Debate.orgMost uninsured simply can't afford it; it's not a choice
Single-payer universal health care
Most uninsured simply can't afford it; it's not a choice
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Aging countries contain health care costs without...
Single-payer universal health care
Aging countries contain health care costs without difficulty
-
PRO It is a myth that the uninsured are being provided for now
Single-payer universal health care
It is a myth that the uninsured are being provided for now
-
PRO A profit health care environment results in more...
Single-payer universal health care
A profit health care environment results in more frivolous lawsuits
-
PRO Single-payer systems involve government paying for...
Single-payer universal health care
Single-payer systems involve government paying for private services
-
PRO Private health care has become increasingly unaffordable...
Single-payer universal health care
Private health care has become increasingly unaffordable for individuals
-
PRO A single-payer system will not cause government to...
Single-payer universal health care
A single-payer system will not cause government to intrude in medical decisions
-
PRO Single-payer health care allows bargaining for lower drug...
Single-payer universal health care
Single-payer health care allows bargaining for lower drug prices
-
PRO If a person is "rationed out" of the public health care...
Universal health care leads to rationing.
Medical resources are rationed in socialized systems so that some people are either denied care or have to wait for it. If a person is "rationed out" of the public health care service (perhaps because the treatment is not considered effective or cost effective enough to warrant intervention) they will be able seek alternative treatment in the private sector. If they cannot afford private care, they may have to go without.
-
PRO Single-payer systems create new job opportunities
Single-payer universal health care
Single-payer systems create new job opportunities
CON
-
CON Thus, we conclude that all human beings possess ownership...
The USFG should allow the limited use of Torture
DISCLAIMER: I have borrowed large portions of my case from a debate I did on Edeb8. I can provide evidence that the Romanii of Edeb8 is the Romanii of DDO upon request. I. Unethical Torture is a blatant violation of human rights, and is therefore a moral abomination that should not be practiced under any circumstance. The USFG is a signatory of the UN's "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", which reads: "Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person. Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" [1]. The USFG is contractually bound to this universally-accepted conception of human rights, and the practice of torture is in clear violation of it. But torture also violates human rights on a more fundamental, moral level. What exactly grants human beings any ethical significance in the first place? It is quite plain to see that the most striking factor which distinguishes humans from the rest of the amoral universe is their faculty of *self-ownership*. The existence of self-ownership is intuitively obvious -- since you are the sole user and occupier of your own body, you are the only one who can exert any sort of authority or control over it. Moreover, denying self-ownership results in a performative contradiction because simply the act of denying it (via speaking/typing) requires you to exercise your faculty of self-ownership. Thus, we conclude that all human beings possess ownership over themselves and, by extension, moral rights to autonomy and bodily integrity. With such rights established, we can easily see why torture should be considered morally unacceptable. It is literally the epitome of infringing upon autonomy & bodily integrity -- torture is the purposeful infliction of severe physical harm upon a person's body in an attempt to force them to act/speak against their own will. Thus, it is a moral abomination which only serves to dehumanize its victims by violating their most basic human rights. Given the gravely impermissible nature of torture by both legal and ethical standards, it is quite obvious that it should never be used, especially by the United States' *government*, which is given the responsibility of *protecting* people's rights. II. Ineffective Torture is a highly ineffective means of obtaining information, thus virtually erasing any benefit that could possibly come from using it. Under the duress which is invoked by torture, the victim is very likely to give false information or become completely unresponsive, as is confirmed by a growing body of research on the subject: "...a growing number of behavioral scientists has begun researching interrogation and lie-detection methods in an effort to scientifically determine what works, what doesn't, and why... a general consensus has emerged that supports the experience of interrogators like Soufan: torture doesn't provide reliable intelligence, the U.S. government's list of approved interrogation techniques is outdated, and detecting liars based solely on body language is barely more reliable than flipping a coin... According to Reuters, a Senate Intelligence Committee report, which will be released this summer, is also expected to find little evidence that the CIA's enhanced-interrogation [torture] program led to any major breakthroughs in the war on terror. And in a report released in 2009, the CIA's own inspector general found no evidence that the agency's practices stopped any imminent attacks. Nor could it ascertain whether the enhanced-interrogation techniques obtained information that the agency couldn't have obtained through less coercive means," [2]. Psychological studies such as the one conducted by the FBI's High Value Detainee Interrogation Group demonstrate that humans are most likely to just do whatever is necessary to make the pain stop, whether that entails fabrications that conform to what the torturers want to hear, or complete unresponsiveness [2]. This especially true given that in the modern world, the most likely subjects of torture are going to be members of radical Islamic terrorist groups, who are infamously capable of valuing their mission over their own well-being [3]. Furthermore, we have empirical evidence of the disastrous results of acting on information obtained via torture: false confessions which were obtained by the torturing of Libyan nationalist Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in 2001 are what eventually led the US Government to its ultimately pointless invasion of Iraq [4]. Perhaps most importantly, there are alternative methods of obtaining information that are much more humane, less coercive, and demonstrably more effective. Research on the