args

PRO

• PRO

  A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the...

  Show full argument

  The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

  My Opponent states that he does not think that Healthcare Equality isn't the best way to achieve that goal of Societal Welfare. But in the end what is good for society is in general good for the populace. So by providing high-standard medical welfare , we are improving the well-being of society because they will be healthier. And as a human being , would any person rather be healthy or ill. "I believe that it is the happy sick person, the free person close to death. I believe most people would agree with me. I believe my opponent is one of them." The enslaved person? A person is enslaved if they allow themselves to be slaves to a system. However that is in digression. Plus there are few people who I know who are ill and are happy about it. They have to suffer pain and in some instances die a painful death which is apparent in the way how they leave this world. Yet someone who is unhealthy and is saved by equal healthcare will be happy that their lives have been saved and will thank the higher powers of which they believe [ or what have you...] so in the end what my opponent states , it is a generalization that is made from a bias. "If a society's welfare is only as good as its worst member's welfare, and If a member's welfare is dependent on how free that person is, Then societal welfare is dependent on how free its most enslaved constituent " Which is pretty hard to calculate seeing as we live in the Society of the United States , Home to 303 million people. I will mark the homeless in this debate as those with the worst welfare. However by providing them with healthcare they will perhaps live longer lives and be healthier. They may also be able due to their health , to aquire a job and perhaps find a place to live. This one of the impacts for helping what we would consider aid of the worst members in relation to their welfare. "His justification for the HE VC is that it makes people healthier and increases their lifespan... FFC is a direct link to SocW that supersedes HE." Mental Health also effects physical health , It goes hand in hand. Therefore is someone goes into the hospital with a physical problem and this person exhibits mental health defects , then the hospital , under the criterion of Health Equality , will recieve care in terms of mental as well as the physical to prevent the physical problem to happening again. They can also recommend that the person be sent to another facility if the person is considered dangerous. Which improves the overall standing on societal welfare by removing those who can cause danger to themselves and others by the means of their physican health and mental health. "A1: UHC increases taxes. More taxes means less money,... against the value of Societal Welfare" My opponent fails to admit however that by being ill it also limits freedom and therefore causes the person to lose money in the workforce and perhaps in certain cases , lose their job in the workforce. "A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick...reduction of freedom." And there are taxes today that people pay that they do not want to. Paying taxes to the state or government helps pay for people who are on SSI and State or Federal Welfare. And many state their discontent with this daily , yet they must do so. So in essence is that increasing or freedom? No , It is doing what must be done in a modern day society. And most modern day societies which are considered highly advanced , UHC exists. "B: If the government is providing UHC, ... reduction of freedoms." This is based off of evidence or sheer opinion? The fact of the matter is that if the government is making billions of dollars off of cigarettes , they will take the taxes from theose purchases to help pay for the healthcare. So in the end it may be the direct opposite , the government will just leave it alone and perhaps increase taxes on these products to either discourage it's use or gain more money off it. The freedom is there however , due to capitalism , to purchase this product. "An additional argument against the VC of Healthcare Equality: PRO never links ... connection." It was stated throughout my first contention. It was not directly stated , however it was very very , boldly implied. In simplicity , for the sake of the debate. Healthcare Equality provides to the value premise of Societal Welfare because by having high-standard healthcare that is universal to all citizens of the United States, Society will benefit because 1) There will be less people falling ill to diseases that strike those with a lower income at a disproportionate rate than people with a moderate to high income range. 2.) It will make people more content due to that fact that many people who have worked for years only to have no healthcare due to the economic downturn , will finally get care that will ensure that they remain healthy. Meaning a large portion of the US population will no longer be cut off to healthcare and an even large number not limited due to ability to pay [ in some instances thousands and thousands of dollars for life saving care. ] "I'm just going to insert an anecdote here – it will be a refutation against this entire contention. It'll be in the YouTube video to the right; watch from 6:14 to 8:46. He is a man that lives in Canada, and he explains how a government program doesn't only NOT provide education, but actively denies it. " There was a failure but the people failed to petition to fix it. Therefore the government didn't deny them education , they were unable to provide it efficiently , and the people refused to speak up in large number and ask for more. Because in the end people run the governments because they are the majority. Plus that arguement is mostly irrelevant because it is talking about education , not health as the primary subject. For the next three points my opponent states that FFC is not being served. But it is. When you are healthier you have the freedom to do whatever you want with your life. If you are severly ill , your normally bedbound. I'd rather be healthy to do whatever I want than be bedbound , ill , but so called "free" Plus I did state what the link is between HcE and Lifespan. In the current system the disparity due to income is increasing. By leveling the playing field by introducing high standards , we can improve lifespans and make people healthier which in terms gives them the freedom to do whatever they want as they get older and live to be older . > If it's a given that USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation ... hardly a solid generalization." When a third fail to meet the rule, Look at all the other countries and tell me do they have universal healthcare. A vast majority of nations that rank higher in LE have UHC. This is undenyable. Read this article and it explains alot more http://www.msnbc.msn.com... and then looking at this http://www.blogcdn.com... It shows that many nations that have higher life expectancies have UHC. Alot of these nations are rate higher on the HDI as well especially if they are located in Europe. C2:Refutation Recover--> Iam proving that is an undenyable because even our constitution it says 'life....pursuit of happiness' and it is supported by the basis of UHC. "a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity" > Not shown to be due to a lack of UHC. It has , refer to the warrant of the first contention and this article [ http://www.commonwealthfund.org... ] and look at tha bar graph illustration. "By supporting [UHC…]... " Lifespan is relevant , refer to earlier A: It is against societal welfare, However it isn't relavent to universal healthcare.

