The Instigator
Archangel35
Pro (for)
Losing
46 Points
The Contender
Thaddeus
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
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 25 votes the winner is...
Thaddeus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,743 times Debate No: 29526
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (25)

 

Archangel35

Pro

This is the topic for this debate. Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting Main Arguments
Round 3: Disputing and Defending Main Arguments
Round 4: Conclusions and Responses to Round 3.

Thank you.
Thaddeus

Con

Hello ladies and gentlemen. Are you all seated comfortably?
No, not you inferno. No-one cares what you think.
Everyone else? Splendid.
We are gathered here today to bear witness to the union...
Sorry, wrong notes. Its the wedding ceremony Mirza made me prepare for ViVeri, in his words, "just in-case"
What I meant to say is that the burden of proof lies with the 35th Arch-Bishop Ann Gel (I'm glad to see the church appointing female Bishops to such high positions in the church).
So friends, comrades, acquaintances and Imabench, as the good Bishop has not defined her terms, one can only assume that she wishes to let this humble sky pirate have this honour and define the relevant and potentially contentious terms;

Should; a moral obligation. X should do Y because of the moral implications.
Universal health care: a health care system which provides coverage to all of its citizens.

So little hobbitses, my pious 'pponent must not only prove that this cause is worth while, but also that moral implications exist. Otherwise she would be committing the is-ought fallacy.
With out further ado, let the hunger games begin!

All praise be to satan, forever and ever. Amen.
Debate Round No. 1
Archangel35

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I would like to thank any viewers as well. Your input is greatly appreciated. And I would like to say that all my sources are at the bottom.

Judge, any preferences? Judge ready? Opponent Ready?

The United States has witnessed skyrocketing health care costs. Due to out of out of control health care costs, there has been a rise in the number of uninsured Americans. Our current health care cost is twice as much as other developed nations, and far less effective than other countries. Therefore, I Affirm the Resolution. Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

Definitions

Ought:Used to express duty or moral obligation (Dictionary.com)

Guarantee: An assurance for the fulfillment of a condition (Merriam-Webster)

Universal Health Care: Universal Health Care is defined as health care provided to all individuals regardless of gender, race, region, age, health status, income, or wealth. The state can provide universal health care in many ways including: Paying health care providers from a single organization, subsidizing coverage through the private sector, or providing vouchers or refundable tax credits to obtain health care in the private sector. How it is done, is not our concern for the purposes of this debate (House Legislative State)

Citizen: A native or naturalized member of a state of nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (Dictionary.com)

Value and Criterion

The Value of this debate is Morality. Morality is principle or system of morals; the conformity to the rules of right conduct. Therefore the criterion of this debate is the Utilitarianism. [Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of persons.]

Contention 1: Assuring Health Care would Increase Welfare for the Majority of Citizens.

a) A study released in late June of 2012, the consumer advocacy group Families USA estimates that a record high of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up from about 20,300 in 2005 and 18,000 in 2000. It was also stated that the research concluded that 3 people die per hour, or 72 preventable deaths per day. The same instituteestimated 22,000 deaths nationwide in 2006 due to no health care. There is overwhelming evidence that Americans without health care get less preventive care. (David Morgan, Washington Post).


b) Over the years, health care costs have increased to help the 50 million Americans without insurance. Today, health care accounts for one-sixth of the economy - more than any other single aspect or organization. Health care has grown by about 427,000 jobs - nearly 3 percent - since the beginning of the recession in 2007, and now accounts for more than a total of 15.5 million jobs. Most of these cares are mainly from ambulatory care services and hospitals (Daily Herald). With healthcare, the economy grows in number of jobs, in return, reducing the number of debt by having more working citizens. By providing health care, the total cost to the system comes down. Because everyone would receive treatment, the overall price for health care would go down. Therefore reducing the debt.

Contention 2: The Government is required to Encourage Growth and Activity in the Economy.

The US government is here to provide stability and promote the best for its citizens. The US government is based on capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth (Dictionary.com). Without the government helping our everyday life, we wouldn’t be able to use government property such as busses, metros and many more.

