args

CON

• CON

  In many developing countries, child labour is an...

  Show full argument

  Labour standards are necessary to protect basic human rights

  Not all standards benefit human rights and some could even undermine individual’s most basic human rights such as that to sustenance and shelter. Standards combating child labour, for example, could be misguided.  In many developing countries, child labour is an important source of income for children’s food and education.  Holding to the ILO’s convention on child labour would therefore affect families’ and children’s income and development opportunities.  Since child labour is dependent on level of economic development, developing countries should work on combating poverty before reducing child labour.  India implemented most international standards, including the convention for child labour. However, research has found that children working full time have better chances of making it to adulthood than those who work less, because they’re better fed[1]. Children’s physical wellbeing will often therefore benefit from being allowed to work. Rather than imposing labour standards the way to end such practices is to provide incentives that pay for parents to send their children to school as with the Bolsa Familia in Brazil.[2] [1] Cigno, Alessandro, and Rosati, Furio C., ‘Why do Indian Children Work, and is it Bad for Them?’, IZA Discussion paper series, No.115, 2000, http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/20956/1/dp115.pdf, p.21 [2] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘Brazil’s cash transfer scheme is improving the lives of the poorest’, Poverty Matters Blog guardian.co.uk, 19 November 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/nov/19/brazil-cash-transfer-scheme

  • https://idebate.org/debatabase/economy-economic-policy-employment/house-would-make-raising-business-and-labour-standards
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.80

    universal: 0.54

    sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.14)

    sum: 6.68 (product 3.18, product 3.07, product 0.43)

    sum: 1.22 (product 1.14, product 0.09)

    basic: 13.03

    conclusion: 9.53 (boost 1.50, idf 7.19, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 3.07 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.43 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.36)

    should: 1.22

    premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.86)
• CON

  I will present my own case in this round; I will rebut...

  Show full argument

  Resolved; The United States Government ought to guarantee Universal Health Care to its Citizens

  I will present my own case in this round; I will rebut the Affirmative case next round. However, I will provide some definitions of my own at this juncture. Definitions: U.S. " the government of the United States. (American Heritage.) Ought " desirability (Encarta.) Aff defines "ought" as indicating morality, however this is not always the case. For example, the statement "you ought to go left to avoid traffic" is not dealing with morality, but rather with desirability. Therefore, prefer this definition. Observation One: "Ought" expresses a moral obligation. A moral obligation, according to philosopher J.O. Urmson, is contingent upon capacity. For example, if a man who cannot swim sees a person drowning, the man is not obligated to jump into the pool to save the drowning individual, as that would endanger two lives. It would be unfair to demand that one do something they can"t. But, if one can swim, then one does have an obligation to jump in to save the person. If you have the ability to do good, you ought to do good. Basically, Urmson contends an actor, like the U.S., cannot have an obligation if that actor lacks the ability bear it. Observation Two: The resolution, by its own wording, is U.S.-specific. I Value Societal Welfare, defined as the health and safety of a society. Ultimately, this value is intrinsically linked to the notion of healthcare, because of the broad social impacts associated with it. Furthermore, the importance of the community is affirmed by Prof. Jane Dryden, "autonomy"does not provide an adequate notion of the human person as embedded within and shaped by societal values and commitments"we do not choose our values and commitments from the position of already being autonomous individuals; in other words, the autonomous self does not exist prior to the values and commitments that constitute the basis for its decisions. To deliberate in the abstract from these values"is to leave out the self"s very identity, and that which gives meaning to the deliberation." The Criterion therefore is Rousseau"s Social Contract. It differs from Locke"s insofar as it advocates that government should provide for the public good"not merely three specific rights. As Rousseau himself stated, "The sovereign is thus formed when free and equal persons come together and agree to create themselves anew as a single body, directed to the good of all considered together." This sentiment is echoed across many social contract theories, particularly in the notion that government is there to serve the people, not to serve itself. At the same time though, a government must act pragmatically, for the benefit of the whole, even if this means some harm for the minority. Prof. Gary Woller furthers, "Appeals to a priori moral principles"often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense"the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that"their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." Ultimately then, the government, the U.S., ought to act in such a way as it benefits the most people. It is my belief, that in such stressed economic times, it would be too risky to implement UHC, and thus the U.S. ought not to do it. Contention One: Universal Healthcare would require the government to exhaust enormous funds that it simply lacks. Sub-point A: Universal Healthcare would entail massive costs for the U.S. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel and Prof. Victory Fuchs, "universal health insurance would be underwritten [by the U.S.]"with administrative costs exceeding $145 billion." Professors Chua Kao-Ping and Fl"vio Casoy further, observing that the Institute of Medicine estimated the additional healthcare costs from the presently uninsured being covered by universal healthcare would be around 69 billion dollars per year, and that this number does not even assume that structural changes, delivery financing, scope of benefits, or provider payment might be adversely affected. They go on to state that "there is the possibility that covering the uninsured through a public insurance program may tempt employers to drop coverage and push their employees onto the public insurance program," further increasing the cost of the program for the U.S. According to Reuters, 40 million Americans would need subsidized or free health insurance to be provided to them by the government. As reported by the Tax Policy Center and Reuters, currently, 760 billion dollars in spending and 600 billion dollars in tax cuts are being used to offer like subsidies. That number would need to increase even more should all of the U.S. be covered, and may virtually destroy what is left of U.S. finances. Sub-point B: The U.S. economy is too fragile to handle the added expenses. According to Robert Merry, "US public debt exceeds 70% of the economy, nearing the danger point of 90%. With national debt projected to reach 16.6 trillion dollars this year, that ominous percentage looms." The Congressional Budget Office reported that 15 trillion dollars in spending reductions are needed simply to maintain current debt-to-GDP levels. Even more is needed to reduce the overall debt. It warns that U.S. debt may exceed 100% by 2020 and 190% by 2035. Included in its recommendations was a reduction of healthcare subsidies, many of which would be necessary for universal health care. Economists Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith, in a study they conducted this year, stated, to survive economically, we must pursue a policy of fiscal consolidation, including a sharp reduction in domestic spending. This would seem to rule out additional healthcare related expenses. They warned "added spending that would naturally accompany any expansion of the system could cause a return to recession. Claims that healthcare would help millions are clearly contradicted by the fact that such a policy could economically harm millions more." Sub-point C: Such spending would also be fruitless and wasteful even if implemented. Prof. James Taylor notes that, should Universal Healthcare be implemented, "special interest groups can capture resources through lobbying, perverting them away from their efficient allocation." According to Emma Roberts, universal healthcare would be unsustainable, "countries with universal health care struggle to sustain efficiency. Canada and Australia ranked lowest, according to the Commonwealth Wealth Fund study, in accessibility of physician appointments and wait times for basic medical services, as well as specialist care, tests, etc. Other efficiency issues noted by the study included"misplacing medical records and tests." Prof. Jeffery Miron adds that, "Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care, so they utilize too much"often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures." Sub-point D: Interestingly enough, universal healthcare isn"t really universal. As reported on ABC News, "A national shortage of general practitioners means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care. In England, shortages of dentists have caused hundreds of people to wait in line just for an appointment"One British hospital even tried to save money by not changing bed sheets. Instead of washing them, a British newspaper reported that the staff was encouraged to simply turn the sheets over. At any given time in Great Britain, there are over half a million people waiting to get into a hospital for treatments." The crux of this point is that many of the benefits claimed by proponents of UHC fall short, because UHC is only ensuring a portion of the population. Essentially, guaranteeing universal healthcare would jeopardize our economy, and is, consequently, not the best course of action for our society. As Urmson notes, moral obligations are contingent on our ability to bear them"and quite simply, we can"t. Prof. Allen Buchanan put it best saying, "a right to healthcare becomes implausible simply because it ignores the fact that in circumstances of scarcity the total social expenditure on health must be constrained by the need to allocate resources for other necessities." Thus, I urge a negative ballot.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-The-United-States-Government-ought-to-guarantee-Universal-Health-Care-to-its-Citizens/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.79

