args

CON

• CON

  Pro's assertion that "not every society in the world...

  Show full argument

  There is no universal moral standard.

  Thanks to Pro for a spirited debate. I think it was well worth the lengthy arguments. I will first address Pro's three summary issues, then return my ten items, for Pro have little response. 1. Pro claims that because there is no universal agreement on moral issues that therefore it cannot be that morality is genetically based. I addressed that point redundantly (notably in my points 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7). Citing the lack of universal acceptance of the UN Declaration adds no additional logic to Pro's argument. My contention has been that morality is based upon the genetic nature of mankind, and that the genetics include predispositions to protect one's self, family, and tribe. Much of the time there is no conflict among those instincts. Thus we see virtually universal moral condemnation of murder for personal gain, and we see nearly universal moral approval of a right to self-defense. The "interesting" moral variations occur when there are conflicting moral values between loyalty to self and loyalty to society. Over time, civilization has settled many of these conflicts by some combination of reason and pragmatism. The slavery issue has been resolved, virtually universally, in favor of personal freedom. the nature of mankind dictates many moral principles, but it has taken time to understand the nature of mankind. Some thinkers, like the Founders, were ahead of the curve. Even when no resolution on a moral issue has been reached, what is always evident is that the nature of the conflict lies in competing instincts. An authoritarian regime first serves to provide security to the ruling elite, and the regime is inevitably sold to the populace on the grounds that regime brings enhance security to the society. If the subjugated populace comes to believe that the society is more secure with more personal freedom, the regime is doomed. That's the nature most of the dissent with respect to the UN declaration. Acknowledgment of human rights threatens authoritarian regimes, so they don't approve. That does not prove that the citizens of those countries have rejected human rights. Pro's assertion that "not every society in the world shared the same views on human rights." The society does not get to vote at the UN. Only Dear Leader gets to vote. Perhaps, Dear Leader could win a free election, but only if information to the people is controlled so as to maintain the illusion that security requires an authoritarian regime. 2. I had trouble understanding Pro's point about Africa. Pro argues that "moral universalism" causes war and strife, and attempts to use an example of war due to cultural change in Africa to prove the point. The error in Pro's reasoning is that having a universal moral standard does not imply that one must impose that standard on anyone else, so there is no inevitability in a standard causing strife by the imposition. Even if one is thoroughly convinced that, say, free speech is a universal right, there does not follow from that any obligation to fight a war to impose free speech on a country that does not have free speech. That is because initiating a war drains the lives and resources of the country that believes in free speech, and there is no necessary obligation for self-sacrifice in a universal moral code. This was recognized by the American Founders, for example, who while recognizing rights as self-evident also advised against foreign entanglements. In addition, I have maintained throughout that the rights that are evident from the nature of mankind are a relative few: the rights to seek security, freedom, and a few others. Those who understand the universality of a moral code are not obliged to mistakenly claim that it applies to the intricacies of how governments are organized. If one does not believe in a universal moral code, the lack of belief does not prevent wars or strife. In fact, a failure to introspect about the nature of mankind and the rights of man is more likely to lead to strife than having great concern with those rights. 3. Pro reiterates, "I made this argument before, and I'll make it again: the only thing that distinguishes us from our other animal brethren is reason." Pro is wrong in that assertion. Reason is completely subservient to instinctual motivation. If man were purely reasonable, he would do absolutely nothing. He would have no motivation to protect his community or his family or himself. He would not want security or prosperity or happiness. He would not want to be free or to understand the world around him. He would not even want to survive. All of the desires derive from instinct. Reference to other species proves that instincts depend upon how a species is constituted. It is easy to imagine humans still having reasoning ability, but being driven by instincts more akin to bears (anti-social) or caribou (completely tribal). Pro is thus wrong that the only distinguishing characteristic is reasoning ability. Reasoning ability in man is used to recognize a moral code that is consistent with man's nature, a nature that has both self-centered and social instincts. Thus, for example, a right to self-defense is recognized virtually universally among societies as a consequence of the instinct for individual self-preservation. The logic of the moral code so derived is transcendental because the genetics that encode human nature change too slowly to see on the scale of civilizations. The complex social/anti-social nature of humankind means that moral conflicts will arise, and that the resolution of those conflicts are often controversial. Nonetheless, the basic morality is clear and over time more issues have been resolved. Slavery has been found to be properly classified as immoral as society has better understood the nature of man. Returning to earlier points in the debate, Pro has made no specific response to my enumerated arguments 1, 3, 4, and 6, but argued generally about the subjects as I rebutted above. Pro made no rebuttal at all to points 2 (that murder was misdefined by Pro to support a false argument), 5 (that societies are converging on universal moral principles, not diverging as Pro claimed), 7 (that a right to self-defense is universally asserted), 8 (that moral standards are principles, not implementation mechanisms), 9 (that Pro is implying universal standards in giving examples she judges to be good and bad), and 10 (that a lack of a universal standard implies one cannot argue logically and passionately about what is right; Pro denied the argument but gave no counter argument). All the enumerate arguments had been raised earlier in the debate. So where do we stand with respect to the assertion of "self-evident truths" that all men are created equal and have "unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Pro mainly argues that because there is no universal agreement on how those unalienable rights ought to be achieved through a detailed moral code, that those rights do not flow self-evidently from the nature of man. I argue that conflicts over the implementation invariably reassert the fundamental rights, and that moreover social evolution is producing a converging understanding of the rights that are derived from the nature of mankind. Pro has ignored many of my arguments in favor of merely restating contrary conclusions. The resolution is negated.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-universal-moral-standard./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.96

