Question: Should a Universal Basic Income be Provided to All?

Increase Social Services for those in Poverty to Ensure a Stable Society.

In 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that individuals under the age of 18 have higher poverty rates than any other age group in the country, a trend that has persisted since 1975. This highlights the need for targeted assistance to alleviate a significant portion of the poverty issue. It is for this reason that we, Evan and I, firmly advocate for the resolution stating: "The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for individuals living in poverty in the United States."

Observation 1: Harms
Sub Point A: Poverty has far-reaching consequences, impacting not only individuals but also the U.S. economy. Children raised in poverty are more likely to have lower adult earnings and workforce productivity, higher crime rates, and poor health in later life. This reduced productivity directly diminishes the goods and services produced in the U.S. economy.

Sub Point B: Poverty rates are on the rise, exacerbated by unemployment and wage inequality. Research by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that a 1% increase in the unemployment rate leads to a 0.4-0.7% increase in the poverty rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment rose to 9.7% in August 2009, a significant increase since the recession began in December 2007.

Sub Point C: The U.S. is facing a shortage of skilled laborers as baby boomers retire. Concerns are growing that the current workforce lacks the critical skills to replace retiring baby boomers, the most educated and skilled workforce in U.S. history.

Observation 2: Inherency
Sub Point A: Daycare costs are prohibitive for families in poverty. According to a 2008 report, full-time daycare for an infant can cost up to $14,591 per year, while care for a 4-year-old can reach $10,787 annually. For school-age children, part-time care can cost up to $8,600 per year.

Sub Point B: College education has become unaffordable for many. A 2008 report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reveals that college tuition and fees have risen 439% from 1982 to 2007, while median family income has increased by only 147%.

Sub Point C: Daycare facilities are facing

1. Rebuttals: Firstly, there has been a very fundamental doubt in the topic of the debate itself, which I would like to clarify. In one of the rounds, Pro wants to “remind Con that this debate is just about medicines being made free; not about treatment costs or medication. ” In fact, Pro has already given the definition of the term “medicine” in Google dictionary is "a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. ” For curing some diseases, it takes more than just a tablet or syrup in order to cure the condition! It requires careful scanning, medication and treatment by using various other instruments or surgery. So, Pro’s arguments on saying treatment and medication is not in the realm of medicine simply does not make sense at all. This is very necessary because if Pro wants to make medicines free, this includes treatment costs as the topic is "Medicines Should Be Made Free. ” Therefore Pro cannot make the cost of treatment rise as it would be contradictory to the debate topic. Secondly, Pro states that "basic medicines” for cold, fever and pain should be made free. But, the topic is "Medicines Should Be Made Free” which means all medicines, be it treatments, medication, tablets and syrups for every disease should be made free. Making only basic medicines free is against the whole topic of the debate. I would like to rewrite the burdens of the debate for Pro, and her burden is to show that it is an absolute necessity to make every medicine free of cost. Thirdly, pro states that pharmaceutical companies can still "mint money" if medicines are made free, but gives very little proof of such a type of event can actually occur. Again, I repeat, there won’t be any medicines to give if they are made free. Last, but not the least, Pro states that medicines are absolute necessity, therefore it is prudent to give them free of cost. If we go by that logic, almost everything becomes an absolute necessity for us, therefore, should everything be given free of cost. A home, an absolute necessity for any individual, is not given free of cost, is it? Any person gets his/her reward for the amount of hard work and effort they put in. The elders say: "There is nothing called free lunch. ” But I would like to rephrase, "There is nothing called demand for free lunch” either! 2. Misuse In the 20th and 21st century, misuse of drugs has been prevalent. There has been misuse of drugs in many fields, including sports and academics. There are a number of addictive drugs in both markets and black markets which allows any person to misuse these drugs. Even though these drugs were made for the benefit of the population, they are mainly being used today for the addiction of the population! Finally, all these addictions are psychological, a person always does a careful cost benefit analysis before misusing the drug, and once misused out of curiosity, it becomes a dirty habit hard to get rid of. I believe that the cost of these illegal drugs plays an important role in preventing the population for misusing the drug. There are a number of fools out there who misuse these drugs regardless of the cost, but there even few of them who take the cost into consideration. Fear for both the consequences and cost plays a major role in ruling out the curiosity in their mind while performing a cost benefit analysis for a lot of people, finally taking the decision not to misuse the drugs. If medicines are made free, then the cost (money) part of the analysis gets ruled out, curiosity being more favourable than fear, a large amount of the population can misuse the drugs if they get the chance. Therefore, more bans on illegal drugs will be imposed, which are futile because, anyway, the drugs are free, thus gangs and drug lords will supply drugs more easily to the population. I believe we must work hard enough so that we can get all our treasures and rewards. In a nutshell, this debate is comprehensive to many fields in today’s world, and opposes Pro's statements in each field. The debate is itself a subject of morality, where the people who work hard succeed and secure their future and health and the lazy fail to do so. Apart from this, this debate is also economically and scientifically connected, highlighting the consequences when no research, payment of salaries and distribution of medication can take place when there is an economic deficiency. Lastly, this debate is related to the psychology of the human mind to or not misuse drugs.

