Christianity supports the health care bill

Thanks for my opponent for continuing this debate. Opponent arguments – 1. You drop the free will argument but that is ok because like you said it was irrelevant. 2. I want to first divide this argument into two parts for clarity. 1a – Definitions) In my previous round I used the word "poor." I didn't define the word poor however, my opponent does quoting Merriam Webster Dictionary. My opponent however selectively choose only the 1st half of the first definition which says: "lacking material possessions". There are other definitions that are given. But I want to say this – Poor is poor and this definition is fine. Let us not get caught up arguing about definitions. We know what it means to be poor, or impoverished just like you know what it means to be "rich," which you didn't define in your rebuttal to my first argument, I might add. You didn't define it because you know what it means and I think we can be agreed that there are poor people and rich people. Let me suggest that arguing over definitions is not the point of the debate. We can use poor, impoverished, what ever. Thanks for providing a definition for the word, "impoverished," however, I don't think 2000 years (or about) Jesus would have used the provided definition especially in regards to the U.S. poverty line. Shouldn't we consider what Jesus would have considered poor or impoverished. I use the term poor because it is what is used in the Bible. The Bible doesn't seem to define the word poor, however it uses it in contrast to "rich." As in the previous citation, (Mark 10:17-23) a rich man has to sell all he has and give it to the poor. Let me suggest that, being poor is being less fortunate than rich. Either way the poor are to give to the rich. (Let me add, though it will be more difficult, I will attempt to define "poor" using the Bible if it is something that we cannot get past.) 1b- the argument) The argument you state is that "helping the poor through government subsidization is hardly as beneficial as it sounds. As the poor are subsidized, being poor is encouraged, so there is less incentive to work harder. This leads to a decrease in the overall standard of living and the overall GDP." My rebuttal – This statement is very generic. Let me propose a way that a government subsidization is beneficial. When the government provides scholarships. This is a subsidization that helps those who cannot afford it. For example, the pell grant is a government "subsidy" that helps students who can't afford college to go to school. [1] This helps the GDP because they get a degree and become functioning members of society. Your general conclusion is not good. By receiving the pell grant, "being poor" is not encouraged and there isn't less incentive to work harder, in fact it is the opposite. Since I have shown through my opponents own logic that this argument is faulty, it should be dropped. Secondly, you didn't support your claim with any sources. It is therefore a presentation of a logical statement. The logic is flawed. By the way, if you are going to ask me to provide sources, you should too. Thirdly, this in no way has anything to do with the debate that Jesus would be in support of the Health Care Plan. It is therefore irrelevant. Now to the arguments of mine that you rebutted. 1. Jesus did in fact tell people to pay taxes. (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17) In this instance, Jesus was asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to the Roman Government. He said that it was. Jesus said pay the government what's the government's. Our money belongs to the government (it has USA on it) and therefore we are to give the USA what is the USA's. Jesus said to pay taxes. Jesus is omnipotent, at times ( I say this because Jesus gave up some of his divine nature including some omnipotence while incarnated on earth. He now reigns in heaven and is now once again omnipotent ). However, he does not use his omnipotence to force anything on anyone. Jesus doesn't force people to love him so why would he force people to pay taxes. To assume that just because Jesus doesn't force people to pay taxes he doesn't really "support" the distribution of wealth is faulty logic. Because an omnipotent being chooses not to exercise his power doesn't mean he doesn't support something. Secondly, where are your sources that support his claim that Jesus would have forced people to pay taxes if he was in support of the distribution of wealth? You have no sources that claim this but your own imagination. Next you attack my sources source because it doesn't have facts. I am sorry if you cannot find where in the article it says that it helps the poor. But here is the quote to help you: "This is a very important bill for the poor people of United States as after more than a hundred years people, who are struggling because of poverty will get health coverage." The bill will provide health coverage. That is a fact! You miss-represent me and the source. The burden is on you to show if this article's statements facts are false. Where is your source that shows that the Bill does not provide health care coverage for the poor? My source does provide a fact that you have either not read or failed to recognize. You say: The article "claims that the poor will be insured, but it doesn't say HOW. This is a key problem that needs to be answered before the discussion can move on." Since you say you want to know "how" the bill insures the poor then read my second source for a detailed explanation [2]. Now we can move on. My opponents dropped arguments 1. Where are your sources that say it doesn't help the poor. I showed last round how your sources did not support your argument but you have failed to mention it so it should be considered dropped. 2. The "pre-existing conditions argument" that I refuted was not addressed again, therefore dropped. 3. In round 2 my second contention: "Jesus would also support social programs as in the health care plan proposed by the government" has never been touched so therefore my opponent drops this argument. 4. My opponent has failed to show anywhere in the teachings of Christ or in the Bible where Jesus would not be in support of the concepts of the health care bill. Again, as already stated, shouldn't the Bible, which is the final authority for followers of Christ, be used? [1] http://www2.ed.gov... [2] http://www.govtrack.us... Let me encourage that this debate become more generalized. The goal was to simply say that as a follower of Christ, one should support the health care bill based on the teachings of Christ. Also opponents of the Healthcare debate seem to state that it is socialism… maybe we could head that direction but of course that is up to you.