    universal: 17.23

    conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.45 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.55)

    sourceText: 0.98 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.06)

    basic: 1.66

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.25)
• CON

  Well, I guess I probably should have made the topic...

  Show full argument

  Universal Truth/Morality

  Well, I guess I probably should have made the topic something more specific, but I'll still finish this one with the set parameters. You claim that morality is not relative on the grounds that some morals are just confused. Who is to say what morals are correct? In response, you might say, just because no one can know, that doesn't mean there isn't one correct moral code. But again, I believe that perception is reality. To most of us, one plus one equals two. But to someone who doesn't know what numbers or addition is, they don't agree. In their minds, it is correct, and, for them that is true. For example, let's take the movie, the Truman Show. Truman truly believed that his "friends" and "family" were real who they said they were. His reality turned out to be false his whole life. How do you know that the reality that you know to be true is really not? For all you know, your life could be a TV show. I know this is a totally ridiculous thing to say, but really, you don't know. That is why nothing can be universal. Because no one can prove that their is one answer, there can't be just one. However, you could prove that morality is relative because of the millions of different perspectives people have. To simply say, "I think everyone else's moral code is wrong, therefore there is only one universal truth and that truth is mine." Everyone will always think differently and no one can change that. That is why I think that truth/morality cannot be universal. Now, the Holocaust. It is true that most people believe that the Holocaust was completely wrong. But there are many (Solerman1969) that think the Holocaust was justified. Although these people are racist bigots, their moral standards tell them that they are right in defending genocide. In other words, the Holocaust was really not objectively wrong, but subjectively, because some people still disagree. I'm not supporting the Holocaust or genocide or anything, I'm just stating the fact that if truth/morality really was universal, everyone would believe the exact same thing. We wouldn't have opinions or personal beliefs. You would have to be insane to believe otherwise.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Truth-Morality/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.95

    universal: 17.44

    conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.68 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.61)

    sourceText: 0.97 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.04)

    should: 1.21

    premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.07 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.54)
• CON

  The first round will be acceptance. ... My opponent...

