args

CON

• CON

  Thus, my argument is UNREBUTTED. ... 5 - Taylor...

  Show full argument

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

  I would like to, once again, apologize for the rushed nature of my previous round. Unfortunately, my day that day was rather chaotic with a malfunctioning alarm, and then me falling down a flight of marble stairs. I will endeavor to wrap things up succinctly in this round, however, by first defending my case, rebutting Pro's case, and then crystallizing the debate. CON's CASE C1: Economy SA: Fragility Actually, if we look closely at the wording of the Atlantic's article, the X-axis is not "the percentage of each government's health care spending of their GDP." Rather, the X-axis represents the percentage of each NATION's healthcare spending as a portion of the nation's GDP. The national expenditures include public sector and private sector expenses, and so my figure of 7.4% [6] of government spending has not been disproven by Pro's graph. Moreover, Pro says my statistic is highly flawed, but fails to provide a reason for why this is, other than to offer his own evidence, which he has misinterpreted. I cannot access Pro's HHS data, and so I cannot say whether it also has the same issues as the Atlantic's evidence. My accessible data should be preferred to Pro's inaccessible data. Moreover, reduction is pharmaceutical price in Europe could be attributed more to regulation and price controls than to UHC. There are alternate causalities that need to be evaluated. SB: Costs Now, let's look at Con's arguments about savings. First, our sources clearly clash. I cited evidence that UHC would cost $1.2 tillion by 2019 [1], necessitating massive, and rapidly escalating VAT taxes in order to pay for that expense. Prefer my study because it is national, and not merely local. The dynamics of a wealthy urban center such as Minnesota are hardly the same dynamics at play nationally, and so we should look to a national analysis. Friedman, Pro's other study, has ties to labor unions [2] and has a distinct left-leaning bias in some of his articles. It is fairly clear that his own ideology diminishes somewhat his credibility. Therefore, we should give more weight to my Tax Policy Center information. C2: Coercion So, Pro calls my example of Obamacare. In fact, what the rules actually say is "we will disregard the Obamacare controversy." Pro misrepresents his own rules in order to twist this debate in his favor. In fact, the first time the word "irrelevant" appears is in R2, which is a round for arguments, not rules. I cited Obamacare as evidence of a broader theme in UHC, and was not focusing on the controversy itself. Let's look at what I actually said: "decisions over what type of coverage to offer, are going to limit your autonomy. It is an exercise in biopower, in the Foucault vein." What Taylor (see my R2 args) was saying is that UHC has to make calls that involve moral values. For example, should abortion be covered? Whether or not Obamacare is a valid example, my logic is valid, and my logic went unrefuted. If the government creates a system where abortion coverage is included in all or most plans, and it forces people who are pro-life to participate in one of those plan, the government is coercing people to act against their values. Thus, my argument is UNREBUTTED. PRO's CASE C1: Social Benefits True, saying that 3 of the 10 best healthcare system in the world are not UHC systems doesn't show that non-UHC systems are better than UHC systems. Unfortunately, I never made that claim. What I did claim was that it was possible to craft a fantastic, top 10 healthcare sector, without UHC. At no point in this debate as Pro ever rebutted my social security example, which says that detrimental programs can still be popular. This takes out all of Pro's approval ratings arguments because they have nothing to do with whether UHC is "beneficial." C2: Economic Benefits Let me simply reiterate my two attacks from R2: 1. 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. 2. Pro is also assuming that these companies would put any money they saved back into the U.S. economy, which is oftentimes untrue. As for Bankruptcies, if UHC increases taxes, then people are going to be paying a ton of money. What they might save in medical costs, they are afflicted with in taxes. Thus, Pro doesn't actually solve the problem, he just shifts the cause. Consider what I said previously in this debate: "if we have to increase taxes to pay off the debt, even if we reduce health costs, people will still be paying large sums of money." So, because the two could offset, people will end up spending just as much as they are now. C4: Misconceptions Pro essentially concedes that Canada has long wait times. And, as I pointed out in previous rounds, wait times impacted "physician appointments and...basic medical services" as well as surgery. Sure, it might be good to wait to have heart surgery, but if you're experiencing insane wait times for "basic medical services" than the system is just neglecting you, not keeping you safe. Let's also look at an argument I made in R2 that Pro never rebutted: "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." We can corroborate my R3 source with this second source [3], which says: "[Canada] is having problem with the federal deficit and has gradually reduced the amount of funding to the provinces. As a result, the provinces are left focused on cost control. Physicians often complain about low fee levels and hospitals complain about the provinces' high regulation of their budgets. The recent cost control policies may be affecting the quality of service in Canada. Many reports claim that the Canadians have limited access to services." The corroborating sources cites similar problems and inadequacies in Britain's NHS system, stating "NHS resources are extremely scarce ." [3] Other drops... Pro also drops this: "Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of healthcare, so they utilize too much...often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven. This excess demand, along with technological progress, means rapidly growing deficits...and a whole host of economic problems." [4] Finally, Pro drops this: "Commercial organizations have an incentive to use their resources efficiently in a marketplace, but organizations whose success is not a result of using their resources efficiently will have...no external incentive...As a result, it is to be expected that a State provider of healthcare will provide less healthcare per dollar...than would a commercial healthcare provider since the latter...is subject to the...pressure of market competition." [5] VOTING ISSUES At this time, I will endeavor to tie up all the debate's loose ends and explain why I have won this great rematch. First, let me remind voters that Pro has the sole BOP. Next, let me remind voters that Pro needs to show that the implementation of UHC is net beneficial for the United States at this time. Let's look candidly at what arguments Pro is winning in this round. He has shown that nations with UHC have higher rates of longevity and reduced mortality. This is impressive offense, but it is handily diminished by an earlier observation of mine. I said: "it was possible to craft a fantastic, top 10 healthcare sector, without UHC." This assertion was backed up by Pro's own evidence. So, my point here is that Pro's offense is potentially non-unique. The U.S. could work on improving and overhauling its existing system to effect reforms without having to adopt UHC. UHC is not a requirement for improving longevity and reducing mortality, and I can still do both of these things in my world. Next, let's analyze the cost argument. The theoretical models swing in my favor because my source, as discussed earlier, is the most reliable one. It points out that UHC would have a net cost of $1.2 trillion by 2019, necessitating an increase in taxes. But even if you don't buy my theoretical model, I have empirics on my side. If we look and both Canada and the UK, we can see that because of their high debts and deficits (which the U.S. also has) these nations have had to shift the cost of UHC to the provinces/states, which cannot afford to pay for UHC services. It seems likely that the U.S. would have to do the same, because it is in a similar situation to both Canada and the UK in terms of debt. Keep in mind, this Canada evidence was never rebutted. Next, let's talk about quality of care. Private firms are far more efficient and cost effective, with commercial incentives to provide excellent care. UHC, on the other hand, has unreasonable wait times, leads to costly overutilization of services, and leads to coercive values imposition on patients and consumers. I have also re-cited sources here. Sources should be judged on reliability, not organization. Therefore, please VOTE CON because UHC is costly, inefficient, and coercive. SOURCES 1 - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... 2 - http://www.umass.edu... 3 - http://www.stanford.edu... 4 - Jeffrey A. Miron [Senior Lecturer in Economics, Harvard University; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute] “Public Option: Treatment Worse Than the Disease,” Oct. 29, 2009. 5 - Taylor (previously cited) 6 - http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

