args

The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

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.