Debate.orgMany businesses cannot pay the private health insurance...
Single-payer universal health care
Many businesses cannot pay the private health insurance of employees
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Health insurance strains on businesses damage global...
Single-payer universal health care
Health insurance strains on businesses damage global competitiveness
-
PRO Single-payer systems insure individuals, but don't...
Single-payer universal health care
Single-payer systems insure individuals, but don't restrict doctors
-
PRO High US health care costs are not attributable to poor...
Single-payer universal health care
High US health care costs are not attributable to poor American health
-
PRO High US health care costs are not attributable to...
Single-payer universal health care
High US health care costs are not attributable to premiums for rapid care
-
PRO For-profit insurance companies often put patients at risk...
Single-payer universal health care
For-profit insurance companies often put patients at risk to cut costs
-
PRO Insurance companies screen out those that need health...
Single-payer universal health care
Insurance companies screen out those that need health care the most
-
PRO Health is often out of an individual's control; like fires.
Single-payer universal health care
Health is often out of an individual's control; like fires.
-
PRO A cigarette tax is a socially responsible way to pay for...
Single-payer universal health care
A cigarette tax is a socially responsible way to pay for health care
-
PRO When the wealthy must use public health care, the system...
Single-payer universal health care
When the wealthy must use public health care, the system improves
CON
-
CON If the medicine is bad, then the quality of service means...
Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices
Ok: He responds to my A Priori with a bunch of stats and how the US ranked last. Ok, observation: this has nothing to do with anything, and the list he provides is misleading. Infant morality, etc. doesn't have to do with the quality of HealthCare. There are many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse. This effects all the given factors. My A Prior still stands because we are the leader in HealthCare. E.g. the Canadian Prseident came to the US for a triple bypass because its not provided there; its too expensive for their Universal Health Care System. He then brings up that he never proposed a implemented pay for doctors. Ok...then what is he trying to advocate? How can you stop doctor's from competing for price, if you don't make them all pay the same price. He does say however they should be priced on the quality of service. Ok, then this contradicts a statement in his opening argument; that only the rich get the good doctors, therefore we should make them not compete. If we price based on quality then the bad doctors would be less expensive while the good doctors are expensive. As i brought up before, the rich will always get the better doctors, no matter what, its a non-unique argument. My opponent has a lengthy argument, so ill attack it very quickly. Here is the breakdown: I say the quality of medicine comes foremost. If the medicine is bad, then the quality of service means nothing. There is no way to affirm resolution because my opponent's plan will decrease quality of medicine, and then lead to all the negatives I posted in my first argument. My Case: Extend my Value, Value Criterion, and all points, since he failed to attack them. This is an easy negation, ty.
-
CON The false analogy is your comparing a scientific method...
Church and State should remain separate.
Thank you for that last post, I'm going to go down your last post to attack which simultaneously will rebuild my own case. Your first point makes a point of saying that the law restricts representatives from using their religion. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Here's the amendment regarding religion (I will post only the part pertaining to religion): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I will define establish according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement. Therefore, so long as representatives are voting and debating (just a vote and some argumentation that doesn't infringe on anyone) instead of creating a theocracy, they're perfectly justified in exercising their religion. The point of a representative government is to represent the people. If the representatives don't represent, then they were elected in vain creating an oppressive government who allows people to elect people who want to vote the same way as them, but they're not allowed to because people that don't like religion said so. No law has created an official religion for the nation. People may use it as part of their personal belief system when voting, but no religion has been established. We still have a secular government. This swiftly moves into your examples. I noticed almost all of them were debate (not establishment) concerning the LGBT community, although I would disagree that this is uniquely religious. If you'd like some examples of secular arguments I can recommend a few articles. The debate concerning abortion and birth control is a scientific debate (if you disagree with me, you can challenge me to a secular debate on abortion another time). Drug legalization is a scientific and philosophical debate. Stem cell research and vaccinations are scientific debates. In the end, you're committing hasty generalizations concerning the arguments on these. To clarify my clarification, that's the small disagreement I have with you concerning the first amendment. I'm sorry for the confusion, but when I say "when a god is not involved" I mean to imply I'm actually debating under the premise that no god exists. It's the basis for my argument of metaethical moral relativism (considering the only universe where MMR can be true is the universe god does not exist in). I'd like to bring up a few logical fallacies in your paragraph attempting to justify your claim on science and morality. One is a false analogy that turns into a red herring and finishes in hasty generalization. The false analogy is your comparing a scientific method of morality to the first amendment regarding religion. There's no tie without some sort of scientific connection, which you did not provide and is not obvious. The red herring comes in when you start ranting about religion in government. The hasty generalization is that people voting their beliefs at the polls oppresses everyone else. I'm sorry, but that entire paragraph doesn't logically stand. I think you're still missing the point regarding purpose in your next attack against my arguments. I'm saying there is no god. Go ahead and check my profile, and you'll see I'm a Christian. I'm sorry if it's throwing you off that I'm using an argument which has the prerequisite that god does not exist, but that's the argument I'm using. You might not want to debate me in that, because you don't want to argue that god exists because if god exists then denying him the control of government is rebellion against him and therefore heretical. Either way my argument stands. If there's no purpose or ultimate consequence to anything we do, then morality is strictly subject to the individual. This makes it wrong for someone to vote any way other than what they believe is right. Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, I'd like to post something for a good understanding. "The Second Law. Three popular formulations of this law are: "Clausius: No process is possible, the sole result of which is that heat is trans- ferred from a body to a hotter one. "Kelvin (and Planck): No process is pos- sible, the sole result of which is that a body is cooled and work is done. "Carath"odory: In any neighborhood of any state there are states that cannot be reached from it by an adiabatic process. "All three formulations are supposed to lead to the entropy principle." http://www.ams.org... My point I this is a philosophical argument. According to the theory if entropy, all matter and energy is running down. This means eventually the world will end. That also means trying to further society into some sort of preferable humanity is illogical and pointless. Therefore a universal morality has no point. It has nothing to do with politics, it was related to my arguments concerning MMR. Your next argument asserts that belief in an afterlife is a faith. I believe you need to be made aware of something called the law of non-contradiction. You're arguing that god and an afterlife are not fact. This only helps my point regarding MMR. You're asserting that there's no ultimate judgement for actions or that there's no universal entity creating a standard. Thank you for understanding my point, but unfortunately you've just lifted up one of my points. I feel as if you're assuming I'm arguing for the existence of a deity, which I specifically said in my first post I wasn't going to do. "The point of morality is to regulate a civilized society." Thank you for stating the purpose of law. Morality is a judgement of right and wrong, and without a universal judge, there are only individual judges. Those individual judges perceive morality, but it is not universal. You make more false analogies in your last argument. What does biology have to do with morality? How do chemical reactions in the brain cause morality? I think you're missing the psychology of personal experience and observation which then uses philosophy to determine morals. Science can't create morals, it can only help explain the chemical reactions that allows psychology to explain why each person has the morals they do. The point of my argument is that there is no universal morality, which then again, ties back into my MMR argument. Now in conclusion, there's still no reason that the elected shouldn't be allowed to represent the electors precisely the way a representative system is designed to. Thank you, and I can't wait for the next few rounds.
-
CON Well, it wasn't. ... This "huh" moment sums up the...
Every academic learning experience can and should be an interactive and enjoyable process
"Gaslighting" or "gas-lighting" is an abusive technique whereby the abuser twists, spins, selectively omits, or falsifies information to manipulate the victim. In this case, my opponent is the abuser, and the rest of us are victims. This defense is a counter-story to re-assert the realities of the situation before me and the reader. 1. My opponent begins with a specious "negation" of my initial suppositions by accusing me of conflating whether a goal is "primary" with whether such a goal can or should always be achieved. This false accusation, of course, misses the well-known connotation of "primary," which is that of a goal that is to be pursued before others and even at the cost of others. And, as I painstakingly explained, my argument is that education has fundamental goals that are incompatible with making every educational experience both interactive and enjoyable. My conclusion that it does is strongly influenced by the well-established fact that there are a multiplicity of learning styles, so making every single educational experience "interactive," as my opponent explicitly proposed, is completely incompatible with the goals of diversity in education and neglects the fact that "interactivity" is often not compatible with "enjoyment" for some students. 2. My opponent then makes the mendacious claims that (i) "meaningfulness" is a non-issue because he has not explicitly mentioned it in his resolution and (ii) my position that some learning experiences are more meaningful when his criteria of interactivity and enjoyment are set aside makes discussing his resolution pointless. No critique of my opponent's resolution could be more on-point than a discussion of whether there are other criteria that might be more important than and incompatible with those proffered in his resolution. My opponent's absurd critique--like his absurd suggestion that "this exchange will seek to identify ways that academic learning can be participated in and enjoyed by the students rather than merely being observed and tolerated," is nothing more than a demand that I accept the truth of his claims and get on to the more important task of making the positive case for his claims that he declines to make himself. Furthermore, because my opponent has made an "ought" claim without explaining any criteria whereby an "ought" may be established (here, my opponent suffers from having made no argument in favor of his resolution), I am free to consider what sorts of ends might drive an "ought" conclusion. As clearly set forth in my argument, a "meaningful" educational experience includes one that has certain ends such as the development of multiple modes of thinking, a diversity of learning approaches, fairness to a diverse group of learners, bench-marking the adequacy of efforts, a humane understanding of one's limitations, and achieving good outcomes (among other ends). These are all considerations that are, to one degree or another, in conflict with the criteria of "interactivity" or "enjoyment" and are more important than assuring that every single educational experience is both interactive and enjoyable, as my opponent explicitly insisted ought to be the case. 3. My opponent credits my statement that "we should take [the resolution's criteria] more as an aspiration that we make education interactive and enjoyable when possible" was closer to addressing the contention of the resolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution contended in plain English, which some may comprehend more easily than others, that "EVERY academic learning experience CAN and SHOULD BE an interactive and enjoyable process." I have shown that there are competing and at times more important imperatives that we ought to pursue and that are sometimes incompatible with those criteria. 