Debate.orgUniversal healthcare helps foster greater equality across...
Single-payer universal health care
Universal healthcare helps foster greater equality across classes.
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Universal health care makes people healthier so more...
Single-payer universal health care
Universal health care makes people healthier so more productive.
-
PRO Universal health care lowers long-term health costs
Single-payer universal health care
Universal health care lowers long-term health costs
-
PRO Cost savings with universal health care will outweigh...
Single-payer universal health care
Cost savings with universal health care will outweigh program costs
-
PRO No universal health care leads to excessive, expensive...
Single-payer universal health care
No universal health care leads to excessive, expensive use of the ER
-
PRO Universal care would protect doctors/hospitals from...
Single-payer universal health care
Universal care would protect doctors/hospitals from free-loaders
-
PRO Universal health care is not welfare; its benefits are...
Single-payer universal health care
Universal health care is not welfare; its benefits are diverse/widespread
-
PRO The well insured also face risks without universal health...
Single-payer universal health care
The well insured also face risks without universal health care
-
PRO US has a big bureaucracy now; universal care won't make...
Single-payer universal health care
US has a big bureaucracy now; universal care won't make it bigger
-
PRO Universal health care reduces administrative costs (i.e....
Single-payer universal health care
Universal health care reduces administrative costs (i.e. paper work)
CON
-
CON Alright, Well second round time. My opponent states that...
Faith is Universal
Alright, Well second round time. My opponent states that if I state that I have no faith, Than that is Oxymoronic. And I agree, IF that had been a cornerstone to my argument that would've been quite a weak argument. However, This is the one of two points my opponent has addressed. He did address his definition of faith. However, He said it is "nothing special, " or "literally a synonym of belief Confidence and trust. " By this, My opponent concedes that faith is no different from other traits or so called "Virtues. " By this, They concede the round. As faith is nothing special and on the same plane of reality. Let me just extend some of my un-attacked points, And show you why they should flow through as reasons I am victorious. My opponent has not identified why "Faith" is on a separate plane of existence separate from our own. The burden of proof still rests on them. And, In fact if they reside with this un-unique definition, It inadvertently shifts the definition debate over in my favor. My opponent neither addressed his universal claim saying "Faith is an immaterial reality that everyone has regardless of your worldview. " My opponent has framed an un winnable debate. I agree that all humans can feel hope, Faith and other of these abstract concepts, But to say it is in a completely separate and immaterial reality is how this debate is unable to be solved in my opponents favor. Once again, The burden of proof is on my opponents shoulders, If they cannot provide a consistent philosophical argument to it's deified and quintessential nature (As they have provided nothing but a solid, And materialistic view of Faith which is how I define it and will give me the victory if he concedes. ) then the round cannot be won by them. To simply recap, My opponent to win must Define faith as a morally consistent, Entity beyond our astral plane, Have his argument defined and properly address my points in refutation. So far, The debate is in my favor. And I win as my Historical argument of Faith has also gone unaddressed. Saying that faith is different morally depending on many materialistic and normal variables. My two previously mentioned points have gone unaddressed, And my opponents only argument thus far is if I theoretically used the statement that I do not have faith, I would be contradictory. So, I urge you all to vote against this resolution thank you for reading.
-
CON Below are definitions that are unconditionally accepted...
Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all all gun sales...
November PF Topic: Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers of ownership. We will be debating the above (^) resolution, not what is stated in the title of the debate (ran out of characters.) In response to the recent plague of gun violence and mass shootings, increased gun control (encompassing universal background checks) have been proposed in an effort to combat violent deaths. This debate centers around the United States implementing (a) universal background checks for sales and (b) transfers of ownership. I oppose the resolution, affirming that universal background checks should not be imposed by the United States government or any other power, including (though not limited to) independent stores. Below are definitions that are unconditionally accepted upon the acceptance of this debate: Universal Background Check: Requirement of all firearms transactions in the United States to be recorded and go through the NICS - National Instant Criminal Background Check System. United States: United States of America, Federal Government Gun Sale: Transaction of firearm typically with monetary gain Transfer of Ownership: Obtaining a gun through private transaction not necessarily involving trade Should: Encompasses everything, including: moral obligation, safety of citizens, economic benefit, etc. Not limited to a single factor. Please use the first round to accept the debate only and refrain from introducing arguments until the latter three rounds. Thank you! Accepting the debate means unconditional acceptance of all stated above. Best of luck to whomever accepts. Looking forward to a great debate!
