Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we...

    Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level o…

    Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity. There are certain acts, such as torture, to which no individual should be subjected, regardless of their own behaviour. The Geneva Convention is about universal respect for human dignity. Civilised nations can and should be expected to act in a humane manner.

    • https://debatewise.org/3011-terrorists-should-be-treated-as-prisoners-of-war/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.87
      universal: 6.32
      premises: 5.73 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.58 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.22)
      basic: 11.29
      conclusion: 5.97 (boost 1.50, idf 7.19, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 4.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.55 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.73)
      should: 2.26
      premises: 2.17 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.09)
  • PRO

    Humans, on the other hand, with their superior ability to...

    There is no universal moral standard.

    Organized via negation post. I would like to begin by providing an overview that will become an important issue, and I'm sure a repeated one. The negation continually assumes that I must be blas�, as it were, about morality, that I must affirm by saying we have no morality that can be counted on. This isn't inherent in affirming my position, which is rightly characterized by my opponent in his first paragraph, which is that I am attempting to advocate a morality that is created by cultural and environmental factors. If human beings find themselves in similar situations (such as the countries that have joined the UN), then they can easily rationalize their way to a moral rule. However, that doesn't prove that this agreed upon rule was derived of an innate property in humanity. What I claim is that the moral standard upon which I am using to judge others is not one that all will agree with innately. It is perfectly acceptable for the UN to have a declaration of human rights, and by a majority of countries to act on such a declaration. However, I would object to anyone who tried to convince me that this declaration is anything more than a collection of countries that, by like circumstances, have come to agree upon a moral standard that some countries still don't share. On the issue of a universal set of human rights: the two are not mutually exclusive. The declaration of human rights, drafted and ratified by the United Nations, is merely a product of a majority vote of the United Nations. Note that the dissenters and those who violate these rights, not a mere rarity, but a significant number of nations around the world, clearly prove that not all cultures value these rights. Only the countries that are members of the United Nations agree that these are universal, which doesn't actually empirically prove them universal. The concepts of evolution negate a morality that is biologically universal. Murder is a prime example. Though the negation claims to establish that there are undeniable human rights that all humans are aware of, how can it be proven empirically when humans still kill each other, no matter their ideologies? Killing is even built into the laws of nations of all varieties, including the United States, but not other nations, showing a fundamentally different view on the right to life. It is only absolute in some societies. Mantises are not moral beings. They don't use reason because they don't have the evolutionary brain function to put the pen to paper, much less think about the concepts of morality and rationalize them. Because humans have this capacity, we have the infinite potential to individually determine moral standards. This is what makes moral standards different from community to community- though we all have biological urges, we have a far more keen ability to redirect our actions or partially/completely ignore those urges. We can't ignore the urge to breathe most of the time, but we can ignore the urge to not kill other people. Again, you can't compare the human animal to any other, save some species of primates, due to their biological inability to move beyond instinct. Caribou do what they are programmed to do genetically or they die off due to evolutionary constraints. Humans, on the other hand, with their superior ability to adapt environments to their own survival and to rationalize and decision-make will always have more freedom of action than a caribou. We do have a genetic subconscious that encourages species survival. That is a scientifically sound argument. However, as we have found empirically, the more advanced human societies become, the more the "universality" of morality slips away. We are able to cognitively escape previous resource-based restraints. Primitive or ancient societies could not escape those restraints as of the time. As human societies advanced, the illusion of uniform morality dissolved because we were no longer living in the same environments. Hence, even ancient societies didn't have universal morality, just the illusion of it because they all lived under the same basic constraints. As we modified the environment, our morality changed, as well. The things you describe are a natural want of any animal, but the application of those instincts is vastly different, and THAT is morality. It isn't a moral standard to be secure. It is a moral standard to dictate what secure means. Security for me is inherently not the same as security for you. Same thing goes with freedom. What I consider a wise application of freedom may be far more liberal or conservative than the next person. And freedom differs significantly from country to country. Take gun control. Canadians don't feel oppressed because they have no access to fire power. However, a significant sect of the US population objects strenuously to the loss of guns as a matter of security and personal liberty. How do you account for this difference? Of "fire in a crowded theater": This example is inherently legal system-specific. In fact, this came (give or take) directly from Schenk vs. US. Again, this doesn't prove that this is universal, just that you believe that it should be. While this also makes sense to me, and is a very basic concept, there have still been myriad countries that have limited "free speech" further in order to protect the interests of another, such as a government, and could be said to have done so legitimately. Freedom of speech is clearly situational in that, even in the United States, free speech is not always guaranteed in the same ways all the time. It fluctuates with the needs of the country. Then, you take countries like China, which restrict it even further. We as citizens of the US call it a human rights violation, but how can we be sure? Is it only US law that determines what universal rights should be? The sub-Saharan example serves as a stark reminder that cultures develop different moralities and ethics, and to superimpose one on another causes integral damage to a society. Though it might be said that these societies did have a strong tribal sense, that "moral standard" was shattered in the wake of colonialism, and once peaceful tribes began to war furiously, both within the tribe and with other tribes. In fact, tribal lines were often dissolved, which shouldn't be able to happen if the instinct to protect the tribe is so strong. The 180-degree reversal of the environment in which they existed caused moral upheaval. To address the New Guinea example, those specific tribes have put rules on warring at this point, but other countries can achieve nationalism without such frequent battles—why does THIS society feel it necessary to fight in order to bond? Not only that, but how many generations did it take to refine those warring standards? Chances are the standards are in response to societal changes, such as people dying too much or societal instability, rather than an innate desire to not war. Obviously, they still want to fight each other. First of all, native peoples have intellectualized their moral codes. They have come to the conclusion that, based on their society's needs and their resources at hand, these are the best moral codes to abide by (like the tribes of New Guinea). All humans intellectualize their moral standards. That's why they are moral standards. They come from something more than instinct that only humans can offer up. On the closing arguments regarding Founders: though you and I affirm certain standards, as does a majority of the UN, not every country is willing to ratify these standards. My argument here doesn't prove that genocide, for example, is RIGHT. Not only that, but the fact that genocide happens and that the UN felt the need to enforce a moral standard restricting it, or any other behavior, proves that these standards cannot be universal. Otherwise, humans in every society would never feel the need or want to commit genocide or take away gifted rights.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-universal-moral-standard./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.84
      universal: 16.40
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.63 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.36)
      sourceText: 0.98 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.06)
      basic: 2.57
      premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.25)
      should: 0.87
      premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.06 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.37)
  • PRO

