Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewSame Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries
I can see no valid arguments against same sex marriages, and believe that it is unjust to refuse to allow them to take place I am new to this website, but not to debating, so apologies if I don't fully follow the format.
My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care
Thanks again to Uchiha for a stellar debate. C1: THEFT My Framework Con reiterates his attack that "Utilitarianism also rests on an 'a priori moral principle.'" I am not running utilitarianism, and my justifications for cost-benefit analysis don't rest on morality. My framework is not making a moral claim--frankly, I don't care if doing action X is moral (and it might be totally immoral), as long as it promotes benefit, it is something that should be done for objective, factual reasons. I have divorced morality and objectivity, and am using the latter, not the former, to make my case. Con does try to say that I did not successfully complete that divorce, when he writes, "Pro claims that utilitarianism is amoral because it prescribes that which is 'rational' rather than that which is 'moral', but that proves nothing, as all ethical systems claim ultimately derive their moral claims from rationality." But again, Con doesn't seem to understand that I am not arguing for an ethical system. I am not arguing for ethics at all. I am just arguing for a decision-making criterion, which is not necessarily bound to ethics or morality. That is what Con has utterly failed to understand: I am not making moral arguments. All Con has done is repeated his old attacks on my case, but he has not rebutted the fact that if cost-benefit analysis isn't based in morality, I am not being self-contradictory. Therefore, Con's one attack on my framework totally fails. Extend my framework. He cannot make any more attacks on it at this point, as he is not supposed to be defending his case at this time anyway. Con's Framework I will only be defending certain objections, so if I skip one, that's why. I only need to win one of these objections to eliminate Con's framework from consideration, as each one demonstrates self-ownership-based libertarianism's incoherency and/or immorality. 2. Treating People as Property is Morally Problematic Con says that slavery is necessarily forced, and that choosing to sell yourself into slavery is therefore fine because no such coercion would take place. There are several issues with this: (a) Coercion is present. If I choose to sell myself into slavery because my situation is so dire that slavery is the only viable way to escape it, I have been coerced by my circumstances to take an action I would otherwise never even contemplate. The absence of a reasonable alternative negates choice. For instance, if my options were to (a) starve to death and (b) to sell myself into slavery, I haven't been given a meaningful choice, and have been coerced by my circumstances to sell myself to slavery. Now, Con might respond that I could have chosen option (a), but that response raises additional concerns. If I was kidnapped by slave traders, I could probably be defiant enough that they would just kill me rather than sell me, so I have that same choice again: die, or become a slave. Surely, Con is not going to say that I wasn't coerced if I gun was pointed to my head and I was told to do something. Similarly, it is absurd to say I wasn't coerced if that gun was instead starvation. In other words, selling myself into slavery is not necessarily un-coerced, and thus violated self-ownership. (b) Selling myself into slavery, even if it wasn't uncoerced, still invalidates self-ownership. Self-ownership is the idea that we inherently own ourselves and are always our own owners. I cannot give up my self-ownership, because it is innate within me. If I always own myself, than no one else can own me--my right to self-ownership is inviolate, to use Con's term. Therefore, I cannot sell myself into slavery because to do so would be to say that someone else can own me, which they cannot. So, I always own myself. But, what I own, I should be able to sell. This creates a logical contradiction within Con's framework: if I own myself, I can sell myself, but yet, self-ownership says I can't do that. (c) Slavery undermines autonomy. Even if you don't buy (a) or (b), the idea that I can choose to give up so much autonomy seems to undermine the very point of libertarianism. The idea of self-ownership is that it maximizes autonomy, but yet, with slavery, one decision (the choice to sell myself) prevents me from ever making autonomous choices again. That seriously minimizes autonomy, and seems to undermine the very principle on which self-ownership rests. In other words, this example shows how self-ownership cannot achieve its very own objective, and is thus self-defeating. 3. Non-autonomous Humans Con implicitly agrees--by his not rebutting my claim that it would be--that it would be a "disastrous moral conclusion" if babies, the mentally handicapped, and the comatose were denied value. Proceeding from there, I have two defenses for this objection: (a) The slippery slope. If were are going to label some people as having less moral worth than others, we could easily set a precedent for things like, for instance, the holocaust, where Jews, Gays, Blacks, Gypsies, etc. were viewed as less than human. Surely, taking the life of a baby is no worse than taking my life, yet, the point of self-ownership is that autonomy is what gives us moral worth; insofar as I have more autonomy than a baby, it is more wrong to kill me than to kill a baby in Con's world. That's a dangerous precedent to set, esp. when history has shown us how this type of dehumanizing logic has been applied in other historical instances. Even if you don't buy the slippery slope, this would be, as noted earlier, a "disastrous moral conclusion," nonetheless. (b) The implications of Con's argument are rather ridiculous. Con writes, "In the case of babies and the mentally disabled, they do have a limited degree of personal autonomy, and thus do have some basic rights such as the right to life." A dog probably has about just as much autonomy as a baby or someone who is mentally handicapped. In fact, the vast majority of vertebrate animals have that level of autonomy. Therefore, by Con's logic, we would have to extend them all a right to life. What would we eat? How could we euthanize are pets? How could we cull oversized animal populations? A whole slew of problems ensue if we take Con's argument to its logical next step--it's just ridiculous. I seriously doubt Con would agree that a cow or dog has an inviolate, autonomy-based right to life. If that's true, then he cannot extend the right to life, or, frankly, any rights at all to babies and the mentally handicapped. Again, a "disastrous moral conclusion." (c) Con's rebuttal fails to address the real issue. Con talks a lot about how society has unequal rights in the status quo--but, unequal rights doesn't imply unequal moral value. In the status quo, killing a baby will result in the same type of murder charge that killing me will. Sure, a baby cannot take advantage of all of his/her rights, but that doesn't mean that his/her worth is somehow diminished. Con writes earlier, that "[t]o deny that humans have this personal autonomy is to deny that there is anything morally significant about humans." In other words, Con agrees that autonomy and moral worth are linked. Babies aren't autonomous in any meaningful sense of the word; they cannot make rational choices. Certainly this is true of newborns at least. They act on instinct and whim, not rationality. Therefore, Con would be forced, by his own logic, to deny that there is anything morally significant about a baby or a mentally handicapped person. His rebuttals focus on rights, but instead he should've focused on moral worth--he has not shown that babies still have equivalent moral worth to me, and so he cannot escape the "disastrous moral conclusion" that I talked about. 4. Con has not Sufficiently Proven that Natural Rights Exist Con's only real responses to my argument here are that I didn't justify my framework (which I did justify throughout this debate) and that he did justify it. But, all he does is repeat what he already said. And, what he already said is just a bare assertion fallacy. He never justifies why self-ownership only grounds the three specific rights he talks about, and not other rights, like health (why not--health is key to our ability to exercise our self-ownership, and if health is a right, we can turn his framework to affirm UHC). He never explains why self-ownership grounds those few rights he says it grounds; all he says is "from this concept of self-ownership, we can derive all the major natural rights possessed by humans"--that's not logic, that's a bare assertion fallacy. And, he never warrants why these rights are absolute. So, we can dismiss his entire framework for being ipse dixit. Theft I am just going to defend my second justification, because that's all I need to show that this isn't theft. Con says communal obligations may hold true locally, but not nationally. So, Con acknowledges that these type of obligations exist--that's an important first step. The next step is to show their national applicability. The taxes I pay to the federal government could easily be used to subsidize roadways in California, or to pay federal employees in Texas. It is flat out wrong to say that, on a federal level, people are not heavily interconnected and linked. Just because I don't meet them face-to-face doesn't mean that we are not deriving benefit from each other--indeed we are. Thus, our giving up resources for each other is a fair exchange, and legitimates the tax basis of UHC as not being theft. OTHER The economics debate is being addressed on my case, but Con does drop his quality contention. He can't defend it at this point, so it's conceded. VOTING ISSUES 1. Self-Ownership fails, so you should prefer my framework 2. UHC saves lives - I achieve my framework 3. UHC is economically beneficial - I achieve my framework 4. I have more offense - if you buy neither framework, evaluate off of this Thanks!
