Will more socialization benefit society?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 12 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Economics
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
Pro: Benefit
Con: Harmful
Due to the nature of this topic, I do not have to prove why anything is moral, You have to prove to me why it is immoral. I will be providing a few reasons why more socialization would be moral however the BoP rests mostly on pro. However, before we begin I would like to define Socialism and the Redistribution of wealth.
Socialism: A state at which they redistribute wealth which is used for the collective good.
Redistribution of Wealth: Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism.
Tiwaz is banned from participating in this debate due to him continually pulling red herrings, dodging questions and points, and attempting to character assassinate several people.
If he accepts he completely forfeits the debate.
R2- Rebuttals
R3- Counter Rebuttals
R4- Closing
Opening the gates of prosperity to ever more people around the world, economic freedom has made our globe a profoundly better place. More people are living better lives than ever before. Clearly, this monumental reduction in global poverty is an achievement that should inspire celebration of the free-market system, deeper understanding of its dynamics, and greater commitment to its promotion.
https://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4
“ Socialism- any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism “
- Firstly I agree with most of this definition, however, an integral part of socialism is the redistribution of wealth and resources which isn’t present in this definition but is present in other definitions.
- I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.
“ Pro asked me a series of questions that are irrelevant. I decided not to answer them. My personal opinions are not relevant to the debate only the position I am taking in the debate, but for anyone, curious answers are in the comments.”
- For anyone reading this, Con’s personal beliefs are very much relevant to this debate as we’ll see later on in my argument.
“Countries more economically free on the economic freedom index (A measure of how free a country is economical) such as Australia, New Zealand, and the Swedes, are places we would all like to visit. Even without going into the numbers, we know intuitively these are awesome places that we would love to experience. The bottom of the economic freedom index consists of countries that are a nightmare to live in such as Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking”
- I don’t see a point in this statement, we aren’t trying to destroy economic freedom as found in dictatorships, we’re trying to create a fair distribution and have stricter business regulations.
- We aren’t trying to restrict freedom of trade unreasonably as my opponent is trying to make out.
- Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
“ In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force. There’s no option to vote, no chance to impeach a leader, and no freedom to stand up against the governing body.”
- Which ideology between socialism and fascism argues for the dictatorship policies Cuba and North Korea exert? Fascism.
- Which ideology is anti-democratic? Fascism.
“ P2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom “
- Very obviously not the case since if this was the case then more socialized countries in Europe and Australia wouldn’t be rated high.
- If my opponent is than going to argue,
“ My opponent admits a socialist healthcare plan would cost the government over 7 trillion a year. This would put America even closer to the bottom of the Economic freedom index and closer to being just like Venezuela or North Korea. More government spending as a result of socialist policies is not even debatable.”
- My opponent has either intentionally or unintentionally missed the point I was making.
“ Socialist programs such as universal healthcare require all kinds of new regulations that hamper the freedom of businesses and employees.”
- Ok how please elaborate.
“ OSHA a socialist program to ensure employee safety does a lot to get in the way of business freedom with tons of regulations, The FDA another socialist program causes the process of getting a drug to market so expensive that only a handful of billion dollar companies can compete.”
- Ok please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.
“I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.”
“here is another definition that does not seek to replace pro’s but to merely elaborate upon it”
“This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy”
“45,000 people die from privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to .... 9/11.”
“A study by the Fraser Institute titled The Effect of Wait Times on Mortality in Canada estimated that “increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females.” Adjusting for the difference in populations (the US has about 9 times as many people), that middle value inflates to an estimated 400,000 additional deaths among females over a 16 year period. This translates to an estimated 25,000 additional female deaths each year if the American system were to suffer from increased mortality similar to that experienced in Canada due to increases in wait times. “
“the US has significantly lower rates of 30-day stroke-induced mortality than every other OECD country, aside from Japan and Korea. OECD data suggest that the age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates within Europe would translate to tens of thousands of additional deaths in the US.
If America had the 30-day stroke-mortality rate of the UK, for example, we could expect about an additional 38,000 deaths a year. For Canada, that number would be around 43,500. And this only accounts for mortality within a month of having a stroke, which in turn accounts for only 10% of stroke-related deaths.”
For every 1,000 strokes in America 170 people die. The number is 280 in similar countries who have socialized medicine.
