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

PRO

  • PRO

    Not necessarily. ... It shouldn’t be normal, and we as a...

    Suicide should be a crime

    Legally, suicide was considered synonymous with felo de se, that is, where one who is of the age of discretion and is mentally competent, voluntarily kills himself in any way. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that suicide is an extremely sad situation, however disagreement arises when we try to come to an agreement over whether or not it should be 'illegal'. The question over whether or not the act should be ‘illegal’ depends on basically two factors- 1. Why does law exist? What is the basis of classifying a certain act as illegal? 2. Whether or not suicide falls into that category. I’ll begin by outlining the basic objective of a law, and then go into whether or not suicide violates the objective. A. Let’s look at some of the constitution preambles over the world. USA India Argentina The basic commonality between these constitutions is that they aim to general welfare of the people. This general welfare clause, a part of many constitutions, statutes and charters- aims to maximise the preserve the social structure of the state as a whole, be it through political/ economic/ cultural tools. To protect the society as a whole and to preserve the social fabric that ensures the strength of that structure. It might seem very anti- libertarian in the beginning, but we need to realize that a without a strong social structure, it is *impossible* to maintain individual liberty and freedom. Individual freedom banks upon the social contract that is in place. In order for us to maximize our utility/ happiness, we need non discriminatory laws, equality clause, freedom laws. There just cannot be a harmonious society without these basic ingredients. Thus the objective of a law is to preserve the social structure, and consequently provide the basic tools for maximizing individual utility- while at the same time preserving individual liberty and free will. With this in mind, let us move on to point B. B. Legalizing suicide implies violation of the aforementioned social structure. This brings us to the next point- what does illegalizing something mean? Does it mean that a person would go to jail over it? Not necessarily. What it means is that the state is compelled to interfere in case the aforementioned act is carried out. The action taken by the state in response to someone committing suicide is open to questioning, is open to discussion. In this debate, we are concerned with whether or not the state *should* interfere in case someone exhibits suicidal tendencies. Why the state should interfere is because (as would be explained forth) it attacks the very moral fabric of the society, causes suffering to people beyond the person committing suicide, and undermines the sanctity of life. State has a moral duty of interfering in case one of a subjects displyays such a destructive tendency. To support, to rehabilitate, *even if the person does not desire it*. (a) Choice to live and morality: "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these." – Ayn Rand Man is, first and foremost, a living being. Maintenance of life is his ultimate goal. This is universal, all organisms initiate any action as a subversion to that goal. They kill, eat, breathe, in order to live. Humans are a little more complex because they have free will. BECAUSE we have free will, we need moral standards to guide our lives. These standards need not be the same- and they need not be objective- but the very reason for moral standards to exist is because we have free will. We act, not merely exist. Morality helps us identify the important needs of a human- love, friendship, money, happiness, whatever- and then guides us to the tools we need to achieve them, the moral virtues. BUT, and this an important but, if a person does not wish to live, this is all moot. As Rand put it, "Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. There’s no sense of morality then." The objective of the law is to protect the state and the people from each other, and to help guide people to make the choices that are right for the society. Suicide is not right for the society. The act is a final clip from the thread holding the society together, morality. It undermines the sanctity of life, and by extension- the basis of every right, law and obligation enforced by the constitution. (b) The question of rights: Suicide being ‘legalised’ is often viewed as a question of choice, rather than as an immorality- against oneself and others around you. Suicide is intentional killing of a person, and consequently causing suffering. The right to life, the principle that’s often raised to legitimize suicide, does not cover the right to death. Right to non discrimination does not preclude right to allow yourself to be actively discriminated against by the society- since the repercussions of the latter affect a lot more people than just that one person, and has a negative influence on the social fabric of the suicide. Similarly, the right to life does not preclude the right to death precisely because the repercussions of the right to death go against the very structure of the constitution. A person who shows willingness to die should be actively helped, regardless of whether or not he shows the willingness to go to a rehab/ rehabilitate himself. Given that the state has an obligation to ‘promote general welfare’ and ‘preserve social order’; a person who shows the inclination to give it all up and die needs to be helped. Thus, summarizing, suicide should be illegal because any inclination to suicide *needs* to be addressed, since that goes against the very fabric of the social structure. It causes suffering, is immoral, and thus reduces the general welfare of the public- which is what the constitution aims to maximize. It is thus state’s obligation to interfere and provide the requisite support structure. It shouldn’t be normal, and we as a society should actively seek help rather than justifying someone’s will to die.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Suicide-should-be-a-crime/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 11.07
      universal: 1.98
      premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.46 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.96)
      basic: 4.36
      premises: 3.80 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.10)
      sourceText: 0.55 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.75)
      should: 4.73
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.64 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.99)
  • PRO

    But do people who don't drive recklessly ask for money...

    Universal health care is a legitimate "burden" on the tax payer.

    People pay for public utilities such as road and people pay for education as well. But do people who don't drive recklessly ask for money back when roads are damaged? Do people who send their children to private school ask for all their money back? We place this burden on the state because of equality of opportunity. No man But do people who don't drive recklessly ask for money back when roads are damaged? Do people who send their children to private school ask for all their money back? We place this burden on the state because of equality of opportunity. No man should be denied the right to live his life.

  • PRO

    I will explain my first point Math and science provide us...

    Education should focus on maths and science rather than music and art

    I will explain my first point Math and science provide us with basic knowledge which will certainly help in our daily life as well as broaden our horizons For example, Basic knowledge about geometry will form a foundation on how things shape or in-depth knowledge about structure of constructions such as our own house. As it is undeniable that these kinds of knowledge play an important role in our developing process, Math and science are essential subjects which should be fully focused.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Education-should-focus-on-maths-and-science-rather-than-music-and-art/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 11.02
      universal: 0.78
      sourceText: 0.78 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.64)
      sum: 6.43 (product 5.86, product 0.57)
      sum: 2.51 (product 0.65, product 1.76, product 0.09)
      basic: 6.43
      premises: 5.86 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 0.57 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.79)
      should: 3.81
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.76 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.97)
  • PRO

    On Internet traffic, for example, people will sometimes...

