Debate.orgProfit interests corrupt investments in medical innovation
Single-payer universal health care
Profit interests corrupt investments in medical innovation
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Health care is considered a right in international law.
Single-payer universal health care
Health care is considered a right in international law.
-
PRO It is a myth that the United States' private system has...
Single-payer universal health care
It is a myth that the United States' private system has fewer delays
-
PRO Public health care is good; it just receives more...
Single-payer universal health care
Public health care is good; it just receives more scrutiny/criticism
-
PRO Single-payer health care reduces complexities faced by...
Single-payer universal health care
Single-payer health care reduces complexities faced by patients
-
PRO Competition in health care is generally a bad idea
Single-payer universal health care
Competition in health care is generally a bad idea
-
PRO Competition causes the wasteful duplication of expensive...
Single-payer universal health care
Competition causes the wasteful duplication of expensive forms of care
-
PRO There are major hidden costs associated with the uninsured
Single-payer universal health care
There are major hidden costs associated with the uninsured
-
PRO Private healthcare providers are more expensive than...
Single-payer universal health care
Private healthcare providers are more expensive than public providers
-
PRO Single-payer health care gets rid of wasteful middlemen
Single-payer universal health care
Single-payer health care gets rid of wasteful middlemen
CON
-
CON Selling arms privately was only opposed due to the power...
Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime
Thank you for your arguments! Purpose of a Law: I agree with my opponent here on the purpose of a law, and how they work (need enforcement), but I disagree with his conclusion here. If a law is made to detter criminals, and it must be enforceable, then the state must create the law to deter criminal activities and enforce said law. However, the problem with my opponents conclusion is that criminals break the law, and because they break the law (as criminals do not register their guns) we should scrap it. But that is an argument for more gun control not against it. Criminals are exactly criminals by definition because they break the law regardless of what it is. Criminals may also commit a theft, do we say we should scrap theft laws because criminals do not follow them? We do not. Same idea with guns, if we wish to enforce it, the NRA needs to stop lobbying the state to preventing law enforcement officals from posessing the tools they need to enforce the law. Senarios: 1) actually, when the gun is used, all the police would have to do is check the serial number of the weapon to see where it was registered to trace it back to the person who bought the gun, enabling the killer. Now, if my opponent mean't to show something like a private transacton at a gun show for instance, then it stems to reason for more gun control not less. The Colombine shooters were known to ask around at gun shows if the person was private or public sellers, they wanted private because they couldn't pass background checks...if only that loop-hole was fixed... 2) finger prints perhaps? Again this is a claim for more regulation, not less. Selling arms privately was only opposed due to the power of the NRA. They are paranoid about losing their second amendment, but the problem is limiting a right is not the same as eliminating it, and all we want is the ability to track who sells what gun to whom. Inconvienence versus Saftey? While it may be a pain to sell the gun, let's not forget we're talking about a weapon here after-all. Would you sell a 300 HP car to a kid? I know I couldn't! Same idea here, the seller ought to be weary about who he sells his guns too, because if that person was crazy and in turn shoots someone, the seller would have an abundance of guilt hanging on their heads, quite the burden to live with if you ask me. Furthermore, let's look at the statistics shall we? Harvard Health has examined gun control, and found that more guns equates to more crime: {http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...} in fact, even having a gun in a home increases the likelyhood of a child getting hurt: http://childrensnyp.org...;.. could you imagine being a father knowning your gun harmed your child? States with the most amount of guns per capita often have the worst crime rates as well: In fact, a heavy correlation exists between relaxed gun-law states, and increases in violent crime http://247wallst.com...; What about other Countries? Australia ended up having a major gun buy-back, and had drops of crime rates, espescially for mass shootings. The Nordic Countries, (Finland, Switzerland, etc...) have some of the highest gun ownerships per capita of people, yet almost no gang shootings what so ever. Both countries have some of the strictest gun laws in the world; Switzerland does not even have a standing army they have a peoples milita, and don't even get ammo in their guns unless an officer allows them too, you can only purchase ammo at a gun range and you MUST use it there, same as any other nordic state. I live in Canada, where gun laws are incredibly tough, your not even allowed an open-carry here. In comparison to Toronto Chicago was far more violent, despite having similar stats http://www.thestar.com... The list continues ... gun control simply works, so long as the loop holes of the law are closed. Self-Defence: Having a gun in the home does NOT deter crime as noted here: http://www.iansa.org... Furthermore, the law isn't black and white. The second amendment is not inalienable; it can be taken away for legal purposes. http://www.cato.org...; so if someone breaks into your home, although you do have a case for self-defence, you may run into being charged with man-slaughter should you shoot him .. making you the criminal and not him (which is why guns produce more crime, not deter them) The Home Run: One country I can think of in which has some of the freeest gun regulations. Enjoy living in Somalia, where gun control simply doesn't exist (to the best of my knowledge) and where gun violence is rampant. My case is made, Guns are unsafe and need to be controlled. Gun controls, saves lives, and furthermore, lessens crimes. Not the other way around. It also prevents accidents, and finally, I believe my opponents logic is flawed. If criminals do not follow the law and we scrap them, should we also scrap theft because they do not follow it either? No, we keep it. we ought to do the same with Guns, and close the loop-hole. Thank you Over to my opponent!