The United States has very high cancer survival rates, much higher than countries with socialized medicine. If we use the UK survival rates this would be an additional 80,000 deaths a year with other 1st world countries using socialized medicine the additional deaths would be about 20,000 a year.
If the deaths caused by privatized medicine are 9/11 numbers, the deaths caused by socialized medicine would be more comparable to the Holocaust
Affordability
If healthcare is unaffordable it is because of more “socialization”. If we look at the root causes of why healthcare is unaffordable we can remove those root causes and make it affordable again. Whether the costs are 7.75 trillion or my opponents solution to the problem which has healthcare cost 7.36 trillion it is too high.
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha
What started this whole mess of health care costs began back when FDR was president. He enacted socialist wage controls and taxed businesses up to 80% but did give tax breaks to them based on the benefits provided. Many employers as a way to attract talent since wages were controlled offered health insurance and with the tax break it did not really cost them much more money to do it. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamacare-health-care-employers-20170224-story.html
Once everyone had employer paid health insurance they no longer knew what they were actually paying for a stay in the hospital. Whether the hospital charged $2000 or $200 for the stay in it still only cost the individual their same copay of maybe $50. Same problem with medicine. No matter whether the company charges $40 or $400 for a pill, your copay might be $5.
Shane Snow explains it this way;
“ If you have health insurance through your job, you’re two layers away from the actual cost of your health care whenever you go to the doctor, hospital, or pharmacy. Between you and the price tag is 1) an insurance company; and 2) your employer.(who pays for some of your insurance)”
A better plan would be getting rid of health insurance and taking perhaps half the money we use on subsidizing insurance companies directly or indirectly and diverting that to things that can actually help the healthcare in America like preventing bad diet and promoting healthy living to the masses, reducing the actual contributors to bad health such as obesity which in turn will prevent a lot of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Even without chopping that amount of socialization in half with the program I recommend, just the steps to discourage buying health insurance would make Americans more aware of the real prices they are paying for healthcare forcing companies to become competitive with their prices. You might see a doctor that costs $100 an hour as opposed to one costing $250 an hour if you have no insurance and are not so far removed from knowing the prices of services.
Conclusion
I have proven that Healthcare costs can be better controlled through less socialization as opposed to more. I have proven that private healthcare kills less people than socialized medicine, and I have proven that even if socialized medicine improves the portion it is meant to improve it is still a net detriment to society as a whole. Vote Con
- Well listen I didn’t mean to mock your win ratio, I merely used it to illustrate that it’s very possible you may be a troll. Oh, and I am sincerely sorry you had to deal with depression, one of my family members suffers from it too.
- Obviously looking at your arguments, it doesn’t seem that way.
- Also regarding the definitions, ok that makes sense.
- Firstly my opponent mentions no studies or statistics on how deregulation would fix the healthcare system since by my statistics the US which has the lowest regulation and is the most privatized is the WORST out of the developed world. Compared to more socialized countries such as Switzerland, Japan, and Australia, the US’s is pathetic.
- Secondly, the sources for this point were in the previous round. If I did happen to make a mistake I apologize and I’ll post my sources again in this round, sorry for the confusion.
- This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.
- Firstly, other countries such as Germany for example ( which is a country that’s very similar to the US in culture ) and has similar obesity rates. This is a country that its VERY close to the US culturally and has similar obesity rates and yet since it has socialized medicine.
- Because EVERY single country in the developed world has socialized medicine with higher life spans.
- I would also state you’ve committed a bare assertion fallacy since you’re the one assuming deregulation would lead to better healthcare outcomes ( which isn’t backed up by statistical data or common sense at all ).
- Admittedly I didn’t cite my source so I’ll do it here, according to this CDC study healthcare is linked to a boost in productivity. ( link down below however I’ll summarize a few bullet points here )
- Healthier employees are less likely to call in sick or use vacation time due to illness
- Companies that support workplace health have a greater percentage of employees at work every day
- Because employee health frequently carries over into better health behavior that impacts both the employee and their family (such as nutritious meals cooked at home or increased physical activity with the family), employees may miss less work caring for ill family members as well
- Similarly, workplace health programs can reduce presenteeism — the measurable extent to which health symptoms, conditions, and diseases adversely affect the work productivity of individuals who choose to remain at work
- Firstly I cited the source in the PAST argument.
- Secondly, this study is working on ASSUMED numbers, not actual numbers like my study are.
