args

CON

• CON

  Before we debate this I'd like to state a few things:...

  Show full argument

  There should not be a limit on the amount of hours a physician works.

  Before we debate this I'd like to state a few things: 1)Since medical science is very specific in it's terminology and there is a universal acceptance of many bodily processes and functions, I will not define any medical terminology or explain any basic bodily processes unless my opponent is explicitly erroneous and using such as supporting evidence. Nor will I reference statements of such unless I am directly contradicting a claim my opponent has made. 2)I'll be using ellipses and paraphrasing only to make quotes more manageable, If I accidentally change the intention of something you say, it won't be intentional and I welcome clarification in the following rounds 3)Gratz on being my first opponent on debate.org! =D You started by claiming: "A good physician is a physician that is experienced, educated, and spends the most amount of time possible on their career, and advancing their education as a physician." I can not accept your value statement as true since I'm sure that english speakers refer to one who preforms a job as "good" when they preform that job well. A physician's job is to diagnose, treat, and alter (not leaving out plastic surgeons) the human body. Therefore a physician is only a good physician when s/he diagnoses, treats, or alters the body well. Knowledge, attendance, and the pursuit of knowledge are duties of a student. You may say that being a good student aids a physician in doing their job well, but not that it makes him or her a good physician if they do not perform the job of a physician well as well. Then you claimed: "The "doctors get tired and make mistakes" argument, which I am sure my opponent will counter with, is not valid. . . because . . . the entire time, adrenaline is flowing [which] prevents the feeling of tiredness when caring for a patient . . ." Adrenaline stimulates the autonomic nervous system. Sleep deprivation reduces brain activity in the prefrontal and temporal lobes of the brain. (http://www.apa.org...) So while you are correct that an increase in adrenaline in the body will probably make someone feel less tired, it won't negate the negative impact the lack of rest is having on the body. (Just a side note, the prefrontal and temporal lobes control complex problem solving, planning for the future, controlling emotional behavior, and is the area of the brain that governs auditory function. Kinda important brain functions when you are preforming surgery or prescribing medicines wouldn't you say?) Being that your next point was is a rather flimsy emotional appeal, I'm only going to comment on it briefly to help illustrate the growing weakness that the argument gains as each subjective statement builds on the previous. "Many physicians feel that their patients are their number one priority. . ." Good for them? How does this matter? ". . .and some physicians don't like their home lives, and come to the hospital to get away from their problems." Great! Emotional problems plus decreased control from lack of prefrontal lobe activity equals prime time drama. But not really professional medical environment. . . "Sending them home when they do not wish to leave work is a cruel thing to do. . ." I really doubt enforced breaks from work is something cruel men often do. If so then maybe we should let cruel dictators know so they can change their work camps into vacation camps! It might revolutionize the industry of cruelness. ". . .and the wishes of physicians, who save lives and have contributed so much to society, should be respect." Let's hope they don't wish for universal self castration! If physicians world wide really are wishing for sweat shop hours, and it isn't a wise thing to grant, it shouldn't be granted. "Society has a debt to physicians, and restricting them in the hours they work is not a way to pay them back that debt." If restricting work hours isn't the way to pay them back, it doesn't indicate that the inverse is true. To assume so is fallacious. (Ex: A rock isn't alive, therefore it's dead. ) "Having a new physician come in and care for a patient can make them uncomfortable, and not have as good of an experience in the facility. The longer a physician spends with a patient, the more they learn about the patient's attitude, limitations, beliefs, and interests, and can therefore interact with the patient efficiently." Um, I don't even want to dwell on this too long. Bed side manner is great and all but it's more important that the doctor doesn't **** up when s/he is cutting someone open, replacing organs, prescribing potent drugs, etc. I know I would much rather have a doctor be on the ball and do his/her job right than lose sleep so s/he can watch "The Gilmore Girls" with me and learn about what my life was like growing up on the farm. The only other thing to add is that laws restricting work hours for doctors are less an effort to punish doctors and more an effort to prevent hospitals from exploiting their salaried staff. At the same time increasing the quality of care patients receive. I'm done, you've got the soapbox.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/There-should-not-be-a-limit-on-the-amount-of-hours-a-physician-works./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.67

    universal: 4.08

    premises: 3.45 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)

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

    basic: 2.07

    premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)

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

    should: 3.52

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

    premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

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

  As it stands, he explains no methodology and no impact...

