The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

This round will be used for conclusions and responses to my opponents final round.My opponent, in order to win, must demonstrate that the USG ought to provide Universal healthcare for its citizens. Hence, my opponent has the full burden of proof. All I was required to do was negate the resolution. I did so primarily contesting the use of "ought" in the resolution. Please note that this was not abusive semantics; my opponent fully recognized the moral requisites of upholding her burden of proof. I also provided a limited a response to the contentions my opponent made without going into too much detail because her contentions were totally irrelevent until she had demonstrated that anyone ought to do anything.Sadly my opponent has shown an incredibly weak offering, not only in this regard but also in what she had presumed where her primary contentions.I will not pretend to be too disappointed. I was challenged by an individual on a topic I care little for, however, despite these low expectations, my opponent was not able to offer the barest entertainment.First I will deal with the preamble, then her "contentions" and then finish by going over each voting catagory.She first claims that she had asked for it to be an LD-debate prior to my posting of a round. This is self-evidently false as the comment below it refers to her round 2, so it was clearly after my first round. I can't really find any other explanation for this other than willful deception. This should cost her the conduct points.I would then state that I am not required to make a case, only defeat yours. You took on the full burden of proof.My opponent, in a highly confused spiel about supporting moral obligation by supporting morality (I found this particularly amusing), still fails to make a philosophical argument as to why any body ought to do anything. Using various reasons as "making people live longer" or helping the poor do not constitute a moral philosophy. They are claims which already presume a moral philosophy.Her entire case on morality is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.She then claims I concede her debate. Seriously? What the hell?She then asserts that this appeal to emotion is a reason for why the USG ought to provide healthcare. Archangel, you weren't hugely clear, but you were understandable. This works against you however, because you're total lack of an argument for morality existing is apparent. You came close when you touched on the good of society, but sadly you lacked the necessary argument to back it up.=(Then she makes another false claim. I gave the straightest answer possible to her first question; Moral neutrality. She then makes the bear assertion that my answer is wrong, with no reasoning to back it up. Saying society will be healthier does not constitute a moral argument.As for the second question, no I did not make any suggestion that more doctors is necessary better. Constant obvious miscontruals of my fairly clear case is highly irritating. 1.Failed to make an argument. Doesn't support resolution without proving morality.2.Yes. I agree the free-market is not anti-capitalist. However, what you are suggesting is! State healthcare is by its definition anti-capitalist. Do you even know what the words you are using mean? 3. Does not justify dichotomy between needs and wants and does not support any reason to believe healthcare is one not the other. Furthermore, no demonstration of the right to life at the expense of another is shown.I will admit my responses to her "contentions" are short. However, the primary issue with her case, and the main reason why I refused to engage meaningfully on that side of the debate is because it illustrates a weak showing which can be refuted in less than three lines of argument. So in summary; Pro has failed to meet her Burden of proof in every conceivable way. She has not demonstrated that anyone ought to do anything, she has not proven that healthcare is a moral issue and she has not even demonstrated that UHC is a desirable institution.Arguments: She had full BoP. Failed to meet. 3 points to moiConduct: Before this round, I would have understood if you had given them to her, as though I made my intentions very clear, I still did change the direction of the debate. However, her willful dishonesty regarding my case and attempt to change the rules post-framework should tip the balance in my favour here.Sources: No points. Her sources were decent, but irrelevent as they did not support her case without an argument for morality.S/G: Neither parties were horrendous.In conclusion to the debate: never challenge a lazy man without a good response to a lazy argument.