- Thirdly this is only a comparison of Canada which isn’t representative of socialized medicine since it’s arguably the worst example. Compare a better system like the United Kindoms or Australias and you’ll find there aren’t as many deaths.
- Fourthly you’re only taking into account yearly deaths when we also should be concerned with life expectancies and overall health outcomes.
- Statistically by my previous statistics, socialized countries with socialized medicine have higher life expectancies, better health outcomes, and cheaper and more affordable healthcare. ( We’ll get into the affordability argument shortly ).
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha”
- Socialized medicine in the US would be the most expensive in the world, however, my opponent is still missing the overall point that I'd be CHEAPER than our current healthcare system. Therefore you just lost the affordability argument.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro-government not anarchist.”
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
“I mean do you seriously not believe healthcare eases obesity rates down and helps with lifestyle choices?"
“Don’t you think it’s a pretty big coincidence that the US which is the ONLY country in the developed world without socialized medicine is also coincidentally the one with the lowest life spans? “
Pro focuses on the fact that some low ranked countries are fascist, which is irrelevant, my premise is that countries who do good on the economic freedom index, have a higher standard of living.
- And Con seems to be missing my previous counter argument being,
Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
Premise 2 is that socialist policies harm economic freedom... I used 5 standards.. to show how socialist policies harm economic freedom
- This point is easily debunked since similar to the first premise, more socialist countries rank as high if not higher than the US.
Pro says many of the countries on the top of the index have some socialist policies, but that is irrelevant...socialist policies give you lower scores
pro's sources only support his argument that Americans have shorter lifespans, not why.
- Americans have shorter lifespans due to private healthcare industries high costs as evidenced by the statistic I cited previously which puts the US’s healthcare plan the highest in terms of costs in the world. If the healthcare is so expensive as it is, you’re going to have people not going to check-ups or stalling on surgeries due to the high medical costs and you’re going to have millions of underinsured Americans as evidenced by the statistics I previously cited.
1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries. Explanation 2 is how fat Americans are.
- A country such as Russia with low obesity rates has lower life expectancy or equal than the US, same with Cuba and Chile.
- What about New Zealand which is a country with a close obesity rate with the US and yet has a significantly higher life expectancy?
People typically ignore diet advice medical professionals give them.
There is not a single example of socialized medicine increasing visits to a nutritionist. These countries typically have rationing boards and are just as frugal as insurance companies.
- These countries have more people visiting the doctors due to it being universal.
- Economic prosperity doesn’t equal obesity rates necessarily, countries in my previous source such as Egypt, Samoa, and Qatar all aren’t in the best economic positions and yet have obesity rates even higher than the US's.
I didn’t commit a bare assertion. I gave examples of extra regulations in one sector having bad results
- Giving a couple of examples isn’t comparable to entire countries with higher regulations than the US's and is performing better.
This is an example of socialization driving costs of healthcare in the US.
- This isn’t the case since the US's costs are significantly higher than any other country, including countries with higher levels of socialized medicine.
Pro has dropped my argument that 44,000 additional deaths happen in Canada due to increased waiting.
Pro asserts that I am working with assumed stats..we are debating how something will work in theory so we are both making assumptions
My opponent claims that Canada has a worse system than other socialist countries but failed to explain why America would socialize healthcare any better.
- Canada has a significantly lower GDP per capita and has lower tax revenue and thus has a significantly worse off economy than the US's.
Introduction
Not sure why this debate was just reported... If there's a specific reason, someone please let me know.
"The rest of this RFD can be found in the comments section due to character limitations."
Sorry about that. I'm not one of the moderators. I literally did a word search thought your RFD for "sources," and that was the only part featuring that word.
"I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something)."
I did exactly that lmao. The part of my RFD you quoted just now wasn't even part of the section where I explained why I gave con the source point, it was part of the section where I explained why I gave con points for arguments.
Thank you for clarifying so I could understand your reasoning
As stated in the removal notice, Dis' vote may be recast without refinement if merely by not assigning source points.
I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something). I have taken to ending my debates with hand feeding voters samples of sources (at least if I believe I earned the point)...
For review, what was not enough to award sources:
>Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
What was enough (actually overkill... but compare both sides, and name at least one specific source):
>Sources: Con
>So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
>Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
>Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
>The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
>Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
It was near impossible to really assess pros sources as there was little relation between the source and where it was used; and a result, some of the claims made appeared unsupported, and poorly referenced. Even if I were to accept all of pros data was supported in sources, there was no knock out blow, or damning data presented that could have damaged cons case: the New Zealand point came close, but as it wasn’t clear to me where this data came from due to poor referencing - I can’t assess that either
Because of this, I have to award sources to con: though to be fair, I probably would have awarded sources on the health outcome sources alone: this was a shining moment of the debate.
What came to mind here when reading pros point - is what if a Sweden was just an awesome country - and it would be more awesome if it full on was capitalist. Con makes that case by linking socials policy to economic freedoms. The whole argument is a bit shaky here for my liking; but in general con is successful in opening a single crack of doubt over the policy in general.
To conclude on this: while I felt pro got the better on key cases; cons argument about death was devastating and never fully resolved by pro, combined with imo con doing better in life expectancy arguments in general basically demolish pros case even were i to award him the win on all other points. Con successfully argues that socialization could potentially make healthcare worse.
In general, pro offers no other case about socialism or socialization in general; so at this point can’t win. Given con wins the only case presented by pro - and himself introduces at least some doubt into the resolution. In my view this is enough to refute the resolution.
Arguments to con,
Conduct: pro started off with insults, and was petulant throughout with comments like “Great a troll who's lost 14 debates, doesn't take debates seriously and believes the world is flat...”, “he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the point”, “By your insane logic with more deregulation equaling....”
I can’t stand this type of behaviour in debates. Being insulting and petulant is for the forums, or private PMs: not in formal debates.
Conduct to cons
Sources:
Con won this mainly on the strength of his sources related to Canada stroke survival, and cancer survival rates which basically undermines pros entire position with hard data.
In terms of cons main case: con argues that the best countries are the ones with most economic freedom. That socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom. While I can buy the syllogism in general, what I find hard to square with cons points is that there are countries at or higher on cons list of economic freedoms with higher levels of socialization (as pro points out).
Con does not craft a thesis by which he correlates level of socialization against quality of life or economic freedom. That would have been a pretty compelling argument. Instead he appears to point out bad countries and state these are socialist whilst higher countries are not.
Instead con simply appears to try and tie the idea of socialized medicine, or social programs - which is what it appears pro is trying to talk about, with fully socialist countries as if they correlate.
While I can’t accept this on its face - even less so with pro pointing some of this out - it does at least show there so a point at which more socialization is bad; which muddies the resolution a little, as con definitely show there is a limit at which point socialization becomes bad.
Pro gets lost a little on that point; and while he points out the main issues with cons argument; he doesn’t make an argument addressing the line portion of it.
Con followed this up in a way that crystallized a little better. Though implicit, the issue is that socialism in general terms lowers economic freedom - which is bad. With the data con provided it seems the issue he introduces, that some policies benefit some, but not others - and this may lower the overall benefit for everyone, even considering pros rebuttals, is that more socialization could potentially be beneficial, but the broad brush of the resolution is not guaranteed.
Con reiterates his life expectancy argument; excellently pointing out that Americans are much fatter than Germans, and reiterating that they are also much more likely to be victims of violent crime. Con also pointed out that doctors are not trained to give dietary advice, and socialized medicine is not going to fix these issues (nor are there examples where it has)
In terms of deregulation, con largely misses the main thrust of pros point. The issue is undermined that the specific policies not increased socialization are the cause of the costing problems: while cons thesis of why costs are so high may be accurate - he doesn’t account for why more socialized countries have cheaper healthcare. This seems to contradict his point.
Con adds to his point about deaths caused by increased socialization - I’m going to somewhat lump this in with his point about productivity as they are related. Con wraps this point up pretty well here; using his cancer example again, and arguing that while Canada maybe bad - on what basis does pro believe the US would be any better. This is a very good point.
Finally, while con argues that removing causes of higher prices would be more effective than increasing socialization.
Pro rounds up by what seems at this point to be leaping to conclusions. Con pointed out that life expectancy is driven by many competing factors, such as obesity and violent crime: the issue for me, is that pro is simply trying to cast doubt on cons point more than showing in detail how he can correlate healthcare directly to life expectancy.
For nutrition and diet advice; pro largely misses the point I think con was making; that socialized medicine isn’t going to help, given people don’t often follow dietary advice. Intuitively, it rings true - it’s not like people think Big Macs and Cole are healthy.