Freedom of speech should be practiced in all instances without exception
Hey, thanks for accepting the debate. Before we put forth our arguments, I'd like to invite your attention to the fact that I'm arguing for the protection of all kinds of speeches by the federal law (along with its equivalent in the ancient and medieval periods) and in no manner do I condemn public moral defamation of any subject caught using any kind of speech including but not limited to hate speech. I simply argue that freedom of speech - in all forms - should be recognized as a universal human right. Due to time constraints, I won't be convering hate speech and controversial opinions in this round, over which the whole debate revolves around. I'll make my case in the next round. Hope you have the best of times arguing, and hope you hope to demolish my arguments utterly. That being said, please allow me to state my case that free speech may be protected: #1: Free speech is a human right. The Oxford Dictionary defines freedom of speech as "the right to express any opinions without constraint or restraint."[1] As such, free speech then allows people to express their opinions, regardless of their nature. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares freedom of speech as a human right and states that federal law in all governments around the world should safeguard this basic, intrinsic human right. [2] It is important to realise that free speech doesn't allow people to act according to their own whims according to the definition. --- #2: Importance as a democratic ideal: Restrictions imposed by a federal authority on the expression of speech naturally and subsequently debar people from expressing their honest opinions on matters included in the restricted category. This discourages essential and productive economic and political public debates. Freedom of speech is an absolutely intrinsic part of democracy without which a democratic system cannot function and hence is an essential prerequisite to run a democracy. [3] --- #3: What history teaches us. Free speech as a right did not take deep roots in society until the 17th Century.[4] If we observe history before this period of time, we find that death and destruction on an unprecedented scale has been caused in the name of various causes.[5] Many were slaughtered and tortured for committing blasphemy and other similar offenses where they were denied the right to freely express themselves.[5] We come to understand that when free speech was yet to be recognised as a human right, many were executed for committing the apparently innocent crime of expressing their harmless opinions. --- There've been regulations passed in certain countries prohibiting the use of hate speech. While hate speech is a loose term, (this is a point I'll make in the next round) it can be defined as "speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation." (notice that it doesn't include threatening behaviour) [6] Hate speech can then prove to be hurtful and offensive to certain groups which makes it a major and highly debated realm of free speech. I'll make a case for hate speech in the next round due to severe time constraints which is the crux of this debate, anyway. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.un.org... [3] http://www.youthmedia.eu...- [4] http://law2.umkc.edu... [5] http://markhumphrys.com... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com...
My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care
Thanks, Uchiha! I will rebut Con's case at this time. C1: THEFT Con challenges the framework I set out earlier. My first issue with this was that round two was for Con to lay out his case, not to rebut mine. But, since he has used it, in part, as a rebuttal, I'll address his points now. My Framework Con accuses me of doing the same type of thing I object too. In fact, what I am objecting to are the use of "a priori moral principles" dictating government policy, as per the Woller card. Using such moral principles is problematic because policies will always have to make value trade-offs; for instance, Medicaid is a policy more liberals can endorse, but most libertarians find it abhorrent. In democracies, there are always going to be values conflicts and disagreements over principles; it is not fair for governments to prejudice themselves in favor of any one such principle. Therefore, we cannot rely on moral principles to make decisions, so we have to default to an objective standard of decision-making, i.e. a cost-benefit analysis. I don't fall prey to my own objection, because I am not suggesting the government adopt any kind of moral ideology, but rather that it act dispassionately toward any morality by using a non-moral, objective, measurable criterion for decision-making. My opponent seemingly believes that any system of decision-making is necessarily moral, but that's not true. I am talking about pragmatics, not morality. I would also assert that a cost-benefit decision-making system is necessarily amoral because it doesn't proscribe what one ought to do, but rather what it is prudent to do. Moral judgments are not always prudent or pragmatic judgments. Con's Framework I have five main issues here: 1. Treating People as Self-Owners with "inviolable" Rights to Themselves as Property leads to Absurd Moral Dilemmas "Self-ownership conflicts with Pareto-Optimality...[S]ince self-ownership is construed by libertarians as an absolute right, it follows that it cannot be violated even in small ways and even when great benefit would accrue from doing so. Thus...absolute rights of self-ownership seem to prevent us from scratching the finger of another even to prevent the destruction of the whole world. And although the real objection here seems to be to the absoluteness of self-ownership rights, rather than to self-ownership rights as such, it remains unclear whether strict libertarianism can be preserved if rights of self-ownership are given a less than absolute status." [1] 2. Treating People as Property is Morally Problematic Property is something that can be sold or exchanged. If I own myself, then can I not sell myself? There are some who might be desperate enough for money or to escape their situation that they might sell themselves in exchange for food, money, clothing, shelter, etc. This undermines autonomy, which is the whole basis of Self-Ownership, thus making Self-Ownership self-defeating, and it's also clearly immoral. 3. Non-autonomous Humans Con writes, "[t]o deny that humans have this personal autonomy is to deny that there is anything morally significant about humans." Firstly, this is just blatantly false, as there are other ways to derive human value (our emotional capacity, our ability to feel pleasure and pain, etc.) But, the main issues here arise when we ask, "what of the status of non-autonomous humans?" A baby, a person with severe mental handicaps, a comatose individual--these are all people who cannot exercise autonomy in the sense Con is using it. Unless Con is prepared to deny all of these agents moral worth--a seemingly disastrous moral conclusion--then he must reject his standard of self-ownership-based libertarianism. 4. Con has not Sufficiently Proven that Natural Rights Exist Con assumes that we have natural rights, and among them include life, personal liberty, and property. He offers no justification as to why these rights are natural, why they are absolute, or why these rights are the only natural rights. So, he commits a bare assertion fallacy, and uses this fallacy to justify self-ownership. Any conclusion resting on a faulty premise cannot be validated logically. Moreover, if we agree that natural rights exist, why is health not one of them? 5. Self-Ownership Presupposes the existence of a Soul A thing cannot own itself. For something to be owned, that implies that it is under the control or possession of something else. I own my dog, my dog does not own itself. If that is the case, to say that humans are owned implies that there is something owning us, which implies the existence of a soul. To buy into self-ownership, Con must first prove that the soul exists. 6. Self-Ownership Rewards Luck, Not Hard Work or Autonomy "Recognizing rights to full self-ownership allows individuals' lives to be objectionably governed by brute luck in the distribution of natural assets, since the self that people own is largely a product of their luck in receiving a good or bad genetic endowment, and being raised in a good or bad environment." [1] Theft The use of public money for some goal cannot be said to be theft because: 1. In the state of nature land belonged to everyone. Everyone had infinite rights to everything, and it was in forming a society that some rights were surrendered to keep things stable. Since land was owned by no one in the state of nature, people claiming it for their own violates the rights of everyone else to use this land. Taxes are one way of penalizing individuals for stealing otherwise public land, and compensating everyone else for the loss of their rights. Properly understood, then, many forms of taxation are merely equalizers, not modes of theft. 2. Part of living in a community is that one incurs obligations to the community in which one lives. You get benefits from that community, and in return for those benefits, you pay taxes and participate in your civic duties. That is not theft, that is a fair exchange--something any libertarian can applaud. C2: ECONOMICS There are four issues here that I can raise: 1. Pro never describes the scope of the harms. Con just says that the impacts will be significant, but he never tells us how significant. Sure, UHC might lead to some bad economic results, but that doesn't mean that the bad will outweigh the good. Since Con never gives us any concrete statistics as to how much a country will be negatively impacted, it is impossible to weigh Con's nebulous harms against the concrete economic benefits I described. Prefer clear benefits to ill-defined harms. 2. UHC saves millions of dollars in the long run, as I noted last round. Therefore, it actually is more affordable, on balance, and over time, than a more free-market based system like the one currently being implemented in the U.S. Con also provides no warrant for his ipse dixit claim that: "virtually no government has the financial capability to successfully run a UHC program without creating large scale economic harms." UHC also solves many economic problems, like job lock and absenteeism, which I discussed last round. 3. Con the talks about dependency, and refers to some statistic about welfare. First, these stats are really old (27 yrs.), and from a conservative (i.e. biased) think-tank, the Cato Institute. Moreover, most recipients of welfare are not dependent on it (in 2005, 15.3% received benefits, whereas 3.8% were dependent.) [2] 4. Dependency isn't necessarily the worst outcome--even if we were to believe Con re: how UHC would lead to dependency. Dependency is certainly better than ill-health, letting thousands of people die, and so forth. Remember, Con says one of our most fundamental rights is that of life--surely we should value that over risks of dependency. C3: QUALITY I have four issues with Con's arguments here: 1. Con writes that "*everyone* [is] taking full advantage of [UHC], thus overloading the country's...facilities." The agreed definition of UHC states: "universal healthcare benefits need only be extended to those without insurance." This essentially renders Con's point moot. 2. It is better to have delayed care than no care at all, which, in essence, is what this boils down to. 3. Wait times are not necessarily higher in UHC countries. Con cites 3 examples of UHC producing higher wait times, but these are simply cherry-picked. Without any information about all or most UHC countries, we cannot reasonably extrapolate as to wait lines in UHC systems in general. Moreover, recent (2013) data contradicts what Con is saying. "People in many countries that spend far less on healthcare than the U.S. are more likely to say they can usually get a same-day or next-day appointment when they need it, and to say they can get after-hours treatment without going to the ER. This is true for countries that have single-payer systems, like the U.K. (though not Canada), and for many Western European countries that have multi-payer systems like ours." [3] "And even so, people in Switzerland and the U.K. were both still more likely to say they waited four weeks or less for a specialist appointment than Americans were." [3] Prefer my data as it is 22 years more current than Con's most recent statistic. 4. Waiting Times are just one aspect of care quality. On balance, and as my earlier round's evidence shows, UHC nations provide good quality care more often than not. In fact, they provide better care than non-UHC systems. HOUSKEEPING Last round, all of the [?] symbols should have been [3] instead. Sorry about that... CONCLUSION Con's arguments have no standing. Most are unsupported by evidence, and many are logically un-compelling. The resolution stands affirmed. SOURCES 1 - http://www.iep.utm.edu... 2 - http://aspe.hhs.gov... 3 - http://www.theatlantic.com...
