The Instigator
Shingure
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

The United States Ought to Establish a 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...
Rezzealaux
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,183 times Debate No: 8745
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (13)

 

Shingure

Pro

I affirm the resolution that the United States ought to establish Universal Healthcare. This will be a values based debate there for my value [premise] for the round is societal welfare. Because when promoting and allowing Universal healtcare to a population it allows people to get a basic need that is no longer based on income. It allows the moral obligation as stated by the word ought in the resolution to also be fulfilled. My value criterion is Healthcare Equality.

Based off of the word ' ought ' stated in the resolution , It denotes that there is a moral obligation. In this instance there is a obligation to serve people and allow them the right to health and well-being. As for societal welfare this can allow people to be healthier , and increase lifespans.

Contention 1 : The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being. When people have healthcare that is good people are at a lesser risk for diseases that people with poor healthcare do and due to this , it is a given. In the current system , the more money you have the more efficient and comprehensive the healthcare you recieve. It has been proven that people who make $100,000.00 dollars a year will actually live longer than people who make $45,000.00 A year due to the inequalities in care. This alone has been examined here [ http://blogs.wsj.com... ] in this quote "In 1980, life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest. 6 By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years." This alone makes it quite evident that over the course of 20 years , the disparity has actually gotten worse socio-economically.

By establishing a system of universal healthcare we can bridge the socioeconomic disparity or decrease the disparity by very sizeable margin. " A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say." Further examination shows that Macau ( China S.A.R ) , Japan , Andorra , San Marino , Hong Kong ( China S.A.R ) France , Switzerland , Sweden , Australia , Iceland , Canada , Italy , Monaco , Liechtenstein , Spain , and Norway all have higher life expectancies than the US and that is 13 of the 41 that rank above the United States in life expectancy. Most of these countries , Especially European ones and Japan , have a universal healthcare system of the sort that makes sure everyone is ensured and given medical care.

Contention 2: The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting societal welfare. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal healthcare we are not promoting societal welfare 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 healthcare. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it.

By supporting the moral obligation we can bring in a equality in healthcare that can improve lifespans , improve governmental accountability for it's people , follow a moral obligation , and promote societal welfare . For all of the stated above , I urge you must affirm.
Rezzealaux

Con

Definitions: these are just so certain necessary things are set in stone
>United States - United States of America, "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave", etc. That country.
>ought - moral obligation.
>Universal Healthcare - Government funded healthcare for all citizens. Like a public school system, except for healthcare.

I begin the argument against the resolution with a simple question directed at my opponent. His answer to it will be pivotal in deciding which direction I proceed with my side of the argument. So, Shingure.

I would like to know.

Outside of oratory or public debate (such as this one) in which you propose for the government to provide universal healthcare, what actions do you take in your life toward helping the needy receive medical assistance?
Debate Round No. 1
Shingure

Pro

"Outside of oratory or public debate (such as this one) in which you propose for the government to provide universal healthcare, what actions do you take in your life toward helping the needy receive medical assistance?"

As a high school Junior there is very little I can do at this point. However when I do assist the homeless I do guide them into the way of a health clinic to help them if they are showing signs of illness. This is the action that Iam able to take as a 16 year old .
Rezzealaux

Con

I negate, that "The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare."

I will first go over definitions, then value, the VC, my case, and then the line-by-line.
I might extend my case in my next round, depending on how PRO answers my ending question. He'd still have R4 and R5 to refute it, so it wouldn't be a "new argument".

We have implicitly agreed upon the definitions of "United States", "Ought", and "Universal Healthcare". "Establish" should be self-explanatory, so that will be it for definitions.

VALUE: SOCIETAL WELFARE
I'll go with this value. When taking actions, nations should hold their welfare above all else, and should always hold it in the highest of regards.

However, I don't think that Healthcare Equality (HE) is the best way to achieve that goal. Skipping forward a bit, let's look at the opening of my opponent's C1: "The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being." Though he doesn't make this explicit, the claim only works on the implication that SW is dependent on every constituent's well-being: which is true. Just as a team is only as good as its worst member, a society is only as good as its worst constituent, and societal welfare is only as good as its worst constituent's welfare.