    Healthcare should be considered a right to all of a country's citizens

    To your point that healthcare is a service: You are not wrong, but just because a service is required to guarantee a right, does not mean that right is void of its value. To guarantee the right to free speech, people employ the service of police officers to protect them when they may be attacked during a protest or a rally. To guarantee the right to privacy, people must use a service. On Internet traffic, for example, people will sometimes employ VPNs so that their traffic can not be intercepted. Just like any other service, people pay the owner of the VPN for its use. To your point about the car mechanic: No one is in danger of losing their life when they have a car that doesn't run. They are just put in an unfortunate situation that does not allow them to travel long distances. In a case of a heart attack, for example, that person will certainly die without proper healthcare. Or for a different example, someone with cancer will die, very slowly, if they do not receive the proper healthcare. It is not a question of if they will die, but when. Although they may require a service to live, that service is still put in place to guarantee their human rights. I don't see why a service is automatically disqualified from being a human right. What about the right to a fair and speedy trial? That seems like a service to me - it involves many people working, for monetary gain, as judges, police officers, and lawyers. Just because a lawyer may provide a "service" to its client, doesn't mean that client doesn't have the right to a lawyer. To your point about On Internet traffic, for example, people will sometimes employ VPNs so that their traffic can not be intercepted. Just like any other service, people pay the owner of the VPN for its use. To your point about the car mechanic: No one is in danger of losing their life when they have a car that doesn't run. They are just put in an unfortunate situation that does not allow them to travel long distances. In a case of a heart attack, for example, that person will certainly die without proper healthcare. Or for a different example, someone with cancer will die, very slowly, if they do not receive the proper healthcare. It is not a question of if they will die, but when. Although they may require a service to live, that service is still put in place to guarantee their human rights. I don't see why a service is automatically disqualified from being a human right. What about the right to a fair and speedy trial? That seems like a service to me - it involves many people working, for monetary gain, as judges, police officers, and lawyers. Just because a lawyer may provide a "service" to its client, doesn't mean that client doesn't have the right to a lawyer. To your point about universal healthcare being lower quality than private healthcare: We do not need to abolish the private healthcare system. I am not calling for the abolition of the private healthcare system, although I do despise it. I am calling for a healthcare system that guarantees healthcare to anyone who needs it. This would, of course, include mostly poor and middle class people. However, these people would still be free to pay for insurance or medical services on the private market should they so desire. I am trying to avoid giving an unfair advantage to the wealthy when it comes to healthcare, and a right to healthcare is the first step in doing so. A man should not go into crippling debt because he had a stroke. It is absurd that in a country as rich as America, people should be thrown into life ruining debt and bankruptcy because of an unforeseen medical cost. Let us assume that the quality of healthcare is vastly inferior in countries with a right to healthcare. Those countries with universal healthcare have overall healthier citizens that those countries who primarily use a private system. Those countries with universal healthcare have less people die each year from preventable and treatable conditions, injuries, and diseases. Those countries with universal healthcare have a less poverty, due in no small part to the burden of paying for obscenely expensive healthcare lifted off of the lower class. Would the quality be less in certain cases - perhaps, but overall, the health of the nation would improve drastically.

  • PRO

    Truthfully, many of the speciation events we"vie observed...

    Last Universal Ancestor/Common Descent of ALL species.

    Age of the Earth Age of the Universe The predictions of the age of the earth should come as no surprise since we are aware of stars that are 13 billion light years away visible to the Hubble telescope giving conclusive evidence of a universe at least 13 billion years old [14]. After all it takes 13 billion years for the light to reach earth. The cooling rate since the big bang compared with cosmic background radiation along with extrapolating from what we know about the expansion rate of the universe have all confirmed a universe around 13.8 billion years old [15]. Radiometric Dating The simplest Radiometric dating methods of the earth depends on two conclusions: the radioactive decay rate of elements is constant and that there was no contamination of the sample at the formation of the rock analyzed or since [16]. The first is demonstrable, no extreme variation in the relative decay rates have been observed and the principles that govern decay are firmly understood. The second is not assumed and there are a variety of methods to determine that the starting amount of radioactive material and product can be verified. Ages are cross-checked with thousands of other samples along with geological and stratification techniques to confirm accuracy. Tens of thousand of rocks have been tested to determine the age of the earth yielding wide agreement (of course there are outliers and errors occasionally). Most notably, intense heat and pressure on the deepest rocks can remove all products of decay dramatically reducing the age of a sample. The oldest rocks on earth date around 3.8 billion years but testing of meteorites, that formed in the same time period as the earth, confirm an age of 4.5 billion years. There are many lead isochron dating methods that are self-checking and do not require any assumptions about the initial proportion of elements. They compare various concentrations to verify the amount of both the parent and daughter product of radioactive decay and have reliably estimated the age of the earth at 4.55 +/- 0.02 billion years. - “So how many times does a fish have to become another type of fish before they become a mammal” It’s an important point to make the every generation looks nearly identical to the last. The changes are so small and subtle that you wouldn’t notice them. The morphological changes are measured in darwins, or change in an organisms character by a factor of e (mathematical constant ~2.71) per million years [10]. This value can range anywhere from 0.6 to 32 based on the fossil record. Modern observed values needed to be at least the same rate to confirm and in fact they range from 370-80,000 so changes in appearance can happen rather fast [10]. It’s a well-known fact that all modern dog, even pug chiwawas, were bred from the grey wolf (this was determined genetically). Genetic mutation rates in humans have been well documented and have been studied extensively especially in areas like cancer research. The average DNA mutation rate is from1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions (a change in one of the four nucleotides chat build DNA) per site, per generation. Based on the fossil record we diverged from apes around six million years ago which corresponds with a rate of 2 x 10-8 substitutions per generation. With 500 million years since the first fish and assuming a generation of 10 years (many fish live only around 3 years or less) it takes in the range of 50 million fish generations to make a human but this could vary by quite a bit. If we could rewind the tape there would be no guarantee that we would arrive at any form of life like a human. “Truthfully, many of the speciation events we"vie observed were harmful, not helpful” You have not demonstrated this. The speciation events we have observed are a result of minor changes that do not have a large impact at all, as I mentioned. I’m not very concerned with Darwin. He’s not very relevant to evolution today although he did first discover and popularize the theory, which was a remarkable achievement. “It is a bit humerous to see you quoting AIG,” ‘The moon dust should be deeper after 4.5 billion years’ My point was even hard-core creationists have distanced themselves from this argument. There is no evidence to support that moon dust should be deeper than it is. This was not an expectation for our landing and there is no credible evidence that this is true. If you can present any evidence I’ll add to this topic. Yes, there are many stories of floods and even large floods I’ll concede this. I wasn’t challenging you to establish a Noah’s Ark type scenario. I’m not surprised that there are many flood stories or that survivors escaped on a boat or by getting to high ground. As your article indicates, it’s likely a meteor strike may have caused massive tsunamis and hurricanes inspiring these stories. You will have to provide further evidence that a worldwide flood is a credible explanation for geological phenomena but I still don’t see how this is relevant to the debate. There are many events that could lead to a rapid burial of an animal and this rarely happens. We generally do not have fossils of anything other than bone or other very hard structures so rapid burial most often did not occur. Major geological changes can obviously be explained by earthquakes, meteor strikes, localized floods etc. As an explanation for fossils this does nothing to explain why the simplest organisms are contained in the lowest, oldest rocks. Why does the complexity increase and age of the rock decrease reliably as you go up in sedimentary layers? "According to the traditional evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, man appears late” That we not discovered a fossil of every ancient animal in each time period is no surprise. That there are mistakes or errors in identifying and dating examples of human ancestors is also no surprise. The United Church of God website is a highly questionable source and certainly not one that should be used for any scientific information. Exceptions to the norm do not discredit evolution and outliers and errors are expected. Your source does not provide any information to verify that any scientist has identified these as issues or that there is a scientific consensus that these represent problems that must be addressed. “We base much of what we know about history on written record.” Much of what we know about human civilization we base on the written record. I still don’t see how this impacts evolution. “my point was they were supposed to go extinct before we got here, and all signs show that we actually lived amongst them." You will have to provide some credible evidence that dinosaurs lived amongst us to justify that claim. Dinosaur fossils and large crocodiles in Australia growing 5-7 meters long are much more plausible explanations for myths about dragons since we have no tangible evidence to believe that humans lived with dinosaurs [18]. ‘The Eye is Irreducibly complex’ You have simply asserted this without a real explanation. That there are several interdependent parts that and you are not aware of how these could have developed is not surprising and is not an argument. Various stages of development of the eye are readily available in living animals that have eyes at various stages, each level being more useful than the last and increasing in complexity like everything else observed in evolution. Here are the stages as seen in nature: light sensitive area, pigment cells, optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells covered by translucent skin, a small deepening impression to provide depth perception, skin covering taking lens shape to focus an image followed by muscles used for depth adjustments [20]. Each broad stage in the process is useful and can be broken down into even smaller increments leading to a gradual climb to complexity. Although it looks like many eyes evolved independently they all share a common light sensing proteins suggesting a common origin for all species that have some form of sight [19]. “Now you are just repeating yourself.” (why are there still monkeys) Let me phrase it another way. The common ancestor of modern chimpanzees and humans is extinct. There are no ancient monkeys anymore. The species split and evolved down many different tracks to respond to different environments. “To say all life shares DNA is like saying all life is alive.” No. There are 102 naturally occurring nucleotides and many more have been synthetically created [5]. Why is the basic information stored in all organisms using only four as in DNA? There are 390 naturally occurring amino acids, why are all proteins in all living organisms constructed using the same 22 all with right and not left handed chirality? This is compelling evidence for common descent of all life. [14] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [15] http://en.wikipedia.org... [16] http://www.talkorigins.org... [17] http://www.talkorigins.org... [18] http://en.wikipedia.org... [19] http://en.wikipedia.org... [20] http://www.talkorigins.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Last-Universal-Ancestor-Common-Descent-of-ALL-species./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 11.00
      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: 1.57
      premises: 1.02 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.30)
      sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.72)
      should: 1.16
      premises: 1.08 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.84)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.81)
  • PRO