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

    BM25 score: 12.33

    universal: 12.09

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

    premises: 3.43 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)

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

  A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts,...

  Show full argument

  Abortion should be made illegal

  Thank you for accepting, Con. I shall be making only two contentions in this debate. 1. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life 2. There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life NOTE: Throughout this debate round, "unborn" may be used to mean an unborn human at any of the three stages of zygote, embryo or fetus. Contention #1 - The unborn is a human life The standard, biology textbook definition of life is 1) the ability to grow and 2) the ability to reproduce.[1] In other words, if something grows and possesses the ability to reproduce at some point in its life cycle (barring some sort of defect), then it is considered by the scientific community to be alive. By this standard, the unborn can be considered to be a life. But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the one below? Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life. Metabolism Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototroism), and chemotaxis. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[1][2] Once again, the unborn meets all the criteria for life. However, this is somewhat irrelevant. After all, bacteria and blades of grass are also alive, and we feel no moral qualms about killing them. Why, then, is the zygote/embryo/fetus different? Put simply, because it is a human life. By definition, a product of reproduction is of the same kind as its 'parents.'[3] I offer this Merriam-Webster definition of fetus as further proof: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born."[4] Contention #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life Man is a moral agent, a being with free will whose actions have moral import. Because of our freedom we are bound by duty to act morally or, if you prefer, ethically. Morality may be derived from either philosophy or religion. I shall be making a philosophical case for the moral obligation to preserve human life using Kant's three Formulations of the Imperative. The First Formulation of the Imperative “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[5] Clearly we would not want the justified taking of innocent life to become a universal law without contradiction. This would result in chaos, bloodshed and (depending on your interpretation of this First Formulation) the extinction of the human race. The Second Formulation of the Imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[6] The taking of innocent life violates this Formulation because it disregards and devalues the free will of the victim and sees them as an end in themselves. The Third Formulation of the Imperative “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[7] To explain this Formulation, I quote from an article on deontological ethics by the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics: Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether it is morally permissible under deontological ethics. Let’s take, for example, the act of picking flowers from the local park. The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the universal law (categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and order or plant one’s own flowers.[8] The taking of innocent life unarguably carries moral implication on far grander and more devastating scale than the picking of flowers. Conclusion Because we have established that the unborn is a living human being and that the taking of innocent life is wrong, we have no choice but to view abortion as a moral/ethical evil that should not be legal. Sources 1. http://www2.una.edu... 2. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org... 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-made-illegal/5/
  • score

    BM25 score: 12.17

    universal: 5.88

    premises: 5.01 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.21)

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

    basic: 2.15

    premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.22)

    should: 4.14

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.83)
• PRO

  a) A study released in late June of 2012, the consumer...

