The UK is not a good place to live:

Please note that after my opponent posted the link to his doc he continued to edit. This is what I saw when I first clicked on the doc: https://docs.google.com... I will not be refuting anything other than what is presented on the first page because everything else that was added after this was done after he posted which is cheating. Pro may choose to make these arguments again when he posts his next round and I will respond to them then. But until then I will only refute what was provided after he posted. Human Rights My opponent argues that the US passed the same law but earlier to the UK. Firstly my opponent is wrong. The law that he references to that was passed in the US is a different law. Secondly, even if it was the same law it would be irrelevant. We are discussing whether the UK is a good place to live. Regardless of which country passed the law first is not relevant. They both ultimately have the same laws which are what we are discussing. We are discussing the present UK. Not the UK from the past. Despite the fact that it was irrelevant I’ll defend the issue since I have quite a few characters to spare. My opponent attempts to go back to ancestors of human rights in the US but by doing this he puts himself in a difficult situation because as many people are aware, The UK established its earliest form of human rights (the bill of rights) in 1689 whereas the US’ earliest form of human rights bill was set in 1864 (as my opponent states) - almost 200 years earlier than the US! [1][2] Taxation My opponent drops this point. They may choose to respond to this next round as there are no round rules. I assume that they were initially intending to finish this round off after they posted it but as I said at the beginning. Once they have posted they can’t continue to edit because this extends their allotted time to post. I extend this point. Healthcare I wasn’t using this as my only point. It was merely one of many points contributing to one conclusion - that the UK is a good place to live. My opponent drops the fact that I explained that free health care is good and important. Therefore it’s impact still stands. The only objection raised is that North Korea also has free health care. The problem with North Korea’s healthcare system is that whilst it is free there are other factors that make it bad. For example, North Korea doesn’t enforce human rights (like the UK does) and regarding health care, North Korea only spends 3% of its gross domestic income on health care which is considerably lower than with the UK [3]. The argument stands. How the UK compares Instead of critiquing my arguments Pro makes some of his own. It is true. The US has a formidable military. Nobody is denying that. What I’m denying here is how having a large military makes a place better to live. Until my opponent is able to prove the correlation between having a large military and a place being a good place to live then this argument bears no weight upon the resolution. Whilst the US does have a significantly higher GDP in comparison to the UK it is also important to note that the US has $19,200,000,000,000 ($19.2 trillion) of debt [5]. The UK is in £1 trillion in debt [6]. That means that the US has 1900% more debt than the UK does! My opponent tells me how good the US dollar is instead of actually critiquing the UK. Even if my opponent manages to prove that the US is preferable to the UK, that doesn’t mean that his burden is fulfilled. He must prove that it is a bad place to live. This is irrelevant for the simple fact that they are both, in essence, equal in value. To put this into an analogy: “A mile is 1.6 kilometers, but that doesn't mean that a mile is a better unit of measurement. Whether you ran 26 miles or 42 kilometers, you still ran the same marathon.” [7] My opponent makes the hyperbole that that the fact that 64% of the UK are very satisfied is irrelevant because 100% of the slaves said that they were satisfied. Firstly, this is not sourced and I very much doubt that 100% of the slaves stated that they were happy. Furthermore, many slaves were forced to say that they were satisfied. In the UK there is no evidence suggesting that this is the case. My opponent responds to my statistic stating that 47% of people in the UK trust the government with a quote. This is a massive appeal to authority. My opponent commits the logical fallacy of ad populum by thinking that because a famous person said something that makes it true. I provided a strong statistic with a strong source backing it up. My opponent has provided a quote with no explanation provided by himself. This argument has no weight. Everything else that my opponent states should not be considered as dropped due to the fact that they were added AFTER the doc was posted (the print screen provided in the first paragraph confirms this). The resolution is negated. Vote Con! Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.ourdocuments.gov... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk... [6] http://www.usdebtclock.org... [7] https://www.quora.com...