effects of torture done by Matthew Alexander, who has much experience conducting/overseeing numerous interrogations that occurred during the Iraq War, has conclusively demonstrated that diplomatic methods of interrogation can be used to efficiently obtain consistently accurate information *even* in high-stress situations. In the words of one of the detainee's who Alexander interrogated: "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate." [5]. III. Public Perception In the wars of the modern era, one highly important factor for success is public perception, and using torture on the enemy has often proven to be highly detrimental in that sense. Take the example of the United States, when a Senate report was released about the CIA's use of torture in wars abroad: "[One Twitter user] compared the torture to acts of brutality committed by Isil... The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamic militant web activity, said the Senate report had 'ignited an overwhelming response from the online jihadist community, with many calling for retaliation against the US and promoting jihad.'... Experts are worried the report could be used as a recruitment tool by extremists... President Barack Obama admitted some of the tactics detailed in the explosive report's 500-page declassified summary were 'brutal... we took some steps that were contrary to who we are, contrary to our values.'" [6]. In short, the use of torture in war causes the government to lose its "moral high ground", marring its reputation by appearing hypocritical to its own citizens and allies, turning moderates and fence-sitters against it, and opening it up to intensified retaliatory attacks by the enemy. == CONCLUSION == Torture is a categorically immoral abuse of human rights which should not occur any under circumstance, let alone at the hands of the US government. Not only that, but it is also highly ineffective and sometimes even counter-productive, with alternative methods of obtaining information being preferable in literally any scenario. Furthermore, the use of torture in war (which is by far its most common use) has unintended negative consequences on public perception and foreign relations. There is no case in which the government should be using torture. The resolution is is negated. [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [3] http://www.nydailynews.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.lewrockwell.com... [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
-
CON However later you said, "Wealth redistribution [which I...
Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances
I will assume that everyone in the socialism you have proposed is paid equally since no explanation is given. It is also common in socialist countries and even essential in this particular socialist model because robots alone are not enough to provide to the people who don't work (as some jobs simply cannot be done by robots) I. SOCIALISM CANNOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED. "It is the government"s job to give people natural rights." Natural rights, are, according to Wikipedia, those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (as opposed to legal rights, which are bestowed onto a person by a given legal system) Therefore, I do not agree to your statement that "It is the government"s job to GIVE people natural rights," because natural rights are not contingent upon the government so socialist or not, it is impossible for them to be given by the government. "It is the government's job to prevent any inequalities that may happen." If robots do work for some people but not for others, isn"t that unequal to the people who do work? Even if you reward their work by paying them wages, standardised or not, isn"t that unequal to people who have jobs replaced by robots and don"t get paid? Also, the government itself is unequal. You basically have a small group of people with a lot of political power controlling a large group of people with little power. It is impossible and paradoxical to have a government and have absolute equality at the same time (or in your words, preventing any inequalities that may happen.) "It is the government's job to achieve the highest standard of living for ALL citizens." However later you said, "Wealth redistribution [which I understand as an example of a phenomenon that occurs with a socialist government] will guarantee that all citizens will receive enough basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, for survival." The word "basic" suggests that wealth redistribution, which is what happens when there is a socialist government, does not meet the requirement you have previously set for your government which is to "achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens." In short, socialism cannot serve three of the four purposes of the government you have pointed out initially. It is simply impossible for the government to give people natural rights and to prevent any inequalities that may happen. A socialist government cannot achieve the highest standard of living either. This leaves us with, "It is the government's job so that people in the worst situations still would have a decent standard of living." This can be done through many forms of government, including the Nordic model of capitalism, without the disadvantages of socialism which I will point out in my arguments later. II. SOCIALISM LOWERS THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK - BECAUSE OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION YOU DON"T NEED TO WORK TO SURVIVE "Wealth redistribution" in socialism, as you have said, means that people whose jobs got replaced by robots can receive the basic resources to live, for free. This is a problem because it greatly lowers the incentive for people who still have to work to work - they see others who don"t have to work (because their jobs are replaced by robots) being able to survive because they can obtain sustenance through wealth redistribution while they have to work hard and suffer but there is little to gain (because there is a standardised wage). How would you feel, if your neighbour who hadn"t worked hard at school and ended up getting a poorly paid jobs now gets to stay at home and receive food and resources from the government through wealth redistribution while you have to work hours and hours a day? This collective reluctance to work means that many jobs, such as doctors, childcare workers, teachers, lawyers that are fundamental to the normal function of our society but cannot be done by robots will be either left empty, left in the hands of people who are unwilling to work or are jealous and resentful of people who don"t have to work. Either these services cannot be provided to us or are provided to us poorly.