Contention 3: Too Many People die because they cannot get Proper Care

It isn’t moral for someone to not get health insurance just because they can’t afford it, Nikki White is proof of this. White suffered from a severe form of Lupus (an auto-immune disease), as her health slowly deteriorated, she became unable to work and lost her insurance. She was unable to pay for each doctor visit as it costed her more than 2,000 because she was out of work for four years. She died of complications secondary to a failed health care system. Many experts say that if White had received the care she need when she needed, she would have survived. Many people like her, avoid the doctor because of the cost. Then, when they get too ill, they go to the hospital and can’t pay the huge bill. Well, someone has to pay it. The hospital sends it to insurance which sends the cost other places and eventually adds to the debt. If health care is provided, then the overall cost will go down and people will actually be able to afford it.

Birth rates and life expectancy are beyond AWFUL in USA. But aren’t we supposed to be the best country ever? Yeah, then how come we have the worst birth rates compared to all other developed nations? US’s health care right now is BAD, too many people are dying. So judge, I urge you to vote Affirmative (Pro).


Thank You.

Sources:

UHC - http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us... - (House Legislative State) - September 2007.

Contention 1a - http://www.msnbc.msn.com... - David Morgan, Washington Post – June 2012

Contention 1b - http://www.heraldextra.com... - Daily Herald - June 2009.

Contention 3 - http://www.dailykos.com... - Daily Kos - July 2009

Thaddeus

Con

Hullo chaps.
My opponent tries to introduce her own definitions in the second round, after I have. This is mighty poor form and I reject on grounds of poor sportsmanship and their utter redundancy.
My opponent is correct that the value of the debate is morality. She then makes a ridiculous and unsupported leap to the contention that the criterion is "therefore" utilitarianism.
In order for the "therefore" to be valid, it must follow on from what she is saying. Her prior claim is a restatement of a facet of the resolution, and does not justify why utilitarianism is a valid form criterion of morality or why I should accept it as solving the inherent is-ought problem of the resolution. I would typically be lenient on this matter and bother to respond to her arguments on a superficial level whilst requesting justification for her assertions if I had not made it explicit in my acceptance that this is the line of argument I would be taking.

As I only have to demonstrate the resolution to not be affirmed my counter argument is thus;
1) There is no objective morality
It logically follows that if there is no objective morality that no-one "ought" to do anything, as both our definitions have established a moral basis for the term.
No reason to believe or accept an objective morality has been given. On this basis the default position should be scepticism. Or rather that, since the burden of proof is on my opponent, she must demonstrate the existence of morality before any moral claim of any body should be considered. Hence, by default, in the absence of argumentation, the resolution is unsupported.
Fortunately my position only requires me to negate my opponents arguments, so even if she does demonstrate a reason to accept an objective morality, I won"t be hampered by limited opportunity to introduce significant new arguments.

Thus the resolution is unsupported and my burden is fulfilled.
Debate Round No. 2
Archangel35

Pro

Hello viewers,

I would like to first say that my opponent has not posted his argument at all, giving me nothing to argue. This is a Lincoln Douglas debate in which both the opponents are required to give arguments and all he posts is against my argument. And all the arguments must be presented in the 1st round (in this case it is the R2 because the first was acceptance). Since Thaddeus didn't post his argument, he has conceded. Now I will move on to defend my argument.

Thaddeus says that I have introduced my definitions after he has. I have only done so because he has not included all of the definitions that I have presented in my case. And I have done nothing wrong as I clearly stated R1 was for acceptance. If you look at what Thaddeus wrote in his R2, he says word for word "My opponent is correct that the value of the debate is morality." By saying this he completely AGREES with my case. A point to be noted Judge. He then says I make a ridiculous leap to my criterion. When I state my criterion, I am saying that read my whole case and see how my criterion upholds my value in this debate.
  1. My opponent states that there is no objective morality. I am saying that the United States Government ought to provide Universal Health Care for its Citizens because of all the reasons stated in my case in R2.


Now I have
some questions for my opponent to answer:

  1. Do you think it is Moral for many millions of Americans to die simply because they have genetic and untreatable diseases and are too ill to work and make money?
  2. Would you rather have more or less doctors readily available to treat patients?


Judge, I thank you for your time and I urge you to vote Affirmative (Pro) for all the reasons stated above.