-
CON http://prezi.com... Laws should not be passed if they are...
Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries
Thank you Pro for your last round. Pro goes on about marriage not being essential for procreation and vice versa. Pro asserts that marriage should be defined as a commitment of love to your partner without attacking my case. Not a basic civil right To understand what type of marriage there actually is we should look at, how it is bodily, sexual, and is it a type that would fulfill procreation. In every society men and women are committed to sharing their lives together, on the bodily, emotional, and in the kind by procreating and rearing children together. There are, of course other relationships similar in some ways to marriage, like same-sex couples. But these relationships are not marriages, and no society should recognize them as marriages. Marriage is that type of that is both a comprehensive unity and a community that would be fulfilled by procreating and rearing children together. Moreover, there is a link between these two aspects of the community; the relationship is fulfilled by, and is not merely incidental to, the procreating and rearing of children. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... Same sex marriages cannot fulfill all the aspects of what a marriage represents. The communion of a man and a woman as husband and wife establishes a real biological union, they are biologically a single action to carry life. The male and female function in a coordinated way to carry out a biological function of the couple as a unit—mating. "When a man and woman make a commitment to each other to share their lives on all levels of their being, in the type of community that would be fulfilled by cooperatively procreating and rearing children, then the biological unity established and renewed in sexual intercourse is the beginning or embodiment of that community we know as marriage." Pro mentions that monogamy was not common in human society until 20,000 years ago but this helps my case as it establishes a founding institution for marriage. That founding institute has never included same-sex couples. In fact most marriages until the last few hundred years were arranged and never are marriages arranged between same-sex individuals. Even the method of arranged marriages shows a desire for not only the linking of families but also the rearing of children. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and conflating the issue with wedlock, older people that are in marriage not able to have children is just misleading. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories." Gay marriage could potentially lead down a ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. http://prezi.com... Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. It is important that laws be passed in accordance with the will of the people. Permitting gay marriage will require changing the function of our current legal system. Not a right in all countries This contention was dropped. Though Pro says that same-sex marriage should be a universal civil right until he proves this, then this contention applies. We would be forcing our own rights and beliefs onto other nations. Therefore, their civil rights are violated. Why it is not right Pro is mistaken in thinking that marriage is solely about love and then changing the institution away from children and focusing on adults. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would explicitly sever the institution’s connection to the two interrelated realities, gender difference and procreation. It can be reasonable to think that homosexuality is just a sexual perversion. Homosexuality is often referred to as sodomy and perverse. There has never been an established benefit for homosexuality. There is absolutely no evidence that suggest that homosexuality is innate. Our biology does not support homosexuality. In fact there is no biological reasons for homosexuality. Matter of fact homosexuals have no more or no less rights than heterosexuals. Civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Same sex couples have the same right to marry as anyone else only they want a choice that is not a civil right. Perversion are sexual acts that are understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed unnatural. Homosexual acts are in disagreement with our natural law. I have shown the definition of marriage in nations other than the United States and within the United States. Same-sex couples do not have the civil right to marry by these definitions and views on marriage. I have shown the view of marriage as a child rearing relationship. I have briefly shown that homosexual relationships are not a natural design in nature even if objects in nature exhibit homosexual activities. Same-sex couples cannot properly fit the definition of marriage. Pro has offered us little in evidence.
-
CON My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health...
The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens.