  Show full argument

  The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

  First off, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I would like to thank any viewers as well. Your input is greatly appreciated. And I would like to say that all my sources are at the bottom. Judge, any preferences? Judge ready? Opponent Ready? The United States has witnessed skyrocketing health care costs. Due to out of out of control health care costs, there has been a rise in the number of uninsured Americans. Our current health care cost is twice as much as other developed nations, and far less effective than other countries. Therefore, I Affirm the Resolution. Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens. Definitions Ought:Used to express duty or moral obligation (Dictionary.com) Guarantee: An assurance for the fulfillment of a condition (Merriam-Webster) Universal Health Care: Universal Health Care is defined as health care provided to all individuals regardless of gender, race, region, age, health status, income, or wealth. The state can provide universal health care in many ways including: Paying health care providers from a single organization, subsidizing coverage through the private sector, or providing vouchers or refundable tax credits to obtain health care in the private sector. How it is done, is not our concern for the purposes of this debate (House Legislative State) Citizen: A native or naturalized member of a state of nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (Dictionary.com) Value and Criterion The Value of this debate is Morality. Morality is principle or system of morals; the conformity to the rules of right conduct. Therefore the criterion of this debate is the Utilitarianism. [Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of persons.] Contention 1: Assuring Health Care would Increase Welfare for the Majority of Citizens. a) A study released in late June of 2012, the consumer advocacy group Families USA estimates that a record high of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up from about 20,300 in 2005 and 18,000 in 2000. It was also stated that the research concluded that 3 people die per hour, or 72 preventable deaths per day. The same instituteestimated 22,000 deaths nationwide in 2006 due to no health care. There is overwhelming evidence that Americans without health care get less preventive care. (David Morgan, Washington Post). b) Over the years, health care costs have increased to help the 50 million Americans without insurance. Today, health care accounts for one-sixth of the economy - more than any other single aspect or organization. Health care has grown by about 427,000 jobs - nearly 3 percent - since the beginning of the recession in 2007, and now accounts for more than a total of 15.5 million jobs. Most of these cares are mainly from ambulatory care services and hospitals (Daily Herald). With healthcare, the economy grows in number of jobs, in return, reducing the number of debt by having more working citizens. By providing health care, the total cost to the system comes down. Because everyone would receive treatment, the overall price for health care would go down. Therefore reducing the debt. Contention 2: The Government is required to Encourage Growth and Activity in the Economy. The US government is here to provide stability and promote the best for its citizens. The US government is based on capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth (Dictionary.com). Without the government helping our everyday life, we wouldn’t be able to use government property such as busses, metros and many more. Contention 3: Too Many People die because they cannot get Proper Care It isn’t moral for someone to not get health insurance just because they can’t afford it, Nikki White is proof of this. White suffered from a severe form of Lupus (an auto-immune disease), as her health slowly deteriorated, she became unable to work and lost her insurance. She was unable to pay for each doctor visit as it costed her more than 2,000 because she was out of work for four years. She died of complications secondary to a failed health care system. Many experts say that if White had received the care she need when she needed, she would have survived. Many people like her, avoid the doctor because of the cost. Then, when they get too ill, they go to the hospital and can’t pay the huge bill. Well, someone has to pay it. The hospital sends it to insurance which sends the cost other places and eventually adds to the debt. If health care is provided, then the overall cost will go down and people will actually be able to afford it. Birth rates and life expectancy are beyond AWFUL in USA. But aren’t we supposed to be the best country ever? Yeah, then how come we have the worst birth rates compared to all other developed nations? US’s health care right now is BAD, too many people are dying. So judge, I urge you to vote Affirmative (Pro). Thank You. Sources: UHC - http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us... - (House Legislative State) - September 2007. Contention 1a - http://www.msnbc.msn.com... - David Morgan, Washington Post – June 2012 Contention 1b - http://www.heraldextra.com... - Daily Herald - June 2009. Contention 3 - http://www.dailykos.com... - Daily Kos - July 2009

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-Government-ought-to-provide-Universal-Healthcare-for-its-Citizens/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 12.17

    universal: 11.40

    conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 4.07 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.93 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.96)

    should: 0.56

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.96)
• PRO

  I will make this brief as I am running up against the...

  Show full argument

  Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

  I will make this brief as I am running up against the deadline. My opponent's argument in a nutshell is that, if democracy was introduced to Hong Kong, the majority of people would benefit from the creation of a full welfare state and would vote for politicians promising such a measure. Firstly, I have shown that it is unlikely that the prosperous, industrious people of Hong Kong would, en masse, give up their well-paid jobs to live a life relying on state benefits. Secondly, I have demonstrated that politicians opposing a welfare state would highlight the costs of such a scheme, not only to individual taxpayers, but to the wider economy, and we mustn't assume that the electorate would be incapable of understanding these arguments. My final argument is that, in a democracy, the will of the majority should prevail over the vested interests of a few. That means that even if a pro-welfare state government were elected, by poorer people who would benefit directly and also by richer people who wanted to live in a fairer society, the people would benefit from enhanced public services but there might be a price to pay in terms of higher taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations, which may have a wider long-term impact on competitiveness. If the electorate considered any such negative impact too high a price to pay, they could vote for an alternative government at the following election which might dismantle or scale back the welfare state according to the voters' wishes. The fact that a Chief Executive (from a shortlist pre-approved by China) may be elected is not enough, the people of Hong Kong are entitled to determine their own future by voting in a government of their own choice in free and fair elections. I would like to thank my opponent for a fascinating debate and also the voters for their interest.

