


UK Politics


My opponent finally makes the irrelevant contention that British monarchs aren’t notable. This is highly subjective and irrelevant to the resolution. This debate is whether the UK is a good place to live. Does the fact that it doesn’t have many notable monarchs make it a worse place to live? Certainly not, and if my opponent wishes to raise this objection then I suggest that he explains it further because at the moment it has no clear impact on the resolution. I can name plenty of notable things that virtually all British monarchs have done off of the top of my head and many others can. Just because my opponent doesn’t know much about many of the British monarchs, doesn’t mean that his opinion is an accurate representation of the entirety of the world’s view.


The resolution is unquestionably negated. Vote Con!


Sources


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk...

[6] http://www.undertheraedar.com...

[7] http://www.ncronline.org...

[8] http://www.usdebtclock.org...

[9] http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
famousdebater

Con

Thanks Harrytruman!

Free Speech

Rights such as the right to bear arms and the other that my opponent listed aren’t universal human rights. Free speech is in the universal declaration of human rights and is implemented by the United Kingdom. The rights according the US are not the same as rights as viewed by the world. The right to bear arms is not a universal right and is therefore unnecessary for a place like the UK to be considered a country that enforces human rights.


Muckraking is allowed in the UK, so long as it doesn’t involve phone hacking or illegal spying / trespassing. My opponent’s only objection to UK free speech is flawed. Once again, I will restate this point, the UK does enforce free speech [1].

The Right to Bear Arms



My opponent’s logic is baffling. Since the UK’s population is roughly 4 times smaller than the United States, the US should (logically) have 4 times as many homicides if the US was proportionally equal. There are 653 homicides per year in the UK (as my opponent states). He also stated that there are 12,250 homicides per year in the US. My opponent states that this is 4 times more than the UK. This is false. 653 multiplied by 4 is 2612. The US has 12,250 homicides yearly. This means that my opponent’s claim that the homicides per year comparison is only 4 times larger in the US. If we divide 12,250 by 653 we get approximately 18.759 (rounded). This means that the US experiences closer to 19 times more homicide than the US when in reality proportionally it should on be 4 times more. This is what is concerning. My opponent concedes the point and even assists me in providing statistics which he cannot dispute since he was the one that provided them. This means that the US has more homicides than the UK even proportionally.


My opponent uses the examples of Czech Republic and Switzerland. What I find most problematic here is that my opponent isn’t look at deaths by gun per year. He analyzes homicides on a whole. If we look at gun deaths you’ll notice that there are significantly more deaths by guns in places like the US and Switzerland than there are in the UK and other countries with gun bans.


[2]



Other homicides are irrelevant to the contention since we are discussing the right to bear arms. The US has more homicides (as explained in the first paragraph) proportionally as well as in total than the UK and also the UK has significantly less deaths by gun than the US does even if you look at the issue proportionally. As you’ll also notice, Switzerland and Czech Republic are also above us on that list negating my opponent’s other arguments.



My opponent also jumps massively to conclusions. He notices that Switzerland has the right to bear arms. It also has less homicides so he assumes that the right to bear arms is decreasing the homicides. This is not necessarily true. Unless my opponent can prove that the reason that there are less homicides is because Switzerland have the right to bear arms then my opponent’s contention here bears no weight.



Human Rights

My opponent’s complain here is largely irrelevant and he lies that I never addressed it since I did. I’ll reiterate the exact same point that I made last round. The bill of rights was the very first document regarding rights established in the UK. It was established in the 1600s and should not be expected to coincide exactly with my opponent’s moral standards. The point that I was responding to was whether or not the US set up human rights first or the UK did. My point here is made and my opponent does not refute its intention. He simply says that it doesn’t count because he doesn’t think that the rules are good enough in his own subjective opinion which should be discounted as irrelevant since it still enforces rights which is what my point was. Furthermore, this contention is rather irrelevant considering that both the UK and US, in the present, enforce human rights to a reasonable degree.

Health Care

I was referencing to surface area not people. This is because not only do we have to consider this issue per person but we also need to consider this in regards to the amount of hospitals built. If the US is 40 times larger (as I stated before) then they are going to need to pay for 40 times as many hospitals and 40 times as many doctors, etc.



I extend the point.



Military Spending



I’m talking about the military in the present not the past. My opponent references to points in time where the military has been beneficial. This is no longer the case. When the US are spending $600 - $800 billion [3] annually on the military there is virtually no profit made. My opponent, in order to prove that the military is good for the economy, must show that the military pays off the money spent on it.