-
CON The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the...
Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level o…
There is no moral duty to respect the dignity of these individuals. States should do whatever possible to protect their own citizens. The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the interest of our own citizens to treat enemy combatants is a humane manner so that if our soldiers are caught they will receive similar treatment. There can be no guarantee of reciprocity from ‘terrorists’ as a whole, or even specific terrorist groups given the cellular nature of the organisations and the disparate nature of the command structures. Furthermore, terrorists specifically use poor treatment of hostages as a tool in their campaign. Given this, it is in the interests of our own citizens to use whatever means possible to fight terrorism; compliance with the Geneva Convention undermines this.
-
CON The British Medical Journal also found that the annual...
Abortion should be legal
If women become pregnant, They should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. Your idea that to control overpopulation we need to murder babies is morally unacceptable, It could be compared to murdering people. Instead of killing, We should teach couples to have responsible sex, Abortion should only be permitted if the mothers life is in danger or she was raped (in my opinion). "On the question of limiting population: As you know, The Japanese have been doing it rather vigorously, Through abortion, Which I think would be repugnant to all Americans" - John F. Kennedy, December 1959. Not only this, But it causes Mothers do undergo psychological damage because of Abortions, The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health showed that "Young adult women who undergo. . . Abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression. " BMC Medicine also found that Woman that go through Abortion suffer "significantly higher" anxiety scores, The Southern Medical Journal found that more than 173, 000 American women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide. The British Medical Journal also found that the annual suicide rate amongst women who had an abortion were 34. 7 per 100, 000, Compared with a mean rate of 11. 3 per 100, 000. A Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found that 51. 6% of the men reported regret, 45. 2% felt sadness, And 25. 8% experienced depression. Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure, And this is a proven fact. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Explains that the "most primitive response to pain, The spinal reflex, " is developed by eight weeks gestation, And adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. " According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain. " Even Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, The late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, Stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child's mouth open in a silent scream. . . This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction.
-
CON Rebuttal: "If you cause an accident, and the victim's...
the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother
I accept this debate. Burden of proof is on Pro. Beginning Argument: -Pro is claiming that the rights of a fetus should be valued above the rights of the mother. I disagree with this claim. It has been well established throughout history in many nations that all humans have equal rights, excluding criminals who have been proven guitly and punished. Essentially, no one is valued above another. This is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]. -Therefore, Pro's obligation in this debate is to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a fraction of Pro's burden of proof. Rebuttal: "If you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated." -This is a fallacious analogy. If I caused an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to my body, a reasonable person would demand that I, the one causing the accident, must be separated from the victim immediately, and the victim would agree because the victim doesn't like me because I caused an accident that made him or her a victim. -Furthermore, Pro is comparing a fetus to a victim in this analogy. This is not always the case. If a woman was raped for example, and she got pregnant, then she is clearly the victim. "that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not." -Pro has contradicted herself. If it is "topped off" with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate before, then Pro has conceded that during the beginning of pregnancy, an infant has less rights than the mother. "if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. " -Pro has conceded that it is alright to abort in certain cases. "the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply." -What if she was raped to pregnancy? She did not "assume" any risk at all. She never meant for it to happen, and she could do nothing. Certainly, then, it would be justified? Sources: [1] http://www.un.org...