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

    BM25 score: 12.15

    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: 1.23

    premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)

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

  A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts,...

  Show full argument

  Abortion should be made illegal

  Thank you for accepting, Con. I shall be making only two contentions in this debate. 1. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life 2. There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life NOTE: Throughout this debate round, "unborn" may be used to mean an unborn human at any of the three stages of zygote, embryo or fetus. Contention #1 - The unborn is a human life The standard, biology textbook definition of life is 1) the ability to grow and 2) the ability to reproduce.[1] In other words, if something grows and possesses the ability to reproduce at some point in its life cycle (barring some sort of defect), then it is considered by the scientific community to be alive. By this standard, the unborn can be considered to be a life. But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the one below? Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life. Metabolism Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototroism), and chemotaxis. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[1][2] Once again, the unborn meets all the criteria for life. However, this is somewhat irrelevant. After all, bacteria and blades of grass are also alive, and we feel no moral qualms about killing them. Why, then, is the zygote/embryo/fetus different? Put simply, because it is a human life. By definition, a product of reproduction is of the same kind as its 'parents.'[3] I offer this Merriam-Webster definition of fetus as further proof: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born."[4] Contention #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life Man is a moral agent, a being with free will whose actions have moral import. Because of our freedom we are bound by duty to act morally or, if you prefer, ethically. Morality may be derived from either philosophy or religion. I shall be making a philosophical case for the moral obligation to preserve human life using Kant's three Formulations of the Imperative. The First Formulation of the Imperative “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[5] Clearly we would not want the justified taking of innocent life to become a universal law without contradiction. This would result in chaos, bloodshed and (depending on your interpretation of this First Formulation) the extinction of the human race. The Second Formulation of the Imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[6] The taking of innocent life violates this Formulation because it disregards and devalues the free will of the victim and sees them as an end in themselves. The Third Formulation of the Imperative “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[7] To explain this Formulation, I quote from an article on deontological ethics by the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics: Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether it is morally permissible under deontological ethics. Let’s take, for example, the act of picking flowers from the local park. The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the universal law (categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and order or plant one’s own flowers.[8] The taking of innocent life unarguably carries moral implication on far grander and more devastating scale than the picking of flowers. Conclusion Because we have established that the unborn is a living human being and that the taking of innocent life is wrong, we have no choice but to view abortion as a moral/ethical evil that should not be legal. Sources 1. http://www2.una.edu... 2. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org... 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-made-illegal/3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 12.10

    universal: 5.85

    premises: 5.01 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.21)

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

    basic: 2.12

    premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.11)

    should: 4.14

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.76)
• PRO

  New York Times Review of Books. ... Yet we do...

  Show full argument

  Universal health care internationally is better than US system

  Paul Krugman, Robin Wells. "The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It". New York Times Review of Books. Volume 53, Number 5 · March 23, 2006 - "Single-payer and beyond. How do we know that the US health care system is highly inefficient? An important part of the evidence takes the form of international comparisons. Table 1 compares US health care with the systems of three other advanced countries. It's clear from the table that the United States has achieved something remarkable. We spend far more on health care than other advanced countries—almost twice as much per capita as France, almost two and a half times as much as Britain. Yet we do considerably worse even than the British on New York Times Review of Books. Volume 53, Number 5 · March 23, 2006 - "Single-payer and beyond. How do we know that the US health care system is highly inefficient? An important part of the evidence takes the form of international comparisons. Table 1 compares US health care with the systems of three other advanced countries. It's clear from the table that the United States has achieved something remarkable. We spend far more on health care than other advanced countries—almost twice as much per capita as France, almost two and a half times as much as Britain. Yet we do considerably worse even than the British on basic measures of health performance, such as life expectancy and infant mortality."

  • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Single-payer_universal_health_care
  • score

    BM25 score: 12.09

    universal: 7.43

    conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.17)

    basic: 4.57

    premises: 4.17 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.25)
• PRO

  To put their wealth in perspective, the per capita GDP of...

