Any source
Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Some studies have found that universal health care...

    Universal health care systems suffer from inequality of care

    Some studies have found that universal health care systems are vulnerable to socio-economic inequalities in the care provided.

  • PRO

    One of our basic inalienable rights in the Declaration of...

    Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial

    First, I will argue against my opponent's remarks and then make my closing statement. ** Of course not everyone in this country is handicap. I never implied that. I just used that as an example of who cannot "take care of themselves" as you put it, without a little assistance. ** As far as people being "nice" in this country, that is not at all important. If faced with a crisis I would like to think that we would all pull together for the greater good of our country. I really don't think people would be opposed to paying more in taxes to help the elderly, children, and handicapped (those who probably wouldn't be working). ** One of our basic inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence is life. We have the right to protect our lives and not harm others. I see universal healthcare as a means of protecting life, our inalienable right, by making sure that our health concerns are ALWAYS being met. ** I think the fear of medical records among all other things, being stolen is quite ludicrous. As I mentioned above so much of our personal information is already stored in databases without any problems. ** Other remarks by my opponent will be addressed in the following closing statement: -- In 2007 Director Michael Moore made a documentary called "SiCKO" about the United States failing healthcare system. In SiCKO, Michael Moore reports that the homeless population in Great Britain can expect to live up to three years longer than some of the wealthiest Americans simply because they do not suffer any health problems. The fact that Great Britain has the National Health Service to provide all citizens with free preventative medicine, full prescriptions, surgeries, hospital lodging, and outpatient care has enabled them to live longer than Americans regardless of social class. Michael Moore also discovered that doctors in Great Britain are able to focus on getting patients to stop unhealthy habits like smoking and poor eating because there are incentives for doing so. If we modeled, our system after Great Britain's we too could have those needed benefits and reduce our mortality rates. According to a 2007 CRS (Congressional Research Service) report, "The average life expectancy for a person in the United States is 77 � years — slightly below the OECD average, and 4� years less than Japan. Life expectancy is nearly 2� years longer in Canada than in the United States. The United States is ranked 22nd out of 30 countries on life expectancy at birth, but once people reach the age of 65, U.S. life expectancy improves to a rank of 11th for men and 13th for women out of 30 countries reporting. Between 1960 and 2004, the United States gained 7.6 years of life expectancy — 2years less than the OECD average of 9.7 years of additional life expectancy. Life expectancy tends to increase as countries spend more on health care per capita, except at very high levels of spending, as in the United States". Another feature unique to ** One of our basic inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence is life. We have the right to protect our lives and not harm others. I see universal healthcare as a means of protecting life, our inalienable right, by making sure that our health concerns are ALWAYS being met. ** I think the fear of medical records among all other things, being stolen is quite ludicrous. As I mentioned above so much of our personal information is already stored in databases without any problems. ** Other remarks by my opponent will be addressed in the following closing statement: -- In 2007 Director Michael Moore made a documentary called "SiCKO" about the United States failing healthcare system. In SiCKO, Michael Moore reports that the homeless population in Great Britain can expect to live up to three years longer than some of the wealthiest Americans simply because they do not suffer any health problems. The fact that Great Britain has the National Health Service to provide all citizens with free preventative medicine, full prescriptions, surgeries, hospital lodging, and outpatient care has enabled them to live longer than Americans regardless of social class. Michael Moore also discovered that doctors in Great Britain are able to focus on getting patients to stop unhealthy habits like smoking and poor eating because there are incentives for doing so. If we modeled, our system after Great Britain's we too could have those needed benefits and reduce our mortality rates. According to a 2007 CRS (Congressional Research Service) report, "The average life expectancy for a person in the United States is 77 � years — slightly below the OECD average, and 4� years less than Japan. Life expectancy is nearly 2� years longer in Canada than in the United States. The United States is ranked 22nd out of 30 countries on life expectancy at birth, but once people reach the age of 65, U.S. life expectancy improves to a rank of 11th for men and 13th for women out of 30 countries reporting. Between 1960 and 2004, the United States gained 7.6 years of life expectancy — 2years less than the OECD average of 9.7 years of additional life expectancy. Life expectancy tends to increase as countries spend more on health care per capita, except at very high levels of spending, as in the United States". Another feature unique to universal healthcare is a national database of patient medical records (Messerli). Having a national database would link hospitals across the country and enable them to access the patient's medical records quickly and efficiently. There would be no need to fill out your entire medical history every time you move or visit a new doctor. All medical information would be kept in a computer database and updated by medical professionals (SiCKO). I think that eliminating all of the paperwork from medical history, patient update, and billing forms by incorporating universal healthcare would also be a major stride for the Green Movement. -- When it comes to U.S. spending it is a definite fact that the United States spends more than any other industrialized country and gets significantly less. "In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16% of the nation's GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9%, France 10.7%, Germany 10.9%, Sweden 9.1%, and the United Kingdom 8.7%. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560" (Harrison). May I also mention that in France and Canada everyone has healthcare and in the United States there are almost 46 million people under 65 who are uninsured. -- Overall, implementing some form of universal healthcare would be beneficial to the United States both economically and physically. Like the British system, we would have doctors who are able to practice preventative medicine or unhealthy habits, lower per capita spending on health care, and ultimately live longer healthier lives. Although paying more taxes may be a burden at first, the long term benefits for our nation must be considered. Living a life where you do not have to forgo medical treatment because of cost or bankrupt yourself to pay medical bills would be ideal. I believe that a slight tax increase to provide free healthcare to myself to and millions who don't have it is a small sacrifice to make for the greater good of everyone. Resolution Affirmed. References: 1. Joe Messerli. BalancedPolitics.org, http://balancedpolitics.org... 2. SiCKO.Dir. Michael Moore. Dog Eat Dog Films,2007. 3. 2007 CRS Report. http://assets.opencrs.com... 4. Joel Harrison. DollarsandSense.org. http://tinyurl.com... 5. National Coalition on Healthcare. http://tinyurl.com...

  • PRO

    Pro Death Penalty Webpage - "Abolitionists interpret from...