-
CON I bear small disagreement to your response to my point on...
Church and State should remain separate.
You mustn't wait long. I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy this debate a lot. Well on the effort to keep within the formalities of rebuttal I shall be attacking your points and rebuilding my own. I would like to point out your comment concerning the way "elected officials use religious based propaganda," is irrelevant to policy itself. Your quarrel should be with the politicians and voters themselves. The politicians get power because voters give them that power. It's the power of citizenship. If you have a problem with them electing a devout religious person then take it up with the voting body, but I'd imagine telling them how to vote wouldn't be looked at as constitutional. I would also like to ask for examples for your second argument concerning oppression. None are provided so I have nothing to respond to. Now onto my own case and your attacks thereof, I suppose I'll start at the top and go to the bottom. I feel it's unnecessary to dispute the definition of religion since mine is a summarized version of yours. If you don't feel that true then just take this as concession of your definition. However, I disagree with your statement, "you must first specify which of the million deities in the thousands of belief systems you are specifically arguing for." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't use a religious argument in my first post at all. I'm not arguing for a religion or theocracy. I'm arguing the the elected ought to vote on the basis of what they believe, because that's what they were elected for. I bear small disagreement to your response to my point on the first amendment. It's more of a disagreement on the way we should take it, not the literal wording. I won't spend time on that right now, as that will be included in my later arguments. You claim there is a universal morality or process of determining morality. However, you've ignored part of my argument concerning purpose. If there is no purpose or ultimate positive (the world will collapse eventually due to the second law of thermodynamics), then there's no lasting point to what we do. There's no ultimate way to determine whether or not life is even good if there's no point in life anyway. You also seem to be throwing in a personal bias when you state that morality shouldn't be made because of the fear in an afterlife. Shouldn't it be? The way I support my claim logically is that morals need to have some sort of grounding in something universally proven and something lasting. Everything in this world is dying, and nothing can be done about it. Nothing is ultimately lasting. What then is the point of morality? Morality, where God is not concerned, is created based on perception. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong because of science and your personal convictions, but other people have different personal convictions (radical nihilism), so how do you ultimately prove who's right? Science doesn't work because the morals derived don't ultimately have a purpose. In the end, if there is no God, then it doesn't matter. Your point about arguing about a God's existence is irrelevant, especially to you. You wouldn't want a God to exist in any scenario on your side because then theocracy is justified. Yes you have to prove which one it is, but that still undermines your entire point. However, I'm arguing under the premise that God does not exist therefore rendering any sort of universal morality pointless. Concerning your last argument about my argument concerning the constitution, I feel it should be addressed that we have a representative government. We elect representatives from the start of our country and hold elections every two years for a majority of them. So this means that if the citizens aren't pleased with the representatives then they can be voted out. This means that the citizens are voting for these people. So why would you restrict what the citizens want? You're missing the point of my statement. Also I would like to thank you for this statement, "There is no specific set of beliefs that atheists follow, only a lack thereof." That statement is awfully helpful to my side (see above arguments concerning moral relativism). I was however making the point in my last post that when one is an atheist there is a premise, which is that religion shouldn't be included in the decisions. Therefore the premise is forced under your standard for the elected. In conclusion to this rebuttal: Your statements on morality aren't justified, as they don't account for the fact that without God we and our actions have no ultimate purpose. It's contradictory to allow citizens to vote a religious man into office then say he's not allowed to vote on certain issues the way he and his body of electors believes. Finally your original points so far do not stand. Thank you, and I'll be waiting for your response in the next round.
-
CON I learned this is my first few months of learning LD so...
That Rap music should be banned
well my opponent wanted LD so i assumed that he was experienced and knew all of the rules. in LD the Affirmative HAS TO PROVIDE SOLVENCY. I learned this is my first few months of learning LD so extend all solvency arguments because no argument was made except that my opponent didnt have to which as one of the basic rules of LD is that he does because in any debate you want to solve the problems you use as contentions and they need to be 100% solved if this is effective. Such as Kill one to save more the Aff saves more lives this is a 100% true statement and can be used as an entire contention so extend all solvency arguments. Value: Morality. this is a flawed value ideals on morality constantly change we thought it was moral to have black slaves 100 years ago but ideas on morality change so why have a value so arbitrary. Value Criterion: My opponent argues Hitler had in no way shared these Ideas however i stated Hitler was a Utilitarianist and no matter what he did what he believed comes out to a better outcome which is exactly what my opponent is doing and Util is no way to think because it is not moral which doesnt hold up morality or the principles of LD (cont 1) slang isnt a language I never stated it was i stated it was a different way of speaking. i was misquoted i did state it was LIKE a language not that it was so my opponents arguments do not match to my contention argument and extend my argument on solvency as stated before. (cont 2) again solvency is a given you must provide in every case extend this and well as advertizement promotes the following there would be no decrease violent video games that involve gangsters violent cartoons tabacco companies and almost any where you look sex is implied. so my opponents argument fails while he provides no solvency and my argument stands so this contention falls (Cont 3) Again solvency and the fact we disrespect women anyway i can promote hitting my sister to my sister but she will still be in favor of it so this contention doesn't stand and extend my arguments. Moving on to defend my own case . No arguments made on my value so my value is now accepted as the paramount value which means i should win this debate right now and nothing would be against it. I refuted the argument made on my value criterion and said freedom of expression was basically an inalienable right and said with my first contention and my VC never to take these away so since in the last round no argument was made about itmy value criterion is now the paramount VC ( Cont 1) as i stated before i can double refute the argument made on my VC and cont 1 because they are basically the same. (Cont 2) I did providee a warrant for this saying some deal with stress by listening to music. and second listening to music as a stress reliever is universal everyone likes their genre and listening to music is far different than drugs and sex is a beutifull natural thing and it is benefitial in it produces more people which is benefitial to society. (Cont 3) My opponent provides no argument as to how i stated hes only listening to what he weants to he is hearing exactly what he wants to hear and not the other side You should vote negative because my value precedes his my VC precedes his and my contentions have solvency and are more cleanly built as you can see. As you can see my value is the paramount value my VC is paramount and my contentions stand while his crumble so i urge and negative vote reminding my voters that my opponent did not go over voting issues.
-
CON However, I am not allowed to smoke a cigar in a cigar bar...
Rationalists should attempt to destroy religion.
1. (a) Pro argues, "The fact that you can cherry pick verses from the Bible for the cynical purpose of repudiating other parts of the Bible does not render it a morally wise book. It simply renders it irrelevant." Interesting, as I did not pick any verses from the Bible nor did I claim it to be morally wise. My claim is that some parts are wise and other parts are not wise, and as time goes on, the wise parts tend to be identified and emphasized, and the unwise parts dropped. That is somewhat along the lines of agreeing that it is irrelevant. I'm saying that religion is a social institution that evolves. Pro did not contradict my claim. Pro did not assert that Christianity strictly follows the Bible exactly as it did 300, 500, and 1000 years ago. That's unsupportable. It has evolved. (b) Pro challenges, "If you believe that religious conflicts/ terrorism are simply reducible to US foreign policy, cultural grievances or social [deprivation] then you must explain why there[ aren't any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers." I never asserted any of the things Pro imagines. I'm pointing out that, for example, the Civil War, WWI, WW2, the Cold War and an endless list of conflicts have very little if anything to do with religion. If religion were somehow eliminated, the conflicts would arise in a different cloak. The reason that there are not any Buddhist suicide bombers is that Buddhism is a well-evolved religion that embodies a largely non-violent culture. That is precisely my argument for not destroying religion. Pro must argue why, if "There is a deep-rooted link between religion and violence." the Buddhists are not violent. (c) Pro says, "I am indicting religion for every evil or wicked thing a believer is likely to do only on the basis of their religious faith. " Your error is in claiming that if religion were destroyed, it would certainly be replaced by peace and reason. That is unsupported. One of Pro's two references is to how religion has been successfully destroyed in China, where they have suppressed Buddhism. So it is true that peace and reason have since prevailed in China, providing an improvement over Buddhism? Quite the opposite is true. Chinese communism is unvolved pseudo-religion. 