10. While under moral conflict, increasing benefits ought to be preferred to decreasing costs.

We cannot accept the resolution as truth unless PRO proves that it is true with facts and examples. If I can counter his examples, or show how his facts do not hold any weight in comparison to mine, you must vote CON. I will agree with PRO's definitions, so let us proceed to the actual debate. Good luck!!! I. PRO's first contention claims that increasing benefits helps more people directly than decreasing costs. That is simply not always the case. To counter PRO's example, I will provide one of my own. Say a cable company offers 500 premium channels a month for $100. This company has the option of increasing that amount to 600 channels a month, however, it would result in a $20 cost increase making the total come out to 600 channels for $120 (instead of 500 channels for $100). Now in increasing the benefits (more channels) and the cost, equal or LESS people (who cannot afford that $20 increase in their budget) will be able to enjoy the premium cable channels. However if we kept the SAME benefits but decreased the cost to $80/month, MORE people will be able to enjoy the same 500 premium channels. Now Pro has pointed out that we must be careful to decide which is more MORALLY favorable in a given situation, instead of just more lucrative. Clearly from this example, it is morally preferable to keep the benefits the same and reduce the cost, instead of increasing the benefits and the price. By increasing the benefits and the price, less people would be able to enjoy the premium cable channels, but by decreasing the price, more people would be able to reap these benefits. Thus it is morally favorable to decrease costs instead of increase benefits. I have a feeling that people will still get by just fine with 500 channels to choose from instead of 600. Also at this time I would like to address a problem with my opponent's previous example in reference to contention 1. He mentioned a situation in which a blind man was lying unconscious in the middle of the street and needed help. He recognized it was more favorable (morally sound) for one to move this man in need themself instead of calling 911 and waiting for help. I agree with this logic. However this logic would favor my side of the resolution, not PROs. You see by me helping to move the guy instead of waiting for an ambulence, the blind man is reaping the benefits of my immediate action for FREE. But if we were to reap the increased benefits of trained medical personnel, that would cost either the man, his insurance company of the govt some money. Thus in this example, it is not only more logical but also more moral AND less expensive for me to just help the blind man instead of calling for help (increased benefits for a higher cost). II. So in my opponent's second contention, that not everything is cause and effect, PRO notes that just because benefits are increased, prices do not have to go up. This is true. However by this SAME logic, just because prices are decreased, does not mean that benefits have to go down. Therefore again my position in this debate is morally preferable. On one hand, people can receive the SAME benefits for a lower price (meaning more people get to reap the rewards). On the other hand, one can receive HIGHER benefits, but even if the price remains the same, not as many people get to enjoy those benefits- only the same people who enjoyed the original benefits. But why should benefits be excluded only to the wealthy? What about the lower and MIDDLE class, who make up a majority of the population? III. My opponent's third contention is that benefits help society as a whole. I disagree, and feel that benefits only help the PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD THEM. His example of a university deciding whether to let in more or less students does not really make any sense. By his logic, if the university cuts costs on tuition, more people will be able to get in. That logic is flawed. First of all, a college can still make a profit by lowering tuition if enough people attend the school. Think of it this way: If college costs $100 per semester and 10 people attend, or if they lower their costs to $80 per semester and 13 people attend, the college actually makes MORE money had only 10 students attended. Except in this example, MORE people are able to attend college for LESS money, and the school's revenue and profit STILL increases! My example would be better for society (and more moral) all around: it would allow more students to earn degrees for a lower price, and for the school to earn even MORE money for new technology then it would had it been very exclusive and expensive admission. The school could also invest some of this profit on expansion... just a thought. IV. Next my opponent introduces healthcare into the mix by pointing out that China spends less money than the United States on healthcare per capita, yet ranks 144 in terms of the best/worst healthcare policies while the U.S. ranks as the 39th. This logic and this example does NOT help my opponent's argument. Why? Because France, which is ranked #1 in terms of health care, ALSO spends less money than the United States per capita by about $2,000 (http://www.kff.org...). So all this means is that it's possible to have more benefits with lower costs, and it's a first hand and very relevent example that proves just because you lower costs, it does not lower benefits or even keep benefits the same. In this case, and many others, lowering costs actually increases benefits! And finally the same logic that can be applied to the university can be applies to my opponent's example about a nursing home. If you allow 5 people into the nursing home and charge $20 per patient, that's $100 to spend on workers. If you charge $15 per patient and let 10 people in, that's $150 to spend on workers... meaning you can hire more workers to make up for the 5 extra people, meaning more people reap the benefits of being in the nursing home and nobody suffers! The amount of workers to the amount of patients is equal, and thus more people are helped while nobody is harmed. So for all of these reasons and rebuttals, a CON vote is so far in order.