In terms of affordability; con provides an argument that the issue with affordability was caused by introduction of socialized policy.
Pro argues that deregulation isn’t the answer, and explains that the US is already the most deregulated, pro goes on to argue that issues like obesity already plague countries with socialized medicine, and these countries nonetheless have higher expectancies.
Pro tries to cast doubt on a fairly solid source, by arguing his is also solid, and offering some reasons why cons source may not be accurate or may not apply.
The issue here is that it’s not enough now to throw a bit of doubt on cons point. Pro has to go into more detail here, as cons argument casts doubt on your methodology, by showing how socialized
Medicine can increase deaths in some ways. While I don’t expect a full proof of deaths, I need to see more firm examples than “look at Australia”.
From the cost benefit side, pro does better; pointing out almost all other countries have lower cost healthcare despite being socialized; and that it would make more sense going for systems that work, rather than ones that may not.
The benefit of this argument here, is that pro undermines cons position that the expensive is due to socialization itself: by pointing out other countries don’t have the problem. For this con has to do more to show me that socialization specifically that is the problem rather than the specific policy.
To start off with, my main issues with pros opening is that the resolution is broadly stated; but is opening argument is limited and narrow concerning healthcare.
Frankly there’s so little attempt from pro to talk about the resolution as stated in general, that he does himself no favours here.
I’m going to deal with pros case first, and partly summarize. There are lots of small sub points here, and I won’t address them all, unless I felt that they were compelling enough to move me in one direction or another.
Pro starts off with a fairly good justification of socialized medicine. Pointing out it’s cheaper, universal, that it’s quality could be just as good; pointing out issues in the existing us healthcare systems.
While con accepts some of the potential benefits; con points out there are issues with pro linking life expectancy solely with Healthcare: pointing out issues with obesity also have a part to play and aren’t related to healthcare directly. Cons argument relating to deaths was devestating. Whilst the issue of increased deaths to the uninsured, Con brings up a major potential source of deaths in socialized medicine. This highlights the lack of a big picture view from pro.
Ragnars vote mentioned formatting, but went into much more details, including referencing the decent quality of your Canada source, and how both sides sources affected the debate . Which is why his vote was acceptable.
I am always reluctant to remove such a large vote when most of its okay; I would have preferred for dis to simply clarify the source point rather than removing the whole thing.
Didn't he give the exact same reasoning as ragnar? Just worded differently for sources. This seems like a stretch
RfD pt3
"I find it troubling that literally, every single country in the world with socialized medicine has statistically WAY lower healthcare costs than the US does."
While con correctly points out that are multiple other factors which explain this there is also the more important fact that con in round two outlined a comprehensive explanation as to why the current level of socialization in our healthcare system is harmful to the medical market by facilitating the type of price gouging that causes such inflated prices in the first place. Instead of addressing cons explanation pro appears to simply dismiss it out of hand:
"Also, my opponent's healthcare plan isn’t a very good plan and has never worked before."
As before, even if cons arguments are not sound pro has to show us that they are unsound rather than simply declaring it to be so. Instead of responding to cons explanation of how the current price gouging is caused by the current level of socialization in the healthcare system pro opts for a simple comparison of countries on a list with little to no context.
With pro being so clearly on the defensive for the majority of the debate and con having established several syllogisms that support their premise I am giving points for arguments in this debate to con.
The rest of this RFD can be found in the comments section due to character limitations.
RfD pt2:
The next point for arguments that stands out to me is pros claim that nationalized healthcare systems are inherently more efficient financially than privatized healthcare systems. This claim first appears in pros round one and is reiterated in pros round two however the actual numbers used are different each time. Pro claims to have a source for these statistics but no source is ever actually given. Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
The next part of the debate, cons round two and pros round three, repeats the pattern of con presenting a syllogism and pro attempting to counter it. With the exception of the weird little Q&A thing pro did (which I will address in the conduct section of this RFD) pro is primarily on the defensive for the rest of the debate, so the question becomes whether pro successfully counters any of the points made by con.
Regarding this the main points of contention centered around the socialization of healthcare, specifically whether increased healthcare socialization would improve living conditions and whether it would be more financially viable to increase or decrease socialization of healthcare.
