Debate.orgMany single-payer systems give patients free choice of...
Single-payer universal health care
Many single-payer systems give patients free choice of practitioners.
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Government-control of databases better protect privacy...
Single-payer universal health care
Government-control of databases better protect privacy than companies.
-
PRO It is wrong to make more vulnerable people pay more for...
Single-payer universal health care
It is wrong to make more vulnerable people pay more for insurance
-
PRO Government has a cost incentive to invest in preventive...
Single-payer universal health care
Government has a cost incentive to invest in preventive care
-
PRO Medical innovation has little to do with investment and...
Single-payer universal health care
Medical innovation has little to do with investment and profit
-
PRO Unacceptable to leave health care of millions to rare...
Single-payer universal health care
Unacceptable to leave health care of millions to rare charity orgs/docs.
-
PRO Most investment in medical innovation does not come from...
Single-payer universal health care
Most investment in medical innovation does not come from companies
-
PRO oh
Trotskyism is inferior to Third universal Theory
oh
-
PRO Con deleted his accout and promised to make a new oen and...
Trotskyism is inferior to Third universal Theory
Con deleted his accout and promised to make a new oen and a new debate. he lied on both counts, thus I win.
-
PRO I am too tired, post your argument on why Trotskyism is...
Trotskyism is inferior to Third universal Theory
I am too tired, post your argument on why Trotskyism is better and I will do mine in the morning.
CON
-
CON Well criminals on death row typically murder and take...
Capital Punishment Should be Abolished
R1) The right to life In this argument my opponent says that sentencing criminals to death is a direct violation to Article 3 of basic human rights. Well criminals on death row typically murder and take away that right from another so therefore must have that right taken away R2: Justice Justice in the united states is a big deal my opponent took my words and twisted them by saying "we don't rape rapist." When the point I was trying to make is that BIGGER crimes deserve BIGGER punishment therefore he did not win any point on justice because he failed to prove that wrong. R3: Innocence In this my opponent brings up a very INTRESTING point about how innocent people may be convicted of this huge crimes they did not do, and even provides a static that 148 people were exonerated and released from death row which makes his argument on it not being fair COMPLETLY invalid this shows that it is fair that they had their chance to get off of death row prove their innocence and that's exactly what they did! Which should be a point to me! R3: Methods In this my opponent states that the methods are horrible and inhumane. I provided evidence in Round 2 showing how it is not and even if was just think about it they're dying anyway weather it last for seconds or hours, is that even comparable to the years of tortures families have waiting for justice? R4: Prejudice/ Lawyer quality I as a minority, understand prejudice all too well. but the fact of the matter is these people had a right to a fair trial and a lawyer. Which determining if a lawyer is good or not is simply opinionated he failed to say if these lawyers lost every case won every case, regardless of that even these lawyers went to school YEARS AND YEARS OF SCHOOL to get where they are today and you mean to tell me they aren't good? and that these death penalty inmates don't have a right to a good lawyer because they all went to school and got their degrees. Regardless of race you did the crime, sadly it just so happens that blacks have been tried and convicted for this more than that of their white counterparts. Conclusion My opponent failed to prove that capital punishment was wrong. He supplied us with mere moral arguments as to why it was wrong, which is a Kritik within itself and should be grounds for lose. Capital punishment is not a horrible thing it should be allowed I negated all of my opponents arguments! thank you opponent thank you voters. Vote for me :) (P.s I know there are 50 states that was a typo)
-
CON It grants one right that I can find: "...Nor shall any...
