Instigator / Pro
2
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#1101
Will more socialization benefit society?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
Wylted
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description
Pro: Benefit
Con: Harmful
Due to the nature of this topic, I do not have to prove why anything is moral, You have to prove to me why it is immoral. I will be providing a few reasons why more socialization would be moral however the BoP rests mostly on pro. However, before we begin I would like to define Socialism and the Redistribution of wealth.
Socialism: A state at which they redistribute wealth which is used for the collective good.
Redistribution of Wealth: Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism.
Tiwaz is banned from participating in this debate due to him continually pulling red herrings, dodging questions and points, and attempting to character assassinate several people.
If he accepts he completely forfeits the debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Alright finally got an opponent!
- Looks at their profile -
Great a troll who's lost 14 debates, doesn't take debates seriously and believes the world is flat...
Well, whatever I'll do my best and I hope my opponent doesn't troll this debate.
Then again me saying that will probably make him want to do it more but whatever, let's begin!
QUESTIONS:
Before we begin I understand my opponent is a libertarian however I want specifics.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
These questions will be important for the next round.
Let's begin with too socialistic policies that would benefit the USA.
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE
Affordability:
- One of the major arguments I hear against national healthcare is it would cost Trillions every year and would bankrupt America, While this is true it is a very one-sided argument and here's why. According to the Washington Post, Bernie's healthcare plan would cost 7. 35 trillion yearly, While private healthcare would cost 7. 7 Trillion yearly. It is very obvious that national healthcare would actually be cheaper than privatized healthcare. Therefore the affordability argument is debunked.
Universality:
- By the US implementing a national healthcare model, ALL Americans rich and poor alike would have access to healthcare. This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy, Better worker productivity, And an overall boost to happiness in America. This would also reduce the number of people going bankrupt in the US, According to the commonwealth fund, " 41 percent of working-age Americans" or 72 million people "have medical bill problems or are paying off medical debt, Up from 34 percent in 2005. " Very clearly many Americans are struggling with paying off health care debt, And by the US instituting national healthcare, This would alleviate that stress.
Quality:
- By far the most common argument I've heard against national healthcare is the wait times and the overall downturn in quality it brings. This is quite simply a baseless accusation that is not backed up by statistics at all. The US according to healthsystemtracker.org and Business insider, Wasn't even in the top 10 in life expectancy compared to it's higher counterparts with universal healthcare such as Japan, Switzerland, And Australia.
- Statistically, 45,000 people die from our privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to a monthly 9/11.
- An argument I heard in the last debate was that the US has the best doctors in the world, therefore private healthcare is bad. Statistically, this is sorta true as according to countrydetail.com in 2016, the US only ranked #1 right behind Germany which has a mixed healthcare system. Besides other countries with national healthcare still rank high on the list, Norway, Canada, and Japan all have great doctors according to this list.
- Another common argument against the quality of national healthcare is the wait times in these countries. This is true for countries such as Canada, However, This is mostly for specialists and surgeries which of course are going to have longer wait times. The only reason the US doesn't have these long wait times is simply that less and fewer people have access to healthcare in the first place. However, Two countries with mixed systems do perform just as well as the United States does, So this seems to indicate that a private healthcare system is not necessary for short specialist wait times. Ask yourself what is more important, Wait times? Or the thousands of people who die due to not affording healthcare and the millions going bankrupt due to healthcare? Plus statistically according too, countries with mixed healthcare such as Germany and Switzerland have around the same wait times as the US does, what this means is that privatized healthcare doesn't automatically equal too faster wait times.
This is just one example of what a more socialistic economy would benefit society.
Once my opponent answers the questions I will bring up other examples such as education, collective bargaining, and heavier redistribution however I simply want to see what my opponent's stances are so that I don't waste time.
Anyways here are my sources for the universal healthcare portion,
Con
#2
Framework
Pro has a hard time making clear resolutions. Wish to remedy that. The 200 comments to the debate has made what Pro wants to debate very clear. He offered a simple descriptive definition of socialism. The definition can apply to a lot of things that nobody would consider socialism, so here is another definition that does not seek to replace pro’s but to merely elaborate upon it.
Socialism- any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Pro asked me a series of questions that are irrelevant. I decided not to answer them. My personal opinions are not relevant to the debate only the position I am taking in the debate, but for anyone curious answers are in the comments.
I will be using the following structure to make this debate flow easier.
R1- Main Arguments
R2- Rebuttals
R3- Counter Rebuttals
R4- Closing
Arguments
The reason for the logical syllogisms is because it helps opponents who have a hard time systematically organizing their thoughts. When I do rebuttals, I will also try to help judges organize my opponents sporadic thoughts by organizing them into simple syllogisms.
Premise 1- economic freedom causes a higher standard of living.
Premise 2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
Contention 1- socialist policies are responsible for a lower standard of living.
P1 Economic Freedom Causes a Higher Standard of Living
Countries more economically free on the economic freedom index (A measure of how free a country is economically) such as Australia, New Zealand and the Swedes, are places we would all like to visit. Even without going into the numbers, we know intuitively these are awesome places that we would love to experience. The bottom of the economic freedom index consists of countries that are a nightmare to live in such as Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Even without any of the following details, it should be obvious to us countries with more economic freedom are better to live in. Some may argue that this is merely a coincidence the best countries have more economic freedom than the worst ones. Perhaps my opponent will argue that Economic freedom is a response to the standard of living and not the cause of it. Perhaps Venezuela's socialist policies are a response to poverty and not the cause of it. Perhaps Australia only adopted policies allowing their people to have this sort of freedom as a response to their higher standard of living.
However the statistical data does not agree. Let’s examine some data that shows that not only does economic freedom directly correlate to the prosperity of a country, but some stats that also show it most likely causes more prosperity than would be achieved through decreasing economic freedom through things such as becoming more socialist. The following chart shows how much opportunity people have for entrepreneurism in more economically free countries. An activity that improves society by incentivizing cures for diseases or even by solving more mundane problems by giving us such things as cat litter, toilet paper and the personal computer.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-1.png
When you look at the numbers for how much the average person can spend on essential items such as food to feed their family and look at how economically free a country is we can see that more economic freedom equals more ability to feed your family. See chart below.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-2.png
Repressed economies (lower on the index. Less capitalistic and more socialist) have an average purchasing power of $7000 while capitalistic/free countries have a purchasing power of over $60,000.
Some people may argue that, sure economic freedom is good for the country it is applied to, because it exploits 3rd world countries. If this is true than increased economic freedom should have a negative overall impact on the world, however the data doesn’t agree with that assertion. The chart below shows a drop in poverty and increase in the world’s GDP that coincides with you guessed it,more economic freedom. This increase in GDP occurs before not after an increase in economic freedom.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-3.png
Here is what an article posted by The Heritage Foundation has to say about the statistics they collected;
Unquestionably, the free-market system that is rooted in the principles of economic freedom—empowerment of the individual, nondiscrimination, and open competition—has fueled unprecedented economic growth. As Chart 3 illustrates, over the life of the Index, as the global economy has moved toward greater economic freedom, the world economy has doubled in size. This progress has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and the global poverty rate has declined by two-thirds.
Opening the gates of prosperity to ever more people around the world, economic freedom has made our globe a profoundly better place. More people are living better lives than ever before. Clearly, this monumental reduction in global poverty is an achievement that should inspire celebration of the free-market system, deeper understanding of its dynamics, and greater commitment to its promotion.
https://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4
The less economically free countries seem to be more repressed politically, more likely to be under a dictator and less politically free. It is as if when somebody has more money from the wealth created from shunning socialism and embracing a free economy they also have more power to influence the system in a more fair way as can be shown in the following chart. https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-8.png
It turns out that when a country embraces economic freedom, we can see that redistribution of wealth becomes unnecessary as it creates both more upward mobility as well as a more even distribution of wealth. https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-9.png
Many Marxists were originally concerned that if communist and socialist forces seized the means of power, that they would be reluctant to distribute the wealth equitably and instead horde it for themselves and their allies, which seems to be the case when any attempt to install socialism is applied. In summary= more socialist policies equals a less even distribution of resources. From a pragmatic point of view my opponent’s policies would actually backfire and do the opposite of what he intends. It’s nice he has good intentions, but he should research this stuff before assuming his good intentions will have good results and work on supporting policies that actually work at achieving his aims.
P2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
The economic freedom index, measures 12 criteria to determine a country's economic freedom. The following criteria are what is relevant to the debate. government spending, tax burden, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom. The Economic Freedom Index considers every part of the criteria important, and since the higher the score, the more likely you are to be a country with a positive present and future. Less poverty, better government, lower crime and a higher standard of living in just about every way possible. Let’s go down this list one by one.https://www.heritage.org/index/about
Government Spending
I don’t think this is debatable the more the government takes over the means of production in each sector the more it spends, since the government is not in the business of making profits, but of providing services. My opponent admits a socialist healthcare plan would cost the government over 7 trillion a year. This would put America even closer to the bottom of the Economic freedom index and closer to being just like Venezuela or North Korea. More government spending as a result of socialist policies is not even debatable.