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows for death penalty

    Pro Death Penalty Webpage - "Abolitionists interpret from Article 3 in that [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] to proclaim each person's right to protection from deprivation of life, especially murderers! And they also point to Article 5, which states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. From this, abolitinists self-righteously declare that the death penalty violates both of these rights. But in fact, nowhere in that declaration is the DP specifically condemned as a human rights violation!

  • PRO

    No Link I demonstrated that my argument is not about...

    Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

    No Link I demonstrated that my argument is not about suffering, but about equality. a) Con challenges that my resolution is about suffering because I want to "respect people's humanity" and that I am "longing for a better world". As I said earlier, my argument may increase suffering if all people are banned from Assisted Suicide, which I explained is permissible under this resolution. People who have the right to Assisted Suicide may lose that right because of my resolution. Con's claim is false. b) Con argues "[i]f the entire point of his case isn't to look for positive impacts of allowing equality in assisted suicide, then we have no reason to affirm the resolution". There are positive impacts of allowing equality, but not every policy debate is about suffering. Con doesn't justify the link. ­Moving Target!? c) Con then argues that I am "a moving target" by not arguing for the benefits of Assisted Suicide, and not arguing against Assisted Suicide. Con apparently didn't read Round 1, so I'll rewrite what's already in Round 1. "Essentially, I'm arguing that Assisted Suicide laws (whether for or against) should not be limited to only the terminally ill." [1] I am not a moving target. This is essentially what I am debating for. Don't penalize me for Con's lack of effort to properly read the definitions of the debate before accepting it. d) Con argues that I "can't argue for getting rid of assisted suicide for everyone to "maximize equality"". Con is blatantly wrong. I've already demonstrated that equality is an essential component of democracy, the constitution and the law. Therefore, it follows that maximizing equality is warranted and justified, and as such I uphold my Burden of Proof. Con then says that "by [Pro's] own case it means that everyone is expendable and everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash which means that we ought to prefer the status quo where at least we're preserving some people's human value." That's exactly my point. You just proved to the reader that your link fails. As per Con's own admission, my argument states that we should uphold justice even if "everyone's human value is being thrown into the trash". That's because my argument is not about suffering, but about justice and equality. Con argues that my argument is about making everyone feel equal. That's false. I didn't claim such a thing. I claimed that the law is blind, and basically doesn't give a damn about how we feel. So my argument is not about making everyone feel equal. What I argued is that the law must consider everyone as equal, regardless if they feel equal or not. Nietzsche 1 Con argues that we should increase other people's power "because in that way we increase ours". So I reaffirm that "increasing the power of people to Assisted Suicide would (according to Con) increase our power" which Nietzsche considers a good thing. While I find Con's logic very unsound, his logic suggests that just like a parent who offers a child some candy to increase our power, we should allow Assisted Suicide to everyone as it increases our power. Nietzsche 2 Con again claims that I'm a moving target which I explained is not the case, and it doesn't apply. My point regarding whether suffering should be reduce is addressed in the Counter Kritik. Summary There is no link between Con's argument and the resolution of the debate. And as I said earlier, I am not going to hold one position or another regarding Assisted Suicide, as I explained in Round 1. All that I am arguing is that it should apply to all people regardless whether it's warranted or not. Con argues that I didn't "address the impacts" or I didn't "actually address any of the warrants coming out of my K". This is just nonsense. I explained the impacts in the Counter Kritik. Death of the Kritik 1. I reaffirm that my resolution is not about suffering. 2. My opponent doesn't address this point at all. Con claims that "before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human". He still didn't explain why that's the case. We know a lot about what it means to be human and we don't need to know everything to be able to address human rights. So while Con claims to address human worth from an ontological perspective, he still fails to explain why his ontological argument is valid. 3. Again, I reaffirm that my resolution is not about suffering. That's why Con's Kritik is dead. 4. Con claims that my fourth point "doesn't make any f**** sense". Really? I am irked that my opponent doesn't pay attention to the argument so I'll address it here again. Con states that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K". I argued that this is irrelevant as illustrated below: K: Resolution is about suffering, and reducing suffering is bad V: Violating human rights results in some kind of suffering P1: If K, Con wins P2: If K and V, then Con wins P3: If ~K and V, Pro wins As you can see, Violating human rights argument doesn't change anything whether it's true or not so it's irrelevant. With all due respect, that should make sense. Con says that "argument isn't actually dependent on the K, it's not even addressing the K"! Does Con read what he writes? In Round 2, Con stated that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K" So it is very much dependent on the Kritik. So since I refuted the Kritik, then it's not biting into anything. Therefore, Con's argument is mute. Nietzsche Philosophy I argued that Con presented Nietzsche's philosophy without any justification. Con claims that "the warrants are all in the cards [he] read off", and that I am unwilling "to read the quoted text". The problem is that Con's cards explain what Nietzsche's philosophy is, and not why the philosophy is logical. So it's a bare assertion. There are other alternative theories shown below. Anthony Appiah writes about Mill's harm principle and utilitarianism saying: "A central tenet of John Stuart Mill's moral theory is what is called the "harm principle", which says that the only justification for abridging someone's freedom is "to prevent harm to others." Although this was meant to be counsel to legislatures, the sort of utilitarianism Mill espoused, inasmuch as it aims to maximize well-being, must require us as individuals to try to minimize – or, at any rate, reduce – suffering" [2]. And there's no need to mention all the other religious philosophies that advocate for reduced suffering. Why should I agree with Nietzsche's philosophy? Con fails to explain. Furthermore, in response to Nietzsche's theory, Phillip J Kain writes that "But do we have to give suffering the ontological weight that Nietzsche gives it? Must it be taken as the primary reality? […] I think it acceptable to reject Nietzsche response to suffering and to push liberalism, socialism, feminism and Christianity as alternative responses to suffering. […] The point here is that it is legitimate to treat suffering as if it can be reduced even if we cannot prove that it can be." [3] What's more interesting , even if Nietzsche was right, Kain explains why Nietzsche's view should be rejected: "After all, our construction has certain desirable consequences. Given the meaning we impose upon suffering, we do not have the slightest need for an Übermensch – he would not help us in the least to remove suffering. Furthermore, we would have no need for a doctrine of eternal recurrence – indeed, we should reject it as an abomination." So in summary, Con fails to uphold his burden to show why we should uphold Nietzsche's point of view. Counter K Con argues that I am appealing to emotion when I argued that rape and genocides are bad. I thought it was common sense, But since Con shockingly doesn't agree, I'll explain why that's the case. I'll start with rape. H.E. Baber explains: "Rape is bad because it constitutes a serious harm to the victim. […] Virtually everyone has an interest in avoiding involuntary contact with others … Being raped violates this interest hence … it constitutes a harm. In addition, people have an interest in not being used as mere means for the benefit of others… Furthermore, rape … has a tendency to generate further harms – anxiety, feelings of degradation and other psychological states" [4]. Rape victims are also prone suicide [5]. I don't want to dwell too much into other harms, but they all inflict significant physical harms on innocents, and that's an abomination. The harm principle as I explained earlier argues that we should prevent harms to others. This is really not a joke. A Montreal blogger was calling to legalize rape [6]. This is a serious matter. That's why I argue that I should win as I best represent the role of the ballot. Con argues that "suffering is preferable" and "allows for the furthering and transcendence of humanity as a race". That's a joke. Increasing suffering by killing each other, e.g. nuclear war, can lead to the extinction of the human race [7]. Con argues that murder and genocide doesn't apply to his Kritik. That's not true, and here's why. According to Con, we should embrace suffering. So someone killing someone's significant other should be allowed and embraced. The murdered may not be suffering, but other suffer for a long time. Therefore, Con's Kritik advocates for it which is quite disturbing. Summary My resolution is a very good argument and deserves a good debate. Con's Kritik fails as it doesn't link to the resolution. I've also shown that even if his Kritik is successful, the voter should still award me the vote as Con's Kritik is quite horrific and should be rejected altogether, and I best represent the role of the ballot. Vote Pro. Sources in Comment