Response to C1:It seems to me that you are quoting Professors, and then summarizing their views in a few short sentence after doing so. It is your job to be providing reasoning, not quotes.The United States of America has a Constitution, by which everyone with the boundaries of the US s forced to abide. Our Constitution lists the specific job of the legislative branch of government, and then adds in an amendment that anything not specifically listed as a job of the national government is a ob for the states; with the consent of the people.[1] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Article I, Section 8)[2] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Amendment X)Healthcare/medical aid is not listed anywhere as a job for the federal government. Because our Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything it is no explicitly permitted to do, the federal government cannot provide healthcare.Response to C2:Your whole argument is that federal healthcare could do better than completely privatized or state-run systems, because other countries that are better than us use a federal system. I would like to point out that our current system is heavily flawed, due to government regulations on jobs; specifically doctors. If doctors could be judged by consumers, instead of his behind the government's overbearing wall, then healthcare would be cheaper, and also more reliable.Do you realize how small an amount $6500 is? That will barely cover a mostly healthy person for a year. Cancer patients would have no hope. With that little money, people would be forced to provide self care, only visiting the doctor when death is near-certain. You expect universal healthcare to solve all problems. What about the people who smoke? They are still killing themselves; healthcare would not fix the root cause. What about people who go around having sex all the time? We would be paying for their birth-control, and then still having to watch as STDs increased in number. What about the people who eat McDonald’s or fried food everyday? We are still having to pay for their bypasses. Giving people universal healthcare will not magically fix their problems which make them unhealthy, it will only discourage being healthy. If I can eat junk food and go have sex all the time, and know that everyone else is going to pay for my medical are, then by all means (religion aside) I would go do it!Finally for this section, you said that giving people universal healthcare will stop bankruptcy. Really? People still have to pay for their healthcare one way or another. If one person isn't paying, then another one has to pick up the slack. If someone is out of work, then they still cannot pay for their healthcare, the will just get it for free. Eventually, the wealthier and healthier people will quit paying into the system, because they will be supporting everyone else.Response to C3:Again, all you are doing is quoting Professors. his is rather irritating, as I am not debating with them, but with you."You" say that people must be healthy in order to enjoy their rights, because being unhealthy requires dependency on others. How will receiving healthcare from the government make you any less dependent on a hospital doctor than private insurance? Not only are you dependent on any doctors, you are also dependent on the government, as well as every single other citizen! If you get sick, then you are sick. Making healthcare universal will not just magically fix that. The only thing universal healthcare would do is provide a guaranteed source of payment for the medical bills, to an extent.It is then stated that people who get universal healthcare will be more inclined to work harder. How does that work? If I say that you will get something no matter how hard you work, then you won't work very hard, if at all.You then say that there will be an even mix of well and ill people n the "pool." Again, how does that work? Can you predict how many people will get sick, and what their disease will be? Medicines and treatments can cost from a few dollars to a few hundred thousand dollars. Money would have to be in abundance to allow for the care of anyone with cancer, or anyone requiring a major surgery. You also claim that universal insurance would fix the "problem" of having to pay for insurance. People have to buy the insurance, whether it is through a private company or via taxes. Like insurance as it is currently, if you get sick, the payments (taxes) will have to go up to account for the expenses. The only difference is that everyone has to pay more because a single person gets sick.Some people naturally have stronger immune systems. They get sick less often, and therefore would require less medical care, as well as less sick days from work. Why would they keep working to pay for someone else's healthcare, when they don't get any money back?Your actual point for your entire "b" point is that "Universal healthcare would be beneficial to everyone." The only evidence you provide is, yet again, a quote. That is quite inadequate.I will not waste time in replying to point "c," because that is a purely philosophical statement, which you claim is true, because Prof. So-and-So said it. If you wish to bring philosophy and religion into this, I would be delighted to do so, with more wide-known sources than your professors.Cross-Examination:Do you agree with Obamacare?Do you agree with Socialism?Do you agree with Communism (Totalitarian)?Do you agree with Social Democracy?Do you agree with a free-market economic system?Do you believe that philosophy/religion should be brought into politics?Do you agree with the US Constitution?How would universal healthcare be paid for?Would universal healthcare be provided in an "account" for each individual, or would it be distributed from a pool to those who had need?For your next argument, please formulate some real points, instead of quoting and agreeing with others. As the Pro, it is your job to prove that the US should offer federal universal healthcare. If you would like to use statistics, please find some that are not contained within a quote, and please use sources for citations.Thanks.

Since the more education a person has in this competative job market the more money a person makes. Now, if everybody was able to go to college then more people would be making more money thus boosting the economy. This would also lead to a rise in scientists and thus more discoveries in all fields. Since this has no downside that is visible to me I eagerly await my opponents rebutle.

I. Lands can benefit the collectiveThis is a matter of one sided opinion. I honestly believe that having more people in the workforce, stimulating the economy and consumption, is more beneficial to the collective at this point in time. As I said earlier, we hold millions of acres in land, IE, a lot of other land that can benefit the collective;. Tight sharecropping operations can be run pretty compact. Which is why I posted the above photo. In truth, with current interest rates on BLM controlled land, the farms can be distributed at 400-500 m2 a piece, with you average farm being about 1000-3000 acres. A well organized and structured government share farm will be efficient and beneficial to the collective.II. Land UseIt is important we set a basic ratio, for distributed land, and land held in reserve. We have established that the US has plenty of unused land it seems. I reason that a fair distribution equation would be DLm2 =(FEI - CI)/4) +200. If you couldn't figure out what the abbreviations meant, ask me in the comments. Honestly, given current demographics, and the reserved land comparative to what would need to be distributed, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.Oh, and just to run the equation for practical application, it would look something like this. The federally established income right now is 10,000, and lets say a random person only has 8000 in total income. You would deduct 8000 from the FEI to equal 2000, which you would proceed to divide by 4, leaving you with 500 m2, which you would add 200 to, leaving you with a land plot of of exactly 700 m2. 700m2 =(10,000 - 8000)/2) + 200I tinkered with some charts for awhile, and this equation would ensure a perfect balance of distribution. It would be great to give everyone the same plot of land, but my opponent is right. That would be nearing the line, as that land is used for development at the moment. III. Operating Costs Exceed DemandI doubled up on my research for this round, and it turns out that operating a farm costs more than the average real estate bid. The USDA is trying to push for a new agriculture surplus, which is desperately needed to lower the commodity prices of food items in Europe. We are sitting on all the land we need to do this, and since people are spending no money, and the sharecropping institution is ran collectively, we can operate and run farms for nearly free. IV. Success on the homesteadMy opponent brings up a good point. You can't just drop someone on a farm and tell them to make money. It doesn't work like that. I should of been more clear. I am advocating for government leased sharecropping zones, operated by the people, under the supervision of the government. Do you see the central housing in these two screen shots? Those are known as villas, and they're usually the center of a share cropping farm. Most share croppers sleep in cabins, even in the commercial world. These are cheap, inexpensive, and can be built in two days time. Housing isn't a problem. Welfare isn't a problem. And food certainly isn't a problem.V. Distribute or LeaseMy opponent is mistaken. They can in fact go hand in hand. Leasing means you are allotting that land for a shortened period of time. Distributing means you are cutting up land for people. In this scenario, I am advocating we distribute land to be operated by citizens for a allotted period of time. Thanks for the debate Con, and sorry I didn't refute in order of your arguments.Cheers!

Now to the issues. Second I live in America in the lower middle class with very limited health care. I would give anything to have the comfort of knowing if something happens I can get the medical care I need. You should be grateful that you have that. "I believe the government is a system that tends to simply makes certain peoples' hard efforts. .. and convert them into a cushioning device for those who, knowing that they will be cushioned, or simply don't care about the consequences of their actions, decide it's the government's responsibility/fault for their actions. " From what I can tell from research about your government everyone pays for their share of this plan in taxes and what's wrong with that? Though some people may mess up and simply don't care because they know there's a safety net there are a lot more people who get into medical or other troubles and it's not their fault. There are many people who can't afford help and need this plan to live. Are you saying you would deny someone medical treatment because they have less money than you? "This means taxes ascertained from people, instead of going into ways of making society more progressive ( culture,education,etc), goes into helping people for their own actions" In my book getting rid of sickness and disease counts as making society more progressive. Allowing everyone not just those with money to feel better is more progressive. And as for helping people sick because of whatever stupid things they did is a good thing as well. If their in there for overdosing on drugs or addiction to drugs and you help them instead of allowing them to go back onto the streets not only are you probably saving a life you could be taking a few more drug attics of the streets. "The government should make it clear that if you do the aforementioned action (or anything else illegal) you will be denied treatment on the grounds that what you do is your own responsibility and to help you would be wasting money from taxpayers" This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard or in this case read. First you must consider the backlash from the masses when they hear that you have denied even the most basic help. Even in America we treat people who come in for overdose we may complain about the money wasted on them but we would never deny treatment. That is the equivalent of murder if someone is about to die even if it's their own stupid fault we help that's being human. "I don't understand why the government has decided to take responsibility for people to such a degree when it obviously hinders society" Well I do the way I see it a healthy country is a happy country, and a happy country is a prosperous and successful country. And further more the government does have a responsibility to take care of it's people that's one of the reasons they were even made a government be it a democracy or a monarchy is there to protect, serve and govern its people so that the country runs smoothly and you can't do that with a bunch of sick people running around. Now take the floor Tom9206! !! !! !! ! !