Taxes
Obviously the government has to get the money they spend from somewhere, so tax rates will increase proportional to how much money is needed to fund socialist programs.
Business/Labor Freedom
Socialist programs such as universal healthcare require all kinds of new regulations that hamper the freedom of businesses and employees. This is obvious for healthcare, but can be seen in other industries as well such as the police force which has very strict rules for how police behave which limits employee/labor freedom and in some areas even unionized labor is banned from government jobs restricting employee labor even more. OSHA a socialist program to ensure employee safety does a lot to get in the way of business freedom with tons of regulations, The FDA another socialist program causes the process of getting a drug to market so expensive that only a handful of billion dollar companies can compete.
Monetary Freedom
Monetary freedom has to do with the stability of money. When a socialist country has to raise funds for new programs they will raise taxes, but they also use another strategy which is to simply print money. This is especially true in Democratic countries where citizens are typically opposed to having smaller paychecks.
C1 Socialist Policies Lower Standard of Living
The conclusion is derived from the fact that the economic freedom index is a good predictor for how high the standard of living is for citizens of a country. Socialist policies cause a country to become lower in the economic freedom index. The effects of which were proven in the P1 arguments. I look forward to offering rebuttals for my opponent’s arguments in Round 2.
R2- Rebuttals
R3- Counter Rebuttals
R4- Closing
Opening the gates of prosperity to ever more people around the world, economic freedom has made our globe a profoundly better place. More people are living better lives than ever before. Clearly, this monumental reduction in global poverty is an achievement that should inspire celebration of the free-market system, deeper understanding of its dynamics, and greater commitment to its promotion.
https://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4
Round 2
Pro
#3
“ Socialism- any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism “
- Firstly I agree with most of this definition, however, an integral part of socialism is the redistribution of wealth and resources which isn’t present in this definition but is present in other definitions.
- I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.
If my opponent has further disagreements regarding the definitions I ask he/she messaged me via PM or in the comment section rather than in the middle of the debate, anyways moving right along.
“ Pro asked me a series of questions that are irrelevant. I decided not to answer them. My personal opinions are not relevant to the debate only the position I am taking in the debate, but for anyone, curious answers are in the comments.”
- For anyone reading this, Con’s personal beliefs are very much relevant to this debate as we’ll see later on in my argument.
“Countries more economically free on the economic freedom index (A measure of how free a country is economical) such as Australia, New Zealand, and the Swedes, are places we would all like to visit. Even without going into the numbers, we know intuitively these are awesome places that we would love to experience. The bottom of the economic freedom index consists of countries that are a nightmare to live in such as Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking”
- I don’t see a point in this statement, we aren’t trying to destroy economic freedom as found in dictatorships, we’re trying to create a fair distribution and have stricter business regulations.
- We aren’t trying to restrict freedom of trade unreasonably as my opponent is trying to make out.
- Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
The next section my opponent sites statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong. Therefore we’re going to ignore the statistics.
Also another point I’d like to add, my opponent does little to elaborate as to how these countries are socialistic.
If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t.
Firstly, here's the definition of fascism for the next segment.
“ In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force. There’s no option to vote, no chance to impeach a leader, and no freedom to stand up against the governing body.”
- Which ideology between socialism and fascism argues for the dictatorship policies Cuba and North Korea exert? Fascism.
- Which ideology is anti-democratic? Fascism.
Also, this point is irrelevant since I am arguing for democratic socialism, not a dictatorship. Under these definitions, the countries my opponent has cited are more closely related to fascism than socialism and are irrelevant since I am arguing for social democracy and not a dictatorship.
While these countries do label themselves as socialist, well north Korea states they’re a democratic republic so this logic fails. People label themselves as something all the time but that doesn’t make it true.
Nextly,
“ P2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom “
- Very obviously not the case since if this was the case then more socialized countries in Europe and Australia wouldn’t be rated high.
- If my opponent is than going to argue,
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “
Well, these countries have high minimum wages either through collective bargaining or governmental, high government spending, high tax rates, and socialized medicine and education.
“ My opponent admits a socialist healthcare plan would cost the government over 7 trillion a year. This would put America even closer to the bottom of the Economic freedom index and closer to being just like Venezuela or North Korea. More government spending as a result of socialist policies is not even debatable.”
- My opponent has either intentionally or unintentionally missed the point I was making.
To give the benefit of the doubt I’ll explain it again source in the previous argument.
Nationalized healthcare costs 7 trillion, private costs 7.7 trillion, therefore, the private option is more expensive.
This is a simple concept, I spend 1,500 dollars on private healthcare. Now that’s nationalized I have to pay 1,000 dollars.
However now since I don’t have to pay for private I save 500 dollars.
If my opponent ignores this again, he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.
“ Socialist programs such as universal healthcare require all kinds of new regulations that hamper the freedom of businesses and employees.”
- Ok how please elaborate.
Do you not believe businesses are helped when there are more workers due to fewer workers dying, more healthy workers, and an increasement of productivity?
Statistics to these are found in my previous argument.
“ OSHA a socialist program to ensure employee safety does a lot to get in the way of business freedom with tons of regulations, The FDA another socialist program causes the process of getting a drug to market so expensive that only a handful of billion dollar companies can compete.”
- Ok please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.
Explain how employee safety isn’t a priority? Same with regulations on the drug market which keep corporations in check from charging 4,000 dollars for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make?
SOURCES:
NOTE, sources for healthcare are found in the previous argument thank you.
ALSO, if I've accidentally left out sources for my claims please inform me and I'll gladly provide sources.
Con
#4
Pro argued for socialized healthcare this round to support to more socialism. This round will focus on that. My R3 will be for addressing most of R2, but it is necessary to address a few things from it.
Definitions
Here is what pro says;
“I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.”
“here is another definition that does not seek to replace pro’s but to merely elaborate upon it”
“This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy”
My opponent’s sources lacks evidence for some statistics showing Americans have a lower life expectancy than some countries with socialized medicine. We actually have a pretty good healthcare system in America and the problems it does have can be fixed by deregulation of it and other industries that affect it. Other explanations for the lifespan of Americans is the fact that 37% of Americans are fat. Universal healthcare isn’t going to fix how shitty the American diet is or the lifestyle decisions that result in poor health. Obesity is linked to higher Cancer, diabetes, and heart disease rates as well as a lot of other problems. I'm not sure why my opponent thinks that lack of socialized medicine is what is causing lower lifespans. https://obesity.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006032
Americans also seem to be more likely to be the victims of violent crimes that end in death, though being safer from violent crime in general. https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/
I don’t see a link between life expectancy and socialized medicine, that can’t be better explained from other things such as the fat Americans are fat, are more likely to murder and be murdered than what happens in other wealthy nations and are also more likely to die from diseases that are a direct result of being fat.
Pro's assertions that Americans would be more productive (many of us are already hurting our mental and physical health by embracing the cult of productivity) is simply unproven and as it stands is a bare assertion. Bare assertions should not be taken as fact, and are in fact are a logical fallacy. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/bare-assertion-fallacy
He makes the same fallacy by claiming socialized medicine will somehow make people happier. Bare assertions should be easily dismissed.
Deaths from uninsured
Pro makes the says;
“45,000 people die from privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to .... 9/11.”
“A study by the Fraser Institute titled The Effect of Wait Times on Mortality in Canada estimated that “increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females.” Adjusting for the difference in populations (the US has about 9 times as many people), that middle value inflates to an estimated 400,000 additional deaths among females over a 16 year period. This translates to an estimated 25,000 additional female deaths each year if the American system were to suffer from increased mortality similar to that experienced in Canada due to increases in wait times. “
“the US has significantly lower rates of 30-day stroke-induced mortality than every other OECD country, aside from Japan and Korea. OECD data suggest that the age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates within Europe would translate to tens of thousands of additional deaths in the US.
If America had the 30-day stroke-mortality rate of the UK, for example, we could expect about an additional 38,000 deaths a year. For Canada, that number would be around 43,500. And this only accounts for mortality within a month of having a stroke, which in turn accounts for only 10% of stroke-related deaths.”
For every 1,000 strokes in America 170 people die. The number is 280 in similar countries who have socialized medicine.
The United States has very high cancer survival rates, much higher than countries with socialized medicine. If we use the UK survival rates this would be an additional 80,000 deaths a year with other 1st world countries using socialized medicine the additional deaths would be about 20,000 a year.