    universal: 12.09

    conclusion: 4.85 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 6.29 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.51)

    sourceText: 0.96 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.01)

    basic: 1.57

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.96)

    should: 1.13

    premises: 1.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

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

  Therefore, an unspecified portion of that 45,000...

  Show full argument

  Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

  I thank Legit for this debate! I will first present my case, and then address Pro's case. CON's CASE Observation: I do not need to offer an alternative to UHC; as the topic is phrased, I need only show that UHC would not be beneficial to the U.S. Contention One: The U.S. Economy Sub-point A: Fragility The U.S. economy is currently in a fragile position. Even as the economy begins to grow, low growth rates of about 2-3% are jeopardized by dangers in the global market, relatively low consumer spending and confidence, and a widening trade gap. [1, 2] Fears surrounding Ukraine and Russia, as well as concerns about possible deflation in the EU and a slow-down in China have intensified the risks posed to the U.S.'s globalized, interdependent, consumerist economy. Simply put, if the world economy slows down, so too will America's. Furthermore, much of the U.S. economic growth has been caused by the Fed's quantitative easing program, and not by real economic growth, which has inflated the growth numbers in the current economic reports. [3] Sub-point B: UHC Costs “US public debt exceeds 70% of the economy, nearing the danger point of 90%. With national debt projected to reach 16.6 trillion dollars this year, that ominous percentage looms.” The Congressional Budget Office reported that 15 trillion dollars in spending reductions are needed simply to maintain current debt-to-GDP levels. Even more is needed to reduce the overall debt. It warns that U.S. debt may exceed 100% by 2020 and 190% by 2035. Included in its recommendations was a reduction of subsidies, many of which would be necessary for universal health care. To survive economically, we must pursue a policy of fiscal consolidation. [4] Sub-point C: Foreign Influence Currently, more than 30% of U.S. debt is owned by foreign entities. [5] Much of the America's expenditures would not be possible without borrowing from foreign lenders, which, in effect, makes us dependent upon them to carry out our own governmental functions. The U.S. government best serves its citizens by remaining autonomous and free from possible external coercion. Our reliance on foreign funding diminishes our freedom to act, and in turn reduces the latitude we have to pursue objective that are at odds with the interests of our creditors. Conclusion: The U.S. simply cannot afford UHC at this time. Not only would it require additional loans--and thus additional foreign dependency--but would place further strain on U.S. financial reserves and the U.S. economy that could jeopardize our fragile recovery. Contention Two: Coercion A universal “provision of healthcare would necessarily involve the coercive imposition of some persons’ values upon the citizens as a whole…It would also have to address (and hence decide upon) such moral questions as whether to allow or prohibit certain healthcare-related practices (such as euthanasia) within those facilities…and, if these are to be allowed, whether or not they should be provided under its auspices. It would also have to set standards of professional behavior for the healthcare providers…(would, for example, healthcare professionals be allowed to conscientiously object to the provision of certain forms of treatment, or not), and impose these in the name of its citizens as a whole.” [6] In other words, the government would necessarily force the uninsured or those covered to conform to its coverage options, which is inherently coercive. PRO's CASE C1: Social Benefits First, let's examine Pro's Harvard study. The study says that people died "because they lack health insurance and cannot get good care." Therefore, an unspecified portion of that 45,000 statistic may have health insurance, but simply lacked access to good medical facilities. UHC is only about providing insurance; it is not about improving the quality of existing services. Therefore, even if everyone were insured, many people could still be dying due to underfunded or understaffed hospitals, clinics, etc. Moreover, how do we assess if someone died because of "lack of insurance." How was this data collected? It seems to me that illness causes death--not the absence of insurance. Does someone without insurance, but who arrived at a hospital too late to matter die from "lack of insurance?" The metrics here just seem vague. Next, correlation is not causation. People in nations with UHC live longer because they live in countries that are developed. The average Swede earns more money and eats better than the average Somali--naturally the Swede will live longer even without UHC. Pro has not shown that UHC is the cause of the observed longevity. C2: Satisfaction European countries have a more pro-government mindset than the U.S., and they also have economies structured to make government entitlement programs easier and more integral. [7] Notice that 3 of the top 10 countries did not have UHC, implying that it is possible to have a highly efficient, well-run non-UHC healthcare program, if we accept that satisfaction should be our metric/standard for what is beneficial. However, this seems ill-advised. Consider that Social Security is highly popular, but yet lacks solvency and is sapping huge amounts of resources that the U.S. simply cannot afford. [8] Ultimately, popular is not the same as beneficial, and so I would question the relevance of this whole contention to the debate. C3: Economics Pro cites statistics showing how corporations save money when the government pays instead. This is assuming that the government has the money to take on the burden of those costs; frankly, America just doesn't have the funds. The corporations, which earn hundred of billions of dollars in profit do have the funds to contribute towards insurance, and so are better equipped to provide coverage. Pro is also assuming that these companies would put any money they saved back into the U.S. economy, which is oftentimes untrue. [9, 10] While the U.S. system may be expensive, there are ways to cope with that issue other than UHC, including minimum wage increases, increased regulation, government intervention in price negotiations, etc. C4: Misconceptions "Some countries with universal health care struggle to sustain efficiency. Canada and Australia ranked lowest, according to the Commonwealth Wealth Fund study, in accessibility of physician appointments and wait times for basic medical services, as well as specialist care, tests, and elective surgery. Other efficiency issues noted by the study included Canada's propensity for misplacing medical records and tests...In Canada, for example, the lionshare of provincial budgets consistently goes to health care. Some provinces spend 40 percent of the total annual budget on health care alone. Funding for other programs like education and infrastructure are continually gobbled up by ballooning health care costs." [11] So, not only are there high wait times in Canada, but its system is riddled with inefficiencies. Moreover, wait times in the U.S. are fantastic, while still providing some of the highest quality care for illnesses like cancer. [12] Moreover, UHC system tend to pay physicians less than free market models, resulting in many physicians not operating under the UHC or NHS system. "A national shortage of general practitioners means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care. In England, shortages of dentists have caused hundreds of people to wait in line just for an appointment…One British hospital even tried to save money by not changing bed sheets. Instead of washing them, a British newspaper reported that the staff was encouraged to simply turn the sheets over. At any given time in Great Britain, there are over half a million people waiting to get into a hospital for treatments.” [13] Clearly, wait times are not just interminable, but quality of care was adversely impacted. OFF-CASE HARMS 1. Exploiting the System "Often, citizens of countries with universal health care will 'milk' the system. The most common example of this phenomenon occurs when citizens don't live in their country of origin, don't pay taxes in their country of origin, yet still return home whenever they need to go to the doctor." [11] 2. Biased against the Healthy "Smokers, for example, receive the same treatment under universal health care, even though their conditions are self-induced...In [UHC], people do not have to take responsibility for the health consequences of bad lifestyle choices. Everyone gets covered, and everyone shares the cost." SOURCES 1 - http://www.nytimes.com... 2 - http://online.wsj.com... 3 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4 - Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith, and R. Merry Foreign Policy, 2012 5 - http://www.factcheck.org... 6 - James Taylor [Associate Professor, College of New Jersey], “Market-Based Reforms in Health Care Are Both Practical and Morally Sound,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, Special Issue: SYMPOSIUM 1: Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Medicine, Volume 40, Issue 3, (Fall 2012), pp. 537–546 7 - http://www.cato.org... 8 - http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com... 9 - http://money.msn.com... 10 - http://www.theatlantic.com... 11 - http://www.livestrong.com... 12 - http://www.theatlantic.com... 13 - http://abcnews.go.com... Thanks!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care-Would-be-Beneficial-to-the-U.S./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.76

    universal: 12.58

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

    premises: 4.00 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.96)

    sourceText: 0.84 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.76)

    basic: 1.43

    premises: 1.02 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.30)

    sourceText: 0.41 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.29)

    should: 0.75

    premises: 0.67 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.52)

    sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.71)
• CON

  The racist origins of gun control signal that further...