ISIS is being combated by the War on Terror, the police force (on a localized level) and the fact that the US is in possession of nuclear weapons. The military is perfectly capable without so much unnecessary money is being spent on it. The North Korean dictator is doing virtually nothing that requires the US military's involvement at the moment. Putin isn’t doing much either. Trump may soon be in charge of the US, why would the US military turn on their own president? My opponent needs to expand on these points for them to be even be considered by voters.



Contentment in the UK



My opponent’s quote (which he doesn’t correctly source) never mentions that 100% of slaves said they were happy. Douglass would have had to have seen every single slave and questioned them in order to know that. In addition to this, the slaves and the people living in the United Kingdom are **massively** different. The slaves were forced to or were being misinterpreted. In the United Kingdom there is virtually no evidence suggesting that we are being forced to say that it is a great place to live in.

My opponent still doesn’t notice his logical fallacies that I’ve repeated many times. My opponent once again states that because some famous people have said that the government can’t be trusted this must mean that it’s true. This is an ad populum fallacy as I have repeatedly noted and my opponent continuously fails to address. What makes the fact that people are famous any more credible than a clever person who isn’t famous. I provided statistics saying that lots of people put their entire trust into the government. Calling them wrong because some famous people believed that is ridiculous, especially to combat solid statistics.



UK Politics

There are many people in the United Kingdom that would make the same point in response to the US. A lot of people in the UK will not have heard of Lyndon B Johnson or other presidents that you may find notable. In the UK everybody’s heard of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, etc. In the UK they’d say exactly the same thing in regards to the US.



The only reason that the US landed man on the moon is because of a ridiculous race with Russia in which the US spent masses of money trying to rush to space just to beat Russia. Meanwhile, the UK was drastically improving it’s society and using it’s money much more wisely.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Debate Round No. 4
famousdebater

Con

Free speech


My opponent is shifting the goalposts here. He changes his original argument from muckraking being illegal to muckraking being culturally unacceptable. He concedes that it is legal in the UK and merely states that it is culturally unacceptable. He provides no evidence for this. As somebody that live in the UK I know that it is legal and that it is culturally considered acceptable.


The Right To Bear Arms


So my opponent ultimately concedes that proportionally speaking, the US has more homicides. If they had the same population and you kept everything decreasing at the same rates then the US would still have more homicides - 4 times as many to be precise.


My opponent misunderstands my homicide argument. This is the argument that I presented last round:


P1: There are more gun related homicides in the US than in the UK.

P2: My opponent concedes that less guns = less homicides by guns.

C1: If a gun ban reduces gun homicides then no guns will mean that gun related homicides will be deducted from the total homicide count, ultimately meaning that gun homicides will increase.


My opponent merely concedes to this logic, he doesn't refute it.


My opponent fails to note that the whilst Israel does have quite a low homicide rate and they do have the right to bear arms it is crucial to note that other countries with a gun are lower. Japan, South Korea and Iceland all have gun bans and the homicide by guns are the lowest 3 in the world.


The difference between my claim (that guns cause increased homicides). And my opponent’s claim is that my claim is sourced - my opponent’s is not. Whilst I am on the point it is crucial to note that my opponent provides very few sources in this debate. His first round had none. His second round had none. His third round had none. Whilst I am continuing this debate it is crucial to note that this debate is a clear victory for me as I am the only one with strong contentions to support my burden. Without the necessary usage of sourcing to back up his points much of what my opponent says is bare assertion.


My opponent continues with ANOTHER ridiculous assertion. He claims that with martial arts hands can be stronger than than guns. This is, once again assertion and hands to not have the range, the average strength or the same number of fatalities that guns bare. If martial arts was killing as many people as guns were then I’d be concerned. My opponent, however, does not give me any reason for me to compare martial arts to guns. This analogy fails as a result.


Human Rights


I never claimed that the UK was the first country ever to pass a bill of human rights. I was merely referencing out of the UK and US, the UK is first by decades. My opponent is again, maing the same flawed argument that I’ve already refuted.


The UK established human rights in 1689 - you can’t say it doesn’t count because the US wasn’t made then because that doesn’t change anything. You said that the US established human rights BEFORE the UK did. This is preposterous as the UK established their first bill of right in 1689. This is a fact that cannot be ignored because the US didn’t exist at the time. The UK did form human rights before the US was even established whereas the US established human rights significantly later.


I’m not sure that my opponent is being intentionally hypocritical with his claims but I’ll quote him here:


“It isn’t subjective that the Mexican Constitution offers better protections than the English Bill of Rights.”