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Assisted-Suicide-Laws-should-be-Universal/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 14.42
      universal: 9.43
      conclusion: 8.87 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.57 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.19)
      should: 4.85
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 2.04 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.60)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.04)
  • PRO

    I ask that voters who are not familiar with Kritiks to...

    Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

    I ask that voters who are not familiar with Kritiks to refrain from voting on this debate. This is more to the benefit of my opponent. Overview Con challenged my resolution with several post-fiat Kritiks [1] which I will address below. By doing so, the BoP (Burden of Proof) falls on Con to justify that his Kritik definitely negates my resolution. It is sufficient for me to simply bring sufficient doubt to his claim to be awarded the win. Defense Against Kritik My opponent's Kritik rests entirely on Nietzsche's philosophy. Con however wants me and the readers to simply agree that Nietzsche's philosophy is correct. But why should I agree? Con didn't present any evidence of why Nietzsche's arguments are valid or correct. Therefore, the voter should treat this as a bare assertion. It's not my responsibility to justify why Nietzsche's philosophy is not correct. The Burden of Proof is on Con to explain why we should adhere to Nietzsche's philosophy. Con argues that "longing for another world in which one does not suffer […] is an illusory". He also argues that he turned the case by saying that people's "imagination of a better world is a continuation of the ascetic ideal. This association of all that is good as not of this world expresses a hatred for the only one we’ve got." But what Con has failed to understand is that my case has nothing to do with longing for a better world. It's neutral in that respect. I never argued that Assisted Suicide should be allowed because it allows for a better world. Conversely, I argued that I'm not against banning Assisted Suicide either. My only contention was that it should be applied equally. Whether that leads to a better world or worse is entirely subjective. Con continues by saying that "benevolence towards the oppressed is a thinly veiled attempt to exercise power over the subjugated." But again Con doesn't understand that my argument is not about the oppressed. That's because if Assisted Suicide is banned from everyone, then everyone is technically oppressed. Where is the benevolence? Again, there is no link to my resolution. In fact, Con's own argument is self refuting. Con argues that "we want to increase their power because in that way we increase ours, or we want to show them how advantageous it is to be in our power" and that "this is a sacrifice that is offered for our desire for power." So in this case, increasing the power of people to Assisted Suicide would (according to Con) increase our power. Therefore, Con's argument, if valid, would validate my resolution and defeat the Kritik. Con also argues that "suffering is inevitable-the drive to abolish it holds life in contempt." [sic] Con again misses the point here. I didn't argue that we should abolish suffering. Banning Assisted Suicide can potentially increase suffering not decrease it. My resolution is not about suffering, but about equality. So Con's point is mute. Second, just because suffering is inevitable, does it follow that it cannot or shouldn't be reduced? I will address this in my Counter Kritik below. Nietzsche argues that "And since according to … absolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followed … that one must smother it under a load of contempt and constant negation." While I fully disagree with Nietzsche, but this point is completely irrelevant. I didn't argue for absolute ethics in the first place. Therefore this argument is refuted. My resolution is about the Law and not ethics. Ethics and law are not the same thing. Con also argues that "the alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided." But this alternative doesn't conflict with my resolution. You can embrace suffering as something positive. What does this have to do with banning or allowing Assisted Suicide? If banning Assisted Suicide would lead to suffering, then one should (according to Con) embrace it. As you can see above, nowhere in Con's argument did he explain why the law should not be applied universally. Absolutely nowhere. Death of the Kritik 1. Con argues that the Kritik negates the resolution "apriori because by allowing people to just opt out of their suffering and off themselves we decrease suffering in the world". I've explained that my resolution is not about suffering, so there is no link to the resolution. 2. Con argues that "before we can even address human rights we first need to understand what it means to be human". This is a bare assertion. First, we know quite a lot about humans, and there's an entire division of science (Anthropology) which is dedicated to this subject [2]. Second, Con's basically arguing that if we don't know absolutely everything about humans, we can't even address human rights. As I said earlier, this is a bare assertion. I don't need to know everything about a car to know how to drive it. 3. Con argues that "by advocating for assisted suicide to preserve human worth he violates the very thing he aims to preserve". Did Con really read my arguments? I didn't advocate for Assisted Suicide. I only advocated for equality. So if Assisted suicide was essential for preserving human worth (as Con charges), why would I argue that the law can ban Assisted Suicide for everyone? Again, Con doesn't explain why the Law should consider someone above another. By Con's failure to do so, my resolution and arguments stand. 4. Con argues that "Violating human rights and worth only matters insofar as violating it results in some kind of harm". But if you notice, this is no longer Kritik of the resolution, but rebuttal of my second contention. Is there anything in the resolution that states "Human rights"? It appears that Con is now accepting my resolution, so the Kritik is no longer valid. But I'll respond to it anyways. Con states that "violating human rights results in some kind of suffering, which means that affirming bites into the K". This point is really irrelevant. That's because it's heavily dependent on the Kritik. If the Kritik (which I refuted) was successful, Con would be awarded the win despite of this point. If the Kritik fails, this point would fail as well and I would be awarded the win. So this point is completely irrelevant, regardless if it's true or not. The rest of my response will be in my Counter Kritik. Counter Kritik – Kritik of the Kritik If my opponent was somehow right, we shouldn't fight to reduce suffering around the world. According to Con, suffering is inevitable, and seeking to reduce it is simply an illusory. Based on this argument however, preventing a woman from being raped is not necessary. Why should we reduce her suffering? I find this absolutely horrific. It also means that preventing child abuse, molestation ought to be embraced. Con also suggests that we shouldn't put laws to prevent genocides like the Holocaust. In fact, the law itself becomes irrelevant. Based on Con's analogy, why should we put laws to prevent any crimes? Do I really need to explain to the reader why embracing rape is inherently wrong? Do I really need to explain why murdering an innocent person is inherently wrong? I find Con's argument as quite offensive. While I have a lot of respect for my opponent, I don't think he understood the impact of his Kritik. I ask him to kindly concede and admit his error on this subject. The alternative, which is working to reduce crime and suffering is much more desirable. As Einstein who believes in determinism explains it: "I am compelled to act as if free will existed, because if I wish to live in a civilized society I must act responsibly. I know philosophically that a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him." [3] While I don't believe in determinism, I still respect Einstein's decision to act responsibly. Even though he believes that we can't stop anything from happening, including rape, murder and genocide, we should act as if free will existed. So even if Con was correct philosophically that reducing suffering was somehow an illusory and inevitable, we should still act as if we can reduce suffering. This is the only responsible thing to do. This alternative is better that embracing hate, murder and rape because it's an illusory. Therefore, I urge the voter to vote for me because I best uphold the role of the ballot. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate) The above link will break. Copy paste this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_(policy_debate) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Walter Isaacson, "American Sketches: Great Leaders, Creative Thinkers, and Heroes of a Hurricane", pp.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Assisted-Suicide-Laws-should-be-Universal/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 14.41
      universal: 9.43
      conclusion: 8.87 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.57 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.19)
      should: 4.84
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 2.03 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.59)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.04)
  • PRO