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized
I regret that my worthy opponent waived the opportunity to post arguments in favor of his contentions in the first two rounds. This late in the debate, it is difficult to have any real discussion if only one side has argued in favor of its contentions. Most debates on this site, from the many I've read, seem to have BOTH parties posting arguments in the first or at latest second rounds. In my second response, I asked him to provide proof for his statements, as the burden of proof does fall on him in certain areas (as listed in my post). He lists three points, corresponding to the areas; but they are restatements of his contention, rather than proof of anything. c) is the closest he has gotten yet to an argument supporting his contentions; but no proof has been offered. He refers us to the Fourteenth Amendment; he does not explain why it supports his contentions. To deal with his first three points, in order: a) "Same-Sex marriage does not hurt anyone, because a marriage ceremony does not hurt anyone physically, or psychologically." -See the definition of Marriage, as posted earlier. We are not talking merely about the ceremony; Marriage as defined for this debate refers to the union "regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners." The ceremony is not the only thing being discussed here, obviously. If he had wished to discuss the ceremony, he had ample time to clarify this in his first two rounds. He did not do so, and cannot fairly do so at this point in the debate. My opponent has introduced a straw man; and has still failed to provide any proof that Same-Sex marriage does not hurt anyone. b) "Change the status-quo by making a federal law stating that no place which performs marriages can discriminate against homosexuals." -Why? My opponent, on the third round, has yet to offer a reason to change the current state of the law. He has neither offered any benefits of Same-Sex marriage, nor has he offered reasons for his claim that all things not harmful should be legal. His point is not backed up by anything said so far. Also, as many wedding take place in churches, and many churches beliefs still forbid homosexuality (and Same-Sex marriage by extension), to require them to violate their closely held and sacred beliefs would constitute a interference with the exercise of religion. Such a law would violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" http://www.law.cornell.edu... c) "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens of the United States of America. It was created to stop segregation, 'Black Codes,' and other laws from discriminating against minorities." I disagree. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, not grants, equality for all US citizens in the privileges granted them by the US Constitution and its Amendments. It grants one right that I can find: "...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By this, we all have the right not to be killed by the state, thrown in jail by the state, or have our property seized by the state; except if it is done according to the legal procedure for doing so. Examples of these procedures: Death Row, the various state judicial systems, and eminent domain. For a complete explanation of this right, (albeit very technical): http://www.law.cornell.edu... But it is not, and cannot imply, a right to marry, regardless of "sexual orientation" Continue: "If no state is allowed to make discriminating laws against minorities, then that should also apply to sexual orientation." Question: Why should people with a "sexual orientation" be considered a minority? As far as I am aware, everyone has a "sexual orientation;" I need a reason to grant a label, but my opponent does not give any reasons for this point. Why should it apply? Reasons? ------------ So, in his first three points, my opponent has: ~Re-defined the terms we were using, ~Introduced the straw man that he proceeds to bash throughout the remainder of his statements, ~Misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment ~ And offered yet more statements unsupported by any source, or even by rational argument. If he has such backing, he needs to provide it; as it stands, these points are inadequate. ~~~~~~~~ Refutation: "My opponent goes on to claim same-sex marriage can hurt people, but confuses same-sex marriage with homosexual intercourse." There is no confusion in my mind on this point. I understand one is not necessarily the same as the other. "A marriage ceremony and a legal document do not involve homosexual intercourse, and married homosexuals may even chose not to engage in homosexual intercourse. Also, homosexuals can engage in homosexual intercourse without getting married." Here is the straw man again. We are not discussing the ceremony solely, but also the marriage proceeding from and continuing after the ceremony. We are also not arguing whether or not some Same-Sex marriages remain celibate, nor the extramarital proclivities of the participants; we are only arguing whether or not Same-Sex marriages can hurt anyone. "Though homosexual intercourse has a higher risk..." I thank my opponent for conceding the point that "homosexual intercourse," and therefore the marriages that contain same, have a risk for harm. Same-Sex Marriages can hurt people, and thus my contention is sustained. "...Heterosexual intercourse also has a risk." Granted, but irrelevant. The argument was not in any way about the possible dangers of heterosexual relationships. For lack of space, I will not address the remainder of his paragraph, as he declares it to be irrelevant. "It may not be possible to examine every same-sex marriage in history, but it is common sense that a marriage ceremony does not physically, or psychologically hurt anyone." This is irrelevant, as we are not merely discussing the ceremony, but the whole marriage. His universal negative remains unproven. "The rights the Fourteenth Amendment protects are 'life, liberty, and property.' A marriage ceremony obviously does not hurt anyone's life, liberty or property, and legalization would actually increase one of those: Liberty." His point is irrelevant to our debate. As I demonstrated above, this clause in the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with marriage. Also, we are not merely discussing the ceremony, but the whole marriage. "It is true that individual states can make limit some things, but a state cannot decide to discriminate african-americans from voting. The basic freedoms such as freedom from being discriminated based on race/religion/gender etc. are enforced in all states, and cannot be restricted by individual states. Discriminating based on sexual orientation would also apply, so that would have to be a federally enforced law." Again, why? I have discussed this already, earlier in this response, and refer my opponent to my argument there. I have dealt with all of his summary already, except one point: 2) "My opponent's arguments contain fallacies." Will my opponent please point these out and explain why each is fallacious, perhaps in the comments section? I want to learn from this debate. I place a very high value on correct logic, and am sincerely grateful for anyone who will take the time to check mine. ~~~~ I extend all my arguments, as they have not been adequately refuted, into the next round. I thank my opponent for posting this debate, and await his last response.