  Show full argument

  Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all all gun sales...

  I negate the resolution: the United States should require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers of ownership. I observe that requiring universal background checks perpetuate racism, endanger the lives of inner city people, and ultimately pose little solvency to the crisis facing the United States of America. Requiring universal background checks are unfair and detrimental to the safety of the American peoples. Contention 1: Inherent and Systematic Racism Minorities would be discriminatory affected through the implementation of universal background checks insofar as the United States Justice System carries inherent racism. Universal background checks restrict firearm access to those harboring criminal records, including drug use and petty felonies. The inclusion of petty crimes and drug use in background checks unfairly discriminate against minorities for two reasons: Subpoint A: The U.S Justice System. Discrimination towards minority males is blatantly obvious in our contemporary justice system. The disproportionate and lengthy incarceration of African-American, Hispanic, and other minority males indicate an inherent and systematic racist undertone in the United States Justice System. In 2013, the FBI released records to the American public concerning arrests and race statistics. Roughly 28.3% of all arrests were African-American; disproportionate, insofar as 13.6% of the American population is African-American [1][2]. In addition, Michelle Alexander, associate professor at Stanford University, authored a stunning book called the New Jim Crow. In this work, she found that roughly 70% of drug incarcerations were minority males [3]. This carries remarkable significance insofar as drug usage, including marijuana, accounts for roughly 50% of the United States prison population [3]. Restricting firearm access to minority males degrades what little safety the inner cities currently have. As reported by Michelle Alexander in a further extension, up to 80% of minority males in select inner cities have criminal records [3]. Since universal background checks, which the affirmative wishes to enforce, restrict access to firearms through the background check system, this would restrict the ability of inner-city minorities to protect themselves. Up to 80% of inner city minorities, many who suffer only from light marijuana use (or other drugs), become defenseless, susceptible to theft, muggings, and murder. Subpoint B: Gun Control has Racist Origins. The racist origins of gun control signal that further background checks serve only as an appeasement of Caucasian fears. Robert Regoli, associate professor at the University of Colorado, wrote in 2009 that focusing on gun restriction fundamentally stems from one's own racism. He states “gun control allows one to feel safe from… the unbearable threat of coming to grips with… one’s own prejudice and bigotry.” Perpetuating racist firearm restrictions is detrimental to race relations in the U.S. Albert Memmi, professor of sociology, states that combating racism “is a struggle to be undertaken without without surcease and without concessions” [4]. Allowing racism under the mask of background checks is a concession that the battle against racism can ill afford. Combined with the terminal impact of endangering inner city lives, it has been shown that universal background checks are undeniably racist. Contention 2: Black Market Determined criminals will acquire firearms legally or illegally. Universal background checks can be easily circumvented through purchasing a gun on the black market. Criminals, who will not be deterred by universal background checks, will resort to acquiring guns illegally. Law-abiding citizens with petty records will be unable to acquire a gun, left without protection at the hands of criminals. The black market ultimately uproots any solvency of universal background checks, two warrants: Subpoint A: Prevalence of Black Market Firearms. Guns are readily available on the black market. Frank Miller of Forbes, in a 2013 interview with two ATF agents, reports that firearms are abundant on the black market. A direct quote from an interviewed ATF agent yielded "guns are so readily available on the black market... [sell] only a few hundred dollars above retail" [5]. Black market sellers are untraceable and have no criminal record, and thereby would not be picked up by the enforcement of universal background checks. In addition, there is historical precedence for the black market in areas with extreme gun control measures. In 1992, David Kopel, a research director, stated that "guns remain readily available on the black market" despite strict measures. He continues by stating this "has not reduced crime," but rather "encouraged burglary" [6]. In areas such as Japan and Holland, the black market has run rampant in the wake of strict gun control measures. The black market, currently a looming presence in the United States of America, will only balloon to hazardous proportions with the requirement of universal background checks. Subpoint B: Transfer is Untraceable. Minter of Forbes continues that straw criminals with no criminal records can easily purchase guns and subsequently sell them to those with criminal records. These sales are, of course, clandestine and untraceable. John Jacobs, PhD recipient from the University of Chicago, estimates in 2002 that up to "half of guns obtained by criminals have been stolen" [7]. He gives a precise estimate, predicting that roughly 750,000 guns were stolen (and would continue to be stolen) each year. These thefts are inherently untraceable and can be subsequently transferred to criminals. Background checks for transfer are effective if, and only if, the government has knowledge of the transaction. As demonstrated through the black market, the United States Federal Government can not and does not have knowledge of these clandestine transactions. Therefore, it is evident that background checks have little to no solvency. Concise Recap In conclusion, it has been thoroughly demonstrated the background checks unfairly discriminate against minorities and ultimately pose a grave threat to their prosperity. Determined criminals will resort to any means necessary to get a gun whereas abiding citizens will not. This leaves guns in the hands of criminals and renders the common citizen essentially defenseless. The enforcement of a universal background check is fundamentally flawed, poses zero solvency, and is detrimental to the best interests of American citizens. I will respond to my opponent's specific arguments in the following round. Sources [1] https://ucr.fbi.gov... [2] http://www.jstor.org... [3] https://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] Memmi, A. "Le Racisme," pp.163-5 [5] https://www.forbes.com... [6] https://www.ncjrs.gov... [7] https://books.google.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-The-United-States-should-require-universal-background-checks-for-all-all-gun-sales.../1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.73

