Access to and the distribution of health related services ought to be handled by the free market.

I've made my case. My opponent is ignoring my sources. He responded directly to the graph that cites WHO/CIA/CDC stats under it in fairly large white letters. My opponent's arguments, Even if they were all true do little to prove his point. He denies externalities exist, He refuses to engage with a comparison of the free market system versus single payer healthcare. He accuses me of lies which is patently untrue. He nitpicks slight re-wordings that are of no consequence. He states I do not explain or support my positions. This is a statement you can only make if you critically misunderstand the English language or are intellectually dishonest. He ignores the claims I have cited sources on, Or ignores the legitimacy of said sources in favor of attacking the few I haven't cited sources on. I'm unsure why I should cite a hundred sources to prove each and every sentence when my opponent is incapable of engaging with any of my metrics or sources or weighing them against his system. He even fails to cite fallacies appropriately. It is not an 'argument from authority' fallacy to cite authorities we both agree are authorities. If he thinks the WHO/CDC/CIA are not authorities then I submit that no one is. I did indeed question his motive. This however was not done to win the argument. I simply don't understand why you would spend time debating on the internet without caring about truth. He does naught but to distract from the reality that his position is lost. This debate is an "ought" statement. This implies morality. I have shown that both morally and economically single payer is by far the best way to go. Contrary to what my opponent says, He has cited no real metric. He has no way to measure the two systems against each other. All he claims is that his would save money. He arbitrarily says "the market is better" with no justification. He would leave drug information to a system of amazon reviews. We all know companies pay for good reviews. We all know companies give false reviews themselves. He suggests that it business owners will still create drugs in a market in which their research monies cannot be recouped and they are in an instant competition with all generic producers. My opponent initially blamed the AMA entirely for a doctor shortage it is not responsible of, And cites my source that shows the AMA controls 4 of 29 seats in a multi-institutional board. My opponent is sadly mistaken on economics, And has not even an inch of room to stand on moral arguments. His position is ill informed at best, And disingenuous at worst. I don't debate to "win" internet points. I debate to find the truth. I searched for points of my opponent's and gave suggestions to each of the problems he cites. There are solutions that can be implemented without taking a poorly thought out position that desires to burn it all to the ground in the name of naught but a ill informed conception that the free market is always what is 'best. ' All while failing to give a single metric by which to compare the two systems directly after being asked each and every round and multiple times in the comments. If you find his position convincing that is fine. If you think his position is correct that is fine. I would be shocked to find anyone thinks he defended his side well here. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht