Which side makes a better case?
avatar
32 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago
    • a year ago

      @simplykately Just for the record we have been great friends for a long time and actually debated together for two years as team mates so the first name usage and the sass was totally from us having known each other for a while ;)

      But thank you for the judgement and bummer about voting draw!

    • a year ago

      @metant3 This isn't first time its happened either 😂 Remember our octafinal in Cleveland? Where one judge votes for me one for you and the third said they couldn't decide?

    • a year ago

      @lewisoflime hahah it's a proper Draw! @simplykately will come soon to declare the final winner...

    • a year ago

      Hahahaha yeah I forgot about that Joe.

      and sounds good Gigi lol

  • a year ago
  • a year ago
  • a year ago
    • a year ago
      • a year ago

        Solid debate to one of my best mates @lewisoflime. Super intense and really great clash. Nice work my friend and thanks for a good round.

        • a year ago

          Great debate guys!

        • a year ago

          The debate was great overall! Both great arguments and points.

          On a sidenote, @metant3 Man you can literally have a YT channel! Love your debates! Great argumentation, logical order and interesting stuff all around! I've seen a few so far, and I'm always drawn to them.

        • a year ago

          In his opening, in the first minute, Pro foolishly equates health insurance and health care, which are Not the same thing but he substitutes them in and out in his statements. He then calls the health care system "capitalist" which it clearly is Not as he accidentally explains in that opening. He repeats his confusion by equating the ACA with Universal HC and a Single-Payer system.
          Con rightfully points out that Pro is advocating for a monopoly health care system, which Pro simultaneously admits is terrible by complaining about alleged "gouging" which he also doesn't understand either how that works or what price gouging is. He also shows immense ignorance on how the medical system works calling it continually a "capitalist system" which is absurdly ridiculous and foolish. The exact issues he complains about is from the system he advocates for permeating the US medical system. His 'rebuttals' to why the countries that do have a single-payer system are so terrible is "they don't spend enough." haha
          More so I would like to know what Pro thinks the government is. Does he thing the Govt is some magical, independant entity that has an endless amount of its own money?

          • a year ago

            @nellyj_misesian Inflammatory adjectives are not the mark of intellect my friend.

          • a year ago

            @lewisoflime well you didn't even believe your own argument so there is an obviously lack of both consistency and principle here. Perhaps you did do it as simply the sport of debate and you fake it well, which would say a lot, but very poor arguments based on a poor understanding of the issues. Nobody, not even yourself, believes 'in all cases life is the most important issue' or you'd only have 1 kidney.
            That said, your lack of understanding based on your claims of basic economic principles, essential terms you used and Capitalism itself is appalling.

            Also, a key sign of liberal ignorance is to think health care and health insurance are the same thing which you did over and over here.

        • a year ago

          Good round guys. I see why you two would have been great debate partners throughout high school. @lewisoflime you're a very smooth speaker and your charisma is infectious. After round 1 I actually picked you as my favorite to win the tournament, since you are very well spoken and your organization is impressive. Meanwhile, @metant3 is a little less polished of a speaker, but he feels very solid and grounded, with strong evidence and analysis. You two would have balanced each other very well as partners.

          That being said, in this debate, I think the rational, grounded approach the Con took felt superior to the charisma and passion of the Pro, so I voted Con.

          There was one major argument that the entire round came down to. Is socialized healthcare preferable to other options? Pro pointed to his study about socialized healthcare in California, as well as examples like Singapore and Luxembourg. Con responds with several studies including one that compared the results of studies out of 20+ countries who tried socialized healthcare and found socialized healthcare to be significantly worse. He also shows problems with Canada, and analyzes the reason why a private system creates incentive.

          The best source in the round is the study from the Brookings Institute (among others) that compared and contrasted results from numerous countries who had tried socialized healthcare vs. private healthcare and found that it was overwhelmingly better for private institutions.

          Pro tries to counter with his California specific study, but Con points out that the California study is just a prediction. Pro says yeah it's a prediction but it's a really good source so we should trust them. Honestly this is a bad response. I don't care about what theoretically can work if the empirical examples show it not working in the past.

          In order for Pro to win that argument, he needs to show what it is about his version of socialized healthcare that is better than the versions that have always failed. His only answer is that if those countries spent more money, then socialized healthcare would start working.