Ultimately, this would be impossible for the whole world to do that.If everyone followed what the Bible said then the world would be in chaos.If people you mean everyone and their salary is lets say 50,000.That's 10,000 lost. 10,000 dollars of their hard earned cash that the person who is losing it will never get back.Take Bill Gates $11.5 billion is his yearly salary (as of 2014)One billion one hundred fifty million is what is taken thats 10%, And I quote "at least 10% of their money"Taking money that he has earned and just giving it to people who dont neccesarily "deserve" it is just morally wrongHey, I mean I never donate because I know that their lives do not matter at all to meI do not care about the parents in Africa who starve to barely feed their childrenI care about people who I know and loveIt is also violating peoples freedom of will. No one would abide to this.

So it seems my opponent returns to a new argument in his final round. He has failed to meet his burden and has failed to refute all of my arguments and rebuttals. ~Counterarguments~ ". .. What about lets say the drug test. I think that the people that are on welfare should get a drug test to get money from the government. We need to STOP giving money to drug attics! " --> Yes, let's give them a drug test! So even if I agree with this point, how is this an argument against welfare? Is this not more of a proposal to refine aspects of the (I assume) US welfare system? Either you win or lose this point does not matter; you have failed to meet your burden. ~Conclusion~ My opponent has failed to refute both my argument and my rebuttals. His last point should be discarded, since even if he wins on that single point, it does nothing for his side.

I have yet to see anyone adequately defend a universal health care system. I propose that we NEED not just a system where everyone is covered, but a single-payer system where the government provides basic coverage for everyone while keeping private ownership of hospitals and doctors' offices. Such a system would weed out administrative overhead, as well as provide adequate leverage to keep drug and device costs down. The private, for-profit system is a perfect example of a market failure which requires government intervention, and is unsustainable in its current form. Therefore, I propose this: We adopt a single-payer national health insurance plan that covers all tax-paying adults up to $20,000 per year. This coverage would be contingent on filing a tax return and would cover all but elective, cosmetic surgery. People could combine their $20,000 coverage when they get married, providing $40,000 of coverage for their family. As of last year, 97% of everyone who sought health care spent just over $21,000 or less, so the $20,000 would cover about 96% of everyone's needs, leaving room for private catastrophic plans. This would function much like life insurance. You don't know when you'll need it, but you most likely will and will be very thankful when you do need it. Medicare and Medicaid will provide catastrophic coverage for the old and poor, and businesses will provide group catastrophic coverage. Since Medicare and Medicaid would have to provide a much smaller set of benefits, resources would be taken from these programs to help fund the national health insurance plan. After that, a plan similar to California's would be used where hospitals and doctors would be taxed to provide further funds for the program. In addition, a sales tax on the advertising, administration and lobbying expenditures of drug and device manufacturers would also be used to fund the program. Should any money be needed beyond that, a tax will be imposed starting at the top tax bracket and working down should more funds be needed. This seems like a good start. I look forward to anyone taking up this debate.

"Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system?" This type of statement on the part of Republicans is pure rhetoric. You are right in contesting that the "greatest healthcare system" in the world is of little use if few have access to it. "I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about?" I wish I was talking about trivial liberal policies that we could cut out in order to save a few bucks. But I'm talking about massive government intervention that has required healthcare providers (along with drug companies, supply manufacturers and equipment manufacturers)to spend billions to conform to government standards. It's impossible to accommodate champagne taste on a beer budget. "You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens!" You're preaching to the choir on this one. But I believe any savings realized by reducing our military ventures should go right back into the pockets of American tax payers, and not toward artificially inflated healthcare costs resulting from government interference in the free market. "And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically!" Any spending (and resulting taxation) on the part of the federal government which is not absolutely required to defend just the most basic rights of its citizens is superfluous, wasteful and unjust. This includes entitlements to the undeserving, pet projects for state representatives, and unnecessary wars. I have a problem with wasteful spending, period-- regardless of which party is responsible. Your round 2 question: "Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk?" This is definitely an emotional gambit, but I certainly would not let someone bleed to death on the street. Is someone who has not paid for medical insurance entitled to not bleed to death on the street? I'd say no. He has put himself at the mercy of others by opting to pass on health insurance. He is fortunate that society will find a way to take care of him. That is our nature, but it is not our obligation. "I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess... I could possibly consider going along with this" I'm glad you understand where I am coming from. I can definitely see your point as well. I want you to consider one thing: almost every product and service available in this country (via free enterprise) has been made available (at some level) to most people, regardless of economic status. I don't know many welfare recipients (much less working people) who do not have a roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation, etc. You can thank the free market for that. When the free market senses a need, products and services are immediately developed to accommodate that need, and at a price to satisfy almost every budget. Yes, quality is sacrificed in many cases. But the overall need is typically met. The same could happen with healthcare. There is currently a HUGE need or affordable healthcare, and entrepreneurs are chomping at the bit to get rich meeting that need. Unfortunately, government interference in the free market has made it implausible and unprofitable at this time.

First and foremost, I reject the claim that I must "prove" anything, on account of the fact that the nature of this matter is not one in which mathematics can properly illustrate. However, I believe that I can still argue against the practicality of universal love with a certain amount of a priori reasoning by using a common method in ethical arguments: namely, through hypothetical case scenarios.To begin with, I would like to point out that there are two different fronts that I must attack when it comes to espousing the view of universal love: 1.) the personal, in which a single individual wanders the world with these ushey-gushey sensibilities, and 2.) the ideal, in which all individuals in the world adhere to the mindset of universal love.1.) The Personal Case scenario #1Joe is a man who feels the sensation of universal love. He treats all people and all things with an equal amount of care. From his mother to a complete stranger, he feels that all beings are worthy of equal sympathy. It turns out that his mother is suffering from cancer, and needs exactly $26,000 to afford proper treatment. Joe has exactly $26,000 in his savings account. On the day that he hears from his mother's ailment, he is deeply affected on account of his love for her; but he also sees an advertisement on the internet asking for donations for the well-being of old Frankie Wilcox, whom Joe has never seen before in his life. It turns out that Frankie also needs precisely $26,000 in order to survive from his particular ailment. Joe is equally moved by this advertisement, and suddenly does not know what to do, as each of these people are equally valuable to him by his sensation of universal love. The only logical explanation for him is to flip a coin; wherever it lands, one life must be as good as another.This scenario illustrates how deeply Joe is capable of feeling for people. Even if his mother was not suffering from cancer, a random stranger can still suck him into forking out $26,000. But when one is willing to fork out that much money to absolutely anyone, what is left of ones own well-being? When one is capable of such deep love for any single being (i.e. to the point in which they make extraneous sacrifices), their love for the rest of the world would bleed them dry. This would naturally act counter to ones own survival, which is not practical for a healthy and normal existence.Furthermore, what should happen when Joe is taken advantage of by a fake cancer victim? The world we live in is naturally inhabited by deceivers and manipulators. Joe could choose not to trust these people, but has he loved them equally without trust? Our intuitions would say no, as trust or mistrust are necessary conditions for equal treatment -and therefore- love.Case Scenario #2Carrie is a woman who feels very little for anyone besides herself. She treats people with respect and affection, but she does not show favoritism to any one person over another. When she sees that Frankie and her mother each need $26,000 in order to survive, she sends a card to each of them offering her condolences. While she values each of these people -along with every other person in the world- equally, it cannot be said that she loves anyone: she likes people, and gives them -what she feels to be- proper appreciation.What have we learned: By valuing all things deeply, we demean our own success in life. By valuing all things shallowly, we never experience love.2.) The IdealCase Scenario #3Carl lives in a society in which everyone loves each other equally. People look out for complete strangers, and complete strangers look out for you; you can trust everyone to look out for the betterment of the community. But Carl faces a morbid misfortune while he is hiking in the local mountain with his daughter: as they make their way through the trails, they hear a shriek cry about twenty feet ahead of them. Carl rushes to help the mysterious individual, who is found hanging off the edge of a cliff. But Carl has only made it ten feet when he hears his daughter shriek as well. He looks over his shoulder to find her in the same position as the stranger that he sought to aid. Equidistant from both, he simply shrugs, flips a coin, and is content with whatever result may come.Obviously, this rubs against our moral intuitions. It is biologically written into us that we ought to value our own flesh and blood over beings that we have no knowledge of; this is what allows us to successfully reproduce, pass on our genes, and survive. The whole point of love is to take care of your mate, your young, and whoever else needs a helping hand. What I espouse is something not unlike Confucius's' concept of filial piety; the difference, however, is that instead of strictly prioritizing your elders/ancestors, I feel that evolution teaches us to love in spheres of moral consideration: our immediate familial units come first (i.e. spouse, children, parents), our extended family second, our good friends third, acquaintances fourth, and so on. While it would be cute for humanity as a whole to work as a pack, this would run counter to the darker side of evolutionary biology, which is that we must compete -or at the very least, prioritize- in order to survive.