If the deaths caused by privatized medicine are 9/11 numbers, the deaths caused by socialized medicine would be more comparable to the Holocaust
Affordability
If healthcare is unaffordable it is because of more “socialization”. If we look at the root causes of why healthcare is unaffordable we can remove those root causes and make it affordable again. Whether the costs are 7.75 trillion or my opponents solution to the problem which has healthcare cost 7.36 trillion it is too high.
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha
What started this whole mess of health care costs began back when FDR was president. He enacted socialist wage controls and taxed businesses up to 80% but did give tax breaks to them based on the benefits provided. Many employers as a way to attract talent since wages were controlled offered health insurance and with the tax break it did not really cost them much more money to do it. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamacare-health-care-employers-20170224-story.html
Once everyone had employer paid health insurance they no longer knew what they were actually paying for a stay in the hospital. Whether the hospital charged $2000 or $200 for the stay in it still only cost the individual their same copay of maybe $50. Same problem with medicine. No matter whether the company charges $40 or $400 for a pill, your copay might be $5.
Shane Snow explains it this way;
“ If you have health insurance through your job, you’re two layers away from the actual cost of your health care whenever you go to the doctor, hospital, or pharmacy. Between you and the price tag is 1) an insurance company; and 2) your employer.(who pays for some of your insurance)”
A better plan would be getting rid of health insurance and taking perhaps half the money we use on subsidizing insurance companies directly or indirectly and diverting that to things that can actually help the healthcare in America like preventing bad diet and promoting healthy living to the masses, reducing the actual contributors to bad health such as obesity which in turn will prevent a lot of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Even without chopping that amount of socialization in half with the program I recommend, just the steps to discourage buying health insurance would make Americans more aware of the real prices they are paying for healthcare forcing companies to become competitive with their prices. You might see a doctor that costs $100 an hour as opposed to one costing $250 an hour if you have no insurance and are not so far removed from knowing the prices of services.
Conclusion
I have proven that Healthcare costs can be better controlled through less socialization as opposed to more. I have proven that private healthcare kills less people than socialized medicine, and I have proven that even if socialized medicine improves the portion it is meant to improve it is still a net detriment to society as a whole. Vote Con
Round 3
Pro
#5
“ The conduct point petition is ridiculous. My opponent insulted me by calling me a troll and mocked my debate record, which was mostly a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.”
Moving on,
“ My opponent’s sources lack evidence for some statistics showing Americans have a lower life expectancy than some countries with socialized medicine. We actually have a pretty good healthcare system in America and the problems it does have can be fixed by deregulation of it and other industries that affect it.”
“ Other explanations for the lifespan of Americans is the fact that 37% of Americans are fat. Universal healthcare isn’t going to fix how shitty the American diet is or the lifestyle decisions that result in poor health.”
I mean do you seriously not believe healthcare eases obesity rates down and helps with lifestyle choices? I could imagine doctors appointments and speak with nutritionists more would ease this issue down.
“ I'm not sure why my opponent thinks that lack of socialized medicine is what is causing lower lifespans.”
By your insane logic with more deregulation equaling better healthcare, the US should have the best and highest life spans in the world since it’s the most privatized.
“ Pro's assertions that Americans would be more productive (many of us are already hurting our mental and physical health by embracing the cult of productivity) is simply unproven and as it stands is a bare assertion.”
“ For every 1,000 strokes in America, 170 people die. The number is 280 in similar countries who have socialized medicine.”
“ Whether the costs are 7.75 trillion or my opponent's solution to the problem which has a healthcare cost 7.36 trillion it is too high.
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha”
I find it troubling that literally, every single country in the world with socialized medicine has statistically WAY lower healthcare costs than the US does. As evidenced by this 2014 statistic from zerohedge a 2018 study by healthcaresystemtracker.org. The US is pretty much ALL statistics is the outlier and has significantly higher healthcare costs per capita than every single country in the world.
Therefore my opponent just lost the affordability argument, arguments made against a national healthcare system are absurd and baseless.
Also, my opponent's healthcare plan isn’t a very good plan and has never worked before.
You may call this a fallacy however why would we change our system to a system which has been proven to work to a system which may work?
I’ve been teasing this argument since round 1 and in the comment section so I’ll bring it up here since I accidentally forgot it last round.
Firstly before we begin I’d like to post what my opponent's answers to my questions are as it will be important to this argument.
“ I won't answer the questions in the debate, but since you are curious I will answer them here.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro-government not anarchist.”
These questions clearly illustrate that my opponent is being logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical and here’s why.
If you’re a libertarian/huge capitalist but are also an economic nationalist concerned with mass immigration and illegal immigration you’re a shill.
The capitalists AREN’T conservative since it’s in their economic self-interest to abolish the minimum wage ( which you’re advocating for ) and to support illegal and mass immigration since they believe it’ll shrink the native wages thus hurting the native working class you’re so concerned with.
A better solution would be more socialization to help native workers since if you instituted a minimum wage you wouldn’t be getting such mass immigration and your native wages wouldn’t shrink.
Not to mention that libertarianism calls for the free market, so if you’re a huge capitalist why are you trying to restrict the flow of labor when you believe in the free market?
Also, libertarianism isn’t pro-government as all, libertarianism is actually more pro anarchist since it’s against the redistribution of wealth/taxes and calls for laissez-faire capitalism which is against the government regulation of the economy.
Very clearly my opponent's economic nationalist ideals wouldn’t be served under a capitalist system but more under a more socialized system which institutes a high minimum wage and immigration reform which would aid the native working class. Thus more socialization in your economic nationalist view would benefit society than a pure capitalist system which you’re advocating for.
SOURCES:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
- Well listen I didn’t mean to mock your win ratio, I merely used it to illustrate that it’s very possible you may be a troll. Oh, and I am sincerely sorry you had to deal with depression, one of my family members suffers from it too.
- Obviously looking at your arguments, it doesn’t seem that way.
- Also regarding the definitions, ok that makes sense.
- Firstly my opponent mentions no studies or statistics on how deregulation would fix the healthcare system since by my statistics the US which has the lowest regulation and is the most privatized is the WORST out of the developed world. Compared to more socialized countries such as Switzerland, Japan, and Australia, the US’s is pathetic.
- Secondly, the sources for this point were in the previous round. If I did happen to make a mistake I apologize and I’ll post my sources again in this round, sorry for the confusion.
- This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.
- Firstly, other countries such as Germany for example ( which is a country that’s very similar to the US in culture ) and has similar obesity rates. This is a country that its VERY close to the US culturally and has similar obesity rates and yet since it has socialized medicine.
- Because EVERY single country in the developed world has socialized medicine with higher life spans.
- I would also state you’ve committed a bare assertion fallacy since you’re the one assuming deregulation would lead to better healthcare outcomes ( which isn’t backed up by statistical data or common sense at all ).
- Admittedly I didn’t cite my source so I’ll do it here, according to this CDC study healthcare is linked to a boost in productivity. ( link down below however I’ll summarize a few bullet points here )
- Healthier employees are less likely to call in sick or use vacation time due to illness
- Companies that support workplace health have a greater percentage of employees at work every day
- Because employee health frequently carries over into better health behavior that impacts both the employee and their family (such as nutritious meals cooked at home or increased physical activity with the family), employees may miss less work caring for ill family members as well
- Similarly, workplace health programs can reduce presenteeism — the measurable extent to which health symptoms, conditions, and diseases adversely affect the work productivity of individuals who choose to remain at work
- Firstly I cited the source in the PAST argument.
- Secondly, this study is working on ASSUMED numbers, not actual numbers like my study are.
- Thirdly this is only a comparison of Canada which isn’t representative of socialized medicine since it’s arguably the worst example. Compare a better system like the United Kindoms or Australias and you’ll find there aren’t as many deaths.
- Fourthly you’re only taking into account yearly deaths when we also should be concerned with life expectancies and overall health outcomes.
- Statistically by my previous statistics, socialized countries with socialized medicine have higher life expectancies, better health outcomes, and cheaper and more affordable healthcare. ( We’ll get into the affordability argument shortly ).
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha”
- Socialized medicine in the US would be the most expensive in the world, however, my opponent is still missing the overall point that I'd be CHEAPER than our current healthcare system. Therefore you just lost the affordability argument.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro-government not anarchist.”
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
Con
#6
Syllogism
Pro does not attack the syllogism. If my premises are correct than I win.
I argued that countries who have less freedom on the economic freedom scale, have worse standards of living. pro drops this point, so my premise stands.
pro focuses on the fact that some low ranked countries are fascist, which is irrelevant, my premise is that countries who do good on the economic freedom index, have a higher standard of living.
Premise 2 is that socialist policies harm economic freedom as measured by the index. I used 5 standards on the index to show how socialist policies harm economic freedom through taxes, business/labor freedom and monetary freedom.