  Show full argument

  The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

  I’ll defend my own case, then go onto Pros. Pro disputes that he actually has to provide solvency. This is ridiculous. Ought does connate morality, which is why we need to discuss what actually happens if we implement UHC and if those are moral outcomes. Blankly asserting that having health insurance is good doesn’t come anywhere near justifying a radical change in the status quo. My case I. Timing a) Pro accuses me of not drawing a direct link to UHC when it comes to the importance of fiscal discipline. It’s pretty obvious that taking on a behemoth welfare institution when we can’t afford the ones we have doesn’t count as the fiscal tightening S&P advised. b) Pro misunderstands the probability argument. In the status quo even with Obama’s superior plan in place US finances are so incredibly bad that there’s a 33% chance of a further downgrade. Implementing a massive spending program is going to increase this by a huge margin and is opposite to what S&P suggests. c) Pro drops the rising number of seniors and the meltdown occurring in the current US welfare system. The US government is so gridlocked and incompetent it can’t even handle something as simple as social security, let alone extensive UHC. d) Pro drops the impact of US losing hegemony and how this hurts autonomy. He can lose the debate here alone, because his value is undermined by spending enough to cause a further downgrade. e) Pro’s supposed boons to the economy are all flawed and don’t outweigh. He gives no empirical evidence (and hence no way to weigh) the impact of job lock, and I could flatly deny his 3.8 million number for lack of documentation. As it stands, he explains no methodology and no impact for why self employment will save the economy. His ER response is flatly wrong. 89% of people who visit the ER have some kind of insurance, ER visits represent only 2% of total health spending[4], and ER’s are not more expensive because they’re inefficient, it’s because they involve emergency care. Average doctor visits involve things like check ups and medicine for the common cold. II. Empirics a) Pro drops literally every statistic I cited. Prefer my statistics to his since he doesn’t have any, and extend them all. Extend the waiting times, deaths, corruption, and waste/abuse. This is highly significant, better outcomes don’t occur under UHC systems. b) Pro argues that WHO ranks nations with UHC higher, as if that proves anything. WHO rankings are bunk[5] and rank factors irrelevant to quality such as inequality and life expectancy, which is effected by homicide rates, accidents and other factors . If Pro wants to argue that systems of UHC are good, he needs to provide his own stats and refute mine; remember that the US is number 1 in survival rates. c) Pro argues the reason the Canadian health care system is bad is because it isn’t getting enough funding, yet somehow believes a system in the US, who’s finances and welfare system are in vastly worse shape than Canada’s, won’t also suffer a lack of funding. Recall also that part of Canadas issue is a doctor shortage, a problem that will exist in the US under UHC. d) Pro argues that the wealthy in the US get better treatment. No doubt, but our system also doesn’t assign people onto waiting lists and then allow the rich to jump ship on them, leaving the middle class to die. Canadians desperate for care come to the US where they can pay for their medicine in cash [6]. Better to have some treatment than none due to the rationing of care under UHC. unequal care is better than no care, as poor people on waiting lists get. e) Pro’s final, extensive card is simply arguing once again that being uninsured is bad. Some of these impacts are solved by lowering drug costs by decreasing patent lengths, and remember that Obamacare is helping the poor with insurance. Pros numbers are outweighed by the horrible results of countries that actually have UHC; recall also that Pro has never justified why people should be obligated to pay for the care of others. Opponents case a) Pro argues against my statistics showing how many uninsured are uninsured by their own choice by exaggerating the costs of healthcare. However, nothing approaching the entire costs of healthcare are not pushed upon the populace. The average cost for a family under employer coverage (which is how most people in the US get coverage) is $4,316[1]. Compare this to the cost that could occur under UHC, by some estimates as high as $17,200 a year in taxation for a median income household[2]. Moreover even for Americans buying insurance on the market, a 4 person household with an income of $50,000 would only pay around $3-3,500[3] after government subsidies and tax credits. Obamas private sector solution is superior, as it allows people who don’t want insurance to opt out by paying a tax and provides increased subsidies to help the poor buy health insurance on the market. b) Pro tries to argue that I “only” mentioned 4 diseases where the US leads in survival rates (compared to 0 in UHC countries), unfortunately for Pro Cancer and Heart disease are the top two reasons of death[7] and Pneumonia is also in the top 10. The 15% difference in cancer survival rates between the US and UK, for example, amount to nearly 90k lives annually—far greater than my opponents stats. c) Pros arguments about uninsruance under Obamacare are bunk--not only are they unverifiable estimates, but most of the people would be unisnured by choice. d) Pro basically drops my survey--he argues falsely that the company comissioning it surveyed southern doctors, and argues that since that group was against UHC clearly the survey is baised. Logic doesnt work this way, Pro needs to prove some methodological flaw. UHC would lead to doctor shortages and consequently waiting lists and death. Sources: 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...; 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-ought-to-guarantee-Universal-Healthcare-to-its-citizenry/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.56

    universal: 8.60

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

    sourceText: 0.86 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.80)

    should: 0.56

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

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

  Obamacare- Pro only argues that Obamacare doesn’t solve...

