Pro not only failed to define several key terms in the prompt, but also defined something that isn't even in the prompt, wasting the storage space of the digital description section. Tip for Pro: A winnable setup would be more optimal if the terms in the topic and only them are defined in the description.
Mental Health: noun
a person’s condition with regard to their psychological, emotional, and social well-being
the work performed by one that serves
c: contribution to the welfare of others
d: disposal for use
These are the entries I have found on MW dictionary that fit the contextual environment of this topic. Feel free to add any if you label the source and justification.
1: not costing or charging anything
The topic should be:
Work(especially beneficial work) regarding people's emotional, social, psychological well-being should cost nothing.
There are no limiters, so we are assuming that the topic says, all work that could qualify as mental health services should not be paid by anyone using anything.
Arg 1: Free to Whom?
When we say something is free in casual terms, we usually mean they are free to "us", the consumers. Unless the corporation was purposefully non-profit just to prove me wrong, which I will get to in a moment, nobody in the baseball industry would think their net income increased when a group of people turned in their "free baseball ticket" from the lottery, one form or another. We usually say something is free if we don't have to pay for it. WE don't have to pay for it.
However, this is a debate, and using vernacular English debate topics will only get more confusing as different specimens of implicature makes the semantical environment deep. I wish to have nothing to do with those. We use a dictionary that collects what the authentic meaning of a word is, which is Merriam-Webster.
If a commodity is free to certain consumers, it usually means that another party pays for its worth that is not zero. For example, if you enjoy a free meal along with your boss at a classy dine, it probably means the boss pays for both individuals' meals. And yes, actual quality of "free" can be denied even if no financial exchange, not cash nor loanable fund, was made. If you and your boss leaves without paying, the restaurant pays for the meal because they have output the value of labor equal to that the price of the meal made, even if they didn't get anything material from it. And if the police knocks on your door and chases you to the jailhouse at the same time supplying the diner with the supposed amount of cash, in the end, you are still paying for it. It does not cost nothing unless the economy ceases to function due to there being a lack of functional currency.
The idea is if something has value, it is not free, someone somewhere is paying for it. Since what group of people mental health services should be free to was not specified in the preset, this means based on the bounds(or a lack thereof), Pro is correct if and only if:
-Mental health services carry no value
-Currency hold no value
The second one is obviously wrong as we have used currency to trade for stuff like gold and ice cream for decades if not centuries, even if they are just a more stiff variation of toilet paper and some numbers on a computer. We use those. We actually do.
The first one was openly dismissed by Pro, as Pro admits mental health services do have value.
Our mental health is one of the most important aspects of our well-being. While your physical health is also important, if your mental health isn't taken care of, then you will struggle to take care of the rest of your wellbeing. Many people within America alone struggle with maintaining a healthy mental wellbeing and often go untreated for any underlying issues.
I do not have to cite the entire paragraph.
- Because both parties agree that mental health services hold value
- And that if something has value, someone somewhere at some time will pay for it, making it not "free"
- Thus, Mental health services should not be "free" as long as they still worth something.
I rest my case.