4. My opponent then blatantly reverses course on the meaning of a fundamental term, "interactive." My opponent claimed that the definition was "self-explanatory," that "interactive" challenged the notion that some learning had to be "unilateral." Now, he proposes that dancing with butterflies was also what he meant. Well, it wasn't. My opponent clarified it in one of his more lucid and direct moments: "This interaction can be between mentor(s) and student(s) or shared between the learners themselves." It's abundantly clear that "interactive" has the "obvious" meaning it was given until it was convenient for my opponent to suggest that solitude could also be interactive, if butterflies are involved. Well, that wool doesn't fit over my eyes, and far from being a "conjecture," as the sources I cited set forth plainly, there are multiple learning styles and learning preferences, one of which is solitary learning. 5. My opponent absurdly suggests that he has responded to my contention that it is sometimes infeasible to achieve his universal goals in concert. We should hold my opponent the definition of "interactivity" that he claimed was "obvious" and then explicitly set forth as involving student-teacher or student-student interaction before the inconvenience of evidence and logic became apparent to him. Students who are intimidated when they do not have access to solitary learning will not enjoy the learning experience (as set forth in my sources), and many interactive learning experiences (such as performance before peers) involve levels of natural evaluation and self-evaluation that will not be enjoyable. 6. For a response to the supposed "conformist" attitude expressed by the idea that "failure" can be important, my opponent drums up the argument that the U.S. is non-diverse, etc. Well, I think one of us made an argument a bit earlier in favor of a little solitude, didn't I, in recognition that requiring a conformist "you must interact" approach to education was a bit non-diverse. But let's look at the facts. The U.S. is actually fairly diverse (http://www.pewresearch.org...). Those not living in a history book understand that education in the U.S. now reflect this fact (http://education.jhu.edu...). There is no doubt that a diversity of expectations and approaches is required. One part of diversity is acknowledging the value of solitary learning, allowing students who value it to experience it, and exposing students to diverse learning styles. But diversity does not mean that any failure is attributable to the instructor. It does not mean that 1=1=3 is a good argument or answer. I am relieved that my opponent realizes that students should not "be allowed to put forth minimum effort...," and I agree that, as I proposed first, education should recognize diversity and not be delivered in a one-size-fits-all manner. But failure (not an "F" on a report card, but rather one of the natural and, preferably, temporary results of challenge) is in all likelihood a non-enjoyable but necessary experience that students can come to value, accept, and at some point "laugh about" even though none of us like it. 7. My opponent discusses the effect of "grades" as if I had ever mentioned them. In fact, I did mention them--as an arbitrary or trivial thing that I did not wish to discuss, in my acceptance. Nowhere in my argument did I discuss grades. I cannot fathom why my opponent thinks that a rebuttal of the value of "grades" has anything to do with my arguments. The only thing that I have argued is that "interactivity" will sometimes invite self-evaluation and the evaluation of classmates and that it failure is part of meeting challenges and understanding when better or different efforts or approaches are required. My opponent proposes that I have argued for grades and for labeling people as "not bright" or the like. That's spurious. All I did was point out that part of testing one's limits is not always fun. This absurd lie that we must all feel wonderful about everything is a great harm to all of us. It is okay to fail, and it is okay to discover one's own limitations, and it is okay to use that information to have a great life. It's sick to hide that information from people. 8. Rationality and defeatism are two different things. Einstein was a math genius but not a mathematician, so he hired mathematicians to help him (http://www.todayifoundout.com...). Realizing your limitations is not degrading or defeatist, it is simply a realization that one doesn't need to be an island. My opponent has misconstrued my argument against the irrational lie of unlimited potential and self-sufficiency (absurdly enough, since he values interaction so much) as "defeatism," when realizing the need for alliance is nothing even remotely like defeatism. 9. My opponent's response to the idea that some groundwork may not be entertaining is that it is always possible to make that work entertaining. This is nothing more than a circular argument in response to common experience. My opponent offers no reason to doubt the common experience that some learning is simply not fun, and gutting it out is sometimes the best way to get the basic competencies that open up a more enjoyable experience. 10. Again, my opponent argues against his own universal of "interactivity" in claiming that not everyone enjoys the same method of learning. He cites a situations within common experience where education can be enjoyable and interactive--scant evidence for a universal resolution against the evidence, logic, and experience that those criteria are not always compatible or preeminent. My opponent ends with the conclusion that while butterflies are interactive, using a device to interact with real people is not. This "huh" moment sums up the validity of his attacks against my argument, in a situation where he has offered nothing in support of his resolution.
-
CON It is natural to see other species attacking/killing...
Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings
Rebuttals to my opponents opening arguments: 1). "There is no reason to exclude animals from the concept of equality." This point Pro has made isn't advancing his argument substantially. It may be slightly similar to proving a negative. "Why not?" BoP is shared, but this isn't bringing proof to the discussion at hand. This is not showing why animals deserve the same rights as humans. "During the last few centuries, especially in the Western world, the line has been moved further and further, to incorporate groups that used to fall on the wrong side." While this may be true, all examples of extended rights have been for humans, not animals. Secondly, this is an "Appeal to Tradition," that if we have done it in the past, and it has worked before, it will be good this time around. This a fallacy. [1]. Pro still has yet to explain why animals deserve to have equal rights to humans, but merely asserted that "why not?" "The obvious question now is, why should the line be drawn at the point where our species ends?" That certainly is the question Pro, please explain why they deserve the rights, beyond this. Expand. Convey why it shouldn't be drawn at species. Why not, is not an argument, nor is it a reason. "As we, the human species, learn more about nonhuman animals, it becomes clearer and clearer how much their cognitive capabilities have been underestimated." Here we are. Pro has brought forth a few reasons. I'll summarize all of point one: Animals should be included because there is no reason not to. Why should we draw the line at one species? Non-human animals have shown more intelligent that previously thought, so that means we should include them into human rights. Pro also mentioned a few aspects such as social behavior, communication, and problem solving as some of the abilities animals are capable of performing. Animals are certainly not stupid or dumb, they can be very smart. They are all complex and wonderful creatures, but are nowhere near the complexity, intelligence and capabilities of humans. There is no question to the superiority of humans, on all levels of measurement. We operate machinery, converse with others, solve complex mathematical problems, have a diverse vocabulary, and the ability to use logic at a far more advanced level than animals. We are superior. With that established, I can advance in my explanation and refutation. We are one species, we don't kill each other within our own species for survival reasons. That is why we have not included other species into our formation of rights. In nature, species kill other species for survival purposes and out of instinct. We see lions killing different animals for food. Bugs kill different bugs, birds kill different birds and rodents for food. Everywhere we look we see Intra and Inter-specific competition. [2]. It is natural to see other species attacking/killing other species than themselves. It should thus be natural for us to use animals as a means of survival, correct? Just like Pro has offered that we animals should have rights just because "why not?" I can likewise say that, it's natural for species to eat other species, so "why not?" 2.) "Using animals as commodities is not only unethical, but unnecessary." If we were to use this as a basis for rights and equality, we would quickly confront many questions and contradictions among Pros stance. We have already been aware of the difference between species and interspecific killing. Pro is claiming that all animal are the same and deserve equal rights. Should we be policing the killing between two animals, human or not? If the line shouldn't be drawn at just our species, then why should we then drawn the line that it's ok for other animals to kill each other, but not ok for us? Pro will likely counter with that eating meat is not a necessity for us. There are in fact omnivorous animals in nature, that also don't need meat to survive. [3]. Bears are exemplify my point. Some bear's diets range from almost entirely herbivorous to entirely carnivorous. If these animals warrant the same rights as humans, then it would be immoral for bears to be eating other animals when they can most certainly survive on a herbivorous diet. It is not unethical to use animals as commodities, or for survival, because it is a component of nature. It may not always be necessary to be eating meat, but it is not unethical, and since its not unethical to do so, the necessity aspect becomes irrelivant and it becomes a preference whether we could eat meat or eat herbivorously. Rebuttals to opponents comments on my arguments: 1.) "Con seems to look at the question solely from a US standpoint. Even though I am European, I do not mind rebutting US-specific arguments, because I am well aware of how the US animal industry works." You said it yourself that there's no reason for rights not to stretch worldwide, so If you suggest that animals rights to be universal, the U.S. definitely qualifies as a place that would be affected. "This, however, does not mean that rights cannot be considered universal, objective or independent from man." This is true, there is no reason they can't be universal, but that doesn't mean that they are universal. We cannot establish objective rights for humans. They are subjective to the world. Not every nation agrees on rights, whether they should be objective or not. How are we to establish animals rights, without even finding a common ground for human rights. It's even controversial within certain countries. Abortion is considered wrong by some, but right to others. "The sanctity of life and the right to life are commonly accepted principles. To someone who accepts them, it should be irrelevant whether in parts of the world people are killing babies or anything else. If one accepts the principle(s), it would be contradictory to justify killing by appealing to socities that do not follow said principle(s)." I wasn't attempting to justify killing babies, but I was showing how rights aren't as absolute as they may seem. "Based on the claim that rights are given to those with the ability to be "beneficial" and to "talk, walk and contribute", we should not give rights to babies. You might say that babies will grow up to be contributing members of society (although not all of them will), but what about severely disabled persons who will never be able to "talk, walk [or] contribute". Is it okay to abuse and kill these individuals?" You have said so yourself that babies will grow up and be capable of greater things than they initially have. Although you did mention disabled people. Those people are in fact exceptions, because it isn't the norm. They aren't supposed to be disabled, but due to whatever disease or genetic mutation they suffered, they are an exception to what a fully functional human is, and should still be treated with care. Just because some are unfortunate to have these disabilities doesn't make it a baseline. "Again, appealing to possible negative effects on the US economy is not a valid justification for destroying other societies and individuals. However, for the sake of argument, I will treat it as one for the rest of rebuttal 2." Animals gaining rights would substantially affect our economy and individuals directly. Likewise we have affects on animals. My argument is a mirror to Pro's. Pro is asking why we have the right to "shatter" other societies and animals, and I can ask a likewise question: why can animals shatter our society and affect hundreds of thousands of people and their lifestyles? "If people did not consume animal products, they would consume something else: plant-based products. In order to produce these products, countless workers would be employed (in positions where, perhaps, annual turnover rates would not exceed 100 %, which they do in poultry plants. [4] Guess why.). In other words, there would be little to no loss to employment. The same applies to the money. People would still need to buy groceries, and they would pay for them. (Side note: I never thought I would hear wealth inequality (i.e. the fact that Perdue Farms gets 6 billion dollars a year whereas local family farmers get little to none) used as an argument against animal rights.)" This whole rebuttal is ignorant and is based on no fact or evidence whatsoever. Pro casually ignores the statistics I brought to the table. I showed in my opening arguments with facts, of how hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost, astronomical amounts of money would disappear from a circulating economy, and 90 billions of pounds of food would disappear and no longer be available to a large group of people. Does that sound moral to you? Pro skips over this by simply saying that something else will replace it. This is the largest agricultural section of a country with over 300 million citizens, Pro has gravely underestimated the negative affects this would entail onto people. Would this be a moral thing to do? This society will be immensely affected by animal rights, what gives animals the ability to do that? 3.) pro claims that food and revenue will be replaced, not quite to 100% though. One thing that will not be replaced is the 60 billion in revenue a year from animal feed production. [4]. 60 billion a year in revenue would disappear. This would be a largely negative affect on large amounts of people and thousands of companies. Citations: [1]. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [2]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4]. http://www.statista.com...