    However when I do assist the homeless I do guide them...

    The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

    "Outside of oratory or public debate (such as this one) in which you propose for the government to provide universal healthcare, what actions do you take in your life toward helping the needy receive medical assistance?" As a high school Junior there is very little I can do at this point. However when I do assist the homeless I do guide them into the way of a health clinic to help them if they are showing signs of illness. This is the action that Iam able to take as a 16 year old .

  • PRO

    I do believe insurance will motivate people to go to the...

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

    Introduction All evidence supports the idea that a Universal Healthcare system is a positive change in the US from an economic, societal, and moral standpoint. Universal Healthcare has been proven to succeed in other countries and it the United States must follow their example. Argument 1: Economic This argument is centered around the idea that if the US is going to spend significantly more than other countries on health insurance than we should see significantly better quality in health care. Health care is directly related to life expectancy as well as a number of other indicators. Disease prevention and treatment is just one example of their connection. "Recent OECD analysis suggests that health care spending growth has contributed to the improvement in life expectancy".[1] While there are other factors of course healthcare is one of the most important. If our healthcare was performing equal to or greater than other nations, which it should because we spend more than all other nations, if this was true we would be much closer to the universal standard in these issues. My opponent vastly understates the impact healthcare has on the health of the general population. Argument 2: A Viable Alternative Response to Rebuttal 1 My opponent"s main arguments against this come from the amount of Britons waiting for healthcare as well as the wait time for operations in Sweden. Of course these are two countries out of a very large number and the majority of countries have extremely successful healthcare systems. Either way my opponent"s arguments against Sweden and England still fail. "Waiting times for preplanned care, such as cataract or hip-replacement surgery, have long been a cause of dissatisfaction. As a result, Sweden introduced a health care guarantee in 2005.This means no patient should have to wait more than seven days for an appointment at a community health care center, 90 days for an appointment with a specialist and 90 days for an operation or treatment, once it has been determined what care is needed."[2] My opponent"s problems with Sweden"s healthcare are incredibly outdated and have been successfully addressed. As of today "People in Sweden are living increasingly longer. The average life span is now 83.5 years for women and 79.5 years for men. This can be attributed in part to falling mortality rates from heart attacks and strokes" [2] Not only have Sweden"s problems been easily fixed they now have a much more successful healthcare system. Access to care in England is actually at least equal to the US and the quality is much higher [3][5]. The US does poorly in quick access to care when compared with most other countries like New Zealand and Netherlands. The US also had the highest percentage in cost being a barrier to recieving Healthcare. I highly advise Judges and Con to read source [3] to get a better understanding of how superior Universal Healthcare is. "The UK's health care system is one of the most efficient in the world, according to a study of seven industrialized countries."[4] Con"s arguments and statistics are outdated and irrelevant. Healthcare is still far superior in countries with Universal Healthcare. Response to Rebuttal 2 The US already spends more on healthcare as a percentage of our GDP. There is no evidence to support your conclusion that the US spending more on healthcare could hurt the economy. It could create jobs and help create a more productive (greater health leads to greater production) workforce. If anything it will significantly help the economy. If we could switch to spending as little on healthcare as countries with Universal healthcare, we would see incredible economic benefits. Response to Rebuttal 3 For this argument Con cites a source 7 which he does not have. It"s an interesting idea but I doubt there is any evidence supporting the idea that people will "overuse" medical facilities. I do believe insurance will motivate people to go to the doctor an appropriate number of times it is absurd to believe that once someone is insured they will go to the doctor too much. There is just no motivation for it. There is motivation to go to the doctor an appropriate amount of times but not excessively. When the government began picking up trash do you think people were suddenly throwing away more trash? There is just no logical reason to overuse some services. Argument 3: Healthcare is a Right Response to Rebuttal 1 The US is a major member in the United Nations. When a human right is defined (a definition the US helped to create and agreed to) it is universal. The US has accepted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are not particular to a country, they are universal. Response to Rebuttal 2 "My opponent also states that the constitution states the clause, "promote general welfare". This clause, nor any other clause in the constitution gives congress the power to create a Universal Healthcare System. The "General Welfare" clause gives Congress the power "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." [2] This clause is not a grant of power to congress " it is a limit to a power given to Congress, limiting the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes."" First of all note the contradictions in this quote which are bolded. Second of all pay attention to the sources