  Show full argument

  Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions

  I will be arguing against implementing universal health care in the United States given the current conditions. The first round will be acceptance. My opponent should be arguing that it may be a good idea to implement universal health care in the United States given current conditions.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-universal-health-care-be-implemented-in-the-US-given-current-conditions/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.92

    universal: 14.76

    conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 7.35 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.77)

    sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.12)

    should: 3.95

    conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 1.89 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  Yes, it would be nice if it worked out the way you said,...

  Show full argument

  universal health care

  "The problem is, though, that if you took a survey of 100 random people, less than 10 will have actually heard of the drug." Useless argument. Patients aren't the ones writing the prescriptions, doctors and other health care professionals are. A similar survey with doctors will reveal that a great percentage of doctors will be familiar with LDN and its efficacy. Please do not forget that doctors themselves do not get any money from prescribing one drug over another, so prescribing LDN off-label will be fine. "You said that it would take "billions of billions of dollars" to research a new drug. I highly doubt it would be that much, as $1 billion squared looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. That much for one drug? I don't think so." I apologize and retract my statement, replacing it with the term "billions of dollars". "If I want to help another country, I can donate money to one of the hundreds of thousands of organizations devoted to the cause of foreign aid. Our money should be used for our drugs. Not theirs. Also, our country can help them fund their own research programs to aid them in this issue." I'm glad you understand my point. Are you then aware that the reason drug companies have money to make new drugs is that we pit drug companies against each other and let the free market boost our economy? Implementing universal health care would decrease cash movement, and make us LOSE money. I am glad you concede this point. "The point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill is to SAVE LIVES. You seem to be completely overlooking the whole reason we have HEALTH care. It is for the HEALTH of the PEOPLE. If that is the cost of health care, so be it. The government's job is not to make money. We have taxes for that. The government's job is to benefit THE PEOPLE." Wrong. Your view is naive, unfounded, and contradicts the practices of drug companies and economics. Private drug companies research medication based on profit. Our economy is mainly capitalistic, profit drives businesses in order to satisfy the public. You are WRONG in saying that drug companies research in order to save lives. They do it to make profit. If there was no profit, private drug companies will no longer research drugs and only government sponsored facilities will research drugs. This makes things much less efficient and will make things much more expensive. Taxes will have to be raised enormously in order to research just a few drugs. Please understand our economic system and that our country does not work on the ideals you just stated. Yes, it would be nice if it worked out the way you said, but it doesn't. That's called socialism. And it never works. "One other thing that you didn't mention is the insurance companies. Millions of Americans are going TO DIE because they can't pay for emergency room treatment and are essentially DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVE." Medicare. Medicaid. Besides, people aren't being denied the right to live. To say so is a gross exaggeration and makes you seem overly emotional and biased about this debate. Health care is expensive. Insurance makes it cheaper. You obviously have no idea of the economic repercussions of universal health care. I will clarify this in my concluding statements. "The point of universal health care is not to make money. It is to provide health care for everyone. The money should not matter. I'm sure it's great to be a rich capitalist, but I'm also pretty sure it's not so great WHEN YOU'RE SICK." Incorrect. Money does matter because it is how it will be done. For a person who gets sick 3-4 times a year, it will be extremely unfair for him to pay thousands of dollars extra in order to provide a person on welfare and unemployment enough money to get prescriptions filled. We don't live in fairy-land. Money runs this country and doesn't pop out of thin air. You propose a lot of good things but they aren't realistic. *********** My opponents points have all been invalidated. He proposes nothing new in his concluding remarks and has failed to respond to all the points I have made about universal health care being detrimental to the welfare of this country. I will now restate them: "Drug companies use the profits to research more drugs. After selling one medication, they use the profits to pay their researchers and scientists to come up with more drugs to make more money and the cycle keeps going. The U.S. churns out new medicines because drug companies keep competing with each other over profits. New drugs = big profits, that's why they keep churning out new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world! With universal health care here, drug companies would stop competing with each other because prices would be regulated too heavily. What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it? So if we implement universal health care, it's bad for everyone in the long run." I combine this previous argument with my new explanation of economics in general, which my opponent severely lacks understanding of. My opponent makes a grandiose speech about how we should not worry about money, that "that's what taxes are for", that life should come before everything. He portrays himself as a valiant crusader for the poor, and I applaud him for his noble aspirations. However, REALISTICALLY, universal health care will be terrible in the long run. Setting aside how universal health care will decimate the drug economy, it will also put great strain on the citizens. Welfare, unemployment, medicaid, these things all benefit those that do not deserve it. The tax dollars of hardworking, productive members of society are being drained towards these people. It is forced charity. However, it's not that bad. People do have some right to life, because they may hit on hard times. Universal health care would more than double the amount of money being taken out of the pockets of the middle class, to benefit the feeders at the bottom. Most people only get sick a few times a year, why should they have to pay thousands of dollars to the poor lower class? It may be "mean" or "inhumane" of me to say these things, but it certainly isn't fair, or just. The middle class suffers too. In addition to being ridiculously unjust to the population, universal health care would shut down the economy. No more competition, no more insurance companies, this would cause stagnation in a major part of our service-oriented economy. Since my opponent has made not a single argument for universal health care, I rest my case.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/universal-health-care/4/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.79