Question: Should Every Individual Receive a Universal Basic Income?

The United States should implement a universal basic income (UBI) system for several compelling reasons. Firstly, UBI would foster innovation by encouraging entrepreneurship, enhancing education, and supporting college education. The risk aversion caused by economic insecurity hinders innovation and startup creation. With UBI, the fear of financial hardship is alleviated, allowing individuals to take risks and create new products or services. This effect has been observed in countries like Namibia and India, where UBI led to a surge in entrepreneurship. Additionally, UBI ensures that families receive a basic income, preventing teens from dropping out of school to work and paving the way for a future generation of innovators. UBI also funds higher education, increasing the number of college-educated students and fostering innovation.

Secondly, UBI would lead to lower work hours, which has significant implications for climate change. Western European countries have reduced work hours, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions and less global climate change. Empirical evidence from social experiments on the negative income tax, a form of UBI, shows reductions in work effort among women and men. If implemented nationally, UBI could substantially decrease work hours, reducing consumption and mitigating global warming.

Lastly, UBI would address economic inequality, which is closely linked to environmental degradation. Income inequality is negatively correlated with environmental sustainability, as it leads to biodiversity loss and reduced pro-environmental public spending. Studies have found that wider income inequalities are associated with lower environmental expenditure. UBI would cut the poverty rate significantly, eliminating structural violence and poverty and promoting equality in society.

In conclusion, UBI would increase innovation by promoting entrepreneurship, lowering dropout rates, and increasing higher education. It would also lower working hours, reducing carbon emissions, and decrease overall inequality, all of which contribute to solving global warming. For these reasons, the implementation of UBI should be strongly considered.

My opponent keeps hiding from reality. Over the course of this debate my opponent has kept on dodging questions and seems to be always concerned about what’s relevant to this debate. When this debate was started it was supposed to be a debate based on reality and not science fiction. In the title it’s clear that this debate is about a current political issue. That’s why a part of the title states, “given current conditions.” My opponent really doesn’t want to argue one of the most important parts of this debate and that’s the actual implementation of the plan. I believe if it was an easy argument for him then he probably wouldn’t complain about whether or not it’s relevant to this debate and would probably argue it instead. Anyhow lately he’s gotten very technical with definitions. If he wanted to debate this way he should have let me know before the debate. This debate was supposed to be on common sense and logic. That’s why I never provided definitions or made rules at the beginning. If he wants to debate technically then maybe he should also use proper definitions for his own arguments. For example at the end of round three he states “I hope we can both… reach a civil agreement by the end!“ Technically a civil agreement is an agreement that’s usually reached through court. (1) Now do we all understand what he means? Absolutely. He doesn’t actually mean that he hopes we reach an agreement through court but rather just an agreement. This is just one simple example of how I wanted this debate to be. This debate was supposed to be casual where neither of us got technical and just focused on the issue of this problem not definitions. I ask my opponent to keep this debate on topic, relevant to reality and relevant to the real life issue we are debating on. Counterplan Since my opponent has asked me to provide a better plan on health care I will provide a very general outline of a couple plans that are better. I will keep it simple because my opponent has only stated that he believes we should implement universal health care which is a very general outline of a big plan. It’s only fair that I’m allowed to do the same. Universal health care plan (modified) I don’t like this plan but it’s better than the universal health care plan my opponent supports. What if we took the same plan but modified it to only pay for those who couldn’t afford to pay for health care. For those who could only pay a certain amount the government could help them pay and maybe split the bill in half. Really the man reason as to why this plan is better is because it will save our budget a lot. I ask my opponent to state why he thinks standard universal health care is better A competitive but safe market This plan is a lot safer for the real world since it’s easier to implement and there’s less room for corruption. In this plan the proposal would be keep the market competitive to lower prices but still keep a sense of security with some government aid. To keep the market competitive we would repeal unnecessary laws that made the market less competitive. This would help prices to become lower. Since it’s not right to force individuals to participate in a program they don’t want to we could give them tax credits if they decided to choose alternative medicine or some other form of medicine that the government doesn’t cover. This would help ALL health companies to stay competitive not just the pharmaceutical and big health companies. In order to keep a sense of security the government would pay for any costs that an individual couldn’t afford. Of course this plan depends on a lot of changes within our government, especially with our budget. That means that in order to be able to pay for this plan we would also have to cut other parts of our budget that aren’t necessary. Remember this is just a general outline of a bigger plan. My opponent’s plan is just to somehow implement universal health care the right way. Just these two plans that I have mentioned will definitely work better than universal health care. They are easier to implement and there’s less room for corruption. When I outlined the modified universal health care plan I have to say that I don’t agree with it but it’s better than a standard universal health care plan. I will now refute some of my opponents arguments My opponent wants me to expand on my argument that implementing universal health care would be close to impossible. It seems strange that he’s mostly been arguing that the implementation of universal health care is irrelevant to this debate but he still wants me to expand my argument on this important point. I’m glad to say that at least my opponent has addressed this point and I will easily refute his argument. My opponent thinks that drafting a bill with preventative measures would prevent fraud. The problem with this is that you can never guarantee if that plan would even pass through congress. Our current congress has a 2% passing rate (2) and if we had a president that doesn’t agree with this bill he could easily veto it even if the bill did somehow manage to pass. Further, if the president is corrupt and works for special interest groups and corporations he could easily put a line item veto on any preventative parts of that specific bill. Obamacare is an example of a program that couldn’t be fully implemented because of corruption and parts of government blocking this plan. This is just a simple example of how difficult it is to actually implement anything in our government. One of the next reasons as to why it would be difficult to make sure this plan is implemented right is because our government itself doesn’t work well. Think about it for a moment. Which program or office of our government actually works efficiently? Not really any part does. Anyone should know this if they have tried to work with the IRS or the DMV. If the government can’t even manage itself then we can’t trust the government to somehow manage such a complex program such as universal health care. Let’s just take another example, here’s just one person who’s in our government. How can you expect for us to have an efficient program when we have people like Hank Johnson. My opponent has made plenty of false accusations. Throughout the course of this debate my opponent has made too many false accusations. He’s made so many in fact that I don’t have enough space refute them all. If you have been following this debate then make sure to read the comments. At the bottom of the comment section a debate starts between me and my opponent. Since I don't have enough room to refute them all I will later refute the rest in the comment section. Next I will refute some false accuasations he's made. 1) My opponent has stated that, “my opponent cites the same CEA study I cited before, just after claiming it was not relevant to this debate.” This is false. If you have read my argument in round three NOWHERE in my argument did I state that the study he brought was not relevant to this debate. Further, he’s the one, who has stated that, Any plans for cleaning food sources or the environment, and educating the people, would be separate plans that could be used in conjunction with a Universal Healthcare plan, and that is what the CEA study was referring to This is again another false statement. The CEA study specifically said, “This is important because healthier lifestyle choices have positive, direct benefits on lowering costs” I think that my opponent doesn't understand what direct benefits mean but he originally provided the study not me. I further extend my unaddressed arguments from the previous round.My opponent hasn't addressed all my arguments and has made false accuasations. Further I hope he addresses my arguments and reviews his. (1) http://www.ehow.com... (2) https://www.govtrack.us... (3) https://www.whitehouse.gov...