Pro has accepted premise 1 and that the conclusion is accurate if the premises are accurate. Pro asked why regulations hurt businesses, I guess that is supposed to be a rebuttal, but I already explained to him that it lowers your score on the economic freedom index. He dropped my argument that a higher index score means a higher standard of living.
Pro says many of the countries on the top of the index have some socialist policies, but that is irrelevant. This is about whether more socialization will have more benefits than harms, and I already have shown how socialist policies give you lower scores on those 5 factors mentioned earlier.
Questions
Pro needs to prove more socialization is good. Proving my beliefs are inconsistent, contradictory, stupid or wrong does nothing to move this debate along because it is irrelevant.
Life expectancy
My facts better explain shorter lives than pro's do. 1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries. Explanation 2 is how fat Americans are.
pro mentions that Germany has the same obesity rate as America. He drops my violent crime argument.
His study doesn’t do justice to how fat Americans are. We have the same obesity rates as Germany but our fat people are fatter. The German male weighs 180 lbs. The average American 200 lbs. The German female 150 lbs. The average American 170 lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight#By_country
Less of a fatness is linked to lower mortality rate in diabetes patients, heart patients cancer victims etc, and when we look at the actuary charts we see that somebody 20 lbs too fat is less likely to die than somebody 40 lbs too fat. So 20 pounds matter. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2714501
Pro asks;
pro's sources only support his argument that Americans have shorter lifespans, not why.
“I mean do you seriously not believe healthcare eases obesity rates down and helps with lifestyle choices?"
“Don’t you think it’s a pretty big coincidence that the US which is the ONLY country in the developed world without socialized medicine is also coincidentally the one with the lowest life spans? “
Round 4
Pro
#7
Economic freedom:
Pro focuses on the fact that some low ranked countries are fascist, which is irrelevant, my premise is that countries who do good on the economic freedom index, have a higher standard of living.
- And Con seems to be missing my previous counter argument being,
Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
- To clarify, I agree economic freedom and efficiency are important however clearly more socialization in countries such as Australia and the UK aren’t being held back in terms of freedom since they rank higher or around the same level as the US in the statistical my opponent cited.
Premise 2 is that socialist policies harm economic freedom... I used 5 standards.. to show how socialist policies harm economic freedom
- This point is easily debunked since similar to the first premise, more socialist countries rank as high if not higher than the US.
Pro says many of the countries on the top of the index have some socialist policies, but that is irrelevant...socialist policies give you lower scores
It actually is relevant, if the countries at the top of the index have more heavy socialization than the US and have more economic freedom which thereby increases the quality of living, this defeats this entire premise that more socialist countries restrict freedom more thus debunking this entire argument.
pro's sources only support his argument that Americans have shorter lifespans, not why.
- Americans have shorter lifespans due to private healthcare industries high costs as evidenced by the statistic I cited previously which puts the US’s healthcare plan the highest in terms of costs in the world. If the healthcare is so expensive as it is, you’re going to have people not going to check-ups or stalling on surgeries due to the high medical costs and you’re going to have millions of underinsured Americans as evidenced by the statistics I previously cited.
1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries. Explanation 2 is how fat Americans are.
Obesity:
Very clearly obesity rates aren’t determinant in life expectancy rates and a more likely and realistic explanation is that healthcare is what mainly is determinant of life expectancy. From my previous statistics I’ve sited millions go underinsured, thousands die, and our life expectancies are dropping and are pathetically low in our private system.
Con’s assertions that they’re almost determinant regardless of healthcare plan is a misrepresentation at best and dishonest at worst.
When a bad country such as Cuba which is very horrible is only slightly behind us, that should give an indicator that our healthcare system needs massive reform.
Murder rates:
1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries.
The murder rate has been steadily dropping so by my opponents logic our life expectancy should be increasing, which simply isn’t backed up by statistics at all.
In fact, according to various sources, I've linked. the US’s life expectancy has been steadily declining over the past few years even with the murder and violence rates dropping.
You could bring up an argument about mental health, however countries with national healthcare such as Germany for instance cover mental health, unlike the expensive US system in which mental health is covered by private healthcare providers.
And as we all know mental health greatly impacts suicide rates.
If mental health services were universal like in countries such as Norway and Germany, the suicide rates would generally drop. This is also ignoring a country such as Finland with similar suicide rates and yet a high life expectancy.
Nutrition advice:
Note how I clarified by stating nutritionists which are covered by a national healthcare plan and even provided in services such as Medicaid.
- A country such as Russia with low obesity rates has lower life expectancy or equal than the US, same with Cuba and Chile.
- What about New Zealand which is a country with a close obesity rate with the US and yet has a significantly higher life expectancy?
People typically ignore diet advice medical professionals give them.
There is not a single example of socialized medicine increasing visits to a nutritionist. These countries typically have rationing boards and are just as frugal as insurance companies.
- These countries have more people visiting the doctors due to it being universal.
- Economic prosperity doesn’t equal obesity rates necessarily, countries in my previous source such as Egypt, Samoa, and Qatar all aren’t in the best economic positions and yet have obesity rates even higher than the US's.
I didn’t commit a bare assertion. I gave examples of extra regulations in one sector having bad results
- Giving a couple of examples isn’t comparable to entire countries with higher regulations than the US's and is performing better.
This is an example of socialization driving costs of healthcare in the US.
- This isn’t the case since the US's costs are significantly higher than any other country, including countries with higher levels of socialized medicine.
Pro has dropped my argument that 44,000 additional deaths happen in Canada due to increased waiting.
Pro asserts that I am working with assumed stats..we are debating how something will work in theory so we are both making assumptions
My opponent claims that Canada has a worse system than other socialist countries but failed to explain why America would socialize healthcare any better.
- Canada has a significantly lower GDP per capita and has lower tax revenue and thus has a significantly worse off economy than the US's.
Source Link:
Con
#8
4 Point Voting
This is not a select winner debate. My opponent chose the 4 point system because he wants more than just arguments to be judged. I agreed to a debate with a 4 point system because I want all the points judged as well. Neither of us argued for any grammar points so you can ignore that, though my grammar is better overall, even if you spot a few mistakes. Regardless of the judges actual opinions on the matter, all 4 points should be judged and a winner decided on each one.
Conduct
Pro asked my permission to post the link to sources since he could not seem to get his argument down to below 10,000 characters any other way. So please do not deduct a conduct point from him on that basis. If you want to deduct one for the reasons I mentioned earlier than by all means do. If you want to reward me one for being gracious enough to allow him to mildly break the structure of the debate, that is fine as well.
I’m not going to touch on much in my opponent’s final round. New arguments don’t count in the final round, so all the new arguments he made should be disregarded. So when pro makes an argument like the following;
“Let’s say we have 10 people under a privatized healthcare plan and only 5 get nutritional advice.
Let’s say only 20 % so only 2 people take it. “
It should be ignored just as if I respond by pointing out there is absolutely no evidence that people would receive more or better dietary advice under a socialist healthcare system, it should be ignored. The fact he has tried to add new arguments is debatably worthy of a conduct point, and if judging the debate in a Tabula Rasa style, the judges should certainly weigh are arguments on conduct points without inserting their own judgement to see if either one of us deserve one.
Sources
I do think with how the sources have been used in this debate, I deserve source points. Not only did/959iu he not cite all of the “facts” he brought up, but when he did cite facts he intentionally misinterpreted what the citations said. For example when he stated he had sources claiming that Americans had a shorter life expectancy due to a lack of socialized medicine, but I read through his sources and they merely claimed Americans had a lower life expectancy, without attributing a cause. He seemed to concede that people were dying because of their eating choices, but claimed socialized medicine will somehow force me to stop drinking beer and eating pizza. (I know, I am on a tangent)
His sources are being cited for things they don’t say, he misses sources for facts such as the 7.7 trillion dollar figure. The other problem is it is hard to track what each source is even for which fact, because they are just haphazardly lumped together at the bottom of the page, making it hard for me to even check just one, if I buy most of his facts but merely doubt just one for example.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Even the points pro brings up that I can address from his final round, I will not be responding to. He cannot respond to what I post in the final round, so out of a sense of fairness, I will show him the same respect. Neither one of us should have it held against us, that we are unable to respond to each other’s final round.
My Case
My argument I laid out in round one. Let’s examine it to see if it still stands at the end of this debate.
P 1- economic freedom causes a higher standard of living.
P 2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
C 1- socialist policies are responsible for a lower standard of living.
The conclusion is naturally derived from the premises. If my premises stand, than my argument stands and pro loses the debate.
During the course of the debate, I argued that economic freedom as defined by the economic freedom index creates a higher standard of living. This premise is never objected to, and the judges should accept it as true.