    Universal health care — sometimes referred to as...

    The U.S. should have Universal health care

    Before we begin, I would like to define Universal Healthcare. Universal health care — sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, universal care or social health protection — usually refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens. It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes.[2] Universal health care is not a one-size-fits-all concept; nor does it imply coverage for all people for everything. Universal health care can be determined by three critical dimensions: who is covered, what services are covered, and how much of the cost is covered.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-should-have-Universal-health-care/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.78
      universal: 16.94
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 8.18 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.97)
      sourceText: 1.02 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.14)
      should: 2.46
      conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.89)
  • PRO

    Therefore the key concepts of morality such as killing...

    Morality is Not Universal

    First I would like to restate what it is that we are debating about. In the first round I said: "Throughout this debate I hope to prove that morality is a matter of opinion and view rather than a distinct idea that all human beings have to abide by or else they are forever labeled immoral and wrong." And in round three: "Which is what we are debating, whether morality is a term that can be used universally and accepted with the same ideas in mind." With that said I will once again respond to my opponents arguments and then enforce my own. 1. My opponent is trying to make the argument that no human being is superior to another and if they think that they are then it is their responsibility to prove that they are and why they believe it is so. But, that is not what we are debating. It is if the idea of morality is universal or not which he fails to address and with his statement "If another human believes that he is superior to another human, the onus is on him to prove that to be the case. You can look to science to see that every human is basically the same. They may have different ways of interpreting morality, but that doesn't make anyone superior to another." He admits that people have different ways of interpreting morality which is agreeing not all people have the same views; which declares that it is not a universal idea or concept. 2. Once again, his argument is based upon the authority of a person and whether or not they can prove it. With my point of ethnocentrism I was making the argument that people can believe that their ideas are better than another persons whether it is conscious or not and in the 3rd round my opponent even proved my point by saying that it is wrong to kill people when I brought up evidence that says that other people think otherwise, which proves the argument not everyone has the same idea of morality as well. Therefore the key concepts of morality such as killing cannot be defined as universal if others think differently. 3. My argument stands strong that morality is not a universal idea or concept because 1) Different people have different ideas and definitions of morality depending on what group, religion or society you are apart of. 2) It is ethnocentric to believe that morality is universal since you believe your idea of morality is superior.

  • PRO

    The Definition of Morality First published Wed Apr 17,...