-
CON The reason I posted it was to show that although Pro is...
Universal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms
C1- Pro continues to argue that hierarchies are shown to be "unique". That is false. He hasn't ruled out other causes scientifically. He has simply argued that cytochrome c sequencing would be random if common descent were false, with the probability at 1 in 10^38. Has Pro compared non-related individuals to verify that the sequencing would be random?? No, he has presented no evidence that any comparison was done, so how does he know that it would show random sequencing, if the subjects were unrelated?? In truth he doesn't, he simply asserts it as fact. For all he knows the study could have been run on unrelated individuals, but due to his presupposition, he can't recognize that. That assertion, as well as any probability estimation is pure conjecture, and isn't even close to being a scientific finding. It certainly doesn't show the findings to be "unique" to the conclusion of UCD. Pro says, "If common descent isn't true, organisms that are morphologically similar would be molecularly different because of the functional redundancy of cytochrome c." Again I ask, how could Pro possibly know that to be the case?? That statement doesn't even make good sense, much less being scientifically supported. No evidence is presented to support that statement. It is simply assumption, argued as a scientific fact. C2- Pro asks the reader to disregard Tomkins' study, in favor of the fact that his focuses on one ubiquitous protein. Tomkins' study however, is a "Comprehensive Analysis" of chromosomes. Pro is comparing apples and oranges. The reason I posted it was to show that although Pro is tunneling on cytochrome c, there are alot of discontinuities that he is ignoring. Pro is misunderstanding my reason for bringing up Lynn Margulis. I wasn't trying to show that she disagrees with evolution. The point was to show that even evolutionists disagree amongst themselves as to whether mutations and natural selection are adequate as the driving force behind evolution. C3- I did not drop any arguments regarding the fossil record, as Pro states. I have shown how that argument isn't supported by evidence, it is simply asserted as fact that similar fossils indicate common ancestry. That is an assumption, not science. Pro continues to assert that the same process that causes different species of the same animal, also causes that animal to eventually evolve into a different kind of animal. He has presented no evidence to support his claim, and in fact tried to shift the burden for disproof, to me. That is an unfounded assertion, and has never been observed. Pro states that it can't be observed because it takes long periods of time. That is a tacit admission that UCD proposes something that is not seen, thus he must make assumptions, and assert as fact things that he can't actually support scientifically, as this debate has shown. From there he goes back to an argument against what he says I believe, regarding "kinds". Once again, attacking my personal religious beliefs is just a red herring, and does not help him at all in trying to uphold the resolution. Frankly it's irrelevant. In summary, all the evidence presented by Pro suffers from the same problems. It is rife with unscientifically supported assertion as fact, and assumptions. I have shown how nested hierarchies, phylogenetic trees, fossil arguments, and vestigial organs, all stem from the same assumption. That is that similarity equals relatedness, thus common descent. I have shown that Pro can't possibly have done any comparative studies to show what should be found in unrelated individuals. In fact, if the scientists were indeed comparing unrelated individuals, they couldn't even possibly recognize that fact due to the assumption that they are comparing related organisms. As I've shown over the course of this debate, all of Pro's arguments including his conclusion of UCD, fulfill all of the requirements in the definition of pseudo-science that was agreed upon. His arguments are not subject to any kind of non-biased scientific method that doesn't contain assumptions of facts that are not supported by evidence. Without being supported by scientific evidence, there is no way to reliably test the theory since everything is assumed to be related. It cannot compare unrelated organisms to show how the results should look, we are left to just assume that Pro is correct when he says that "unrelated organisms that are morphologically similar should be molecularly different". We can't falsify the theory because we can't produce an organism that Pro would believe is unrelated, and show why it's unrelated. Instead we're left with only one way to falsify the theory. My burden, in this debate, does not include refuting, point-by-point, the accuracy of each of Pro's assertions. It was to show how Pro's case, and the conclusion of UCD is pseudo-science. I have fulfilled that burden. Pro, on the other hand, has not shown any evidence to support his assertion that similarity equals shared ancestry. That assumption is at the root of all his arguments and evidence. Without factual support for that assumption, his entire case falls apart. He has no actual scientific evidence for UCD. He has not fulfilled his burden in this debate, which was to show that UCD is a "scientific" explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms.