Thaddeus

Con

My opponent has utterly ignored her burden of proof which has been laid out to her time and time again. However, I am a merciful God and will let her make a new argument in the final round. Not only this, but I will play her game (despite her arguments having no bearing on the resolution until she has demonstrated why anyone "ought" to do anything)

Before I get into the meat of the arguments there are a few things that need to be made clear;

When one challenges someone to a debate, if they want specific rules (such as using their own definitions or making it LD debate) they must be stated in the first round. If one doesn't, then they can't in later rounds declare certain rules and criteria and expect their opponents to co-operate fully is ridiculous.
If I were to claim that every round should have some level of DDO meta-humour and declare my opponent the loser by default because she has not included a reference to Royal PMS-ing or DK secretly being in love with me (he is by the way - seriously the PMs he sends me are crimes to good taste) at this point, it would be utterly unfair and foolish to expect the voters to respect that.
Similarly, in no place in the first round did you state you definitions, your desired framework aside from round structure or other matters so to declare them now and expect me to say, "yeah, OK" is crazy and abusive.

Now to the matters of the debate. I shall first counter my opponents last round. I remind my readers and my opponent that for her to fulfil her burden of proof she must not only demonstrate that "The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens", but also that any entity "ought" to do anything. That is to say; that an objective moral standard exists by which we can judge an entity having a moral obligation to do anything.

Bearing this in mind, I am completely correct to concede that the value by which we must judge this debate is morality, but that is nowhere near conceding it exists, which my opponent erroneously believes. In fact it is solely a recognition of what my opponent must demonstrate before her case can even be considered.
Her argument makes no case for morality existing, hence I have nothing to refute other than state that there is no evidence for an objective moral standard which means any entity ought to do something. In the absence of such an argument my opponent has failed to meet her burden of proof.
She also makes the claim that I did not read her case. Now unless I'm blind and there are several paragraphs philosophically or otherwise demonstrating that an objective moral standard exists and "should" be observed that claim is seems obviously false.

"I am saying that the United States Government ought to provide Universal Health Care for its Citizens because of all the reasons stated in my case in R2."

That is making the is-ought fallacy; http://en.wikipedia.org.... Those reasons presented in R2 do not suggest that the US government ought to do anything, unless morality is proven.

Onto the questions;
"Do you think it is Moral for many millions of Americans to die simply because they have genetic and untreatable diseases and are too ill to work and make money?"

It is neither moral nor immoral.

"Would you rather have more or less doctors readily available to treat patients?"

I don't really care. On a matter of personal preference, as long as there are doctors to treat me when I am sick, I'd be happy, but I am more than willing to pay for that myself.

Thus, my opponent has yet again utterly failed to meet her BoP. It is getting tiring now. To make it totally clear so that she understands: in order for your arguments to have merit you must demonstrate that morality exists, otherwise we default to moral nihilism - the result of which is that no-one has any moral obligation to do anything, thus disproving the resolution.

I will now briefly counter the arguments presented in R2 as a matter of completeness, however, I would warn my opponent to not respond to this unless she first has provided a case for the existence of morality. Otherwise she is just wasting her own time.

Contention 1:
Why should anyone get anything at someone else's expense?
We could improve welfare of many citizens by buying them all cars, but that doesn't mean we should do it. Universal healthcare is not free. It costs others. Would you want to be forced to buy another's car? The answer is likely no. Why do you make a distinction for other goods.
As to part b), not only this a ridiculously naive approach to economics, in countries with UHC, such as my own, the UK, costs have gone up, not down. In layman's terms debt will only increase if you buy more. Health-care is not a good investment for boosting aggregate demand as the costs primarily get sunk into the old, who will never be able to contribute again. Furthermore, it is entirely arguable that the free market can provide a superior service, which is cheaper; http://www.cato.org... (quite a sizeable document so I'd recomend only reading the summary)

Contention 2

Here you contradict yourself; you advocate capitalism and yet suggest that the opposite (socialised healthcare) should be implemented. Furthermore you make completely unsupported claims that the government is required to encourage growth. This is not only a bare assertion but highly contentious. There is a great deal of literature to suggest the exact opposite (http://mises.org...)
Your final sentence about buses is a bare assertion too. Why can't the free market provide those as well?

Contention 3
"It isn"t moral for someone to not get health insurance just because they can"t afford it"

It isn"t moral for someone to not get a car just because they can"t afford it

It isn"t moral for someone to not get a PS3 just because they can"t afford it

It isn"t moral for someone to not get prostitutes just because they can"t afford it

What do all these sentences have in common? They are all equally supported by arguments presented by Pro, which is to say, not at all.
The rest of this argument is just a sob-story with no bearing on the debate.