    Morality is Not Universal

    First I thank my opponent, EvanK, for accepting. I will start off this debate by saying that Morality is not a universal concept and should not be treated as such. " ----The Definition of Morality First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011 The term "morality" can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." -From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy indicates that morality is not something that can be taken and used as a universal standard. It is a reference to a "code of conduct" that is enforced by a society, religion or group. Which is not every person. Different groups and societies, especially religion, have different beliefs and idea. Morality being one of those differences in beliefs. -Ethnocentrism "Ethnocentrism is the assumption, usually unconscious, that "one"s own group is the center of everything" and that its beliefs, practices, and norms provide the standards by which other groups are "scaled and rated" (Sumner 1906, 12-13). This can lead to arrogance and intolerance in dealings with other countries, ethical systems, and religions." -From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Ethnocentrism is believing your ideas and beliefs are superior to others beliefs. It doesn't have to be on purpose and can be an absentminded action. When you treat morality as a universal concept you are unconsciously assuming your beliefs are of a higher rank than another persons. which leads me to my third point. "The eating of human flesh was not practised by the Australian native to the extent that it was by the South Sea Islander. The term "cannibalism" is usually taken to mean gorging on human flesh, and with relish; and that seems a valid description of the cannibalism of the Melanesian indig"nes of New Caledonia, who appear to have regarded man-meat much as we regard the Sunday-joint. Not all cannibalism is the same in purpose. In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley. In 1933 I was able to talk to old men who had eaten human flesh. The chief of Yam Island described to me how he had eaten finely-chopped man-meat mixed with crocodile-meat, at his initiation. He added that it had made him sick. The purpose, as he put it, was "to make heart come strong inside." In the Wotjobaluk tribe, a couple who already had a child might kill their new-born and feed its muscle-flesh to the other one to make it strong. The baby was killed ritually, by striking its head against the shoulder of its elder brother or sister. Human flesh-eating among many tribes was a sign of respect for the dead. At a Dieri burial, relatives received, in strict order of precedence, small portions of the body-fat to eat. "We eat him," a tribesman said, "because we knew him and were fond of him." But revenge cannibalism is typified in the custom of the Ngarigo tribe, who ate the flesh of the hands and feet of slain enemies, and accompanied the eating with loud expressions of contempt for the people killed." -From Heretical.com This is an Australian tribe that believes it is moral to eat humans. It is a part of their religion and according to the definition of morality, since they believe in this and established it in their society and religion it is moral. When in the United States most people will think that is wrong and immoral. Making it a societal idea and belief rather than a universal one. Therefore morality is not a universal concept.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Morality-is-Not-Universal/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.72
      universal: 18.34
      conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 6.19 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.49)
      sourceText: 1.00 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.09)
      should: 0.91
      premises: 0.83 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.68)
  • PRO

    Therefore, Universal health care would improve the...

    The U.S. should have Universal health care

    No problem my fellow opponent, I realize that everyone has busy schedules, including myself. Nevertheless, I will continue to back up my previous arguments and also introduce new ideas. Universal Health Care ideally works to improve the overall health of a nation by covering everybody. As I mentioned before, Universal health care does not cover eveything such as prescripted drugs in countries such as Canada. In Canada, Universal Healthcare is funded through cash and tax transfers from the provinces and territories to help pay for health services. Therefore, Universal health care would improve the overall health of a nation such as the U.S. and would also help the U.S economically by decreasing medical debt. Universal health care is better than the current health system in the U.S in three fundamental aspects. It covers virtually everybody, covers more services, and covers one hundred percent of the cost for health services. Universal health care is successful in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it could work in the United State. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it would work in the U.S. The question I ask to my opponent is: " Why shouldn't the U.S. have Universal Healthcare?" Sources:http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca... http://www.livestrong.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-should-have-Universal-health-care/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.68
      universal: 16.84
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 8.08 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.94)
      sourceText: 1.02 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.14)
      should: 2.46
      conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.89)
  • PRO

    Medical Malpractice and Universal Health Care". ... What...

    Universal health care creates a universal standard of care

    Nathan Newman. "Medical Malpractice and Universal Health Care". Progressive Populist. October 01, 2002 - "The other advantage of "Medical Malpractice and Universal Health Care". Progressive Populist. October 01, 2002 - "The other advantage of universal health care is that it creates a clear standard of care. What government pays for becomes the reasonable standard of care, a standard that can be debated democratically at appropriations time for the health care budget rather than haggled for erratically in the courts."

  • PRO

    There should be not difference; in one scenario you kill...

    Human morality is universal

    I accept the debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I will first present my own case then proceed to attack my opponent's. Seeing as no definitions have been proposed thus far, i will give my own: Moral-of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong (courtesy of Dictionary.com) Universal-present everywhere (courtesy of Dictionary.com) There is an intrinsic recognition of morals by all sane people. Morals are existent everywhere. In our everyday actions we apply basic morals to reach conclusions on what actions should be taken. The reason, however, that such conclusions are reached through universal morals is because there is a natural recognition of morality. As is asserted by Marc Hauser: When questioned on if a trolley came speeding off track and was about to hit and kill five people, but you had the power to push it to the side so it only killed one, would you do it? The majority of people come to the immediate conclusion that, yes, that is permissible. However, when questioned if 5 patients are suffering and will die if they do not get organ transplant immediately, and you have the ability to kill the next person that enters the hospital and save the lives of the other five, such action becomes unthinkable. There should be not difference; in one scenario you kill one to save 5, and its okay. However, in the other scenario, its inexcusable to do the same thing. The reason behind this difference, he states, is because there is a natural moral compass existent to virtually everyone, that justifies an action. Morality is universal because while there are exceptions, we all apply the same subconscious morals to determine the course of action to be taken. To justify such exceptions it is clear that we must recognize exceptions are existent to nearly every truth.(to further this point, i ask that my opponent gives me an example of anything that is "universal") Exceptions are existent for my case, yet morality is still universal. This is because in even the most unjust actions(murder, rape, genocide, torture), any sane person would have morality as the root justification for their action(kill an intruder to save your family, kill terrorists to save your country, even when a robber steals, they have reasoning behind it such as getting money to provide food for their family.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attacks C1:Morality is dependent upon others. Morality is, as defined, the ability to recognize what is right or wrong. I would first like to point out that my opponent is blatantly wrong;to rape and torture an animal, even without other humans around, would still be marked as immoral in my book. C2: Morality is different in different societies. (with the example of African tribes) This point is flawed largely because the justification behind such sacrifices is an example of morality itself. These tribes kill(i'm presuming because no examples have been offered thus far)for religious purposes to ultimately bring safety to their fellow tribes people and family. Ergo, they kill to save life which seems to be a reoccurring theme in the social standards brought up earlier^(killing one to save five). And while modern societies aren't as radical as this, we apply the same moral standards. We have the death penalty to punish someone while simultaneously providing safety to the rest of us. C3:Modern Issues change rapidly. (with the example of gay marriage) While it is true that public opinion shifted very rapidly on this, and i'm sure many other, morally related issues, the fact of the matter is that gays were persecuted because they were a minority group, and minority groups tend to scare majorities. Take, for example, any intelligent females in the early colonization period of America. Smart girls, because the majority group(guys) felt threatened by their emergence, were claimed to be witches and persecuted as such. Our society tends to extenuate opinions of what it is unaware of, which is an entirely unrelated topic to morals themselves. The persecution of gays and smart girls in olden times did not radically change because our morals changed;rather it was because we came to accept these groups into our society and let them grow into the state they are today. 1.)http://discovermagazine.com...= I wish my opponent the best of luck, and thank you very much for starting this debate!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-morality-is-universal/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.54
      universal: 16.26
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.50 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.33)
      sourceText: 0.96 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.02)
      basic: 2.15
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.22)
      should: 1.13
      premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.07 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.57)
  • PRO