You've made the following comment a few hours ago about capitalism:"it can be a good idea if you have a bad country and everyone is poor. but if u are living in a wealthy country it will be unfair on the people who are working hard but are getting the same amount of stuff as a dust bin cleaner "In this, you've affirmed that capitalism is a great system for bringing a third world country out of poverty. But if you can see that this system is so great at creating prosperity then why should we change it? Because some people make more than others, even if the others are working a lot "harder"?First of all, we should clarify what we mean by "working hard". Digging a hole in the ground for 4 hours, then burying it for 4 more hours can be exhausting workday, but it's not very productive. If one man uses an axe to cut firewood and the other one is using a butter knife, then the latter one would be working "harder", however most people don't really care how the wood they burn got there, they want to get what they need at the best price possible, and if a producer is more efficient than its competitors, then he can ask lower prices, thus attracting more customers. You can't expect to sell your product by saying "I've worked really hard on this". The value of your product, just like its beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.Now let's look at the other side of the story. I'm sure you, like many others, find the million dollar paychecks of world class football players too high. There are two reasons for this: first, they bring in even more money than that to their employers (and that's the most fundamental rule for any kind of employment), and second, there are not many people who are this good at football, so the people will have to outbid each other in order to get the best players for themselves. These two factors combined can shoot up the price of anything into astronomical heights.Well, I've basically just explained the concept of supply and demand, but what I'd like to hear from you is:1. Why is capitalism preferable in a poor country, but not in a rich one?2. What do you mean exactly by "working hard"?3. Why is wealth inequality so bad?

i am for a minimum wage. i am not arguing a specifc amount, just that it be a reasonable amount a single person can live off of reasonably. we're only debating whether it should exist or not, not how much. i am responding to common objection to the wage from the get go. anywhere i look anyone can get a job for minimum wage if they have their bits together. the only people i know, from experience only which might not be accurate i concede, who can't get a job at minimum wage are the dim wit slacker type. so, no one is being denied a job because of the wage, really. maybe the low wits are being denied 3.50 jobs, i'm not sure, but i doubt we should worry about that too much. i say 3.50 jobs, because that's what the wages would go to without the minimum. to prove this, all we need to do is look back to the 80s. back then, the minimum by law was 3.50. and you can bet people were being paid that much at mcdonald's too. what did increasing it do? it simply caused the people who were paid much less than they shold have to be paid more. so, i think the notion is empiraclly proven wrong that economics will cause the wage to increase, if only we'd ban the minimum, because it hangs around at the minimum, stopping it from going lower. if it were still 3.50 today, that's what people would be paid. and yes, i agree, workers don't stay at exactly 3.50 for long but increase with experience, but they do stay in that low territory for long. so you can't argue it's only temporary. they can work their way up to better jobs, sometimes but not always. whatever the case, they should get a fairer wage whether temporary or long lasting. most places like mcdonald's and other sterotypical places can afford it, and make enough to pay a fairer wage, so they should. also, i'd be open to allowing categorical exclusions or something for people who pick dandelions for others or somehting. they shouldn't be paid minimum wage. most jobs should though, mcdonald's etc. if you can't afford to pay a decent wage, you sholdnt be in business. we're always denying someone the opportunity to hire for beans but that doesn't mean we should just ban the minimum wage. it's like denying indians the right to land: as a practical matter we have to have laws that prevent them from land, but we should recognize how our laws infringe, and act accordingly. with indians, and here. or, imagine a primitive world where a man has all the land taken up by the laws of man, and using technology to claim it like in farming etc: a family wanting to branch off can't because of the law of man, the law of God says they can. it's not stealing, it's fixing the fact the family has the right to take what God has given everyone but laws prevent it and keep things civil. these analogies are happening today, as we prevent people access to the natural world, which is a right. we have to recognize how laws infringe and act accordingly, if not by ging land, then by something else, to be reasonable and not partition everything absurdly. also, even if some places pay more than minimum doesn't mean we shouldn't have the minimum, as has been suggested. if it's not being used, hten great. if it is, then that's when it matters and the law should exist. also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum.

Truly free individuals are not required to work or contribute in any way for the benefit of their fellow citizens. They are free to do as they wish, for whatever cause they find worthy, as long as they do not undermine the same freedom to which others are entitled. Truly free individuals are free to help others if they so choose and are free to enter into agreements with others for personal or mutual benefit. But such actions are not compulsory in a truly free society.

Again you say "how can we" as if the lives of all Americans are dependent on welfare. All Americans are not dependent on welfare- only a few are. You also act as if welfare is the only option. The better option would be getting a job. Getting a job will easily pay the few bills a poor person should have. You asked me to give you "One" reason why welfare should be abolished. I have already given you many, I spent a while giving you a full fledged argument. Although it centered upon your central argument, the argument about food- I included many reasons, many more than one in fact. I would make a longer post, but you don't give me much to work with. I work for a while on my responses and you reply with one run on sentence, apparently not giving me the respect to acknowledge my argument. While some of you might not exactly agree with my opinion here in this debate, I trust members of this website will be able to look at both of our arguments objectively and decide who actually won this debate. The person here who took the effort to attempt to make a logical argument, or the one who relied entirely on emotion.

