Universal health care should be supported

Line-by-line, summary. "So how are you going to hold up an idea without giving money or physically getting up off of your butt? " - You hold up an idea as long as you believe in it. (OB4, R1) > None of his links to that argument matter because we're not talking about implementation. "So unless YOU actually do something YOU do NOT support the resolution. " - This is based off of his definition, which has no warrant to be the one linked to the resolution. > Since my definition of support (participate in, believe in) has a warrant, you don't look to his. "So in reality in order to agree with the resolution, you must get in there and do something, not just think that it is moral and right. Your thoughts do not help the idea become reality. " - Where's the warrant for this? > We aren't talking about something becoming reality. "If implentation is not a part of this debate then why debate? " - Because we want the $100. - Because it's fun. > Because I said so in OB3 R1 and you didn't say why it's wrong. "There is no reason to argue this point if it's not going to happen. " - Why must there be a reason for everything? - We do things like this (. http://www.debate.org...), this (. http://www.debate.org...) and this (. http://www.debate.org...), they're certainly not going to happen, but they happen anyways. We want to do it, so we do it. That's the mechanism of humanity. - Therefore, extend OB4. "So to go back to morality, it is your duty to provide the world with health care. So take the money out of your pocket and make it happen and I'll be all for it, but to use MY tax dollars to pay for it is unacceptable. The United States is in over 9 trillion dollars in debt with limited health care for its citizens. To go back to my first round, we must help ourselves first. We do not have the resources to do so. " - Extend OB1. It is not specific to US providing or China providing or anyone. - Extend OB2. It is not specific to any time. We are not talking about specifically right now. - Extend OB3. Whoever said UHC was going to be paid for by tax dollars? SUMMARY: The biggest conflict in this debate is whether or not we're talking about a UHC's implementation. His only response to it last round was that "If we weren't talking about the implementation of UHC, things would be pointless". Well first he never provided a warrant as to why everything needs to have a point, second he never gave an impact to that point, and finally, even if we need to have a point for everything, you can clean drop that argument because I give you a reason for why this debate is happening without the implementation section: Because we feel like it. Or rather, because I feel like it, since he doesn't agree. But since he gives no other reason as to why you as the judge ought to reject my interpretation of the resolution, my observations on the resolution stands. Even if he gets past that, he then hits my OB1 and OB2: He keeps saying over and over again how it's bad for me to use his tax dollars and how America is in a 9 trillion dollar debt, but none of that really matters, since the resolution doesn't specify that only the US or even any of the US is going to be funding the UHC, and it also doesn't specify that we are talking about funding a UHC at the present date. Both these observations just go back to prove my OB3, which says that we can't talk about implementation because then we wouldn't be talking about UHC as a whole and therefore our discussion would be nontopical. But let's assume he breaks that as well; the definition of support is our next site. He says in his previous round that in order to support an idea, you need to either "giv[e] money" or "physically get up off of your butt". But this argument, originally placed to attack my OB4, never refutes the warrants of OB4. The observation proves why you don't need to do anything other than believe in order to support an idea. And then there's my case, which he doesn't touch. It says that supporting a UHC encourages the idea of helping others. Helping others is benevolent, which is the only value criterion in this round for the value of morality, and since he's agreed that the resolution talks about morality - he argued in R1 that the resolution wasn't talking about morality when he defined should, but I proved in R2 why should meant moral obligation, and he dropped it - and because the resolution doesn't talk about implementation in any way, all I need to do is reach the value of morality. I have done that. Four layers. 1) He doesn't get past OB3, 2) he doesn't get past OB1 or OB2 (which together are another reason why OB3 stands), 3) he doesn't get past OB4, and 4) he has never responded to my case, which shows that we should support a universal healthcare because it's moral. Since the resolution reads "Universal health care should be supported" and that's what my case shows, I win the debate.