    Anyway, this link doesn't really answer the question. ......

    The United States should design a universal health care system.

    First off, I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate. It helps when opponents post :D 1. Alright, this kind of goes into my the new point I brought up in Round 2 (Competitive Policy Options). This has turned into (in purpose, rather than name) a policy debate. This kind of debate is basically arguing about which is the best policy to go with. The Pro has already stated several things: A. The current system is not working. B. We need a new one. He listed several alternatives to Universal Health Care, but there are two problems here. First off, he brought them up in his last post. Kind of ridiculous to expect me to cover them all if he never brought them up before. Secondly, he just stated them. He never gave any guarentee they could work. This is important, because without presenting each of them as a policy, it leaves Universal Health Care as the only POLICY to have been presented. Taking into account that even my opponent says we need a new system, the voters should vote for Universal Health Care, as it is the only policy with a chance of solving that was presented. 2. Well the argument about "the burden would be spread to everyone" was a later point, so why negate the same point twice? You haven't presented any logic to back up how this would destroy privacy, and therefore I simply asked you to. You never really did, and thus I should win this point. 3. As for the link, I believe I cited it before but here it is: http://www.citizen.org... The link, if you read it, specifically says we could save $286 billion if we switched to a Universal Health Care policy. So therefore, your point is moot. Universal Health Care is beneficial to the tax payers. Additionally, taxation isn't the only way to fund Universal Health Care: http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Well, that is a good link, but the problem is... it sort of helps me. If you read one of the first paragraphs, it is stated: "Over all, the survey shows that most doctors adhere to strict standards of professionalism regarding medical mistakes, patient privacy and appropriate patient relationships." Anyway, this link doesn't really answer the question. It just says that IF mistakes are made, some doctors won't report it. It never says that mistakes would happen in a Universal Health Care system because doctor's would have no benefits. I should win this, because it is a moot point. His link: Doesn't answer the question, Doesn't 100% advocate his stance. 5. Alright, finally your reasoning comes out. Basically, you operate on the assumption that the only research comes out of the government. Simply not true. A lot of research comes out of private companies and investors, i.e. ones with which the government has no real control over. Also, you never responded to this link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...... It argues that a universal system would give incentives for investment in health-care (i.e. drugs). Therefore turning this argument into an advantage. 6. Just saying "it's old" doesn't negate it unless you bring up evidence from a closer period. As the Pro, you have the burden of proof, and I have the burden of rejoinder. I have refuted your argument with that link, and you haven't prooved that I'm wrong. Just stated that my evidence isn't current. Additionally, you asked whether those contries ahead of us had Universal Health Care. Actually, a great majority of them two. The top two (France and Italy) "have publicly sponsored and regulated health care" which is Universal Health Care, for lack of a better term. Other countries ahead of us that do: San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, The UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Canada, Finland, Australia, and Costa Rica. 26 of the 36 countries that have better health care than us have Univeral Heath Care. This in itself proves that Universal Health Care is successful. 7. My point was not: "The democracy and everyone has a right to health care", but rather: This is a democracy and majority chooses. If the majority of America wants Universal Health Care, then they should have it. As for it not representing all of America, that may be true. However, it's the best indicator of what America wants, and therefore, I have preferential evidence. 8. Ah, but 26 out of 36 countries that have better Health Care than us HAVE Universal Health Care. If you argue that America can't solve uniquely, it doesn't matter, because Universal Health Care doesn't uniquely affect the problem (it wouldn't increase America's implied ineptness). Anyway, I don't think America's government is inept at handling things. Two examples doesn't mean anything. 9. Honestly? I have no idea what paperwork we would save on, should we switch. And my ignornce doesn't matter at all. The link talks about how we could save money, and I'm guessing you haven't read it. Basic ignorance on either side shouldn't be a factor either way for a vote. Rather you should look at my evidence that backs up my statements. Sound logic is only needed behind analytical arguments. 10. I responded to this in point 1. I would like to say that "talking very little" and "talking a lot" means nothing. It's the arguments themselves, not the length. I should win on preferential evidence alone, but also because I won on all points. Even if you disagree with me there, the job of the Con is to disprove one contention of the Pro. I have, at the very least, done that. Thank you for your time, thanks for educating me on this subject more, and good luck in future debates. I look forward to seeing future debates!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-design-a-universal-health-care-system./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.42
      universal: 14.14
      conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 6.74 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.62)
      sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.11)
      basic: 1.59
      premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)
      should: 3.69
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.64 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.99)