  Show full argument

  The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

  I’ll go over major issues in the round, pointing out why I’ve won them. -Solvency- Pro argues that morality doesn’t necessitate consequences, however he doesn’t offer any other kind of moral system. He contends that he didn’t have to provide a specific system, which is why my criticisms were about UHC in general rather than, say, just the UKs’s system. UHC solves the issue of uninsurance in name only, as you can see from my case it leads to worse outcomes, death, delay, and corruption, which obviously isn’t moral.—the problem is not uninsurance in itself, but a lack of medical care which is a problem that will only increase under UHC. It’s nonsensical that the US should offer its citizens a system that fails. -Obligations- Throughout the debate, I repeatedly asked Pro to explain why people are obligated to provide others with insurance, with no response. You can vote Con right here as this pretty much takes out Pros arguments. -Survival rates- Pro makes no serious response except to state that the uninsured get less care. The problem is, even with the high amount of uninsured people in the US the US still has significantly higher survival rates in critical diseases than nations with UHC. Check out the numbers and you’ll see that the 15% difference between US and UK survival rates for Cancer alone, for example, amount to around 90k people, far outweighing any impact Pro brings up, not counting other diseases the US leads in. The sheer amount of waste in UHC systems, and the shortages of doctors that will occur in the US with UHC lead to waiting lists, causing death. Remember that in the UK 21% of curable lung cancer patients become incurable while waiting for care. Pro tries to argue that the US system is riddled with medical errors, but without a comparison to nations with UHC this is entirely irrelevant in the round. Survival rates are the best way to judge the quality of care in a system since they are actual measures of the goals of the system—to deliver care. Pro says that I only mentioned 4 diseases, but these are among the leading causes of death and thus the most likely for governments to collect stats about, moreover cancer alone outweighs everything Pro has argued. Pro drops my arguments for why the WHO evidence is completely bunk. -Obamacare- Pro only argues that Obamacare doesn’t solve because it doesn’t insure everybody. The problem is, since Obamacare mandates that everyone buy insurance or pay a tax, vastly lessens the financial burden of doing so, and has more companies providing insurance via the private market. While this doesn’t insure everyone, you can see pretty clearly from this debate that insurance is no guarantee of care in countries with UHC. Pro argues I don’t explain why people uninsured under Obamacare lack it by choice but Obamacare REQUIRES people to purchase medical insurance and makes it affordable. The status quo is solving the issue of health care. -Costs- Pro argues that UHC will be cheaper. Nevermind the fact that this is empirically falsified by the vast costs of UHC systems bankrupting other countries, this is contradicted by my logic that was completely dropped about how people will waste medical care since it’s free (refer also to the evidence I gave in the UK as). I’m the only one with a verifiable study, which showed that a UHC system in the US based on the Swedish model would cost the average taxpayer $17,200. Pro argues that this is only one system, which is true, but it’s a cop out for Pro to just say “oh actually my system wouldn’t do that” without explaining what his would do. If it’s fair for Pro to not defend any specific system, it’s fair for me to level my criticisms based upon all UHC systems. Pro argues the German system is economically good, however according to WSJ[1] Germans pay 15% of their income for their system that is "on the brink of financial shortfall". Even Pros model system can't be properly funded. Moreover Pro provides no logic what so ever for why UHC would be cheaper. His only card argues it would be cheaper assuming: “significant systemic changes including administrative simplification, computerized physician order entry, an automated patient safety/error reporting system, reduction in inappropriate clinical practice variation, and controls of provider payments and premiums”. Face it, this isn’t going to happen and Pro hasn’t proven it will. Pros only economic impacts come from people leaving their jobs where they’re experienced and trying to start new businesses, and Pro doesn’t give you any dollar amounts of revenue that this will generate. It’s literally impossible to weigh. It’s also unfair for Pro to keep citing evidence without linking it in round for review—compare this to my 30 external sources. Thus the cost argument flows clearly to Con. From this you have increased costs of care with lower quality of care. Remember that Canadians desperate for care come to the US. My credit and heg argument stands as well. There’s no way to predict the future, but having the US acting in the exact opposite manner that S&P suggests is no way for credit success. Even if you buy his arguments that UHC is good, the risks are too high right now. -Doctor shortages- Pro never properly responds to the fact that 20% of doctors would quit if we implemented UHC, only arguing that slightly more southern doctors were polled. This however makes sense in a random sample as the south is by far the most populace region[2]. Experiences from countries with UHC also confirm the fact that doctors would quit, creating even more waiting lists. -Rationed care- Pro never provides evidence contrary to the waiting lists that occur in countries with UHC, along with the courruption that happens on these lists, and the deaths that occur while waiting for care. You never see Americans going to Canada for care, you see the opposite because a private sector solution to healthcare is clearly superior. Vote Con. 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://tinyurl.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-ought-to-guarantee-Universal-Healthcare-to-its-citizenry/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.56

    universal: 8.60

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

    sourceText: 0.86 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.80)

    should: 0.56

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

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

  Her prior claim is a restatement of a facet of the...

  Show full argument

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

  Hullo chaps. My opponent tries to introduce her own definitions in the second round, after I have. This is mighty poor form and I reject on grounds of poor sportsmanship and their utter redundancy. My opponent is correct that the value of the debate is morality. She then makes a ridiculous and unsupported leap to the contention that the criterion is "therefore" utilitarianism. In order for the "therefore" to be valid, it must follow on from what she is saying. Her prior claim is a restatement of a facet of the resolution, and does not justify why utilitarianism is a valid form criterion of morality or why I should accept it as solving the inherent is-ought problem of the resolution. I would typically be lenient on this matter and bother to respond to her arguments on a superficial level whilst requesting justification for her assertions if I had not made it explicit in my acceptance that this is the line of argument I would be taking. As I only have to demonstrate the resolution to not be affirmed my counter argument is thus; 1) There is no objective morality It logically follows that if there is no objective morality that no-one "ought" to do anything, as both our definitions have established a moral basis for the term. No reason to believe or accept an objective morality has been given. On this basis the default position Her prior claim is a restatement of a facet of the resolution, and does not justify why utilitarianism is a valid form criterion of morality or why I should accept it as solving the inherent is-ought problem of the resolution. I would typically be lenient on this matter and bother to respond to her arguments on a superficial level whilst requesting justification for her assertions if I had not made it explicit in my acceptance that this is the line of argument I would be taking. As I only have to demonstrate the resolution to not be affirmed my counter argument is thus; 1) There is no objective morality It logically follows that if there is no objective morality that no-one "ought" to do anything, as both our definitions have established a moral basis for the term. No reason to believe or accept an objective morality has been given. On this basis the default position should be scepticism. Or rather that, since the burden of proof is on my opponent, she must demonstrate the existence of morality before any moral claim of any body should be considered. Hence, by default, in the absence of argumentation, the resolution is unsupported. Fortunately my position only requires me to negate my opponents arguments, so even if she does demonstrate a reason to accept an objective morality, I won"t be hampered by limited opportunity to introduce significant new arguments. Thus the resolution is unsupported and my burden is fulfilled.