My 2nd premise is that socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom. My opponent claims that since some of the top countries have socialist policies, that these policies are not antithetical to economic freedom. However it only proves that every country has room for improvement in the economic freedom index. It does not prove that more socialist policies would not drive these countries even lower in the economic freedom index or total score the country is assigned.
I supported my premises by stating that the following 5 areas scored on the index are harmed by all socialist policies to some degree.
“government spending, tax burden, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom,”
For each of those points I gave one or more premises for how socialism causes a country to lose points. My opponent, barely challenged me on this, if he challenged me at all. Remember he never challenged the economic freedom index as a good measure for what we are measuring in this debate. He also never challenged this second premise that socialist countries have a negative impact on these scores.
Since my first premise and second premise go unchallenged and the conclusion naturally derives from the premises (this statement has went unchallenged as well), than I should automatically win on argument points.
Pro’s Arguments
I summed up pro’s arguments as follows;
P1- universal healthcare has more positives than negatives
P2- universal healthcare would require/be an increase in “socialization”
C1- More socialization would overall be beneficial to society
Pro seems to agree with my analysis and summary of his arguments. I never challenged pro on premise 2. I think I could show how it could actually decrease socialization in total, but it wasn’t worth my time to explain that. So his 2nd premise should stand.
Premise number one is what I took issue with. If we look at the impacts, we can see that despite privatized medicine being responsible for some deaths, socialized medicine if applied and assuming we would apply it as well as the UK or Canada, would result in a massively more people dying from socialized medicine that would die if America just kept medicine private.
I showed that socialism has had the unintended side effects of causing prices in medicine to soar because of a disconnect between consumers and the actual cost of care. This goes unchallenged. He argued that socialism would drop prices a tiny bit on medical care, but not removing the socialist policies that caused the prices to soar (and pro does not dispute that assertion), is also a decision for more socialism and I showed that a decision for less socialism in medicine by removing the cause of the current problem would result in lower drug costs.
I also argued that even if socialist healthcare had some positive impacts on health (even though I proved it didn’t), that it does not prove an overall positive impact to society and I pointed to the scoring of the economic freedom index to prove this. My opponent amazingly does not contest this argument.
Conclusion
I want to thank Pink Freud for this debate. It was fun. I wish him good luck in future debates.
If we look at how I framed the debate, my frame was never challenged, my premises were never challenged, only some individual points in the premises. My opponent has dropped tons of my affirmative arguments.
My opponent only argued for one benefit to socialization, I think I defeated his first premise, but even if I did not, I certainly showed that the conclusion does not necessarily flow from the premises. Anyway, thanks for getting this far in reading the debate, hopefully it was enjoyable. Please vote.
Introduction
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=373
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
See comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15335
Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.
Note:
I can see how arguments could go either way, I can see how sources could be tied, but there's no case for conduct not favoring con if the debate has been read.
Not sure why this debate was just reported... If there's a specific reason, someone please let me know.
"The rest of this RFD can be found in the comments section due to character limitations."
Sorry about that. I'm not one of the moderators. I literally did a word search thought your RFD for "sources," and that was the only part featuring that word.
"I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something)."
I did exactly that lmao. The part of my RFD you quoted just now wasn't even part of the section where I explained why I gave con the source point, it was part of the section where I explained why I gave con points for arguments.
Thank you for clarifying so I could understand your reasoning
As stated in the removal notice, Dis' vote may be recast without refinement if merely by not assigning source points.
I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something). I have taken to ending my debates with hand feeding voters samples of sources (at least if I believe I earned the point)...
For review, what was not enough to award sources:
>Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
What was enough (actually overkill... but compare both sides, and name at least one specific source):
>Sources: Con
>So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
>Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
>Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
>The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
>Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
It was near impossible to really assess pros sources as there was little relation between the source and where it was used; and a result, some of the claims made appeared unsupported, and poorly referenced. Even if I were to accept all of pros data was supported in sources, there was no knock out blow, or damning data presented that could have damaged cons case: the New Zealand point came close, but as it wasn’t clear to me where this data came from due to poor referencing - I can’t assess that either
Because of this, I have to award sources to con: though to be fair, I probably would have awarded sources on the health outcome sources alone: this was a shining moment of the debate.
What came to mind here when reading pros point - is what if a Sweden was just an awesome country - and it would be more awesome if it full on was capitalist. Con makes that case by linking socials policy to economic freedoms. The whole argument is a bit shaky here for my liking; but in general con is successful in opening a single crack of doubt over the policy in general.
To conclude on this: while I felt pro got the better on key cases; cons argument about death was devastating and never fully resolved by pro, combined with imo con doing better in life expectancy arguments in general basically demolish pros case even were i to award him the win on all other points. Con successfully argues that socialization could potentially make healthcare worse.
In general, pro offers no other case about socialism or socialization in general; so at this point can’t win. Given con wins the only case presented by pro - and himself introduces at least some doubt into the resolution. In my view this is enough to refute the resolution.
Arguments to con,
Conduct: pro started off with insults, and was petulant throughout with comments like “Great a troll who's lost 14 debates, doesn't take debates seriously and believes the world is flat...”, “he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the point”, “By your insane logic with more deregulation equaling....”
I can’t stand this type of behaviour in debates. Being insulting and petulant is for the forums, or private PMs: not in formal debates.
Conduct to cons
Sources:
Con won this mainly on the strength of his sources related to Canada stroke survival, and cancer survival rates which basically undermines pros entire position with hard data.
In terms of cons main case: con argues that the best countries are the ones with most economic freedom. That socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom. While I can buy the syllogism in general, what I find hard to square with cons points is that there are countries at or higher on cons list of economic freedoms with higher levels of socialization (as pro points out).
Con does not craft a thesis by which he correlates level of socialization against quality of life or economic freedom. That would have been a pretty compelling argument. Instead he appears to point out bad countries and state these are socialist whilst higher countries are not.
Instead con simply appears to try and tie the idea of socialized medicine, or social programs - which is what it appears pro is trying to talk about, with fully socialist countries as if they correlate.
While I can’t accept this on its face - even less so with pro pointing some of this out - it does at least show there so a point at which more socialization is bad; which muddies the resolution a little, as con definitely show there is a limit at which point socialization becomes bad.
Pro gets lost a little on that point; and while he points out the main issues with cons argument; he doesn’t make an argument addressing the line portion of it.
Con followed this up in a way that crystallized a little better. Though implicit, the issue is that socialism in general terms lowers economic freedom - which is bad. With the data con provided it seems the issue he introduces, that some policies benefit some, but not others - and this may lower the overall benefit for everyone, even considering pros rebuttals, is that more socialization could potentially be beneficial, but the broad brush of the resolution is not guaranteed.
Con reiterates his life expectancy argument; excellently pointing out that Americans are much fatter than Germans, and reiterating that they are also much more likely to be victims of violent crime. Con also pointed out that doctors are not trained to give dietary advice, and socialized medicine is not going to fix these issues (nor are there examples where it has)
In terms of deregulation, con largely misses the main thrust of pros point. The issue is undermined that the specific policies not increased socialization are the cause of the costing problems: while cons thesis of why costs are so high may be accurate - he doesn’t account for why more socialized countries have cheaper healthcare. This seems to contradict his point.
Con adds to his point about deaths caused by increased socialization - I’m going to somewhat lump this in with his point about productivity as they are related. Con wraps this point up pretty well here; using his cancer example again, and arguing that while Canada maybe bad - on what basis does pro believe the US would be any better. This is a very good point.
Finally, while con argues that removing causes of higher prices would be more effective than increasing socialization.
Pro rounds up by what seems at this point to be leaping to conclusions. Con pointed out that life expectancy is driven by many competing factors, such as obesity and violent crime: the issue for me, is that pro is simply trying to cast doubt on cons point more than showing in detail how he can correlate healthcare directly to life expectancy.
For nutrition and diet advice; pro largely misses the point I think con was making; that socialized medicine isn’t going to help, given people don’t often follow dietary advice. Intuitively, it rings true - it’s not like people think Big Macs and Cole are healthy.
In terms of affordability; con provides an argument that the issue with affordability was caused by introduction of socialized policy.
Pro argues that deregulation isn’t the answer, and explains that the US is already the most deregulated, pro goes on to argue that issues like obesity already plague countries with socialized medicine, and these countries nonetheless have higher expectancies.
Pro tries to cast doubt on a fairly solid source, by arguing his is also solid, and offering some reasons why cons source may not be accurate or may not apply.
The issue here is that it’s not enough now to throw a bit of doubt on cons point. Pro has to go into more detail here, as cons argument casts doubt on your methodology, by showing how socialized
Medicine can increase deaths in some ways. While I don’t expect a full proof of deaths, I need to see more firm examples than “look at Australia”.
From the cost benefit side, pro does better; pointing out almost all other countries have lower cost healthcare despite being socialized; and that it would make more sense going for systems that work, rather than ones that may not.
