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

PRO

  • PRO

    This is, indeed, true. ... Thank you.

    Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

    I would like to respond to my opponent's previous comments as follows: He wrote "Although there might seem to be no need for a welfare state, that will not stop people from wanting one, as everyone welcomes policies that benefit them. Taxes will actually increase, as the tax rebate percentage will become lower, the money used for welfare." This would be a matter for political debate in a democracy. For example, a socialist candidate might argue that a developed, civilized society should make health care provisions for all citizens free at the point of use according to need, not the ability to pay, and he might also add that although taxes would rise in order to pay for a nationalised health service, citizens would no longer need to purchase private health insurance. On the other hand, a capitalist candidate might argue that consumers should decide how best to spend their own money, not the government, and that those people who cannot afford private health insurance should rely on their families or charities for support in a medical crisis. I would suspect that the Hong Kong electorate would overwhelmingly vote for capitalist candidates ahead of socialist candidates but, of course, there is a possibility that I could be wrong. Perhaps the people of Hong Kong are unlike their cousins in Singapore and value social justice more than personal wealth and would vote in a socialist regime. It would be very surprising if that happened but that would be democracy in action: the will of the majority of people should prevail over the vested interests of the financially privileged few. Moving on, my opponent wrote: "Hong Kong has very low tax, but that does not mean prices of products will not increase because of a slightly higher tax rate. It's all simple math. The tax increases by ten dollars; the price increases by ten or even more." This is, indeed, true. If extra taxes are levied upon corporations, the cost will be passed on to the customer. This would also be bad news for Hong Kong companies who export their goods and services as it puts them at a competitive disadvantage, although we should remember that Hong Kong companies are already at a huge disadvantage compared to their rivals in mainland China where labour costs are a fraction of those in Hong Kong. However, this is something politicians and political commentators need to discuss with voters so that they can decide which way to vote. Continuing, my opponent wrote: "The reason why Hong Kong has a high average salary is because of a few billionaires..." This is true of all top cities worldwide: New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Los Angeles all have more than their fair share of tycoons, oligarchs and plutocrats; Hong Kong is far from unique in that respect. The fact remains that Hong Kong is one of the richest states in the world whose inhabitants are some of those most prosperous on the planet. This negates the call from the general public for welfare services for the many to be funded by a relatively wealthy few. Moving on again my opponent wrote: "You will find that, to be under the poverty line in Hong Kong is easier than in the US, and if you click into the respective "countries" under the Developed Countries tab, you will find that things are cheaper in the US than in Hong Kong." This statement seems to be self-contradictory but, in any case, it does seem that food is cheaper in the US than Hong Kong, although I have to say that food here in London, like property prices, the cost of fuel and public transport and other major outgoings is higher than either Hong Kong or the US: it is all relative to average income. Furthermore, the exchange rates distort the real cost of living. That said, living in poverty is not easy anywhere, but the opportunities to succeed in Hong Kong are there for those who want to take them, which is not true in many parts of the US or the UK. That's why there is more of a demand for welfare services in Europe and America than there is in Hong Kong or Singapore. Finally, regarding popularise in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, I would suggest that it would be healthy for the members voted in by the Council to be popular with the citizens, enacting popular policies that the people approve of. Surely this is better than having some forelock-tugging technocrat parachuted into power by his political masters in Beijing, accountable not to the citizens but, instead, to his bosses on the unelected Chinese State Council? In the final analysis, the people must be allowed to decide their own fates and must be able to hold their leaders to account through the ballot box. Hong Kong, of course, has no history of democratic rule: prior to its current status as an autonomous area of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong was a British territorial possession, governed from London. It is, perhaps, for this reason, together with the buoyant economy, that there is no popular clamour for freedom from the people, but that does not mean that they should not be entitled to be represented by leaders of their own choosing. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Suffrage-in-Hong-Kong/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 12.83
      universal: 10.68
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.86)
      should: 1.91
      premises: 1.81 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    I hold that this law, as written, would not contribute to...

    Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

    The goal of universal background checks is, ostensibly, to prevent easy access of firearms by criminals through gun show, Internet, and private sale/lending transactions. To reach this goal, each of the transactions listed above would be subject to the current FBI background check system. I hold that this law, as written, would not contribute to an aggregate reduction in gun crime and would unreasonably scrutinize the law abiding citizens of the United States of America. Round 1 is to accept; 2,3,&4 for rebuttals and 5 will be closing arguments.

  • PRO

    Therefore I believe that any argument against this...

    Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries

    My argument is simple, if it is accepted that any marriage is a civil right, and it is accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, then it is discrimination to deny that right to anyone, based on their sexuality, in much the same was that it would be discrimination to deny rights to anyone based on race, religion, colour of skin (yes it's spelt colour), etc. Therefore I believe that any argument against this statement must dispute either that being allowed to marry is a civil right, or that homosexuality is a choice. Based on this I would dispute that the burden of proof is solely mine, as it should be the burden of whomever is making a claim that is not intuitively obvious, (see Russell's Teapot) and thus the burden should be on my opponent just as much. The notion that sexuality is a choice is a myth, as no direct cause (not a fan of that phrase, makes homosexuality sound like a disease) has been discovered, the simplest way to prove this is by virtue of a thought experiment. If homosexuality is a choice, it is not a choice that anyone would take, being homosexual in any society, no matter how liberal, causes more difficulty in life, due to discrimination, and the inability to do something that is central to most people's lives, having children. This seems to wrap it all up for me, I'm sure my opponent thinks otherwise. The floor is yours.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Same-Sex-Marriage-is-a-Basic-Civil-Right-and-Should-be-Allowed-in-All-Countries/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 12.75
      universal: 0.37
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)
      sum: 3.24 (product 2.63, product 0.61)
      sum: 2.59 (product 0.65, product 1.84, product 0.10)
      basic: 8.49
      conclusion: 7.88 (boost 1.50, idf 7.19, tfNorm 0.73)
      sourceText: 0.61 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.94)
      should: 3.90
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.84 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.06)
  • PRO

    This is an extremely volatile issue, due to our way of...

    Universal Health Care

    The topic I have chose to debate is the need for Uiversal Healthcare. This is an extremely volatile issue, due to our way of life in the United States. We live in a society based on free enterprise, and free choice. While at the same time we are one of the richest countries on earth, we have tens of millions of people who don't have Health Care. There are thoses on both sides of the issue that feel that they have are right and their way is the best. The United States provides the best medical care in the world, but many wonder if we This is an extremely volatile issue, due to our way of life in the United States. We live in a society based on free enterprise, and free choice. While at the same time we are one of the richest countries on earth, we have tens of millions of people who don't have Health Care. There are thoses on both sides of the issue that feel that they have are right and their way is the best. The United States provides the best medical care in the world, but many wonder if we should adopt a government administered Health Care system like Canada provides to its citizens. After you have heard the arguments that are for and against Uiversal Health Care I think you will be able to make a more informed decision.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/19/
    • score
      BM25 score: 12.68
      universal: 10.71
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.92 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.93)
      should: 1.62
      premises: 1.54 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.65)
  • PRO

    This is not because the West embraces and upholds a human...