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

    BM25 score: 9.52

    universal: 7.33

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

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

    should: 1.98

    premises: 1.88 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.48)

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

  A lot of people have to be paid to do this. ... I thank...

  Show full argument

  A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

  I thank my opponent for his prompt and thorough response. I hate character limits, as well. I'll address arguments in the order in which they were given in my opponent's round 3 post. 1. On fairtest.org and the viability of peer evaluation: I want to reiterate the purpose of fairtest.org, and encourage the readers of this debate to read over it to evaluate claims on both sides. While the site does recommend peer evaluation as a possible alternative to authentic educational assessment, it says absolutely nothing about its application as a universal medium for basing merit pay on. That isn't the purpose of their advocacy, and the peer evaluation model has not been applied to this system, despite it not being a new concept within the educational community. Hundreds of educational researchers have scoured the planet looking for viable alternatives to assessing achievement. This is not a commonly recommended solution for the reasons I've outlined. 2. On universality of testing: My opponent conceded it by not arguing it in his round 2 post. It was not addressed, so it became my job to tell you why this becomes important to the debate. And it is. As I prove in my round 2 post very early on, the universality of the test is necessary to gauge accountability amongst different localities of a nation. I remind you of the 5th grade classroom analogy that I have now used twice in the debate. I assumed that, since the universality of the test went uncontested in the 2nd round, he agreed that it is necessary to include such accountability within a system of merit based pay. I didn't hide the argument. It was a clear part of my initial advocacy. 3. On implementation of peer evaluation (how it won't be problematic in the 3 ways I suggested): This is all very vague. My opponent claims that these judges can sidestep the issues I've outlined, deeply rooted societal issues and educational issues, but doesn't tell us how his system is built to do this. He can't articulate how these trained judges will escape bias, be assigned fairly, assess through systems that aren't flawed but a staple of US education (i.e. letter grades, percentages, etc.), or how even to standardize the peer evaluation methods. This is necessary, as well, but is it possible? I'd also like to highlight the economic aspect of my arguments that go unaddressed. Think about millions of classrooms, and judges assessing each one "x" number of times per year. We are already short on education budgets. People have to be paid to do this. A lot of people have to be paid to do this. It isn't just a couple people. It's got to be nationwide. 4. On teacher motivation: I would refer you to the example that I gave in round 3 regarding administrative evaluation and renewal vs. non-renewal. That is a system which works highly efficiently, and does not involve merit based pay. The threat of poor performance is the loss of a job. I'd also like to point out that reform may need to start with the colleges training our teachers. We may simply have a teaching market over-saturated with bad teachers, at which point a merit-based pay system is a bandaid fix for a gaping, festering wound on education. 5. On the No Child Left Behind Act being unrelated to the debate: I don't see how the No Child Left Behind after-effects are not directly analogous to the corruption issue. In fact, you'd think a state government would be easier to check than an individual, who scrutinized far less and by far fewer people. In order to make peer evaluation even moderately worthwhile, you could only assess a teacher so many times in a year. A state government is far more looked after in terms of checks and balances. Hence, if a school district or state education dept. is able to corrupt student achievement assessments in order to reap the benefits of it, an individual is much more likely to be able to exploit such a system. Plainly, merit-based rewards (like pay) empirically cause corruptive behavior. 6. On the harms of peer evaluation not existing: The harms come from the widespread use of something that shouldn't be used in a widespread manner. Transforming an idea into something that large with no tentative research on the outcome is always dangerous. These harms can and most likely will occur for the reasons I outlined. Standardized tests of the 21st century aren't supposed to produce these results, either, but they are a human creation, just like a peer evaluation system. And yet, human nature rears its ugly head. While I can't guarantee that rampant discrimination will occur, I can assess, using historical precedence and my knowledge of human nature, that it probably will. 7. On classrooms not being equal in ability: So, here's where my opponent finally addresses something with regards to universality. I think we are confused on what each of us mean by "differing abilities." Obviously, multiple intelligence theory tells us that some kids are better with hands-on learning and projects, while others find their strengths in listening, or in musical activities, etc. That isn't what I'm talking about, and my 5th grade classroom analogy clarifies. No matter how we teach the kids in those classrooms to perform certain skills, there must be a universal baseline of knowledge. Remember the math example: if one classroom of equal grade is learning times tables, and the other is still learning addition and subtraction, something is wrong with the latter classroom. Multiple intelligences and individualized learning styles doesn't stop a teacher from effectively meeting benchmarks. And, obviously, learning one's times tables, or acquiring a certain reading level, is a basic skill, and should not be considered to be difficult to attain within a well-run classroom. 8. On the issues of what composes academic success (improvement vs. highest grade): Not at all. That was a response to your round 2 arguments. Universality, as I hope I've further clarified, has little to do with which parts of education you assess, but rather making sure that the assessment is attempting to show nationwide improvement based on basic standards. I hate to sound like a broken record, but it's about accountability, to parents and politicians alike. Not only that, but since the good you've been trying to achieve since your initial debate post was that education is good for a nation, it would only make sense that a nation would want all of its students to have the same skills that it deems necessary for a high quality of life within its borders. Hence, making sure that every classroom in the nation is proficiently teaching these standards is highly important to the debate. ~The claim, based on the above analysis, is this. Based on the arguments made previously, the peer evaluation system cannot be universally implemented or universally calibrated. Fairtest.org doesn't touch this, because they don't claim to have the ability to assert that this can be done. Neither does analysis of the current educational research community. I hope this clarifies for future posts. 9. On "difficult does not mean we shouldn't implement": Right now, monumentally expensive makes it a non-reality. Education budgets are shrinking, as I noted earlier in the post. Implementing a working administrative system like the one I outlined in my round 2 posts, involving renewal and non-renewal, costs no extra funds (as evaluations can be done with the admin, who are already highly trained to assess teacher performance), is ensured to be done locally, and also seeks to uphold state educational standards. This system simply needs to be renovated across the nation. On missed arguments: due to time constraints, I'm not gonna worry about the offense gained by dropped arguments here. I think I've defended my position with great dexterity, and don't feel the need to gain ground over word count. I thank my opponent again for the wonderful debate, and wish the readers good luck!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/A-teachers-pay-should-be-merit-based./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.45