Polygamy should be legal
Definition: " The state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time". I: Human Rights In a democracy, a person has basic political rights. These political rights gives freedom for expression, to protest, to organize, etc. The UN has an entire article on the right to marry between a man and a woman. "ARTICLE 16 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. " However, this only covers heterosexual marriages. So, most countries have included homosexual marriages into theiir own "Right to Marry". The next, logical step is to legalise polygamy. If a person wishes so, he can have the consent from his previous spouse and marry another one. The State has no bearing upon him. As the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16, states: "Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. " Why would this be wrong? There is consent, after all. II: Religious reasons 1. Christianity - There are plenty of verses that implies polygamy is "wrong". The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, once wrote that "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." 2. Other religions: Polygamy is prevalent in most of the other religions, such as Hinduism or Judaism. III: Economic Reasons: A study shows that in polygyny, the woman are more likely to be benefited than polyandry when the sex ration is more. With all the above stated reasons, I want polygamy to be legalised. Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.ohchr.org... 3. http://www.gasl.org... 4. Luter, Martin. De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329–330. 5. https://www.unc.edu...
Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime
I must dutifully inform my opponent that there is nothing "Hypothetical" about the universal background checks we are debating. The title of this very debate specifically includes the words "As recently proposed in the US Senate". My opening statement further clarifies we are discussing the law "as written". Accepting this debate requires you to show this law could mitigate crime WITHOUT being amended and in the conditions under which it would be applied. The main issue being debated here is in no conceivable way "what should the law ought to be" (my opponents phrasing, not mine). Having made this clear, I will proceed with my rebuttals under the defined constrictions of this debate".. "I showed through the examples of Canada, Finland, Switzerland, and Australia that statistically speaking the results overwhelmingly favor background checks and heavy gun regulation to prevention of crime." I have demonstrated to my opponent (with a basic law of science no less) how statistical studies are in no way proof of ANYTHING and can easily be manipulated to give favor to either side. More importantly, however, each of these countries have restrictions on guns that go well beyond that of the United States'. Arguing that this policy is successful in those countries necessarily includes the aggregate effect of laws that could never even be passed in The US (a national registry being the prime example). Again, you have failed to show any proof of how UBC's (as written!) would be effective in The US. "Secondly, it is enforceable, the problem is the NRA striking down such bills in which enable the law enforcers to uphold the law. For instance..." The NRA does not have ANY authority to "strike down bills" They represent millions of people concerned about gun rights in The US who have a perfectly reasonable right to gather and vote as they see fit. And if UBC's problem is that it can't work without passing more laws then you must necessarily admit UBC'S, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime. "because that's [private sales] the only way criminals can get their guns." I challenge my opponent to show why a criminal is incapable of stealing their weapons, making them with a 3D printer, or benefiting from gun traffickers. "all guns manufactured in the US do have a serial number, and the data is easy to obtain via a database when looking up the serial number." Yes and it traces back to an FFL dealer only. Probably one that buys thousands of guns at a time. "Why can we not do this with purchasers of weapons as well?" Because that is a registry which is specifically illegal. 'The info often gives the manufacturer, and the seller, from there the seller may identify who the buyer is." Lets apply that scenario to real life".A federal authority suspects a gun used by a criminal was acquired illegally. They start by locating the business the gun was sold to, then they would have to confirm the store it was sold from, they would then have to hope that based on nothing more than a general description of the gun and a ten digit number that a sales clerk who likely sells hundreds of firearms a month will remember who they sold it to. Then they would have to get that clerk to agree to testify. Then they would have to get a DA to be willing to try the case solely on a near unbelievable eye witness account, and lastly, you would need 12 jurors to unanimously decide that said evidence is enough to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is supposed to effectively mitigate crime? "One example is the gun segment on the Jon Stewart Daily Show in which showed a leader from the NRA going against the Brady Bill as "unconstitutional" even though it has been shown to prevent suicides, and delay shootings." How does this further the idea that the recently proposed UBC's would mitigate crime in The US? A law being effective at the prevention of something hardly makes it constitutional. We could pass a law limiting free speech that would effectively prevent Westboro Baptist Church from being a public menace. I would not, however, consider this change to be inherently "good". "Furthermore, if my opponent is correct and those criminals simply have no fear"why fear a gun" I never said criminals were fearless. My opponent seems to attempt to credit a number of ideas and cessions a have made to him that never occurred. In the future. I will ask that you use direct quotations to indicate what I have said in this debate. To clarify, I believe criminals do not fear the law when there is no reason to fear consequence. Losing your life is a consequence almost any human will consider if it's occurrence is likely. "Which is why I noted that a strong correlation exists with increase gun control and less crime. However as a matter of fact, the Harvard Studies...." Direct quote from the "conclusion" portion of this source....."our study cannot determine causation". This could also read "hopelessly doomed to ambiguity" That is EXACTLY what I have been saying, right? "Apples, Oranges, Mexico, Brazil, more studies and back to Canada & Switzerland..." Are we really going to argue over an expression with an obviously accepted use?...... Having already shown why other countries do not constitute a rational comparison for this debate I will add only that Mexico's right to bear arms is nothing like The United States'. The constitutional right you speak of has been watered down such as to make it wholly ineffective. Local police districts in Mexico hold legal authority to severely limit gun private ownership such that only farmers in the middle of nowhere can get small caliber long guns. All this control and Mexico's murder rates make ours look like child's play. *Self Defense... "Here's another study..." Here's another quote from your study regarding its controls....."To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim" You do not have to shoot someone to use a gun defensively, that is an absurd qualification at best. You could fire the gun and miss, you could simply point the gun, you could deter crime by merit of having it in the plain view of a criminal looking for target. Your source allows for NONE of this. "And it's not that simple, State v. Faulkner..." Essentially someone killed someone else and tried to claim self defense unjustly. This is not an argument against guns, but rather against self defense in general. A person can kill another person with any object and attempt to claim self defense thereafter. Is my opponent somehow indicating that the banning of a right to self defense would help UBC's mitigate crime in the US? "Somalia" My opponent has openly avowed he feels the situation in Somalia is a result of having no established gun policy. I believe it is the result of having no established government for decades. Since this argument could not possibly show how UBC's would mitigate crime inside the lawful boundaries of The US, I am content to leave this for the reader to decide. Thanks, and back to you con..
All Americans should be entitled to health care
To begin: -In this debate health care shall be defined as a universal government run health care system -I would like to refrain from arguing specifics of health care provisions but I will fully accept arguments on the effectiveness of government health care Resolution: All Americans should be entitled to health care So with this in mind I would like to open my argument: In the status quo, millions of Americans have had and will continue to have serious medical illnesses and will be required to pay vast amounts of medical bills. In the interests of this debate, I will list the reasons to prefer the resolution to the status quo: 1. Many Americans are unable to pay for their health expenses even though not at fault, this creates a situation in which a person's right to live is judged by their income. Governing a person's right to live by income is bad because it advocates that a a person who is very morally just and has contributed greatly to society is worth less than another person who has cheated his way to wealth. My argument is simple, government run health care is better because your state of health is not determined by your financial worth. 2. The privatization of health care is bad because the most successful health care company is the one that makes the most money which means that a person's health isn't held as importantly. 3. Children born to families in lower economic conditions will also suffer from decreased health even though the child has done nothing to deserve that status. 4. Health care costs are unaffordable and bankrupting Americans. In 2007, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who had medical insurance(1)(2). (1)http://www.pnhp.org... 5. In order to protect the interests of all Americans, universal health care is the best option to counter epidemics like bird flu. 6. The Preamble of the US Constitution clearly states "to promote the general welfare" of the people.This justification alone is enough to show all Americans should have the right to health care because it "promotes the general welfare." These are all reasons why governmental health care solves best for moral and economic factors. In conclusion, universal health care is a moral imperative to insure that freedom and equality is preserved in the US.
Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats
I will address my opponents points: "This debate about debates can get messy. The YE guys and the scientists have a debate, and we are having a debate about their debate." Agreed. "It is the arguments put forth by the YE people that have no value." As I previously stated, even if the YEC arguments have no value, the falsifiable arguments they do present are pseudoscience backed by religious, cultural, and political dogma; therefore, no value or otherwise, the arguments must be shown to be incorrect and deceitful. Doing so in a live format is necessary as the YECs are most influential in such formats. "Are there any (Young Earth) Scientists?" Not in a legitimate capacity, no, but they do practice pseudoscience, hence my issue with them. The YEC movement claims to have scientists, but their work would not meet the basic requirements needed for scientific study. Although some YECs have degrees from secular universities, the work they conduct cannot be called science due to their reliance on a supernatural entity to support their overall conclusions. Another weapon used by YECs is to create fields of study in faith based schools and provide unaccredited degrees in those fields. (see Patriot university, for example) This is one of the more important claims that needs to be exposed in a debate. I have an idea as to how to do this, but my opponent is still contesting the debate in the first place so I do not see a need in addressing how a scientist should respond to false degrees as I need to show the legitimacy of the debate in the first place. "The captivity of the "captive audience" is the problem." This contention is vague. I do not know if my opponent has issue with my claim that the audience is captive or agrees that YECs do have a captive audience when speaking at churches and that poses a problem. If the contention is the later, then I agree. If the former, then I will add that church, at least in my experience, is a community gathering. Some people attend for social networking, some for faith based study of the Bible (Sunday school), some for charity organization, and others because they feel it is required by religious doctrine. Church attendance is hardly mandatory in mainstream organizations, I agree. But attending church functions to be closer to other Christians and God gives the YEC a perfect forum to spew false scientific claims and to vilify those who disagree. Such a charged atmosphere creates a captive audience in some sense and one that will be more prone to believe the YEC pseudo scientific claims. Scientists must reach these people and confront YEC at the same time. "The Universal Truth In Religious Claims Act as well as the Universal Maniac On The Loose Control Act are applicable here. The Universal Truth In Religious Claims Act provides a religious forum for the debating of religious issues. Both of these imaginary acts are implemented worldwide by imaginary means. The Rude Comedian Act requires all points of view to be expressed including the Flying Spaghetti Monster believers. http://www.venganza.org...... Nobody wants that, we will tell them. But IF we have to, and I stress if…" I enjoyed my opponents satirical Acts (and request permission to use them in the future, with credit given of course) and his reference to the FSM, but each misses the point. The debate is not about their religion so much as their scientific claims. Scientists should not go after their religion, just their science. The YECs do make falsifiable claims outside of religion and the scientist must show those claims to be false. For example: Claim: Geological evidence shows the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. This is a falsifiable claim outside of a religious context that can be, and has been, refuted. The claim is based on an interpretation of a biblical chronology, not geological evidence. The scientist can regulate the belief in a young earth to a pure faith position which is the place she stops. Claim: Geological evidence shows a world wide flood occurred 4,000- 5,000 years ago. This is a falsifiable claim outside of a religious context that can be, and has been, refuted. The claim is based on a belief that Noah's flood, as depicted in a selective reading of Genesis, was world wide and accurately portrayed in scripture, not geological evidence. Again, the scientist can regulate the belief in a world wide flood 4,000 years ago to a pure faith position outside of science. The scientist needs to focus on falsifying such claims and leave the debate at the point. If the scientist wishes to go further into the spiraling hole of the divinity and absolute truth of scripture then the FSM becomes fair game and the debate will go nowhere, as it will be a battle of pure faith based beliefs, but scientists should push the YECs to that point. Once there, the deceitful, rhetorical arguments from the YECs will be exposed; therefore, the debate to this point is necessary. I see no need to mention the FSM when dealing with falsifiable claims that science can answer. YECs can have only one honest position and that is simply that all geological, cosmological, biological, and physical evidence refutes their claims but they have faith that the earth is young, once here - the scientist's work is done. My opponent makes a solid claim stating the YEC argument, in debate terms, has no value, but policy and influence are not subject to the realm of the formal debate. Dismissing a YEC due to ivory tower rules will only embolden them and increase the influence of their false, albeit simple, claims that the average person can find plausible. Science is too important to ignore this influence due to a strict debate policy used in academia. YECs may not be allowed in debate halls, but they are making their own and are doing well (outside of debate terms, but in the area of influence) in the forums that scientists shun. This practice, by scientists, is a mistake.
My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care
Thanks to Uchiha! I am looking forward to a great debate--hopefully I can do better at affirming this topic that I did previously. JUST SOCIETY To know what a just society ought to do, we must first know what a just society is. Merriam-Webster writes that the term just denotes "conformity with what is morally upright or good" as well as that which is "reasonable." [1] So, the logical follow-up query is "what makes a society upright or good." In this sense, because we're talking about UHC, which specifically entails government action--if the insurance is found in the private market, it's not UHC. So, we can perhaps re-frame the question to what makes a government upright or good, as the government is the representative of society as a whole. George Kennan writes, "the functions, commitments and obligations of governments are not the same as those of the individual. Government is an agent, not a principal. Its primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it represents, not to the moral impulses that individual elements of that society may experience. No more than the attorney vis-a-vis the client, nor the doctor vis-a-vis the patient, can government attempt to insert itself into the consciences of those whose interests it represents." [2] Gary Woller adds, "Appeals to a priori moral principles...often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense...the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that...their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." In other words, governments cannot fairly or justly make decisions by engaging in ideological favoritism; they must back up decisions with hard facts. Thus, we should evaluate this debate through the lens of cost-benefit analysis. SAVING LIVES AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF CARE There are myriad problems that the uninsured face due to a lack of coverage. The problems include an inability to afford and fill prescriptions, greater difficulty (3-4 times) in obtaining needed care for even serious ailments, a lack of a regular place to go to seek care (40% of the uninsured don't have such a place), a 50% less likelihood to receive preventative care, a tendency to delay seeking care (the uninsured are 1.5 times as like to be diagnosed late for many types of cancers), and reduced quality of care. All of these factors "translates into 18,000 excess deaths for people between age 25-64 per year, which is of comparable magnitude to the number of people in this age group who die each year from diabetes, stroke, HIV, and homicide." [3] Other reputable studies place the number of death from a lack of insurance closer to 45,000 per year. [4] Clearly, the uninsured face dire problems regarding the quality of medical care they receive--if they're luck enough to receive any at all. This poor quality or nonexistent care in turn has an alarming impact on the death rate among the uninsured. Fortunately, UHC presents a solution to the problem. It seems fairly obvious, intuitively, that covering everyone will reduce, if not end, the problems that have arisen due to a lack of coverage. Logically and empirically, this intuitive truth is borne out. One empirical example evidencing this truth is that of Massachusetts. MA instigated a UHC program for its citizenry before the rest of the U.S. had, and so it provides an interesting test-case for UHC. After it implemented UHC, it's death rates dropped by 2.9%. [5] That's 320 lives saved each year in one state alone. Moreover, "A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2010 found that there were fewer hospital visits after the state's reforms. Another study, released last year, showed that between 1 and 2 per cent of Massachusetts residents reported better health statuses." [5] Infant mortality is also higher in the U.S. than UHC countries. [6] If we look at the World Health Organization's rankings of national health systems, 8 of the top 10 are systems with UHC (the two that aren't are micro-nations--San Marino and Malta--that can probably use other means of ensuring their smaller populations are well-covered.) Of the top 40, just 6 do not have UHC. Of the top 50, just 10 do not have UHC. [7, 8] It seems then that there is a link between UHC and the quality, comprehensiveness, and life-saving capacity of a medical system. THE ECONOMY First, high uninsurance causes a variety of problems, including high bankruptcy rates, job lock, poor work performance, and unnecessary use of the ER. Let's look at each one of these points in turn: High Bankruptcy - Recent research indicates "that more than half of all US bankruptcies are due, at least in part, to medical illness or medical bills." [9] In fact, medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. [10] "15 million people will deplete their savings to cover medical bills. Another 10 million will be unable to pay for necessities such as rent, food and utilities because of those bills...More than 25 million people are skipping doses, taking less medication or delaying refilling prescriptions to save money." [10] Job Lock - "Job lock refers to the idea that people stay with their jobs when they would rather work elsewhere because their current job offers health insurance...Although the number of people who would be self-employed if there were universal health care is controversial, one study from 2001 put the number at 3.8 million Americans. This loss of entrepreneurship is a real economic cost in a society that is relying on start-ups to offset the loss of jobs that are moving offshore." [?] Performance At Work - Firstly, it's logical to assume that there will be higher rates of absenteeism in a sicker society. [11] If I am sick more often, I will come into work less, and thus my productivity is reduced. Even if I did come into work, I would likely to be able to function at peak levels, and could possibly infect colleagues, impacting their productive capacity in turn. Secondly, people who are chronically ill due to lack of medical attention will live shorter lifespans. It stands to reason then that countries with poorer medical infrastructure will, on balance, have people who live fewer years than in more advance countries. This shorter lifespan phenomenon is economically costly: "the annual cost of diminished health and shorter life spans of Americans without insurance is $65-$130 billion. People who do not live as long do not work and contribute to the economy as long." [?] Unnecessary Use of the ER - When uninsured people cannot see normal physicians, they're forced to use the ER. "An average visit to an emergency room costs $383,11 whereas the average physician’s office visit costs $60.12 It is estimated that 10.7% of ER visits in 2000 were for non-emergencies, costing the system billions of dollars." [?] I have already demonstrated the success of UHC systems to provide high-quality care, and this care will in turn create a healthier population that will address the issues listed above. Moreover, UHC will save money. Studies have revealed that various UHC options can "save $320.5 billion...and...$1.1 trillion over 10 years." [12] And, if you look at healthcare spending as a portion of GDP, France--a UHC nation--spends less than the U.S.--a non-UHC nation--does on healthcare. [13] In fact, no country spends more on healthcare as a percentage of their GDP than the U.S., and so UHC countries, like Oman, spend the least on their healthcare programs (just 2.6% compared to America's 17.9%). This same discrepancy holds up on a per-capita basis. [14] So, it seems that UHC actually would reduce healthcare costs. “Overall, US healthcare expenditures are 2.4 times the average of those of all developed countries ($2759 per person), yet health outcomes for US patients, whether measured by life expectancy, disease-specific mortality rates, or other variables, are unimpressive.” [15] SOURCES [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] - http://www.foreignaffairs.com... [3] - http://www.amsa.org... [4] - http://www.reuters.com... [5] - http://www.newscientist.com... [6] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] - http://thepatientfactor.com... [8] - http://upload.wikimedia.org... [9] - Stephanie Woolhandler [Prof., Cuny School of Public Health at Hunter College] and David Himmelstein [Prof., Cuny School of Public Health at Hunter College], “Healthcare Reform 2.0,” Social Research Vol. 78: No. 3 : (Fall 2011) [10] - http://www.cnbc.com... [11] - Dale Murray [Prof. of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Baraboo], “The Massachusetts Health Plan, Individual Mandates, and the Neutrality of the Liberal State,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 36: 466–483, (2011) [12] - http://www.amsa.org... [13] - http://data.worldbank.org... [14] - http://www.theatlantic.com... [15] - Ezekiel J. Emanuel [MD, PhD; Department of Bioethics, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health] and Victory R. Fuchs [Prof. Department of Economics, Stanford University], “The Perfect Storm of Overutilization,” JAMA, Vol 299, No. 23 (June 18, 2008) The resolution is affirmed--UHC is the beneficial action to take. Thanks again to Con! I turn the floor over to him...
Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College
Hi I would like to make this a Public Forum debate, where you argue mainly based on evidence. I hope that's ok because I usually debate in this style. The old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" well, the side proposition says, "If our democracy is broke…. Fix it!" Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. Definitions I would like to define direct popular vote as voting done by members of the public directly, through a system where all votes are considered in the final decision. I define electoral vote as the current voting system within the United States, where the members of the Electoral College represent each state vote for the presidency. As the proposition, I support the resolution for the 3 following reasons: -the system of Electoral College is inherently flawed -the system reduces American agency -Direct popular vote maximizes collective liberties. 1. The system of Electoral College is inherently flawed and must be discarded Sub point A the system right now does not follow the principles of democracy. A truly democratic government is one in which all people have an equal say in deciding who is to represent them. The Electoral College structure as it stands, essentially ignores the political will of the minority of any given state. Through a system of direct popular, similar political opinions from multiple states could band together to contribute to the over-all number of supported for their party. Unfortunately in status quo, the supporters of a particular party are isolated from their counter-parts in other states; reducing the overall value of their vote should they lose. This means that the voice of the 51% of the people is infinitely louder than the voice of the 49% which is fundamentally unfair. Source: (Democratic, Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon," at Perseus) Sub point B many people do not agree with this system It is the opinions of the citizenry which matters most in regards to the method of democracy. Should the majority of Americans prefer an alternative system, than it would be entirely counter-intuitive to keep the current system. The vast majority of the Americans want direct popular vote. The real question isn't whether we should change the system to direct popular vote, but rather why is it that we have not changed it yet! We have to replace the Electoral College system with the direct popular vote. In Gallup polls going far as 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system. This meniscus percentage has not increased significantly since then. The people have spoken and it would be wise to listen. Source: www.nationalpopularvote.com/ Sub point C people will either stop voting or contribute to the polarized political culture of the United States The Electoral College awards electoral votes based on a winner-take-all method: the candidate with the highest number of votes in each state gets all of the state's electors. This causes millions of votes to be effectively uncounted. The sad reality is that if an individual lives in a state where the vast majority votes for a party that they do not support, there is absolutely no incentive to vote. When a person knows it is essentially impossible to have their vote make a difference, there really is no point in participating in the political process. This forces the politically passionate to physically move to another state if they want their vote to matter at all, which we think is entirely unreasonable. Even if they do move, we think this is not in the best interest of the country. When you only have vastly polarized states with highly segregated political opinions, this tends to further isolate citizens from the opposite party and heighten political tension between the parties which hurt the political process as a whole. Source: Michael E. McGrath explains why in "The Electoral College Inhibits Democracy,: written fro electionreform.org 2. This system selectively reduces the agency of marginalized American citizens The Electoral College system fails to show nation popular will In 2000, George W. Bush had 271 electoral votes and Al Gore had 266 electoral votes, but he had 50.2% of the popular vote while George W. Bush only had 49.8%. The narrowness of the results in California caused anarchy within the political structure resulting in a decision by the Supreme Court which was fundamentally undemocratic. Had a direct popular system had been implemented; the entire country could have distributed the hyper-burden placed on Florida, mitigating the problems caused by the political stress. Source: 2000 Official Presidential General Election Results, State Elections Offices, December 2001 3. Direct popular vote maximizes the democratic liberties of all Americans (John B. Judis concludes in "Shut down the College," written for the American Prospect) Eliminating the Electoral College and nationalizing presidential elections could promote the proper use of the 14th and 15th Amendments by guaranteeing that each citizen enjoys equal access to voting opportunities through uniform ballots and voting machinery, and the availability of polling places. The Electoral College prevents the United States from compliance with Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which calls for "...elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage..." as a basic, unalienable right of all mankind. The US is not alone in failing to comply with this universal human right.
Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.
I accept with the understanding that Pro has the BOP.
Universal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms
Thanks to Pro for his opening argument. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the readers that it isn't my job, in this debate, to refute every single piece of evidence that Pro presents. My burden here is to show how the conclusion of Universal Common Descent (UCD) is a pseudo-science, as per the definition provided. Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro's opening argument is a perfect example of the pseudo-scientific nature of the arguments presented for UCD. At face value, it seems that he has presented scientific evidence, along with statistical analysis. That all seems scientific, but as this round progresses I will show how it is the "conclusion of UCD" that is pseudo-scientific even though the evidence itself, may or may not be considered scientific. Both C1 and C2, in Pro's opening, as well as most evidence presented by adherents to the UCD theory, stem from the same general argument, the argument from homology. That is to say that similarities in body structures between different organisms, provide evidence for ancestry, or common descent [1]. This assumption is problematic for numerous reasons, here are just a few: 1. Though it is presented as such, similarities do not show that similar organisms "descended" from each other. For that to be a scientific deduction there must be a process, shown to exist, that shows that it is possible for one type of organism to evolve into another type, through gradual changes over time [2]. Evolutionists argue that such a process exists. The most prevalent hypothesis is that random mutations, genetic drift, etc., combined with natural selection, provides just such a mechanism [3]. Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis, feels that such a mechanism doesn't work. She believes what she calls Symbiogenesis [4], is the driving factor. Other scientists, such as Geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins [5], don't believe that an evolutionary mechanism exists. He is an Intelligent Design advocate and works as a research scientist with the Institute for Creation Research, and has published numerous peer-reviewed papers. One might ask, "How are all these different views relevant to this debate?" The answer is simple. It shows that scientists aren't even in agreement that UCD happened, much less being in agreement on a process that makes it possible. Furthering the need for evolutionists to show an actual process that works to produce the claims they make, is the fact that UCD is contrary to what we observe everyday, in the natural world. What we observe is that organisms reproduce the same kinds of organisms, both morphologically and genetically. With a plethora of observational evidence to refute UCD, how can Pro claim that his is the scientific conclusion, as per the definition provided?? Like other advocates of UCD, he is forced to make assumptions, and use circular reasoning, in his arguments, neither of which are scientific methods. In Pro's C1 he states, "A specific method of organizing nested hierarchies is the cladistic method which is based on common descent". Nested hierarchies and phylogenetic trees, when used as evidence for UCD, is nothing more than circular reasoning. The conclusion is assumed by the evidence, and the evidence doesn't exist without UCD being assumed. With no specific process that shows a mechanism, and being contradicted by observable evidence which requires no interpretation, Pro's C1 is unsupported and pseudo-scientific, in spite of the seemingly scientific nature of his evidence. Pro's argument about statistical significance of phylogenies suffers from the same fate. In spite of a seemingly scientific argument, if animals can't evolve into different kinds of animals, the likelihood of the phylogenies being an accurate reflection of reality is exactly 0. Unfortunately for UCD, that's where the case stands at this time. It can only be assumed by believers, and is at best, pseudo-science. Pro makes the same mistake in C2, he uses the conclusion of UCD to present the fossil record and vestigial organs, as evidence. Without first assuming the truth of UCD, there is no such thing as a vestigial organ. Without showing that whales can even evolve from another animal, such as Elomeryx, he is simply asserting the conclusion of UCD as evidence for his conclusion about whale evolution. Any argument using the fossil record as evidence is void until Pro can show that animals can evolve from different kinds of animals. Until that is shown, evolutionists are just lining up fossils that show some similarities, and asserting that they are related, as if it were established fact. That process however, does not establish an evolutionary relationship between any two sets of bones. Pro's C2 is another example of pseudo-science. 2. Similarities between organisms can be evidence for more than one conclusion. Similarities can be evidence of a common designer. Unless one theory can be disproved, and the other proved, homology does not "uniquely" lead one to the conclusion of UCD. The assumption of UCD doesn't even scientifically support itself, much less disprove any other hypothesis. As Kent Hovind likes to say, the lugnuts from a Pontiac will fit a Chevy but that doesn't mean Pontiacs and Chevys both evolved from a Honda 140 mya, it means they both had a common design team (GM). 3. Arguments from homology focus on certain, sometimes minor similarities between organisms, while ignoring massive differences that exist. In C1 Pro states, " Humans and chimpanzees however have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence." Again he is focusing on one single similarity, while ignoring major discontinuities. No one denies that there are similarities between primates and humans, however that is not warrant to assume an evolutionary relationship. Is it surprising or noteworthy to learn that the protein sequence is similar between organisms that are similar?? Of course not. As we become more knowledgeable about genetics, we are discovering more and more differences between organisms that we once thought to be very genetically similar. In his comparison of the human and chimp genomes, Jeffrey Tomkins concludes the following: "Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."[6] In summary, all the evidence presented by Pro is wasted by the fact that there is no observable, testable, reason to believe that one animal can evolve into another kind of animal. Until that ability can be shown, all arguments that have been provided are merely examples of circular reasoning. One must assume the conclusion before even having any evidence to support that conclusion. That is not a valid scientific process, or a sensible way to determine how nature actually works. UCD is at best, a pseudo-scientific conclusion. 1.http://www.biology-online.org...; 2.http://www.biology-online.org... 3.http://evolution.berkeley.edu...; 4.http://discovermagazine.com... 5.http://designed-dna.org... 6.http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Gay marriage should be legal
