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

First I'd like to point out that there is little to no offense on my opponent's side. Although she can win this way, if I prove one contention true, there is reason enough to affirm. With that said, let's look at the arguments made in the last round. CONTENTION I: First, the cable example is flawed. For starters, the people that are buying the cable are paying FOR CABLE. More channels will always be a plus, because that's what they want out of a cable company: a good experience. Furthermore, people that are paying $100 for TV are well enough off to afford $20 a month. Otherwise, if they could not afford that, they would not be paying $100 for TV, and they would go back to the bunny ears. Also, we don't know what these channels are. We all know about the DTV transition. This extra $20 could be going to make more channels in HD for an easier transition or simply better viewing pleasure, which is the point of watching TV. They could also be in a sports package for a sports fan, an HBO package for a movie-watcher; the list goes on. Finally, this ties into my other example. Let's just say, some people MAY not be able to pay for it. How much would that be? Maybe 10%? Let's take 100 people: Company currently receives $10,000/month. -10 people without extra price= $9,000/month Add in extra $20 per person= $10,800/month. See, everyone's happy. Company makes more, people get more channels. And 10% is being pretty liberal. Next, CON makes a general statement, using the example, that cost is preferable. But, as I said, people are looking for a TV experience when they pay for a cable provider. Thus, it is better that the cable provider give the best experience possible, while keeping the price within reason. The people that can pay for the cable get a great experience, and the company fulfilled its moral goal. My opponent then tries to steal my example about a blind man and the ambulance. Her logic is just plain wrong. Calling 9-1-1 would be like cutting costs because it creates a middle man. Cutting costs doesn't help anyone directly- it only allows more people to have the proverbial service. Like I said, while cutting costs could maybe help someone way down the road, just like calling 9-1-1 could help someone down the road, it does not provide the assistance (benefits) that that blind man needs. There is also something misunderstood by my opponent. This did not compare the prices- for say, the medical personnel- it compared the direct-indirect relationship between the two: something that benefits clearly win. I was merely pointing out cutting costs' ineffectiveness because of its indirection. My opponent drops the argument about the problems with indirection. CONTENTION II: My opponent says my logic can be applied to her case. This is untrue, however. First she states that people can have the same benefits for a lower price. I fail to see any example of where this could be true. All I must say is, ‘no it can't,' and this argument is a wash, as CON presented no argument why. Next she states this: "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." Assuming I know what CON is even talking about, I have yet to see why those people cannot receive the extra benefits. As she said, the price is the same. Thus, I see no logical reason why the extra benefits are limited to those whom have the original benefits. Finally, as I said in R1, lowering costs would bring in less money, since there is being less money being put into the company. It would reduce overall production, and said company would be working worse. Then they would not be able to provide any benefits at all, becoming morally wrong. JUST TO CLARIFY: my opponent agrees that raising benefits does not always lower costs. If I disprove that cutting costs does not lower benefits, I win this argument and the debate. CONTENTION III: My opponent argues that benefits only help the people that get those benefits. Then she argues about how my logic is wrong. However, there is one fatal flaw: I was not arguing my example from an educational nor a personal point of view, I was arguing from a societal point of view. To clarify, like I said in R1, if there hadn't been the Homebrew Computer Club, Steve Jobs would've never met Steve Wozniak, there would've never been the game Breakout, and Apple would've never been created. Likewise, if the University of Southern Mississippi did not have a football team, we wouldn't know the name Brett Favre. I was not arguing from Brett Favre's nor USM's financial point of view, I was arguing from society as a whole's point of view. Again, benefits are preferable because they help society more. While allowing more people into colleges would be great, allowing great students to succeed would be better. That way, those ‘A+' students can go onto do great things and improve life for society's people. CONTENTION IV: My opponent mentions France's health-care system. I am actually glad she did that. Why? France has benefits like you wouldn't believe. If you've seen Michael Moore's Sicko, you would know what they do. They allow mothers to take off a year of work after a baby is born, they allow for a government-hired nanny to come do your laundry and tend your children, and they allow you to pick any doctor you wish. It is simply riddled with benefits- China is not. That is why they are 144th. But, that is not to say it does not come at a price. The French are RIDDLED with taxes. According to (http://www.france-property-and-information.com...), they have more than 8 types of taxes. They even have a taxes on garbage and television. According to MSN (http://moneycentral.msn.com...), the tax burden in France is 50.1% for a single person, 41.9% for a married person with two kids. In the US, the numbers are 29.1% and 11.9%, respectively. It doesn't cost less- you pay it a different way. Going back to China, the reason they do so poorly in health care is that they pay too much for health care without increasing benefits. As I have said, if China were to get better doctors, newer technologies, and more house nannies, they would start seeing their people live longer, healthier lives. Lastly, let's look at what my opponent said: "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!" Woah, woah, woah… If you're going to .25 reduce the price, you must .25 reduce the people. Then, 5 * 20 = $100, 15 * 7.5 = 112.5. Doesn't seem that drastic now, does it? I don't know anyone that wants to work on a salary of $12!!! But that doesn't even matter. If you took those benefits away from somebody, they may not be able to get the medicine they need. Furthermore, those people could die, or at least live worse lives, than if they had those programs. Thus, you would not be helping anyone- more people would actually die. Thank you, I await my opponent's R2 rebuttal.