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

    BM25 score: 12.10

    universal: 8.58

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

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

    basic: 2.21

    premises: 1.80 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.52)

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

    should: 1.31

    premises: 1.23 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.96)

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

  Although they might find the idea appalling in...

  Show full argument

  Universal rights and collective compromises

  As noted above, the definition of adulthood accepted within western liberal democracies is not a cultural absolute. It can be argued that the legal cut-off point- be it sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one years of age- is largely arbitrary. Children who care for disabled parents take on adult responsibilities inconceivable to many undergraduate students. Many developing world cultures would regard the under-emphasis of practical skills and physical training that exists in the education systems of knowledge-based western economies to be tantamount to neglect. In both war-torn Afghanistan and peaceful Botswana, a boy of fourteen is considered old enough and able enough to hunt; to protect his younger siblings; to marry or to be responsible for a harvest. Why should an Afghani child or his parents be condemned for allowing him to participate in the defence of his community? A family in a similar position in Botswana may never have been confronted with that choice. Although they might find the idea appalling in peace-time, the pressing necessity of war can cause opinions and beliefs to become highly flexible. This restatement of cultural relativism goes hand in hand with side proposition’s concluding objection. Although a culture can quickly assimilate and normalise necessary practices- such as arming children- it need not think that they are objectively good and valuable. It may be keen to abandon the practice. A community that responds to an urgent need to arm children may not want to arm children. Side opposition regard the use of child soldiers as symptomatic of cultural depravity, of a callous attitude to suffering. This approach patronises communities subject to privations and abuses now unknown in the west. It assumes that traditions cannot be overturned and that societies in the developing world will hasten to use their children as cannon-fodder for without devoting any thought or debate to the risks involved.