But well-being is not defined simply by the physical health of an individual. It is also defined by mental health: in other words, how happy a person is. There are many factors in determining how happy a person is: money, social standing, physical health, and love being the most commonly accepted ones. But one thing underlies and is an integral part of all the other reasons – freedom. Money can only make a person happy if they can use it; Physical health can only make a person happy if they get to use it, and so on. If we accept that freedom is the fundamental factor to a person's mental health, then we ask ourselves, is mental health or physical health more defining for a person? Who is in a better state; whose welfare is better; who's better off: A happy sick person, or an unhappy healthy one? A free person close to death, or an enslaved person who will live for a hundred more years?

I believe that it is the happy sick person, the free person close to death.
I believe most people would agree with me.
I believe my opponent is one of them.

If a society's welfare is only as good as its worst member's welfare,
and If a member's welfare is dependent on how free that person is,
Then societal welfare is dependent on how free its most enslaved constituent is.

VALUE CRITERION: FREEDOM FOR CONSTITUENTS (FFC)
His justification for the HE VC is that it makes people healthier and increases their lifespan. Mental health is more integral to a person's welfare than their physical health. And since freedom is a central pillar to anything that makes anyone happy/mentally healthy, FFC is a direct link to SocW that supersedes HE.

So.

If the best thing a nation can do to better societal welfare is to increase freedom for its constituents, then the natural conclusion is that UHC should not be provided.

A1: UHC increases taxes. More taxes means less money, which is more or less the same as less freedom. You need money to do just about anything. Reducing freedom is the opposite of the VC and therefore against the value of Societal Welfare.
A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick, regardless of their wishes. Requiring those who don't want to pay to pay for others is a reduction of freedom.

B: If the government is providing UHC, it will definitely ban, restrict, or place a tax on items that are known to be detrimental to human physical health. This is the exact definition of the reduction of freedoms.

That'll be it for my case. Let's go to PRO's.

An additional argument against the VC of Healthcare Equality: PRO never links it into societal welfare. He never even attempts to show how they're linked. So keep this in mind – even if PRO takes out my VC of FFC, you will still buy it over his VC of HE. At least I gave a go at showing a connection.

C1: UHC = allow and support right of well being
> I'm just going to insert an anecdote here – it will be a refutation against this entire contention. It'll be in the YouTube video to the right; watch from 6:14 to 8:46. He is a man that lives in Canada, and he explains how a government program doesn't only NOT provide education, but actively denies it.
> No government agency does its job efficiently. What reason is there to believe that a UHC program will be different?
> The rest of this contention talks about UHC in other countries extending the average lifespan, which doesn't link into FFC at all.
> It doesn't even link into his own VC. What does lifespan have to do with Healthcare Equality? If a link exists, PRO has not told us what it is.
> If it's a given that USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (Institute of Medicine), and we take into account that the World Bank has 66 countries classified in its "High-Income Countries" category, AND that USA is rank 42, what about the other 24? To say that UHC = higher life expectancy when more than a third fail to meet the rule is hardly a solid generalization.

C2: US should fulfill obligation by supporting societal welfare
"The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation."
> This is what he's supposed to be proving.
> Just because he's on the side of the resolution doesn't make him automatically right.
>> Especially because on debate.org, you make your own resolutions.
> Just because there's a statement doesn't mean it's true. If I said, "The US ought to nuke Canada until continental America is surrounded by water on three sides", that doesn't automatically make it true. There is a burden of proof that I must fulfill – or in this debate, a burden of proof that PRO must fulfill. Namely, why his arguments are true.

"Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust."
> Even if No UHC -> No Morality, that doesn't mean that UHC -> Morality. The inverse is not necessarily true.
> Also, Justice and Morality are not linked to either VC, nor is it linked to SocW.

"In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in healthcare."
> If PRO is trying to use this as a justification for his argument, then it's essentially a "I am right because I am right" argument. Observe: Why ought the US establish UHC? Because in the end, the US ought to establish UHC. Not a valid warrant.
> UHC =/= Healthcare Equality. Sure, everyone would have the same provider – but that hardly makes their healthcare equal. Blacks in the South previous to the Civil Rights Movement had the same government as whites, but no one would argue that because they had the same government, they had equal treatment under the law. If UHC = HE, PRO has not yet shown us how.