All secondary arguments are refuted. The resolution is negated. Cheers ladies and gents.
Debate Round No. 3
Archangel35

Pro

First off, I would like to say that even before Thaddeus posted any of his rounds, I posted in the comments section (I forgot to include in my R1) that it has to be in LD format. Go check if you want. I would like to say AGAIN, that Thaddeus has not presented a case himself. I had given him another opportunity if I hadn't made myself clear enough the last round. One last note I would like to make is that my opponent hasn't made a single argument on all of Contention 1 itself. It is just too late now. Now I will begin with my case.

The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting morality. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undeniable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal health care would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal health care we are not promoting morality which is what the nation is about. In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in health care. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich receive health care at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it. Think about the people who have genetic, hereditary, and unavoidable diseases. They can't do anything about that fact, and their health deteriorates. When this happens, they are unable to work and provide themselves with any money for the doctors. When Thaddeus states that he is correct to concede my debate, he is inadvertently saying that he agrees with my debate. Keep this in mind, Judge.


Some people have less opportunity to acquire health care. In this system, those with the best opportunity to get jobs with adequate benefits (or be able to afford them themselves) are those who can afford a college education and have access to transportation and child care. Cycles of poverty arguably mean that individuals that are structurally disadvantaged will be unable to access adequate care. Slowly, over time, leading to the down fall of society. Other people have less opportunity to be healthy than others. Those born with congenital illnesses or who acquire ill health via circumstances outside their control may not be able to access affordable care because they are costlier to insure (insurers know they’ll likely need lots of expensive care so they charge them more or refuse to cover them).

Inability to sacrifice for the common good is destructive to society and community. Institutionalinzing the principle of sacrificing for the good of others and the community, according to some scholars, breeds solidarity which enhances the ethical foundations of a society. Unhealthy people harm everyone because they drain emergency resources and lower productivity. Without access to health care, people will get sicker, faster. These individuals will then show up at emergency rooms to receive routine care (increasing wait times for everyone) or only once their condition has deteriorated to a point where it can no longer be treated. They will also miss work or drop out of the workforce at higher rates.

These are the major reasons why the United States Government ought to provide Universal Health Care for its Citizens. All in all, If health care is not provided, the citizens will get sicker and as a result the economy will suffer. I hope I have made myself clear enough Thaddeus. It cannot get clearer than this from a 14-year old.

My opponent has not given me a straight answer to my first question. I would like to say that it is NOT in any way moral for many millions of Americans to die simply because they have genetic and untreatable diseases and are too ill to work and make money. More working citizens equals a better and healthier society; UHC will also help get us out of this recession we are currently in. It is not their fault that they are contracting the certain disease, and they can't do anything to avoid it. For my second question, he states that as long as there is a readily available doctor, he is fine. In other words, if there are more doctors, we all will get our treatments faster. By saying this, he is agreeing with me. In the Universal Health Care System, there will be more doctors to treat the patients who are suffering.

Now I will go on to defend whatever he has said about my case:

Contention 1:

At the time that the United States was formed, everyone helped each other. And this is what set the bases of the US Goverment. His arguments about cars is irrelevant because we are talking about the basic neccesity of life. While having one's own car would be nice, it is not a neccesity like life is.
When he talks about UHC in the UK, that is also irrelevant. Because as you see, the topic, listed many many times, is about the United States. Not UK. And as for his link. That was dated in 2009, and several things in the economy have changed from that time. So I deem that link, once again, irrelevant.

Contention 2:

Okay, I see where my opponent is headed. But in this link, http://www.phoenix.edu..., a bussinessman and doctor explain why they think that a free-market economy is not anti-capitalist. Take a look at it for yourself. Read paragraphs 2-5, 7, and 9. It has all the answers as to why a free-market is not at all anti-capitalist

Contention 3:

Again, con is trying to prove say he is right by arguing with items that most humans WANT. Key word; want. A car, PS3, and the need for prostitutes (on a side note; why??) are all wants, however weird they may be. Getting health care is the difference between life and death. And the more working class citizens the United States has, the easier and earlier that we will get out of this recession we are currently in.

I have refuted all my opponents arguments on my case. On basis of the proof above, affirm the resolution that The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens. The ball is now in Con's court.