The benefit of this argument here, is that pro undermines cons position that the expensive is due to socialization itself: by pointing out other countries don’t have the problem. For this con has to do more to show me that socialization specifically that is the problem rather than the specific policy.
To start off with, my main issues with pros opening is that the resolution is broadly stated; but is opening argument is limited and narrow concerning healthcare.
Frankly there’s so little attempt from pro to talk about the resolution as stated in general, that he does himself no favours here.
I’m going to deal with pros case first, and partly summarize. There are lots of small sub points here, and I won’t address them all, unless I felt that they were compelling enough to move me in one direction or another.
Pro starts off with a fairly good justification of socialized medicine. Pointing out it’s cheaper, universal, that it’s quality could be just as good; pointing out issues in the existing us healthcare systems.
While con accepts some of the potential benefits; con points out there are issues with pro linking life expectancy solely with Healthcare: pointing out issues with obesity also have a part to play and aren’t related to healthcare directly. Cons argument relating to deaths was devestating. Whilst the issue of increased deaths to the uninsured, Con brings up a major potential source of deaths in socialized medicine. This highlights the lack of a big picture view from pro.
Ragnars vote mentioned formatting, but went into much more details, including referencing the decent quality of your Canada source, and how both sides sources affected the debate . Which is why his vote was acceptable.
I am always reluctant to remove such a large vote when most of its okay; I would have preferred for dis to simply clarify the source point rather than removing the whole thing.
Didn't he give the exact same reasoning as ragnar? Just worded differently for sources. This seems like a stretch
RfD pt3
"I find it troubling that literally, every single country in the world with socialized medicine has statistically WAY lower healthcare costs than the US does."
While con correctly points out that are multiple other factors which explain this there is also the more important fact that con in round two outlined a comprehensive explanation as to why the current level of socialization in our healthcare system is harmful to the medical market by facilitating the type of price gouging that causes such inflated prices in the first place. Instead of addressing cons explanation pro appears to simply dismiss it out of hand:
"Also, my opponent's healthcare plan isn’t a very good plan and has never worked before."
As before, even if cons arguments are not sound pro has to show us that they are unsound rather than simply declaring it to be so. Instead of responding to cons explanation of how the current price gouging is caused by the current level of socialization in the healthcare system pro opts for a simple comparison of countries on a list with little to no context.
With pro being so clearly on the defensive for the majority of the debate and con having established several syllogisms that support their premise I am giving points for arguments in this debate to con.
The rest of this RFD can be found in the comments section due to character limitations.
RfD pt2:
The next point for arguments that stands out to me is pros claim that nationalized healthcare systems are inherently more efficient financially than privatized healthcare systems. This claim first appears in pros round one and is reiterated in pros round two however the actual numbers used are different each time. Pro claims to have a source for these statistics but no source is ever actually given. Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
The next part of the debate, cons round two and pros round three, repeats the pattern of con presenting a syllogism and pro attempting to counter it. With the exception of the weird little Q&A thing pro did (which I will address in the conduct section of this RFD) pro is primarily on the defensive for the rest of the debate, so the question becomes whether pro successfully counters any of the points made by con.
Regarding this the main points of contention centered around the socialization of healthcare, specifically whether increased healthcare socialization would improve living conditions and whether it would be more financially viable to increase or decrease socialization of healthcare.
In round three pro addresses the affordability point by a simple comparison of the U.S. healthcare costs to more socialized countries:
RfD PT 1
Arguments: The first major hitch with arguments in this debate came in pros round two when he responded to cons round one syllogism. To quote a portion of pros response
"my opponent [cites] statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong."
It is not immediately clear to me why pro is under the impression that his short list of bullets has 'debunked cons hypothesis' or even what he means about 'cons hypothesis' in the first place. After several re-reads I am forced to assume that the hypothesis being referred to here is the conclusion in cons round one syllogism and that pro has deemed said syllogism faulty due to a perceived flaw in the second premise (if this is an inaccurate interpretation of pros meaning in the above quote I put the blame on a lack of clarity in communication on pros part). Pros main argument for the rest of the round seems to build upon the idea that cons syllogism is faulty but pro never gives a very clear explanation as to why this is the case. Pro simply states the claim that socialistic policies do not damage economic freedom and implies that any policies restricting economic freedom must by definition be fascist rather than socialist in nature. If it is in fact the case that socialistic policies do not actually damage economic freedom then pro needs to back this up by addressing the points raised by con in round one supporting the idea that they do (the last five or so paragraphs in cons round one is what I am referring to). Even if these points made by con are unsound the fact that pro fails to address them means that in a debate setting they are considered valid by default. As for the fascism segment of pros round two this seems like a classic false dichotomy. Pro, the fact that fascism reduces freedom does nothing to show that socialism does not reduce economic freedom.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Discipulus_Didicit // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: see above and comment #344
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments and Conduct were deemed sufficient: sources were deemed insufficient. The voter may repost the vote without source point award by referencing the comments.
The voter appears to base his source award primarily on formatting, rather than the overall impact these sources had on the debate.
The voter must
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
- explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
*******************************************************************
Too lazy to actually articulate my reasoning because at the moment the winner looks to be clear based on scoring, but I believe Wylted won this debate
In case anyone was reading the off topic comments for entertainment, King_8 continued it with an emotional outpouring about it on another debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1137/comment_links/15624):
"They apparently think that I have some alt account voting in my favor which simply isn't true. No concrete proof, just assumptions. He's just my friend and he counted Franklin's vote but Ragnar spread lies about me to bsh1. So dont pay attention to any of that. That has nothing to do with me. People just love to push my buttons on here and be problematic because they are unhappy with their selves. So now because of that, I'm being banned. All because of Ragnar. I don't mind though because these bias mods never come to my aid when unfair things that does not go with CoC happens to me. Don't care because I planned on quitting this site. I don't deal with people like this. Sorry for the inappropriate behavior, thanks for the debate."
Congrats Wylted. You probably will win.
I just don't want to be last place among all active debaters. Kind of embarrassing, especially after being top 10 on a debate site where it is much much harder to be top 10. So I decided I will stop being easy to defeat here, It is tough because the voting is so terrible on this site compared to how good it was on DDO for a certain amount of time, and nearly always taking the unpopular position it makes winning harder here than on DDO.
As far as your back and forth with KIng, I think it is a waste of time and your time is better spent elsewhere, but I don't care. I only get alerts on comments when my name is mentioned.
"But he should be gone by now" okay. Everything is coming together now. So apparently you messaged bsh1 and persuaded him with your lies telling him Game was my alt when he isn't. Lmfao but I'm done, yall can think whatever the hell y'all want to think. Its only right for everybody to hop on the King_8 hate train. Good job getting someone banned based off a huge lie. Miserable people will stay miserable. Can't handle me so you gotta get me banned lmao bet. And I am FAR from done. Last comment. You've done me a favor, thanks. I was gonna quit this site anyways.
Sorry for that distraction from your debate. I should not have engaged, but he should be gone now...
Wylted:
I fully agree with you on "It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds."
Pink:
I suspect the reason Wylted did so well was your opening comments pissed him off, encouraging him to put in extra effort. It can be a useful tactic against the weak willed, as exemplified by me recently getting someone confused as to which of their alt accounts they posted something...
If someone bumped into me and looked at me wrong I would talk to them at first and see what problem is, and if it escalates, it escalates. You ignored 75% of my last comment. Speaks volumes. I guess your parents did fail you. Don't ever talk about my family.
Who am I denying association? You mean Game lord? And no I'm not asking about being coddled. Just pointing out bias and seeking resolution
Your analogy would work had someone bumped into you or looked at you the wrong way and you responded by punching them in the face. Remember, your retaliation is 7 points worse than the damage done on a 7 point scale. And you say that's how your mother raised you... Someone hurts your precious feelings and you respond with violence.
>"Pink retaliated vote against you in some of your debates, so you know he's full of shit. Yet and still you are taking up for his inexcusable behavior." ... "I complained because of bullsh*t votes people gave me. Not people being 'better voters than me'"
As seen, a user who shares your name who you are now denying association with (the first quote) made the complaint about Pink's superior voting habits not being complained about (reminder, his retaliation was to cast fair votes).
>"I'm not asking to get coddled at all."
See: half your messages in here.