CON

  • CON

    It is not, in fact, universal health care itself, that’s...

    Universal healthcare systems are inefficient

    It is not, in fact, universal health care itself, that’s inefficient, but specific adaptations of it. Often, even those shortcomings are so blown out of proportion that it’s very difficult to get the whole story. Universal health care can come in many shapes and sizes, meant to fit all kinds of countries and societies. When judging them it’s often useful to turn to those societies for critiques of their coverage systems. Despite the horror stories about the British NHS, it costs 60% less per person than the current US system. Despite the haunting depictions of decades long waiting lists, Canadians with chronic conditions are much more satisfied with the treatment received than their US counterparts.[1] We should not let hysterical reporting to divert us from the truth – universal health care makes a lot of economic, and, more importantly, moral sense. [1] Krugman, P., The Swiss Menace, published 8/16/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html, accessed 9/18/2011

  • CON

    Medicare is a failure that should not be expanded into...

    Single-payer universal health care

    Medicare is a failure that should not be expanded into universal care

  • CON

    You say (or imply) that my source of Wikipedia is not a...

    English should not be considered an international or universal language.

    You say (or imply) that my source of Wikipedia is not a reliable source. http://news.byu.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... This says otherwise and you do not rebut this. Next, You say that there are a few organizations that do not use English. I did overlook this but my point still stands. The Language is a universal language because it does have universal effect. You say next that it is hard to learn English. English is still the language that is best known. "Yes, most government leaders know English, but only use it when dealing with English speaking people." This proves exactly what I have been trying to pro the entire time. It has a universal effect because people outside of the native country will have to learn it. Because I proved that English has a universal effect on the world I urge a con ballot.

  • CON

    Let me first start by negating this resolution on a few...

    Faith is Universal

    Let me first start by negating this resolution on a few grounds. Firstly, An observation within the grounds and definition of today's debate. My opponent defined Faith as "having confidence or trust in someone or something. " However, Defines within the context of this topic it is "Immaterial. " This is very contrary to the rather materialist view of the definition used. Let's now focus on the more philosophical realm of this debate. The important point of this is this universal reality within morality. Because Faith in this (remember contrary) definition is closely tied to Religion. It is true, That one raised may be able to feel a relation to it's morality, But it is more of a psychological phenomena. As if Faith were universal, It would be tied to either a single school of thought, Or a single religion. But, There are many religions forged in different time periods, On a great deal of cultural and historical context. What was wrong once, Is right later. Or in another culture. Now you might say Faith the concept is universal, I agree in a material sense. But my opponent designs it as a completely separate plane of reality. Now, This plane hasn't been defined, And under what context. And is classified under a general worldview as stated within the challenge. It will be impossible to define what reality it resides in if it is separate from us, And the mental gymnastics and grunt work will have to go into defining the relation of many to this reality. And how does it have a relation to us? I however, Define Faith as my opponent's Comment definition is. Having confidence or trust in someone or something. But, It is material and it is definable. It exists in this same reality, And in the context of religion if you want to say a deity would have made it on the same plane as to have it easy to reach and use. Rather than to transfigure oneself. Faith in religion is very different, There are varying degrees of it. It seems to follow similar patterns to ideals and thoughts that this reality abides by. It can wane, Change and it can be passed on through apathy. People can be converted. It is no different from Fear, Honesty, Anger and many other "Sins and Virtues. " So, To define it as a universal exception is almost unfair to it's very composition, History and context. Thank you for the challenge, Can't wait to receive your arguments. May the best debater win!

  • CON

    This means that accessing preventative check ups would be...