  Show full argument

  Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

  To begin, we must accept the premise that "All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." This is enshrined in international law by the United Nations [1] and there can be no legitimate justification for any regime to deprive its citizens of their fundamental human right to choose their own leaders, yet my opponent has valiantly attempted to do so in the case of Hong Kong. I must admit, I was very surprised to read that "about 1.1 million of the people have only kindergarten or no education level at all. About 82 per cent of the population does not pay tax, and 51 per cent of the people receive housing subsidies from the (Hong Kong) government." Personally, I have never seen much evidence of social deprivation in Hong Kong, although I did once see some Filipino domestic workers camping in a pedestrian underpass near the Star Ferry pier, which was quite bizarre! However, my opponent insists that over four fifths of the population don't pay tax. This would suggest either mass unemployment or wholesale tax evasion. Therefore, I decided to research my opponent's claims using alternative sources and discovered that unemployment is below 5% [2], very low by international standards, while literacy is 93.5% [3], not bad for a city where 1.1 million of 7.1 million inhabitants have no education beyond kindergarten! Regarding tax, Hong Kong has one of the lowest rates of corporate and salary taxes in the world. There is a flat corporate tax while there are four marginal tax brackets on income of 2%, 7%, 12% and 17%. Furthermore, in 2011 Hong Kong taxpayers actually received a 75% tax rebate, so there seems little incentive for Hong Kongers to risk prosecution by evading taxes. {4,5} Meanwhile, with a per capita GDP of US$50,700 people in Hong Kong are among the richest in the world, making more money per person on average than Americans, Japanese, Germans or Britons. To put their wealth in perspective, the per capita GDP of mainland China is only US$9,100. [6] So we can see that the average person in Hong Kong earns a very good salary and pays very little tax and, therefore, has a high disposable income. Property is expensive in Hong Kong, true, but it is still less expensive than London [7] and most people in Hong Kong are easily able to purchase private health insurance, while the Hong Kong government already provides limited welfare for children and the elderly. There seems, therefore, little need for a welfare state in Hong Kong - only the minority of people at the margins of society would benefit from a welfare state whereas the majority of citizens have no need for state welfare and would not, therefore, vote for a politician that argued that taxes should increase to pay for it. In conclusion, Hong Kong is an extremely prosperous city and is so successful because the people of Hong Kong are industrious and self-reliant - that is the reason that they are in such a healthy financial position compared to countries like Greece who are on their knees due to a relative lack of work ethic of their population. Another city state in South East Asia, Singapore, also has a productive workforce. The average Singaporean earns US$60,900 per year and, as such, are among the very few in the world with a higher per capita GDP than Hong Kong. However, Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a democratically elected government. There is no reason for the people of Singapore to vote for politicians promoting the introduction of a welfare state any more than there is any reason for the people of Hong Kong to, that is if they had the opportunity, which they don't, but according to international law, should. Thank you. [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://www.indexmundi.com... [3} https://www.cia.gov... [4] http://www.guidemehongkong.com... [5] http://www.china-briefing.com... [6] https://www.cia.gov... [7] http://www.globalpropertyguide.com...

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

    BM25 score: 12.07

    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: 1.15

    premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

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

  This is because societies which are more rigidly laissez...