-
CON It is better to teach a man to fish than to simply give...
Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.
The assertion that the PRC had 1/2 the nominal GDP is correct. Pro wishes to use a different measuring scale which is perfectly acceptable but the fact still remains that this is the next wealthiest nation and provides a scale of where other nations with universal healthcare are in terms of wealth and why average healthcare spending per person might be different among these nations. While it may be true that the US ranks lower in terms of GDP per capita than some nations with universal healthcare, these nations rank lower in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita than nations with even freer markets such as Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org...), Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and Luxembourg tops all of pro’s examples here in the nominal GDP per capita. My statement about progressive work policies can’t be used as support for regulations because while life expectancy may increase in the short run, in the long run it slows productivity which can result in economic failure and then much shorter life expectancy. On spending, some people just choose to pay more to use more of different kinds of services. This is the individual data that cannot be seen or assessed by using spending to GDP ratios or average spending per person. The government should not have control over healthcare because as I said last round, it could abuse its power and choose who lives and dies based simply on politics. The logic on the 1/5 the GDP is that if public education was better at fueling an economy than private education, then the GDP should be higher than that of the US which uses large numbers of private institutions for education rather than the mostly government run system of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and the highly regulated and subsidized system of Australia(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, while in the US we may have freedom of information, this is not guaranteed to last forever particularly if the government controls education. We are not talking about a short term impact but a long term one and to sacrifice our descendants’ freedom for a wasteful public education system is not only impractical but also against the goals of the constitution and the very reason for founding the US (see preamble). Also, if public schooling is eliminated then lower cost private schools would reenter the market, give the current high rate private schools competition, and thus provide quality, cost effective education to most, if not all, who want it. While it may seem that we should force people who simply want to keep their wealth to sacrifice it, this is both immoral and impractical. It is immoral in that you are essentially stealing from someone who has earned their wealth to give to someone who hasn’t and impractical because it drains the private sector’s wealth which could have been otherwise allocated later to grow the economy and employ the needy. It is better to teach a man to fish than to simply give him one, especially if that fish is stolen. While large scale business may attempt to use their wealth to lobby for special benefits, the solution to this is not more government, but less. If the power of government is reduced alongside taxes, there will be less of an incentive to lobby for tax breaks, subsidies and special regulations. As I pointed out last round, there would be fewer economic stagnations and they would be less severe if the government did not heavily regulate, tax, and use monetary stimulus. In these conditions, welfare is unnecessary and currently is a burden that must be removed if the economy is to prosper which leads to higher employment and standards of living. It is correct that you are only served if you pay and this is the most fair way of rationing because it rewards people based on what they’ve done, not on need. It is also the most practical because if we rewarded based on need, then the needy would likely just keep getting needier and as Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.” To further answer pro’s argument on Scandinavia, oil is not the only cause of their wealth. Another cause, particularly for Sweden, is it had free markets between 1870 and 1950. Then, Sweden implemented an ever growing welfare state which caused economic stagnation. The effect of the welfare state has been alleviated by a slight return to free markets which has marginally improved the economy since 1980.(http://mises.org...) Regulations in general actually do deny economic freedom and this is not debunked but rather supported by Heritage. Heritage shows that the US regulatory state has become more powerful and has dragged down economic freedom as shown by these tables (http://www.heritage.org...). There is no problem with a business having to compensate for property damages after settling in court. The existence of property rights will serve as enough of a deterrent to not damage property through pollution that only a few suits would be necessary to set an example. One universal law is not more efficient. Pollution by government is affirmed. Businesses would not necessarily do the same if the waterways were privately owned. The government doesn't need to promote chemical toilets because if businesses have to compensate for polluting waterways they will have an incentive to find more efficient disposal or raise rates thus either causing a shift to chemical toilets or a shift to a less pollution by the sewage provider. The reason that absent regulation conditions would have improved is the incentive to keep your workforce alive and undamaged. If you have no workforce, you can't produce and if you can't produce, you can't sell or profit. That is the incentive to improve safety. No it is not ideal that children had to work to keep from starving but at the time the only three options were work, starve, or live as a subsistence farmer for the rest of your life, even public school, as pro pointed out, was not a viable option because they either had to work in factories, or on a farm. Mechanization, although progressing rapidly, was not nearly as far along as it is today and if you look to developing nations, you find that they are mechanizing much more quickly than the US did during the industrial revolution because the technology to do so already exists. In the PRC as well, working conditions are actually high when compared to the industrial revolution in the US. Also, the wealth does not simply remain at the top, large amounts of it are making it to a growing middle class (http://www.youtube.com...) as evidenced by the documentary the “People’s Republic of Capitalism.” It is correct that trusts would be nothing to worry about because they would still have to worry about potential competition. There would remain an incentive to keep operations efficient and improve products to avoid the possibility of new competitor replacing them. Also, with an unregulated market and a government whose sole purpose is to protect rights, the trust would not be able to simply squash competition by abusing its power otherwise it would infringe upon the rights of others and the government shield would step in for protection. Antitrust legislation diminishes competition as I previously said. If a business knows that its competitor is simply going to get cut down by legislation, then there is less reason to continue to compete. It is also a disincentive for the competitor that knows that its achievement is capped, reducing the incentive to achieve.