    universal: 17.06

    conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.29 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.51)

    sourceText: 0.98 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.05)

    should: 1.49

    premises: 1.41 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.83)
• CON

  The pro case even says " most governments speak English"...

  Show full argument

  English should not be considered an international or universal language.

  You are just saying random languages. The fact is that every major diplomatic organization uses English. There cannot be a diplomat organization without English. As this effects everybody this follows my definition of universal such making it a con vote as of right now. He is even ignoring the fact that it is the most spoken language worldwide as more than 1/4 of the world knows how to speak English. No other language even passes 1/5. The pro case even says " most governments speak English" and that it does not matter. How is this not universal? Why would most governments speak a language that is not universal? He is also providing no evidence and throwing random facts without anything to back it up.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/English-should-not-be-considered-an-international-or-universal-language./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.78

    universal: 15.93

    conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 7.17 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.73)

    sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.13)

    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 2.00)
• CON

  As I showed in my last post, Universal Health Care...

  Show full argument

  Universal Health Care

  Rebuttal Government Distoritions in US Health Care System My opponent claims that government interventions have greatly expanded Health Coverage in the US. My opponent, however, is making the mistake of looking at intentions and not the actual effects of the programs. First, my opponent claims that Governmet Programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRI-CARE, have been key in expanding coverage to disadvantaged groups. This certainly was the INTENT of these groups, but the effects have been quite different. The people who are on these programs actually receive very poor Health care Coverage. Internists are 8.5 times more likely to reject Medicaid patients than Private Insurance Patients [1]. Plus, 2/3 of Children on Public Insurance were found to be rejected for Doctors appointments, vs only 11% on Private Insurance [2]. Lastly, a Surgical Outcomes Study from UVA found that people on Medicaid were 13% MORE likely to die in surgery than people WITHOUT Health Insurance at all, and people on Medicaid were 97% more likely to die than people with Private Insurance [3]. These studies show that, despite spending hundreds of Billions of dollars on Public Health Programs, it is not even clear that these patients get better coverage than those without any Health Insurance. Furthermore, my opponent did not even answer my main point that high Health Care costs were the result of various Government Interventions, which they are. This is a key point, as it shows that the private market is not responsible for high Health Care costs. Rationing and Waiting Times Governments ration Health Care by limiting individual's use of it. This is basically done through waiting lines. As I showed in my last post, Universal Health Care Systems have high waiting times and low supply of medical technologies. This is classic economics. People demand a good or service (Health Care in this case). When there is high demand for a service, the price goes up. However, if that price is artificially held down, then shortages arise. As prices just reflect the supply and demand of a good or service, shortages arise when there is high demand and low supply for a good or service, but the price is held down. My opponent does not answer this economic issue. Instead, he claims that American shave it worse than those in Universal Health Care systems because, even though Americans have lower waiting times, they have high costs. However, as I explained earlier, these prices are the result of Government distortions and artificial restrictions on Medical Supply. Universal Health Care and Medical Innovation In my last post, I offered evidence that Universal Health Care reduced medical innovation and, therefore, did not save lives. My opponent claims that Universal Health Care does save lives because countries with Universal Health Care have higher life expectencies than the United States, which does not have Universal Health Care. However, this does not show what my opponent thinks it shows. The United States is the ONLY first world country without Universal Health Care, and the United States also happens to have many more fatal injuries than other countries, which have nothing to do with Health Care. Furthermore, once fatal injuries are taken into account, the US actually has HIGHER life expectancy than other developed countries [4]. Universal Health Care and the Economy My opponent does not really answer my response from last