The UK is not a good place to live:

I gave my opponent ample time to expand upon his R1 arguments (which he said he would). So now I will refute them. Round 1 Rebuttal The UK does have freedom of speech. As I said previously, human rights are enforced in the United Kingdom. My opponent has objected to stating that they were enforced earlier in the US however that’s nonsensical since we are referencing to the United Kingdom and the United States in the present not the past. My opponent has already conceded in the debate that the human rights are currently enforced in the UK so this contention is already negated given that human rights include freedom of speech [1]. My opponent states that we don’t have the rights to bear arms. This is correct however this is benefits us. Since this contention isn’t explained it bares no impact anyway, however guns kill many thousands of people yearly. In the US you are 3250% (approximately) more likely to be killed by a gun than in the UK [2]. Which makes the UK a significantly better place to live in than the US as the chances of being killed by a gun are extremely low. The UK is not communist as my opponent states [3]. People make different wages based off of the jobs that they do and they also must buy their food and their properties. Some people are rich and some people are poor. This is impossible in a true communist country [4]. Human Rights My opponent misses the point of my objection. It doesn’t matter who enforced rights first. It matter about the present day and what the rights current are. My opponent states that because the bill of rights from the 17th century seems outdated it doesn’t count as the first step towards rights. My opponent states that “it doesn’t count” because it was before the US existed. This is not technically true because the US still “existed” however I understand what my opponent means by this claim. My opponent’s logic is nonsensical. If the UK enforced human rights (as they are today) in the 17th century would my opponent say that it doesn’t count because the US didn’t exist? If he did then the claim would be considered as absurd since it obvious that it was enforced in the UK first. The same applies here. We are looking at who formed the first official set of rights - the UK or the US. The UK clearly does. If my opponent, subjectively, disagrees with what it says that doesn’t mean that it can be deemed invalid because it is hypocritical for one person’s disagreement to invalidate an entire rights document as being considered meaningless and irrelevant. Taxation As I stated previously, which my opponent drops, we do not pay unreasonable taxation. He states that we pay 95% of our taxes to the feds. The BBC reports that just under 25% of our taxes go to police force and social protection [5]. My opponent provides no source for this claim either so this contention should automatically go in my favor. Health Care My opponent does something incredibly confusing and unnecessary here. He states how much the UK spends on health care in Euros and US dollars. The one currency that matters (Pound sterling), was ignored. The US is 40 times larger than the UK in size [6]. This means that logically the UK should be spending 40 times less money than the US in order to be spending the equivalent amount per person. The UK spend just under 10 times less than the US does (according to my opponent’s statistics). This means that if the US and the UK were proportionally scaled up in so that they were equal in size. This means that the UK would spend 400% more money on healthcare than the US does (because it spend 4 times more than it should if it were proportional to the uk, which is demonstrated by it being 10 times smaller as opposed to 40 times, this means that it is 4 times larger which is the amount of that the US spends {100%} multiplied by 4 to make 400%). How the UK Compares Extend all the statistics that my opponent drops that I provided in my initial arguments. Please bare in mind that my opponent has NO sources so this automatically completely removes virtually all credibility from my opponent’s statistics and claims that require sources. My opponent begins by claiming that the military is good for the economy. This is untrue. Masses of money is spent on the military whilst people live in poverty, education gets worse, job standards get worse, etc.. It does present more jobs however the UK spends it’s money on creating more jobs in places other than the military. This means that people still get the jobs, the work force still benefits and the economy is boosted (unlike with the military, more specifically the US military). [7] In the past the military has been a good thing (ie. world war 1 and 2) however it is unnecessary now - yes some military is needed, no such a large amount of money isn’t necessary to be spent on the military. Furthermore, this objection is off topic. The military doesn’t change whether or not the UK is better or worse to live in than the US. Given that there is no major threat of war upon us there is no reason as to why a military with such a high quantity of money is necessary. Obama did NOTHING like what the UK has. Just because he tried to implement policies that are sometimes affiliated with socialism, doesn’t mean that you should automatically assume that he is implement comparable policies to the UK. It is made obvious that the UK’s policies are not the causes of debt due to the fact that the UK is in significantly less debt than the US is. As I stated in the previous round (which my opponent drops), the US debt is 1900% larger than the debt of the UK [8][9]. My opponent still provides no source suggesting that 100% of the slaves were happy. This is still bare assertion and I cannot refute a point of this nature without sources from my opponent. Extend my point regarding my objection to my opponent’s quote. Originally my opponent provides a quote stating that the government cannot be trusted. I pointed out that this was an appeal to authority because you haven’t actually explained anything yourself. Merely quoted somebody and assumed that they are correct. My opponent drops the point and says that I still haven’t questioned it which is incorrect. UK Politics My opponent finally makes the irrelevant contention that British monarchs aren’t notable. This is highly subjective and irrelevant to the resolution. This debate is whether the UK is a good place to live. Does the fact that it doesn’t have many notable monarchs make it a worse place to live? Certainly not, and if my opponent wishes to raise this objection then I suggest that he explains it further because at the moment it has no clear impact on the resolution. I can name plenty of notable things that virtually all British monarchs have done off of the top of my head and many others can. Just because my opponent doesn’t know much about many of the British monarchs, doesn’t mean that his opinion is an accurate representation of the entirety of the world’s view. The resolution is unquestionably negated. Vote Con! Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.undertheraedar.com... [7] http://www.ncronline.org... [8] http://www.usdebtclock.org... [9] http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk...