The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

(Roadmap: VC debate, Refutations, Case, Crystallization) In a Value debate, the value is the highest thing in the round. All Value Criterions must link to the Value, and all contentions must link into the VC. This is the fundamental tenet of Value, or LD debate. The value of this debate is Societal Welfare – which is undefined on its own. In my R2 I laid out a logical pathway from SocW to the VC of Freedom for Constituents. My opponent didn't refute any of the links I made. As silence is consent, my opponent has conceded to the premises of my VC, which really means he agrees that FFC is at least a possible VC for the debate. Comparing the VC's then, is a relatively easy task: we look at one in relative absence of another. Let's say I want a good car. Analogously, the value would be "good car". If one person told me that "good mileage" is what makes a good car, and another person told me that "expensiveness" is what makes a good car, then to compare, I would get an expensive car with bad mileage and a cheap car with good mileage. Obviously it's not that simple, but that's the concept. If we are asking "Between FFC and HE, which is better", then we compare a situation in which FFC is present and HE is not to a situation where HE is present and FFC is not. (We will assume for the moment that HE means good health.) Our situations are: FFC = Free sick person. HE = Enslaved healthy person. I proved that FFC was better in my R2: "[O]ne thing underlies and is an integral part of all the other reasons – freedom. Money can only make a person happy if they can use it; Physical health can only make a person happy if they get to use it, and so on." Happiness is what defines welfare, and happiness and freedom are directly proportional. In other words, the freer a person is, the happier he or she will be. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or how physically healthy they are – they must be free in order to enjoy it. Form: VC --> VC Link --> V Actual: Freedom --> Happiness / Mental Health / Individual Welfare --> Societal Welfare My opponent's response to my VC is that he personally doesn't know many people who are happy about their sickness. This is not a refutation, as I am not saying that sick people are happy. I am posing a question, which one is happier? While I have proven that a free person who has relatively bad health is happier than an enslaved person with relatively good health, all my opponent has shown in his example is that people who are both free and healthy are happy – in other words, he's shown nothing at all. He's not comparing anything; he's not arguing against me, and in debate that means he's conceding to me. Therefore, the VC for this debate is FFC. "Which is pretty hard to calculate seeing[…]" > Certainly a response, but not a refutation. He's still not comparing HE against FFC, all he's saying is that "Even if FFC is good, HE is also good" which does not throw out FFC. "Mental health also effects […]" > Does not refute anything. Dï¿½jï¿½ vu? "My opponent fails to admit […]" > And my opponent fails to even comprehend how to compare two qualities. When deciding if quality A or B is better in item C, we take a version of C with lots of A and little B, and a version of C with lots of B and little A. Yes, being sick limits freedom – but being enslaved also limits being healthy. PRO continually compares the free healthy and the enslaved sick. It is maddening. > Kick contention A1. I will respond to A2 in-case. Kick B. "It was stated throughout my first contention. It was not directly stated[…]" > I'm sorry, what? He stated and didn't state it at the same time? > FFC precedes and supersedes HE in importance when looking at the value of SocW. This was shown in R2, and again at the beginning of this round. "There was a failure but the people […]" > Let's say you walk into a store and you want to buy a power drill. If you buy it and it doesn't work, what do you do? You return it. You buy another one. Or you send it to the manufacturer to get it fixed. So you ask the manufacturer to fix it. They refuse. What do you do? YOU GO BUY A DRILL FROM A DIFFERENT COMPANY. You don't stand around hoping a large enough group will form around you so the company will bend to your will. You go get another one. But if the state provides it, no one else will. You will HAVE to petition. Or in less euphemistic terms, beg. Not exactly FFC. Not even close. > Not irrelevant. "Education" was the example. "Government programs = denial of whatever it was supposed to provide" was the moral/principle. Extend this. > Extend from R2: "No government agency does its job efficiently. What reason is there to believe that a UHC program will be different?" "I'd rather be healthy to do whatever I want than be bedbound , ill , but so called "free"" > Again, he compares free and healthy to enslaved and sick. > Sorry, I meant he doesn't know how to compare. I'm not advocating "Enslaved and sick equals happiness", I'm advocating "Freedom equals happiness". And yet here he is, over and over again…. "A vast majority of the nations that rank higher in LE have UHC." > Sigh. So, let's recap~ PRO R1: UHC --> Higher LE CON R2: UHC -/-> Higher LE, ~33% UHC have Lower LE PRO R4: Most Higher LE --> UHC CON R4: lolwut r u srs? > Not a response. Extend the respective point from my R2. > Inverse not shown true. UHC --> Higher LE still not shown true. > Apply these responses to every time he says UHC --> Higher LE. I'm tired of repeating myself. "Iam proving that is an undenyable[…]" > Not in Constitution. Back to my case. Though I have neutralized his case, If I am to completely negate the resolution, then I must show that affirming is against FFC. "A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick, regardless of their wishes. Requiring those who don't want to pay to pay for others is a reduction of freedom." (CON R2) If I told you that you had the freedom to buy cookies at my store, you would assume that my store is open to the public and you could just walk in to pick up some cookies. However, if you came to my store a few times and every time you asked me if you could buy cookies, I took out a shotgun from under the counter and said "I'LL KILL YOU F*CKING COOKIE MONSTERS", you would hardly say that you had the freedom to buy cookies at my store. Though the boundaries of freedom are certainly grey here and there, this is one common sensically clear boundary – if X is met with violence or threat thereof by Y while attempting action A, X does not have the freedom to do A because of Y. Now as defined in R2, terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Basically, the limiting of freedom for political purposes. Watch the video. Continue afterwards. http://www.youtube.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US does not yet have UHC. UHC requires taxes. Taxation is terrorism. Ergo, UHC requires terrorism. Terrorism is one entity limiting another entity's freedom. Ergo, terrorism is the exact opposite of the VC, Freedom For Constituents. FFC is a direct link into and improves the value of Societal Welfare. Ergo, terrorism does not link into and is detrimental to Societal Welfare. Ergo, UHC does not link into and is detrimental Societal Welfare. In a Value debate, the value is the highest thing in the round. All Value Criterions must link to the Value, and all contentions must link into the VC. This is the fundamental tenet of Value, or LD debate. By implementing UHC, we are "using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it." (PRO R1) That system is taxation. We will not make things better by providing UHC. We make things worse. UHC is detrimental to Societal Welfare. I negate the resolution.