round. My opponent claimed that Universal Health Care would improve the economy by "putting money in people's pockets". I pointed out that Universal Health Care is funded by taxation, which offsets this effect. Plus, taxation has additional disincentive effects ("supply-side effects"), like reducing investment and hours worked, that hurt economic growth. And, as I showed in my last post, there is a well known growth reducing effect of larger government and higher taxation. Universal Health Care and Medical Innovation My opponent says that Universal Health Care will not reduce Medical Innovation because Private Insurance will still exist. This is not true, as the Public Sector WILL crowd out the Private Sector because the Public Sector is subsidized by the government and not forced to make a profit. This means that people are already paying for Public Insurance through their taxes, so buying Private Insurance would be the equivalent of paying for insurance twice. Private Insurance would be much like private schools. A privelege that only the wealthy could attain, because it is too expensive for regular people to pay for Insurance through their taxes and then again for Private Insurance. Universal Health Care in America Universal Health Care would hurt America. It would fail to control costs, it would reduce medical innovation, and it would lead to long waiting lines for Americans. Furthermore, a Universal Health Care system would violently force people to participate in a system that they may not even support. Even if they get Private Insurance, they are forced to pay for the Universal Health Care System through taxation. The solution to the United States's Health Care crisis is to allow individuals to make their own Health Care decisions, free of Government distortions. A command and control, centrally planned Health Care system is not the answer. Sources: [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.forbes.com... [3] http://www.nationalreview.com...- [4] http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/18/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.73

    universal: 18.47

    conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 7.65 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.84)

    sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.16)
• CON

  Looking at things through reason may give us answers that...

  Show full argument

  Universal Truth/Morality

  Note: Please do not base your whole argument on religion, the Bible, the Church, etc. Also, for this debate, truth and morality can be interchangeable words. I believe that truth is not universal, but relative and that it changes as a result of personal opinion. How can one person know that "one true answer." Who is to decide what is truth and what is untruth? The answer is no one. Because no one can know the answers to life's great questions, truth cannot be a universal, constant thing. I think people blindly follow what they believe to be true. It is for this reason that people enjoy the notion of universal truth. It gives them a sense of security and purpose that they don't get when they approach things from a logical standpoint. Looking at things through reason may give us answers that we don't like or make us feel less significant. That is why people like the idea of a universal truth: it never let's them down. Does not truth change with new scientific discoveries? For example, in the Middle Ages, everyone was told by teachers and priests alike, that the universe revolved around the Earth. However, with the dawn of the Enlightenment and Galileo, it was proven that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, and is nowhere near the center of the universe. But why did people assume that the Earth was the center? Because it gave this planet, and all of those on it, meaning. They thought God must have made the Earth at the center, because we are the most important things to him. This far fetched theory is an example a universal "truth" that not only changed, but gave millions false senses of belonging and purpose. I don't see how a "lack of common good" takes meaning away from our lives. Again, I think that this is just another example of how the author and others like him use the idea of a "universal truth" to mask the things that seem to make our lives less significant. For example, if a loved one dies, many people conclude that everything happens for a reason or God thought it was their time to die. These notions are just euphemisms that make the difficult times in our lives easier. This sense of blind acceptance of what no one knows about is what really makes our civilization decay. If more people would learn to put logic and reason first, instead of these so-called "universal truths," our society would be much better off.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Truth-Morality/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.38

    universal: 18.00

    conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 7.24 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.74)

    sourceText: 0.97 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  Excuse me, I do not see the term "research" in that...

  Show full argument

  Universal Health Care

  :" I don't think most objective readers would agree taxes are "slavery" and use that to justify any position. If democratic institutions can provide a superior service, then I'm willing use them." Taxes are theft. When you treat theft as the right thing, you treat the victim as a slave, i.e. someone who exists for the sake of the perpetrator. This is objective. And democratic institutions do not provide a superior service to the free market, indeed, they do not provide a service so much as they provide oppression. "I enjoy living in society and I recognize taxes are the price of using those benefits." You can't imagine a society in which thievery is not the primary method of funding the government? It is nevertheless possible, so taxes are not in fact the price. " To remain objective, I will also stick with non-political sources (NGOs, Government reports, medical journals, mainstream publications). " Not one of those is "non-political." There is no such thing as a "non-political" source, ESPECIALLY government reports, which are political by definition, and the least objective of all observers in this. "Your ideology says universal systems will cause fewer people to become doctors. The facts show the US produces FEWER doctors and nurses than most universal systems. MORE people become doctors in universal systems because the government usually subsidizes their education." Your source did not demonstrate that. And the subsidies obviously show there is something to make up for. I am speaking of "natural" production. Spending endlessly increasing amounts of government cash to find more doctors and cover up the problem obviously creates problems somewhere else the cash is needed. Note that the quality of the doctors in question is also at issue. ":You say there will be less research, but the facts show the countries that spend largest share of their economy on medical research are the Nordics, France, UK, and Japan. The Nordics have the largest public share of healthcare and still perform much better in all areas of research. ." Excuse me, I do not see the term "research" in that source. And note the corruption of the comparison- the US is already 44% socialized, and that's just the DIRECT public funding. No free market has been given as a comparison. " Even in the US, most of the discoveries are made by government funding - not the private sector. The NBER and Congressional JEC Commission found 75% of the most significant US pharmaceutical drugs came directly from GOVERNMENT R&D. They also found a 700% rise in private research was mainly to alter existing drugs for new patents, without offering any new advantage or discoveries. R&D is only 1-2% of US medical spending - I think we have a lot of room to cut without impacting research." The source given does not contain the number 75... and note, of course, that the private companies are essentially crippled in what they can bring to the market in our present system. The choice is not between our current system and socialized medicine, the free market is also an option, and that implies the removal of regulatory barriers to testing new drugs on consenting parties. " 1) Universal systems cost less because they are more efficient. The US spends about twice as much per person (18% GDP compared to 9% or $7000 vs $3000), but remains the only country unable to insure 20% of its population." The US is already most of the way to being a universal system. It is not a valid indicator of the free market, the alternative I am advocating (note that the costs, as explained in the article I linked, are the results of such insurance rules as mandatory acceptance, mandatory coverage of various ailments not in the contract- in essence, precisely those moves that are already in the direction of universal health care. Note also you are only measuring direct spending- you aren't measuring the overall economic destruction caused by the high rates of taxation in many such countries (even the small amounts of private industry left in the US cause it to have nearly 10,000 dollars more per capita GDP than Canada, the most geographically and culturally similar of socialized countries.) When faced with that stark difference, percentages of GDP clearly only tell part of the story. "The largest cost difference is overhead and administrative waste, which accounts for 31% of the private sector costs and 1/3 of healthcare jobs." Note that it's never mentioned what constitutes this supposed "administrative waste," and also that most of that in government bureaucracy could be very easily classified as a "non-health care" expense even when it results from the health care system, creating illusory benefits. I wouldn't put it past the average government accountant. After all, it's easy to classify time filling out forms that make sure the right medicines go to the right patients as "waste," as long as you use dry language so no one looks into it. "High private sector overhead costs are due to marketing," I.e. providing information to consumers about the product. Hmm, wonder how much information should be cut out in a universal system. "inability to share information across competitors," Inability? What information? "the research to identify & deny high risk individuals," Which SAVES money. Hmm. "profit," i.e. the mechanism for making sure that only the services people actually want are invested in. "lower economies of scale," Only because anytime a company tries to fix that, by expanding, they are the victim of antitrust laws. In essence the government hold's a gangster-style monopoly on economies of scale in such situations. That does not apply in the free market situation I am advocating. " 2) Universal systems create a healthier society. When individuals are sick or develop conditions, they are treated earlier in universal systems before they become life-threatening or have to use more expensive emergency services" Then what's with all the reports of people going on waiting lists? Even this source, probably against me: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:YC_ag9J6Oc8J:www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf+canadian+versus+US+wait+times&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a admits that the US has much shorter wait times for those who deserve (pay for) a procedure, and that universal health care would increase the wait time. Indeed, many of the differences in health between the United States and other industrialized countries have to do with obesity , which universal health care does nothing to help. ""U.S. patients are more likely to report experiencing medical errors, to go without care because of costs, and to say that the health care system needs to be rebuilt completely. U.S. patients are also the least likely to be able to get a same-day appointment with their physicians when sick and the most likely to seek care in emergency rooms as an alternative." US consumers are notorious for complaining more about everything to everyone. That is a problem with this data. " 3) A universal insurance system allows Americans to be more mobile, take greater risks, and hire workers." At the cost of the seizure of any gains they happen to make. And the experience of the generally worse economies of countries with universal health care contradicts you. " 4) Public services are regulated by democratic participation. " Mob rule is not helpful to your case.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/7/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.22

