Universal health care should be supported

Note: Observations from R1 will be called OB (1,2,3,4), the Value Criterion will be VC, Value will be V, and the contention will be C1. Line-By-Line, summarization. CON's entire case is based off of the definition of "should". Let's start off by looking at his claim, where he says "I agree with UHC, however your definition of should is based off of your own opinion". He then proceeds to give us the definitions of should, and chooses "Definition #3", which he says "has nothing to do with morality". He finishes it off by saying "On dictionary.com it is said that must is a synonym to should. Here is the definition of must[:] to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement." I shall now prove to you as to how "should" has everything to do with morality. I'll agree with his definition of should, which is "must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)". He gives you the definition of must. I give you the definition of ought. 1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help. Ding! Should has everything to do with morality, because "must" says 'obliged our bound to by an imperative requirement', in which the second part of the definition of the world should says 'used to express duty or moral obligation'. Therefore the resolution links to morality, please extend my Value and Value Criterion. But before we continue with my case, let's finish off with his. "You say in your 4th argument that support does not mean we have to do anything. Here is the definition for support: to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence" - First of all, he's using definition 5. Although I agree that legs support a bench, I don't think that is the appropriate definition for this resolution. For reasons as to why my definition of support ("we should believe in the idea") is true, extend/refer to my R1's OB4. "The United States doesn't even have Healthcare for many of its people so extending it to the world be useless." - Extend and apply OB1. "You say that UHC encourages the concept of helping others, but we must help ourselves first. In status quo we ourselves do not have full health care, so why worry about the rest of the world?" - Extend and apply OB2. Extend case. SUMMARY: My opponent came up in his R1 with 2 main things: New definitions, an argument about how we cannot support ourselves. Definitions had 2 parts: "should", which I have proven to be linked to morality (definition of ought), and "support", which I had pre-empted in R1 (OB4). The second argument asks about how we can support the whole world with HC if we cannot even supply America with it. This was taken out near the beginning of my R1 (OB1,OB2). Even if I give him that, however, he made no other attacks against me Value of Morality and Value Criterion of Benevolence, which is all I need to show that my case links to the resolution. My argument as the PRO is that Universal Health Care should be supported because it encourages helping others. Helping others is benevolence, and benevolence links to morality because the only time when morality weighs an action is when the action affects another person or other people. Since the resolution says nothing about implementation (OB3), then benevolence is all that is needed in order to support the idea. The topic asks us "should we or should we not believe in the idea of universal health care"(OB4), and I have proven in my case (C1,VC,V) that we should indeed support UHC.