he uses to back up this argument. Source 3 does not exist, and source 2 and 4 lead to an article with this title "Is Government Motors Lying about Its New Electric Car?" We can safely conclude that promoting "the general welfare" requires action. Promote-to contribute to the growth or prosperity of [6] General Welfare- The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens. [7] So, if Congress has the power and responsibility to promote health of its citizens, and Universal Health Care will help grow that health, then Congress is obligated to enact Universal Healthcare. Response to Rebuttal 3 "In order for something to be a right in the U.S., it must be in the constitution. The constitution has had changes over the course of time [these changes are known as amendments], and any rights that are guaranteed under these amendments are also rights under the constitution. If we take in everything I have stated here into consideration, my opponent"s argument that the Health Care is a right fails because: Universal Health Care is not a constitutional guarantee, because Congress has tried to pass Universal Health Care as an amendment before, and FAILED. [5]" Let"s take a closer look at that logic. My opponent clearly believes that Universal rights don"t apply if they are not in the Constitution or one of its amendments. This logic is clearly flawed. The 13th amendment was actually rejected several times before it was finally ratified [8]. It can then be concluded that whatever the 13th amendment was proposing was not a human right. Freedom from slavery was not a human right until the amendment was ratified. The same goes for the 19th amendment and women"s suffrage. All of these amendments that progressed human rights in the US were at one time, widely condemned. Had any one of them been attempted earlier in time they could have easily been rejected and declared "not a human right". This is absurd. It"s possible a Universal Healthcare amendment could be added to the Constitution in the future. Even if it is not passed this doesn"t mean Universal Healthcare is not a right. Much of the Constitution is vague as well. The "Promote the General Welfare" clause could very well be making Universal Healthcare a right. A lack of specificity is not an indication that the Constitution is not referring to healthcare. Key question "If congress has tried to pass an amendment about Universal Health Care, and it failed to pass, then how is it a right?" The Constitution and its amendments is not the arbiter of what is and is not a fundamental and universal human right. Its job is to try and reflect what those rights are; however, it is not perfect. Just as in the suffrage and slavery examples there will always be a delay in recognizing something as a right. It may even miss some rights, but it is our job as a nation to nevertheless make sure these rights are fulfilled. Argument 4: Benefit to Society Response to Rebuttal 1 Your arguments do not stand because I have shown that your statistics are outdated and incorrect. Response to Rebuttal 2 1. 1. Your assertions here have no supporting evidence. I have already shown that quality of care is actually much greater than quality in the US and other countries have not had to resort to "rationing and limit the availability of services". This has not hurt pricing earlier. I refer you back to my graph showing spending on health per capita and as a percentage of GDP. There is ample evidence to suggest Universal healthcare would raise quality and lower costs. 2. 2. There are a variety of ways to address this problem. "The approach most favored by experts at Harvard and elsewhere is to reshape traditional primary care: from a stream of patients waiting to see one harried doctor to a more efficient team practice in which patients with routine problems are seen by nurse-practitioners and physician assistants " trained specialists with master's degrees. The team frees the doctor to spend more time with patients with more serious complaints." [9] Even if we didn"t make this switch other countries with Universal Healthcare systems faced the same transition to training more doctors and they have been successful. There is no reason to believe we won"t be. Other possible solutions are to "Increase the number of medical graduates through increased recruitment of minority students domestically, as well as intensified recruitment of foreign-trained graduates" or "Increase the number of medical schools and classroom sizes." [10] 3. 3. There is no evidence to back this up. Increasing access to preventive care would actually decrease the amount of money spent on health care by decreasing the occurrence of more major and expensive problems. Enacting Universal Healthcare saves the taxpayer money. [11] Response to Rebuttal 3 You made the argument several times actually that Universal Healthcare would increase demand. "As the perceived price decreases, demand will increase." "As demand increases to exceed the available supply of health services" The incentive to become a doctor is greater than ever. The income of doctors will only be affected positively [12]. According to this study, more than half of US doctors support switching to a Universal Healthcare system [13]. There is no evidence to support anything to the contrary. Conclusion All of Con"s rebuttals have been refuted and all of the evidence supports my position. Universal Healthcare is the best Healthcare system available to the US right now and the government is obligated to enact it. [1] http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org... [2] http://sweden.se... [3]http://www.commonwealthfund.org... *read page 8 [4] http://assets.ce.columbia.edu... [5]http://www.nhs.uk... [6] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [7] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [8]http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.aarp.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://progressivewomencolorado.com... [12] http://www.medscape.com... [13] http://www.reuters.com...