Okay, this should be easy... just kidding... maybe...anyhow: "' . . . funding it requires raising taxes . . . ' Boo freakin' hoo. I guess we can't do that, can we? =P" Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level. "' . . . and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms . . . ' What unnecessary restrictions?" Taxes, read above, genius... "Is it fair to give those who need health care the free benefits, and make those who can afford it pay for it? Observe example 1. Bobby lives just below the poverty level, by himself, in an apartment. He works two jobs at separate fast-food chains to sustain his living conditions. Because he cannot afford it, the government provides him free health care. Now we go to Johnny. Johnny is a middle class newlywed who lives in a townhouse. He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live. Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why should Johnny, working hard to start a family, have to give up a large portion of his salary to his health insurance company, while lonely Bobby gets it for free?" Because Johnny's health insurance is probably provided for free by his business. Even if it's not, he can afford to choose his health insurance. Since Bobby works at fast food restaurants, he is kinda lacking health care, which is necessary to have if one wants to live and practice one's rights (that's why any health care should be provided). Anyways, Johnny pays the same difference if he gets universal health care, as the extra taxes he pays go to giving Bobby health care. Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care. My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs. Bobby, who can't afford any health insurance gets to buy basic health insurance. In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is "one size fits all" and it is given to people who don't need it. Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan. "Welfare is not a sufficient substitute for health care because they don't perform the same function. Welfare helps you to be financially stable, while health care helps you to be...well...healthily stable." I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff. "Now for my contention. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents states that the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. However, to my knowledge (from my class on U.S. government), the four main purposes of government are to: 1) Protect citizen rights 2) Maintain order and safety 3) Maintain economic stability 4) Provide necessary public services" You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights. "With this in mind, the government needs universal health care to fulfill its roles of maintaining safety, providing public services and as my opponent stated, protecting citizen rights. Take my above example. Who is going to pay for Bobby's surgery when he gets run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Not me, that's who. You won't either. You'll be laughing at him while he lies face down in the street, and while he's on the hospital bed. But you won't pay for his surgery, because it'll be too expensive. You might even have trouble paying for your own surgery when YOU get run over by a car and stabbed multiple times. So the government is just going to let Bobby die? I don't think so. A government needs to maintain the safety of Bobby, and protect his right to life. So they need to give him health care. Of course, you may ask, "What about Jack, the shrewd, multimillionaire entrepreneur who also got run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Does he get free health care as well?" The answer is yes, he does. The government has as much of an obligation to protect Jack's safety and rights as they do Bobby's. Besides, maybe the surgery cost is so great that Jack will be living in poverty once he finishes paying his bills. You can't have that, can you? Otherwise he'd leech off YOUR governmentz for welfare money, and get rich off it because he is shrewd. But I digress. I stand by this: Universal health care is necessary to protect the safety and rights of all citizens. Furthermore, it would be unfair and detrimental to provide free health care to certain people instead of all people." As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive. Also, the example of Jack is important. Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff. Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments! While this may not seem like a huge deal, the point is, you lose stuff with universal health care that you don't if you simply pay for what people need.
-
CON Response to C1: It seems to me that you are quoting...
The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens
Response to C1: It seems to me that you are quoting Professors, and then summarizing their views in a few short sentence after doing so. It is your job to be providing reasoning, not quotes. The United States of America has a Constitution, by which everyone with the boundaries of the US s forced to abide. Our Constitution lists the specific job of the legislative branch of government, and then adds in an amendment that anything not specifically listed as a job of the national government is a ob for the states; with the consent of the people. [1] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Article I, Section 8) [2] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Amendment X) Healthcare/medical aid is not listed anywhere as a job for the federal government. Because our Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything it is no explicitly permitted to do, the federal government cannot provide healthcare. Response to C2: Your whole argument is that federal healthcare could do better than completely privatized or state-run