I don't understand the jarble that my opponent put out as an "argument", but I'm just going to say that: yes, everybody is different. Have you ever noticed that nobody in the world looks, acts, or talks like you(disregard identical twins, but even they have different fingerprints and such). Exactly. The only person in the world that is all of this is you.

That isn't necessarily true. What if you have super rich celebrity children who didn't work at all for their money? And by the way, Poor work harder than rich in a lot of cases. I believe that the government should take a percentage off of your income. Not a flat amount. I think that we should take a proportional amount of money from the poor and the rich, Even if that means the rich lose more.

Yes, but you do admit that welfare produced lazy people in the long-run. I suggest that welfare, should be more monitored and maintained so people who have given up are given pep talks and send to a new world, so to speak.

"Everyone has to pay tax so I'm not sure what you mean." When the government decides to tax who and at what rate its picking winners and losers. Who will win at keeping the most of their money and who will lose at keeping most of their money. "The real role of a government is supposed to ensure the rights and equality of everyone" This is again, picking winners and losers. "If the government declares war, that means that nobody wins, because by your statement, it means that both parties get to choose who wins or lose, so both parties could be winners." When war is fought one side always comes out victorious by submitting the other into defeat. This is another example of government picking winners (It's own citizens) and sending it its army after another group of citizens to defeat them in battle and declaring them losers. I challenge my opponent to name one specific government that doesn't pick winners and losers.

"We" do not share the same precise needs. We may share general categories of need, government-provided social services not among them. While within a context in which such services exist one is at a prohibitive disadvtantage without them, this is due mostly to the fact that one will end up paying the taxes anyway. Unless one is incompetent at providing any value to any person who can provide a value, without those taxes one is at no such disadvantage and use their competence at providing such value in exchange for what one needs. Now, certainly, the incompetents need government sponsored, tax funded "social services." But why would a competent person have any concern about that? Or why should someone who has no concern about something be forced to?


Question: Should a Universal Basic Income be Provided to All?

The entitlement to possess property is fundamental to human life. Private property rights (including land...)

The resources of the earth belong to all people or to none. Under a capitalist system, property is amassed in the hands of a small, affluent segment of the population, leaving the majority impoverished and reliant on the wealthy for employment, benevolence, etc. This results in significant disparities, exploitation, and suffering. Furthermore, it is not economically effective, as the affluent have already amassed such substantial wealth that they lack motivation to utilize their land productively. Socialism aims to reallocate wealth and ensure that the tools of production serve the entire community, so that everyone may prosper and no one will be deprived.

Shouldn't the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) be considered to ensure that everyone has a fair share of the earth's resources and to alleviate the issues arising from wealth concentration? UBI could serve as a means to redistribute wealth, providing a safety net for all and mitigating the negative effects of capitalism. By giving every individual a guaranteed income, we can ensure that everyone has the means to live a dignified life, regardless of their employment status. This could lead to a more equitable society, where people are not left at the mercy of the wealthy for their basic needs.

I have seen the rampant hypocrisy in your argument. I will elaborate on my argument further on, but let me start off by stating that your argument is entirely referrable to Communism, which is a socio-economic ideology that prohibits the ownership of private property. What you say, is that instead of a population forming around the successful, they should instead form around the unsuccessful. Instead of everyone having lots of land and wealth, everyone should lack wealth and land, as to create equality. Communism sets to create synthetic equality by eliminating the need for more, which in turn creates inequality. A Democratic Republic, or anything of the latter, sets to create equal opportunity, rather then equality altogether. If you look at the human population, there is nothing but inequality. Different race, religion, gender, size, strength, intelligence, etc. Instead of creating equality altogether, which you cannot do without a complete racially motivated genocide, you should create equal rights and equal freedoms. By looking at your statement, you should give up your own home, your own computer, and your own belongings, because others lack some thereof. Do you now understand the hypocrisy in your statement? "Most people cannot grow their own food" - this is untrue. Everyone, by definition, has the ability to grow food. They, however, lack the will to do so, because that service is provided for them by people who are entrusted to grow food, and then sell it at a price. This is called a profession, and that profession provides a type of service or a type of product, which in this case, is food. Without private property, which you seek to abolish, we get rid of all industry altogether. We get rid of competition, which gets rid of incentive. When we get rid of incentive, we state that harder or smarter work means you will gain the same amount as one who works poorly. You cannot support a nation in this way. As Winston Churchill stated "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Also, upon analyzing your statement once more, I come to see that you have denied your own claim. At the start you say "Most people cannot grow their own food", and then you begin to say "Everyone can grow their own food." I await your response.

Again I am not sure I understand what you are trying to debate me on , you challenged me as to why I believe in both , I told you , what exactly do you want to debate me on. I told you my views on welfare. I do not have a problem with welfare , but the system in seriously flawed as are some social programs that we have . I know people that get the Gov't to pay for most of their rent , yet they have never worked and their youngest child is 8 years old. I know drug addicts that recieve EBT cards , yet do not support their children. I know people that get the Govt to pay most of their rent , yet they have other adults living with them with income that they do not fess up about. So yes I do not believe I should have to pay someone's rent because they just do not like working. I don't think my money should go into an addicts pocket when he is not even forced to pay for his children. So you are right I have some problems with the welfare system as it is now. i do not think that welfare should be eliminated completely , however on the profile questions I had to choose one or the other and since I do not agree with the way it is currently run , i chose disagree. Okay you state that all those children that are aborted would need welfare , eyt you just proved the numbers of women that would need wefare is 50% not 100%. There is no reason a woman can't give up her child for adoption. If you agree that abortion is wrong , what exactly are you debating me on????????

The right to getting proper care is a right, how efficient that right is another matter. Thus, people should have access to free health care, no insurance, just go to the clinic and get yourself patched up. Moreover, this also counts for accidents, and not getting broke after.

Thank you for being respectful and understanding, I will rebuttal to the best of my ability. I would like to point out communism is a near utopian society but it would only solve the current problems with capitalism as Marx only intended it to be. Other problems would arise for sure. 1.Now i have encountered this argument several times and while it is true there are some less desirable jobs it doesn't change the premise of my original argument. People will work for others as well and realize that some jobs must be done. These less desirable jobs become less undesirable when you are in control of doing it and are not pressured by your employer. Not to mention you receive the praise from your peers and the society as a whole and your job would feel like it has intrinsic meaning and importance. I don't really think I need to address this argument any further because automation would take care of the ones you listed and much more and this isn't exactly speculation either. 2.Supply and demand go up and down but depending on their elasticity a surplus is usually created and sold at a low price to rid the excess supply. People will consume many different commodities but is this really what they want or what makes them happy? This leads into the philosophical part of this debate. Marx got much of his ideas from the philosopher Epicurus who spent his life trying to find out what made us happy and through his empirical studies he found out that it is not material wealth that makes us happy but our friends and family (I know sounds generic). I will leave a video further explaining his philosophy. 3. This is a very opinionated argument. You would almost certainly get bored of doing nothing at all after awhile. I don't really see how this argument be resolved since it will be very opinionated either way. Again, you work because you want to in communism. The point of communism is to make you want to work. Of course you would like to just lay around and do nothing right now in your current job but this is because of the worker alienation you are experiencing at your job.