  • PRO

    This in itself impedes on certain freedoms and rights....

    Securing a "right" to universal health means impeding on other rights

    Providing universal health care means increasing costs to certain taxpayers. This in itself impedes on certain freedoms and rights. Securing one right by impeding on other is illegitimate.

  • PRO

    Universal health care, like any government benefit, is...

    Universal health care can't be reversed even if costs explode

    Universal health care, like any government benefit, is eventually going to be interpreted as a "right" by the public, making it politically impossible to curtail the program when it becomes too costly.

  • PRO

    Although not definitive, this does lend credence to the...

    Universal health care systems are more economically efficient.

    America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country, and has worse ratings on a variety of subjects such as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times according to the commonwealth fund. New Zealand, which spends one third per capita what the US spends on health care beats the US on every marker of efficiency and care. Although not definitive, this does lend credence to the idea that universal health care is more efficient than our for profit health care system as the US was inferior to Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser degree Canada in nearly all health care quality issues. This despite the fact that the US system costs 2-3x more per capita than the systems in these other countries.

CON

  • CON

    Furthermore, the right to life is the first right listed...

    Abortion should be legal.

    I doubt that my opponent has even read my arguments, as he has gone down the route of arguing: 1) A human foetus is not a person 2) Abortion is not murder This is a straw-man fallacy (1) . Nowhere do I claim that a foetus is a person, and nowhere do I claim that abortion is murder. So arguing against these claims is a misrepresentation of my argument. I have argued that abortion should be illegal based on the two facts that: 1) A human foetus is a human being 2) Abortion is homicide If my opponent is to disprove my arguments, he must either prove that a human foetus is not a human being or that abortion is not homicide. Arguing that a foetus is not a person or that abortion is not murder does not address my arguments, and so they cannot therefore be valid rebuttals. Because of this, because of the fact that the vast majority of my opponent's arguments are dedicated to claiming that abortion is not murder and that a foetus is not a person, I do not need to respond to them as they do not refute my argument in round 1 that abortion should not be legal. One part that deserves response, however, is the part about bodily autonomy. Unlike the rest of the arguments, this can be considered to attack my position; it is not entirely a straw-man fallacy. Pro states that: 'There is a legal excuse - the right to Bodily Autonomy. This is the right which allows us to decide who may use our bodies, what parts they may use, what they may be used for and for how long. This means if I do not consent to the use of my uterus by a fetus I have the right to remove said fetus. Bodily Autonomy is the most basic human right.' Yet there are many flaws in this argument. Firstly, the right to bodily autonomy is not the most basic human right, this title belongs to the right to life(2). This is because without this right, we cannot experience the fruits of all other human rights including the right to bodily autonomy (bodily autonomy is useless if we are not alive). Furthermore, the right to life is the first right listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (3), this would imply that it is the most fundamental human right. Therefore, as the right to life is more fundamental than the right to bodily autonomy, abortion is not permissible in respect to human rights because it is a direct contest of the foetus's right to life against the mother's right to bodily autonomy, and the former supersedes the latter when we consider the magnitude of the rights involved. This is a bit off-point, but note that when we talk of rights, we talk of human rights, not person rights. Nevertheless, bodily autonomy cannot be used to justify the vast majority of abortions because, by willingly engaging in vaginal sexual intercourse, one is tacitly consenting to the possibility of conception. This is because vaginal sexual intercourse (VSI) is intrinsically ordered towards procreation. To illustrate this concept, I will use an analogy. Let us suppose that I want to cycle from A to B. If I am in A, the act of cycling in the direction of B is intrinsically ordered to reaching B. Therefore, even if one does not expressly consent to reaching B by cycling towards B, they are tacitly consenting to the possibility of reaching B by cycling towards it. This applies to VSI. Even if one does not expressly consent to conception by engaging in VSI, they are tacitly consenting to the possibility of conception because VSI is intrinsically ordered towards conception. The only reason VSI exists is to lead to conception. Therefore, when Pro states: 'This means if I do not consent to the use of my uterus by a fetus I have the right to remove said fetus.' This is no justification for the vast majority of abortions, because most abortions are sought even when the VSI was consented to, which entails tacit consent to the use of one's uterus by a foetus. The terms of the condition for abortion (that the foetus's use of one's uterus is unconsensual) are not met. (1) http://www.nizkor.org... (2) http://www.thepersonalistproject.org... (3) http://www.un.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-legal./8/
    • score
      BM25 score: 11.48
      universal: 3.16
      premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.46 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.96)
      basic: 3.95
      premises: 3.47 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 0.49 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.54)
      should: 4.37
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.28 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.97)
  • CON

    if for some reason the victim could not be separated, for...

    the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

    Rebuttals: "con says i value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. this is not true. i sometimes do, as is clearly stated in the thesis of the debate." -This is not true, I've said nothing of the kind. I was merely addressing the resolution at hand: "The rights of the infant of the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother." -Pro has conceded that in sometimes she does value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. "con says my analogy isn't sufficient. he says the victim in the accident would immediately want separated in my anaolgy. not always, though. if for some reason the victim could not be separated, for a number of months, any reasonable person would say the person that caused the accident must permit that. no one would say the pesron that caused the accident can kill the person she caused to be attached to her." -This is still a poor analogy. -Using this exact same analogy, I'll use a real life example. Recently while hiking in the mountains, I passed a tree and -Furthermore, Pro is assuming that the victim is conscious and can make decisions on whether or not it wants to live. If this analogy were to happen to a human, the victim would certainly not want to get killed, because the victim loves his life and doesn't want it to end and can think properly and make decisions. A fetus in a womb cannot make decisions (likely because its brain is not fully developed) and has not experienced life, therefore it can't decide whether it wants to live or die. It doesn't know if living is good or dying is good. "con points out rape etc. i could see making an exception for that maybe." -Pro has conceded to my contention. "i'm arguing about later abortions," -No you aren't. Your resolution has little to do with abortions. Your resolution concerns with the rights of a fetus and a woman. -You're resolution is: "the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother" -And I am arguing that all humans have the same rights. We don't even have to be talking about abortions right now. We are talking about rights. That is the topic. Addendum: -I believe to continue on with the debate, we must establish what the rights of a fetus is in the first place compared with the rights of a woman. -But to determine the rights of a fetus, we must establish whether or not a fetus should be considered human. -The woman, is certainly considered human, therefore no matter what, she at least has the 30 basic Human Rights. [1] -I leave it to you to prove whether or not a fetus should be considered human in this debate. If you don't, then you concede that the fetus has less rights than the woman. If you do, then it will be established that the fetus is a human, but according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2], all humans have equal rights, therefore as a human, the fetus' rights do not trump the woman's rights. -Your burden of proof is to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sources: [1] http://www.samaritanmag.com...; [2] http://www.un.org...