systems, because other countries that are better than us use a federal system. I would like to point out that our current system is heavily flawed, due to government regulations on jobs; specifically doctors. If doctors could be judged by consumers, instead of his behind the government's overbearing wall, then healthcare would be cheaper, and also more reliable. Do you realize how small an amount $6500 is? That will barely cover a mostly healthy person for a year. Cancer patients would have no hope. With that little money, people would be forced to provide self care, only visiting the doctor when death is near-certain. You expect universal healthcare to solve all problems. What about the people who smoke? They are still killing themselves; healthcare would not fix the root cause. What about people who go around having sex all the time? We would be paying for their birth-control, and then still having to watch as STDs increased in number. What about the people who eat McDonald’s or fried food everyday? We are still having to pay for their bypasses. Giving people universal healthcare will not magically fix their problems which make them unhealthy, it will only discourage being healthy. If I can eat junk food and go have sex all the time, and know that everyone else is going to pay for my medical are, then by all means (religion aside) I would go do it! Finally for this section, you said that giving people universal healthcare will stop bankruptcy. Really? People still have to pay for their healthcare one way or another. If one person isn't paying, then another one has to pick up the slack. If someone is out of work, then they still cannot pay for their healthcare, the will just get it for free. Eventually, the wealthier and healthier people will quit paying into the system, because they will be supporting everyone else. Response to C3: Again, all you are doing is quoting Professors. his is rather irritating, as I am not debating with them, but with you. "You" say that people must be healthy in order to enjoy their rights, because being unhealthy requires dependency on others. How will receiving healthcare from the government make you any less dependent on a hospital doctor than private insurance? Not only are you dependent on any doctors, you are also dependent on the government, as well as every single other citizen! If you get sick, then you are sick. Making healthcare universal will not just magically fix that. The only thing universal healthcare would do is provide a guaranteed source of payment for the medical bills, to an extent. It is then stated that people who get universal healthcare will be more inclined to work harder. How does that work? If I say that you will get something no matter how hard you work, then you won't work very hard, if at all. You then say that there will be an even mix of well and ill people n the "pool." Again, how does that work? Can you predict how many people will get sick, and what their disease will be? Medicines and treatments can cost from a few dollars to a few hundred thousand dollars. Money would have to be in abundance to allow for the care of anyone with cancer, or anyone requiring a major surgery. You also claim that universal insurance would fix the "problem" of having to pay for insurance. People have to buy the insurance, whether it is through a private company or via taxes. Like insurance as it is currently, if you get sick, the payments (taxes) will have to go up to account for the expenses. The only difference is that everyone has to pay more because a single person gets sick. Some people naturally have stronger immune systems. They get sick less often, and therefore would require less medical care, as well as less sick days from work. Why would they keep working to pay for someone else's healthcare, when they don't get any money back? Your actual point for your entire "b" point is that "Universal healthcare would be beneficial to everyone." The only evidence you provide is, yet again, a quote. That is quite inadequate. I will not waste time in replying to point "c," because that is a purely philosophical statement, which you claim is true, because Prof. So-and-So said it. If you wish to bring philosophy and religion into this, I would be delighted to do so, with more wide-known sources than your professors. Cross-Examination: Do you agree with Obamacare? Do you agree with Socialism? Do you agree with Communism (Totalitarian)? Do you agree with Social Democracy? Do you agree with a free-market economic system? Do you believe that philosophy/religion should be brought into politics? Do you agree with the US Constitution? How would universal healthcare be paid for? Would universal healthcare be provided in an "account" for each individual, or would it be distributed from a pool to those who had need? For your next argument, please formulate some real points, instead of quoting and agreeing with others. As the Pro, it is your job to prove that the US should offer federal universal healthcare. If you would like to use statistics, please find some that are not contained within a quote, and please use sources for citations. Thanks.
-
CON It's like 12th exams are more important than 10th, but...
Universal Brotherhood Is More Important Than Patriotism
In my opinion both are important but to think about universal brotherhood we need to have patriotism first. It's like 12th exams are more important than 10th, but without giving 10th examination you can't think of 12th examination. If a person don't have feeling of it's own motherland than how he can think for other's. So first we need to have patriotism then we can think of universal brotherhood.
-
CON If you are actually a failure at understanding, I don't...
The United States should design a universal health care system.