    Universal Health Care

    Rebuttal Universal Health Care and Spending My opponent claims that the point about United States government interventions increasing the cost of Health Care is irrelevant and that I failed to refute his argument about preventative medicine: "This part of the debate came about after I demonstrated that the US spends far more on health care than any nation with universal health care. Con responded by saying that the spending is high because prices have been artificially expanded by the government. Lets assume for a moment that he's right. So what? Does that refute what I demonstrated in the first place, that universal health care will reduce spending? No, it does not. Neither did Con refute the effect of preventative medicine in nations with universal health care." However, my opponent is incorrect in both of his assertions here. First, it is totally relevant that government distortions have caused US Health Care prices to be so high. My opponent argued that Universal Health Care reduced prices. His entire basis for arguing this is that the United States, without Universal Health Care, has higher prices than countries with Universal Health Care. Therefore, if I can show that Government Distortions, not a lack of Universal Health Care, have caused the US to have such high Health Care prices, I have successfully disproven a major part of my opponent's argument. In my Round 1 and Round 2 posts, I offer substantial evidence showing that Government Distortions have indeed lead to high Health Care prices in the US. This reality effectively rebuts my opponent's entire argument about prices. As I mentioned earlier, my opponent's entire argument about prices was based on the fact that the US has high Health Care prices. So, my opponent is basically arguing that high Health Care prices in the US are caused by a lack of Universal Health Care. However, I have shown that these prices are caused by government distortions and not a lack of Universal Health Care. My opponent's other point is that I did not rebut his point on preventative evidence. This is not true. My opponent never gave any evidence that Universal Health Care systems have more preventative medicine or that preventative medicine reduces prices. I cannot rebut either of these claims because they were never supported in the first place. My opponent did offer a theoretical reason why Universal Health Care might increase prevention. Basically, he said that Universal Health Care systems encourage use of preventative check-ups because Health Care is free at the point of delivery. However, my opponent ignores that Universal Health Care systems do have to deal with much longer waiting times than non Universal Health Care systems. This means that accessing preventative check ups would be challenging in Universal Health Care systems, just like it would be in non Universal Health Care systems. The only difference is that price is the problem in non Universal Health Care systems and waiting times are the problem in Universal Health Care systems. I have shown that excessive waiting times do exist in Universal Health Care systems in previous rounds. Another problem with my opponent's argument is that he ignores the fact that high Health Care prices in the US are the result of government distortions not a lack of Universal Health Care. This is relevant, as it shows that high prices are not a necessary barrier to preventative medicine in the absence of Universal Health Care. In other words, a country can have both low waiting times and low prices without Universal Health Care. Universal Health Care and Waiting Times My opponent responds to my waiting times point by pointing out that US Health Care costs are high. I have shown above and in previous rounds that US prices are the result of government distortions and that this is relevant to this debate. Universal Health Care and Health In my last round, I showed that US life expectancy is only lower than other countries because fatal accidents are more common in America, and that this has nothing to do with Health Care. My opponent acknowledges this and responds by pointing out that the infant mortality rate is higher in America than it is in other countries. However, this is a deeply flawed argument. Just like Life Expectancy, infant mortality is almost entirely determined by factors that don't relate to Health Care, and, to make matters worse, infant mortality is measured differently accross countries [1]. This means that infant mortality rates say very little to nothing about the quality of Health Care systems. My opponent's next point is that a WHO study found the US to have only the 37th best Health Care system in the world. I am familiar with this study, as it has been cited favorably by nearly every advocate of Universal Health Care I have encountered. The problem is that this study is deeply flawed. One problem with this study is that it is very old. It was released in 2000 and is based on data from the 1990s. Furthermore, this study is based on some very obscure measures. For example, 25% of the ranking is based on "Financial Fairness". This does not seem like a very good or objective measure to judge Health Care systems on [2]. My opponent makes his next point about what it means that Public Health Insurance would crowd Private Health Insurance out of the market: "When I mentioned this before, Con replied that they would not be able to because they would be pushed out of the market. Now, he needs to think harder about this one. Whether that is true or not is beneficial to my case. If it is true this means that universal health care's success can be measured by the fact that those who use it, by a large enough margin to make private insurers disappear" To respond to this point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that government forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance. Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" government bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation). Does this prove how good the government bananas are? Or, does it simply show that people will take what they are forced to pay for? I think the answer is fairly simple, and this is why my opponent's argument is wrongheaded. The fact that people will enroll free public insurance that they are forced to pay for through mandatory taxation does not prove that this Public Health Insurance is superior to Private Health Insurance in any way. On another note, I have in previous rounds that Universal Health Care systems do impede medical innovation and that Universal Health Care systems are not very efficient. Universal Health Care and the Economy My opponent claims that Universal Health Care will help the economy. Although, he never actually explained how it would help the economy. Instead, he simply pointed out that it would be more equitable. In previous rounds, I explained how Universal Health Care does not reduce costs and, more importantly to this point, must be funded by new taxation. Higher taxation hurts the economy by reducing incentives for productive behavior. I have also shown this to be true in previous rounds. Universal Health Care, through the higher taxation necessary to fund it, will actually harm the economy. Conclusion I have successfully disproven the notion that a Universal Health Care system is beneficial to the population. I have shown that there is no reason to believe that Universal Health Care will reduce prices, and I have shown that Universal Health Care will lead to long waiting times. Finally, I have shown that Universal Health Care does not save lives and does keep lives from being saved by impeding medical innovation. VOTE CON! Sources: [1] http://www.nationalcenter.org... [2] http://www.cato.org...

  • CON

    Employers frequently add things like dental and low...