-
CON If everyone on the internet knew the real identities of...
Internet users should have to disclose their identity, assuming it were possible.
While there are arguable some benefits to the idea of transparency on the internet, the moral and practical harms this could cause mean that the anonymity the internet provides must be upheld. The main reasons for this are that it contradicts with the key principle of privacy, and that people don't just want anonymity for bad reasons. Firstly, lets consider why privacy and anonymity are important. Privacy stems from the key principle that people should be allowed to do anything, provided it doesn't affect others. Now your average person isn't necessary trying to use internet anonymity for bad reasons, but would prefer that their real name wasn't attached to what they do. This is their personal preference for their own comfort, and as it isn't harming anyone else, they should be allowed to keep it. If everyone on the internet knew the real identities of everyone else on the internet, people would feel less comfortable acting online if their real name was attached, because even if they do nothing wrong their real identities can be traced, which can in itself lead to undesirable consequences such as stalking or targeting of these individuals both online and offline. As such, basic privacy and anonymity for the average user is not an issue, and would in fact be more harmful if it was withdrawn, so internet anonymity should remain. Secondly, people who deliberately try to act anonymously do not always do so for bad reasons. Its very easy to argue that all these people are terrorists, sneaking around invisibly, but this really isn't the case. What about people that are doing things where their identity should seriously remain anonymous? Activities ranging from pornography to suicide prevention hinge upon the user's real identity not being disclosed, but harm the users who are exposed with no benefit to any other party. Because of both of the above reasons, internet anonymity not only does no harm for the vast majority, but can actually hurt even more when it is taken away. As a result, internet identities must not be disclosed.
-
CON Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Starbucks, and others...
Resolved: Private corporations supportive of gay rights should turn neutral on the position instead.
My opponent doesn't really have a case at which to look at in order to explain why private corporations should turn neutral, meaning that in this shared BOP (since the debate is specifically about enumerating the number of reasons why a private corporation should or should not turn to a neutral position on either side respectively), meaning that it's already obvious that I'm fufilling my burden of proof better than my opponent because I actually have reasons outlined in a case statement. Observation 1: My opponent works under the assumption that one person's protection of human rights can be more or less prioritized than another person's, which is a completely flawed concept. Human rights works in the way that every person is important regardless of distinction and holds that their basic dignities, necessities, and rights must be upheld by governing institution. Essentially what my opponent is implying is that one person's human rights can be more important than another's, including in the scope of protection. This runs completely contradictory to how human rights are even supposed to work out. My opponent upholds this reasoning by stating that gays are on the safer side of discrimination in comparison to these other disadvantaged groups, but it's fallacious due to the following reasons: (1) If there is any unfair discrimination at all whatsoever, this constitutes a violation of human rights, which should be protected at all times. Period. Because human rights must be protected at all times as I've argued in my case about how human rights are important and provide the basic downline of treatment of all human beings, I contend that regardless the degree of severity varying between the two sets of groups, gays' human rights should be protected anyways. For proof, the judges can look toward Articles 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explaining the equality of all mankind and its protection of all rights set forth. (2) My opponent makes the assumption that these groups of people are more discriminated and prone to violence than gays are. He has no way whatsoever of measuring the amount of discrimination faced between these two groups in order to make an accurate statement thereof and provides no evidence of the sort in order to even lead toward that conclusion. (3) Last of all, my opponent completely minimizes the concerns of gay people unfairly. The point is that these groups are treated against viciously by the general community: they are victims of hate crimes and bullying; they are victims of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace and employment; religious groups work tirelessly to demonize this general group of people and have the government discriminate against them through the work of law; AIDS and other lethal STIs are soaring through that community as well as problems of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, and the list goes on and on. To just shrug these problems off as nothing is completely inhumane. My opponent, however, agrees that gay rights are indeed a subset of human rights. Henceforth, you can extend this observation. Observation 2: What escapes my understanding is how nothing my opponent said with this observation had anything to do with the statement of the observation itself. For that reason, the judges will extend observation 2. Looking at what my opponent has said, he contends that the community has many problems that it faces. (1) He is once again minimizing the concerns of the gay community and has absolutely no balance for measuring the degree of the problems with the community in comparison to those of the gay population. It definately seems that my opponent has an arbitrary standard as to what encompasses a heavy concern for the community because I've also just listed many of the major problems that the gay community faces in this rebuttal as well as in my sub-point 1c. (2) My opponent presents a false dichotomy where a private corporation only has the decision of supporting either gay rights or these other concerns of the community. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Starbucks, and others generate heavy profits, enough to work toward a multiplicity of humanitarian aids. Microsoft, for example, works in college scholarships to help students enter to get good educations. My opponent, essentially, eliminates the possibility that these organizations can support both. Contention 1: My opponent for one thing has absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. Not that it matters much anyway because he agreed with the overarching tenet of the contention that gay rights should be accepted. I wouldn't even need to argue my sub-points at this level because they function to uphold the main thesis of this contention, but since my opponent agreed with the thesis, the contention is already extended anyway. My opponent contradicts himself because he states that corporations should not aid to gay rights and implies a moral obligation to aid to the other problems of society under the implication that these problems must be solved, but if he's arguing that gay rights must be accepted and agrees with the thesis of this contention, then he's essentially stating that corporations must aid to these other issues rather than gay rights when both of them are an obligation of the community. He's holding a double-standard. Sub-point 1a: My opponent states that because human rights are applied to everyone and not specifically gays, it should not be considered in the discussion. This is a complete contradiction to his earlier statement affirming that gay rights are a subset of human rights in the discussion about observation 1, and he fails to argue the information I had in that observation explaining how human rights includes protections of disadvantaged and discriminated minorities (like gays). At this point, my opponent's rebuttal here can be disregarded. Needless to say, my opponent hasn't argued anything in this sub-point nor my information from Observation 1, meaning this is all extended. Sub-point 1b: My opponent once again displays his contradictory logic, first upholding gay rights but then providing conditions in which gay rights are not to be accepted. At this point in the debate, I'm very confused and wonder if my opponent actually knows what he's saying. Again, he has no evidence that homosexuality is a curable disease, so these comments should be disregarded for the moment. Furthermore, even if it is something that can be changed, he doesn't explain why the condition of it being changeable warrants a denial of choosing to be this sexuality. My opponent has no coherent logic here. He seems to argue that the existence of rights has not helped to resolve issues of discrimination (or something), but what I'm arguing here is that the denial for the recognition of gay rights creates second-class citizens. What really matters is the recognition. Of course groups can still be discriminated even if the right exists de facto. Which is only more reason why these rights should be recognized and supported by the community. Sub-point 1c: My opponent holds no argument period against this sub-point. Extend it completely across the flow. Contention 2: As I said before, my opponent creates a false dichotomy. He imagines an either-or scenario where a corporation can only support either the problems of the society that he lists or gay rights and eliminates the inclusion of any possibility that they can support both. Companies make substantial profits from the community, meaning that the ability to support both is at the very least greatly possible.
-
CON 4] This is an important distinction. ... 1....
Abortion should be illegal
I'd like to thank my opponent for both inviting me to debate this topic and for providing such a detailed and thought out post. With that, I'd first like to get into some discussion of our respective burdens in this round before I launch into my case, which will also include some rebuttal. Now, since my opponent has taken the tack of being for a law (I believe in the U.S., he can correct me if I'm wrong) banning all abortions. As such, he is taking three major burdens onto himself. 1) Pro must prove that there is a harm to abortions warranting such a law, and 2) Pro must prove that such a law would reduce, not exacerbate, these and other harms. That's a lot to do, I realize, but it comes with the territory. An outright ban on all abortions is a policy with wide-ranging effects that we must consider in evaluating Pro's case. Meanwhile, as I am pro-choice, I would be remiss if I didn't take up that mantle and argue that current policy on abortion in the U.S. should be preserved, though I will state that viability outside the womb is my cutoff for open abortions (so around 22 weeks). There's a good debate over what viability is, but this seems to be the cutoff.[1] So my burden in the round is to defend this stance, and to prove it is better than Pro's stance on abortion for general policy purposes. So let's get the contentions somewhat before I launch into my points. We agree on most of Contention 1, and I grant all the arguments about the unborn being life. And I agree with all that's been said about said about it being human as well. Well, almost all. I'm going to create a distinction between something that is biologically human and a human being. As Warren states, there are five properties that characterize persons: 1. Consciousness, and in particular the capacity to feel pain 2. Reasoning 3. Self-motivated activity 4. The capacity to communicate by whatever means 5. The presence of self-concepts and self-awareness A person need not have all of these, but they much have more than one to be a person. As a fetus has, at most, only the first, it is not a person. Establishing this, the lack of personhood also leads to a lack of the basic right to life that other persons have.