In round three pro addresses the affordability point by a simple comparison of the U.S. healthcare costs to more socialized countries:
RfD PT 1
Arguments: The first major hitch with arguments in this debate came in pros round two when he responded to cons round one syllogism. To quote a portion of pros response
"my opponent [cites] statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong."
It is not immediately clear to me why pro is under the impression that his short list of bullets has 'debunked cons hypothesis' or even what he means about 'cons hypothesis' in the first place. After several re-reads I am forced to assume that the hypothesis being referred to here is the conclusion in cons round one syllogism and that pro has deemed said syllogism faulty due to a perceived flaw in the second premise (if this is an inaccurate interpretation of pros meaning in the above quote I put the blame on a lack of clarity in communication on pros part). Pros main argument for the rest of the round seems to build upon the idea that cons syllogism is faulty but pro never gives a very clear explanation as to why this is the case. Pro simply states the claim that socialistic policies do not damage economic freedom and implies that any policies restricting economic freedom must by definition be fascist rather than socialist in nature. If it is in fact the case that socialistic policies do not actually damage economic freedom then pro needs to back this up by addressing the points raised by con in round one supporting the idea that they do (the last five or so paragraphs in cons round one is what I am referring to). Even if these points made by con are unsound the fact that pro fails to address them means that in a debate setting they are considered valid by default. As for the fascism segment of pros round two this seems like a classic false dichotomy. Pro, the fact that fascism reduces freedom does nothing to show that socialism does not reduce economic freedom.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Discipulus_Didicit // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: see above and comment #344
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments and Conduct were deemed sufficient: sources were deemed insufficient. The voter may repost the vote without source point award by referencing the comments.
The voter appears to base his source award primarily on formatting, rather than the overall impact these sources had on the debate.
The voter must
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
- explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
*******************************************************************
Too lazy to actually articulate my reasoning because at the moment the winner looks to be clear based on scoring, but I believe Wylted won this debate
In case anyone was reading the off topic comments for entertainment, King_8 continued it with an emotional outpouring about it on another debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1137/comment_links/15624):
"They apparently think that I have some alt account voting in my favor which simply isn't true. No concrete proof, just assumptions. He's just my friend and he counted Franklin's vote but Ragnar spread lies about me to bsh1. So dont pay attention to any of that. That has nothing to do with me. People just love to push my buttons on here and be problematic because they are unhappy with their selves. So now because of that, I'm being banned. All because of Ragnar. I don't mind though because these bias mods never come to my aid when unfair things that does not go with CoC happens to me. Don't care because I planned on quitting this site. I don't deal with people like this. Sorry for the inappropriate behavior, thanks for the debate."
Congrats Wylted. You probably will win.
I just don't want to be last place among all active debaters. Kind of embarrassing, especially after being top 10 on a debate site where it is much much harder to be top 10. So I decided I will stop being easy to defeat here, It is tough because the voting is so terrible on this site compared to how good it was on DDO for a certain amount of time, and nearly always taking the unpopular position it makes winning harder here than on DDO.
As far as your back and forth with KIng, I think it is a waste of time and your time is better spent elsewhere, but I don't care. I only get alerts on comments when my name is mentioned.
"But he should be gone by now" okay. Everything is coming together now. So apparently you messaged bsh1 and persuaded him with your lies telling him Game was my alt when he isn't. Lmfao but I'm done, yall can think whatever the hell y'all want to think. Its only right for everybody to hop on the King_8 hate train. Good job getting someone banned based off a huge lie. Miserable people will stay miserable. Can't handle me so you gotta get me banned lmao bet. And I am FAR from done. Last comment. You've done me a favor, thanks. I was gonna quit this site anyways.
Sorry for that distraction from your debate. I should not have engaged, but he should be gone now...
Wylted:
I fully agree with you on "It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds."
Pink:
I suspect the reason Wylted did so well was your opening comments pissed him off, encouraging him to put in extra effort. It can be a useful tactic against the weak willed, as exemplified by me recently getting someone confused as to which of their alt accounts they posted something...
If someone bumped into me and looked at me wrong I would talk to them at first and see what problem is, and if it escalates, it escalates. You ignored 75% of my last comment. Speaks volumes. I guess your parents did fail you. Don't ever talk about my family.
Who am I denying association? You mean Game lord? And no I'm not asking about being coddled. Just pointing out bias and seeking resolution