  • CON

    Con like Pro, understands the world would be a better...

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.

    Thank you Pro for your short rebuttal and your closing point about, “I really had a hard time coming up with my rebuttal as I saw really nothing to refute.” Seldom do I receive such complement on any debating website. Recorded history about the social empirical outcome as a function of institutional configuration of governance is hard to refute. There is clear historical empirical outcome between an institution implementing Unalienable Rights (the institution of the USA) compared to an institution implementing many parts resembling the later defined Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the institution of the USSR). Before implementing a set of man-made rights, it would be prudent to search history of any institution attempting to do the same. Pro went on to say, “One cannot compare the UDHR's articles to only 10 articles of the USSR's Constitution.” Pro should realize, there is not a one-to-one relationship between the articles. Those USSR articles cover a scope of 17 UDHR's articles, where the USA's Constitution covers none. It is interesting to point out the following Article 124 of the USSR's Constitution is in alignment with the USA's paradigm on the separation of church and state; however, such is not found in UDHR: “ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.” Without separation of church and state UDHR Article 2 will be impossible to implement, along with Article 3. In Article 3, how does one have the right to life, liberty and security of person in a theocracy? Just look at the empirical social climate in those theocracies today. The implementation of UDHR is dependent on the configuration of governance. Con is taking the position that what “must be taken more seriously” is not UDHR but the prerequisite to UDHR, and that prerequisite, being the configuration of governance! Con like Pro, understands the world would be a better place to live, if the world moves in the direction of UDHR. Pro is taking a 1948 position about the world should take UDHR “more seriously;” that is easy to say. Con is taking the twenty-first century position, and “seriously” examining the prerequisite to make it happen. Let's start with the fact that today's understanding of our Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature (Takac). We need not dwell on the metaphysical evolution of the concept of Unalienable Rights through the ages, but our current understanding of them is more important. Within our 10,000 character debate limit, let's focus on two data points: USA and USSR. The design of the USA, came from the people forming a contract (US Constitution) to define the configuration of governance. During the design of the US Constitution, Unalienable Rights were the “stake in the ground” (Amendments 5 and 9). The people defined what rights the government had to govern with the objective to protect and defend the individual's Unalienable Rights, no more, no less. The state governments did all the rest, competing with each other for the best and brightest to move to their state. In the USSR's case, the government dictates what man-made rights the people had. In summary, in the USA's case, the people defined what rights the government has; in the USSR's case, the government defines what rights the people have. Big difference! One should note, attention to the development of UDHR came from a set of governments (UN). The newly established USA having the mission to embrace and protect everyone's Unalienable Rights started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight. In the beginning, slavery and woman's standing in society was deeply rooted in the culture. Jefferson, knew the “vagueness” (a term Pro used) of our Unalienable Rights will move those cultural ills of slavery, the treatment of woman, and today's treatment of gays, etc, in time during the evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights in the dynamics of Congress, representing the people, and the only branch of government to make law correcting such cultural ills. Life's Unalienable Rights are the engine controlling the evolution of life (Takac). It only stands to reason these Rights are also the engine for social evolution, if, and only if, the configuration of governance supports such an engine of nature at the social level. The Founding Fathers develop a configuration of government supporting Darwinism before Darwin came on the stage. Today, due to social evolution, UDHR is out dated relative to Article 16. Article 16 starts off with the following, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry...” There is no mention to gender preference, therefore, gays have no man-made rights pertaining to marriage. Also, there is no amendment process outlined in the preamble to make such changes. Pro's position is UDHR maintains the desired “finite declaration,” where Con takes the position, perhaps, UDHR is too finite, stifling social evolution of a culture's freedom of moral choice on their road to utopia. It is sad to find Pro does not support cultural evolution by stating, “Wilson seems to have the same views as I do when it comes to the Unalienable Rights being too vague.” On the subject of Woodrow Wilson, too bad Wilson's slow cancer of “living constitution” is starting to metastasize. Today's Congress represents the lobbyist more than the people, while the President has a “pen” to make law, and also, the administration branch (not part of the US Constitution's three branches) that is made up of hundreds of departments (IRS, Education, NSA, Energy, EPA, etc.). These departments employ hundreds of thousands of government employees, who are not elected, writing regulations, having the same power as law, to control us, etc. Today, the people are essentially out of the loop, except on Election Day, and look what choices we have. Too bad the US government educational system promote “living constitutional” concepts, to benefit the freedom of government, while reducing the freedom of the people, moving in the opposite direction from UDHR. If Pro is serious about, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously,” then get serious in understanding the configuration of governance. Otherwise, and with all due respect to Pro and those like him, if you refuse to understand the prerequisite to UDHR, you are just shooting off a lot of hot air.

  • CON

    The result is a consistent quality in education resources...