    Not necessarily. ... It shouldn’t be normal, and we as a...

    Suicide should be a crime

    Legally, suicide was considered synonymous with felo de se, that is, where one who is of the age of discretion and is mentally competent, voluntarily kills himself in any way. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that suicide is an extremely sad situation, however disagreement arises when we try to come to an agreement over whether or not it should be 'illegal'. The question over whether or not the act should be ‘illegal’ depends on basically two factors- 1. Why does law exist? What is the basis of classifying a certain act as illegal? 2. Whether or not suicide falls into that category. I’ll begin by outlining the basic objective of a law, and then go into whether or not suicide violates the objective. A. Let’s look at some of the constitution preambles over the world. USA India Argentina The basic commonality between these constitutions is that they aim to general welfare of the people. This general welfare clause, a part of many constitutions, statutes and charters- aims to maximise the preserve the social structure of the state as a whole, be it through political/ economic/ cultural tools. To protect the society as a whole and to preserve the social fabric that ensures the strength of that structure. It might seem very anti- libertarian in the beginning, but we need to realize that a without a strong social structure, it is *impossible* to maintain individual liberty and freedom. Individual freedom banks upon the social contract that is in place. In order for us to maximize our utility/ happiness, we need non discriminatory laws, equality clause, freedom laws. There just cannot be a harmonious society without these basic ingredients. Thus the objective of a law is to preserve the social structure, and consequently provide the basic tools for maximizing individual utility- while at the same time preserving individual liberty and free will. With this in mind, let us move on to point B. B. Legalizing suicide implies violation of the aforementioned social structure. This brings us to the next point- what does illegalizing something mean? Does it mean that a person would go to jail over it? Not necessarily. What it means is that the state is compelled to interfere in case the aforementioned act is carried out. The action taken by the state in response to someone committing suicide is open to questioning, is open to discussion. In this debate, we are concerned with whether or not the state *should* interfere in case someone exhibits suicidal tendencies. Why the state should interfere is because (as would be explained forth) it attacks the very moral fabric of the society, causes suffering to people beyond the person committing suicide, and undermines the sanctity of life. State has a moral duty of interfering in case one of a subjects displays such a destructive tendency. To support, to rehabilitate, *even if the person does not desire it*. (a) Choice to live and morality: "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these." – Ayn Rand Man is, first and foremost, a living being. Maintenance of life is his ultimate goal. This is universal, all organisms initiate any action as a subversion to that goal. They kill, eat, breathe, in order to live. Humans are a little more complex because they have free will. BECAUSE we have free will, we need moral standards to guide our lives. These standards need not be the same- and they need not be objective- but the very reason for moral standards to exist is because we have free will. We act, not merely exist. Morality helps us identify the important needs of a human- love, friendship, money, happiness, whatever- and then guides us to the tools we need to achieve them, the moral virtues. BUT, and this an important but, if a person does not wish to live, this is all moot. As Rand put it, "Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. There’s no sense of morality then." The objective of the law is to protect the state and the people from each other, and to help guide people to make the choices that are right for the society. Suicide is not right for the society. The act is a final clip from the thread holding the society together, morality. It undermines the sanctity of life, and by extension- the basis of every right, law and obligation enforced by the constitution. (b) The question of rights: Suicide being ‘legalised’ is often viewed as a question of choice, rather than as an immorality- against oneself and others around you. Suicide is intentional killing of a person, and consequently causing suffering. The right to life, the principle that’s often raised to legitimize suicide, does not cover the right to death. Right to non discrimination does not preclude right to allow yourself to be actively discriminated against by the society- since the repercussions of the latter affect a lot more people than just that one person, and has a negative influence on the social fabric of the suicide. Similarly, the right to life does not preclude the right to death precisely because the repercussions of the right to death go against the very structure of the constitution. A person who shows willingness to die should be actively helped, regardless of whether or not he shows the willingness to go to a rehab/ rehabilitate himself. Given that the state has an obligation to ‘promote general welfare’ and ‘preserve social order’; a person who shows the inclination to give it all up and die needs to be helped. Thus, summarizing, suicide should be illegal because any inclination to suicide *needs* to be addressed, since that goes against the very fabric of the social structure. It causes suffering, is immoral, and thus reduces the general welfare of the public- which is what the constitution aims to maximize. It is thus state’s obligation to interfere and provide the requisite support structure. It shouldn’t be normal, and we as a society should actively seek help rather than justifying someone’s will to die.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Suicide-should-be-a-crime/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 10.94
      universal: 1.89
      premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)
      basic: 4.31
      premises: 3.80 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.10)
      sourceText: 0.51 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.61)
      should: 4.73
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.64 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.06)
  • PRO

    31] In 2005 the United States and the other member states...

    Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government

    33 million people in the United States (10.4% of the US population) did not have health insurance in 2014 according to the US Census Bureau. [114] The United States, Greece, and Poland are the only countries of the 34 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that do not have universal health care. [115] Proponents of the right to health care say that no one in the richest nation on earth should go without health care. They argue that a right to health care would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses, and that health care should be an essential government service. Opponents argue that a right to health care amounts to socialism and that it should be an individual's responsibility, not the government's role, to secure health care. They say that government provision of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care, and would lead to larger government debt and deficits. Health Care Spending In 2012 US health care spending totaled $2.8 trillion dollars and accounted for 17.2% of the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). [2] The average annual cost of health care for the typical US family of four was over $20,000, [19] and health care costs that year rose at double the rate of inflation. [20] According to a 2012 study from Consumer Reports, paying for health care is the top financial problem for US households. [18] About 62% of all individual bankruptcies are related to medical expenses according to the most recent study available from 2009. [30] According to a 2011 report, of the 34 member states of the OECD, the United States ranks #1 in per capita health care expenditures at $8,508 per person, which is 2.5 times more than the OECD average of $3,339 per person. [17] US health care spending is financed by a mixture of households (28%), the federal government (26%), businesses (21%), state and local governments (18%), and other private sources (7%). [2] Health care is the largest private-sector industry in the United States accounting for about 13% of the total US workforce he United States is one of the world's only developed nations that does not guarantee universal health coverage for its citizens. [31] In 2005 the United States and the other member states of the World Health Organization signed the World Health Assembly resolution 58.33, [16] which stated that nations should "transition to universal coverage of their citizens... with a view to sharing risk among the population and avoiding catastrophic health-care expenditure and impoverishment of individuals as a result of seeking care." [107] Compared to the 34 nations of the OECD, the United States had the third highest rate of infant mortality (behind Turkey and Mexico), 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people (lower than the OECD average of 3.1), and an average life expectancy of 78.7 (lower than the OECD average of 80.1 years). [21][23][17] In the United States, fewer than 10% of patients wait more than two months to see a specialist versus 41% in Canada, 34% in Norway, and 28% in France. [24] The US 5-year survival rate for all cancers is 64.6%, over 10% higher than the 5-year cancer survival rate in Europe (51.6%). [26] A 2009 study found that the United States had better cancer screening rates than 10 European countries including France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. [25] The United States is estimated to have the highest prostate and breast cancer survival rates in the world. [32] The World Health Organization ranked the US health care system at #37 out of 191 countries in its 2000 report, between Costa Rica and Slovenia. [108] In 2014, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in overall health care behind (in order) United Kingdom, Switzerland, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, France, and Canada.Throughout the 18th and 19th century the US federal government did not finance or otherwise provide health care to the public. [5] However, in the early 20th century, a debate over the right to health care began to emerge. In 1915 the American Association for Labor Legislation drafted a series of bills to provide state medical benefits to low income workers. In 1920 the New York State Commissioner of Health, Hermann Biggs, began promoting public health services at the county level, and Charles-Edward Amory Winslow, the Chair of the Department of Public Health at Yale University, wrote: "I look to see our health departments in the coming years" enable every citizen to realize his birthright of health and longevity." [6] That same year the American Medical Association's House of Delegates passed a resolution officially opposing compulsory health insurance in the United States, [7] with one group of delegates from Illinois calling it a "dangerous bolshevik" schemeGovernment-funded health insurance was considered by President Roosevelt's Committee on Economic Security, but it was never included as part of the 1935 Social Security Act, [6] in part due to opposition from the American Medical Association. [7] In 1938, health care reform to provide universal coverage was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an extension of social security, and [33] US Surgeon General Thomas Parran argued that "equal opportunity for health is a basic American right." [6] In Feb. 1939, Senator Robert Wagner (D-NY) introduced the National Health Care Act of 1939 which would have implemented a national health care system, [5] however, the bill did not gain the necessary support in Congress and died in committeeIn 1945, in another attempt at universal healthcare, Harry S. Truman sent a message to the United States Congress asking for a new national health insurance program to be run by the federal government. The voluntary program would have allowed individuals to pay monthly fees in return for coverage of all medical expenses. The program was introduced in Congress as the Social Security Expansion Bill. The bill never passed, in part, due the American Medical Association characterizing it at "socialized medicine." [8] Although a national health program for all US citizens was not achieved, proponents of the plan continued to advocate for government-funded health insurance by shifting focus to providing coverage to Americans over the age of 65 and the economically disadvantaged. By the early 1960s, debate grew over the King-Anderson bill, a precursor to Medicare, that would have extend Social Security to cover the medical bills of Americans over the age of 65. Ronald Reagan, who opposed the bill, warned in a 1961 spoken word record that "one of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine." [84] Despite some public opposition, Medicare (the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965) was eventually passed by the House (307-116) and the Senate (77-6), and was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 30, 1965In 1971, President Richard Nixon laid out a National Health Strategy to reform the health insurance system and move towards universal healthcare. [11] In a 1972 message to Congress, President Nixon continued to advocate for universal healthcare, arguing that "reform of our health care system - so that every citizen will be able to get quality health care at reasonable cost regardless of income and regardless of area of residence - remains an item of highest priority on my unfinished agenda for America in the 1970s." [10] A competing plan by Senator Ted Kennedy, the Health Security Act, sought to implement a universal single-payer federal health insurance plan to be financed through taxes. [12] Despite their efforts, by the end of the Nixon presidency, no health care legislation had reached the President's desk. [9]President Clinton brought the issue of national health care back to the forefront in 1993. On Sep. 22, 1993, he delivered a speech to Congress stating that the "most urgent priority" of the nation was to provide "every American health security, health care that can never be taken away, health care that is always there." [14] Three months later the Health Security Act was introduced to move the United States towards the goal of universal coverage by requiring all individuals to obtain health insurance and instituting an employer mandate to provide insurance. [13] The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) called the act "socialist," and a "forfeiture of our freedom" that would "destroy private insurance." [15] During this same time period other legislators introduced a competing act to create a federally run "single-payer" national health insurance plan. [11] As in the 1970s, none of the plans gained enough support to pass Congress, much less make it to the President's desk. Source http://healthcare.procon.org... http://healthcare.procon.org... http://search.keywordblocks.com...[]=%7C%40%7Csde%3D1%7C%40%7Cadepth%3D1%7C%40%7Cddepth%3D1&verid=121199&hvsid=00001478276300455034263150111441&upk=1478276300.26932&sttm=1478276300455&=&tdAdd[]=%7C%40%7Cabp%3A3%3A2&kp=2&kbc=102918&kt=266&ki=22158653&ktd=1340304707813696&kbc2=0&fdkt=266&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&fp=-wXvvrsdcnHCLZuTaLvGsQAKHfhQ9g7ZXU5PuWDeSqz5KwpNN18kp65mc7ITBukZulOz8AXvjsRKpmrbH6bSwMLgtdNhvfdHQb4TBUaQaM5pe-oh00qjsU23PCOlgJxz&c=SNNvowxorPT7se3G2TCX5w&cme=juRBWQ0LELnPqGYzXb0ahr1pWsR-onXz1ivWCyXWwOdsMqqzsoFNL6gz1jL-phfo7wUPuh21CAq4CG2AqtR70fd_lPSUxWuz0uyhs6QH0SZ5kdU50Lu6zKkpyjRRxvdlKr3T9QCQTS6tGtTipw8osQnw5vqsee6eiqMs_MYj5W0uRHtyBDzUT05xTHupVP3C%7C%7CSKuUSfCLRUnqrSKLmem4HQ%3D%3D%7C1bjoppzNVXEAfGsecsMlLkBg_ALwzQeK%7CN7fu2vKt8_s%3D%7CeaK4n-c5BZcEyZ3BBYq6mmNq4-UWaBFHKrUeY_ivTmyW6-I_AhaqVDQLtq-KaRcg69cWuMwsVs3Y4aCUiJ9iWqZvOweM6S2u-_4cTp5u85re6eMmaFiolJtA-ENYCA1e%7CJf0d-WoAdPugZdiC0MCJNJau7I3ddLM8W8ylGHjbmIc%3D%7CuvTniEvPeBM1g6lbqis8qXZT0VMVMJ6U0A-yO0M5WzV_jfg5wfS3ew%3D%3D%7C&ib=0&lpid=&tsid=197&ksu=145&chid=200001510&https=0&extKwds=0&kwdsMaxTm=400&ugd=4&maxProviderPixel1=&maxProviderPixel2=&rms=1478276300&&kct=2188&abpl=2

  • PRO

    if someone is told that they are suffering from a...