  Show full argument

  America should become a Social Democracy

  Social Democracy - a country that democratically achieves socialist goals within a Capitalist framework through a strong welfare state and the regulation of private industry. Should - ought to become - I define this contextually America - The United States of America Let me clarify a few points. Firstly, socialism has been given a bad name by the USSR. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't just socialist, it was a communist country. While all communists are also socialists, not all socialists are communists. Social Democracy is a moderate ideology, between Capitalism on the right, and Communism on the left. It's ends and means are democratic, gradual, and economically feasible. If people want it they can give birth to it at the ballot box, and if it eventually no longer suits them, they can kill it at the ballot box. A Social Democracy guarantees access to certain basic necessities of modern life. For instance, a Social Democracy guarantees universal health care, dental care, education, social insurance, welfare, old age pension, and equal rights to all of it's citizens. Naturally, there is higher taxation in order to pay for this. People in Social Democracies are free - they still have all their civil liberties, and the right to vote. They additionally are given freedom by their greater financial security. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: Americans will be more free in a Social Democracy While the Declaration of Independence was an eloquent document, it did not win over as many common people as Thomas Paine's pamphlet, published in the same year - Common Sense. Thomas Paine was influenced by Enlightenment thinking. He believed in liberty. Once the American Revolutionary War had ended, Paine believed we weren't doing enough for freedom. Many, including Jefferson, still had slaves. Paine wanted to abolish slavery. He later went even further than this, in 1795, when he wrote Agrarian Justice. He wrote that the unequal distribution of property was essentially theft. He wrote that every 21 year old should be given a sum of money (15 British pounds, which would have been more than enough for subsistence) and that all people over 50 should be given 10 British pounds a year, "not as charity, but as social justice." That sounds fairly socialist by today's standards. Here was a man who wanted society to be more democratic, more fair, and more free at the same time. This in a nutshell, is the society a social democracy would create. Contention 2: Social Democracy works. Sweden recovered from the recession faster than we did. Canada (which is relatively more socially democratic than the U.S) had already finished recovering in 2009. Norway has the greatest GDP per Capita, in the World. According to an OECD study, Finland has the best education system, in the world. Denmark has the most social mobiltiy in the world. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but we are 10th in social mobility. This is because societies which are more rigidly laissez faire tend to create socioeconomic conditions which make social mobility more difficult. This is a list of the top 10 socially mobile countries:1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden, 7. Germany, 8. Spain, 9. France, and 10. USA All the countries ahead of us are at least slightly more socialist than we are. And by slightly I mean that they all have universal health care coverage. Obamacare is a solution which works within the private sector, (and the plan was based on a similar plan from the Heritage Foundation, a plan more conservative than Nixon's) and even once it is completely implemented, there will not be universal healthcare. While we are on the subject of healthcare, I should note that many people claim that the U.S. healthcare system is the best in the world. However, the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 38th in health care, in the world. 38! America shouldn't settle for 38. Especially when America is number 1 in health care expenditures. When profits are put over people, healthcare becomes more expensive, less effective, and less readily available. Contention 3: Happiness One of the most important questions in this debate is whether living in a Social Democracy, or living in a Capitalist system would make people happier. In my view, the best metric to use when judging a system is whether or not it is conducive to, or detrimental to the happiness of people living within that system. I understand that happiness is subjective. It should be noted however, that OECD did an international survey which measured happiness around the world. These were the 10 top happiest countries on earth: 1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada, 7. Finland, 8. Switzerland, 9. The Netherlands, and 10. USA Note that this list is nearly identical to the one on social mobility. Once again, all of the countries happier than the US are also more socialist than the U.S. The amount of socialism varies country to country, but again, all of these countries have universal healthcare. http://www.forbes.com... Contention 4: Greater socioeconomic equality isn't only better for society, it is also better for economic stability Let's say that there are 600 cars for sale. Let's say that there is a large middle class - 590 people can afford one car per person, and one very rich guy can afford 10. 590 cars will probably get sold. The rich guy will buy anything between 1 and 10 cars, and that's fine. Let's say, on the other hand, that your selling cars in a very stratified society. 200 middle class folks can afford 1 car each. The other 390 people can't afford a car. The rich guy can afford 400 cars. 200 cars will definitely get sold. While the rich guy can afford 400 cars, he'll still only buy 1-10. Okay, McCain has 13. But still, the rich guy will not be buying a fleet of 400 cars. Socioeconomic inequality is the root cause of our buisness cycle. Over the last 30 years, as the gap between rich and poor has grown, the following has happened: Nearly all economic growth went to the top. Middle and lower income wages have stagnated, even as productivity skyrocketed. When we produce more than we can sell, that hurts our economy. This is the root cause of boom and bust. (In addition to weak regulations which allowed Wall Street to go crazy). Furthermore, governments which do more to directly employ people in times of recession are better at countering the business cycle. Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy, enabled countries like Sweden and Canada and Germany to recover far more quickly than the U.S. Conclusion Should we settle for a society which is increasingly stratified and unequal? A society wherein 46 million people are living below the poverty line? Should we accept the fact that our educational and health systems are lagging behind other industrialized countries? Or should we forge a better society, and a better country. Let's alleviate poverty. Let's strengthen the middle and working classes. Let's make sure that nobody has to hit rock bottom - that certain basic necessities are available to anyone down on their luck. It's the right thing to do morally speaking. It makes economic sense. And it fullfills the American Dream. Some say that freedom from want isn't really an American freedom. The truth is that you don't have to look any further than the Statue of Libery: Give me your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/America-should-become-a-Social-Democracy/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 12.00

    universal: 4.95

    premises: 4.07 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.89 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.87)

    basic: 2.52

    premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.09)

    should: 4.53

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

    premises: 1.73 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.36)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.83)
• PRO

  As a result providing breakfasts should be for those who...