-
CON Music and art education programs have had some of the...
Schools need music classes or other art classes and they should not be cut.
Music and art programs have some of the highest cost per pupils, which strains the budgets of school districts. Not only are there significant financial costs, but these programs also distract school districts from offering courses that are necessary for national economic advancement and self-sufficiency such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology classes. School districts also have the opportunity to offer art and music programs through private/public partnerships or through after-school and extracurricular activities Therefore, schools should have the option to fully or partially cut funding for music and art programs that are currently part of a school’s curriculum. It is apparent that, as some school districts face financial insolvency, music and art programs are the first to be defunded or cut back from existing budgets. These programs are typically resource intensive as they require not only teacher salaries, but incur significant facility, equipment, and travel costs. For example, instrumental music programs require the purchase of instruments such as pianos, drums, woodwinds, brass, and string instruments. Instrumental curricula, like this, requires the storage of these instruments, the purchase of sheet music, and a facility that will prevent significant disturbance to other academic courses such as history, literature, or algebra. In 1996, analyst David Monk determined that courses in foreign language, music, and scientific instruction incurred the highest per-pupil expenditures among six different New York high schools. This excluded special education funding. Music and art education programs have had some of the lowest enrollments in their classes, thus increasing the cost of per-pupil expenditures on these programs. The largest share of school district expense is teacher compensation, which includes ever-increasing salaries and rising health care costs that are placing crippling burdens on the budgets of school districts. Thus, these programs place a large burden on school budgets. Elective courses such as music and art also have an impact on the ability of schools to offer critical courses that will directly affect earnings outcomes for students such as classes in technology and computer science, natural and health sciences, engineering, and mathematics. According to an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science Education and Research, the United States economy is in volatile flux and continues to shift to an economy with an increasing reliance on technological innovation and proficiency, information management, and service. Thus, the need to be technologically proficient will be a universal economic need of all high school graduates. Students, as a result, will need more instructional hours in these courses. Furthermore, I do not contend that music and art programs lack any inherent value nor lack educational worth or benefit. Art and music programs, rather, can be achieved through various programs including partnerships with private non-profit music and art organizations or hiring after-school/extracurricular music instructors that do not place a heavy demand on salaries. A 1995 report from the U.S. Department of Education had shown that 98.7% of seniors from less affluent schools reported that extracurricular arts opportunities were available to them. It is very possible to make participation in arts programs viable with a combination of these strategies that place less stress on budgets and less stress on the academic curriculum. In rebuttal to my opponent, the author for the position that schools should not cut funding suggests that doing so would deny students the ability to relieve academic pressure and relax and have fun. First, there are a number of activities and programs that may help students achieve the relief of academic pressure including dedicated lunch times and/or recess, which do not require the presence of music or art programs. Additionally, the relief of academic pressure is not as important of a factor that a school board should consider when it questions whether it should preserve the arts curriculum or not. As previously stated, the ability to substitute a program, the cost of a program, and the relative economic impact of a program should be prevailing factors in the consideration of its preservation or abandonment from the academic curriculum. More specifically in schools with significant low-income populations, there has been significant evidence that private-public partnerships have worked with students who live in lower socio-economic circumstances. Additionally, lower-income communities would most want to manage costs to the school district while finding strategies to provide the greatest amount of access to music and arts programs. Often, low-income communities pay more property taxes than more affluent school districts, since school district expenditures are often uniform among various districts. This means that more residents must pay more taxes to maintain the basic level of functioning in the school district, which requires a larger portion of their income than wealthier school districts. Therefore, music and art programs may not be financially feasible for these neighborhoods. http://nces.ed.gov... http://educationnext.org... http://www.sfasu.edu... http://online.wsj.com... http://science.house.gov...
-
CON All of this work to get good teachers into the areas...
A teacher's pay should be merit-based.