          First of all, that seems like Pro is agreeing that in most situations, socialized healthcare has failed and would have required more spending to make it work. But more than that, if it requires so much more spending, why is this a good thing? That sounds like Pro is writing his own D/A against his own case.

          I get that Pro is basing this on the idea of saving lives, but if he's not showing that socialized healthcare is more successful, then the opposite would actually occur. This is where Con's examples of numerous countries who failed at socialized healthcare are very convincing, especially with his analysis of why that happens. Of course people who are incentivized to do something will do it better than those who aren't. That's human nature, and when backed up by the empirical examples, it's a clear winning issue for Con.

          Pro's case seems really theoretical and his hyperbolic rhetoric hurt his credibility in my book. It also made Con seem more grounded when Con kept coming back to actual results.

          Honestly, I think Pro is better than this case. He didn't need to go all in on Socialized healthcare, and if he was going to go all in on it, he needs some better support for what has changed to make the idea so much better than it's prior results.

          The resolution simply says that Governments should provide for citizens basic medical needs. That doesn't necessitate socialized healthcare. It would be like if a resolution said "some Nazi's are good people at heart" and then the pro makes a case saying "Nazi's are the best type of people in the world!" which, if correct, would prove the resolution true, but it's a much harder position to defend than the actual resolution itself.

          There are two ways I think Pro could have taken this resolution that would have been a better case for him.

          1. "Moral" aspect. Why make this a policy round? Why not just focus on the value aspect and talk about what governments have a moral obligation to do, and bring up deaths like he clearly wants to do? I feel like this would be a much easier case to defend, because he would just talk about what governments "should" find a way to do, and let someone else figure out the specific way.

          2. "Basic Medical Needs" is a low bar. "Socialized healthcare" is a high bar. You brought up ambulances as an example. Why not have a case saying limited amounts of essential needs should be provided by government, for emergency rooms or hospitals or something? Does your opponent actually think we shouldn't have ambulances and emergency rooms? You could have pushed Michael into a libertarian corner here, but instead you let him push you into a socialist corner.

          Overall, good round, but Pro set himself too high of a bar that he didn't need to do, and Con easily disproved it.

          • a year ago

            Also just ftr, Con didn't accept the rez. Con said there was a difference between government providing insurance vs. government providing healthcare. Significant difference between the two.

        • a year ago

          I thought this debate was kind of a hot mess. Both @lewisoflime and @metant3 are great debaters, but this debate got off on a bad footing with a somewhat ill-defined case and then spiraled out from there in a lot of different directions. The themes at the end were very different than the themes at the beginning. That's fine for a discussion style debate, but for competition, it's not so good.

          You both agree that later in the debate, whoever solves for more lives wins. A lot of what came before was about costs and the like and really, you both throw out half or more of your opening arguments by doing this That normally makes my life easier... but not here.

          On one hand, on Pro, I have arguments about mortality rates and specifically the danger to people without the means to afford healthcare. He zeroes in on this towards the end, and Con never refuted mortality specifically, nor offered a private solve for affordability. So that looks good for Pro.

          But Con does have better evidence showing that overall quality of the system decreases under public administration. Presumably, that impacts mortality but he doesn't make it clear that it does. If you are waiting 4 years for something its probably not life-threatening or your wait would be over the bad way.

          However, Con says that state subsidies can shore up the private system and solve for the uninsured. He insists Pro must argue for single payer, and points out he did argue for single payer.

          Pro does a bit of a pivot and says, hey, if my opponent thinks the state can save lives, that affirms the resolution and our lives criteria. I like single payer but it's not the only way. Its true, his opening case did mention the ACA which is not single payer. But he also attacked the private system as a source of harms.

          No one ran out definitions so I'm left to fend for myself on the resolution question. I'm inclined to vote Pro on my own bias, but this unwieldy debate doesn't really give me an option to weigh my own bias because the points of contention are about the burdens of the two sides more than what they show.

          I'm voting Con and my reason is a bit meta.

          Pro should come with a good, organized case that sets the stage for the debate and shows me how to vote. I didn't get that here. I don't know exactly what Pro was arguing for. It sure seemed like he argued for single payer. So later, when he says, no, I don't need to, the resolution is broader than that, I feel like a fast one has been pulled. I don't think that is intentional mind you, but that is the effect. Con, on the other hand, is a bit more consistent internally.