"a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity"
> Not shown to be due to a lack of UHC.

"By supporting [UHC…]"
> Lifespan is not shown and is also irrelevant.
> Government accountability is not shown and is also irrelevant.
> Showing that providing UHC means fulfilling a moral obligation is his job, which he has not done in the slightest.
> Promoting societal welfare is done by providing more freedom for the society's constituents, which is something UHC does not.

I end my R2 with another question for PRO.
I thought of this question when you said that "societal welfare which is what this nation is about" in your C2. I thought of the War on Terror. If terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes" (Dictionary.com), would you say that terrorism is detrimental, or even completely against societal welfare?
Debate Round No. 2
Shingure

Pro

Shingure forfeited this round.
Rezzealaux

Con

I'll let my opponent to respond to my last round, as his profile shows that he's signed on recently.
Consider R3 as nonexistent.
Debate Round No. 3
Shingure

Pro

My Opponent states that he does not think that Healthcare Equality isn't the best way to achieve that goal of Societal Welfare. But in the end what is good for society is in general good for the populace. So by providing high-standard medical welfare , we are improving the well-being of society because they will be healthier. And as a human being , would any person rather be healthy or ill.

"I believe that it is the happy sick person, the free person close to death.
I believe most people would agree with me.
I believe my opponent is one of them."

The enslaved person? A person is enslaved if they allow themselves to be slaves to a system. However that is in digression. Plus there are few people who I know who are ill and are happy about it. They have to suffer pain and in some instances die a painful death which is apparent in the way how they leave this world. Yet someone who is unhealthy and is saved by equal healthcare will be happy that their lives have been saved and will thank the higher powers of which they believe [ or what have you...] so in the end what my opponent states , it is a generalization that is made from a bias.

"If a society's welfare is only as good as its worst member's welfare,
and If a member's welfare is dependent on how free that person is,
Then societal welfare is dependent on how free its most enslaved constituent "

Which is pretty hard to calculate seeing as we live in the Society of the United States , Home to 303 million people. I will mark the homeless in this debate as those with the worst welfare. However by providing them with healthcare they will perhaps live longer lives and be healthier. They may also be able due to their health , to aquire a job and perhaps find a place to live. This one of the impacts for helping what we would consider aid of the worst members in relation to their welfare.

"His justification for the HE VC is that it makes people healthier and increases their lifespan... FFC is a direct link to SocW that supersedes HE."

Mental Health also effects physical health , It goes hand in hand. Therefore is someone goes into the hospital with a physical problem and this person exhibits mental health defects , then the hospital , under the criterion of Health Equality , will recieve care in terms of mental as well as the physical to prevent the physical problem to happening again. They can also recommend that the person be sent to another facility if the person is considered dangerous. Which improves the overall standing on societal welfare by removing those who can cause danger to themselves and others by the means of their physican health and mental health.

"A1: UHC increases taxes. More taxes means less money,... against the value of Societal Welfare"

My opponent fails to admit however that by being ill it also limits freedom and therefore causes the person to lose money in the workforce and perhaps in certain cases , lose their job in the workforce.

"A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick...reduction of freedom."

And there are taxes today that people pay that they do not want to. Paying taxes to the state or government helps pay for people who are on SSI and State or Federal Welfare. And many state their discontent with this daily , yet they must do so. So in essence is that increasing or freedom? No , It is doing what must be done in a modern day society.
And most modern day societies which are considered highly advanced , UHC exists.

"B: If the government is providing UHC, ... reduction of freedoms."

This is based off of evidence or sheer opinion? The fact of the matter is that if the government is making billions of dollars off of cigarettes , they will take the taxes from theose purchases to help pay for the healthcare. So in the end it may be the direct opposite , the government will just leave it alone and perhaps increase taxes on these products to either discourage it's use or gain more money off it. The freedom is there however , due to capitalism , to purchase this product.

"An additional argument against the VC of Healthcare Equality: PRO never links ... connection."