    The West's Claim of Universal Equal Human Rights is Unjustified

    The political orthodoxy in modern Western democracies like the United States holds that the equality of rights of all human beings is an unquestionable, moral claim that cannot be challenged by the findings of descriptive science. Equality, as a normative commitment, is viewed as fundamental to the West's conception of human rights, and is deemed not open to debate. The liberal political establishment in contemporary Western society currently insists, for example, that there is no substantial scientific basis for any claims that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. It is effectively forbidden to point out that the findings of modern scientific research suggest it is quite likely there may be a substantial genetic basis to observed differences in human behavioural traits such as IQ scores, the tendency toward impulsive violence and degrees of athleticism.In short, any open discussion on the question of a direct relationship between genetics and variations in the human traits ( of behaviour, cognitive ability and physiology) among different racial groupings has been branded taboo . Those scientists who breach the system's imposed prohibition on the public discussion of any aspect of this issue by, for example, arguing that it now seems probable the empirical research data which has confirmed, beyond doubt, over the past four decades, the presence of significant - and in some cases, dramatic -disparities in the measurements of average cognitive ability (i.e. average intelligence/ IQ) recorded between populations of different racial/ethnic groups - (such, for instance, as that which is known to exist between groups of black Australian aboriginals, whose average IQ score on standardised tests is around 62 points, and groups of their white, European - descended Australian countrymen, whose average IQ score is about 100 points) - is probably caused to a substantial extent by innate biological (genetic) factors, as opposed to purely external environmental factors, are immediately denounced by the liberal political orthodoxy. They are immediately castigated as "racists" , "hate-mongers" , "bigots", "white supremacists" and so on; - condemned, in brief, for being dangerous, irresponsible extremists whose claims ought be treated with utter contempt by all members of "respectable society". It seems to me that the ongoing trenchant refusal of liberal democracies in the West to tolerate any point of view critical of whether the normative commitment to absolute, universal equality which underpins their Human Rights discourse is in fact justified in declaring itself to be an unquestionable, unassailable, irrefutable moral claim is evidence of a logical fallacy in action; one that the Harvard microbiologist Bernard Davis referred to as the "moralistic fallacy". Davis coined the term "moralistic fallacy" in a 1978 literature article he authored which was intended to respond to growing political and public calls for the imposition of ethical guidelines to restrict the scope of research in basic (or "pure") science amid criticisms of so-called "dangerous knowledge" - such as the genetic basis of IQ - on account of assertions that such knowledge had a clear potential for harmful misuse. Davis' "moralistic fallacy" can be understood as being the converse of the well-known "naturalistic fallacy" that was first identified by the 18th century philosopher David Hume. The naturalistic fallacy occurs when reasoning jumps from what IS to prescription about what OUGHT be; It is the idea that whatever is found in nature is good or right. The moralistic fallacy, on the other hand, occurs when reasoning jumps from prescriptions about what OUGHT be to statements about what actually IS; It takes place , that is, when what should be moral is assumed "a priori" to also be naturally occurring. To put it another way, the moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature has socially unpleasant aspects, aspects that are, for example, ugly, offensive, brutal, immoral or contrary to our ideals, CANNOT exist. I believe that we see in the established political orthodoxy of liberal Western democracies today, a perfect example of the moralistic fallacy in action. This is not because the West embraces and upholds a human rights discourse whose fundamental principle is that all men and women ought be treated equally under the law, but because it consequently assumes it is THEREFORE the case that all men and women are biologically identical; that there are no intrinsic genetic differences between people or groups of people, and any scientific study that demonstrates otherwise is "a priori" false. There is clear evidence of this in the way that the majority of mainstream social scientists working in the West today continue to stubbornly deny that observed sex and race differences in human traits like behaviour, cognitive ability and athleticism could ever be genetically based. Their absolute refusal to accept even the possibility of this explanation, despite the existence of a substantial body of empirical research data that suggests otherwise, bears witness to their moralistic fallacy in action. It is a logical fallacy that is , in my opinion, primarily driven by their left- leaning, liberal political convictions. To "cut to the chase" the point I wish to make is that if government policy-makers in West today are sincerely interested in solving the social problems that beset their societies - such serious endemic problems as , for example , the disproportionately high levels of antisocial violence, criminality, incarceration, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic dysfunction, child abuse, poor academic achievement, long-term unemployment, welfare dependency, poverty, mental and physical illness, diminished life expectancy and so on that are a tragic reality for racial groups like Australian aboriginal s and African -Americans in contemporary Western societies, they must endeavour to determine what the TRUE cause of these problems actually is. I believe that if the West continues trying to remediate the multiplex problems experienced by racial groups like the Australian aboriginals or African- Americans the was that it current is, that is, with social policies and support programs that are generated by a political establishment in thrall of a moralistic fallacy which insists that all human being and all groups of human being ( like racial and ethnic groups) are absolutely biologically/genetically identical and and therefore MUST be treated in an equal manner under the law, it is certain to continue to fail in its goal. This is because I believe the truth of the matter is that this is not , in actual fact, the case. The differences in average intelligence (IQ) that exist between black and white racial groups in Western societies is an established and incontrovertible matter of scientific fact, and I believe there is a high probability that its explanation is predominantly genetic. It is only by accepting this scientific truth that workable social policiues capable of redressing the current problems of black African-Americans and aboriginal Australians can ever begin to be formulated.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Wests-Claim-of-Universal-Equal-Human-Rights-is-Unjustified/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 12.49
      universal: 10.22
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.94 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.98)
      basic: 1.73
      premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.47 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.47)
      should: 0.54
      premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.07 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.47)
  • PRO

    I defined faith by the dictionary term. Nothing special....

    Faith is Universal

    I defined faith by the dictionary term. Nothing special. It's literally a synonym of belief, Confidence, And trust. If you make the claim, "I'm not a person with faith. " You are using faith in order to justify your statement. You are trusting in that statement to be true. If you are trusting in that statement to be true, Then by definition you are using faith to justify your statement. If you make the claim, "I'm not a person with faith. " You are contradicting yourself because you are claiming you don't have faith by using faith to say it. Which is self-defeating. [NOTE: I am not saying that you specifically think or say this, This is just an example]. And no problem. Thank you for accepting the challenge.

CON