The UK is not a good place to live:

Free speech My opponent is shifting the goalposts here. He changes his original argument from muckraking being illegal to muckraking being culturally unacceptable. He concedes that it is legal in the UK and merely states that it is culturally unacceptable. He provides no evidence for this. As somebody that live in the UK I know that it is legal and that it is culturally considered acceptable. The Right To Bear Arms So my opponent ultimately concedes that proportionally speaking, the US has more homicides. If they had the same population and you kept everything decreasing at the same rates then the US would still have more homicides - 4 times as many to be precise. My opponent misunderstands my homicide argument. This is the argument that I presented last round: P1: There are more gun related homicides in the US than in the UK. P2: My opponent concedes that less guns = less homicides by guns. C1: If a gun ban reduces gun homicides then no guns will mean that gun related homicides will be deducted from the total homicide count, ultimately meaning that gun homicides will increase. My opponent merely concedes to this logic, he doesn't refute it. My opponent fails to note that the whilst Israel does have quite a low homicide rate and they do have the right to bear arms it is crucial to note that other countries with a gun are lower. Japan, South Korea and Iceland all have gun bans and the homicide by guns are the lowest 3 in the world. The difference between my claim (that guns cause increased homicides). And my opponent’s claim is that my claim is sourced - my opponent’s is not. Whilst I am on the point it is crucial to note that my opponent provides very few sources in this debate. His first round had none. His second round had none. His third round had none. Whilst I am continuing this debate it is crucial to note that this debate is a clear victory for me as I am the only one with strong contentions to support my burden. Without the necessary usage of sourcing to back up his points much of what my opponent says is bare assertion. My opponent continues with ANOTHER ridiculous assertion. He claims that with martial arts hands can be stronger than than guns. This is, once again assertion and hands to not have the range, the average strength or the same number of fatalities that guns bare. If martial arts was killing as many people as guns were then I’d be concerned. My opponent, however, does not give me any reason for me to compare martial arts to guns. This analogy fails as a result. Human Rights I never claimed that the UK was the first country ever to pass a bill of human rights. I was merely referencing out of the UK and US, the UK is first by decades. My opponent is again, maing the same flawed argument that I’ve already refuted. The UK established human rights in 1689 - you can’t say it doesn’t count because the US wasn’t made then because that doesn’t change anything. You said that the US established human rights BEFORE the UK did. This is preposterous as the UK established their first bill of right in 1689. This is a fact that cannot be ignored because the US didn’t exist at the time. The UK did form human rights before the US was even established whereas the US established human rights significantly later. I’m not sure that my opponent is being intentionally hypocritical with his claims but I’ll quote him here: “It isn’t subjective that the Mexican Constitution offers better protections than the English Bill of Rights.” Whether my opponent realizes this or not - the claim is incredibly subjective. The usage of the word ‘better’ is a clear indication of that [1]. Health Care I understand that health care is spent on more people however hospitals are necessary for health care, more equipment is necessary for health care, etc. If you’ve got a larger country then you’ll need more resources to spread across that country from North, South, East, West, NW, NE, etc. Allow me to use the following hypothetical. Let’s say that we need 10 trucks of equipment to provide for health care across the UK. The US is going to need considerably more than just enough to correlate with the population since the US is too large for 10 trucks worth of equipment to be able to provide it for everybody. It would be easier if there was the same amount of equipment but distributed amongst 20 trucks because that way more surface area can be covered. In the same way, we need to account for surface area AND population and given that both the population and the surface area are larger in the US as opposed to the UK this means that more will have to be spent on the US than the UK in order for the same (or even lower) quality health care than the UK can be achieved. Wages Once again, my opponent forgets that the United Kingdom has the pound currency. Not dollars. The minimum wage is $7.25 not $. Every £1 is the equivalent to 1.42$ [2]. The minimum wage is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than my opponent states. It’s 10.30$ [2] My opponent is largely misguided. Military Spending Regarding ISIS, my opponent argues for me. He critiques Barack Obama, he critiques the US War on Terror (not the UK). He claims that the US missed 67 out of 70 terrorists getting into the US. All this does is argue against the US not the UK. In the UK 7 terrorist attacks have been prevented in the last year - which is a notable achievement considering that there have been very few terrorist attacks. [3] Kim Jong Un has 4 nukes not 12 [4]. North Korea and China are quarrelling - they aren’t allies [5]. Furthermore, there is no clear motive for Kim Jong Un to launch any attack on the US or the UK. Donald Trump will not affect the UK. The UK does not need a military to defend itself against Donald Trump. Especially when we are an ally of the US [6]. Contentment in the UK My opponent is being preposterous. There are 196 countries in the world, under each of these countries there have been many governments [7]. My opponent lists 6 examples of bad governments - none of which were regarding the UK. UK Politics Some of the greatest scientists in history have come from the UK. Many argue that the UK has the greater scientists compared to the US. We have scientists such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, J.J Thomson, Rosalind Franklin, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, etc. [8]. My opponent believes that we embraced communism. He provides no evidence for this claim. It should be treated as assertion and should not be considered as bearing any weight. This is a very, very clear vote for Con as my opponent’s BOP is not fulfilled. Sources [1] http://meta.stackexchange.com... [2] https://www.google.co.uk... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] https://next.ft.com... [5] http://thediplomat.com... [6] http://www.theguardian.com... [7] http://www.infoplease.com... [8] https://www.google.co.uk...