It was stated throughout my first contention. It was not directly stated , however it was very very , boldly implied. In simplicity , for the sake of the debate. Healthcare Equality provides to the value premise of Societal Welfare because by having high-standard healthcare that is universal to all citizens of the United States, Society will benefit because

1) There will be less people falling ill to diseases that strike those with a lower income at a disproportionate rate than people with a moderate to high income range.
2.) It will make people more content due to that fact that many people who have worked for years only to have no healthcare due to the economic downturn , will finally get care that will ensure that they remain healthy. Meaning a large portion of the US population will no longer be cut off to healthcare and an even large number not limited due to ability to pay [ in some instances thousands and thousands of dollars for life saving care. ]

"I'm just going to insert an anecdote here – it will be a refutation against this entire contention. It'll be in the YouTube video to the right; watch from 6:14 to 8:46. He is a man that lives in Canada, and he explains how a government program doesn't only NOT provide education, but actively denies it. "

There was a failure but the people failed to petition to fix it. Therefore the government didn't deny them education , they were unable to provide it efficiently , and the people refused to speak up in large number and ask for more. Because in the end people run the governments because they are the majority. Plus that arguement is mostly irrelevant because it is talking about education , not health as the primary subject.
For the next three points my opponent states that FFC is not being served. But it is. When you are healthier you have the freedom to do whatever you want with your life. If you are severly ill , your normally bedbound. I'd rather be healthy to do whatever I want than be bedbound , ill , but so called "free" Plus I did state what the link is between HcE and Lifespan. In the current system the disparity due to income is increasing. By leveling the playing field by introducing high standards , we can improve lifespans and make people healthier which in terms gives them the freedom to do whatever they want as they get older and live to be older .

> If it's a given that USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation ... hardly a solid generalization."

When a third fail to meet the rule, Look at all the other countries and tell me do they have universal healthcare. A vast majority of nations that rank higher in LE have UHC. This is undenyable. Read this article and it explains alot more

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

and then looking at this

http://www.blogcdn.com...

It shows that many nations that have higher life expectancies have UHC. Alot of these nations are rate higher on the HDI as well especially if they are located in Europe.

C2:Refutation Recover-->

Iam proving that is an undenyable because even our constitution it says 'life....pursuit of happiness' and it is supported by the basis of UHC.

"a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity"
> Not shown to be due to a lack of UHC.

It has , refer to the warrant of the first contention and this article [ http://www.commonwealthfund.org... ] and look at tha bar graph illustration.

"By supporting [UHC…]... "

Lifespan is relevant , refer to earlier

A: It is against societal welfare, However it isn't relavent to universal healthcare.
Rezzealaux

Con

(Roadmap: VC debate, Refutations, Case, Crystallization)

In a Value debate, the value is the highest thing in the round. All Value Criterions must link to the Value, and all contentions must link into the VC. This is the fundamental tenet of Value, or LD debate. The value of this debate is Societal Welfare – which is undefined on its own. In my R2 I laid out a logical pathway from SocW to the VC of Freedom for Constituents. My opponent didn't refute any of the links I made. As silence is consent, my opponent has conceded to the premises of my VC, which really means he agrees that FFC is at least a possible VC for the debate.

Comparing the VC's then, is a relatively easy task: we look at one in relative absence of another. Let's say I want a good car. Analogously, the value would be "good car". If one person told me that "good mileage" is what makes a good car, and another person told me that "expensiveness" is what makes a good car, then to compare, I would get an expensive car with bad mileage and a cheap car with good mileage. Obviously it's not that simple, but that's the concept. If we are asking "Between FFC and HE, which is better", then we compare a situation in which FFC is present and HE is not to a situation where HE is present and FFC is not.

(We will assume for the moment that HE means good health.)

Our situations are:
FFC = Free sick person.
HE = Enslaved healthy person.

I proved that FFC was better in my R2: "[O]ne thing underlies and is an integral part of all the other reasons – freedom. Money can only make a person happy if they can use it; Physical health can only make a person happy if they get to use it, and so on." Happiness is what defines welfare, and happiness and freedom are directly proportional. In other words, the freer a person is, the happier he or she will be. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or how physically healthy they are – they must be free in order to enjoy it.