2. Pro says, "Your assertion that if religion disappeared it would be replaced by something worse is unsubstantiated and fallacious." I substantiated it with an example. Where I live, no one forces me to pray or prohibits me from eating pork or forces me to wear a religious costume. However, I am not allowed to smoke a cigar in a cigar bar (even though the air is filtered cleaner than outdoors), I cannot buy a black car, schools must obey government standards of political correctness, and I must pay higher taxes to pay for irrational requirements. The prevalent pseudo-religion makes far more onerous demands on me than any traditional religion ever has. Pro gave the example of China, where religion was destroyed, yet rationality has not prevailed. I cited all the 'isms that abound. Pro ignored all the substantiation and claimed I gave none. Moreover, I explained why it was inevitable: people cannot possibly examine each decision in life from scratch. They must have a strong set of default principles, and they will have them. Pro did not rebut that argument, although he denied it. Does Pro claim that people are in fact capable of resolving every issue from scratch using nothing but facts and logic, and that without religion they will do so? The advantage of religion in such matters is not at all that it is religion, it is that it is an evolved social institution. 3. Pro asserts, "Indeed, religion will be "destroyed" when people no longer take it seriously." I didn't claim Pro had advocated bombing churches. My argument is that attempting to tear down religion as a focus of activity misses the point entirely. The Chinese tore down Buddhism and replaced it with something far worse. What rationalists should do is actively promote rational thinking. I gave Japan as an example. Pro's sources claim that 96% of the population claims they are Shinto, Buddhist, or both, yet Pro claims that religion has been successfully destroyed because only 25% say that religion plays a role in their lives on a daily basis. I claim that this reflects the transformation of religion into a cultural institution. That this is a good resolution, and that it doesn't reflect "destroying religion" as the resolution proposes. (b) Pro offers: "My opponent would do well to reflect on the state of our world 1000 years ago. One thousand years ago a belief in witchcraft was almost universal. What might someone like my challenger have said back then?" I'd say, "Be reasonable." Pro's assertion that witchcraft was universal then is not true. As far as I know, Buddhists, Daoists, and Confucians were not chasing witches. I think Pro's question is, "If religious irrationality prevails, wouldn't you try to oppose it?" Sure, and where it still prevails, as in radical Islam, it ought to be opposed as vigorously as ever. However, a thousand years ago there were plenty of other tyrannies and blatant irrationalities of a non-religious nature as well. Trying to destroy Buddhism while ignoring Ghengis Khan would be inappropriate, because GK posed the greater threat. In the modern world we have a variety of religious and pseudo-religious irrationality to worry about, and in many places the pseudo-religious is the greater threat. ======= Pro's Case ======= I don't have a good word for ideological substitutes for religion like communism, fascism, nationalism, tribalism, racism, and other modern extreme ideological beliefs. I call them pseudo-religions because they have all the traditional attributes of religion except supernatural belief. The pseudo-religions resolve questions of good and evil according simple rules, they provide tribal bonding that can be translated into the "moral us" versus the "immoral them," and they provide detail codes of social conduct. So, in Pro's list of seven reasons for destroying religion, one may replace the word "religion" with "pseudo-religion" and the list is equally true. This means that rationalists would err in focusing on destroying religion. They should attempt to destroy irrationality. In the United States right now, there is more irrationality in pseudo-religions than religions, but I advocate attempting to eliminate it wherever it occurs. Pro's error, I believe, is in supposing that religion is something special. It isn't. It is merely one manifestation of the unavoidable human need for rules and principles for making decisions and for guiding daily life. If also satisfies the tendency for humans to want to bond into tribes that distinguish themselves from other tribes, and to justify tribe action in terms of moral superiority over others. Religion has the advantage of being generally more benign as a consequence of generations of revisions in which the less tenable notions of society have been discarded. Yes, there are plenty of religious nuts left on earth, but if you took away their religion they would quickly find a new home in some radical ideology that gives them all same comforts. Pro should take on my basic arguments. Do people have the needs and tendencies I have supposed? Has religion evolved to more benign forms? Isn't it true that as I have described that pseudo-religion is more imposing on my life than religion? Are time-tested social rules a better starting point than new ideologies? If religion is destroyed, does peace and reason naturally prevail? Pro should also provide evidence that religion is inherently linked to violence as claimed, explaining the inherent link manifest in Buddhism, Jainism, and the Quaker religion. Pro gives examples of bad religion and then claims a generality. How is that claim different from citing bad atheists and then claiming a generality? Don't ignore my case.
-
CON Pain isn't mentioned, and having a terminal illness does...