I'll begin with my arguments, and then address each piece of my opponent's advocacy. 1. As my opponent acknowledges in his case, nations need more educated children. In order to meet this goal, most nations, and all first world nations, have responded by creating universal assessment tools to gauge student achievement in its public schools. The result has been standardized tests, generally built by states/localities and given to students each year. The federal government then examines the scores of these tests. Per almost all current educational research, these tests are statistically and empirically non-indicative of student achievement, progress, or even potential, which many in the educational field argue cannot be tested or measured.(1) Therefore, there is no way to accurately measure student achievement in a way that is politically viable and accurate, as the political climate of today demands hard numbers, which are impossible to deliver. 2. Grades and corresponding GPAs are equally unreliable for a number of reasons. Teachers, like police officers, directly control all evidence of their merit. Without severe and monumentally expensive supervision, teachers will always be able to corrupt assessment results, even on statewide exams, to increase their pay. There are countless cases of teachers who have manipulated grade systems or test systems for their own benefit. Even state governments have been accused of and confessed to "dumbing down" assessment tools in order to secure monetary benefits or administrative stability. When was it that the number of teachers and governments attempting to cheat assessment tools began to exponentially rise? 2000, when the Bush administration fielded and implemented the No Child Left Behind Act, which directly tied these assessment tools to merit-based benefits for schools.(2) 3. If being judged by a state or nationwide standard, historically and empirically low-performing schools are distinguished by socioeconomics, geographical location, and ethnic background. Urban schools and rural schools routinely get the short end of the educational stick. Those schools are underfunded due to high levels of poverty, they are unable to pay teachers as much so they get poorer quality of teachers, less resources, and less face time with students. Naturally, they will consistently underachieve with standards that cannot physically be met in these schools. Educational research confirms that this is so. Teachers know this, too. This is why the federal government has had to begin offering numerous incentives for highly qualified teachers to take jobs at rural and urban schools, include college loan forbearance, loan forgiveness, and tax incentives. All of this work to get good teachers into the areas where they are needed most, to catch up decades of consistently mediocre education, will be reversed by the merit pay system, since the students in these disadvantaged areas will never perform as highly in quantifiable assessments as advantaged students. 4. The impacts of merit pay are clear. Highly qualified teachers will take positions in schools where they can achieve. Mediocre teachers (the ones left) will take positions in the schools that need highly qualified teachers instead. This will lead to the above-mentioned corruption within the education system in order to gain merit pay, even as high as the state level. This will affect student achievement in myriad, terrible ways. (1): http://www.fairtest.org... (2): http://www.susanohanian.org... Note: these are what I have on hand. I have many more extensive, specific studies if you like :) And my opponent's case: Quick note on outside-of-US anecdotal evidence: as long as the example could reasonably be applied to the US, my opponent can introduce any evidence he likes. "I point out that I believe in western society today, our teachers are under-valued, under-appreciated and under-paid. I certainly do not propose reduction in any teacher's salary but instead, I would like to see those who perform best rewarded even more." 1. Very true. However, the affirmation's plan will only entrench this mistreatment, as it will clearly discriminate against certain teachers based solely on the area in which they choose to teach. "Student achievement. I think it is important to recognise that this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils." 2. This is, indeed, a valid part of student achievement. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure this, along with all of the other facets of academic achievement, in a universal way, which is what merit-based pay would entail for the purposes of accountability. "Performance related pay is a powerful tool in Employment. While it is suitable for many jobs it is not suitable for all." 3. Teaching is inherently different than sales, and this is important to note in reference to merit pay. Sales commissions are based on a quantifiable standard: did the person make the sale? Yes: that representative will get a percentage of the commission. No: no commission. First of all, educational achievement and potential cannot be quantified in nearly the same way. The only way to universally quantify it is to use standardized testing, which fails miserably to prove any sort of academic achievement. "An example of a less appropriate field would be police-work. Rewarding an officer on their number of arrests or conviction rates does not seem a good idea to me as this would encourage them to be over-zealous and perhaps even tempt them into corruption and tampering with evidence as well as criminalizing more of the general population." 4. In a similar vein, teachers and states alike have freely admitted to corrupting test results or corrupting the test itself. Several states have been found to manipulate test difficulty, format, and content in order to ensure more passing students. This only happened when the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted under the most recent Bush administration, in which funding and school functionality became tied in the same merit-based way to academic success based on universal, quantifiable academic assessment tools that are in and of themselves deeply flawed. "I think teaching is an appropriate profession to apply performance related pay to as the benefits would clearly outweigh any negative impact. I would like my opponent to explain why it is not and what negative effects she believes that it would have." 5. The negative impacts are outlined in my case, and affect both students and teachers. Teachers will be paid less for working in certain socioeconomic, geographic, and ethnic locations. Therefore, teachers will leave the schools which need their expertise the most in order to seek pay increases. The US government is already having to lure highly qualified teachers to these areas in order to keep them there. These underprivileged schools cannot stand this strain. This is where the students suffer, as mediocre teachers will be able to find jobs more easily in already struggling schools, which will simply lower the quality of education in urban and rural areas, resulting in an even greater educational gap in the nation. Hence, not only will merit pay for teachers not improve the world, but it will devastate any attempts the government is currently making to level the educational playing field. In essence, using assessment in relationship to teacher pay is a recipe for disaster. While assessments are valid and necessary, tying them to teacher pay is a drastic mistake on the part of any nation, especially if those assessments are universalized, even by state governments. I look forward to my opponent's response!
-
CON In fact the very bill you use as a topic was taken down...
Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime
Re: Hypothetical The question does call for a hypothetical outcome, because my opponent makes the claim "it would not" or "it would" implying that if passed it has a certain consequence, and I must refute that consequence to meet that BOP. I have, and indeed my opponent claiming there is nothing hypothetical about this debate ought to count as a concession to my studies that he simply rejects on the basis of a bare assertion fallacy (see later rebuttals). Finally, while it does state "as written" what I was trying to show was that the bills provisions could be effective, but because it was struck down, I needed to show it pragmatically in another country .. I did, those were done in countries like Canada, Australia, Findland, Switzerland, etc... Oh and one last note, it has to be what the law ought to be, if passed the law would have made internet sales be reported. Which my opponent is arguing that it was struck down (we both agree that's an objective fact) but should it have been struck down? Your claiming yes it ought to have been shot down (hehe .. SHOT!) due to it being a pain, whereas I say it ought to have been empowered for the saftey of non-gun owners. My opponent commits a "moving the goal post" fallacy here, by trying to change up the fundamental question this debate rests upon to assist his own argument! Re: Effects in Canada, Australia, etc... While correlation is not causation (I agree) it is still important to note the correlations within a specific formulated policy. Firstly, my opponent never actually refuted my argument here, he completely drops it, I never stated it was causation (when it was correlation) but instead showed that when gun policies restricting their avalibility is imposed within a country (or any given land mass) that a pattern of less crime occurs with it. Which, is all the proof I need to meet my BOP. My opponent again moves the goal posts on me here, by rejecting my evidence and asking for more. In fact when I pointed out in round 2 that the Colombine Shooters were asking around at gun shows for "private sellers" and not public ones due to the legal loop-hole, my opponent completely dropped this argument. I showed my proof. Re: NRA While they do not have the authority to actually strike down the bills themselves, it is well known that they are a gun-rights lobby. In fact the very bill you use as a topic was taken down by politicians lobbied by the NRA, and no I do not have too, my opponent commits a non-sequitor here, my position is background checks do work, but can't because they indeed were struck down, and a "loop-hole" is present in the law (private/internet transactions) Re: Private Sales The State department took down the 3D guns webpage, as noted earlier gun trafficers only get them due to the "loop-hole" of private transactions without a mandated UBC, and finally, assuming the gun owner actually puts his gun away like he is suppose to, it would have been locked away in a safe, unable to be moved. While thefts do occur, this is for more regulation not less, so that the state may sort out who was approved and not approved to have a gun. Re: Tracing Thank you for the concession; however, as we agree here, the case is easy to show that all an officer needs them is the survillance tapes to identify the perp and then catch him, done and done. My opponent just showed right here that UBC works. Re: Why Not With Guns? But this isn't a gun registry, it's a simple background check thats it thats all. Re: Senario Lets apply your logic to something else to show why I think it's silly (with all due respect), say a neighbour witnesses a murder. They have to go to court, they have to varify that the person indeed was the killer, they have to clean up the bodies, they have to test the blood, find the murder weapon, hope that the witness isn't scared enough to NOT testify (which is obstruction of justice by the way and is illegal as well), find and arrest the man who did the killing, and possibly get a warrant to find additional evidence in his house by a judge soely on the basis of an eye-witness acting hystarically! Does this mean we should somehow scrap murder as a law becase not everyone follows it? Nope, and the above seems like an absurd argument, but with guns it's no different. Police launch investigations all the time. It's their job after-all, otherwise why are we giving them all that taxpayer money?! Re: Daily Show Because the buy-back program took out 1/3rd of the privately owned guns in Australia, furthermore, it tightened background checks on people seeking to posess an arm. Before the law was imposed, 13 shootings had occured, after? None thus far. (As seen on the show!) Clearly UBC works, and Australia is an example of it. Re: Fear If criminals fear repercussions, then this is an argument FOR UBC not against it, if your right to arms is limited on the basis of a criminal record or not, then you have a further incentive to be good now don't you? And I should conceede here that indeed, I misread my opponents position, I apologize, he never stats their fearless, but have no fear without repercussions, (again for UBC not against due to incentive) Re: Correlation Uhh .. yeah .. which is what I said... correlation .. not causation.. Re: Mexico Uhh .. what? Mexico is 7th in gun ownership figures in the world (http://www.gunpolicy.org...) and have over 15 million guns privately owned, not including government guns, and furthermore you completely ignored my source in which showed the state actually allowed for considerable gun freedoms. What are you talking about? Re: Self-Defence And as I noted with other studies, the examples you use actually do not result in one running away, but the threat correlates with increased likelihood of violence within those areas .. again you completely ignore the list of sources I used. Furthermore, the case showed my opponents self-defence argument doesn't work due to the subjectivity of self-defence; meaning the force I may feel is necessary might not be what the judge agrees with as legitimate force. Which is why guns fail in self-defence. My opponent straw-mans my argument here, I'm talking about self-defence, that's it! Re: Somalia Exactly, and with no government to enforce laws (gun control!) the guns run rampant, anyone can have them including pirates for example .. I think we know what happens when pirates get ahold of an AK-47 ... a certain ship a few years ago got high-jacked because of it .. this is again an argument for background checks not against it. Conclusion: My opponent moves the goal-posts, strawmans my arguments, and even outright commits bare assertion fallacies, and concedes to several of my points while dropping my argument about colombine shooters. If UBC were put fourth simply speaking those shooters would not have had guns, they had priors, and it was them buying from private people that enabled them to shoot up their school .. sadly, gun-rights proponents don't recognize this, and simply say "more guns!" but it does not work that way as the studies (previous rounds) have shown time and time again. My opponent offers no evidence to the contrary. Thank you!