  • https://idebate.org/debatabase/culture-traditions-law-human-rights-international-law-society-family/house-would-require
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.99

    universal: 10.55

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

    sourceText: 0.76 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.59)

    should: 1.23

    premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.99)
• CON

  The time to post was far less then I had anticipated, and...

  Show full argument

  The constitution should be interpreted based on what it would mean if it was written today.

  I apologize for my failure to post last round. The time to post was far less then I had anticipated, and I neglected to ensure that it was indeed the three days I am used to. As a result, I gladly concede the conduct point to my opponent, but would ask my arguments be considered regardless. Constitution: The time to post was far less then I had anticipated, and I neglected to ensure that it was indeed the three days I am used to. As a result, I gladly concede the conduct point to my opponent, but would ask my arguments be considered regardless. Constitution: Universal Law The primary contention my opponent operates on in his case is that the Constitution is not eternal; it can be and has been outdated, and should be replaced by a modern alternatives. This is patently, by its very meaning, false. The definition of "Constitution" is "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed." (1) The very concept of a Constitution amounts to a groundwork of a legal system that does not change, hence why the Constitution of the United States is so vague. Laws are meant to adapt, but a Constitution holds the basic tenants which laws shall not ever break. The reason the Ten Commandments could never be instilled into a society is because they attempt to take matters that should be legal issues, and turn them into a Constitution. Times may change; in the 1700s, Tories and Christian oppressors were the threats, and now it has become Fascists and Islamic Extremists. But the Constituion holds true. Free speech will not be restricted, and in this way, the Constitution is eternal. Because ultimately the Constituon will adapt, due to it being not a series of laws, but a series of rules laws must be based on. So, I must ask. Which of the 27 amendments in our noble consitution would my opponent see "re-interpreted"? Which article no longer holds true in the modern world? Free speech? Trial by jury? No restriction on voting rights? I challenge my opponent to raise a single grievance with an amendment that can be resolved simply by recontextualizing the writing. The Constitution simply need not change. However, were there ever to be a legitimate complaint against a section of the document, there are processes which which it could be solved. For example, by very heavy majority, it is technically possible to have amendments eliminated, added, or altered by popular vote or congress. But to suggest that the solution is merely to interpret the Constitution differently to somehow adhere universal rules to the contemporary world is puerile. The Constitution is interpreted as to constrain the abuses of law-makers and the flaws in the political system. Opening it up to any theory or analyzation will result in chaos, and whomever makes those decisions holds uncontrollable and irreconcible power, I have few characters remaining, so I will leave my rebuttals here. Good luck to my opponent in future rounds, and I apologize once again. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-constitution-should-be-interpreted-based-on-what-it-would-mean-if-it-was-written-today./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.91

    universal: 5.41

    premises: 4.77 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.64 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.34)

    basic: 2.99

    premises: 2.68 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.78)

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

    should: 3.52

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

    premises: 1.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.15)

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

  They hop on the first plane to the states because their...