Euthanasia should be legalized
It has been a very interesting and thoughtful debate. 1. Immoral First, I think we both understand that immoral actions should be legal, and moral actions should be. My opponent gave his way of determining the morality of actions by the Harm Principle. This is a consequentialist theory because you judge the morality of an action based on its consequences; However, this is not a good way to determine right and wrong. This is because you can never know the full consequences of an action. A small action today could lead to major actions later, this is known as the butterfly effect. "The butterfly effect is the sensitive dependency on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state." [1] What an action is today a small "harmless" action could lead to world peace, or it could also lead to World War III you can never know. An example would be if a grandparent chooses euthanasia, but then the grandchild suffers extreme emotional pain due to the loss. I would say this caused harm, and by your standard it is immoral and should not be allowed. You can never know what will come of those actions so you can't say it is morally acceptable. Irving Kristol's argument isn't too strong, and human nature changes. 50 years ago Homosexuality was not accepted at all, but we change, for better or worse. Well those examples should be your moral values since the argument is X should be legal since it does not harm anyone else. You can fill in anyone of those for X and it would work, but you then agree there are limits which you say is because "this ignored common sense, and popular judgement." I don't know why popular opinion has to do with it and that is a logical fallacy. [2] Overall your argument is X should not be legal because it ignores common sense and popular judgement, but common sense is subjective and to prove this we both believe it is common sense to support our positions when it would be impossible to hold both to be true. In conclusion, you have not proven that euthanasia is morally permissible by the standard you set, and you hold moral views contradictory to your own standard. 2. Subjectivity My opponent assumes that pain is a prerequisite to euthanasia, but not according to the Oregon Death with Dignity act which states "An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner" [3]. Pain isn't mentioned, and having a terminal illness does not necessarily mean they are suffering from any mental or emotional pain. I also have a problem with family approval. You Always say it is a personal decision, but making it need approval takes that decision away. What if a patient wants euthanasia, but the family does not. Does the patient get euthanized? That I don't know answer based on what you gave me. Further, having family come in affects their decision. If this was a debate about abortion that would be considered a pro-life coercion move to have family intervene in the decision. 3. Right to Die Even though the supreme court decision doesn't make it the right decision, but when you have a unanimous decision by legal experts from across the political spectrum it does make it a pretty reliable source. I hope you know the Human Rights Act you are referring to is from the United Kingdom. Putting individual countries aside the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enacted by the UN does not consider euthanasia a human right. We are not forcing people to live they have the right to not accept medical help, and they are not going to hook people up to machines if they don't want it. Plus the doctors would obviously do everything they could to ease the pain. 4. Slippery Slope I will just assume it is suppose to be CON not PRO every time you said it. You do admit though it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. Considering death to be a harm. Then this harms a non-consenting party; therefore, it should be considered immoral by the standard you set. Also, this does mean you admit there is a slippery slope and that we have already started on our way down which was my original point here. 5. Voluntary? Yes in euthanasia it is the doctor killing them, if it wasn't then it would be Physician Assisted Suicide. [4] If families don't know that one of them is suffering then they are not that close in the first place, or they don't care. If they don't share those feelings because they don't want to burden their family with that pain then they also would not request euthanasia because they would cause even more pain to the family because the patient didn't trust them enough to share their feelings. So, request by non-burdens will be met with people trying to convince them that they are not burdens and should not be euthanized. How is this free, and voluntary when you are coercing them to choose one side? I didn't say in Nazi Germany euthanasia was in the patients. I did say that they were portrayed as burdens on society. Further, you said "I agree with CON that the 'burden' is particularly the most significant reasoning behind euthanasia", so the only difference is one was involuntary and the other is "Voluntary". 6. Pain Relief In death you don't feel anything, so it is impossible to feel good. It is not the same as medical treatment because no doctor ever prescribes death for a treatment. It is like saying cyanide cures depression. What if the patient request alcohol for treatment instead of other medication? Should we grant their request? Just because a patient request it doesn't mean we should do it. As shown in previous arguments real pain relief, Palliative care, is poorly developed in countries where euthanasia is legal. Concluding, my opponent has not proven that euthanasia is morally permissible by the standard you set, and you hold moral views contradictory to your own standard, acknowledges that pain is completely subjective, didn't disagree that there is no universal human right to die, acknowledges that we have gone down the slippery slope, agrees people consider themselves burdens and the main reason they "willingly" choose euthanasia, and doesn't contest that countries with euthanasia have poor Palliative care. My opponent provided a great debate, and may the better arguments win. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [3] http://euthanasia.procon.org... [4] http://www.worldrtd.net...
-
CON Also,there has been a lot of attention lately on the...