-
CON It also eliminates the need for a nation-state because it...
Resolved: The US should recognize Palestine as a country
Pre-Case I am going to do something that is considered a nonstandard debate practice on this website: I am going to run a Kritik. A kritik is “generally a type ofargument that challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective ofcritical theory” [1] Link My opponent’s contentions present excellent points about the human rights abuses committed by the Israeli government, but they also raise an important question about ethics that must be resolved before we discuss this topic. My opponent presumes that the proper solution is to create a separate nation-state for the Palestinians. This solution is corrosive because it backs the outdated nation-state concept, which is not a solution that can have any measure of impact. Note that my opponent does not even prove solvency; all his case does is present problems that he claims will be solved if a separate nation-state is created. In fact, the problems arise from the type of thinking that he presents. Flaws in the Nation-State Model The idea of nation-states stems from the notion that individuals have moral obligations only to those who share common ancestry with them and share common characteristics and culture. Advocates of this type of communitarian thinking note that nation-states often arose as a means of defending people who lived in a given area from other groups who had already united in a similar fashion. Modern advocates of the nation-state conclude that people are intrinsically more likely to help those who are like them, conveniently ignoring the fact that they are educated to do so by previous generations. I reject this type of reasoning. First, it is morally arbitrary. The concept of nation-state claims that there is a morally significant difference between individuals born in Mexico and individuals born in the United States, and that this gives us an obligation to serve the people from our country but ignore the suffering of “outsiders”. However, all geographical boundaries are wholly arbitrary; there is no intrinsic reason that the U.S. territory ends at the Rio Grande River. It resulted from an accident of history; had the territory extended further South, people born on the other side would be considered citizens. Moreover, this reasoning ignores the fact that all people have natural rights because they are born human, and that these rights predate the concept of states (in fact, states were created to protect rights!). Karina Sangha of the University of Victoria explains, “ A human right is a right that an individual enjoys by virtue of being human. They are rights demanded by humanity on all of humanity.These rights are premised upon the morally relevant characteristics that are shared by all of humanity, of which the equal vulnerability to suffer is likely the most notable. Each person has an equal moral status as a human being, and justice requires that such a status be treated with respect.” [2] Second, the nation-state model is prone to conflict and violence, and is in fact responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that my opponent is hoping to solve. If I claim that I only have moral obligations to aid the people who live in the same nation-state, then I have no obligation to respect the rights of foreigners and I can do as I please to them in order to maximize my wealth. This lead to the current conflict my opponent is discussing because it lead the division of the two peoples along ethnic lines and allowed leaders to employ “us versus them” contentions as a means of promoting violence. The Cosmopolitan Model Cosmopolitanism eliminates the problem by emphasizing commonalities and noting that all people have moral obligations to each other than transcend locality. Cosmpoliatnism is based on moral univeralism, the idea that morality is universal and applies equally to all people. According to Simon Caney of Oxford University, the tenets of moral universalism are: (1) there are valid moral principles; (2) moral principles that pertain to one person apply to all individuals who share morally relevant properties; (3) human beings share morally relevant properties; (4) therefore, there are some universal moral principles. [2] Thomas Pogge of Yale University extends Caney’s analysis while discussing cosmopolitanism when he explains that there are three basic tenets of cosmpolitaism: individualism, referring to the fact that the units of moral concerns are individual human beings; universality, meaning that every human being is of equal concern; and generality, referring to the fact that this status of human beings is global – that is, all human beings are units of ultimate concern for everyone.