    universal: 17.40

    conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.60 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.59)

    sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.12)

    should: 0.50

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.03 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 0.66)
• CON

  3rd round, Going strong here! Sorry if I assumed your...

  Show full argument

  Faith is Universal

  3rd round, Going strong here! Sorry if I assumed your gender, Some people might not appreciate that as I used he. Without further ado, My opponent states firstly states that Faith itself is beyond the properties of humanity, And not a mere abstraction. And compares it to a sense of logic. But, As you can see here my opponent represents "Divine Creator and Lawgiver. " As well as the Bible. Implying that the even if this is only an example, They are already narrowing down these options. Making it less universal. And more tied to very slim historical and cultural norms within this setting. The important thing is the disambiguation and abstract nature my opponent brings up, Comparing Faith to Logic. Saying that they are in turn, Beyond human and can be represented physically, But are not physical objects. However, Logic itself is closely tied to ONE true code of provable and observable standards. Logic itself, Is tied to the objective rather than subjective reality. Meaning it exists beyond the corruption of ideals and morals, As truth aligns itself with no morality. And logic follows suit. Thusly, We can assume that Faith is not as unto logic. As if so, As Logic advances conversely so would religion. In this fact, Religion would be able to have a same sense of Moral logic being applied. However, Religion itself is very different in cultures, And seems to advance on a different trail than science and logic. Faith for sure exists, But is not as Universally consistent or beyond human conventions as logic. My opponent in their 4th paragraph admitted once again to a materialist definition of faith. Just trusting in something. Which does not coincide with the argument they present later in their case. No common sense admits that Faith is tangible, But neither does any logic point to it being beyond any usual morals or virtues and sins. Faith is immaterial, Just not an immaterial reality that everyone has the same of as you stated in your first resolution. You cannot simplify the definition now, As you chose to argue on these grounds at the beginning of the debate. You are not out to prove that Faith is immaterial or intangible, It is both of those things. But, You must also prove it is a Universal Reality. And so far, We have no consistency on this factor. The universe contains everything we can conceptualize and perceive, And many things that with our current lenses we fail to understand. Thusly, While morals, Philosophies and religion may be intangible, They are not on a separate plane. And if "Faith seems to exist as properties of persons, Not as mere abstractions. " Then it would seem to have a similarity within itself. But, Faith itself is shown and perceived in different ways. It may be universal, But it is indescribable, And being abstract is something that cannot under any circumstance, Always keep the same definition and form in all contexts. We can describe an orange as an orange, Because we can perceive it's entity. But, We could describe Faith as Trust, Loyalty or a plethora of other traits. They are interchangeable, And defined by those who use them. Making it impossible to pin a single, Consistent Immaterial Reality that is universal and provable regardless of your worldview. In conclusion, Faith cannot be consistent in form. And is abstract, Which doesn't allow it to be consistent in worldview. Making my opponents resolution impossible. My opponent uses the Bible and Ultimate Creator as examples, And provides no other lenses to view this case. Thusly, One might find Christianity the only and most logical/moral solution. However, Taoists, Muslims, Jews and a multitude of other religions would disagree. And finally, Faith is not tied to an objective reality as logic is, But a subjective lens. So comparing the two is comparing Apples, And Quantum Physics. Two levels of complexities. Thusly, Con is winning the round. Thank you very much for all of your time, And can't wait for the next round!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Faith-is-Universal/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.20