Whether my opponent realizes this or not - the claim is incredibly subjective. The usage of the word ‘better’ is a clear indication of that [1].


Health Care


I understand that health care is spent on more people however hospitals are necessary for health care, more equipment is necessary for health care, etc. If you’ve got a larger country then you’ll need more resources to spread across that country from North, South, East, West, NW, NE, etc.


Allow me to use the following hypothetical. Let’s say that we need 10 trucks of equipment to provide for health care across the UK. The US is going to need considerably more than just enough to correlate with the population since the US is too large for 10 trucks worth of equipment to be able to provide it for everybody. It would be easier if there was the same amount of equipment but distributed amongst 20 trucks because that way more surface area can be covered. In the same way, we need to account for surface area AND population and given that both the population and the surface area are larger in the US as opposed to the UK this means that more will have to be spent on the US than the UK in order for the same (or even lower) quality health care than the UK can be achieved.


Wages


Once again, my opponent forgets that the United Kingdom has the pound currency. Not dollars. The minimum wage is $7.25 not $. Every £1 is the equivalent to 1.42$ [2]. The minimum wage is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than my opponent states. It’s 10.30$ [2] My opponent is largely misguided.


Military Spending


Regarding ISIS, my opponent argues for me. He critiques Barack Obama, he critiques the US War on Terror (not the UK). He claims that the US missed 67 out of 70 terrorists getting into the US. All this does is argue against the US not the UK. In the UK 7 terrorist attacks have been prevented in the last year - which is a notable achievement considering that there have been very few terrorist attacks. [3]


Kim Jong Un has 4 nukes not 12 [4]. North Korea and China are quarrelling - they aren’t allies [5]. Furthermore, there is no clear motive for Kim Jong Un to launch any attack on the US or the UK.


Donald Trump will not affect the UK. The UK does not need a military to defend itself against Donald Trump. Especially when we are an ally of the US [6].


Contentment in the UK


My opponent is being preposterous. There are 196 countries in the world, under each of these countries there have been many governments [7]. My opponent lists 6 examples of bad governments - none of which were regarding the UK.


UK Politics


Some of the greatest scientists in history have come from the UK. Many argue that the UK has the greater scientists compared to the US. We have scientists such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, J.J Thomson, Rosalind Franklin, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, etc. [8].


My opponent believes that we embraced communism. He provides no evidence for this claim. It should be treated as assertion and should not be considered as bearing any weight.


This is a very, very clear vote for Con as my opponent’s BOP is not fulfilled.


Sources


[1] http://meta.stackexchange.com...

[2] https://www.google.co.uk...

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

[4] https://next.ft.com...

[5] http://thediplomat.com...

[6] http://www.theguardian.com...

[7] http://www.infoplease.com...

[8] https://www.google.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
airmax1227
Vote by Balacafa has been disqualified and removed.

1 point to Con (conduct)

RFD: "Pro used google docs instead of posting his arguments in the debate. This gave him unlimited characters whereas Con had a finite amount of characters. This clearly gave Pro an advantage to which Con did not have. Since Pro did not obide by the debate rules (ie. the character limit). Con receives the conduct point due to Pro's decision to break the rules that he set and give himself the advantage."

Airmax1227
Debate.org Moderator
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
No problem.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Thanks for the vote lannan! :)
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
RFD Part 3: Arguments (Cont.)

I also have to give the Health Care argument to Con as well. Granted I disagree with the type of single-payer health care system. Pro simply does not properly refute this argument showing that simply that the UK spends a great deal of money on Health Care. This, once again, does not mean that the UK is a terrible society as Pro fails to show that once again. For Gun Control, Pro runs some ludicrious numbers for crime in the UK, but that is false as he then fails to see that The US homacide rate is extremely higher than the US. The UK, under the arguments ran, is safer from this type of crime. Several times throughout the debate Pro also confuses currency trying to run arguments against the Canadian dollar and the Euro, but fails to realize that the UK uses the British Pound. With that, there is really no other key arguments in this debate.

I have no choice, but to give the arguments points to famousdebater due to him having a simple clean sweep of the arguments that were made in this debate. Another contributing factor was that Pro had failed to show that the UK was a terrible place to live, but only argued that the US was better than the UK.