    Universal Health Care

    Introduction I thank my opponent for proposing this debate. I accept the terms and look forward to the arguments. Arguments 1.) Universal Health Care Will Not Reduce Spending on Health Care My opponent argues that Universal Health Care will reduce spending on Health Care. The main reason, my opponent argues, is that Universal Health Care Systems put more focus on Preventative Medicine. My opponent does not explain why Universal Health Care systems would necessarily have more Preventative Medicine. Instead, my opponent bases his argument on the fact that countries with Universal Health Care, like the UK, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, and Australia, spend less on Health Care, per Capita, than the United States, which does not have Universal Health Care. First, my opponent uses an incorrect measure of Health Care Cost. The correct measure is Health Care Spending as a Percentage of GDP, not Health Care Spending per Capita. However, even when using the correct measure, we still see the US spending a much higher percentage of GDP on Health Care than other Countries, although it is less dramatic [1]. The reason for this is not Preventative Medicine; it is rationing. Before I get into that, though, I feel it is necessary to explain why Health Care costs so much in the United States. The United States Health Care system is deeply distorted by government programs, regulations, and odd tax laws. These government factors, not private Health Care, are too blame for the high cost of Health Care in the United States. The main thing driving the high prices of Health Care in the US is government distortions [2]. Basically, the US tax code allows a full exemption for employer provided Health Care, but not individually bought Health Care. This incentivizes many employers to offer Health Care as an employee benefit. What this means is that employees are NOT paying directly for their own Health Insurance, and, more importantly, this has caused Health Insurance to function as much more than insurance. In a private market, free of this tax distortion, individuals would mostly buy Health Insurance Plans that offer only catastrophic type coverage. This would mean that they would pay individually for Health Care, unless an extreme expense came by. This is how it should work. With this system, patients would not overuse things like Dentists, Pediatricians, and other non-emergency type doctors. However, with the domination of Employer-Provided Insurance, patients are removed from their costs. Employers frequently add things like dental and low deductibles to Health Care plans. This means that the Health Insurance Company is basically paying for everything. This is known as a third party payer system. And, the problem with this is that patients overuse Medical Services because individuals have no incentive to control their own costs. This is known as the tragedy of the commons, where individuals overuse resources because they are removed from the cost. Now, in the US, the system is dominated by government programs and private insurance companies. The overuse of medical services is typically met with very high prices. Because, even though the US system is deeply distorted, the price system is still basically allowed to operate. In Universal Health Care Systems, the same tragedy of the commons problem occurs, except it is the government instead of private insurers that is insuring people. The difference, however, is that in most Universal Health Care systems, the response to overuse of medical services is shortages and rationing, instead of higher costs. Shortages seen in the long waiting times in most Universal Health Care Systems. Canada, for example, has extremely long waiting times for most serious types of medical services [3]. In a normal market, the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand. This is actually how it works in the US, demand is just artificially high because of government distortions. Most of the time, higher demand, without a corresponding increase in supply, means higher prices. Therefore, prices are the typical means of rationing things. However, in most Universal Health Care Systems, prices are kept articially low by price controls. However, there is no increase in supply to meet this increase in demand. This means that the state, not the price system, is responsible for rationing care. Of course, whatever board makes the decisions on rationing does not have the information necessary to plan an entire medical system used by millions of people. This means that rationing decisions made by the state in a universal Health Care System are inherently innefficient. 2.) Universal Health Care Will Not Save Lives As I will discuss later, Universal Health Care systems hold back medical innovation and keep patients from having access to the most up to date life saving drugs and technologies. 3.) Universal Health Care Will Hurt the Economy My opponent claims that Universal Health Care will help the economy by "putting money back into the hands of people who need it". This is untrue. Universal Health Care will actually hurt the economy. The main reason is that Universal Health Care requires higher taxes to pay for it. Higher taxes actually hurt economic growth by reducing the incentive to work, save, invest, and report income. There is a well known growth dampening effect of high taxation, that has been confirmed by numerous academic studies [4]. Second, implementing a Universal Health Care system in tough economic times is the worst thing the government could do. The implementation of such a system requires much higher taxes and many new regulations. Worse, this creates a large sense of uncertainty among businesses, who are relied upon to expand and hire new workers in a bad economy. 4.) Universal Health Care Suppresses Innovation Universal Health Care systems actually lead to less lives being saved because it suppresses life saving technology and drugs. Although the US system is far from a free market, it is not Universal and a large private sector does exist. Not surprisingly, the US has many more MRI's and CT Scans per capita than countries with Universal Health Care like Canada and the United Kingdom [5]. Furthermore, a lions share of the world's medical innovations are coming from the US. 7 of the top 12 Pharmaceutical Companies, as ranked by Forbes Magazine, are located in the United States and 74 of the top 100 Biotech Companies are located in the United States [6] and [7]. The fact is that Universal Health Care systems simply are not producing nearly as much innovation as the non-Universal US system. If the US had a true free market in Health Care, there is no telling how far Medical Innovation would be. Conclusion Let me conclude by saying that I look forward to my opponent's response. I will also say that I have tried my best to source my arguments adequatley, but I do hope my opponent does not use incorrect or inadequate sourcing as a "cop-out" on some of my arguments. Thank You Very Much for Challenging Me to this Debate. Sources: [1] http://www.nationmaster.com... [2] http://www.cato.org... [3] http://www.usnews.com... [4] http://pirate.shu.edu... [5] http://oregoncatalyst.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/18/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.11
      universal: 18.39
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.56 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.82)
      sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.16)
      should: 0.52
      premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.05 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.02)
  • CON

    Whether universal health care is a legitimate "burden" on...