Form: VC --> VC Link --> V
Actual: Freedom --> Happiness / Mental Health / Individual Welfare --> Societal Welfare

My opponent's response to my VC is that he personally doesn't know many people who are happy about their sickness. This is not a refutation, as I am not saying that sick people are happy. I am posing a question, which one is happier? While I have proven that a free person who has relatively bad health is happier than an enslaved person with relatively good health, all my opponent has shown in his example is that people who are both free and healthy are happy – in other words, he's shown nothing at all. He's not comparing anything; he's not arguing against me, and in debate that means he's conceding to me.

Therefore, the VC for this debate is FFC.

"Which is pretty hard to calculate seeing[…]"
> Certainly a response, but not a refutation. He's still not comparing HE against FFC, all he's saying is that "Even if FFC is good, HE is also good" which does not throw out FFC.

"Mental health also effects […]"
> Does not refute anything. D�j� vu?

"My opponent fails to admit […]"
> And my opponent fails to even comprehend how to compare two qualities. When deciding if quality A or B is better in item C, we take a version of C with lots of A and little B, and a version of C with lots of B and little A. Yes, being sick limits freedom – but being enslaved also limits being healthy. PRO continually compares the free healthy and the enslaved sick. It is maddening.
> Kick contention A1.

I will respond to A2 in-case.
Kick B.

"It was stated throughout my first contention. It was not directly stated[…]"
> I'm sorry, what? He stated and didn't state it at the same time?
> FFC precedes and supersedes HE in importance when looking at the value of SocW. This was shown in R2, and again at the beginning of this round.

"There was a failure but the people […]"
> Let's say you walk into a store and you want to buy a power drill. If you buy it and it doesn't work, what do you do? You return it. You buy another one. Or you send it to the manufacturer to get it fixed. So you ask the manufacturer to fix it. They refuse. What do you do? YOU GO BUY A DRILL FROM A DIFFERENT COMPANY. You don't stand around hoping a large enough group will form around you so the company will bend to your will. You go get another one. But if the state provides it, no one else will. You will HAVE to petition. Or in less euphemistic terms, beg. Not exactly FFC. Not even close.
> Not irrelevant. "Education" was the example. "Government programs = denial of whatever it was supposed to provide" was the moral/principle. Extend this.
> Extend from R2: "No government agency does its job efficiently. What reason is there to believe that a UHC program will be different?"

"I'd rather be healthy to do whatever I want than be bedbound , ill , but so called "free""
> Again, he compares free and healthy to enslaved and sick.
> Sorry, I meant he doesn't know how to compare. I'm not advocating "Enslaved and sick equals happiness", I'm advocating "Freedom equals happiness". And yet here he is, over and over again….
"A vast majority of the nations that rank higher in LE have UHC."
> Sigh. So, let's recap~
PRO R1: UHC --> Higher LE
CON R2: UHC -/-> Higher LE, ~33% UHC have Lower LE
PRO R4: Most Higher LE --> UHC
CON R4: lolwut r u srs?
> Not a response. Extend the respective point from my R2.
> Inverse not shown true. UHC --> Higher LE still not shown true.
> Apply these responses to every time he says UHC --> Higher LE. I'm tired of repeating myself.

"Iam proving that is an undenyable[…]"
> Not in Constitution.

Back to my case.

Though I have neutralized his case, If I am to completely negate the resolution, then I must show that affirming is against FFC.

"A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick, regardless of their wishes. Requiring those who don't want to pay to pay for others is a reduction of freedom." (CON R2)

If I told you that you had the freedom to buy cookies at my store, you would assume that my store is open to the public and you could just walk in to pick up some cookies. However, if you came to my store a few times and every time you asked me if you could buy cookies, I took out a shotgun from under the counter and said "I'LL KILL YOU F*CKING COOKIE MONSTERS", you would hardly say that you had the freedom to buy cookies at my store. Though the boundaries of freedom are certainly grey here and there, this is one common sensically clear boundary – if X is met with violence or threat thereof by Y while attempting action A, X does not have the freedom to do A because of Y.

Now as defined in R2, terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Basically, the limiting of freedom for political purposes.