I thank my opponent for his response, and his courtesy. This debate, suggested by my opponent back in September, has given me the opportunity to learn more about political philosophy, and has given my mind a much-needed opportunity to stretch; I didn't know Political Realism existed until this debate... ------- As my opponent has stated, my arguments are invalid if he can disprove my starting premise; although this debate threatens to center on the validity of Political Realism rather than whether or not governments should allow homosexuals to marry. I choose to take that risk; I believe that by defending one proposition, I can defend both. Notice, that my opponent has staked everything on his ability to discredit PR: "So I will disregard the two other arguments, since they are contingent upon the idea of political realism. I will dedicate my arguments to defeating political realism, and thus leaving my opponent bankrupt of any reason to ban gay marriage." Fair enough, but by so doing he has conceded that IF PR is correct, then my arguments against gay marriage logically follow. I will now address my opponent's arguments in order, and examine my opponent's assumptions. -------- Defence of Political Realism: "...what justification does my opponent have for believing a government's role is primarily to improve it's power?" My cynicism tempts me to rant here about the nature of all governments, but instead I shall limit myself to suggesting that my opponent would have been better off had he written "should be" rather than "is." Also, I recommend the little book by Lincoln Steffens, "The Shame of the Cities," dealing with political machines in the early 1900's. "This would seem to mean that maximizing power is somehow the desired end...but this is intuitively troubling, why so?" Is my opponent appealing to common sense in a political/ethical debate? :P "Usually gaining power is meant for the means of obtaining some other end, whether it be wealth, order, etc. If PR upholds that power is the ultimate value, then it must preclude to itself a reasonable case for why this is so." And my opponent has put his finger on the point: power is the ultimate value, because it is the means to all ends. Allow me to demonstrate. Societies throughout the millennia have adhered to various ethical standards. Most ethical standards originate in, are codified by, and/or propagated by one or more religions. These religions are metaphysical in nature; they are neither provable nor disprovable, as they deal with untestable factors. Thus, the ethical systems based on them have their basis in untestable assumptions. On the other hand, the vast majority (if not all) of societies have valued, sought, revered, or otherwise approved of power. It is one of the few universal factors in all human relationships, human societies, and human activities. It should be self evident that the power to exist is fundamental for existence, not only on the basic level of human life, but extending all the way up through the largest institutions conceivable. Similarly, the power to accomplish one's purposes is necessary to actually achieve the same, applying in the same way to all entities. Because it is necessary to achieve any other proposable value for society, power can be considered the ultimate value. Society cannot achieve wealth, or knowledge, or order, or happiness, or any other goal, without having the power to do so. PR states that power is the rightful goal of government; why? Because if governments have specific purposes for existence (probably based on the values of their society) they must have power to be able to achieve those purposes. By maximizing their power, governments are best able to achieve the things the rest of society values. Because: Power as a ethical value is derived from observation of human nature and the realities of existence, rather than having the tenuous ethical backing of metaphysical assumptions; And: Power is necessary to achieve all other values; I submit that Power is the ultimate value, both worthy and necessary to be sought. "2. According to PR, might would be right. This brute concept is rarely upheld by sane, rational thinkers because it seems to be devoid of any philosophical merit. I ask of my opponent, how would you justify this?" Where to start? First, I object to the charge of brutishness; and the idea that somehow my insanity precludes my ability to reason. Both are emotional charges leveled at my person, which have no bearing on this case. Also, the appeal to asthetics; using the word "brute" to describe my position and "sane, rational" to describe your position (whatever it is!), generates an emotional response in the reader that has no bearing on the validity of our respective arguments. Second, I have already detailed the philosophical basis for PR; twice now. If the pursuit of power is ethically justified, and my opponent cannot provide a logically justified ethical system that condemns "Might," I hold this maxim to be, although crude, essentially correct. "...it should also have been thrown out long ago." Reasons? All you have said is that my position is "intuitively troubling" and "rarely upheld." "In the face of overwhelming evidence" Where? "PR's conception of ethics is not only twisted, but completely unjustified. Give your ethical basis for this condemnation. Justify it. I'm unaware of any generally accepted ethical standard; does your statement have any basis in fact? --------- My opponent assumes that: a) there is a universal ethical standard by which the pursuit and use of power can be condemned, and b) it is not in a country's best interest to protect itself to the best of its ability against stronger countries. I refuse to accept either without proof. I await his arguments, and extend all of mine into the next round.
"Liberals thinks that everyone should have the same."
I wasn't happy with your example for several reasons. First, it only portrays one instance of a "liberal agenda" when in fact being a liberal is NOT about wanting everyone to have the same. There are other, more prevalent aspects to the liberal ideology, including: a woman's right to choose, and wanting to end the war in Iraq. What do either of those liberal beliefs have to do with things being the SAME? Second, I never said that the so-called government officials were liberals - you did. I specifically put "liberal government officials" in quotations in my response to signify that I didn't necesarilly agree that these "government officials" were actually liberal. That is an assumption YOU made, because nowhere in the article did it say that the people making those claims were liberal. And THAT'S why your example is invalid. Because it is based on your assumption and not factual evidence. Also, making everyone have the same school lunch is NOT part of the liberal agenda. That is the opinion of the select few (reminder: we don't know which political party they even affiliate with). Likewise, Ron Paul who is a registered Republican feels that we should bring the troops home from Iraq. Is it fair to say that REPUBLICANS want to bring the troops home just because Ron Paul does? No. And that's why you can't say it is a liberal stance to make everyone have equal school lunches or whatever. It is completely irrelevant. The fact remains that there are a few kinds of liberalism: political, economical and social/cultural (Social and cultural are different, but I'm combining them for the sake of brevity in this debate). Political liberalism refers to liberals opposing society's institutions showing favor to those of a higher social or economic class. Economic liberalism "supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible" (Source: Wikipedia). And cultural liberalism supports the notion that individuals should have the right to carry out whichever lifestyle they choose, and oppose government regulation of what they consider private matters, such as their sex life, birth control, certain drugs (i.e. marijuana), alcohol, literature, etc. So again, I pose the question: what do these beliefs have to do with wanting things to be the SAME? Fighting unwarranted censorship, for instance, has nothing to do with treating people a certain way... except, ya know, giving them the right to read whatever literature they choose. You mentioned that homosexuals want to "downgrade" the meaning of marriage because they cannot pro-create naturally. Does that mean that infertile women and men should not be allowed to marry? Are you implying that any marriage consisting of people who do not wish or are not able to conceive children should not exist? Even if that is your ridiculously ignorant belief, it probably has more to do with your religious affiliation than anything else... because in this country, you cannot stop a man and a woman from marrying even if they cannot naturally conceive chilren. So why should that be a basis for banning homosexual same-sex marriage? You seem to be all high and mighty when talking about what - in your opinion - defies logic. However I find it completely illogical that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, despite the fact that alcohol is consistently proven to be more harmful than marijuana. Not to mention all of the other factors/inconsistencies (I won't get into them because marijuana vs. alcohol is not the topic of this debate). So, to re-cap: - I ripped your "example" to shreds by pointing out the fact that you have no basis for your argument regarding the news article, because no school or nutritional official (what you call "government officials") were cited as being liberal or having a liberal agenda - You went into a tirade about marijuana vs. alcohol, however, that has nothing to do with wanting people to be and have the same. - You asked a really dumb question of "What rights and opportunities do rich people exercise that the poor people or even middle class people can't exercise?" Uhh... certainly you are not suggesting that poor people have the same OPPORTUNITIES as rich people. Because that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. People are supposed to have the same RIGHTS, but not opportunities. Rich people have the opportunity to go on vacation. Poor people have that right, but they may not have the opportunity (financial means). Also, apparently we disagree on what "rights" people should have, i.e. my position that homosexual same-sex marriage should be a fundamental right guaranteed by law. - You failed to answer how liberal thinking regarding censorship, a woman's right to choose and pulling out of Iraq has anything to do with same-ness. Bottom line: I support my statement that liberals feel that everyone should have the same rights (and that the term rights be expanded to those previously excluded from laws; It is not uncommon for the Constitution and other statutes to be re-written as society evolves and opinions change, i.e. the inclusion of women and African Americans being given the right to vote, when black people were previously considered 3/5 of a person). I also think that liberals support certain important institutions being universal, and not having crucial things such as health insurance not be available to the lower class. You don't see liberals saying that everyone should own a yacht or dress in Versace clothing. But you will hear them fighting for basic needs.