Ah, I understand now. We obviously have two completely different mindsets. Apparently our parents raised us differently. I'm sorry but my mother taught my to stand up for myself and not take shit from other people. This ignorant mindset of "let it go/ignore it" from people is sad. By your logic, if someone gets punched in the face and ignore it and walk away, instead of punching that person right back, or defending themselves, that means that their parents are great role-models lol. For every action there's a reaction. If I get disrespected, I'm reacting. Instead of pointing the blame at the person taking up for what's right, pay attention to the person who initiated the problem in the beginning. Discipline and responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with this. My mother raised me very well. Lol failings? The hell thats supposed to mean? Yikes. You're really upset. You got this misunderstood. I complained because of bullsh*t votes people gave me. Not people being "better voters than me" are you dumb? I'm not asking to get coddled at all. Again, you have this big misconception. All I'm asking for is a resolution. I even messaged all of the mods professionally as an adult about the situation. So now you want to talk about my mother? You're reaching a whole other side you don't want to reach. Trust me. Like I said, obviously we operate completely different, and from your words, I can tell that your parents must be shit role-models and completely failed you in life. And that's the simple truth. You want to keep talking about my mother, then bet. I'll bring yours into this as well. I could understand how you somehow think my mother isn't a great role model and that I've cast the opposite picture of her. It's because we were raised completely differently, as in I don't take bullshit, and you take bullshit. You can think whatever the hell you want of me. You don't know me from a can of paint so the bullshit you say is extremely invalid.
>"I've had plenty role-models in my life besides my mother. I'm also an adult so I'm not some kid. ... Don't ever disrespect me"
Then act like an adult instead an of overgrown brat. Don't whine about how "bias/unfair treatment" as an excuse to commit objectively worse things, then play whataboutism pretending you should have impunity to do whatever you want as if your parents failed to teach you discipline and responsibility for your failings. You complain that other people are not offended by other people being better voters than you. Oh and quit the site because people don't coddle you, but fail to ever leave because you want to complain some more about not getting coddled. ... Need I go on? This is not evidence of your mother being "a great role model," you've cast quite the opposite picture of her.
>"Rap battles don't have to be so formal."
You're right that they don't, but as long as they stay informal they are unmoderated. Solutions to your exact problem have been offered, but instead of using them or moving on, you cast 7point vote bombs in retaliation for 0 point mild nuisances... Another thing you could do is use the built in Judicial decision voting system; moderators will still not be involved, but since they're fake news or whatever you probably would prefer to not have them.
(1/2)
> "Also you desperately need better role-models in your life."
Yikes. First of all bird, you don't know me from a can of paint, so how are you gonna sit your ignorant ass up here and make such a bold statement? Can parents not be role-models? My mother is a great role model to me. Do you have some sort of deep rooted parental issues for you to assume that parents can't be role-models? For your information I've had plenty role-models in my life besides my mother. I'm also an adult so I'm not some kid. I'm also a role-model to others, so yeah. Let that sink in. Don't ever disrespect me.
Rap battles don't have to be so formal. Even if I did make it like that (which I'd never), I doubt people or mods would see it as a normal debate and vote accordingly. I'm also sure that mods would still consider it a troll debate since it's a rap battle, no matter how "formal" it is. I lay out pretty distinctive and concise rules in my battles, particularly the 4 categories and the voting criteria. It's a long and thought out description. I'd say that's enough for it to be taken seriously but unfortunately it isn't. So what you just presented wouldn't work either most likely.
(2/2)
Let me explain this once again because I don't think your brain is grasping anything.
Your initial comment:
********
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2721 (Link 1) <<<
Just a counter vote bomb. Complaining of this one, makes no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1113/vote_links/2725 (Link 2) <<<
A tied vote. I can agree that it is childish, but it's a no harm done situation.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711 (Link 3) <<<
A tied vote... And better, King_8's friend or alt account voted in King_8's favor as a counter to it (So good at math! No one's better at math!).
********
When I said "So now, GameLord is my alternate account?" it was in response to your last statement (Link 3). I never said responded to your comment in your first statement that said "makes no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account". What I responded to in your first statement (Link 1) was about the counter vote bomb. It doesn't have to be a personal friend or alt account for it to be a counter vote lol. I don't even know Gamelord, he just got on this site. I already explained that his counter vote had nothing to do with me and he counter voted Pink because Pink counter voted him.
What you've done was mixed up your own points. You took my comment that was meant for Link 3 and put it with Link 1. Proof of what you said:
>"GameLord is my alternate account?"
Nice strawperson. As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense."
Hopefully you understand now, Mr. intellectual integrity....keep telling yourself that to make you feel better. You meant what you wrote but it was for the wrong point.
I guess you're not leaving after all. I was not replying because we already said our goodbyes...
To the most important points: No, I meant exactly what I wrote. As someone with intellectual integrity, this is usually the case. ... Also you desperately need better role-models in your life.
As for your problem of wanting troll debates to be judged like real debates: Have you considered making them real debates? It could be along the lines of 'Resolution: King_8 is a better rapper than opponent. R1 and R2 are raps, R3 onward is normative arguments about which raps were superior by the following standards... Note: This is not a troll debate or a rap battle, it is a debate about raping ability.'
(edit)
Unless when you said "As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense." -- you actually meant that I should complain if Gamelord is my alt. Plus, I only replied to the "tied" thing. What this means is that you assumed twice that he's an alt. But as I said, you can think whatever you want. I'm not here to prove or disprove anything to you. I'm talking about the bias things that has happened. In any case, I was only focused on the comment, "And better, King_8's friend or alt account voted in King_8's favor as a counter to it". I wasn't strawmanning
(1/2)
1. I don't care about this debate, I am talking about my debates.
2. I did complain about the counter vote from Pink. GameLord's vote was just fine, and it went along with my rules in description. He addressed all 4 categories on his RFD. Its just a rap battle with 4 categories required. No one needs to write a full novel as their RFD like on normal debates.
3. I'm not reading sh*t, I'm through with this site. If mods are on my ass every second then they need to be the same way with other people instead of favoritism. Like I said, it's bias.
4. Parents have nothing to do with the bias/unfair treatment comment. Bias exists everywhere, unfairness exists everywhere, even in the work force. It runs deeper, look at racism. Fact of the matter is this is unfair treatment and bias which I've clearly proven. Its not like I threw a temper tantrum and acting like a baby. I'm not seeking pity, I'm seeking a solution. I'm just calling out the facts. I grew up being the only child, I don't have siblings. So I never experienced bias or unfairness, even if I did - that wouldnt even happen because that's not how my mother is. So your parent comment falls flat.
(2/2)
>"As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense."
5. Your comment above correlated with this link: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2721 (Rap battle part 2). I never addressed that comment. I'm replying to your comment that said "And better, King_8's friend or alt account voted in King_8's favor as a counter to it." Link: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711 (Rap battle 6) not "Complaining of this one, makes no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." (Which was for Rap battle 2)
On top of that, when you said "personal friend or alt account" you were referring to Pinkfreud. Not me or Gamelord. Pinkfreud is the one who countervoted on Rap battle part 2. You must have confused yourself in the midst of all of these points.
>"Where are your complaints about his vote bomb in your favor? See vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711"
6. Like I said before, that had nothing to do with me. He counter voted Pink because Pink countervoted him. I never asked him to go and counter vote Pink. I didn't even know he was going to do it. And I can't really complain though because the vote ended up in my favor. You may think GameLord is an alt account all you like. I frankly don't give a damn.
7. You just admitted that Pink retaliated vote against you in some of your debates, so you know he's full of shit. Yet and still you are taking up for his inexcusable behavior.
8. You don't need to wish me luck. I'm gucci. Plus I know you're being sarcastic anyways. I'm beyond this. I do bigger and better things.
To repeat myself: "Did you miss ... The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?"
>"it should be taken seriously and be at the same standards as other debates"
If you believed this, you would have complained about the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2559) for failing to meet the rigorous standards expected of votes on real debates. For starters, it lacked comparative analyse on each of the categories voted, which is one of the basic requirements when voting on real debates.
>"crazy..."
Before you continue on this site, you should really read the following two pages:
1. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
2. https://www.debateart.com/rules
>"bias and unfair treatment."
Do you really expect a line like that to gain you anything from people who aren't your parents? Maybe we'll say 'that poor baby. Everyone stop what you'rte doing, a baby needs pity!' But it's highly unlikely.
>"GameLord is my alternate account?"
Nice strawperson. As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense."
Where are your complaints about his vote bomb in your favor? See vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
It is a vote which was intended to harm the outcome of the debate, thus creating real damage. That you say it had nothing to do with you, while mimicking your behaviors, does give weight (not conclusive weight) to the third possibility that he's an alt account.
As for Pink's votes... The places to discuss those in depth are where he cast the votes. I will however say of him related to this debate that he retaliated my voting against him by voting on some of my debates (I objectively won those debates, and as an adult that was how he voted).
Good luck where-ever you go.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See vote/comments.
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments are sufficient as per the voting guidelines.
The voter clearly assess the main arguments - and presents an explanation of why each side won (or didn’t), each argument and presents a weighting at the end. The voter also clearly outlines the poor conduct behaviour, and explains why this was worthy of a violation. The voter also compares sources and explains how the different sources impacted the debate appropriately.