Watch the video. Continue afterwards.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

US does not yet have UHC.
UHC requires taxes.
Taxation is terrorism.
Ergo, UHC requires terrorism.
Terrorism is one entity limiting another entity's freedom.
Ergo, terrorism is the exact opposite of the VC, Freedom For Constituents.
FFC is a direct link into and improves the value of Societal Welfare.
Ergo, terrorism does not link into and is detrimental to Societal Welfare.
Ergo, UHC does not link into and is detrimental Societal Welfare.

In a Value debate, the value is the highest thing in the round. All Value Criterions must link to the Value, and all contentions must link into the VC. This is the fundamental tenet of Value, or LD debate.

By implementing UHC, we are "using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it." (PRO R1) That system is taxation. We will not make things better by providing UHC. We make things worse.

UHC is detrimental to Societal Welfare.

I negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
Shingure

Pro

"I proved that FFC was better in my R2:..to enjoy it "

Once again , Ask many people and they can tell you that illness causes physical enslavement as well as mental. So in essense , the "freedom" you are refering to is the false freedom that is brought from being ill , knowing you cannot do whatever you want and in some situations , make your own decisions.

" My opponent's response to my VC... "

My opponent has not proven that a free sick person is happier than an enslaved healthy one. He has no data simply because there is not just one side to that arguement. There are many who are sick and absolutely HATE it! there are many who are healthy and are so pleased with their help they do more to retain it. With that health they are free to do whatever they want. Plus my opponent did not pose it as a question , and if he did , it was posed in a rhetorical right of way.

"He's not comparing anything.."

I have and even refuted the same comparision twice. And have refuted him several times on these comparisons , Hence there was no conceding.

"Certainly a response, but not a refutation."

Let it be known that the statement was data to support my claim , please note that my opponent has attacked something that is undesputable , numbers and statistics.

"...D�j� vu?"

Extending from his R1, he states.

""His justification for the HE VC is that it makes people healthier and increases their lifespan... FFC is a direct link to SocW that supersedes HE."

That was my refutation to that in the simplest form and also addressed the concern of mental health as well.

" PRO continually compares the free healthy and the enslaved sick. It is maddening.."

Contradiction to the previous statement of not stating comparison , Extend this [ across the flow. ]

"...You will HAVE to petition. Or in less euphemistic terms, beg. Not exactly FFC. Not even close"

But since people are in control of the governments in the world it is THEIR job to PETITION THEM , FOR ANYTHING they want. In addition , the comparison of using a drill isn't a very good one because in the end you are stating there are options , You then go ahead to state there isn't , contradiction. Even more you also state about hoping that a crowd will gather, If so many are discontent about it , WHY DO THEY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT COLLECTIVELY. 9.9/10 working towards a cause in number gets the job done.

"No government agency does its job efficiently..."

What leads you to believe that private agencies do it's job efficiently. AIG , for example , is a private agency that has been dumping money into CEO pockets , and declaring bankruptcy only to be bailed out. The following day an insider proclaims that there is a 400,000 trip to a resort in California, and this isn't a government agency , this is a private one. So in the end it is a horrible generalization. The reason to believe that there will be a difference is that if the UHC doesn't do it's job , people will make it do it's job by telling the government what they need to do to fix this mess on a collective level.

"Again, he compares free and healthy to enslaved and sick."

Yet you've stated the same and I could possibly extend the comparison [ across the flow ] several times from my opponents [ side of the flow ] , And once again , you have created a contradiction which was previously extended.

"Sorry, I meant..."

A convenient declaration that my opponent mispoke. However it has already been extended [across the flow] twice. Plus once again , it seems as if you have confused the statement. Let it be known.

"Sigh. So, let's recap.."

No refutation for data , My opponent , due to the lack of a response concedes to this and hence , there is no dispute.

"Not a response."

Yes it was , With data and documentation to show it was a response. Extending from my R1.

"When a third fail to meet the rule...This is undenyable. Read this article and it explains alot more

http://www.msnbc.msn.com......

and then looking at this

http://www.blogcdn.com......

..."

In the end I did prove it by way of maps and articles to show that Higher LE <----> UHC. It is undenyable because of the fact there is statistics that are availiable to support my claim and previous refutations. And I'm tired of repeating the fact that my opponent has decided try to attack something that is beyond denial.

"Not in Constitution."

Not in the constitution per say , however with modern concepts involved , It is heavily and boldly implied.