    Healthcare and Education Should Be Free

    Thank you to make your argument I will give two reasons why education and healthcare should not be free. Arguments 1. The cost to the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education The social-democratic model, most prevalent in Europe, is a failure. The system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt the countries maintaining them; it is simply unsustainable. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high. The government money needed to be channeled into universities to provide for free education, as well as into various other generous social welfare benefits, has been a case of borrowing from future generations to finance current consumption1]. For these countries to survive, and lest other countries attempt to follow suit with similar models, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. In the case of education, it seems fair to say that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities, since the skills acquired during such education are absolutely necessary for citizens to function effectively within society; reading, writing, basic civics, etc. are essential knowledge which the state is well-served in providing. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it; it can be nice to attend, but one can live effectively without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non-essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but they cannot view it as an entitlement owed by the state that will simply provide it to everyone. The cost is just too high, and the state must act from a utilitarian perspective in this case. Instituting fees will place the cost of education upon those wishing to reap the benefits of education, and not on the taxpayer. 2. The quality of education suffers when university education is free Without university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. The problem with this is that the state’s aim is to increase university attendance levels for the sake of political gain, while at the same time striving not to increase spending on the universities. The result is an increase in attendance, without commensurate increase in funding from the state. This leads to larger class-sizes and less spending per student[1]. Furthermore, these problems result in disconnected lecturers who, due to increased class sizes, cannot connect to their students or offer more than cursory assistance to struggling pupils. The decline in teaching quality is further exacerbated by their need to focus less on teaching and more on research, which is more profitable and thus encouraged by cash-strapped universities. With fees, on the other hand, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need rather than with making do with whatever the state gives them to fund teaching. The result is a consistent quality in education resources rather than it being dependent upon what the state happens to give universities, and on how many students it pushes to be accepted. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality. Universities thus stay in business only so long as they remain purveyors of high quality educational goods. They must thus let in smart people, irrespective of their financial background, which will in part serve to admit and finance capable people from disadvantaged backgrounds through targeted financial aid programs. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education, which can be quite substantial. They will thus be more attentive and more interested in doing well. An example of higher quality education stemming from fee-paying higher education systems is that of the United States, which has twenty of the top fifty ranked universities in the world[2]. Quality is clearly improved when university is not free. Rebuttal 1. In Pro's first argument he said that education should be free. However there is no free in the world. Everthing has a cost. Of course, if the educations or healthcare be free, they are working for nothing. They don't get any money. Also we need the military budget because we need to be prepared when anything bad happens. When they get no money, for example no one will go there. They will get bad teachers which equal to bad education. This is basically slavery in the school hours which is bad. For example, if a worker in Samsung goes around making phones and they get no money? Why would they work? They would have no influence of teaching and just be mad all times. 2. In Con's second argument he said that healthcare should be free. Same as education. The doctors will get nothing. They need a right and money for all those materials. If they get do not get money where will they get the materials? Everyone need a reward of what they do. Lets say there was a private hospital. It was free. All the doctors did not get any money of what they were working. Because of their bad influences, they will not do hard work. What if in the end someone died or got more injured? It will all be the doctor's fault. There are few more reasons why I think that healthcare should not be free. This is because they have a huge risk. Of what was going on in South Korea which was called MERS. If the hospital was free why would they do it. They have a 40% risk of dying. This means that if they have money they will be more influenced in their job. For these reasons we urge you to vote for Con.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Healthcare-and-Education-Should-Be-Free/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 11.19
      universal: 4.21
      premises: 3.45 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.77 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.61)
      basic: 2.20
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.43 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.36)
      should: 4.78
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.69 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.33)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.05)
  • CON

    I kinda get what you mean, but I need some more...

    Universal Truth/Morality

    Good argument, but let me clarify what I mean by truth. Of course anyone could pick up a pen and say, "This is a pen," and it would be true without a doubt. But I don't mean truth in that literal sense. I mean philosophical truth. For example, I am debating whether things like morality are constant throughout the world. I don't think they are. I think you might be taking the topic too literally. But, still, you make a very good point. In this debate I will use logic and reason to prove my stance and you must do the same. This way we can still debate on something seemingly undebatable. In other words, we have to ignore your 1st point and try to use evidence to support our sides. Does that make sense? If not, say so in the comment section, and I'll try to explain better. Can you please elaborate on your second point? I kinda get what you mean, but I need some more explanation. Now, your third point about typing. Again, when I say truth, I'm referring to philosophical truth and morality. I'm sorry if I was not clear or specific enough. You bring up some very good points, especially about our approach to truth. But I think that becuase our approach is flawed, that that in itself makes truth/morality subjective. Because I am a firm believer in the concept of "perception is reality." For example, my grandma is crazy religious. And she is always praying. I was in a car accident not too long ago, and I made it without any serious injuries. She truly believed that it was her prayers that saved me. That is her reality and nothing can change that. But for me, I think that I was just lucky. This is a great example of subjective truth; no one can know what really happened, so both of our theories are true. My grandma's theory is true for her, as mine is true for me. This is still keeping to the law of contradiction because in my mind, there is only one theory that is true and the same goes for my grandma. Wow, this is getting complicated. Again, if you need clarification just ask. Let me quickly mention morality. Morality, just like truth, is also relative. What is the moral norm in one culture is not true in another. Some cultures (for example, Sparta) train their children to kill ruthlessly. When they grow up, murder and death are second nature to them. Violence is embedded in their minds. This was not the case in somewhere like Athens, where humanism reigned superior. These two city-states show how customs can change our moral perspective, making it relative.

  • CON

    We need to analyze this issue from a couple of different...

    Universal healthcare is not affordable

    We need to analyze this issue from a couple of different perspectives. The first is this trillion per decade cost. Is this truly a cost to the American economy? We think not, since this money will simply flow back into the economy, back into the hands of health care providers, insurance companies, etc. – back into the hands of taxpayers. So in this sense it is very much affordable. But is this a productive enterprise? For the millions of people that at this very moment have absolutely no insurance and therefore very limited access to health care, the answer is very clear. In addition, the reform will more or less pay for itself, not in a year, not even a decade – but as it stands now, it’s been designed to have a net worth of zero.[1] Lastly, just because we live in a bad economic climate doesn’t mean we can simply abandon all sense of moral obligation. There are people suffering because of the current situation. No cost can offset that. [1] Johnson, S., Kwak, J., Can We Afford Health Care Reform? We Can't Afford Not to Do It., published 9/1/2009,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090101027.html, accessed 9/18/2011