    universal: 12.44

    conclusion: 4.85 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 6.60 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.59)

    sourceText: 0.99 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.08)

    should: 2.04

    conclusion: 1.48 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.93)
• CON

  Our free-market economy continues to thrive because we...

  Show full argument

  Universal Health Coverage

  "What about the people who work two jobs and can barely feed their families? What about all of the factory workers being laid off? What about the millions of unemployed Americans who cannot afford health care?" -Im not saying they dont need it. They do. Ive already addressed that. What I'm saying is, How is it fair to those who have earned enough money to pay their own way that those who haven't win a free ride? "This is the slippery slope argument, making a last comeback from the grave. I do not propose that we pay people's bills for them, nor does anybody. What I do propose is that we provide health insurance for all of our citizens, based on need. If you want a country example, look at the booming economies in Germany, or Britain, or Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, - Oh, that's right! The USA is the only developed country not to provide health care for those who can't afford it!" - but thats just it!! you ARE proposing we pay everyone's bills. Need I remind you??? You said, "I propose that it [the government] purchase insurance (at discount, because of the number of plans that it would purchase) to cover those who cannot afford" insurance." Insurance is a bill. What makes it any different from paying their water bill? They still need water to survive. Furthermore, my point is that if you start giving away free money, IT WILL NEVER STOP. Also, all of the countries you listed do have universal healthcare. They all also have poor economies and more civil unrest than we do. The United States may not have univeral healthcare, but we have a thriving economy and a good work ethic. The reason for that??? We haven't submitted to socialistic views on citizenship. Our free-market economy continues to thrive because we have not given free money. We have not SPOILED our citizens and we should not start now. "OK. Now who's proposing socialized medicine? How much would this cost? Where does the money come from? It's millions, maybe billions or trillions more than my plan. This creates a massive government bureaucracy, and I thought that conservatism was against massive government. Oh, pardon me." - Maintaining low quality clinics would not be any more than paying monthly fees for insurance until the end of time. It would be next to nothing to fund anyway. With the removal of Medicare, you could already almost fund it. You under estimate how much we pour into medicare every year. That tied onto your proposed tax repeals and outsider donations would easily cover those costs. Also, My plan is not by any stretch of the imagination socialism. It is quite the opposite. It leaves people insentive to move up without a government piggy-back. It encourages people to work harder for better things. Your plan just wants to ride through the streets on a giant bus throwing money out to the poor. Giving free money is socialism. Not encouraging people to work harder. I would like to emphasize the difference again My plan gives people who need it healthcare, but leaves plenty of incentive to move up. Your plan just gives everyone free money. How can you honestly say that mine is socialism and yours is not??? Giving people free healthcare, will lead to them want more free government giveaways. The more they whine, the more people give it to them. It is the first step down a road we DO NOT want to go down. Socialzed healthcare is NOT the answer, and your plan IS socialized healthcare.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Coverage/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.63

    universal: 13.36

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

    premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.87 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.83)

    should: 0.91

    premises: 0.83 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.68)
• CON

  These measures will not be imposed in the United States...

  Show full argument

  Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all all gun sales...