To my opponents case.

"If I told you ... Y."

This is a horrible comparison due to the fact that my side , the affirmative , is prepared to blow someon's head off over a want. Plus why would the people keep on asking for something they know they have the freedom to purchase , that makes no sense and is against the means of capitalism , however I digress again.

'Now as defined in R2, terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Basically, the limiting of freedom for political purposes.'

Note: With the implementation of UHC , we have no reason to shove people into hospitals at gun point. At that juncture it is their freedom to go if they please. Therefore , once again terrorism is irrelevant at this point in the debate.

"US does not yet have UHC.
UHC requires taxes.
Taxation is terrorism.
Ergo, UHC requires terrorism.
..."

Taxation however is not a violent process in the United States of America cheifly because no one is holding a knife to your throat telling you to pay up. No one is holding a firearm to your head and telling to pay up. People just pay up because they are required to in a modern society. UHC is also part of an advanced and modern society , hence , by having UHC , we are using those taxes to supplement the advancement of society , in forward relation , a increase in societal welfare. [ 2nd Connection from VC to VP ]. Based off of this alone , using terrorism denotes violent action. By you comparing UHC to requiring terrorism you have voided your rebuttal. By promoting societal welfare we are also allowing room for more FFC. So in essence , by not affirming you are not achieveing the goal of FFC.

Due to all of these reasons stated prior we urge you in the name of societal societal welfare to societal advancement and the societal advancement allowing for more FFC achieved by implementing UHC , the PRO strongly urges that you affirm the resolution.
Rezzealaux

Con

Please look to my R4 for a longer crystallization. There is nothing new presented in this round, but since I'm not a big fan of small ending rounds, I'm going to do a line-by-line refutation for my R5. There'll be a crystallization at the end of this round, of course - but it won't be as drawn out, elegant, or in-depth as my R4 one.

"Once again , Ask many people [...]"
> It appears my opponent does not understand the concept of comparing two VC's. However, I am sure you, the voter, understand what I mean when "If we are asking "Between FFC and HE, which is better", then we compare a situation in which FFC is present and HE is not to a situation where HE is present and FFC is not." (CON R4) I am also sure you know how it works. My opponent has not argued that HE is the better of the two in this comparison in any way, so even if you don't buy my logic for FFC at all, you must still take FFC as this debate's VC. Though you should buy it. It works, and my opponent never refuted its premises or links.

"My opponent has not proven that [...]"
> Same as above response. He does not know how to compare two VC's.
> Yes, I have proven that a free sick person is happier than an enslaved healthy person. I did it in R2, and I did it again in R4. To be sure it was clearer in R4 with less fluffy language and less packaging - but it was proven in R2 nonetheless.

"I have and even refuted[...]"
> Respond is not the same is refute; refute is a subset. If I told you "Cup O Noodles is tasty", and you responded, "I like pie", you are not refuting my statement. You are simply responding - and that is what my opponent did for almost everything in both his R4 and R5.

"Let it be known that [...]"
> "I will mark the homeless in this debate as those with the worst welfare." is hardly a statistic.
> First of all, you can attack statistics. Second, that's not what I did. I showed that his statistics are totally irrelevant to his case. So what if most of the countries that have higher life expectancy than the US have UHC? Plenty of countries do, why do AT LEAST A THIRD of those countries have a LOWER life expectancy than the US? If a third fail to meet the rule, the rule can hardly be said to be a solid generalization: that is, PRO's statistics cannot be said to show that UHC necessarily leads to higher life expectancy: which is the only thing he uses the stats for. Which means his entire position falls.

"Extending from his R1, he states."
> What?

"That was my refutation to that in [...]"
> What?

"Contradiction to previous [...]"
> You're right, I forgot to put in the qualifier: He's not comparing anything MEANINGFUL TO THE DEBATE.

"But since people are in control [...]"
> I was about to give a heavy all-caps emotional response. But I shall refrain.
> Nothing he says in this section is relevant. As he concedes FFC, all contentions must link to FFC, and his response here admits that FFC will be decreased. That is, if I beat out the next response.