*******************************************************************
(1/2)
Briefly seen your comment initially but didn't really give a f*ck then but I'm addressing it now since people want to see me as the bad guy of course.
Rap battles should not be considered as troll votes. Yes, they aren't actual debates about worldly issues or what have you but nevertheless, if there's two serious opponents engaging in a rap battle, then it should be taken seriously and be at the same standards as other debates. Especially with me being a serious opponent because I work hard in my rap battles. Before I continue, you and other people who are excusing Pink's actions need to stop giving him excuses. Whether it's a moderated vote, or an unmoderated vote, a bullsh*t vote is a bullsh*t vote.
Link 1: Counter vote = invalid. He did this because he has something against me, as he has voted on all three of my debates consecutively with two of the same troll RFD's of "Bite my shiny metal ass" and an inaccurate counter vote. Rap battle part 2 had clear and concise rules that I've laid out in the description. I wouldn't call that a troll debate, I would call it a debate that needs to be respected and it being a moderated debate. Meaning mods should not kiss Pink's a** "Half counter voting" him, but should have deleted his vote instead. Crazy how all of his votes are still on my debates that he published FIRST, yet all three of my retaliated votes on him were deleted in the drop of a dime. (Yes I know they were retaliation but that does not make Pink's votes any better as he has done it through emotion and to get a reaction out of me, not to mention his votes simply do not align with the CoC) Pink never followed my rules in the description. This equates to an insufficient vote, but somehow it's still up because of bias and unfair treatment. So yeah, it does make sense to complain about that vote. As I said, personal emotion along with what I said above.
And of course MS. Pink ignored my last comment to him. My point exactly.
(2/2)
Link 2: "But it's a no harm done situation." Doesn't matter. Do you not see the bigger picture? 1. I doubt he rated all of those fights and added up points at the end and had us tied. 2. His RFD is trollish and insufficient, yet of course it's still up. If he genuinely thought we tied, he would have gave a reasonable RFD that aligned with CoC, but he's nothing but a troll and people support it and suck his d*ck.
Link 3: Using an excuse again just because it's a tied vote. A tied vote but a trollish RFD. Stop making excuses for him. If you want to be real, that rap battle was nowhere near a tie. So now, GameLord is my alternate account? Lmfao. You may think whatever you want, I don't give a sh*t. I'm over the people on this site especially the supposed mods who are a disappointment (excluding Virtuoso, because he's the only one who has common sense). Newsflash, smart guy, the only reason why GameLord countered Pink's vote is because Pink countered his vote on Link 1 - https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049
So that had nothing to do with me even though the vote ended up being in my favor. He only did that because Pink countered his vote when Pink shouldn't have. GameLord gave a fair vote, and I'm not saying that just because he voted for me. It was actually a legit vote that went with my rules in description.
Quitting this site. It was fun while it lasted and I had a good experience but this same cycle will continue and when I check people like I'm doing right now, people will call me crazy and see me as a bad guy, when the other person is the one obviously in the wrong, even with the proof being in the pudding. I knew this was all coming. I predicted it. My votes being deleted while he voted on my debates first with bullsh*t votes and they are still up, potentially ruining my debate stats - excluding the tie votes, but still, it does not matter. All good.
Thanks, I did not even realize you were undefeated until you said something. It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds. Being undefeated means you are operating too much in your comfort zone, so congrats on proving that you have earned your record and have been willing to push yourself.
hmmm, I finally lost a debate that wasn't a concession, congrats took almost 24 debates.
Here is the remainder of my RFD:
Sources: As noted above pro does claim to have sourced at least one statistic which he never did in fact source. There may have been other cases of this that I did not notice due to pros poor formatting of his sources making it difficult to tell which links (and MUCH more importantly what specifically within those links) were meant to support which statements of theirs. At one point pro just posts a link to a news websites homepage. In the future pro I recommend that you do something like what con did by placing the links to your sources closer to the part of your arguments they are meant to support or marking your supported statements with numbers like so (1) and assigning matching numbers to the source that is meant to support it.
Cons source formatting was imperfect as well. It was not always immediately clear just what specifically I was supposed to be looking at within a certain web page linked by con but I was usually able to figure out relatively easily what their intentions were. I feel justified in giving points for sources to con in this debate.
S&G: I recall noticing a few minor spelling and grammar mistakes but nothing significant enough to award points for.
Conduct: Pro clearly deserves to be penalized for conduct in this one. Putting aside the fact that the very first lines in their first round are rude insults directed at con their insistence that con answer a number of irrelevant questions then proceeding to take con answering of those questions outside of the debate and use those answers in the debate really rubbed me the wrong way. Pro, this is not a conversation between you and con. This is a debate. The only things that you should be including in the debate are things to convince the readers that your position is logically justified.
Done!
I made a categorical error on my vote, would you mind deleting it so that I can correct that?
I fell asleep lol. Sorry.
Who the hell takes 12 hours to work on an RFD
RfD pt4
Quality did have relevant evidence if Pinkfreud08 decided to link it back to quality for it to be relevant.
Economic freedom leads to better outcomes was based on evidence that made assumptions that doesn’t support fundamental things that makes capitalism prosper.
RFD PT 3
Wylted core argument is about Economic Freedom leading to higher standard of living
Since this was based on socialization rather just healthcare it is okay for Wylted to speak more generally. What is not okay is the source is used. It had Hong Kong first due to many factors involving property rights, government integrity and judicial effectiveness. The problem of course is that economic freedom is not based on more of those things. It is based on less. Since the economy is more freer due to more capitalism less law and government influence would lead to economic outcomes. Given the source is not really accurate on why capitalism prospers it is a bad source. To be more specific corruption does not make the economy worse instead it would make it better because private businesses can lobby and change laws to improve their profits thus leading to a better economy. For Wylted to improve he would require to provide a source that does understand something fundamental like what would lead to better forms of capitalism instead of an assumption like corruption doesn't improve the economy or even economic freedom. Less laws do mean more freedom not the opposite.
Given Wylted only gave 1 initial argument and I had a problem with premise 1. I can’t exactly mention premise 2 due to the problem of premise 1. Sure the universality argument of Pro’s was based on his affordability argument but that had its own data instead of simply using previous data so I had something to work with.
I have only really targeted the core arguments because both of them don’t have substantial points. Given that 3 not substantial points are better than 1 Pinkfreud08 wins the argument vote.
In order for a claim to be substantial it requires evidence.
Affordability was based on evidence that was not given.
Universality was based on affordability but did have evidence of a survey but a survey only shows X amount of people picked this. It doesn’t show the effectiveness of it.
RFD pt2
Quality on the other hand was based on data that states United States are not even in the top 11 for the least deaths. Given this is averaging out the numbers it does help alleviate the massive discrepancy with comparing the United States population to other countries apart from India, China and other countries. All the other countries above the United States were using public healthcare so the evidence does support public healthcare can be a factor leading to less deaths. The thing is Pinkfreud08 did not show how this was linked to quality. There can be instances where a state has more quality than another but that wasn't addressed. A way to improve Pro's arguments is to concede that cherry-picking the best areas in the US would have a drop in healthcare but that would be negated given the potential good coming out of elevating a lot more areas out of dire states.
Wylted core argument is about Economic Freedom leading to higher standard of living
RFD Pt1:
This is a long debate so I'll just stick to one.
Pinkfreud08's arguments are affordability, universality and quality. Given these are the 3 things healthcare can achieve reminded to us by our pseudo-intellectual Ben Shapiro debates healthcare this would mean if all arguments are sound would require either Con to provide even better results outside Pro's arguments or would not be able to show a better healthcare system.
Affordability is based on data from the Washington Post which wasn't linked instead was linking to their homepage. Even though Pinkfreud08 made it aware in Round 2 "if I've accidentally left out sources for my claims please inform me and I'll gladly provide sources." Wylted did not ask for the source that is the core of Pinkfreud08's arguments. Given this I'll have this as a claim not substantiated with evidence. Hopefully Pinkfreud08 realizes this and next doesn't make the same mistake even if your opponent does not pick up on it.
Universality is based on data under the assumption that healthcare is cheaper it would result in poorer Americans would have healthcare. Universality is contingent on the affordability argument. I can't let that slide while also the link provided was a survey not evidence that universality would help solve the problem. A link to lets another country with public healthcare having pretty much everyone insured would have helped Pinkfreud08's case.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Omar2345 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See Above
Reason for Mod Action> While the voter appears to survey the main arguments from both sides sufficiently, the vote insufficiently reviews the counter arguments presented by both sides.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
While there were hints, from the vote it is unclear as to why cons rebuttals and counter arguments were weighted as not sufficient to overturn pros main arguments - or vice versa.
*******************************************************************