  Show full argument

  let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

  Having a market in health care doesn't mean that the poor wouldn't get care. We have a market in housing and a market in food, yet the poor don't starve or go homeless. Of course there are SOME people who are homeless but this isn't due to the market but due to government intervention in the market. Low cost housing is forbidden due to regulations ensuring all housing must be of a certain quality. In a market, the government will try to ensure all health care is a certain quality as well, making it more expensive. However, universal health care still has the same quality, but will be cheaper as the taxes pay for it and subsidize for it. 2. "Doctors will seek cheaper charges, the government won't." Your opinion is not the government's opinion. Your opinion is ot the doctor's opinion. You cannot know what they would do unless you have a psychic power or it is obvious, which isn't true in this case. 3.Further what you have with socialized medicine is a government monospony. All health care services - with a few exceptions - are bought by the government. This means that no doctor needs to compete with lower costs. The end user isn't going to decide where to go based on how much it costs the government and so there is absolutely no incentive for the doctors to charge less than the absolute maximum. But eventually all of this needs to be paid for by taxpayers. Again, you do not know what they will do, you are not them. 4. You know what politicians in Canada do when they get sick? They hop on the first plane to the states because their wealth, stolen from the Canadian public, enables them to get the first class medical treatment they have made it illegal to provide here. Illegal. Yes, Canada is one of the only countries, along with Cuba and North Korea, that has made it a criminal for a doctor to sell their services to the consumer. That's right - we live in a country where a prostitute can legally sell his / her body, but a doctor is criminally liable if they sell their medical services. It's a messed up world we live in. Privatize everything! Private market health care is allowed in Canada. In fact, they have private health care companies that have their own web pages![1] Again, you are basing your arguments on false assumptions. Here is an argument based on the same fallacies as the ones you made: "You know what those private health care people do? They rip you off with high prices and then if you not buy their products they shoot you in your head and then they would send a biological weapon into the city so that people get sick and they get money. If you don't buy their health care they will force you to buy it so that they get money! Public health care is not allowed in Minecraftia and they have those big companies charging too much emeralds everywhere! Make health care public!" See how your argument fails because you do not put sources to confdirm their validity? [1]http://novartis.ca...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/let-it-be-resolved-that-universal-health-care-is-a-bad-idea/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.89

    universal: 11.40

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

    premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.95 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.00)
• CON

  Mathematically speaking, life is detrimental to it's own...

  Show full argument

  There are universal, objective moral values

  Thanks for accepting. First let me define some of my terms, I think you might have been using different definitions. When I said "objective" I meant "not based on someone's opinions", I didn't mean a purpose or goal. And when I said "values", I didn't mean "a numerical amount (or the verbal equivalent)", I meant "worthwhile", "valuable", etc. Now first you contend our morality was necessary for our survival, which I would agree that was indeed the result. But that doesn't mean it was worthwhile, or that it was objectively supposed to happen. That doesn't mean that it was correct. I would ask how persistent social groups of humans (or any living thing) is morally correct? It's only valuable to those particular consciousnesses, and only while they are experiencing it. Later you basically state that something is moral if it affects the positive feedback of living things. Again, this is not only subjective, but literally impossible to achieve universally. The amount of living things that have had to die in order for me to live is innumerable. Mathematically speaking, life is detrimental to it's own happiness, therefore, according to your definition of morality, life is amoral. You then go on to say that "life's unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of positive-feedback" is not a man-made idea, instead it's part of the physical laws of nature. Nothing has a right to life, there are infinite amounts of lives that don't exist. Did they choose to waive their rights? And as for the living, our right to do so is completely alienable. With sufficient power, which isn't much, anyone could choose to kill someone else. What happened to the unalienable rights of my food? Or the rights of murder victims? And as a matter of fact, all but a tiny percentage of everything that has ever lived was alienated from their "rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". And I think it's safe to say that the rest will lose their rights as well. The famous quote was used as a basis of government mentality. The rights only exist as long as the government can enforce their laws. On to God. It seems like you basically restated my thoughts on God's morality. It's still "someone's" opinion. It just so happens that this individual's opinion is enforced with absolute power. A deity with less power than omnipotence can hardly be called a god. Therefore since the original creator of everything is all-powerful, everything he wills is "good". That means there's no such thing as bad. Morality loses all meaning. For instance, to say that me murdering someone is wrong is to say that God's will is incorrect because nothing happens if it were not for God allowing it. So again, how can you say whether anything is right or wrong? There is plenty of evidence that the ecosystems of earth would be more suited to foster life if humans weren't part of it. And this logic can be followed through with the fact that countless lives must be lost in order for a single one to persist, therefore the idea that morality is things that mutually benefit life leads me to ultimately believe that all life on this planet is "wrong". But again, thankfully, that idea is only our flawed, biased, and selfish opinion. Finally I'd like to repose my question. Why should the well being of others matter to me? If I had the power to set everything and every one up as a support structure for my own happiness, on what logic would that be "wrong" or "incorrect" or "amoral"?

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/There-are-universal-objective-moral-values/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.85

    universal: 10.75

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

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

    should: 0.89

    premises: 0.83 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.06 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.24)
• CON

  Finally making it to the computer today and seeing only a...

  Show full argument

  The U.S. should have Universal health care

  Finally making it to the computer today and seeing only a few minutes to post my arguments. Therefore, I concede this round to my opponent and will use the following rounds to present my side.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-should-have-Universal-health-care/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.61

    universal: 8.76

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

    sourceText: 1.02 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.14)

    should: 2.46

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

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

  Thanks for the opportunity!