    universal: 3.51

    premises: 2.61 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.90 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.88)

    basic: 2.66

    premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.53)

    should: 3.28

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

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.07)
• CON

  Argument: Schools exist to teach. ... In fact doing such...

  Show full argument

  Creationism and/or Intelligent Design should not be to taught in schools.

  As disappointing as it is to be stood up, I’ll make this quick. Argument: Schools exist to teach. They Argument: Schools exist to teach. They should continue to do so. Schools have two basic categories of teaching, the official teachers in class, and the other students inside and outside of the classroom. While preventing the teachers from in any way teaching those terms would be simple enough, it would be impossible to enforce against the students. Not to mention, there would be zero benefit to students not knowing their meaning. Furthermore, it'd be quite comical having a school policy against using those terms, but refusing to tell any of the students what they mea0 or why they aren't allowed to use them. In fact doing such would make them more likely to use them, so they'd probably need to be a secret list of banned words, which students get expelled for using (again, without being told why).

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Creationism-and-or-Intelligent-Design-should-not-be-to-taught-in-schools./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.41

    universal: 0.70

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

    sum: 4.70 (product 4.17, product 0.52)

    sum: 2.43 (product 0.79, product 1.54, product 0.10)

    basic: 4.70

    premises: 4.17 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.21)

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

    should: 4.01

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

    premises: 1.54 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  Second, after reviewing the included report, I have...

  Show full argument

  Serial Bullies should be expelled and be sent to reform school

  If you don’t mind, I’m going to reorganize your responses so they are back in numerical order. Just cleaning things up. =) Just so this doesn’t get out of hand, since we’re dealing with a multithreaded argument, let me summarize everything that has happened: Statement 1 has been agreed upon that bullying in high school can scar people for life. (This was never under serious debate, only citation technicalities.) Statement 2 is still under debate. Statement 3.1 is still under debate. My opponent has conceded Statement 3.2, that not all bullies should be sent to a reform school and that a qualifying process is necessary to implement. Statement 3.3 is still under debate. So, with that in mind, let’s begin! ===Statement 2=== My opponent’s objection to my argument on Statement 2 is: “Once again your arguement [sic] is based on moral [sic] and does not assume that the 2 students have both been captured on camera.” I am a little confused on my opponent’s objection. My argument was that 1) my opponent cited an entire website as his source, 2) the website he cited pertained to workplace bullying, as opposed to high school bullying, which is the scope of this debate, and 3) showing how what my opponent cited actually reinforced my original statement about the difficulty of gathering accurate and unbiased information about bullying. There was no analogy with two students in my last response to Statement 2, and nothing mentioning a security camera. Also, I fail to see how an argument concerning the validity of my opponent’s citations can have moral grounds. I would ask that my opponent please clarify his objection, then I will be happy to debate it with him. However, for now, my opponent has not provided adequate responses and citations to the objections I originally raised in my last response, and thus has not met his burden of proof. My original rebuttal still stands. ===Statement 3.1=== First, I would like to note that my opponent still has not address my original objection to him about how denying bullies a free education violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Second, after reviewing the included report, I have objections to two things. 1) The estimate of 158 billion dollar loss includes all levels of school – elementary, middle, and high school. 2) The article itself indicates that bullying peaks during middle school: “Younger kids are more likely to be bullied and prevalence tends to be higher in middle school.” 3) The article make no non-perfunctory mention of how the rather doubtful figure of 158 billion dollar loss. In fact, the only mention it makes of the questionable sum is “One way that Plan calculated the cost of school violence was to look at the potential income a person lost because of missed schooling.” This does not constitute a thorough explanation. 4) The article does not explain whether this is the total loss over all of history of the American educational system or an annual loss. 5) I find this value to be incredibly questionable considering it is slightly larger than the combined net worth of the entire Coca-Cola Company. [1] In the words of Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I would ask that my opponent either put forward more evidence of his extraordinary claim that bullying has exacted a 158 billion dollar loss or, by default, retract said statement. ===Statement 3.2 (Opponent Conceded)=== My opponent has conceded Statement 3.2: not all bullies should be sent to reform school and a qualifying process needs to be institutionalized. ===Statement 3.3=== My opponent’s objection to my argument against Statement 3.3 is: “Your defense is entirely built on moral. [sic] You have given no explaination [sic] as to why the football player should not be prosecuted to the same degree as the senior, and so due to this being opinionated [sic], and being based of moral [sic] which itself changes from culture to culture, you arguement [sic] does not hold.” I will break his objection up into three parts: 1) my argument is based in morality, 2) I must provide explanation why the football player should be prosecuted to the same degree as the senior, and 3) morality changes from culture to culture. Response to Part 1: If you would like to state that the fact that people should be penalized in proportion to the magnitude of their crime is an argument grounded in morality, then yes, my argument is grounded in morality. However, I fail to see the problem with having a penal system which is actually moral. Response to Part 2: In the analogy, the football player good-naturedly shoulder-bumped a teammate into the locker, which was misinterpreted as injury. The teammate would not have sustained serious injury (note “good-naturedly” shoulder-bumped), so the “crime” committed by the football player was fairly mild. However, the senior who beat up the freshman and left him in a garbage dump committed a major crime. He assaulted a much younger child and left him in an unsafe location where he was prone to disease and being stranded. If my opponent would like to put forward that people should not, in fact, be punished for their crimes, and that they should all be punished equally, then he must also agree with the inane statement that a person who stole 50 dollars should be punished the same as a serial killer who brutally murdered 50 people. Response to Part 3: Though the debate on morality varying itself from culture to culture is entirely outside the scope of this argument, I will address a component of it – punishment always being in proportion to the crime – briefly. To quote the Encyclopædia Britannica, “Theories of deterrence and retribution share the idea that punishments should be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, a principle of practical importance. If all punishments were the same, there would be no incentive to commit the lesser rather than the greater offense. The offender might as well use violence against the victim of a theft if the penalty for armed robbery were no more.” [2] This notion is almost universal in penal codes because of this reason. ===Response to Final Statement=== The information I have put forward so far is completely unbiased, unless you extend bias to count as part of basic morality. Furthermore, it is impossible to argue this issue without resorting to morality, as it deals with justice and mercy. For example, even your resolution that all serial bullies should be denied free education, sent to reform school, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, is grounded in morality, as it seeks to administer justice. ===Conclusion=== For brevity’s sake, my opponent and I reached a consensus in Statement 1 that bullying could, in fact, scar people for life, which was never under serious debate. (The only issue I had with my opponent’s assertion was his lack of citations.) However, my opponent did not provide a clear, relevant, or even understandable response to my rebuttal to Statement 2. Thus, my argument still stands. Furthermore, my opponent put forward ludicrous values in Statement 3.1 from an perfunctory source placing the net loss of bullying at 158 billion dollars, slightly larger than the net worth of the conglomerate, Coca-Cola. Also, my opponent even conceded Statement 3.2 in that his original assertion that bullies should be sent to reform school was incorrect. Finally, in Statement 3.3, my opponent argued against the institution of punishment in accordance with his crime, instead implying all bullying crimes should be punished equally without regard to their respective severities. In short, my arguments for Statements 2, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 all stand. My opponent has not met his burden of proof. I ask, therefore, that you render a decision in favor of Con. ===References=== [1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://www.britannica.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Serial-Bullies-should-be-expelled-and-be-sent-to-reform-school/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.40