Thanks for the argument, Con. Well, it is quite apparent that my opponent has dropped a few of my points. I had more than 7 points while he had only 5 in rebuttals. First, allow me to rebut the one's he did actually refute, and then I will display the arguments he didn't even touch. 1. Lands can benefit the collectiveMy opponent concedes here that this is simply a matter of opinion. That's not a very good way to refute an argument, however, especially no in the last round. We have differing opinions and no one proved it either way. Luckily for me, my opponent has the BOP. It was his job to convince the audience that this would indeed benefit the collective, he did nothing of the sort. All that my opponent is saying on this matter is that "I honestly believe that having more people in the workforce, stimulating the economy and consumption, is more beneficial to the collective at this point in time. " Saying you think one way or another is not proving a point. This point is effectively shattered. (I'm lumping the second paragraph in my next rebuttal. )2. Land UseThis is a fine demonstration on how the land would be divided up, by isn't my opponent getting a little ahead of himself? This seems pretty far from anything I said in the debate, so it must not be a rebuttal. I'm not sure why at all this is necessary. I actually never questioned how the land would be cut up or challenged the idea that giving the same amount of land to all poor would be unfair. Again, it is a nice demonstration and equation, but has no bearing on the case at hand. My opponent claims that the average private (sort of) farm given to poor families would be 1000-3000 acres. Lets just make it 2000 for simplicity. I'm going to try my hand at some math here as well. Since m opponent did earlier say, "Millions of workers operating private farms for free. " earlier, I think I can expose a fallacy. I'm still not clear on my opponent's intentions. He claims that receiving land would now be based on your income. However, there is a problem with this. Not everyone with a low income can be given land. The U. S. government simply doesn't have enough to do this. Lets just take one million private farms (that is what my opponent proposed is it not? ) and times that by 2000 (2000 acre farms). The number you receive is 2 billion. Yes folks, that's 2 billion acres my opponent think the government has, ready for farm use. That is preposterous. We have millions of acres of government land, not billions. My opponent's idea is much smaller than he imagined. However, no matter the size, it wouldn't even work.3. Operating Costs Exceed DemandI find this point to be very, very weak. First off, my opponent claims that "operating a farm costs more than the average real estate bid. " I honestly do not see what you are getting at. What is the connection between the case at hand an average real estate bids? Audience, please ignore that point, it has no connection to the case. My opponent also brings up the USDA trying to push for an agricultural surplus. This may be true. However, the U. S. is not "sitting on all the land we need to do this. " My opponent completely ignored my point about the ways in which this land actually is being used. These uses included recreation, energy production, animal grazing, and many others. See my link in round 2 for more. "We are sitting on all the land we need to do this, and since people are spending no money, and the sharecropping institution is ran collectively, we can operate and run farms for nearly free. "Don't be misled by this nice plate of word salad. Since people are spending no money? Which people is this referring to? The U. S. citizens I know spend their fair share of money. My opponent claims that somehow this statement shows how farms can be run and operated for nearly free. However, this does not really make sense. No matter what, tractors must be purchased, diesel and gas must be supplied, seed must be bought, repairs must be paid for, and taxes must be fulfilled. That seems like a good number of expenses there. Farming is hardly free, even sharecropping.4. Success on the homesteadI'm certainly glad my opponent clarified himself. However, I have little to refute here because I have now been using the idea of sharecropper farms for all my rebuttals. I do want to highlight one thing though. "Under the supervision of the government. " This may not be a problem, but again it may. I'm not saying the government is corrupt or something, I'm simply saying that when things are fully in the hands of the people, they seem to be much more effective and productive. I want talk to much about this point, but I thought I should point it out. My opponent's explanation of the housing on these collective farms is fine, I suppose I have no real problem with that. However, it doesn't really correspond to any of my arguments. Again, I think my opponent is getting ahead of himself. He is trying to start the project before he has been granted approval (by the audience that is). I can see my opponent has put a lot of time into developing his idea, but I am sorry to say, it wouldn't work. 5. I will concede this actually. I thought that by "distribute" my opponent meant to just give the lands away. This makes more sense. I'm glad we are now on the same page. Don't think this has much bearing on the debate though, audience. This point is relatively meaningless. We have been debating over the leasing idea this whole time anyway. DROPPED POINTSMy opponent has completely dropped a few of my points. I won't restate them, but I will list them here. Point 6 regarding the rancher scenarioPoint 1 regarding land usagePoint 2 regarding future developmentPoint 7 regarding the purchasing of equipmentCONCLUSIONMy opponent strengthened his case perhaps, but not considerably. He still fails to show that his would benefit society as a whole, how operating expenses would be paid for, and what land the government actually holds that could accomplish this. Pro had the BOP on this one and he did not fulfill his burden. The resolution has not been proven and is therefore, null. Thanks for an awesome debate ChosenWolff. This really was a lot of fun.

This debate has been full of miscommunication. The first and most obvious case was in the very titling of this debate; my opponent made a mistake by not saying we would be debating the probability of implementation. Then, despite this obvious error, he continued not to listen to me pointing this out, and simply asks why I don't want to debate that. Well, the answer is obvious: we never agreed to debate if a plan COULD be implemented, so why should I have to? But I have spoken on this issue enough already. Just because my opponent can't understand this doesn't mean the people reading this debate won't. Obviously my opponent isn't the only one who made mistakes. I cited the CEA study which was not SPECIFICALLY about Universal Healthcare (although the principles apply). However, my opponent keeps saying that I made a mistake and should not have cited it (which is more or less true), yet still continually points to that study throughout the debate. It should go without saying that this doesn't make much sense. These kinds of logical fallacies have run rampant in this debate, and I think we can both agree that this was not as productive a debate as we hoped. Here I will refute my opponent's final arguments:Most of what I say in the following paragraphs I have already stated, but as my opponent seems to have missed these points, I will restate them here for his benefit. My opponent says that I asked him to argue more about implementing this plan. This is simply not true. In round three I said I would like him to provide evidence as to why Universal Healthcare would be impossible as "he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up." My opponent tried, but his argument of course fell flat. And we have already argued enough about the topic of this debate; it should be obvious to people who is right as soon as they read the title.Not to get too deep into proper word usage, but my opponent seems to think his usage of "should" is justified just because this is a political debate. That just doesn't make sense. Again, you are confusing the words "should" and "could". My opponent should sit down with a dictionary and review his statements (if he refuses to just use common sense) (1). I never said I didn't read my own source; that is preposterous. My opponent really needs to read everything he quotes more carefully. In the quote he provided you can see that I did not say what my opponent thinks. But the fact that my opponent is still bringing up my source from round 2 in the final round should tell you something: my opponent has run out of valid arguments and has sunk to name calling. As for how much Universal Healthcare would slow the growth of healthcare costs (again, my opponent uses the CEA study as a crutch), the obvious answer would be almost 100%. The reason why is because nobody would directly have to pay for their own healthcare anymore. Of course this wouldn't be completely accurate because money would still be relocated from other areas of spending, but insurance would no longer have the leverage to charge nearly as much as they do now. Logically, a 1.5% decrease is easily achievable. And I already admitted that the CEA study shouldn't have been brought into this. That is more proof that my opponent doesn't read my arguments. About my opponent's plan:First of all, my opponent says he doesn't even support his own plan. If this is true, than he shouldn't have provided that plan in the first place, as both of us agree it is a horrible idea!And I have stated why it is worse, many times, in round 4. It is in no way better than Universal Healthcare. Anyone can see why my opponent's plan is bad. To recap, it denies coverage to many people, it forces people to pay extra taxes and get nothing in return, it is full of budgetary problems and couldn't be paid for the way it was outlined, and it is much more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare.I exposed many additional problems with my opponent's plan in Round 4. The fact is that in your plan, you are STILL forcing people to pay taxes for the healthcare for the poor, without getting anything back. And if they opt out, which seems likely, than your plan can't be paid for because there's no money going into it.Note on my opponent's closing statement: I don't want to argue about the implementation of this plan because that's not what we agreed to argue about, not because I can't. Would you want to turn this into a debate about whether or not the tooth fairy is real? Of course not, because that isn't what this debate is supposed to be about. Again, my opponent keeps saying that I have not addressed all of his arguments, but doesn't point out what he wants me to address. I believe I have addressed all of his points, and he is simply trying to distract from the overall debate. If he really wanted me to address specific points, he should clarify which ones. Closing statements:Universal Healthcare would increase the health, happiness, and lifespan of Americans. It would boost our economy, and encourage small businesses with the freedom to choose whatever career you want (without worrying about coverage benefits), helping to get money flowing. Healthcare should ethically be provided for everyone because of how essential it is. Almost every other major western country in the world has provided healthcare for all their citizens. Implementing Universal Healthcare would be very beneficial and have very few or no downsides, as my arguments throughout this debate prove.My opponent has continuously dragged this debate off topic and made false statements, provided little to no evidence, and doesn't even know what we are supposed to debate about. He has said virtually nothing about why implementing Universal Healthcare would be bad, only saying it would be unlikely. Please look at this, and decide for yourself who had the better argument. I look forward to debating my opponent again, and thank you to everyone who read through this.Vote for pro! (1) http://www.dictionary.com...