    people with terminal illness should be allowed a legal arranged suicide

    so, you hear the word suicide and think... jeeze. if someone is told that they are suffering from a terminal illness ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) they are told that "By definition, there is no cure or adequate treatment" Obviously not all sufferers from terminal illness want to end their lives because as the above link states: "Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects. Others continue aggressive treatment in the hope of an unexpected success. Still others reject conventional medical treatment and pursue unproven treatments such as radical dietary modifications. Patients' choices about different treatments may change over time" But what about those patients who want to take the choice to die how they want. They don't want to suffer anymore, and they want the help of physicians,family and friends to help them end their suffering in a comfortable and peaceful way. I consider it cruel to keep someone alive who only feels pain, and if this involves the sanctity of life, that all life is holy and sacred, I don't feel that existing is living. They need some compassion, because they are humans and as fellow beings they deserve to be treated in a humane way, and die with a little dignity. http://en.wikipedia.org... which states :"Human rights are "if someone is told that they are suffering from a terminal illness ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) they are told that "By definition, there is no cure or adequate treatment" Obviously not all sufferers from terminal illness want to end their lives because as the above link states: "Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects. Others continue aggressive treatment in the hope of an unexpected success. Still others reject conventional medical treatment and pursue unproven treatments such as radical dietary modifications. Patients' choices about different treatments may change over time" But what about those patients who want to take the choice to die how they want. They don't want to suffer anymore, and they want the help of physicians,family and friends to help them end their suffering in a comfortable and peaceful way. I consider it cruel to keep someone alive who only feels pain, and if this involves the sanctity of life, that all life is holy and sacred, I don't feel that existing is living. They need some compassion, because they are humans and as fellow beings they deserve to be treated in a humane way, and die with a little dignity. http://en.wikipedia.org... which states :"Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[2]. The doctrine of human rights aims to identify the necessary positive and negative prerequisites for a "universal" minimal standard of justice, tolerance & human dignity that can be considered a public moral imperative. " It is their own dying body, they are responsible for it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... "more than 80 per cent of the public want physician-assisted suicide to be available to them as an option if they should find themselves in circumstances where their lives have become unbearable without hope of remedy. " which shows that although illegal, faced with this situation most of the public would also take the option to arrange the end of their pain. I feel the law needs to change, to allow people who are experiencing such indescribable suffering, can receive an ounce of control over their deadly and debilitating illness.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/people-with-terminal-illness-should-be-allowed-a-legal-arranged-suicide/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 10.92
      universal: 4.28
      premises: 3.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.58 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.22)
      basic: 3.46
      premises: 3.07 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.22)
      should: 3.18
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.83)
  • PRO

    by Robert Spitzer, and "Changing Sexual Orientation: A...

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

    In my opponent's opening points in the previous round he refers to the 'fact' that same-sex couples didn't exist around the dates that I mentioned for the founding of monogamy, unless he has any kind of source for this fact, I request that that statement is retracted for being unfounded. Also, the argument of marriage hasn't always included same-sex marriages, therefore people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get married, firstly, this point is the entire basis for this debate existing, if same-sex marriages existed, we wouldn't be debating this. Secondly just because something has always happened a certain way doesn't mean it is right, most law systems worldwide were originally based on archaic books that declared what good and evil were (Bible, Qu'ran, etc), and didn't leave any room for discussion. Modern laws are slowly changing towards a more understanding and progressive view of the world, which is why nowadays we have freedom of speech, women's rights, no capital punishment (mostly), contraception, fabric blends, shellfish or football (soccer). Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it is worthy. Just to clarify, I have never argued in this that marriage hasn't been, and isn't still involved with procreation, my contention is that procreation isn't necessary in a marriage. Webster's dictionary defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law", (btw there is an addendum to include same-sex marriages) nowhere is this definition does it claim that procreation is a necessary part of marriage, I also can find no legal definitions that include procreation, of Con can find a source I would love to see it. I was entertained by the Matthew D. Staver quote " The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" 1) Homosexuality has had a history of "longstanding, widespread discrimination" to the same extent as any protected class, sodomy laws have been in place until very recently in many countries, in the US the military was only technically allowed to allow homosexuals in less that two years ago. Not only has there been legal discrimination there is also a long history of institutionalised, internalised and social homophobia throughout the world. 2) Economic disadvantage - I don't know about the laws of the US but in the UK a civil partnership does not have equal economic rights to a marriage. 3) Immutable characteristics, the two major attempts to prove that homosexuality is not immutable were "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?" by Robert Spitzer, and "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer's Report" by Shildo & Schroeder. Spitzer did originally report 'positive results' in sexuality conversion. In 2012 he retracted his own study due to inaccuracies and requested that all "anti-gay" organisations stop using his report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). I couldn't find a source more valid than wikipedia for the Shildo & Schroeder report unfortunately, however their final conclusions were that not only was the therapy unsuccessful, it was harmful to the participants Con then claims that same-sex marriage isn't the will of the people, again please cite sources or retract. Next it is claimed that homosexuality is a 'sexual perversion' then follows a lot of claims with no evidence about 'sodomy' and again the claim that it is unnatural, earlier I asked Con to clarify his definition of unnatural. As far as I can tell he is using it to mean 'no biological benefit' just like all art forms, and most scientific research, and a belief in any religion, and love, and marriage.

CON

  • CON

    This is why the marketplace should be left to it. ... The...

    Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government

    In promoting the general welfare the framers of the Constitution did not intend to create positive rights. The did intend to promote the general welfare by creating an environment where people are free from interference to pursue happiness. If a positive right to provide any service was intended by the founders it would have been provided by the state from the very beginning of our history. Pro asks questions such as, how do we define healthcare? This is why the marketplace should be left to it. Individuals should have ownership over their own care and people should come together voluntarily to help those in need not by force or compulsion. We either respect individual liberty or we don't. We say that free choice exists or it doesn't. With respect for free markets and individual liberty we can have great choice and innovation as I have demonstrated above. We can have government run systems and they can work, but they inherently violate basic human freedoms. In the end like I said it comes down to if we respect liberty or if we want blanket one size fits all solutions. The choice is ours to make.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Health-care-is-a-right-and-thus-a-service-that-should-be-provided-by-a-government/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 9.29
      universal: 0.92
      sourceText: 0.92 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.92)
      sum: 4.25 (product 3.71, product 0.54)
      sum: 2.82 (product 0.65, product 2.08, product 0.09)
      basic: 4.25
      premises: 3.71 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.70)
      should: 4.13
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 2.08 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.84)
  • CON

    Pro has conceded all his points. ... The practice of...

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

    Pro has conceded all his points. The practice of private medicine use is only banned because they charge 100 dollars for a glass of post operative orange juice. http://news.nationalpost.com...

  • CON

    Right intention. ... The armed humanitarians of the R2P...

    Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in sex education classes.