    universal: 3.47

    premises: 2.61 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.85 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.79)

    basic: 1.48

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.21 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.66)

    should: 4.45

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

    premises: 1.98 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.55)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  To say that EU's decision means that the ban is justified...

  Show full argument

  The hijab and/or niqab should be banned

  I want to thank TheHitchslap for this debate. It was a pleasure. In this final round, (as per the rules I set forth), I will defend my arguments and crystallize with a conclusion. Rule Violation I don't want the voters to consider Pro's valuation as misconduct. That would be petty from me to ask. My opponent did a good job on this debate and I respect his effort. I just want the voter to ignore Pro's extended arguments in Round 2 as it would put me at a disadvantage and I didn't have the space to rebut them in my rebuttal round. I think that's fair from me to ask. Defense of Contention 1: Infringes on Human Rights and Freedom of Religion Pro argues that "Rights are not absolute". While he agrees that "the ban would infringe on the freedom of religion", but "constitutions allow for certain freedoms to be reduced" in certain situations. Pro's justification of the ban is that the "the Niqab is not in line with Western Democratic values". I want to explain to the reader that what Pro is proposing is extremely dangerous. Pro's explanation undermines the concept of freedoms. Let me explain with real examples. The Indonesian constitution secures the right to religious freedom and expression of opinion [1]. However, there is a law that would imprison someone for up to 5 years if they intended to convince another to leave his or her religion [2]. This clearly infringes on basic human rights, but according to Pro's analogy, Indonesia might be justified! Since these rights are not absolute, Indonesian Government may argue that it doesn't conform to "Indonesian values". When Uganda enacted laws to jail homosexuals with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment [3], did they infringe on human rights? If Pro's analogy is right, and human rights can be infringed on "based on values", then Ugandans might have not been so wrong after all because homosexuality doesn't conform to Ugandans values (or so they claim). So what Pro proposes is outright dangerous. I really hope he reconsiders. Does that mean that "Rights are absolute"? No. There are a few exceptions. The obvious one if the freedom of one would infringe on the freedom of another. It means that no one is allowed to encourage someone to kill another, or to slander someone…etc. However, the niqab clearly doesn't fall in this category. Freedom can also be limited if the freedom would undermine the very function of the government. For example, if one's faith requires the person not the pay taxes, the government may not be able to honor this freedom; or if one's religion is to cross the red light at full speed; or if one's faith is to sacrifice a child to please the gods…etc. But you'll notice that these limitations are proportionately applied to all citizens, and not intended to target a specific group. The official department of Justice in Canada explains that such limitations must be pursued in a proportional manner [4].The niqab however is targeted to a specific group, specifically Muslims. And Pro's justification that it doesn't conform to our "western values" isn't sufficient. I've also mentioned in the previous round, that values are subjective and there's no specific reservoir of values, therefore Pro's justification is inadequate. Pro then states that "EU actually justifies Frances ban within their constitution" [sic]. This argument is irrelevant. To say that EU's decision means that the ban is justified is begging the question. Should I appeal to the Spanish Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Burqa ban as support for my argument [5]? Pro also challenges my reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by stating that they are purely "voluntarist". This is a straw man attack. I've shown that the basic rights to freedom of opinion, religion and expression are universal in almost all the constitutions in the world and provided references to the US, Canadian and EU constitutions. Pro then brings a terrible example about slavery in abrahamic religions. I will not engage in theology, because that's irrelevant to the resolution. But basically, Pro is arguing that if someone's religion allows for slavery, a government ought not to allow it even though it might infringe on their religious freedom. But that's extremely different than the niqab. In slavery, you are infringing on the freedoms of the slaves. Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” But a woman wearing the niqab is not infringing on anyone's rights! Pro continues that wearing the niqab "starts a race to become more pure". Again, why should anyone, not to mention a government, prevent someone's intention to be more pure according to their point of view? Pro bring another example. "If one doesn't wear it, some actually have acid thrown on their faces". How is this related? How does this make the niqab ban necessary? Is it the woman's fault that a criminal attacked her? Should we ban schools because a criminal can attack innocents? Should we stop flying planes because a terrorist might want to blow it? Who are you targeting? The criminals or the victims? Pro amuses me by saying that "I actually think forcing someone to wear the Niqab […] is a human right violation". Of course it's a human right violation. Forcing someone to wear a niqab is a human right violation and should be punishable. Am I pleading for such? Pro's example is as bad as this one: Forcing someone to have sex is a human right violation, therefore we ought to ban sex altogether. That's non sequitur and Pro's argument is invalid. Defense of Contention 2: Harm Principle Pro agrees with the harm principle, but argues that the niqab is harmful. Again, Pro is arguing that the niqab causes sexualization and therefore is harmful. Pro didn't provide any evidence that this is the case and I've explained that this analysis is fallacious. First, the niqab is not the cause for any harms. If one wore the niqab, no one else will be "harmed" as a result of that act. If another took off the niqab, no one really benefited as a result. Pro fails to explain the direct harms of wearing the niqab. Now if a woman was being sexualized and was forced to wear the niqab, then you might have a case against the person who's subjecting the woman to wear it, but you don't have a case against the niqab itself. Regarding sexualization, I've shown that pop videos, movies can promote sexualization. So banning the niqab alone is disproportional and discriminatory. Pro is not happy that Islam requires women to be "modest". Again, I'm not here to defend Islam, and it doesn't matter. Not to mentioned that I don't see the problem with promoting modestly. But that whole part about Islam and "eternal damnation" is irrelevant, so I'll dismiss it. Pro then talks about social pressures to wear the niqab. Again that doesn't warrant banning the niqab. If there are social pressures to have sex in college, would that warrant banning sex? (Good luck with that one) Defense of Contention 3: Discriminates against Muslims and Adverse effects Pro misses my point about discrimination. So I'll extend my argument here: "If the ban is exclusive to the niqab, then why should I be able to express my belief freely, while Muslims can't? Am I more privileged because of my belief? That's the very definition of discrimination." What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that you and I will never accept that anyone infringes on our rights. Based on this understanding, I choose not to be a hypocrite. Why should I have this freedom, but Muslim ones can't? If I allow myself to have special privileges because of my beliefs and opinions, then I would be a discriminating hypocrite. Pro also doesn't provide a proper response to the adverse effects of banning the niqab. I've shown in Round 2 that it has "isolated and stigmatized Muslim women". The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also warned against the adverse effects of women being confined to their homes and excluded from educational institutions and public places [6]. Conclusion Banning the niqab clearly undermines the freedom of those women who wish to wear it. While you may not like the idea of a woman wearing the niqab, it's none of your business or mine to decide what ought to be right. The niqab doesn't harm, therefore it ought to be allowed. I argue that we shouldn't allow subjective values of some people to undermine the freedom of others. The niqab ban would discriminate against Muslims and unfortunately gives some the justification to discriminate against them. I urge the reader to stand against a niqab ban as it undermines liberty, freedom and democracy. It doesn't bother me one bit that a woman is wearing the niqab. But if it bothers you, Noam Chomsky has advice for you: “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky Good Bye? This is officially my last debate in DDO (for now). But I'll be around if you need a vote. My two kids need me more than the laptop. Debating is amazing, but it's definitely addictive. Pro - Don't forget to waive the next round. Vote Con! Sources [1] Constitution of Indonesia, Chapter X [2] http://www.loc.gov... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk... [4] http://www.justice.gc.ca... [5] http://jurist.org... [6] http://www.hrw.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-hijab-and-or-niqab-should-be-banned/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.39

    universal: 2.69

    premises: 2.17 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.52)

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

    basic: 2.15

    premises: 1.80 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.52)

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

    should: 4.55

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

    premises: 1.46 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.95)
• CON

  But I shall refrain. ... I have shown that UHC would be...