If either debaters have any questions or concerns then they may feel free to PM me.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
RFD Part 2: Arguments

For this I would normally split this into several different portions and go argument by argument, but many of these arguments were relivatively short so I will go over these. One of the key issues that Pro undertakes is comparing the US, as if it was the gold standard, to the UK. The resolution is that the UK is not a good place to live. Even if the US was better than the UK, it does not entirely mean that the UK would be a terrible place to live. Some key examples of where this is the issue is the Human Rights argument where Pro constantly wanted to argued that since the US wasn't founded in 1689, when the British Bill of Rights was passed, then the argument doesn't count. So what? This argument is highly irrelivant to the debate and the debate isn't US-centric, but UK-centric. Another part is Pro runs the US passed the Civil Rights Bill 3 decades before the UK passed one. This, again, does not show in any way how the US is better rather that the UK passed one later.

Pro then moves onto another strange argument, in the UK comp section, that the 47% government satisfaction rating is because the British are slaves. Pro really never actually goes in depth as to why this is important. Pro also attacks the UK on how they don't have a strong military, but once again, this is an argument that Pro fails to explain why this is important. Con simply agrees that the US has a better military, but reveals that Pro really doesn't explain why this is an issue. Con then shows how the UK has a great deal of education and more. He also shows that UK taxation is way lower and there is a taxless tax bracket. Pro gives a hilarious stat which states that the UK pays 95% in taxes. Con brings him down to Earth with a source from BBC that shows that the real numbers are around 25%.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
RFD Part 1: Rules and Regs

With the way the debate has been set-up and the positioning of "is" in the resolution places the Burden of Proof on Pro, but makes the resolution a bit harder for him to defend as the "is" shows that it has to be a "good" place to "live" in just about every circumstance. I would suggest that next time that when he set's up the debate then he should set-up the terms and definitions in order to prevent such an event from occuring again or even have him attempt to limit a portion of the BOP or amount of semantics his opponent uses.

I would also like to point out the usage of google docs. Now I will not deduct the Conduct point due to Con's ability to handle the situation well, but the issue was even shown in the debate. In R2, Con shows a screenshot of the google docs and shows there's only one page, but when I checked the doc just a while ago while reading the debate, the doc exceeded the one page. Granted that it wasn't much, it is still a huge issue that deals with Google docs that are a key reason why I dislike people using them. NO matter the issue that comes up, it still shouldn't have to be used as posting the arguments here on DDO show that there is no possible ways to cheat in this debate which technically did occur, but was discarded as cooler heads prevailed in this debate.

As for posting images in a debate, I would suggest just simply clicking the copy and paste to get them into the debate as this is a way that I get images into my debates and it generally occurs without an issue. Whenever the picture doesn't show, it's due to the image's format. Try using imgur which will translate it into any format you want and it is a format you can use on debate.org.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Reading the debate now.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Also he claimed things about my argumenytt tt were not true as his RFD.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Overhead// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: See comments

[*Reason for removal*] While the explanation for conduct and sources is sufficient, and the voter's analysis of Con's arguments is more than sufficient, the voter insufficiently analyzes Pro's arguments. Assessing rebuttals alone can be enough, but the voter has to do more than just further explain how Con's arguments were defeated. There has to be a clear reason from this RFD for why Pro is getting the vote, which does not come through with this RFD. That can be explained either by analyzing Pro's argumentation that functions as offense, or by explaining how Con had the burden of proof and failed to meet it.
************************************************************************
Posted by Overhead 1 year ago
Overhead
PRO used googledocs for their arguments and then edited them after submitting the debate. Poor conduct, so that does to CON.

PRO used no sources while CON used sources and did so relevantly, for instance linking to a site about human rights in the UK to back up his point about human rights existing in the UK, etc.

PRO's arguments are overall poor. Taking a fairly typical example, in R2 he states "First of all, military expenditures are very important, history shows us repetitively that military spending makes a better economy, with larger industry, more jobs, and more opportunity. I thought it would be a very obvious fact that military spending makes a country a better place to live, it is the most important, most effective Affirmative action ever, just open a history book and you will see what I mean."

Now the general connection to the topic is there. He states that the military expenditure makes a country better and that the Uk has low military expenditure. however the problem is that he never offers anything to back up that military expenditure does make a country better or that the UK's military expenditure should be considered low. he tells PRo/The voters to "just open a history book and you will see what I mean". It's not my job to go searching for evidence for PRO's arguments for him.

This pattern follows throughout PRO's arguments and CON crushes him on basically every count, offering logical and sourced rebuttals. For instance in response to PRO's unevidenced and completely unsupported claim that "In the UK, you pay 95% of your income to the Feds" CON responds with a sourced answer which proves him wrong and PRO is forced to drop the point.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
harrytrumanfamousdebaterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments section.