I'll get right to it also. Thank you for such a challenge. 1. I don't know if you understand this, but telling me that the uninsured can't afford health insurance means nothing to me. I realize that and I know we need to change things so they can get health insurance. Examples would be withdrawing mandates for individual insurance policies, fostering Health Savings Accounts for day-to-day medical expenses, making health insurance true indemnity insurance and not health maintenance. 2. Why are you avoiding "he burden would be spread to everyone." I think that is part of privacy. Now your health problems are mine and mine are yours. Whether it is part of privacy or not, why did you avoid the argument I was making in my second round? 3. Do you have any kind of evidence for the mentioning of saving $286 Billion on paper work? What kind of paper work does that consist of? Do you realize how many law suits are going on right now because of health care. I stated it in my opening argument. If we have universal health care, people will be going to the doctors that much more because it is free. They don't have to worry about deductibles or anything to that such. Therefore with more people being at the doctor, there is more chances of the doctors being sued which is a huge cost to doctors and the government. 4. As far as doctors go. I found an article that did an actual survey on a certain amount of doctors. It is located here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... It basically says that many doctors admit to turning there head to medical errors that are done. They are suppose to report every serious medical error, and in the survey done, some doctors admitted that they don't do that. If the doctors were basically only concerned about the care of patients (like you said) then why would this be happening in hospitals? 5. You fail to understand? Is that because you just don't want to understand or you actually failed? If you are actually a failure at understanding, I don't get it. It makes perfect sense. You can't tell me that they are going to raise our taxes to 40 % of income, because that would make people go crazy. So, to account for this, they are going to have to raise the taxes somewhat and then cut on other spending so taxes don't get to ridiculous. Therefore, they are going to have to cut spending on something. Whether it is medical research, defense, education, whatever, there are going to have to be some cuts in something. 6. Whether that is true or not, that study was from 2000. I'm not sure if it has changed or not, but that is 8 years ago now. And it came out in 2000 so that means that research had to of been done before 2000 and that had to take awhile. None the less, you don't have to tell me twice that our health care system is bad. You wouldn't even have to tell me once, because I realize that. Now, are you able to tell me that ALL those countries ahead of us have universal health care? Probably not therefore leading to my point that universal health care is not need to be said to have the best health care accord to "WHO". 7. Yes, I did argue that they are somewhat biased. I never voted in any of those polls, so that's leaving out at least me. Maybe everyone else in the U.S. voted on those polls but not me. I don't find that realistic. Saying the U.S. wants universal health care because of an internet poll or what some reporter says, really does nothing to me. I can go out and talk out of my butt and probably get some people to believe me. But I am not going to do that, instead I am going to sit here and talk the truth and try to educate people. The democracy and everyone has a right to health care point that you were trying to make, makes sense to me. But realize, everyone DOES have a right to health care right now. Some may have to pay more than others, some not. Everyone has the right to insurance, somewhere. You can bring up the movie Sicko that says some people were denied insurance, but overall that is not true. I work in the insurance field and I deal with things like this all the time. Some companies may deny them, but there are always companies that will take people in. 8. As far as this goes, look at other countries with universal health care, they are put on lists just to get looked at. Come on, why should we be doing this to ourselves? I look at the DMV and VA and realize that those are 2 government ran agencies near me and people HATE going to both of them. I don't want to hate going to the doctor. 9. Please explain to me what paperwork are we loosing when we have universal health care. Does that still cover all of the paper work for the patients, the health care cards that need to be printed for everyone, the more law suits that will be happening, and all of these expenses? I think you should think about that number a little more. Is the GOVERNMENT really spending that much money on paperwork right now? I think more like the insurance companies might be spending a lot of money on paperwork, but I don't see how the government can be responsible for all THAT much paperwork that will now be gone. Your New Point - As far as that goes, there are many options that we can go about using to fix our health care. Some that I said above. For you to say that you know of no other options, that sounds like a very liberal remark and maybe you should stick your head out of the liberal media box and get welcomed into the real world. Do you listen to our great President George W. Bush talk? Maybe you should because he has mentioned many new ideas. Do you listen to the presidential debates for the republican side? Maybe you should because the talk about many options available to us. I would like to say that I have talked a lot to your very little, you were just saying how I am wrong with the things I brought up and nothing really to say other than "Your Wrong, Next". I appreciate you taking part in this debate and hope I maybe helped you swing to the other side a little bit and opened it up a little more for you. Good luck and thanks!
-
CON I disagree, the US should not implement ANY form of...
Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial
First of all, thanks for creating this debate. I disagree, the US should not implement ANY form of universal health care. In my opinion the last thing this country needs are more people that are dependent on our government. As humans we I disagree, the US should not implement ANY form of universal health care. In my opinion the last thing this country needs are more people that are dependent on our government. As humans we should be able to take care of ourselves, and not rely on others, to take care of us. Having universal health care isn't going to make people prevent ailments, it's going to make people want to get all out of system that they possibly can. Also, having a medical record available around the country will not help anything. It only allows more room for problems to happen. There are more opportunities for computers to break down with an overload of information, and there is also more room for information to be stolen. ~Nikki
-
CON I do not understand why my opponent finds my statement...
Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong
"This would be a matter for political debate in a democracy. For example, a socialist candidate might argue that a developed, civilized society should make health care provisions for all citizens free at the point of use according to need, not the ability to pay, and he might also add that although taxes would rise in order to pay for a nationalised health service, citizens would no longer need to purchase private health insurance." Actually, Hong Kong has medical aid too, that"s why staying in a public hospital is so much cheaper. Also, most of Hong Kong doesn"t pay tax, so if the health insurance increases, taxes have to increase, and ultimately the people who pay tax have to suffer. But of course, LegCo members won"t allow it to happen as no one wants to pay more tax and they need to secure votes, so the Government will end up giving out more money and receiving less as LegCo members will call for tax cuts. "On the other hand, a capitalist candidate might argue that consumers should decide how best to spend their own money, not the government, and that those people who cannot afford private health insurance should rely on their families or charities for support in a medical crisis." This will not happen, as everyone wants a free lunch. All citizens would fight for no tax and huge welfare. "I would suspect that the Hong Kong electorate would overwhelmingly vote for capitalist candidates ahead of socialist candidates but, of course, there is a possibility that I could be wrong. Perhaps the people of Hong Kong are unlike their cousins in Singapore and value social justice more than personal wealth and would vote in a socialist regime." Hong Kong people, just like all other people, are greedy. They vote for candidates that benefit them, financially or otherwise. They vote for people who share their views and beliefs, which may not be the best for the city"s development. Imagine everyone fighting for no tax and huge welfare. What would happen? Due to populism, Hong Kong would become bankrupt. "This statement seems to be self-contradictory but, in any case, it does seem that food is cheaper in the US than Hong Kong, although I have to say that food here in London, like property prices, the cost of fuel and public transport and other major outgoings is higher than either Hong Kong or the US: it is all relative to average income. Furthermore, the exchange rates distort the real cost of living. That said, living in poverty is not easy anywhere, but the opportunities to succeed in Hong Kong are there for those who want to take them, which is not true in many parts of the US or the UK. That's why there is more of a demand for welfare services in Europe and America than there is in Hong Kong or Singapore." I do not understand why my opponent finds my statement self-contradictory. It is easier to be under the poverty line in HK than in US because the things are more expensive. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, the need for a welfare state does not affect the greed of people. No one will not want things that benefit them. "Finally, regarding popularise in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, I would suggest that it would be healthy for the members voted in by the Council to be popular with the citizens, enacting popular policies that the people approve of. Surely this is better than having some forelock-tugging technocrat parachuted into power by his political masters in Beijing, accountable not to the citizens but, instead, to his bosses on the unelected Chinese State Council?" Well, firstly, I would like to state that it is not healthy. Sure, it might benefit citizens temporarily, but when the city suffers because of badly implemented policies due to populism, the people are the ones who will suffer! Not only people in Hong Kong, but people who trade with HK companies all over the world! Yes, the LegCo would have the people"s support, but will they have the same support when HK goes bankrupt or its economy goes back to its level in 2003? ""but that does not mean that they should not be entitled to be represented by leaders of their own choosing." I would like to remind my opponent that I am only arguing against universal suffrage in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. I did not say the Chief Executive could not be elected in that way. The Chief Executive is the highest ranking official in Hong Kong, and together with an un-universal suffrage elected LegCo, they could balance the benefit of the people and the city. I would like to thank my opponent for bringing new ideas into this debate.
-
CON Con may present their own argument or they may just...
Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries
I accept. Thank you Pro for starting this debate and I hope for an interesting exchange. Resolution: Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries BOP: My opponent has the Burden of proof because he has made claim. Pro needs to provide reason why same-sex marriage is a civil right and should be allowed in all countries. Con needs to show that Pros claims are invalid. Definitions: Same-sex marriage - is the practice of marriage between two males or two females. http://dictionary.reference.com...... Civil rights - A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. http://www.law.cornell.edu... Allowed - to admit; acknowledge; concede. http://dictionary.reference.com... Should be - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency. http://www.merriam-webster.com... All countries - http://www.state.gov... Rounds: 1. Round one is for acceptance 2. Pro presents their argument. Con may present their own argument or they may just rebuttal Pro. 3. Additional arguments and rebuttal 4. Rebuttals only 5. Final rebuttals and conclusion Rules: 1. No semantics or trolling 2. Round structure must be followed 3. Definitions must be followed I suggest my opponent decide just what he is arguing and establish it in his opening argument. Civil rights are as defined are American rights and it would a defenseless position for him to take on all countries. Otherwise, I accept and I await my opponent's argument.