  Before I conclude my arguments, I'd like to point out to those judging this debate that the affirmative's conduct is substandard. His refutations resort to false paraphrasing of the negative's arguments and aimless sourcethrowing without proper explanation of the content that they hold. In contrast, I have attempted to thoroughly demonstrate the validity of my sources, the content they hold, and the terminal impact they impose. For these reasons alone, a negative ballot should be casted. In addition, I ask the opposing side to not argue in this round since he neglected to use the first round for acceptance. Regarding Japan and the U.S.A My opponent is wildly misdirected regarding my refutation of Japan's low gun crimes. The population discrepancy between the United States and Japan is not based on quantity alone. A sizable portion of the U.S population is vehement in their right to own firearms. In 2015, Jeremy Diamond of CNN reported that roughly half of Americans oppose stricter gun control laws [1]. Japan's success in gun control is incomparable to the U.S, and the resolution, for two reasons. (1) The United States population would not stand for the extreme measures in Japan. Per the affirmative's own source, acquiring a gun in Japan requires an all-day class, shooting range lessons, and a written exam [2]. Furthermore, handguns are banned outright- this would be a blatant infraction of the Second Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller found that individual has right to possess handgun) and cannot be enforced in the United States in any world. According to a study cited in The Guardian, 75% of American citizens believe the ability to acquire a gun is essential to their freedom [3]. Even if District of Columbia v. Heller was overturned, the American citizens would not stand for the repressive gun control measures in Japan. (2) It boils down to people control more than gun control. David Kopel, research director, wrote in 1988 (in the wake of strict gun control measures) that "Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control [4]. With or without guns, Kopel finds that crime rate is inherently lower in Japan due to social structure. In 2017, Tom McCarthy of the Guardian wrote that the failure of United States gun control essentially boils down to a powerful gun lobby, beliefs of the citizens, and political partisanship [3]. The political and cultural atmosphere of guns in the United States render it effectively unique; other countries, which harbor fundamentally different populations, do not set a template for successful gun control in the United States. Even if you believe gun control is effective in preventing gun violence, it has been shown that universal background checks play little to no role. Rather, ammunition tracking, written tests, training, and population control are the main sources attributed to Japan's success. These measures will not be imposed in the United States in any world for reasons presented above. Regarding the Racism of the Justice System Again, my opponent misunderstands the roots of this argument. I'm not arguing that the Justice System shouldn't be applied, as my opponent confusingly insinuates, I'm arguing that it's current enforcement shows prejudice, racism, and discrimination towards minorities in the United States. I win this argument for two reasons. (1) The United States Justice System is empirically prejudiced. My opponent fails to respond to the two figures (13.6% of population is African American; they make up 28% of prison population). Consider this argument dropped by the affirmative. (2) Background checks rely on criminal records. As the prejudice of the United States Justice System has been satisfactorily shown and dropped by the affirmative, he also drops that background checks are discriminatory. If a higher amount of African-Americans have unjust criminal records, then a higher amount of African-Americans will be barred from owning a gun due to unjust measures. This is, at the very least, discriminatory. My opponent fails to adequately respond to either point shown above. I urge the judge to weigh this debate heavily according to the racism of the Justice System. As Albert Memmi, professor of sociology, tells us, combating racism “is a struggle to be undertaken without without surcease and without concessions” [5]. Unjustly preventing many minorities from owning a gun is a concession towards racism that cannot be afforded. In addition, the volatile nature of select inner cities is unique insofar as self-protection is practically necessary for survival. Black Market Argument This debate ultimately boils down to whether or not the effectiveness of universal background checks offset the flaws, the prejudice, and the backlash that would stem from its implementation. The black market should be, and is, the deciding point in this debate. Two reasons. (1) The affirmative concedes that universal background checks have no solvency towards the majority of guns used in crimes. As stated in round three, roughly 80% of guns are obtained either illegally or though untraceable transfer. Universal background checks pose no solvency for these untraceable transactions, which is additionally conceded by the affirmative. Therefore, the affirmative concedes that universal background checks are largely ineffective due to the prevalence of firearms on the black market. (2) The affirmative concedes that the black market issue will worsen. There was no response to the negative's argument that determined criminals will not be deterred by background checks. The black market, where guns can be obtained at or near retail price, is and will become a viable alternative for criminals, worsening the already-drastic situation of the United States Black Market. The firearm situation is effectively unique in the United States due to population uniqueness presented in the Japan refutation earlier in the round. Comparing the black market to other countries, such as Great Britain, is ineffective insofar as the laws, social structure, and overall atmosphere towards guns is drastically different. Voting Points This debate should result in a negative ballot according to the following points, which were explained thoroughly in this round. (1) Racism argument. It has been shown that the U.S Justice system is prejudiced, resulting in a higher criminal record rate for minorities. Due to the inherent nature of universal background checks, this prevents minorities from obtaining a gun for racial reasons. (2) Black Market. The black market in the United States would be worsened by universal background checks due to (a) unique criminal mindset and (b) existing prevalence of firearms. (3) Background checks ineffective. Affirmative fails to respond to specific flaws in the background checks, which encompass faulty mental health records, apathy from states in sending specific criminal records, and errors due to sheer magnitude of system. Due to perpetuating racism through barring minority firearm possession, the unique worsening of the black market, backlash, and the inherent errors in the universal background check system, it has been shown that the negative effects of universal background checks ultimately outweigh any positive benefits. For these reasons, I strongly urge a negative ballot. Thank you. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.bbc.com... [3] https://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://www.davekopel.com... [5] Memmi, A. "Le Racisme," pp.163-5

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-The-United-States-should-require-universal-background-checks-for-all-all-gun-sales.../1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.59

    universal: 11.72

    conclusion: 4.85 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 5.88 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.42)

    sourceText: 0.99 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.08)

    should: 2.63

    conclusion: 1.48 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 1.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.93)
• CON

  However, the average annual income in New York, another...