This stems from an earlier argument with my opponent, Anarcho about whether the free market is beneficial to society or not. I'll begin by presenting several arguments from the earlier debate. Good luck to both of us! 1) Minimum wage: My opponent is in favour of it. There are several reasons to be opposed to it, however. One of the obvious is the fact that it can harm the economy. Businesses are expected to pay a certain amount, even if they can't afford it. This can affect how much goods they're able to produce thus hindering their ability to produce profit. Less profit can also result in less jobs available as they would only be able to afford to hire a limited number of workers. On the contrary, by removing minimum wage laws there are no such barriers to employment. Businesses would be able to pay whatever they can afford while still being fair. If an employee doesn't like the wages offered by a particular business they have a choice to not work there. They could seek out a business that pays better wages. Also, most businesses would be inclined to pay fair wages anyway; if nobody wants to work at a particular place due to bad wages then that business would risk bankruptcy. Paying unfair wages wouldn't be worth the risk for an established businessperson of losing their hard-earned business. 2) Welfare/social security: It is inevitable that in every society there'll be poor people. Both the left and right have different ways of approaching this issue. I am in favour of the right-wing view of abolishing the government social services. This has a few advantages. It, of course, requires paying taxes. With lower tax rates people would have more money to spend on other things, including donations to charity. This is a completely voluntary action and doesn't involve citizens being told what to use their money on. One may question these motives and think that few people would donate and leave very little money for the disadvantaged. However, with more money available it is possible that more donations would occur than what presently occurs. Another obvious issue is the abuse of current welfare systems. There are many people who receive funding through welfare who are either lazy and refuse to work or are addicts and want money to support their addictions. I'm sure most reasonable taxpayers wouldn't want their hard-earned money going to these people. Without government welfare programs these people are given incentive to go out and work and even if their regular wages aren't enough there is opportunity to do other things on the side to earn more money. These are just a couple points to start off what I hope will be an interesting debate. I conclude that a free market is more efficient than a controlled economy. I'll bring up more points to be addressed as the debate progresses. Again, Good luck to both of us!

1. im referring to all types of caitalism. 2. you are obviously having a difficult time debating, seeing as you have made all of these claims in round 2 but you have not given any reasons or basis for why you believe it. in a sense you havent even been debating, you have just been stating your opinion and arrogantly expecting people to just have faith in what you say. 3. you act like society couldnt work without money but there are cultures and societies in the the past and present that dont use money at all. you even said yourself in the comments that you are in favor of a barter economy which still wouldnt work in a future civilization but it shows your hypocrisy. 4. the soviet union has nothing to do with what im talking about. you are using old conventional thinking. 5. a) society can own the machines in the future, it doesnt have to be individual ownership. b) your claim that machines wont have creativity has no basis and therefore should be dismissed. many scientists disagree with you. there is a growing awareness of something called the technological singularity that is predicted. russia has even started a congressional committee dedicated to figuring out ways to deal with the impact that the singularity will have on society. its called russia 2045. c) it doesnt matter what anyone thinks about the ethics of greed. there is no choice, either we adapt and have a great standard of living, or we ignore the fact that machines will eventually be able to take over our jobs leaving us poor which will probably lead to more conflict, if not the demise of our species. 6. once again, my argument isnt about the ethics of wage slavery or any of that, we simply have no choice. technology is rendering money obsolete. 7. incentives to be rich are cute ideas but it holds back technological advancement. that is why computer operating systems like windows always release updated versions of heir software that we must buy, rather than making it open source so that individuals can improve on it and share it for free. the internet is one of the first examples of how innovation is eliminating capitalism with things like media and software pirating and open source web browsers just to name a couple.

First off, I would lie to say that it has been total waste of my 13 minutes arguing against you. THANK'S SO MUCH!!! Anyways, Think about it. Would you want a world where everyone is forced into (basically slavery, but not working) doing the same task over, and over and OVER again? Or would you want to world that we live in right now, having fun and doing a lot of different things? If you do, VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP V

The only reason that people who have advanced degrees aren't getting work are because they're being beat out by outsourced people who are willing to work for more hours with less pay. So If you apply your "Tough Luck" persona, then they can go out there and decide to work for themselves. Of course the government wouldn't be paying for ALL of the college. Just the part of the tuition the family couldn't offord. Students for everything EXCEPT community college take only the top half and up. Hell, UCLA only takes the top eighth. So for GOOD colleges the competition would increase. And think of all the people who were penniless, but received education and became great americans? Like Frederick Douglass, he was born a slave, was taught to read, escaped, and read and preached and learned whenever possible. And the unemployment rate would not go up if there is still the same number of people. They would simply have a better education and thus have a better understanding of the world. And how on EARTH would this raise taxes more than they already are? Now, we're already in a massive deficit. We can pull ourselves out of it with QUALIFIED people to lead America to a brighter future. "However, your reasoning is that by throwing money at poor people, we can turn them all into doctors and lawyers." I must say that this doesn't make you look that sympathetic to the unemployed. Now, there is a lot of evidence that people who are in a better environment work and behave better. Thus, in your terms, throwing money at poor people would turn them into doctors and lawyers. I now leave you to th closing argument.