    Single-payer universal health care

    Whether universal health care is a legitimate "burden" on the tax payer should be considered inconsequential.

  • CON

    I am against universal health care, but not because it...

    Universal healthcare

    Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?

  • CON

    Here are my arguments: 1. ... HKSAR Government, The...

    Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

    I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate. Here are my arguments: 1. Hong Kong would become a welfare state I quote from Ronnie Chan, chairman of the Hang Lung Group. " ... the under-educated, and those who did not pay tax would elect candidates who stood for more social welfare spending, which would turn Hong Kong into a "welfare state" ... About 1.1 million of the people have only kindergarten or no education level at all. About 82 per cent of the population does not pay tax, and 51 per cent of the people receive housing subsidies from the government. If we have a 100-per-cent directly elected LegCo (Legislative Council), only social welfare- oriented candidates will be elected. Hong Kong is a business city and we do not want to end up being a social welfare state.' Voters vote for candidates that fight for their benefit, which includes more welfare. The main functions of Legislative Council are to "enact laws; examine and approve budgets, taxation and public expenditure". They can also propose bills. So, naturally, if they want to keep their seat in the next election, they will only pass bills that increase welfare to please the voters. This is not good for long-term development. Just look at Greece. The people vote for candidates which go against cutting the budget, and now they are in serious debt. We won"t want Hong Kong to become like that, right? Secondly, Hong Kong is a business city. If the government wants to increase welfare, they have to increase the tax, which voters do not like. So, the only thing the can increase is the tax on corporations. That increase the cost of running a company, so the company will either fire workers, lower their salary or increase the price, which in return doesn"t benefit us, the voters and the customers. 2. I quote from the Second Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force, conducted by the HKSAR Government. "There are some concerns that Hong Kong has a narrow tax base, and that only 39% of the working population are paying salaries tax. The worry is that if Here are my arguments: 1. Hong Kong would become a welfare state I quote from Ronnie Chan, chairman of the Hang Lung Group. " ... the under-educated, and those who did not pay tax would elect candidates who stood for more social welfare spending, which would turn Hong Kong into a "welfare state" ... About 1.1 million of the people have only kindergarten or no education level at all. About 82 per cent of the population does not pay tax, and 51 per cent of the people receive housing subsidies from the government. If we have a 100-per-cent directly elected LegCo (Legislative Council), only social welfare- oriented candidates will be elected. Hong Kong is a business city and we do not want to end up being a social welfare state.' Voters vote for candidates that fight for their benefit, which includes more welfare. The main functions of Legislative Council are to "enact laws; examine and approve budgets, taxation and public expenditure". They can also propose bills. So, naturally, if they want to keep their seat in the next election, they will only pass bills that increase welfare to please the voters. This is not good for long-term development. Just look at Greece. The people vote for candidates which go against cutting the budget, and now they are in serious debt. We won"t want Hong Kong to become like that, right? Secondly, Hong Kong is a business city. If the government wants to increase welfare, they have to increase the tax, which voters do not like. So, the only thing the can increase is the tax on corporations. That increase the cost of running a company, so the company will either fire workers, lower their salary or increase the price, which in return doesn"t benefit us, the voters and the customers. 2. I quote from the Second Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force, conducted by the HKSAR Government. "There are some concerns that Hong Kong has a narrow tax base, and that only 39% of the working population are paying salaries tax. The worry is that if universal suffrage were implemented hastily, or if functional constituencies were abolished, Hong Kong might become a welfare state. In turn, this might affect the investment and economic environment of Hong Kong. There are views that functional constituencies and the existing electoral methods should be maintained in order to facilitate the development of the capitalist economy"to preserve the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, the previous capitalist system and way of life should remain unchanged. Constitutional development should not proceed in a direction which leads to the emergence of populism or a welfare state, thus affecting the operation of the capitalist system." If there is universal suffrage in the Legislative Council election, again, as mentioned in my first point, only candidates who strive for more benefits will get elected. The voters will only elect candidates that do what they want, so, populism will emerge, and that harms the long-term development of Hong Kong, as it is only the wishes of the people, not what benefits the city. References: "Tycoon warns on protests," The Standard, 29 April 2004. HKSAR Government, The Second Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force: Issues of Principle in the Basic Law Relating to Constitutional Development [report on-line] (April 2004, accessed 8 August 2004); available from http://www.info.gov.hk...; Internet.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Suffrage-in-Hong-Kong/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.99
      universal: 14.84
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 4.17 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.86)
      basic: 2.49
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.24 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.77)
      should: 1.66
      premises: 1.56 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.23)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.01)
  • CON

    I accept. ... Where is that debate?

    The US ought to provide an universal basic income.

    I accept. Where is that debate?