Christianity supports the health care bill

Since I have only 8,000 characters to write I will try to hit a few major points and summarize. Opponents Claims of round 4 - 1. Con says: "My opponent claims that to be poor means to be less fortunate than the rich. However, to be rich would have to mean to be more fortunate than the poor" Then states an example. Response: Your statement and example is so flawed. A.) The second sentence is essentially a restatement of sentence 1 except opposite and your example made no sense. 2a. "My opponent gives an example of beneficial government subsidization: scholarships. However, health care is not scholarships." Response: Never claimed health care was a scholarship. I claimed that a government scholarship is an example of a government subsidy. I showed an example how this claim is not true using the government subsidy also called a scholarship. 2b. "Scholarships are rewarded based on hard work and effort;" Response: A.) This is not true for all scholarships. A requirement for most scholarships is not being able to afford the tuition for schools. I have been denied plenty of scholarships because I made two much money. B.) Irrelevant to my contentions. 2c. "If my opponent believes that the logic that makes scholarships beneficial can be extended to health care, why not use health care as the example itself? Response: I will answer your question. Thanks for the set up! A.) The government pays a subsidy for those who can't afford health care (the poor). They get treated and get better. They rejoin the work force and benefit all society. 2d. "if the health care plan hurts the poor, then there's no way Jesus would ever support it." My Response: A.) You haven't ever showed how the health care plan hurts the poor. B) This is a new argument. C.)Where is your support. 3. "Jesus may have told people to pay their taxes; however, that doesn't men that he would support Caesar hiking the tax rate up. A man who believes that people should pay taxes does not by extension believe that government may do whatever it likes." My Response: A.) You already claimed that Jesus would have to force them. Now all of a sudden you agree that he does support people paying taxes. B.) Then you add a new claim and argument about Caesar raising taxes. C.) It is evident that you have not read the Bible or you would know that it tells believers that we must submit to the authorities that government. (Romans 13:1) Jesus submitted to the Roman Government as they crucified him on the cross. Therefore he would submit to the authority of the government whether it meant raising taxes or not. 3b. "If my opponent wishes to point to USA … …The Constitution [1] authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce, such as health care. Would Jesus really support a government breaking its own laws?" My Response: A.) By pointing out that the USA was on the dollar I was simply making an analogy of what Christ said in the Bible. Not my own argument. B.)You claim that the government should uphold its end of the bargain by following the constitution is a.) irrelevant to the contentions I have provided. b.) Doesn't the government have the right to make laws? The health care bill is a law. The supreme court, since they have not ruled against it would seem to show that the Bill is constitutional. It seems the government disagrees with you. 4. "My opponent agrees that Jesus does not force anybody to do anything. However, I ask again, if Jesus didn't support Himself forcing other people into doing things, why would He support a fallible, corruptable, mismanaged government to do it instead?" Response: A) You are very tricky… you didn't "agree" with me that Jesus does not force anybody to do anything. You disagreed in round three. You actually said "if He were in support of forcing people to pay taxes to support the bill, he would have forced people to do so Himself. He is, after all, omnipotent." B) In the second sentence of your claim above you say "I ask again"? You never asked a first time. C.) He can support the Health Care Plan without supporting the government. 6. "I already saw where the source claims that the poor will get health care. However, as I already stated, it doesn't say HOW." My Response: It is unfortunate that my link did not work. So here is how. READ THE HEALTH CARE PLAN! I am not going to do your homework for you. The Bill clearly lays out how the bill will help the poor. Since you are in this debate I assume you know at least briefly what it says. Summary: Con says: 1. I have explained why subsidizing the poor hurts everybody overall. My opponent claims that the bill helps the poor, but is rather vague in doing so, leaving no real clarity for anybody to support. My Response: I have debated this head on. Vague? I provided a source that stated the Bill helps the poor. I have evidence in the form of an article. I even quoted it in my argument. It is a fact! How is that vague? I asked you to show how it doesn't help the poor which you failed to do. Now you set here and act like you responded to my challenge. 2. My opponent said nothing against my explanation as to why the bill requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions will lead to America's collapse. It should not be considered dropped until he puts forward an actual argument against it. My Response: A.) I have already debated this in round 3 and I quote "we are not debating whether or not preexisting conditions are treated. Your conclusions are not supported by your cited source you used. Again if I am wrong then please indicate where your conclusions are supported by the source." You still haven't provided sources to back up your conclusions. You did not respond to this in round 3. It is therefore dropped. If you can't even look back in the debate and see that I have already debated this subject then you are either very forgetful or trying intentionally to say something that is not true. B.) You also never made the claim that "pre-existing conditions would lead to America's collapse." This is again a new argument. 3. "I do believe that this response covers Point 2 as well." I used one argument that I believed covered both points. My Response: You need to explain how you have covered this point. It is never enough to use a blanket statement to argue a point without explanation. Point two is completely different. You are either lazy or do not have the evidence. In your own words you need to show "HOW". This is very elusive not at all adequate for debate. 4. While the Bible clearly supports voluntary charity to the poor, nothing in it suggests that Jesus would force people to redistribute their own wealth. My Response: Again, this is irrelevant. Jesus doesn't have to force anybody to do anything in order to be in support of the health care. Secondly, The Bible clearly supports distribution of wealth. Followers of Christ are not forced to give to the needy (distribute wealth) they do it because they follow Christ. I have already provided Bible verses to support this in round 3, but here they are again. Acts 2:45. In summary, I have contested claim by claim of my opponent. My opponent has dropped arguments and given little support for his claims. He has tried to focus on definitions to draw attention away from the debate. He has showed little knowledge about being who the character of Jesus and what the Bible represents. Though accepting the debate was the presupposition that he is a Christian. Shows little knowledge of basic components of the health care bill by continually asking "How" the bill will help the poor when the Bill itself lays out the plan. Thank you my opponent for this debate. Please note that any aggressive tone toward my opponent is not meant to be personal. I am sure my opponent is a fine person and of great character.