DDO Tier Tournament: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

Round 2 Rebuttals A closer look at the Burden of Proof: Con immediately places the full BoP on me in his opening statement; however, while I am affirming the resolution, the resolution is also the status quo because the US has adopted Universal Health care. A foreseeable complaint is that we are not debating Obamacare specifically. This is easily resolved with an example, if I was to argue for progressive taxing in the US but with slightly different numbers, and my opponent was against the progressive tax in general, the concept of the progressive tax would be status quo. Therefore I am arguing in favor of the widely held status quo, but I am also pro, so the burden of proof is shared. A greater understanding of Kant’s philosophy: A complete rebuttal of this argument requires that we go more in depth into Kant's philosophy. (Something important to note is that Kant's philosophy was meant for individuals to pursue. While some of his ideas might apply well to a government others seem downright absurd when adopted by government) A perfect duty according to Kant is to "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law without contradiction". Con's examples of this, don't kill and don't steal, are perfect duties but this is a very limiting list. Con misrepresents the definition of a perfect duty by saying it is something needed to preserve "social order". What Kant was saying was that a perfect duty was something that could be universally practiced without being self-defeating. For example murder is immoral because if everyone was to murder eventually there would be no one left to murder. If everyone was to steal eventually there would be no more private property to steal. Applying these to a government; however, is not Kant's intention. If every nation were to go to war eventually there will be no one left to go to war with. Does this mean Kant believed war was always immoral? Of course not. According to Oxford English dictionary moral means "concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society". Our society does not condemn all wars as immoral. The governments standards for morality are not the same as an individuals. Nevertheless, health care would still meet the standard of a perfect duty. Firstly health care is already being applied universally in the US and it has not resulted in a contradiction. The US giving everybody health insurance does not result in the US not being able to give everybody health insurance. Kant's philosophy is not determining what should or should not be law, But rather what is moral or immoral for an individual. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://plato.stanford.edu...) (http://poignantboy.wordpress.com...) Also note that one ethical philosophy is not the definitive standard in morality. Utilitarianism would encourage universal health care. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) Rebuttal of sub-point A This only applies if health care is truly an imperfect duty, con must prove that for this argument to be valid. I will refute it anyway for the sake of completeness. Health care is a basic service such as trash pick up or running water. No sane individual doesn't want health insurance. Many find it too expensive though; by pushing down the cost and mandating it we can ensure that no individual receives a death sentence when they are infected with a treatable disease. Syllogism: the first and second claims have been negated so the conclusion is meaningless Rebuttal of Nozick's entitlement theory: This argument's focus is on taxation itself being immoral. According to the previous definition of morality and the fact that this society does not see taxation itself as immoral negates the argument. Not only would abiding by this theory basically remove all government funding, it could also support vast inequality. Picture a society of 10 people and $100. Assume that each person has between five and $15. In this situation entitlement theory would be completely moral. What if one individual have $91 though, and everyone else only had one dollar each. Regardless of the fact that the wealthy man did not steal his money, the entitlement theory would be downright immoral to use here. The main points of the entitlement theory are 1. "Principle of justice and acquisition" – initial acquisition of property 2. "Principle of justice and transfer" – how goods are voluntarily exchanged 3. "Principle of rectification of injustice" – how to rectify injustices Now taxation would fall under the second category. The USA allows emigration. Therefore by living in the US people voluntarily subject themselves to taxation. There's nothing involuntary about this. The theory simply doesn't apply to taxation. Judges correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that the syllogism for this argument is actually a syllogism. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) Rebuttal of the abuse of the system argument Any and all abuses of the system are rare and isolated incidents. I've already proved that the universal health care system is cheaper. Any initial problems could be quickly addressed to ensure cheaper health care in the future. As for people's "tendency to abuse the system" this is a huge generalization. Not only is there no evidence to support this, but it assumes humans are naturally deceptive. This is an unsupported assertion. Judges correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that the Syllogism for this argument is actually a syllogism either. The link for the poor quality in England and Sweden of health care is broken for me. If this is not true and it's working for the judges let me know and I will address this argument in later rounds. Conclusion: I have successfully proved that from an economic and moral standpoint Universal Health care is necessary. Con's arguments come from two philosophies out of a huge number. Not only are the philosophies vastly misrepresented but I've refuted all of his arguments. The economic and abuse arguments are both unsupported and should not be taken seriously. In the end the resolution is upheld.