-
CON However if you would have researched the topic, you would...
Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government
Firstly, you have said that "parents may not be in the budget for the vaccination for their child', which is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to not give provide the vaccination, the government should provide the funds in that case. Which is the case in several countries already. For example, there is the Universal Immunisation Programme in India which pays for the vaccination for the children in poor families. In the USA, there is CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) which does so as well. Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects. Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc). In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country. Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me. Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.
-
CON These are matters for the states and sometimes for...
Government was required to drive through major changes such as drives for equality within society, universal education, and preservation of the environment. Mostly in the teeth of big business
There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens. However, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd. Trying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country. Equally local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities. The nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways. In addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd. If the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone. Ultimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind. Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.
-
CON This is especially true since fairness isn’t exactly the...
The U.S should abolish the Minimum Wage
Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate. I think this debate will be a great learning experience for me :) Framework & BOP My arguments will mostly be running via a utilitarian framework; placing emphasis on doing the most good for the most amount of people. Of course if my opponent accepts a utilitarian framework, he will need to prove why the minimum wage does not benefit the most number of people, as well as why its abolition would prove to be more beneficial to society. Intro So the first part of my arguments are going to be attacking some of the common reasons put forth as arguments against the minimum wage, and demonstrate why they do not justify its abolition. The next part of my arguments are going to highlight the benefits of the MW, and explain why removing the MW would result in a net detriment to society. To remind the voters, the majority of my arguments are going to tie back to the utilitarian framework, as the well-being of society is of the utmost concern with respect to this debate. (1) The Inflation Argument against the MW A correlation between overall inflation and minimum wage can’t be used to prove that the the MW caused the inflation. Moreover, if my opponent does put forth this argument, he would not only need to prove that the MW causes inflation, but that the effects of whatever minimal inflation caused by it are enough to offset the benefits that come from the MW. (2) The Market is not ‘Objectively’ Fair The ‘fairness’ of free market wages is questionable at best. This is especially true since fairness isn’t exactly the goal of the market anyways - it’s profit. Since this is the typical desire of all businesses in the free market, it becomes clear that the competitive nature of the market is not necessarily enough to overcome the incentive of businesses to cut production costs (as much as possible) while also maximizing revenue, to yield a maximized profit. This desire of the market pretty much tells you that there needs to be some regulating factor - apart from free market competition, to keep minimal wages at healthy levels. (3) Access to Basic Goods Essentially, the minimum wage allows for more disposable income to those on the lower end of the ‘class spectrum’. This, in turn, allows those who receive minimal wages to access more of the basic living essentials that they would not otherwise be able to afford, should the minimum wage cease to exist. This does have positive effects on the economy as a whole. Providing more people with the ability purchase more basic goods increases demand in those markets and in turn results in more production, leading to more economic growth. This is in many cases referred to as the consumption function, which is a mathematical formula developed by Keynes, which goes like: [4] C = A + MD A represents the level of spending at zero income M is the ratio of the rise in pay a person will spend D is disposable income C is total consumption spending So, all other things equal, if the level of disposable income were to be increased, there would be a higher level of consumption spending. Of course this does not warrant a MW rise of, say, $50, but reasonable MW levels would promote healthy levels of consumption in the economy. (4) Productivity Benefits A rather strong theory applied to the Minimum Wage argument is known as the efficiency-wage theory. In a nutshell, the theory is that setting a wage higher than the one set by the basic supply & demand mechanism would in turn have positive benefits to the productivity of that business.[1] The application of this theory to the MW allows us to notice that the MW does most likely have a net positive effect on the productivity of a business. (5) Income inequality While I will agree that income inequality is not inherently bad, as it is probably an inevitable byproduct of a growing capitalist economy, that does not mean it can’t grow to unhealthy levels. As indicated in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in The Twenty-First Century, development in widely available capital such as modern technology does play a role in today’s inequality. Piketty points out that when the rate of returns on capital investment outperform the rate of overall economic growth, inequality is bound to rise. [3] It can’t keep rising without eventually becoming a problem, and although technological advancements are pretty much inevitable today, we need to take alternative steps to somewhat alleviate the issues of inequality on low-wage workers. The minimum wage does in fact send a strong counterbalancing effect to that rising inequality. An MIT economics paper studying this very issue concludes that: “...between 1979 and 1989, the decline in the real value of the minimum wage is responsible for 30 to 55 percent of the growth of lower tail inequality in the female, male, and pooled wage distributions” [2] So to conclude, the MW is a necessary policy to combat the effects of rising inequality in the modern economy, making the effects of its abolition completely counterproductive and detrimental in terms of inequality. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] Capital in The Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty [4] http://tinyurl.com... *Note: Given how famous the book in source #3 is, simply looking up “Capital in the twenty-first century forces for divergence” would be enough to read about the source. Here is one article that explains it: http://tinyurl.com...