  Show full argument

  Government should focus on the most needy

  A primary responsibility of the government is for reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has a basic living standard. A basic living standard includes food. As a result providing breakfasts should be for those who are most in need of a helping hand from government. Those who are wealthier and can afford their own breakfast do not need this help so any such breakfast policy should be means tested to only apply to those who need it. This is the case with the United States School Breakfast Program.

  • https://idebate.org/debatabase/education-primary-secondary-health-health-general/house-would-provide-breakfast-all-0
  • score

    BM25 score: 12.00

    universal: 0.70

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

    sum: 6.33 (product 5.86, product 0.47)

    sum: 3.16 (product 0.90, product 2.17, product 0.09)

    basic: 6.33

    premises: 5.86 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 0.47 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.47)

    should: 4.97

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

    premises: 2.17 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.70)

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

  There is a complete set of transitional fossils linking...

  Show full argument

  Last Universal Ancestor/Common Descent of ALL species.

  Molecular Evidence Shared basic building blocks There are three basic building blocks for every cell, DNA, RNA and proteins, and they are found in all forms of life [2]. This links all forms of life (and was predicted by evolutionary biologists [5]) as there could just as easily have been different building blocks for all forms of life. RNA and DNA are built with four specific complex monomers while Proteins are built with 22. RNA monomers in all life share a right handed chirality further linking all life. All cells share a variety of complex features such as a plasma membrane, cytoplasm and ribosome’s. Shared common genes There are many genes that are a part of all living organisms and are used for basic cell functions called ubiquitous genes [2]. There are a variety of functionally equivalent forms that these genes can take provided the coded protein has a similar shape and can perform the same function. When these genes are exactly the same there is no reason other than an ancestral relationship and this is used to trace relationships among similar animals. For instance, since humans and apes are very similar we would expect them to share many genes of the same category but when ubiquitous genes are exactly the same this indicates an ancestral relationship. Scientists have identified 2.3 x 1093 functionally redundant versions of Cytochrome C and it is found in all organisms on earth. Over time, mutations can change how the gene is expressed so only closely related animals share similar versions. Our version of Cytocrome C is exactly the same as the version in a Chimpanzee establishing a common descent. This is one method scientists use to trace different forms of life from a common ancestor. Transposition errors and Pseudogenes Transposition errors (‘junk’) cause a discrete section of DNA to be copied and placed at some random point in the genome during replication. These errors are recreated in exactly the same way in subsequent generations and this is used to establish common descent, for DNA forensic evidence and for paternity tests. All subsequent generations should share a version (random mutations will very slowly alter the sequence over time but it will be in the same location) of this error since they are often completely benign and are not removed by natural selection. Three specific transposition errors have been found in the same locations to link whales, hippos and ruminants which were previously linked using the phylogenetic methods based purely on bone and physical characteristics. Pseudogenes I referenced as ‘fossilized’ genes and are also referred to as ‘junk’ since the proteins they code for are no longer produced due to random mutations. Primates (including humans) all share a redundant pseudogene for hemoglobin where a 8 monomer mutation that destroys the function of the gene are exactly the same and at the same locations linking the common descent of all primates. Historical Phylogenetic Tree, the fossil record and transitional forms Before genetics could confirm common descent, scientists easily grouped species based on common characteristics building the Phylogenetic Tree [8]. Evolution is gradual and when a new feature is formed, such as a spine, it is passed on to all future ancestors branching into various species. So all vertebrates are predicted to have a common ancestor and this is confirmed by the fossil record. Other major characteristics used to link species by a common ancestor are feathers, placenta, digits jaws etc: Organisms matched primarily by physical characteristics are confirmed by genetic evidence with a high degree of statistical accuracy. Out of thirty major classifications there are 1038 possible combinations but the branching tree determined by standard methods were confirmed independently with genetic evidence using Cytochrome C molecular studies. Remember there are 2.3 x 1093 functionally redundant identified versions of the molecule shared by all life. When versions are very close they indicate common descent. The branching tree is confirmed by the fossil record and links transitional forms to a common point. There is a complete set of transitional fossils linking dinosaurs with birds and reptiles to the earliest mammals. Phylogenic comparisons have linked chimpanzees to humans. This is again confirmed by the fossil record with a collection of homonid fossils linking humans to primitive chimpanzees. Analysis of physical