The UK is not a good place to live:

Thanks Harrytruman! Free Speech Rights such as the right to bear arms and the other that my opponent listed aren’t universal human rights. Free speech is in the universal declaration of human rights and is implemented by the United Kingdom. The rights according the US are not the same as rights as viewed by the world. The right to bear arms is not a universal right and is therefore unnecessary for a place like the UK to be considered a country that enforces human rights. Muckraking is allowed in the UK, so long as it doesn’t involve phone hacking or illegal spying / trespassing. My opponent’s only objection to UK free speech is flawed. Once again, I will restate this point, the UK does enforce free speech [1]. The Right to Bear Arms My opponent’s logic is baffling. Since the UK’s population is roughly 4 times smaller than the United States, the US should (logically) have 4 times as many homicides if the US was proportionally equal. There are 653 homicides per year in the UK (as my opponent states). He also stated that there are 12,250 homicides per year in the US. My opponent states that this is 4 times more than the UK. This is false. 653 multiplied by 4 is 2612. The US has 12,250 homicides yearly. This means that my opponent’s claim that the homicides per year comparison is only 4 times larger in the US. If we divide 12,250 by 653 we get approximately 18.759 (rounded). This means that the US experiences closer to 19 times more homicide than the US when in reality proportionally it should on be 4 times more. This is what is concerning. My opponent concedes the point and even assists me in providing statistics which he cannot dispute since he was the one that provided them. This means that the US has more homicides than the UK even proportionally. My opponent uses the examples of Czech Republic and Switzerland. What I find most problematic here is that my opponent isn’t look at deaths by gun per year. He analyzes homicides on a whole. If we look at gun deaths you’ll notice that there are significantly more deaths by guns in places like the US and Switzerland than there are in the UK and other countries with gun bans. [2] Other homicides are irrelevant to the contention since we are discussing the right to bear arms. The US has more homicides (as explained in the first paragraph) proportionally as well as in total than the UK and also the UK has significantly less deaths by gun than the US does even if you look at the issue proportionally. As you’ll also notice, Switzerland and Czech Republic are also above us on that list negating my opponent’s other arguments. My opponent also jumps massively to conclusions. He notices that Switzerland has the right to bear arms. It also has less homicides so he assumes that the right to bear arms is decreasing the homicides. This is not necessarily true. Unless my opponent can prove that the reason that there are less homicides is because Switzerland have the right to bear arms then my opponent’s contention here bears no weight. Human Rights My opponent’s complain here is largely irrelevant and he lies that I never addressed it since I did. I’ll reiterate the exact same point that I made last round. The bill of rights was the very first document regarding rights established in the UK. It was established in the 1600s and should not be expected to coincide exactly with my opponent’s moral standards. The point that I was responding to was whether or not the US set up human rights first or the UK did. My point here is made and my opponent does not refute its intention. He simply says that it doesn’t count because he doesn’t think that the rules are good enough in his own subjective opinion which should be discounted as irrelevant since it still enforces rights which is what my point was. Furthermore, this contention is rather irrelevant considering that both the UK and US, in the present, enforce human rights to a reasonable degree. Health Care I was referencing to surface area not people. This is because not only do we have to consider this issue per person but we also need to consider this in regards to the amount of hospitals built. If the US is 40 times larger (as I stated before) then they are going to need to pay for 40 times as many hospitals and 40 times as many doctors, etc. I extend the point. Military Spending I’m talking about the military in the present not the past. My opponent references to points in time where the military has been beneficial. This is no longer the case. When the US are spending $600 - $800 billion [3] annually on the military there is virtually no profit made. My opponent, in order to prove that the military is good for the economy, must show that the military pays off the money spent on it. ISIS is being combated by the War on Terror, the police force (on a localized level) and the fact that the US is in possession of nuclear weapons. The military is perfectly capable without so much unnecessary money is being spent on it. The North Korean dictator is doing virtually nothing that requires the US military's involvement at the moment. Putin isn’t doing much either. Trump may soon be in charge of the US, why would the US military turn on their own president? My opponent needs to expand on these points for them to be even be considered by voters. Contentment in the UK My opponent’s quote (which he doesn’t correctly source) never mentions that 100% of slaves said they were happy. Douglass would have had to have seen every single slave and questioned them in order to know that. In addition to this, the slaves and the people living in the United Kingdom are **massively** different. The slaves were forced to or were being misinterpreted. In the United Kingdom there is virtually no evidence suggesting that we are being forced to say that it is a great place to live in. My opponent still doesn’t notice his logical fallacies that I’ve repeated many times. My opponent once again states that because some famous people have said that the government can’t be trusted this must mean that it’s true. This is an ad populum fallacy as I have repeatedly noted and my opponent continuously fails to address. What makes the fact that people are famous any more credible than a clever person who isn’t famous. I provided statistics saying that lots of people put their entire trust into the government. Calling them wrong because some famous people believed that is ridiculous, especially to combat solid statistics. UK Politics There are many people in the United Kingdom that would make the same point in response to the US. A lot of people in the UK will not have heard of Lyndon B Johnson or other presidents that you may find notable. In the UK everybody’s heard of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, etc. In the UK they’d say exactly the same thing in regards to the US. The only reason that the US landed man on the moon is because of a ridiculous race with Russia in which the US spent masses of money trying to rush to space just to beat Russia. Meanwhile, the UK was drastically improving it’s society and using it’s money much more wisely. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.cfr.org...