    Your an idiot lets look to the just war theory and how were not justified but we would be in this case This debate is won by the Con because he upheld his criterion unlike the Pro he also linked his whole case to the V/C unlike the Pro....the pro was like a policy case or public forum case just random facts...we must negate the res. because Con destroyed his V/C... also HUGE POINTS WERE LEFT UNATTACKED>>>FOR EXAMPLE>>> .2 Right intention. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate states around the world. 5. Proportionality. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war. If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer"engaged in harm." Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. However we have seen that America has abused human rights of these prisoners of war in Guantanmo bay and Abu Grahib. The red cross reported that there are ongoing torture, sexual degradtion, forced drugging, extreme torture, sleep deprivation, religious persecution, and medical experimentation 2. Right intention. Iraq Ambassador James F. Jeffrey said that a "Our only reason for occuping Iraq was to stop human rights abuses from occuring and to defend the innocent civilians"Also our Ambassador of Afganistan James B. Cunningham said that the only reason for occupying afganistan was to "defend afgan citizens from getting the human rights abused". Therefore we see that we have the right intention of solely stopping human rights. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities. We have seen America authoritized by UN through resolution 688 in which they called for help to defend Kurdish people in Iraq to defend there human rights. Also with official act passed call Operation Provide Help. Another official international law is Responsibility to protect. In which those who can protect have an obligation. 4. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. We have seen great success in Iraq with human rights abuse. Ambassador James Jeffery said we were able to greatly reduce human rights abuse in 11 months the following years were for creating a stable government. 5. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the Right intention. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate states around the world. 5. Proportionality. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war. If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer"engaged in harm." Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. However we have seen that America has abused human rights of these prisoners of war in Guantanmo bay and Abu Grahib. The red cross reported that there are ongoing torture, sexual degradtion, forced drugging, extreme torture, sleep deprivation, religious persecution, and medical experimentation 2. Right intention. Iraq Ambassador James F. Jeffrey said that a "Our only reason for occuping Iraq was to stop human rights abuses from occuring and to defend the innocent civilians"Also our Ambassador of Afganistan James B. Cunningham said that the only reason for occupying afganistan was to "defend afgan citizens from getting the human rights abused". Therefore we see that we have the right intention of solely stopping human rights. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities. We have seen America authoritized by UN through resolution 688 in which they called for help to defend Kurdish people in Iraq to defend there human rights. Also with official act passed call Operation Provide Help. Another official international law is Responsibility to protect. In which those who can protect have an obligation. 4. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. We have seen great success in Iraq with human rights abuse. Ambassador James Jeffery said we were able to greatly reduce human rights abuse in 11 months the following years were for creating a stable government. 5. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Human Rights is a universal good in which everyone is born with according to the UN declaration of human rights. Nothing is weighted more valuble and of greater inherent worth than human rights therefore it is proportional to intervene. Contention 2 Through the just war theory we learn that states that are abusing human rights become an enemy to the world. And our no longer a legitimate society. Immanuel Kant said that if he were to be abuse he ought to be coerced. Meaning since they have violated the social contract they ought to be stopped in the human rights abuses. John Locke refers where the government invades the rights of subjects, or where it fails to use its power to secure those rights. Locke implied that the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which King James II was dethroned and replaced by William and Mary, was justified on these grounds. The U.N. was founded as a multilateral organization pledged to take action only when war crossed state boundaries. Internal affairs were left to each country individually. The armed humanitarians of the R2P school believe human-rights concerns outweigh state sovereignty, and force can - indeed must - be used to set things straight.

  • CON

    As my opponent has graciously and kindly pointed out, I...

    The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens

    As my opponent has graciously and kindly pointed out, I have made a series of errors which cannot be corrected at this point in the debate. I sincerely apologize for my lack of skill, for with a proper contender, this would have been a most interesting debate. I would like to thank my opponent for this opportunity, and I hope I will learn enough to be able to try again soon.

  • CON

    This is my first debate, so please be patient with me, as...

    The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens

    Hi, thank you for this opportunity to debate. This is my first debate, so please be patient with me, as I most certainly will make some mistakes with formalities and the debate system. However, I have been looking at other debates on this site for a while now, so hopefully this shall go relatively smooth. I eagerly await your response.

  • CON

    There is a universal right to an education but there is...

    Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled

    "That being said there are other methods of learning and accessing a proper education outside of public school also this debate is nothing more than hypothetical scenario for me. I will further support my points below." Public School is the Most widely accessed form of Education in America(1)(2), so I don't take it Lightly that it's a "Hypothetical" Scenario. "Contention 1: The Constitution makes no mention of education reserving it as a right given on the state level, See the 10th amendment. The state ultimately has the power over educational institution and ultimately makes all the laws. There is a universal right to an education but there is no universal right to attend any specific public education institution. This would not infringe upon the free will of an individual at all seeing as they have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but access to state regulated public schools can be restricted for good reason without infringing on rights or being unlawful. (students who have been expelled). (1)" Pro, You are Correct when you say the State "has the power over educational institution and ultimately makes all the laws". The State has the Power to Deny Welfare. The State has the Power to deny Financial Assistance The State has the Power to Evict, Control, and Abuse Private Property I don't think that Justifies the notion of the Denial of Education. "Contention 2: See my above point. No free wills are being broken here." See the Link I provided. "By Social Contract I mean parents typically know better than to send a sick child to school because their child could infect the others. Children contract viruses and diseases from each other at school all the time. Vaccinated children are still capable of spreading diseases to the unaffected, leaving them at a very high risk and allowing that child to be a powerful vehicle for the disease. (2)" Pro, It seems like your trying to create a Straw Man Argument here. "parents typically know better than to send a sick child to school because their child could infect the others" That's not the Debate Topic. And to go even Further, Parent's DO keep there Kids home when They're Sick, So your Straw Man Argument is invalid, Lol. "Children contract viruses and diseases from each other at school all the time." Pro, that's a Bold statement to make. Provide Statistics if you feel that way. "Vaccinated children are still capable of spreading diseases to the unaffected, leaving them at a very high risk and allowing that child to be a powerful vehicle for the disease. (2)" Vaccinated Children are still capable of Spreading Disease? Isn't this Contradicting your Platform? So according to your logic, we There is a universal right to an education but there is no universal right to attend any specific public education institution. This would not infringe upon the free will of an individual at all seeing as they have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but access to state regulated public schools can be restricted for good reason without infringing on rights or being unlawful. (students who have been expelled). (1)" Pro, You are Correct when you say the State "has the power over educational institution and ultimately makes all the laws". The State has the Power to Deny Welfare. The State has the Power to deny Financial Assistance The State has the Power to Evict, Control, and Abuse Private Property I don't think that Justifies the notion of the Denial of Education. "Contention 2: See my above point. No free wills are being broken here." See the Link I provided. "By Social Contract I mean parents typically know better than to send a sick child to school because their child could infect the others. Children contract viruses and diseases from each other at school all the time. Vaccinated children are still capable of spreading diseases to the unaffected, leaving them at a very high risk and allowing that child to be a powerful vehicle for the disease. (2)" Pro, It seems like your trying to create a Straw Man Argument here. "parents typically know better than to send a sick child to school because their child could infect the others" That's not the Debate Topic. And to go even Further, Parent's DO keep there Kids home when They're Sick, So your Straw Man Argument is invalid, Lol. "Children contract viruses and diseases from each other at school all the time." Pro, that's a Bold statement to make. Provide Statistics if you feel that way. "Vaccinated children are still capable of spreading diseases to the unaffected, leaving them at a very high risk and allowing that child to be a powerful vehicle for the disease. (2)" Vaccinated Children are still capable of Spreading Disease? Isn't this Contradicting your Platform? So according to your logic, we Should Deny Children the Right to an Education because of Others, not Themselves. "Measles was declared eliminated in the US by 2000 and its recent comeback can be attributed to the growing population of unaffected children. This is a reference to a CDC study supporting my point." People Globally Contract this Disease, and if Through Travel, Bring Measles to America, It's that Individuals Fault. That's How it Re-entered the US. I'd Like to Point out that the Strain That multiple people contracted was a New one, and Vaccinated Individuals were affected as well. (3) "This is irrelevant to my argument. Back to you!" As I stated and Provided, A Child's right to an Education is Mandatory in the US, as Chartered in the Child's act, and a Referendum created by the UN, and Signed by many Nations, US being one of course.(1) Children have the Right to a Quality Education, Regardless. (1)(https://www.google.ca...) (2)(https://www.google.ca...) (3)(https://www.google.ca...)

  • CON

    If scientists are communicating with other scientists...