[2] By emphasizing the fact that people all moral obligations to all, cosmopolitanism deconstructs the ideas of state sovereignty and national allegiance [2]. It also eliminates the need for a nation-state because it emphasizes that we ought to treat all people, regardless of “origin”, equally. The Alternative While my opponent attempts to solve the problem of human rights abuses in Israel, I have demonstrated that his solution cannot fix the problem and will only exacerbate it because it is entrenched in the idea of nation-states and national allegiances. It would continue to foster divide between the two segments of Israeli society instead of promoting unity I thus would like to propose an alternative solution: Instead of recognizing Palestine as a state and thus perpetuate the nation-state model and continue the conflict, the United States should attempt to help the Palestinians seek recourse through the U.N. This counterplan demands that the United States ought to claim that the government of Israel is abusing its own citizens. According to cosmopolitan ethics and basic social contract theory, states have no intrinsic value; they only exist to protect rights. Sangha continues, “Cosmopolitanism charges that political institutions like the state are only valuable insofar as they serve particular ends, the most significant of which is respecting the human rights of their citizens. This is the primary duty of the state, the reason for its establishment. The state has no intrinsic value and is deserving of legitimate recognition in the international realm only if it lives up to its obligations in the proverbial social contract entered into by its citizens.” [2] This is more likely to promote peace in the long run because it classifies the Palestinians as an integral part of Israeli society that is being suppressed by a government that, as a result of its actions, is illegitimate. The Israeli government will then be forced to promote the rights of the Palestinians in order to restore its legitimacy on an international plane. It also reduces discord and emphasizes the fact that although the citizens are of different origins and have different religions, they are still people, they still have obligations to one another, and they can work to overcome their differences in order to create a more prosperous future. It also completely strips Israel of any legitimacy it gains by claiming that the Palestinians are a subversive terrorist group that is seeking to divide Israel. The Israeli government becomes the aggressor and the Palestinians become the victims; this tactic removes any and all arguments of genocide for the sake of “national defense”. You can extend all of my opponent’s evidence about the Israeli government’s atrocities here because they all serve to prove the point that Israel is the aggressor regime. Thus, my opponent’s plan is flawed because it provides no solvency, exacerbates the problem, and is based on a model that is both outdated and destructive. Thank you. Sources 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://web.uvic.ca...
-
CON The road is as important as the destination! ... Building...
Universal standards of labour and business are not suited to the race for development
Achieving development at the cost of principles of development is not acceptable. The means by which you achieve development is equally important, and will remain integral in the principles and priorities of a nation once it achieves developed status. The road is as important as the destination! Building the economy on poor labour standards is building on unstable ground as those jobs will simply move as soon as costs rise in any way.
-
CON First, I'd like to say thank you for clarifying...
If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.
