Resolution: "Health care/education is not a right"

Resolution notes: The "/" in the resolution is ambiguous. Does this function as "and"; "or"; "and/or"; or something else? I'm unsure about this. Pro's use of "is" as opposed to "are" seems to suggest that Pro did not use the "/" to mean "and". I will try not to be pedantic about this unless it becomes material.

Guidance: The burden of proof is on Pro since he brings the claim. In order to win, Pro must argue that the resolution is true without any convincing refutation from Con. If Pro fails to do this, then Con wins.

Summary: Pro has confounded his wishes with reality. Had the resolution been "Health care/education should not be a right", then I would be more willing to entertain Pro's libertarian-esque theorizing. Con cites sources which clearly indicate that health care and education are rights.

Pro and Con do not appear to be on the same page during this debate, largely because of a dispute about the source of rights. Pro asserts them to be derived scientifically, rationally, or morally, while Con asserts that they are created by man as laws. This is a definitional argument, and the common interpretation of the word "right" is in the legal sense. Pro was the first to use the word "right" - He used it in the debate title and in round 1 with reference to education and health care. The fact that he does this implies usage of the word in the legal sense rather some theorizing sense. Pro must disclose his esoteric definition before the debate begins if he wishes to rely upon it. Pro cannot spring upon Con a different definition in the middle of the debate, especially since Pro already used the word in a way that implied a legal context and Pro had the opportunity to present his alternative definition in round 1 but chose not to.

Using the definition in the legal sense as opposed to Pro's sense leads to Con's victory. Con presented evidence indicating that the current state of the law indicates that health care/education is a right. This evidence wasn't addressed by Pro. Rather, Pro argued that these things can't be rights if they harm other people. Con convincingly refutes this argument by pointing out that it isn't relevant whether or not exercising the right harms another because rights "are created by us."