          I will say, that baring this resolution confusion, I'd vote Pro on the basis of those who simply can't afford coverage. But since it is key and Pro didn't do the legwork to nail that down up front, I feel this is a mistake worth judging on.

          • a year ago

            @sigfried My case was definitely not as strong as it could've been. Michael and I actually had to reset halfway through the debate three times - you're watching the third recording of us debating it. My momentum was way off and I didn't really get to what I needed to. Your analysis is spot on - here's what I was aiming to articulate.

            Out of the first arg (single payer saves) i mention how many people can't afford healthcare.

            Michael's analysis is that gov healthcare is lower quality. It's a response to my arg about single-payer methods, but not a response to my poor people w/o insurance.

            I contest this, but add to it by saying that even his hypothetically "higher quality healthcare" leaves the poor to die - they can't afford the cost of insurance in the normal market.

            Michael then says he doesn't have to contest the gov being out, just that private companies should also be in.

            This is where I tried to focus in the last speech.

            Either he supports the ACA with some competition - in which case, he's affirming the resolution with different arguments. The ACA, and government-funded healthcare, is a provision of basic medical needs.

            If he doesn't, and he negates the res, he runs right back into the argument that I mentioned early on in the round: that the poor people can't afford it.

            The awkward thing is that this is a policy resolution with general scope: counter-planning with another plan that affirms the topic isn't con advocacy. I should've made that clearer from the beginning, and the fact that you weren't persuaded by it is a sign that I failed.

            I appreciate your feedback immensely, friend. Your advice is always constructive and helpful.

          • a year ago

            @lewisoflime A lot comes down what judges hear. And its funny because when you really hammer a point, they can say "wow I got it the first time, no need for so much focus on X." But if you didn't...

            To be super fair, I could listen to a debate two or three times. I bet I'd judge it more perfectly if I did. Not sure I plan to though. ;)

            But part of the art is ensuring the most people get your message and you wisely own that.

            The explanation makes sense too, I kept thinking, these two are a little off their game here, I wonder why. Having to do the debate three times will do that to you!

        • a year ago

          BTW: @metant3 makes a claim about suicide rates in Nordic countries that is largely inaccurate. Finland is a tad higher than the US, Sweeden, just a tiny sliver higher, and the rest lower, some markedly so. And overall, they are not among the nations with dramatically high suicide rates.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

          • a year ago

            @sigfried Suicide rates they are slightly above average but the real number I was referencing was that they are highest is anti-depressants and prescription drugs for dealing with depression in the world, indicating that they arent in fact the happiest.

          • a year ago

            @metant3 True enough, sorry for that.

            Though I'd point out (not related to this debate) that anti-depressants are for clinical depression, which is not really about being unhappy due to the conditions in your life but is a kind of mental illness that floods the mind with negative thoughts and attitudes. A clinically depressed person can be living a perfectly wonderful life and still fall into depths of sorrow.

            The exact causes are not yet fully understood, nor is the exact mechanisms by which the antidepressants work. I grew up in Alaska which also has pretty high rates of depression which seem to be triggered in some people by the polarized light in the seasons, something you also get in the Nordic countries.

            The suicide thing I was just curious on so I looked it up.

          • a year ago

            @sigfried dude no worries you were totally right haha.

            Also agree though with you and to be fair, the happiness argument is kind of non impactful. Like, how do you measure happiness firstly but secondly how does healthcare impact the happiness?

        • a year ago

          test

          • a year ago

            hot

            • a year ago

              I think it was a mistake for the pro to defend single-payer. He tries to evade this by arguing that the con is dodging the resolution, but pro basically tied themselves to single payer from the first speech.
              I personally believe in single-payer, but in this debate it was a tactical error for the pro to defend single payer vs. a more limited system providing for BASIC needs. That would allow for more analysis of contemporary mixed systems such as states with healthcare support for the poor, or medicaid expansion, etc., which would be a lot more interesting than rehashing the "free market vs. nationalized healthcare" debate that has been carried out ad nauseum.
              This makes it difficult to determine the validity of the debate in the context of the resolution, but I do find the con arguments to be a lot more internally consistent from the beginning to the end of the debate.