Incestous Marriage Should Be Permitted
Defence: Is/Ought Gap: - Pro has failed to establish even one instance of this alleged committed fallacy! II. Incestuous relationships should not be permitted in a democracy: 1. - Pro, again, conveniently ignores the most fundamental aspect of Democracy, that is: “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority” [1]. Besides, elected officials are designed to represent best the demographics of the people. - Pro here did not contest the value of Democracy, he merely twisted its signification to fit the narrative he wished to argue for, which immediately invalidates his argument. Thus, my argument stands. - Democracy is, by definition, the rule of the Majority. The fact that some minorities enjoy specific rights in various democracies is simply due to the fact that majorities in these places allow it, referred to in this case as Supermajority [3]. Liberty is valued by legislators only because the Majority cherish it. Had the majority of people valued it less than other values for instance (such as the case of Iran [2]), it wouldn’t be as important. Pro, however, seems to take this ‘value’ for granted & assume its universality & proceed to argue without justifying this first very important premise for his entire case. - Another extension to this argument is for example Homosexuality vs. Polygamy in the West, the former being permitted while the latter isn’t! This of course is due to the sympathising of the majority with one practice as opposed to the other. 2. - This simply stems from the previous premise, which entails that, if we value Democracy, which we do (for Pro has not contested this), then we should value the wishes of the Majority of the people, who most likely, due to social & religious reasons, would reject incestuous relationships. - Pro attempted to dismiss this contention by asserting that it’s an is/ought fallacy without explaining why that is the case, & conveniently so. 3. - Pro has obviously missed the point here entirely. That is A. Pro assumes Liberty as a universal value & proceed form there to establish his case. 2. Democracy, as the rule of the majority, decides the value of Liberty & restricts its application. => Therefore, we can’t possibly argue from Liberty without first considering the role of the Majority. 3. Non-Democracy, coincidently, does not acknowledge the value of Liberty (the specific one advocated by Pro), for the simple fact that they are both intertwined to the western rule. => Therefore, we can not possibly argue from Liberty if there was no acknowledged role of the Majority. - In all cases, Liberty is not as universal a value as Pro led us to believe, it’s a value contingent to the social & religious norms of the Majority, or quite frankly, also, the whims of the Majority (or supermajority [3]). => Therefore, Pro’s assumption is not just questionable but also invalid. Pro had to prove either of the following: i. Democracy is valueless, which he didn’t do, rather he conceded its value. ii. The Majority of people will likely support Incestuous Marriage, which he didn’t argue for! III. Incestuous relationships should be restricted by social/religious norms 1. - Pro here ‘argues’, or rather assumes that norms follow our values, not the other way around! Which is false (for instance, the values of muslim nations stem from their religious norms), & also hardly related to the argument on wether social & religious norms should be taken into account in legislation or not! - The argument here is that if we are willing to discard the social & religious norms of a nation based on the fact that they are arbitrary compared to another’s, thus willing to discard all laws that are equally arbitrary, then we are bound to embrace the whole spectrum of these norms (i.e. dropping all related laws), no matter how unpleasant they are. 2. - This evidently follows from (1). To elaborate, here is an example: i. The laws concerning Nubility (marital age) are arbitrary. This, for nubility varies greatly from nation to nation & from culture to culture, & even within the same nation. In France for instance, in a span of 200 years only, nubility ranged from 12yo to 18yo, the latter being just recently upgraded from 15yo in 2006 to 18yo, & in India, in a span of less than 70 years, the marital age ranged from 10yo to 18yo [4]. ii. If these laws are arbitrary, then they should be discarded. iii. If these laws are discarded, then we have no problem with any combination of other laws concerning Nubility. In this case, we might as well legalise marriage of 10yos, well, since we supposedly don’t care about social & religious norms. - Pro contests this by arguing that Norms should be ignored for the purposes of law in society! Pro seems to want to apply this approach only when it suits him, while ignoring the unpleasant consequences it entails. 3. - Pro attempts to dismiss this contention by asserting that it is a slippery slope fallacy, which it factually isn’t, as shown earlier. Pro, by asserting that “all laws that are inherently arbitrary in any nation should be discarded”, does not get to pick at whim which of these laws should be an exception. For instance: laws concerning Nubility are inherently arbitrary, thus, should be discarded. - Pro also asserts that nubility (thus pedophilia), bestiality and human sacrifice. . . harm Liberty, of course, without justifying why that is! This is a crucial point Pro had to refute, he had to conclusively establish why these practices defeat Liberty, otherwise there is no reason for us whatsoever to consider any difference between Incestuous Marriage & these “unpleasant” practices, for the basis of argument in both cases is Liberty & the Harm Principal, & so long as these practices are victimless (noone other than the parties involved are harmed), which they are, then they all should be permitted. Instead, Pro resorted to bare assertion, knowing he had the BOP to establish this point to save his case. - An example of these practices is bestiality in Columbia, which is not just legal, but also a norm & evidently a victimless practice[5]. Thus, according to Pro’s reasoning, if we discard the social norms & drop arbitrary laws, then we ought to legalise bestiality, for there is no reason not to, as there is no reason not to legalise incestuous marriage. 4. - Pro here again does not tell us why these practices are any different than incestuous marriage, asserting “slippery slope” without any justification whatsoever does not count as an argument! If we follow Pro’s reasoning, then we must value Liberty under the Harm Principal, & according to Pro, we must thus ignore all norms, disregard all arbitrary laws, & legalise all victimless crimes. If we do this, then we are certainly bound to disregard the laws concerning marital age, thus ultimately legalising pedophilia, &, similarly, bestiality, human self-sacrifice, drug use . . . Rebuttals: C1. Benefits & Impact: 1. Pro’s argument here is still a fallacy of affirming the consequent, here: i. Every legal-marriage ought to have benefits. ii. Incestuous marriage is legal. c. Therefore, incestuous marriage ought to have benefits. => Premise (ii) is ignored by Con, & the conclusion (incestuous marriage is legal) is assumed before demonstrating it. 2. Pro here forgot he had the BOP, not me, to establish WHY the health benefits of normal marriage would extend to incestuous marriage!!! Pro is obviously commenting a hasty generalisation fallacy here, in which he switched the BOP & expect me to prove the opposite, which I am absolutely not required to do, especially since I provided good reasons why these health benefits are unlikely to extend. 3. Pro fails again to provide any sources supporting that incest, other than accidental, does happen. Plus, this is an is/ought fallacy, for if something exists, it doesn’t imply that it should. C2. No harm principal (HP) - Pro’s argument here can be summarised as follow: 1. Incestuous marriage is not harmful, despite the fact that incestuous childbirth is. 2. Prohibiting incest based on harmful childbirth leads to serious repercussions. 3. This prohibition does not apply to all forms of incest. 4. The HP is sufficient to legalising something. 1. => The HP also incorporates the potential consequences not just direct ones [6]. In this case, it is highly likely that a married incestuous couple will have children (94% of married women in the US have children by the age of 44 [7]), & thus, it is highly likely that we would have to face a potential harm to children, death or disabilities. 2. => In other than incestuous marriages, there is no potential harm to children, for it is highly unlikely that a normal couple would have transmitted genetic diseases, as opposed to an incestuous couple. 3. => Pro is not arguing for a specific form of incest, which are in fact legal in some places as opposed to others. He can either argue for incest in all its forms, or concede, which apparently he did here. 4. => Pro argued that the HP is sufficient for prohibiting something & necessary for not prohibiting it, but he does not show in any way why is it sufficient in not prohibiting something. This is clearly a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Conclusion: - Pro failed throughout the debate to establish: 1. Why is Liberty a universal value. 2. Why is HP sufficient for not prohibiting incest, how is it reciprocally sufficient for prohibiting other victimless practices (pedophilia, bestiality. . ). 3. Why should arbitrary laws concerning incest should be discarded, while others shouldn’t. 4. Why should Homosexuality be permitted to begin with! => Thus, fails to establish his case, & fails to refute mine, keeping in mind he had the BOP. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl... [5] http://goo.gl... [6] http://goo.gl... [7] http://goo.gl...
The moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity, which the Geneva Convention embodies, must be retained
There is no moral duty to respect the humanity of terrorists. Terrorists themselves do not respect human rights. By attacking civilians, they breach the terms of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law. They do not deserve to be protected by the laws of war because they do not behave like a military organisation. If they do not comply with the laws of war there is no reason why they should enjoy the benefits of the Geneva Conventions when they are detained.