characteristics has also linked whales, cows and hippos. This is confirmed by the fossil record with many transitional forms such as legged sea cows. There is also an excellent record linking vertebrates from fish all the way to mammals all predicted by grouping animals based on common characteristics. Macro/molecular vestigial characteristics from the past in adults and embryology There are many vestigial characteristics predicted by evolution [9]. Since whales are ancestors of land animals it is predicted that they previously had legs. Snakes are predicted to be decedents of four legged reptiles based on common characteristics. Some whales have vestigial legs and pelvises. Snakes often have vestigial pelvises. Snakes and whales often have leg buds that form and are reabsorbed. Modern whales, dolphins and porpois embryos grow legs with developing bones, blood vessels and nerves that degenerate before birth. There are examples of whales born with legs and humans born with tails. Where most mammals have tails humans have four fused vertebrae and embryonic humans develop a tail that extends beyond the anus and legs around 10% of the embryo length. Humans cannot synthesize vitamin C and we get all of the nutrients from our diet. Our predicted ancestors can, with the exception of primates and guinea pigs. Sure enough a pseudogene used to synthesize Vitamin C was discovered in many primates (yep including humans) and in guinea pigs. Remember pseudogene is a gene that has mutated so that it can no longer produce the coded protein, in this case previously used to create Vitamin C. Other mammals have a much better sense of smell that is no longer necessary for us. Sure enough we have more than 99 oderant detector genes and 70% have been reduced to pseudogenes and are useless. Observed speciation events All that is needed to create a speciation event is isolation. There are several examples of, “ring speciation.” An interbreeding species navigates around a geological feature and by the time they migrate all the way around they can no longer interbreed. Two species of salamander Ensatina are a good example located around the edge of Central Valley in California. Two gull species identified in England, Larus. L. argentatus and L. fuscus, cannot reproduce. Hybrids live all around the North poll but are incapable of interbreeding only in England. Many species can interbreed but produce stillborn embryos such as frog species Rana pipiens and R. sylvatica. Others can interbreed but only produce sterile offspring such as one frog species of the Rana genus effectively creating a speciation event. Several fruit fly speciation events have been observed in labs. Other fly speciation events have been observed such as house flies, mosquitoes and many other insects. - “Now might be a good time to mention that I do accept adaptation and natural selection” You have no reason to think that this adaptation would stop. After speciation events animals would continue to diverge and change. Minor changes necessarily lead to large changes over time. “Dating Methods- “ I’ll concede that carbon dating is only useful for short term dating but there are many dating methods [11]. They are used often together to converge on one result. I’ll elaborate on the age of the earth next round. “Moon Landing--… dust on the moons surface.” A prominent Creationist website has recommended that you not use this argument since 1993. The idea that there would be a lot of moon dust was discredited before the first moon landings [13]. “Skewed geological record.” You have in no way established the likelihood of a global flood or how this is relevant. “Lack of evidence for civilizations predating 20,000 years ago” That civilization culture and a written language took a long time to evolve does not discredit evolution. There are many creatures that have survived in various forms since the time of dinosaurs [12] so even if you could demonstrate their recent existence it wouldn’t really matter. “I don't think you're description of Irreducible complexity is accurate.” The eye is an excellent example of how complex features arose over time from simpler versions. If you can create a case that the eye is irreducibly complex I will respond. “My point on the uniqueness of man is that there should be other species with the same capabilities” You misunderstand evolution. Giraffes have the longest necks and birds fly the best. All animals have unique methods of survival. Self destruction is an example of random failure not design. “Why are there still monkeys? Didn't they all evolve to the point there were no more transitionals left?” No. Humans, other Apes and all modern primates share a common ancestor. Each species has evolved in different ways responding to different selection pressures. Ancient monkeys were very different from modern primates. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] http://www.talkorigins.org... [5] http://www.talkorigins.org... [7] http://www.talkorigins.org... [8] http://www.talkorigins.org... [9] http://www.talkorigins.org... [10] http://www.talkorigins.org... [11] http://www.tim-thompson.com... [12] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [13] http://www.answersingenesis.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Last-Universal-Ancestor-Common-Descent-of-ALL-species./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 11.98

    universal: 8.26

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

    sourceText: 0.52 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.09)

    basic: 2.96

    premises: 2.42 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.70)

    sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.72)

    should: 0.75

    premises: 0.67 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.52)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.81)