    THBT: Scientific Writings should be written in Common Vernacular

    Hello there! I will briefly reply to you. I'm glad we both broadly agree on this topic. 1. In saying that there are poor and excellent examples of (particularly scientific) writing, I would just like to ask whether you have identified what stylistically makes scientific writing excellent? What is good scientific writing? 2 and 3. Personally I am not sure that even the proposition "Specialists should make an effort to ensure that their writings are easily understood in Common Vernacular" ought be the case. If scientists are communicating with other scientists then they should use the language most appropriate to their ends (which is often technical language). It should be the role of writers of popular science to decide what information in academia is important enough that they should translate it for public consumption. There is a type of author is society whose role this is. Men like Steven Pinker, Dawkins and Neil DeGrasse Tyson as well as egotists like Jordan Peterson translate and cohere specialist knowledge for public consumption. Why exactly should scientists writing for other scientists in their field write for a public audience exactly? Many are not great writers even if they are fluent in the technical language/s they use to communicate with one another. Scientific writing is as such that some of it is very obscure. This obscurity is meant to communicate with others who are equally well-versed in its technicalities. The intended audience is very small. This does make interdisciplinary or interprofessional learning harder (which is not desirable). This technical writing contrasts with the idea in fiction of writing for a universal audience - in such a way that what is written will be understood by all. The solution I would thus pose to you then would be that it should be encouraged that those who are both proficient in technical languages and in engaging public writing should translate technical knowledge for more public audiences. These translators - instead of the specialists themselves - should be the ones responsible for bringing specialist knowledge to the public. 5. I think your idea here is that the more practically important communication is the greater the responsibility is to make it clear and unambigious. Can you provide any examples of this to elucidate it a bit further for me? & also Good luck with your exams!

  • CON

    That event sparked a social experiment within a short...

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

    In addition, I look forward in a learning experience, for the both of us, in a constructive debate. In Round 2, please bear with me on a brief history of human rights up to the UN's UDHR, where I will comment on your statements in Round 3. The evolution of Unalienable Rights, through recorded history, started as early as Democritus 460BC where he stated: “Freedom from disturbance is the condition that causes human happiness, and this is the ethical goal.” http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk... Throughout the ages from the scholars of Democritus to Thomas Jefferson there were many similarities in metaphysics during the evolution of our Unalienable Rights to the celebrated form of: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson). Jefferson's view emphasizes these Rights are not man-made, but “self-evident” where all humans are equally endowed with them. The recent evolution of these Rights (Takac 2012) took the form, via the physical Constructal Law, that all living-systems (from single cells to humans to social systems) have the following bio-primitives of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback,” where these primitives are part of the physical Laws of Nature. Positive-feedback includes: survival, chemical/electrical, to Happiness for us humans, to social cultural norms, to corporate profit, to government desires, etc; where these bio-primitives have symmetry with Jefferson’s Unalienable Rights. That is the evolution of life's Unalienable Rights, from metaphysics to the physical Laws of Nature. http://www.bookdaily.com... http://www.amazon.com... Takac demonstrates life's Unalienable Rights is a bio-program having the natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve Life. At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase Liberty, with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during the pursuit of an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of Happiness, fulfillment, pleasure, and anything to do with positive feedback (aka evolution). As for the Unalienable Rights of institutions for social control (governments, royalty, theocracies, etc) there was a moment in history of a society starting with a “clean slate.” That society was the 13 Colonies of the New World maturing in the 1700s to form a Constitutional republic known as the United States of America. Jefferson, one of the founding Fathers of the US, influenced the design of the US Constitution to include Unalienable Rights. This Constitution was the first in history to limit a government having the objective to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less. That event sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. This social experiment offers a compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to operate within the awesome machinery of nature. However, since both the government and the individual share the same Unalienable Rights, there will be conflict and competition of Liberties between the two opposing entities, and there is no reason why such conflict will ever end. For example, about a hundred years ago, during US President Woodrow Wilson's dynasty, the League of Nations was formed (later became the UN), the concept of a progressive “living constitution” came into existence, among many other new philosophies that started a slow and subtle, may I use the term, “fundamental change.” http://books.google.com.... Jefferson viewed the foundation to the rule of law to be stable as in a Newtonian context making the structure of a constitution difficult to change via the Amendment process, where Wilson was an advocate of Social Darwinism, little resistance to change, stating the following in his book: “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.” In his book, Wilson also took issue with the individual's Unalienable Rights: “No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.” Clearly, Wilson rejected Jefferson's Unalienable Rights, the foundation of the US Constitution. Wilson went on to say: “Government is a part of life, and, with life, it must change, alike in its objects and in its practices; only this principle must remain unaltered, - this principle of liberty, that there must be the freest right and opportunity of adjustment. Political liberty consists in the best practicable adjustment between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual; and the freedom to alter the adjustment is as important as the adjustment itself for the case and progress of affairs and the contentment of the citizen.” Unbeknownst to Wilson, he was supporting the very thing that he was dismissing as “nonsense.” He promoted the Unalienable Rights of the institution of government, while dismissing the Unalienable Rights of the individual. To paraphrase Wilson, the government “a part of life,” must have “political liberty,” in the pursuit to make “adjustments” to the “privilege of the individual.” The accomplished objective by defining the individual’s privileges, results in institutional Happiness, having more control. In addition, the individual now has privileges, defined by government, in place of Unalienable Rights. Over the following decades came Eleanor Roosevelt, of the same political Party as Wilson, became involved with the UN in establishing UDHR. None of the UDHR 30 Articles contains any mention of Unalienable Rights. However, in the Preamble of UDHR did mentioned the term “inalienable rights,” but there were no reference to a definition. The terms “unalienable” and “inalienable” are often used synonymously. However, legally there is a subtle difference: http://en.wiktionary.org... There is a “fine distinction, with unalienable being stronger and absolute, while (in this usage) inalienable is weaker and conditional.” However, searching the UN’s website for a definition of “inalienable rights” we have the following: “Inalienable rights are generally distinguished from legal rights established by a State because they are moral or natural rights, inherent in the very essence of an individual. The notion of inalienable rights appeared in Islamic law and jurisprudence which denied a ruler “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being” and “become Rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter.” http://www.un.org... In addition, there are striking similarities between the UDHR’s 30 Articles relative to Articles 118 through 128 of the 1936 USSR's Constitution. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu... The history of the former USSR was deep in tyranny and the institution of government murdered millions of its own citizens. https://www.hawaii.edu... You do not learn this history in most schools, where most educational systems are controlled by government. It causes one to wonder, in the fading of Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights, to promoting UDHR 30 Articles in the shadow of Islamic law and the USSR's Constitution. Putting such shadow aside, the UDHR 30 Articles do sound inviting, however, the implementation of them will not be possible without the understanding and embracing the individual's Unalienable Rights, which are part of the physical Laws of Nature. And in conclusion of this thesis, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must NOT be taken more seriously compared to the individual's Unalienable Rights; otherwise, UDHR will be unachievable resulting in misery and bloodshed as demonstrated by the empirical history of the USSR.

  • CON

    sovereign credit risks, primarily political and fiscal,...