Thank you.
Thaddeus

Con

This round will be used for conclusions and responses to my opponents final round.
My opponent, in order to win, must demonstrate that the USG ought to provide Universal healthcare for its citizens. Hence, my opponent has the full burden of proof. All I was required to do was negate the resolution. I did so primarily contesting the use of "ought" in the resolution. Please note that this was not abusive semantics; my opponent fully recognized the moral requisites of upholding her burden of proof. I also provided a limited a response to the contentions my opponent made without going into too much detail because her contentions were totally irrelevent until she had demonstrated that anyone ought to do anything.
Sadly my opponent has shown an incredibly weak offering, not only in this regard but also in what she had presumed where her primary contentions.
I will not pretend to be too disappointed. I was challenged by an individual on a topic I care little for, however, despite these low expectations, my opponent was not able to offer the barest entertainment.

First I will deal with the preamble, then her "contentions" and then finish by going over each voting catagory.

She first claims that she had asked for it to be an LD-debate prior to my posting of a round. This is self-evidently false as the comment below it refers to her round 2, so it was clearly after my first round. I can't really find any other explanation for this other than willful deception. This should cost her the conduct points.

I would then state that I am not required to make a case, only defeat yours. You took on the full burden of proof.

My opponent, in a highly confused spiel about supporting moral obligation by supporting morality (I found this particularly amusing), still fails to make a philosophical argument as to why any body ought to do anything.
Using various reasons as "making people live longer" or helping the poor do not constitute a moral philosophy. They are claims which already presume a moral philosophy.
Her entire case on morality is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.
She then claims I concede her debate. Seriously? What the hell?

She then asserts that this appeal to emotion is a reason for why the USG ought to provide healthcare. Archangel, you weren't hugely clear, but you were understandable. This works against you however, because you're total lack of an argument for morality existing is apparent. You came close when you touched on the good of society, but sadly you lacked the necessary argument to back it up.
=(

Then she makes another false claim. I gave the straightest answer possible to her first question; Moral neutrality. She then makes the bear assertion that my answer is wrong, with no reasoning to back it up. Saying society will be healthier does not constitute a moral argument.

As for the second question, no I did not make any suggestion that more doctors is necessary better. Constant obvious miscontruals of my fairly clear case is highly irritating.

1.
Failed to make an argument. Doesn't support resolution without proving morality.

2.
Yes. I agree the free-market is not anti-capitalist. However, what you are suggesting is! State healthcare is by its definition anti-capitalist. Do you even know what the words you are using mean?

3.
Does not justify dichotomy between needs and wants and does not support any reason to believe healthcare is one not the other. Furthermore, no demonstration of the right to life at the expense of another is shown.

I will admit my responses to her "contentions" are short. However, the primary issue with her case, and the main reason why I refused to engage meaningfully on that side of the debate is because it illustrates a weak showing which can be refuted in less than three lines of argument.

So in summary; Pro has failed to meet her Burden of proof in every conceivable way. She has not demonstrated that anyone ought to do anything, she has not proven that healthcare is a moral issue and she has not even demonstrated that UHC is a desirable institution.

Arguments: She had full BoP. Failed to meet. 3 points to moi
Conduct: Before this round, I would have understood if you had given them to her, as though I made my intentions very clear, I still did change the direction of the debate. However, her willful dishonesty regarding my case and attempt to change the rules post-framework should tip the balance in my favour here.
Sources: No points. Her sources were decent, but irrelevent as they did not support her case without an argument for morality.
S/G: Neither parties were horrendous.

In conclusion to the debate: never challenge a lazy man without a good response to a lazy argument.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
True. One solution is to charge a small out-of-pocket fee for the emergency room. That way, people won't go to the emergency room because they have a stomache.
Posted by jeunine 4 years ago
jeunine
Or giraffelover maybe bailing out white collar criminals.
Posted by jeunine 4 years ago
jeunine
Did someone actually compare cars to healthcare? You should feel sick!!
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
@Archangel35

I reccomend a lot of practice. I assume you probably are in novice tournaments, which means you have lots of time for improvement.

Don't worry, I did awful my first year of debate too, haha. I learned and became much better in the end.

You desperately need a lesson on morality, and basically framework as a whole. If your framework was better constructed, you probably would have won. But assuming you know how speaker points work, I probably would have given you a 26/30.
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
@Archangel.

I'm not sure you remember exactly how important your framework is.
Every debate round is evaluated by some sort of standard (a.k.a Value/Criterion)

I'M not going to repeat myself.
Your capitalism arguments is just one contention, and mean NOTHING since you already violated your own standard, and don't even explain what you specifically value beside some vague subject that you call morality. That link you showed me did not specifically prove to me what you viewed as moral. Honestly, your contention level was fine; but you definently bombed you own case in the framework.