  Show full argument

  The U.S. should have Universal health care

  Accepted! Thanks for the opportunity!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-should-have-Universal-health-care/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.61

    universal: 8.76

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

    sourceText: 1.02 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.14)

    should: 2.46

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

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

  Universal Healthcare - a health care system which...

  Show full argument

  DDO Tier Tournament: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

  Definitions: Ought - used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Guarantee - a formal promise or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled, especially that a product will be repaired or replaced if not of a specified quality and durability Health Care - the maintenance and improvement of physical and mental health, especially through the provision of medical services. Universal Healthcare - a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens. As agreed upon, my opponent may go first.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/DDO-Tier-Tournament-The-United-States-ought-to-guarantee-universal-health-care-for-its-citizens./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.59

    universal: 11.29

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

    premises: 5.43 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.31)

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

  REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents...

  Show full argument

  Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled

  We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible "Illness" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk." What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard." No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases." What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " "Those children should not be intergrated with others" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Unvaccinated-children-should-be-home-schooled/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.53

    universal: 0.84

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

    sum: 5.62 (product 5.10, product 0.52)

    sum: 3.26 (product 0.90, product 2.26, product 0.10)

    basic: 5.62

    premises: 5.10 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.52 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.65)

    should: 5.07

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

    premises: 2.26 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.77)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.06)
• CON

  Self-Property Pro argues that since self-ownership allows...