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

    A few observations: Pros argument really falls apart when applying it to his burden under the resolution--he lists problems in the current system but offers us no mechanism to repair these flaws; he presumes UHC will solve these issues, but really his advocacy amounts to "health care is good, lack of health care is bad". From where does it follow that a UHC system is the solution? I understand that my opponent doesn't want to defend a very specific system so the debate doesn't get into technicalities, but he needs to at least argue how a system of UHC would solve the problem. Government isn't the answer to everything, my opponent must prove that it is in this case. Case On principle? My opponent didn't rush to define what on principle meant--I argue that a fundamental principle of government is to act in it's citizens best interest, and if implementing UHC is contrary to that goal it ought not, on principle, be implemented. I. Worst possible time My opponent is advocating government run insurance at the absolute worst possible time. The US government is already reaching un-real levels of debt, inducing panic among the population and political gridlock that has crippled the US government. UHC would only increase the fiscal burden. Moreover the number of seniors (who need care the most) is currently rising[1] and the existing US safety net is on the verge of a complete meltdown. Worse still, while debt is ever increasing, the US credit horizon is looking increasingly gloomy. ForexLive reports[2] S&P's position on US credit: “U.S. sovereign credit risks, primarily political and fiscal, could build to the point of leading us to lower our ‘AA+’ long-term rating by 2014.”. S&P thinks there's about a 1-in 3 chance they'll have to downgrade the US credit rating even after the 2011 budget control act, and that probability will vastly increase if the government takes on a huge entitlement program while failing to maintain the ones it has. S&P explains that unless the US implements: “a credible, medium-term fiscal consolidation plan that represents significant (even if gradual) fiscal tightening”, they will probably downgrade it further. The impact of a downgrade is horrible. Economics professor Charles Rowley warns that if S&P or Moodys further downgrade U.S. credit ratings [3]: "[This would] throw into question the privileged status of U.S. Treasury securities as a safe haven for global investors. Any significant flight from Treasuries would raise Treasury bond rates, with crippling consequences for the economy. A 1-percentage point increase in rates would raise Treasury debt payments by $1 trillion over the next decade, wiping out the benefits of all the budget cuts enacted by Congress last year." The US government serves it's citizens best and secures their autonomy most by remaining the hegemon able to secure it's interests, but UHC will deter this. The perception is that the US is in a state of decline, as Mark Steyn argues in an article posted yesterday[4] "The assumption that we are in the early stages of “the post-American world” is now shared by everyone from General Sisi to Vladimir Putin." As the US and its allies continue to wallow in their debt and budget/trade deficits, China and Russia are becoming increasingly more aggressive and imperialistic. Much of Africa, the untapped gem of the world, is under Chinese economic hegemony[5]. The US faces the loss of it's position in the world, and consequently an inability to secure it's citizens interests abroad, if it does not tighten it's fiscal belt. The US's coercive power is just as much determined by its economic might as it is it's military muscle, and UHC will weaken the economy. Moreover even if these impacts are proven false by my opponent, the fact of gridlock remains. In order to pass UHC, Obama and Congressional democrats would have to sacrifice all the political capital they have. This means that sensible pieces of the democratic agenda such as tightening gun laws so that terrorists can't buy guns[6] and immigration reform are less likely to pass, along with other legislation that's vital to national objectives. To advocate such a massive change in such a tumultuous time is absurd. II. Empirical results I'll get more into this when addressing my opponents arguments, but experiences of UHC from other nations have been nothing short of disastrous. Waiting times for care are vast, in England 21% of curable lung cancer patients become incurable while waiting for health care[7]. In Canada, nearly 900,000 people are on the waiting list of care at any time[8]. People will use up all health care resources available since they do not have to pay for them; also in Canada[9]: "Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards". This is bad since ER patients usually need help immediately (compare the US, with a mean emergency room waiting time of 58 minutes[10] to Canada's mean time of four hours[11]). Since ambulances are free, the British use them as Taxis with 91% of ambulance visits being for non emergency purposes[12]. Moreover waiting lists for care in countries with UHC are incredibly corrupt, with the rich and influential often jumping places ahead of others in Japan[12] and Canada[13] where "research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected". Pro needs to provide some safeguards against these abuses or explain how the US wouldn't suffer from them. Until then, you negate. My opponent argues in the abstract, I argue actual results. 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... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com...

  • CON

    Providing children with their biological parents whenever...

    Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

    I thank my opponent for giving an interesting start to this important topic, but there are some problems. It is true that we observe Homosexual behavior in animals, but this does not defeat that marriage is about reproduction. If my opponent wanted to refute such an argument they would have to show that marriage was created for a different reason, or not always defined as one man and one woman. Now my reasons for supporting traditional marriage. First, the Burden of proof is on my opponent because most states in the U.S. don't recognize Homosexual marriages [1]. 1. Marriage is more than love "Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [2]. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [2] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." [2] The procreative argument was held up in many courts [3][8] such as Baker v. Nelson [4], Jones v. Hallahan [5], Singer v. Hara [6], Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning [7]. Showing that defining marriage is constitutional. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman because marriage is more than just love. 2. Marriage Historically "Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are: 1. Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle; 2. Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible: 3. Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible; 4. Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and 5. Providing men with a stake in family and society." [2] The Netherlands was the first country to recognize Homosexual marriages in 2001 [9]. No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships" [2]. Now dealing with interracial Marriage. Many supporters of homosexual marriage make the comparison to interracial marriage but this isn't a valid comparison. The First Anti-miscegenation (Anti-Mixed Marriage) Laws was passed in Virginia in 1691 [10]. It is important to note the colonial Virginia started in 1607 [11]. So, there was a period of 84 years before these laws ever existed. Also, . Nine states never had any Anti-miscegenation laws [12]. Further, "no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted" [13], and no state recognized Homosexual marriages until 2004 [14]. It is also important to note that "The laws in U.S. states were established to maintain 'racial purity' and white supremacy" [13], and laws defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman were not meant to ensure heterosexual supremacy, or anything like why interracial marriage was. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it isn't what marriage was intended for. 3. The Slippery Slope If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed too since all of them are able to love each other. Support for Polygamy is on the rise; according to a Gallup poll people who think Polygamy is morally acceptable has double in the last decade. [15] Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage. [16] "If the natural sexual complementary of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?" [17]. There is further proof corroborating these claims. Going back to the Netherlands the country that first legalize Homosexual marriage that "the Netherlands polygamy has been legalized in all but name" [18] In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" [18]. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage. 4. Marriage is a privilege Many supporters of Homosexual marriage claim that it is a civil right, but this isn't true. It is important to note a few differences between the 1960 civil rights movement and the homosexual marriage movement. "The two driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 arose primarily out of discrimination against African-Americans and women" [19] This brings up the question of what is a civil right. "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" [19]. It might be possible that you could prove widespread discrimination, but it is nothing compared to the 1960s. We have never made Homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or have separate schools/public areas. Next, we have economic disadvantage. A 2012 study shows that Homosexuals actually tend to have more money [20]. Ran out of characters. I will continue this argument in the next round. [1] http://gaymarriage.procon.org... [2] http://www.scribd.com... [3] http://seattletimes.com... [4] http://gaymarriage.procon.org... [5] http://www.leagle.com... [6] http://www.leagle.com... [7] http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov... [8] http://www.frcblog.com... [9] http://www.bbc.com... [10] http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu... [11] http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org... [12] http://www.tn.gov... [13] https://www.princeton.edu... [14] http://www.glad.org... [15] http://www.gallup.com... [16] http://www.nomblog.com... [17] http://downloads.frc.org... [18] http://www.brusselsjournal.com... [19] http://www.lc.org... [20] http://money.cnn.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-Should-be-Legalized/24/
    • score
      BM25 score: 9.09
      universal: 4.16
      premises: 3.43 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.73 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.54)
      should: 4.62
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.53 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.20)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.97)