No offence taken, Juan_Pablo. "This statement is very logical and answers itself. People that don't go out of their way to make the world better, to push for fairness, justice, universal healthcare and education, people that don't contribute to acts of charity, who aren't neighborly and compassionate, who don't promote peace and concern for the Earth SHOULD NOT expect to live in a kind, fair, generous world! Their actions and attitudes are promoting a world that cannot establish these things, that cannot possibly make them universal, either in their own regions or abroad. And in a very real sense, they don't deserve a kind, just world to call home. What are they doing to establish such a world? Now, I'm not saying that such people should be punished for such behavior and attitudes (not unless they break the law, which is one device society can use to attempt to rectify an offender), but these people aren't making the world a better experience for everyone, so they shouldn't expect a better world in return!" While I completely understand this statement, I cannot say I agree with it. First, I'd like to say thank you for clarifying something; by "good," we mean, "better." This was a slightly ambiguous statement, and I thank you for making sure we're on the same page. Also, although many people don't try to make the world better, they do contribute to it. In my perspective, every human being contributes to making the world better, simply by existing. There are also people that try to make the world better, or, from their perspective, anyway; instead, they end up making it worse... Temporarily. You'll notice, we always end up fixing the world when such a crisis happens. There are many infamous people who, despite being thought of now as evil, may have, at the time, thought they were doing good. In the end, our society rose up and got stronger and more bonded because of fending off racist, convertionist, and sexist cults. Even if someone is not actively trying to establish justic and equality for all, does that mean they don't want it? They might, as I said, simply picture this as an abstract concept, and not think of the people suffering in other parts of the world. Also, one might be neighborly and compassionate, but not actively trying to improve the world as we know it. Imagine walking by, happily minding your own business, when an old lady trips and falls, spraining her ankle. You might instinctively rush to help her up; you might flip out your cell phone and call whoever you can think of; you might walk her back to her house, and ask her if she has any relatives. Does that mean you're trying to improve the world? I honestly can't imagine someone simply walking by, ignoring the old lady. That doesn't mean every person on Earth is actively doing things to make the world better. "Those that aren't willing to put in that effort simply shouldn't expect it, and when some great injustice happens to them, they need to ask themselves "how did this happen?" Even others who do try to establish such a world, and who suffer injustice, do so because there are individuals who aren't trying to make the world better. This demonstrates the universal extent of this problem." Now here's where our opinions differ. Bad things happen, and I don't believe this is because there are people who aren't ambitious enough to try to effect the world. I believe this is because we, humans, have differing opinions. Some might call it justice, some might not. Justice, in itself, exists independant of our emotions. The question is whether it's possible for us to capture it in our actions. Each and every one of us contributes a role, whether that role is good or bad. It's not, at least not completely, up to us whether we are acting on justice or not. Injustice happens to all, because perfection is an abstract concept. We will never be perfect. When one person looks around them, they see a world filled with chaos and strife, one that they should work on improving. When another human does the same, they see only the world. Or maybe, life. Either way, the point is that they don't think it needs improving, or that, if it does, they should be the ones to improve. They think of their life, and the starving children half way across the world are merely hypathetical. They think, "Aww, that's terrible!" but they don't think, "I can devote my life to improving this, and it might be eliminated!" In reality, that would actually be a slightly illogical view. The world, as I've said, can never be perfect. Humans, as a race, always have room for improvement. This is part of what defines us. Although we should always be trying to make it better, we have to admit that it won't be perfect. There will be people that don't care. But the question is, should those people expect a better, but not perfect, world? In summary, my argument is: Just because someone chooses not to effect the world doesn't mean they don't deserve to live in the best version of it we can create using all of us combined.
-
CON The United States is estimated to have the highest...
Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government
Pro has strung together facts and figures without a cohesive case addressing the core philosophical question posed, which is does a right exist? I had already previously conceded in most modern states universal health care provided by the state works from a practical and functional standpoint. Pro in fact conceded that in some areas the hybrid approach of the United States with a mostly market but some state intervention is better than states with universal state ran systems. Especially when it comes to wait times. Pro says "In the United States, fewer than 10% of patients wait more than two months to see a specialist versus 41% in Canada, 34% in Norway, and 28% in France. The US 5-year survival rate for all cancers is 64.6%, over 10% higher than the 5-year cancer survival rate in Europe (51.6%). A 2009 study found that the United States had better cancer screening rates than 10 European countries including France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The United States is estimated to have the highest prostate and breast cancer survival rates in the world." Statements like this would lead one to believe that less state intervention is better in many if not most cases than more state intervention. Still this is not addressing the question of this debate. The question is what constituents a right? Are positive right really valid rights? It is moral to use force to provide a good or service? If a right to health care exists as a positive right then where does it end? Is there a right to clothing, shelter, food, or a certain income? I argue you have no right to use force to accomplish such things. Government is force, your relationship with government is not voluntary and I refuse to accept the notion that we need violence accomplish civil society. The fact of the matter is to provide health care or anything else though the state it requires resources are forcefully taken from the population and redistributed. This flies directly in the face of everything we learned in Kindergarten, don't hit people and don't take their stuff. Voting to take stuff from people though a state is no different.