minimum wage should exist
You certainly shouldn't pay someone who is not good enough for the minimum wage. You certainly should pay someone more than minimum wage if he/she does a better job. However, in reality,teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.You cannot make a living and support a family on a minimum wage job. Also,there has been a lot of attention lately on the subject of job "outsourcing", where U.S. companies hire foreign workers instead of Americans. When businesses outsource American jobs, they're not doing it because they hate America; they're doing it because they're trying to cut costs. When you set the minimum price of labor in America, you create an additional incentive for businesses to hire Canadian, Mexican, or other foreign workers. The best way to stop outsourcing of jobs is to provide the best conditions for doing business in America. A minimum wage just makes things tougher for companies to do business in America. Obviously, minimum wage isn't enough to support a person who lives in the cities of New York, Washington, or Los Angelas. However, it may be more than enough to support people living in rural areas or small towns. What is it real estate agents always say about real estate values? Location, location, location. You see that cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a Also,there has been a lot of attention lately on the subject of job "outsourcing", where U.S. companies hire foreign workers instead of Americans. When businesses outsource American jobs, they're not doing it because they hate America; they're doing it because they're trying to cut costs. When you set the minimum price of labor in America, you create an additional incentive for businesses to hire Canadian, Mexican, or other foreign workers. The best way to stop outsourcing of jobs is to provide the best conditions for doing business in America. A minimum wage just makes things tougher for companies to do business in America. Obviously, minimum wage isn't enough to support a person who lives in the cities of New York, Washington, or Los Angelas. However, it may be more than enough to support people living in rural areas or small towns. What is it real estate agents always say about real estate values? Location, location, location. You see that cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a When businesses outsource American jobs, they're not doing it because they hate America; they're doing it because they're trying to cut costs. When you set the minimum price of labor in America, you create an additional incentive for businesses to hire Canadian, Mexican, or other foreign workers. The best way to stop outsourcing of jobs is to provide the best conditions for doing business in America. A minimum wage just makes things tougher for companies to do business in America. Obviously, minimum wage isn't enough to support a person who lives in the cities of New York, Washington, or Los Angelas. However, it may be more than enough to support people living in rural areas or small towns. What is it real estate agents always say about real estate values? Location, location, location. You see that cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set! Thank you.
-
CON No where in the constitution does it say it is the...
The United States should adopt a publicly funded health care system
My original definition of basic human rights are more than what constitution the constitution claims as unalienable things. Whether you have health care or not, you still have a life. Health care will prolong your life. No where in the constitution does it say it is the governments job to prolong your life, just to have one. By the way, I know what taxes are, I know that schools, roads, and general maintenance are all from taxes. But those are entirely different concepts. They are things that the large majority of people agree to pay for. In health care more than 50% of the US does not think they should pay for it. And for the record I agree with paying taxes for those other things you mentioned. Do you have any idea what it costs for a doctors visit. One visit will not make you bankrupt. If you have health insurance the costs are much lower. Your "proof"" that people do not abuse the system is completely invalid. I have known some Canadians that see people abusing the system all the time.
-
CON These same descriptions were used for several other...
California Proposition 65 Should Be Repealed
Although there may be a few legal loopholes, Prop. 65 Does much more good than harm, and protects the general populace of California from corporate abuse of dangerous additives. My basic argument: Prop. 65 should be reformed only slightly in order to alleviate these legal loopholes, of which there are few. A1) “Bureaucratic Abuse:” “Proposition 65 ensures that any person may sue a business should there be no sign in the lobby, even if no harm has occurred.” -Although this IS true, it is a necessary evil. Due to the America’s underlying legal system, if someone is in violation of a law, they will ALWAYS be open to prosecution. My Opponent says later, “Prop 65 should be repealed; no reform can take Prop 65's problems away without changing its basic spirit.” First of all: NO new law that could accomplish what Prop. 65 is accomplishing now as far as notifying customers of a possible health threat WITHOUT having the same legal loopholes. Should a new law be created, it would be very similar to the current Prop. 65. Only a slight change would be required that would nullify the possibility of this Bounty Hunter sharking. In order to avoid prosecution by anyone or any group, a business simply must put up a sign in the lobby. Surely you can’t argue that this is unreasonable or too much trouble. Businesses are already required to put up a sign displaying their right to practice business, the signs that Prop. 65 require are no different. A2) “Scientifically Questionable:” “One of my favorite substances on the list if "wood dust". Literally, the dust of wood.” ..... “Even with inconclusize evidence, the OHHEA will ban the substance on the spot. Yes, wood dust is gross. No, it probably doesn't cause cancer.” -Here, we must look at a very important point. The OEHHA specifically states that exemptions may be provided by the act under certain circumstances. Should a business owner feel that a chemical is harmless, (like wood dust,) he may freely seek such an exemption. [1] “let's be honest, if the food I ate was tasty and had wood dust in it, I'd probably eat it anyways.” As an individual, I happen to agree with you here^. But not everyone in the state of California shares that opinion, and they deserve to at least be notified of what they're about to eat. “These same descriptions were used for several other chemicals, such as Styrene, Amsacrine, and Bleonycines. Possiblycarcinogenic means that there is conflicting evidence on the claim and much room for study. "Possibility" is not sufficient scientific grounds to make an action.” Hydrogen cyanide (An extremely lethal toxin) was discovered in 1782 by Carl Scheele. [2] He did not know for sure at the time that it was poisonous, but there was indeed a “Possibility.” Just as that chemical was discovered in 1782, new chemicals have been discovered very recently that have a good “possibility” of being poisonous. And just as Cyanide was in fact discovered to be lethal, many recently discovered chemicals have been proven to be toxic at the least. It would be inexcusable to allow ANY chemical to be placed into publicly sold food that has a "possibility" of being toxic without AT LEAST warning the general public. (It was not stated in the opening “instigation” whether this round will contain the final conclusion, but since my opponent offered one, I will do the same.) Conclusion: Prop. 65 is a necessary safe-guard against corporate abuse of chemicals. Without it, the public would be denied the right to know what they are putting into their own bodies, which is ethically unacceptable. The law does exactly what it was meant to do. This law should be reformed slightly to close loopholes allowing bounty hunters to exploit businesses that infringe the law. Should this law be repealed, another law would have to come about to get the job done as far as notifying the public as to the possibly harmful contents of their food. This law (Due to the fact that it would be accomplishing the exact same goal,) would be so similar to Prop. 65 that it would nullify the need for a repeal in the first place. Sources: [1] http://oehha.ca.gov... [2] http://www.cbwinfo.com...