My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care
Thanks to Bsh1 for the challenge :D I have no further definitions or terms I would like to add, and as such, I accept the debate. May the odds be ever in your favor! (and mine too, preferably)
Freedom of speech should be practiced in all instances without exception
I'm sorry, but I believe that you couldn't be more wrong. Just because the right of free speech prevents a government from arresting or censoring whatever you say here, it doesn't mean that changing the resolution of a debate is right. Changing the resolution of this debate is breaking the most basic rule of debating: that the instigator and contender must argue the resolution originally presented. Ignoring the given resolution at the start of the debate is basically a concession, and not a simply conduct violation. Now, you also claim that I have not provided any point to counter your "new resolution", but I actually have: When I analyze the article XIX of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I came to the conclusion that it only protects speeches that are opinions, information or ideas, while hate speech is none of those, but rather a form of attack (I could also add that changing the resolution of a debate also doesn't fit the definition of opinion, information or idea). But since you have allowed resolutions to be changed, even though that shouldn't be allowed, I decided to ignore the rules of debating too and play along with your "rules". I hereby change the resolution of this debate again to the following: "The United States Should Institute an Official Presidential Underwear" Now you may ask: "What the hell is a presidential underwear?!" Well, we know that most countries use some symbolic element to represent the power that is invested in their head of state, usually used in inauguration ceremonies or special events, like for example: Crowns: Presidential sashes: Mitre, cane and other religious garments: Presidential collar and mace: Swords: Military uniforms: And other weird clothes: However, the president of the United States - recognized as the most powerful person in the world - doesn't have any kind of special symbol. Don't you think that the American president doesn't deserve a symbol that is worthy of his power? Of course, he shouldn't just make a lousy copy of those losers above, so the only thing we can do is creating a symbol completely original, that can be deserving of the title of "symbol of the president of the United States". That's why I propose that we institute a symbolic piece of clothing that is so mighty and powerful that all the others leaders of the world will kill themselves out of envy: the Presidential Underwear. Inspired in the most powerful superhero of all times, when using this article of power, the president, can put fear into any enemy of America, like Superman do with his enemies, be they communists, Arab terrorists, Persian terrorists, Pakistani terrorists, vietcongs, Chinese, Japanese, Nazis, dictators of banana republics, British colonists, innocent Native-Americans, the Spanish Armada, Mexican hats, Confederates, the German empire, the Russian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Russian revolution, the French revolution, Napoleon, Napoleon II, Napoleon III, Napoleon IV, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Canadians, Swiss, Norwegians, Bhutanese, the Principality of Sealand, and everything else that exists, have ever existed, will ever exist, or is just made up. Admit it, you would think twice before attacking the United States if Obama wore something like this.
The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare
(Roadmap: VC debate, Refutations, Case, Crystallization) In a Value debate, the value is the highest thing in the round. All Value Criterions must link to the Value, and all contentions must link into the VC. This is the fundamental tenet of Value, or LD debate. The value of this debate is Societal Welfare – which is undefined on its own. In my R2 I laid out a logical pathway from SocW to the VC of Freedom for Constituents. My opponent didn't refute any of the links I made. As silence is consent, my opponent has conceded to the premises of my VC, which really means he agrees that FFC is at least a possible VC for the debate. Comparing the VC's then, is a relatively easy task: we look at one in relative absence of another. Let's say I want a good car. Analogously, the value would be "good car". If one person told me that "good mileage" is what makes a good car, and another person told me that "expensiveness" is what makes a good car, then to compare, I would get an expensive car with bad mileage and a cheap car with good mileage. Obviously it's not that simple, but that's the concept. 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. (We will assume for the moment that HE means good health.) Our situations are: FFC = Free sick person. HE = Enslaved healthy person. I proved that FFC was better in my R2: "[O]ne thing underlies and is an integral part of all the other reasons – freedom. Money can only make a person happy if they can use it; Physical health can only make a person happy if they get to use it, and so on." Happiness is what defines welfare, and happiness and freedom are directly proportional. In other words, the freer a person is, the happier he or she will be. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or how physically healthy they are – they must be free in order to enjoy it. Form: VC --> VC Link --> V Actual: Freedom --> Happiness / Mental Health / Individual Welfare --> Societal Welfare My opponent's response to my VC is that he personally doesn't know many people who are happy about their sickness. This is not a refutation, as I am not saying that sick people are happy. I am posing a question, which one is happier? While I have proven that a free person who has relatively bad health is happier than an enslaved person with relatively good health, all my opponent has shown in his example is that people who are both free and healthy are happy – in other words, he's shown nothing at all. He's not comparing anything; he's not arguing against me, and in debate that means he's conceding to me. Therefore, the VC for this debate is FFC. "Which is pretty hard to calculate seeing[…]" > Certainly a response, but not a refutation. He's still not comparing HE against FFC, all he's saying is that "Even if FFC is good, HE is also good" which does not throw out FFC. "Mental health also effects […]" > Does not refute anything. D�j� vu? "My opponent fails to admit […]" > And my opponent fails to even comprehend how to compare two qualities. When deciding if quality A or B is better in item C, we take a version of C with lots of A and little B, and a version of C with lots of B and little A. Yes, being sick limits freedom – but being enslaved also limits being healthy. PRO continually compares the free healthy and the enslaved sick. It is maddening. > Kick contention A1. I will respond to A2 in-case. Kick B. "It was stated throughout my first contention. It was not directly stated[…]" > I'm sorry, what? He stated and didn't state it at the same time? > FFC precedes and supersedes HE in importance when looking at the value of SocW. This was shown in R2, and again at the beginning of this round. "There was a failure but the people […]" > Let's say you walk into a store and you want to buy a power drill. If you buy it and it doesn't work, what do you do? You return it. You buy another one. Or you send it to the manufacturer to get it fixed. So you ask the manufacturer to fix it. They refuse. What do you do? YOU GO BUY A DRILL FROM A DIFFERENT COMPANY. You don't stand around hoping a large enough group will form around you so the company will bend to your will. You go get another one. But if the state provides it, no one else will. You will HAVE to petition. Or in less euphemistic terms, beg. Not exactly FFC. Not even close. > Not irrelevant. "Education" was the example. "Government programs = denial of whatever it was supposed to provide" was the moral/principle. Extend this. > Extend from R2: "No government agency does its job efficiently. What reason is there to believe that a UHC program will be different?" "I'd rather be healthy to do whatever I want than be bedbound , ill , but so called "free"" > Again, he compares free and healthy to enslaved and sick. > Sorry, I meant he doesn't know how to compare. I'm not advocating "Enslaved and sick equals happiness", I'm advocating "Freedom equals happiness". And yet here he is, over and over again…. "A vast majority of the nations that rank higher in LE have UHC." > Sigh. So, let's recap~ PRO R1: UHC --> Higher LE CON R2: UHC -/-> Higher LE, ~33% UHC have Lower LE PRO R4: Most Higher LE --> UHC CON R4: lolwut r u srs? > Not a response. Extend the respective point from my R2. > Inverse not shown true. UHC --> Higher LE still not shown true. > Apply these responses to every time he says UHC --> Higher LE. I'm tired of repeating myself. "Iam proving that is an undenyable[…]" > Not in Constitution. Back to my case. Though I have neutralized his case, If I am to completely negate the resolution, then I must show that affirming is against FFC. "A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick, regardless of their wishes. Requiring those who don't want to pay to pay for others is a reduction of freedom." (CON R2) If I told you that you had the freedom to buy cookies at my store, you would assume that my store is open to the public and you could just walk in to pick up some cookies. However, if you came to my store a few times and every time you asked me if you could buy cookies, I took out a shotgun from under the counter and said "I'LL KILL YOU F*CKING COOKIE MONSTERS", you would hardly say that you had the freedom to buy cookies at my store. Though the boundaries of freedom are certainly grey here and there, this is one common sensically clear boundary – if X is met with violence or threat thereof by Y while attempting action A, X does not have the freedom to do A because of Y. Now as defined in R2, terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Basically, the limiting of freedom for political purposes. Watch the video. Continue afterwards. http://www.youtube.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US does not yet have UHC. UHC requires taxes. Taxation is terrorism. Ergo, UHC requires terrorism. Terrorism is one entity limiting another entity's freedom. Ergo, terrorism is the exact opposite of the VC, Freedom For Constituents. FFC is a direct link into and improves the value of Societal Welfare. Ergo, terrorism does not link into and is detrimental to Societal Welfare. Ergo, UHC does not link into and is detrimental Societal Welfare. In a Value debate, the value is the highest thing in the round. All Value Criterions must link to the Value, and all contentions must link into the VC. This is the fundamental tenet of Value, or LD debate. By implementing UHC, we are "using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it." (PRO R1) That system is taxation. We will not make things better by providing UHC. We make things worse. UHC is detrimental to Societal Welfare. I negate the resolution.
The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare
I'll let my opponent to respond to my last round, as his profile shows that he's signed on recently. Consider R3 as nonexistent.
Debate.org