    universal: 17.85

    conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 5.72 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.38)

    sourceText: 0.97 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  Not universal then is it? ... For those who do not...

  Show full argument

  Universal Health Care

  Universal health care never has, never will, and never can exist. There are countries which steal exorbitant sums of money to provide universal health insurance- But this is not synonymous with care, because, since the government is the only party paying for health insurance, and they are not receiving the benefits (or rather, they receive different, special benefits, for being government), they are motivated to limit costs. Since it is a state run enterprise, limiting costs by promoting efficiency or innovating is out of the question. The only way to do it is to make it law that the doctors charge less. Since this means the doctors are slaves (along with many other laws that attend state interference in health care, such as the laws requiring doctors to care for every comer, and of course taxes, which mean everyone is a slave,) fewer people want to be doctors. This limits supply. Which means you get put on waiting lists, on which some people happen to die. Not universal then is it? Now of course, it wouldn't matter if it really was universal health care. Either way, it's still universal taxation, universal slavery. A slave is anyone treated as though they exist for the sake of another person, rather than being treated as though they exist for their own sake. Theft is not compatible with the target of the theft existing for their own sake. Voluntary trade of value for value is, but state health care does not achieve that, namely the "voluntary" part, and by monopolizing health care, it reduces the quality and thus on net does not achieve the "Value for value" part either. Of course, this is difficult to observe, because, this will come as a shock to you, but every country, whether they claim to have "universal health care" or not, including the US, has state run health care. The insurance companies are "private" in name only, so long as congressional law rather than the law of individual rights decides who they are allowed to ensure, for what eventualities, at what price, and to whose benefit (taxes). The only thing that remains private about it is, occasionally, the development of new medicines. A "universal health care" program in the US, would cause the same factors to affect our development of medicines as the factors in the countries that currently have such programs- development would slow to a trickle, because the payer (Congress) would be motivated to keep new drugs off the market as much as politically possible to keep it's budget down. They put price controls on private drugs, killing development of those, and then take over development and turn it into a circus act. The science of health care would essentially be frozen in stasis. "I've lived in Europe, Asia, Canada, and the US and have some experience with health alternatives" No, you have experience with the system of explicit state control of health care. and the US system of implicit state control of health care. You have not experienced free-market health care. "Such an issue cannot be proven in absolute terms" Reality is absolute, why can't a political program be? For those who do not understand the extent to which American health care has already been slowed by the state, I invite you to read this article... bit of a long one :D http://www.theobjectivestandard.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/7/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.19

    universal: 17.84

    conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 7.04 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.69)

    sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.12)