  Show full argument

  My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care

  Thanks Bsh! I would like to start by giving my sincere apologies to both my opponent and the voters for a mishap with sources that occurred last round. I claimed that France spends 40% of its GDP on healthcare, but that is actually false; in my rush to complete my argument in time (about an hour), I somehow managed to mix up tax revenue with GDP. Please disregard that figure entirely. Also... due to 1) the fact that I already made a case for the economic harms and ineffectiveness of UHC within my rebuttals to Pro's case, 2) the self-sufficient nature of my theft contention, 3) my infinitely greater passion for philosophy over healthcare policy, and 4) a lack of character space and time, I will be using this round solely to defend my first contention (and framework) from Pro's rebuttals. My utilitarian case against UHC is of lesser importance, and it was much more of a pre-emptive rebuttal to Pro's case than it was an opening argument anyhow. FRAMEWORK Pro, again, makes the paradoxical claim that because governments cannot be biased towards any one ethical system, they should default to utilitarian calculations. He claims that this "cost/benefit analysis" is not a "moral ideology", but merely an "objective, measurable criterion for decision-making". This does absolutely nothing to amend the self-contradiction I noted in my argument. Utilitarianism also rests on an "a priori moral principle"-- it assumes that maximizing utility (i.e. net benefit) is inherently good and should be valued over all other factors of ethical relevance. Thus, my opponent's approach of "cost/benefit analysis" is every bit as much of a moral ideology as my libertarian ethical system. Pro claims that utilitarianism is amoral because it prescribes that which is 'rational' rather than that which is 'moral', but that proves nothing, as all ethical systems claim ultimately derive their moral claims from rationality. So, unfortunately for Pro, he cannot get out of providing an actual ethical justification for utilitarianism so easily. If I can successfully answer all his objections to libertarian morality, my framework is preferable by default, which automatically negates the resolution (following the reasoning provided in my opening argument and my conclusion this round). 1. Moral Dilemmas Here, Pro attempts to 'debunk' libertarian morality by showing how it conflicts with our ethical intuitions in extreme hypothetical situations. ALL ethical systems will fail in that sense if we test them in absurdly implausible scenarios. For example, consider the hypothetical utility monster, which gains infinitely more happiness from consuming resources than anyone else on the planet; if such a monster were to exist, utilitarianism would morally obligate us to sacrifice everything we can, including ourselves, to it for the sake of maximizing net utility. Obviously, this is completely counter-intuitive and we would think that we should instead just kill the ravenous monster. This monster is no more unlikely than the scenario Pro has described (regarding scratching a finger to save the world). In other words, Pro's objection is non-unique. 2. Self-Property Pro argues that since self-ownership allows you to sell yourself into slavery, and thus it is immoral. However, slavery very specifically refers to *forced* labor; the coercion factor involved in slavery is what makes it slavery-- that is what makes it 'immoral' to begin with. With someone who 'sells himself into slavery', that coercion factor is completely absent, so it can hardly even be called slavery anymore. Pro does not explain why we should still consider it immoral if the person being "enslaved" is giving up ownership over himself with *full consent*. The fact that such an action is likely to be detrimental to his health in the long run represents a problem with his own decision-making skills, rather than one with the ethical system which allowed for him to do so. Pro's objection here is, at best, an appeal to emotion. 3. Non-Autonomous Humans Pro claims that there are other ways to derive human moral value than personal autonomy, but he never explains how, and as such, that claim should be rejected. Pro goes on to ask how babies, people with severe mental handicaps, and comatose individuals can still have rights under libertarian morality. In the case of babies and the mentally disabled, they do have a limited degree of personal autonomy, and thus do have some basic rights such as the right to life, but obviously they do not have as much autonomy as everyone else. However, this does not imply anything outside of how we already treat such individuals... even we as a society don't grant them the same rights as everyone else; young children and the severely disabled are considered to be under the authority of their parents/caretakers and do not have the same degree of freedom that we do. In the case of the comatose, those individuals are obviously still the same individuals they were before entering the coma, and since they did not give up their autonomy before entering the coma, we can presume that their autonomy extends throughout the duration of their unconscious state. It is no different than why someone who is asleep would still have their rights... Pro's objection fails because libertarian morality does not treat these "non-autonomous humans" any differently than how our intuitions would dictate that we should. 4. No Justification I find it interesting that Pro makes this objection when he himself has done literally nothing to justify his utilitarian framework. In fact, I have justified both self-ownership and the natural rights that stem from it... I spent entire paragraphs on it in the previous round. To re-iterate: "From this concept of self-ownership, we can derive all the major natural rights possessed by humans: life (because life is the most essential component of the self), personal liberty (because that is the definition of having 'ownership' over oneself), and possession of rightfully acquired property (because the self is the ultimate source of its labor and should thus own the products of that labor)." Naturally, if self-ownership is absolute, then the rights that are derived from it are absolute as well. 5. Souls Pro's objection relies on the bare assertions that "a thing cannot own itself". I see no reason to accept this. The definition of ownership is basically the state of having complete control over something and the freedom to do what you wish with it. There doesn't seem to be anything inhibiting a being from having this sort of control or freedom over itself. 6. Rewarding Luck Pro is basically just saying that life isn't fair with this objection. So what if some people are born into better environments and have genetic advantages that others don't have? I fail to see how this is a fault of libertarian morality; it seems to be more of an objection to the nature of reality itself... C1) THEFT I. Pro claims that since human societies used to be communal in nature, property rights do not exist. However, this is incredibly fallacious. Just because humans at one point did not recognize the existence of property rights is no reason not to recognize them now. Humans also at one point did not recognize the immorality of slavery or brutal methods of torture, yet it is absurd to suggest that we shouldn't do so now. Property rights are a logical extension of self-ownership, and Pro has done nothing to refute that. Taxation which does not return benefits to the tax payer violates the role of government, and is ultimately a form of theft. II. Pro claims that individuals are bound by communal obligations. This may be true on a very local level, but it simply doesn't hold true on the national level. The average person has not interacted with or received any benefits whatsoever from the vast majority of the people in their country; to claim that they are somehow obligated to pay for the healthcare of complete strangers on the basis of imaginary "communal obligations" to them is simply absurd. It is especially absurd when we consider that a substantial portion of those strangers require healthcare as a direct result of their own choices; poor lifestyle choices like smoking, drinking, risky behaviors, and unhealthy eating habits are the cause of many of the most prevalent health conditions [http://www.cdc.gov...]. CONCLUSION None of Pro's objections to my libertarian moral framework hold up; each one is independently flawed. Moreover, my opponent has declined to justify his utilitarian framework at all, making my libertarian morality preferable by default. And under such a deontological framework, it doesn't really matter that a policy is beneficial if it violates the rights of the citizens; a mild eugenics program can also be construed as having a net benefit, yet implementing one would obviously be unethical. The UHC should be rejected on the basis that it requires the government to engage in unjustified acts of coercion, forcing people to pay for the healthcare of others. Leaving healthcare to private insurance companies and non-profit groups is ethically preferable.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/My-101st-Debate-Universal-Health-Care/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.51

    universal: 8.50

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

    sourceText: 0.76 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.59)

    basic: 1.36

    premises: 1.02 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.30)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.06)

    should: 1.64

    premises: 1.56 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.22)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.84)