  Show full argument

  Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

  Here are my rebuttals: "There seems, therefore, little need for a welfare state in Hong Kong - only the minority of people at the margins of society would benefit from a welfare state whereas the majority of citizens have no need for state welfare and would not, therefore, vote for a politician that argued that taxes should increase to pay for it." Not only the minority benefits from a welfare state. Everyone does. When taxes are decreased, everyone pays less; when healthcare is increased, everyone gets more benefits. Although there might seem to be no need for a welfare state, that will not stop people from wanting one, as everyone welcomes policies that benefit them. Taxes will actually increase, as the tax rebate percentage will become lower, the money used for welfare. "Regarding tax, Hong Kong has one of the lowest rates of corporate and salary taxes in the world." Hong Kong has very low tax, but that does not mean prices of products will not increase because of a slightly higher tax rate. It"s all simple math. The tax increases by ten dollars; the price increases by ten or even more. The cost of production increases by one dollar; the price increases by one dollar or more. In the end, the consumers/customers still suffer. "So we can see that the average person in Hong Kong earns a very good salary and pays very little tax and, therefore, has a high disposable income. Property is expensive in Hong Kong, true, but it is still less expensive than London"" No, the average person in Hong Kong does not earn a very good salary. The average annual income in Hong Kong is 530,530 HKD, which is 66,316 USD. However, the average annual income in New York, another metropolis, is 87,026 USD! In New Jersey, it is 76,962 USD; and in Washington State, 77,584 USD. The average annual salaries in Rhode Island, Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado, Georgia etc are all higher than that in Hong Kong! (Refer to: www.averagesalarysurvey.com) The reason why Hong Kong has a high average salary is because of a few billionaires, such as Li Ka Shing, the 8th richest person in the world according to Forbes, having a net worth of US 31 billion, the world's largest operator of container terminals and the world's largest health and beauty retailer. Li Shao Ki, another billionaire, has a net worth of US 17 billion, is ranked the 24th, and the Kwok family ranked the 26th . However, not many billionaires live in the mentioned places that are as rich as Li, and considering that Hong Kong has a smaller population than a state in the US despite having a dense population, the average salary is pulled up. (Refer to: http://www.forbes.com...) Secondly, I would like you to check out this site: http://www.thepovertyline.net... You will find that, to be under the poverty line in Hong Kong is easier than in the US, and if you click into the respective "countries" under the Developed Countries tab, you will find that things are cheaper in the US than in Hong Kong. I would like to note that my opponent has not rebutted my point about a universal suffrage election in the LegCo leading to the emergence of populism, and that although there might not be need for Hong Kong to be a welfare state, it does not mean the people will not want more welfare. I would like to thank my opponent for bringing up new points and I look forward to seeing his rebuttals.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Suffrage-in-Hong-Kong/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.54

    universal: 13.38

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

    premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.86)

    should: 0.92

    premises: 0.83 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.01)
• CON

  Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude...

  Show full argument

  That UBI should be implemented in the western world

  Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/That-UBI-should-be-implemented-in-the-western-world/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.47

    universal: 5.72

    premises: 5.02 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.70 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.47)

    basic: 5.95

    premises: 5.39 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.56)

    sourceText: 0.56 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.76)

    should: 2.80

    conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.89)
• CON

  What does this tell us? ... What has changed in the past...

  Show full argument

  Human morality is universal

  I would like to begin by asking my opponent to "bear with me" as I try to familiarize myself with the methods of debating on this website. This is my first debate here, and in fact my first non-verbal debate ever. I would like to argue that morality is NOT universal but instead, entirely dependent on societies. I define society as: A body of human beings (more than one) , associated or viewed as members of a community 1) I would ask my opponent to imagine him/herself being the only human alive on our planet. Now being the only human around, do you feel a sense of morality; do you know what is right or what is wrong? No, because your sense of morality does NOT exist in isolation. But, the moment a second person is brought into the picture, a sense of morality is introduced as well. You now begin to develop a feel for what is right and wrong; what is moral and immoral. What does this tell us? Not only does society dictate what is morally acceptable (I will expand on this in my next point), but the entire concept of morality cannot exist without society. 2) Just by observing the vast differences in what is morally acceptable in different societies and time periods it becomes quite simple to see that morality is not constant. In more than one African tribe human sacrifices are still regular things. Arranged marriages take place everyday. The mere fact that something can be perfectly acceptable to one group of people, but a moral crime to another has to lead you to believe that morality has everything to do with society. 3) By examining modern moral issues today we can see firsthand how moral laws change relative to society. Let's consider homosexual relationships. Now I realize that the morality of homosexual relationships is still the topic of many debates but if we see the progress its made in American society over the past 100 years, it is astonishing. 100 years ago a large majority of people viewed homosexual relationships "as immoral" as incestuous relationships. Today, a topic who's morality was NEVER questioned not too long ago, is one of the hottest topics for debate today. Recent polls show that approximately 50% of Americans "see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage" let alone homosexual relationships in general. What has caused this huge shift in moral standards? What has changed in the past 100 years? Society.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-morality-is-universal/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.44

    universal: 13.98

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

    premises: 3.23 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.96 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.02)
• CON

  A1: UHC increases taxes. ... for political purposes"...