"What leads you to believe that [...]"
> Originally I was going to make a full-blown Stateless Society case and how anarchism is the best solution. It's why I asked him a question for my R1 instead of presenting my refutations. But in the end I didn't have an R3. Anyways.
> It is irrelevant if private agencies will do their job efficiently. FFC is the VC. As long as the "Taxation is Terrorism" section of my case holds, UHC is against FFC and that'll be all I need to show.

"Yet you've stated [...]"
> I'm beginning to think he doesn't know what a flow is.
> Is he just spouting out debate jargon to look smart?
> Again, his comparisons are not meaningful. They do not constitute a refutation.

"A convenient declaration [...]"
> You know really, I don't care about these contradictions he's pointing out. My perception of the world is that if X is not meaningful, X might as well not be X. So language fails to convey my views sometime. It's inconsequential whether or not you "extend it across the flow" though. If I show UHC is against FFC, you must vote for me.

"Yes it was"
> I have responded to this already.

"In the end I did prove it by way of maps and articles to show that Higher LE <----> UHC."
> I have responded to this already.

"Not in the constitution per say[...]"
> Either it is or it isn't. And it isn't. Though it's utterly inconsequential.

"This is a horrible comparison [...]"
> Not a refutation.

"Note: with the implementation of UHC [...]"
> I wasn't arguing this.

"Taxation however is not a violent process [...]"
> His refutation is factually wrong. Taxes are collected on the threat of violence and/or imprisonment, which is really, another form of violence. "People just pay up"? Well, look at the ones who don't. What happens to them? Yes. Exactly what I've said. They get locked up for tax evasion. So, extend the video's arguments.

"By you comparing UHC to requiring terrorism you have voided your rebuttal."
> Not warranted. Also, I'm not comparing anything.

"[...] we are using those taxes to [...] a increase in societal welfare."
> VC is FFC. Taxes are against FFC. Ergo, taxes are against SocW.

"By promoting societal welfare we are also allowing room for more FFC."
> V is SocW. VC is FFC. Not the other way around.

CRYSTALLIZATION>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

V: Societal Welfare

My opponent doesn't know how to compare VC's. I compared the two and showed that not only was FFC a valid VC, but it also preceded and superseded HE.

VC: Freedom For Constituents

None of my opponent's arguments actually provide FFC on their own. You already default vote CON due to PRO's resolutional Burden of Proof.

I showed that terrorism is equivalent to limiting freedom.
I showed that taxation is terrorism, in R4's video.
Since UHC's money can only come from taxation, UHC is the result of terrorism.
The previous three points lead to the conclusion that UHC limits freedom.
Limiting freedom is the opposite of the VC, FFC.
Which means UHC is the opposite of the VC, FFC.
Which means UHC is detrimental to the value of Societal Welfare.

Because UHC takes away from FFC, it is against the value of Societal Welfare.
To affirm, PRO must show that UHC improves SocW.

I have shown that UHC would be devastating to SocW.

You vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Excellent debate for both sides!

B & A: Tied; I'm not necessarily sure universal healthcare is feasible in the US, but Rezz's explanation didn't convince me it wasn't.
Conduct: Con; due to PRO's forfeit of a round.
S & G: Tied
Argument: Con; This is kind of tricky because while I liked PRO's argument, he fell for CON's manipulation of the subject to a question of statism, and CON thoroughly punished PRO on this account (sad to say), so I have to give my vote to CON.
Sources: PRO; because I felt bad about not giving him any other points, and while CON posted Molyneaux's videos as sources for his argument, I found PRO's to be a little more substantial and a little more on topic.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
15-9 >>> 15-13 >>> 27-13 >>> 34-13

lol....
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
...when the hell did I start losing this?
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
"private healthcare is already stressful. Free healthcare for everyone is worse."

So what is your solution then Sniperjake?, zero healthcare?
Posted by Sniperjake1994 8 years ago
Sniperjake1994
Nope, private healthcare is already stressful. Free healthcare for everyone is worse.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Panzersharkcat 7 years ago
Panzersharkcat
ShingureRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ShingureRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
ShingureRezzealauxTied
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:24 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
ShingureRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
ShingureRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
ShingureRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
ShingureRezzealauxTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
ShingureRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
ShingureRezzealauxTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by Shingure 7 years ago
Shingure
ShingureRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60