  Show full argument

  The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

  Please look to my R4 for a longer crystallization. There is nothing new presented in this round, but since I'm not a big fan of small ending rounds, I'm going to do a line-by-line refutation for my R5. There'll be a crystallization at the end of this round, of course - but it won't be as drawn out, elegant, or in-depth as my R4 one. "Once again , Ask many people [...]" > It appears my opponent does not understand the concept of comparing two VC's. However, I am sure you, the voter, understand what I mean when "If we are asking "Between FFC and HE, which is better", then we compare a situation in which FFC is present and HE is not to a situation where HE is present and FFC is not." (CON R4) I am also sure you know how it works. My opponent has not argued that HE is the better of the two in this comparison in any way, so even if you don't buy my logic for FFC at all, you must still take FFC as this debate's VC. Though you should buy it. It works, and my opponent never refuted its premises or links. "My opponent has not proven that [...]" > Same as above response. He does not know how to compare two VC's. > Yes, I have proven that a free sick person is happier than an enslaved healthy person. I did it in R2, and I did it again in R4. To be sure it was clearer in R4 with less fluffy language and less packaging - but it was proven in R2 nonetheless. "I have and even refuted[...]" > Respond is not the same is refute; refute is a subset. If I told you "Cup O Noodles is tasty", and you responded, "I like pie", you are not refuting my statement. You are simply responding - and that is what my opponent did for almost everything in both his R4 and R5. "Let it be known that [...]" > "I will mark the homeless in this debate as those with the worst welfare." is hardly a statistic. > First of all, you can attack statistics. Second, that's not what I did. I showed that his statistics are totally irrelevant to his case. So what if most of the countries that have higher life expectancy than the US have UHC? Plenty of countries do, why do AT LEAST A THIRD of those countries have a LOWER life expectancy than the US? If a third fail to meet the rule, the rule can hardly be said to be a solid generalization: that is, PRO's statistics cannot be said to show that UHC necessarily leads to higher life expectancy: which is the only thing he uses the stats for. Which means his entire position falls. "Extending from his R1, he states." > What? "That was my refutation to that in [...]" > What? "Contradiction to previous [...]" > You're right, I forgot to put in the qualifier: He's not comparing anything MEANINGFUL TO THE DEBATE. "But since people are in control [...]" > I was about to give a heavy all-caps emotional response. But I shall refrain. > Nothing he says in this section is relevant. As he concedes FFC, all contentions must link to FFC, and his response here admits that FFC will be decreased. That is, if I beat out the next response. "What leads you to believe that [...]" > Originally I was going to make a full-blown Stateless Society case and how anarchism is the best solution. It's why I asked him a question for my R1 instead of presenting my refutations. But in the end I didn't have an R3. Anyways. > It is irrelevant if private agencies will do their job efficiently. FFC is the VC. As long as the "Taxation is Terrorism" section of my case holds, UHC is against FFC and that'll be all I need to show. "Yet you've stated [...]" > I'm beginning to think he doesn't know what a flow is. > Is he just spouting out debate jargon to look smart? > Again, his comparisons are not meaningful. They do not constitute a refutation. "A convenient declaration [...]" > You know really, I don't care about these contradictions he's pointing out. My perception of the world is that if X is not meaningful, X might as well not be X. So language fails to convey my views sometime. It's inconsequential whether or not you "extend it across the flow" though. If I show UHC is against FFC, you must vote for me. "Yes it was" > I have responded to this already. "In the end I did prove it by way of maps and articles to show that Higher LE <----> UHC." > I have responded to this already. "Not in the constitution per say[...]" > Either it is or it isn't. And it isn't. Though it's utterly inconsequential. "This is a horrible comparison [...]" > Not a refutation. "Note: with the implementation of UHC [...]" > I wasn't arguing this. "Taxation however is not a violent process [...]" > His refutation is factually wrong. Taxes are collected on the threat of violence and/or imprisonment, which is really, another form of violence. "People just pay up"? Well, look at the ones who don't. What happens to them? Yes. Exactly what I've said. They get locked up for tax evasion. So, extend the video's arguments. "By you comparing UHC to requiring terrorism you have voided your rebuttal." > Not warranted. Also, I'm not comparing anything. "[...] we are using those taxes to [...] a increase in societal welfare." > VC is FFC. Taxes are against FFC. Ergo, taxes are against SocW. "By promoting societal welfare we are also allowing room for more FFC." > V is SocW. VC is FFC. Not the other way around. CRYSTALLIZATION>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V: Societal Welfare My opponent doesn't know how to compare VC's. I compared the two and showed that not only was FFC a valid VC, but it also preceded and superseded HE. VC: Freedom For Constituents None of my opponent's arguments actually provide FFC on their own. You already default vote CON due to PRO's resolutional Burden of Proof. I showed that terrorism is equivalent to limiting freedom. I showed that taxation is terrorism, in R4's video. Since UHC's money can only come from taxation, UHC is the result of terrorism. The previous three points lead to the conclusion that UHC limits freedom. Limiting freedom is the opposite of the VC, FFC. Which means UHC is the opposite of the VC, FFC. Which means UHC is detrimental to the value of Societal Welfare. Because UHC takes away from FFC, it is against the value of Societal Welfare. To affirm, PRO must show that UHC improves SocW. I have shown that UHC would be devastating to SocW.

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

    BM25 score: 9.37

    universal: 8.66

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

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

    should: 0.54

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

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

  If the current one-state, one vote system was retained...

  Show full argument

  World Government should be an ideal towards which we gradually work. The obviously universal proble...

  World Government should not be our ideal because it is blatantly less democratic than government on the nation-state model. The smaller the political unit, the more powerful is the individual vote. Individual citizens will always have more influence over local authorities and nation-state governments than they will over putative supranational entities. We value democracy and therefore oppose World Government because it dilutes the strength of an individual’s influence over policy. Voting rights would also be impossible to arrange fairly in a global parliament. If the current one-state, one vote system was retained then a coalition of small nations would be able to impose policies upon those states with a large majority of the world’s population. If representation was on the basis of population, then China and India would often be able to act together to impose policies upon the rest of the world.

  • https://debatewise.org/debates/2678-world-government/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.31

    universal: 5.80

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

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

    should: 3.13

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

    premises: 1.54 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.11)