  Show full argument

  The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

  I negate, that "The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare." I will first go over definitions, then value, the VC, my case, and then the line-by-line. I might extend my case in my next round, depending on how PRO answers my ending question. He'd still have R4 and R5 to refute it, so it wouldn't be a "new argument". We have implicitly agreed upon the definitions of "United States", "Ought", and "Universal Healthcare". "Establish" should be self-explanatory, so that will be it for definitions. VALUE: SOCIETAL WELFARE I'll go with this value. When taking actions, nations should hold their welfare above all else, and should always hold it in the highest of regards. However, I don't think that Healthcare Equality (HE) is the best way to achieve that goal. Skipping forward a bit, let's look at the opening of my opponent's C1: "The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being." Though he doesn't make this explicit, the claim only works on the implication that SW is dependent on every constituent's well-being: which is true. Just as a team is only as good as its worst member, a society is only as good as its worst constituent, and societal welfare is only as good as its worst constituent's welfare. But well-being is not defined simply by the physical health of an individual. It is also defined by mental health: in other words, how happy a person is. There are many factors in determining how happy a person is: money, social standing, physical health, and love being the most commonly accepted ones. But one thing underlies and is an integral part of all the other reasons – freedom. Money can only make a person happy if they can use it; Physical health can only make a person happy if they get to use it, and so on. If we accept that freedom is the fundamental factor to a person's mental health, then we ask ourselves, is mental health or physical health more defining for a person? Who is in a better state; whose welfare is better; who's better off: A happy sick person, or an unhappy healthy one? A free person close to death, or an enslaved person who will live for a hundred more years? I believe that it is the happy sick person, the free person close to death. I believe most people would agree with me. I believe my opponent is one of them. If a society's welfare is only as good as its worst member's welfare, and If a member's welfare is dependent on how free that person is, Then societal welfare is dependent on how free its most enslaved constituent is. VALUE CRITERION: FREEDOM FOR CONSTITUENTS (FFC) His justification for the HE VC is that it makes people healthier and increases their lifespan. Mental health is more integral to a person's welfare than their physical health. And since freedom is a central pillar to anything that makes anyone happy/mentally healthy, FFC is a direct link to SocW that supersedes HE. So. If the best thing a nation can do to better societal welfare is to increase freedom for its constituents, then the natural conclusion is that UHC should not be provided. A1: UHC increases taxes. More taxes means less money, which is more or less the same as less freedom. You need money to do just about anything. Reducing freedom is the opposite of the VC and therefore against the value of Societal Welfare. A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick, regardless of their wishes. Requiring those who don't want to pay to pay for others is a reduction of freedom. B: If the government is providing UHC, it will definitely ban, restrict, or place a tax on items that are known to be detrimental to human physical health. This is the exact definition of the reduction of freedoms. That'll be it for my case. Let's go to PRO's. An additional argument against the VC of Healthcare Equality: PRO never links it into societal welfare. He never even attempts to show how they're linked. So keep this in mind – even if PRO takes out my VC of FFC, you will still buy it over his VC of HE. At least I gave a go at showing a connection. C1: UHC = allow and support right of well being > I'm just going to insert an anecdote here – it will be a refutation against this entire contention. It'll be in the YouTube video http://www.youtube.com... to the right; watch from 6:14 to 8:46. He is a man that lives in Canada, and he explains how a government program doesn't only NOT provide education, but actively denies it. > No government agency does its job efficiently. What reason is there to believe that a UHC program will be different? > The rest of this contention talks about UHC in other countries extending the average lifespan, which doesn't link into FFC at all. > It doesn't even link into his own VC. What does lifespan have to do with Healthcare Equality? If a link exists, PRO has not told us what it is. > If it's a given that USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (Institute of Medicine), and we take into account that the World Bank has 66 countries classified in its "High-Income Countries" category, AND that USA is rank 42, what about the other 24? To say that UHC = higher life expectancy when more than a third fail to meet the rule is hardly a solid generalization. C2: US should fulfill obligation by supporting societal welfare "The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation." > This is what he's supposed to be proving. > Just because he's on the side of the resolution doesn't make him automatically right. >> Especially because on debate.org, you make your own resolutions. > Just because there's a statement doesn't mean it's true. If I said, "The US ought to nuke Canada until continental America is surrounded by water on three sides", that doesn't automatically make it true. There is a burden of proof that I must fulfill – or in this debate, a burden of proof that PRO must fulfill. Namely, why his arguments are true. "Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust." > Even if No UHC -> No Morality, that doesn't mean that UHC -> Morality. The inverse is not necessarily true. > Also, Justice and Morality are not linked to either VC, nor is it linked to SocW. "In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in healthcare." > If PRO is trying to use this as a justification for his argument, then it's essentially a "I am right because I am right" argument. Observe: Why ought the US establish UHC? Because in the end, the US ought to establish UHC. Not a valid warrant. > UHC =/= Healthcare Equality. Sure, everyone would have the same provider – but that hardly makes their healthcare equal. Blacks in the South previous to the Civil Rights Movement had the same government as whites, but no one would argue that because they had the same government, they had equal treatment under the law. If UHC = HE, PRO has not yet shown us how. "a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity" > Not shown to be due to a lack of UHC. "By supporting [UHC…]" > Lifespan is not shown and is also irrelevant. > Government accountability is not shown and is also irrelevant. > Showing that providing UHC means fulfilling a moral obligation is his job, which he has not done in the slightest. > Promoting societal welfare is done by providing more freedom for the society's constituents, which is something UHC does not. I end my R2 with another question for PRO. I thought of this question when you said that "societal welfare which is what this nation is about" in your C2. I thought of the War on Terror. If terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes" (Dictionary.com), would you say that terrorism is detrimental, or even completely against societal welfare?

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-Ought-to-Establish-a-Universal-Healthcare/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 14.38

    universal: 12.73

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

    premises: 4.07 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.92 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.92)

    should: 1.48

    premises: 1.41 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.07 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.53)