Even if you win your free market argument somehow, the fact that your FW was so vague, and your C1 violated your own Util Standard,

Also, I've seen national circuit debate rounds where all a person did was wreck a persons case in the NC And NR and still managed to win. If your case was better written, I probably would've voted you up. Too bad, framework too sad.
I recommend you ask your coach for a more in-depth explanation of framework, and ask about your morality value; they'll probably teach you.

Still, definently an easy win for the neg; aff wrecked herself up.
Posted by Thaddeus 4 years ago
Thaddeus
My bad, I didn't understand that archangel had sent a pm.
Posted by Thaddeus 4 years ago
Thaddeus
PM? It was in my sig. I wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't a clear win though. Anyone who thinks that nihilism is an invalid argument can debate it with me...
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 4 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
I would've votebombed in favor of Pro because I don't see the argument from nihilism as legitimate (except in cases of resolution abuse, such as Cody's cigarette debate) but I have to complete three debates before I can.
Posted by Thaddeus 4 years ago
Thaddeus
"She then makes a iridiculous and unsupported leap to the contention that the criterion is "therefore" utiltarianism. Is what con said She then makes a ridiculous and unsupported leap to the contention that the criterion is "therefore" utilitarianism. That was not ridiculous and unsupported"

Why wasn't it ridiculous and unsupported? She doesn't give a single reason why utilitarianism is true.
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
I side with pro a little bit. I'm not against health insurance, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Besides, unrestrained health care is why we're facing such financial trouble.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Begging for votes is bad conduct.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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: Drafter and Johnny, I agree, Do not pm people asking for free points. Also CVB the people actually voting for pro w/o an RFD.
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: What Drafterman said. You don't ask people to vote bomb on your behalf.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro because Con made a failed semantic argument. Note that he did not even define the right word. He defined "should" not "ought." By Pro's definitions, she was justified in taking the debate direction she did. Con generally ignored her argument and instead talked about objective morality (which isn't relevant due to Pro's definitions (of words that Con did not define)). What rebuttals he did have were insufficient. While I do agree that Pro should not be allowed to demand that Con follow a LD format when it was not stated in R1, I give conduct to Pro. Conduct to Pro because Con's off topic nonsense (was interesting though) and because Con did not follow debate format. Sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Begging for votes is bad conduct.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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: Pro claimed full burden of proof on to herself to both prove that morality exists and that her subjective thoughts about morality could be passed off as objective reality in her case relating to Universal Healthcare. Debates require evidence and argument with sources; Con pointed that out, yet Pro regretted to supply these. Pro basically debated from the standpoint that she was *already* correct, assuming dozens of assertions, and that therefore she should be the victor of this debate. That is an illogical flow of critical reasoning; and since Pro assumed all of the burden of proof, she automatically loses this debate, leaving Con the victor. Pro could have presented several well-thought out contentions with which we could weigh against Con's subsequent contentions, but sadly the debate did not follow in that fashion. Better luck next time.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter ashleyperez123 V.B. If that gets fixed up, I'd give my vote (mca) to Thaddeus, & conduct to pro. Both on account of con's argument from moral nihilism. Update 2 weeks latter: Undoing counter V.B. on account of Legitdebater V.B. Don't have time to reread & give proper RFD.
Vote Placed by angelcoba 4 years ago
angelcoba
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided more sources to back up her claims, I feel con has not. My opponent is correct that the value of the debate is morality. She then makes a iridiculous and unsupported leap to the contention that the criterion is "therefore" utiltarianism. Is what con said She then makes a ridiculous and unsupported leap to the contention that the criterion is "therefore" utilitarianism. That was not ridiculous and unsupported
Vote Placed by Orwell 4 years ago
Orwell
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided more sources to back up her claims than Con, she also took the debate more seriously. Spelling and conduct to Pro
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
Archangel35ThaddeusTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided better moral arguments. Pro could have kept the debate on a utilitarian basis, but Pro conceded that the debate should center on morality. Con was short but effective with his main argument that it isn't moral to force something on some and impose other benefits on other people. Morality is subjective, and Pro failed to show why national health care would be moral if it yes involved socialized insurance and the use of force. When it comes to the dynamics, Con did not reframe the debate by showing the cons of single payer, but it would have helped his case, but since this debate was based more on morality, these moves were not necessary for Con.