-
CON Now note that these things may protect and benefit the...
WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility
Okay, so I'm going to have to make this a quick round due to some personal issues that I don't really want to get into right now. Anyways let's get to the debate. My opponent states that I am confused, but I am frankly not. By arguing against net neutrality I am arguing down what Milton Friedman has outlined as the three possible monopolies: Public, Private, and Massive Public Regulations on Private Monopolies. All of which are horrendous pratices we must see that for this resolution to be proven for my opponent he must show that they are not already a monopoly and that this Nationalization of the Internet is a good thing as per the resolution. I can simply argue that it may maintain a Private Monopoly and it would still be a win for me while my opponent must argue for the Nationalization of the Internet to mirror that of the US Postal Service and such. Contention 1: Opponent's arguments P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties. P2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty. C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care. ""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1] According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. “Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2] We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] My opponent talks of the price controls, but we can see that this is detremental for the economy. If we look at the Example of said Nationalization of buisnesses and the price control usage we can see that under this price control from the government can cause one of 2 things; 1. That the Government sets the price to high and the public buys less and less of the product and as a result this harms the buisness and the economy and it shows that the people do not want said product. This product's price then raises again in order to make up for the lack of growth forcing the government out of buisness. 2. The governemtn sets the price to low and people will buy the product out and there will be a shortage of said product. [4] My opponent speaks of lacking options and here we can see that this isn't due to the collution of the Private Companies, but this is more or less the collecting and merging of Private Industry in this industry. We can see that the lack of Competition harms the pricing and option as with more competition we can see that there are more companies competitng for lower prices to get custumors who try to get a better deal. We can see that this merging has harmed the economy and that Nationalization will harm it even more. [5] Furthering we just need to look at the Yugos which is a car from the former Yugoslavia. Due to the industry being Nationalized we can see that the quality of the car never improved due to no incentive to improve buisness due to the lack of the market competition. The same thing can and will happen to the internet if you nationalize it. [6] Which is funny, because my opponent is speaking of if we nationalize this internet then we wouldn't have an issue and not turning it to the Private Sector is good. Apparently he would rather drive a Yugo then another car. Contention 2: Unregulated Market vs. Regulated Market My opponent harps on the US having such a terrible internet speed and quality, but they are sadly mistaken. We can see that we are actually 10th in the World for the fastest speed and best internet quality. We are definately not the 40th slot that my opponent mistakably claims. [7 8] My opponent makes a huge contradiction here in this point. He first advocates for Public Nationialization of the Sector, but then states that they're "My only response to this is "yeah duh". The company is looking out for it's best interest. They make out better when they're unregulated." We can see that this is a HUGE concession as my opponent here concedes that under the status quo that the free market is better as "They make out better when they're unregulated" and we can see as I've shown already that the regulation harms the economy, but what my opponent is purposing is suicide. We can easily compare this to the Russian Nationalization of the Oil and Nickle Industry by the "Oligarchy" and see how it pratically ended the Soviet Union due to this economic crisis and we saw Oil prices skyrocket. [4] Contention 3: Status Quo Anti-trust Laws My opponent here makes another concession and fails to realize it. Did you miss it? Let's observe it again, "competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking and Americans need more competitive choices for faster and better Internet connections, both to take advantage of today's new services, and to incentivize the development of tomorrow's innovations" We can see here by what my opponent decided to point out is that once again we need free market competition over that of the Public Nationalization of this industry as it helps the industry. My opponent has dropped the entire argument that I've made here and we can see that the current Sharman Bill has done it's job. The FCC commissioner himself stated that there's only a handful of violations and those were delt with. Frankly it's doing its job and we can see that despite the mergers of these Providers we can still see that there is still innovation and compeition and this is much needed over the nationalization that my opponent is proposing.