[2] I also argue that personhood should be based on "brain birth," or the reversal of the brain death concept. Presence of brain waves would be enough to grant personhood,[3] and specifically, the appearance of these waves in the higher brain are necessary for personhood.[4] This is an important distinction. Accepting Pro's worldview makes in vitro fertilization mass murder since most zygotes created by this method aren't implanted, despite the fact that none of those children would have a chance at life without it. This would also make instances of miscarriage grounds for manslaughter charges at the very least, as each case would have to be considered carefully for how the mother could have contributed to it. I also agree with most of Contention 2, though the First Formulation is essentially just a restatement of the Golden Rule. The Second is just a basic deontological perspective, and it closely links to the Third. However, I could just as easily use these points myself, since these arguments don't distinguish between who is being used as and end and who as a means. Contention 3 is not really well supported. Violation of many different moral obligations can hypothetically lead to the extinction of the human race and many other life forms. With that, I'll get into my case. My case for now will focus to two basic points: 1) Why the mother's health and well-being should be preferred, 2) Why instances of a child's extreme suffering should be prevented 1) So why should the mother's life be preferred? There are multiple simple reasons. The mother is a living, breathing, functional human being, and is virtually guaranteed to experience more of life, whereas the unborn child lacks some of those faculties and has a decent chance of miscarriage and therefore death before experiencing anything. That mother is of child-bearing age and is therefore capable of conceiving and giving birth to other children, whereas the child may never reach that age or may be otherwise impaired from doing so. I'd like to go into this second one a bit more, and this goes back to the concept of life. Pro's definition of life is applicable to the cells from which the child was conceived as well, and though they may not yet carry the traits of human life, they are, nonetheless, still capable of reaching that as an end terminus. Therefore, using Pro's logic, those lives also have meaning. So when conception is denied for whatever reason, that human life is also denied. Therefore, every mother who is made less capable by this ban of conceiving again is also less able (or unable) to engage in the formation of another human life, which is just as bad under Pro's argumentation. 2) Rape victims. Yes, it seems obvious, but this one normally doesn't get the right kind of attention. The big problem here is that these rape victims are, once again, having something forced upon them. They now have, at the very least, a 9-month reminder followed by intense pain of their encounter. And now the state, by banning their only route out, is contributing to their mental anguish. These victims are never going to want to experience pregnancy again when it's associated with this. Many will suffer long term mental trauma, treating their families differently and hurting their qualities of life.[5] 1. But let's also think about the child, because that"s the focus of Pro's arguments here anyway. His argument ignores any number of diseases - genetic, infectious, drug-related or physically induced - that the child could suffer from. It doesn't matter whether they are certain to die within five years (Tay-Sachs),[6] are born with major deformities that often result in death (Edwards Syndrome),[7] are doomed to terrible neurological conditions (Huntington's),[8], lacking essential immune activities (Alymphocytosis),[9] or are simply set to live a life of constant pain (Sickle-cell anemia);[10] these issues are all detectable early in the pregnancy, and yet in Pro's world, they are secondary to their survival till birth. This ignores the psychological trauma of watching the child suffer and/or die, its effect on other family members, and on possible future kids. And let's not forget my points from the start of this round. What effects does a law like this have? Back alley abortions are the most commonly cited issue. It's pretty simple: provide no legal avenue for abortion and people will pursue an illegal one. It's already happening in some states that massively limit them.[11] Injuries and even death can result, as they have in the past.[12] Much as we would all like to think that people treasure their little bundles of joy, if they view the birth as being forced upon them, many will feel resentment that can be reflected in how they treat their child, leading to child abuse.[13] Of course, that's if they keep them. If they don't, they'll be adding kids to an already overtaxed adoption system,[14] which will make it more difficult for kids to find homes and reduce the quality of life the orphanage and foster systems can provide. Lastly, I think classism must be discussed. This type of ban is ineffective against the rich because they can always travel to another country and get the abortion. And even if they have to get it here, they don't suffer from the financial strains of going to the hospital and having the child, and certainly suffer less from childcare costs. The poor aren't so lucky. Most won't be able to leave the country. The thousands of dollars that it costs for the hospital stay are more likely to break the bank, and if that doesn't, the costs of childcare will.[15] So even if Pro's winning on harms, the negative effects of the ban outweigh its benefits. 1. http://www.slate.com... 2. http://www.amber-hinds.com... 3. http://jme.bmj.com... 4. http://www.cirp.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 10. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... 11. http://www.policymic.com... 12. http://www.prochoice.org... 13. http://ecademy.agnesscott.edu... 14. http://www.childrensrights.org... 15. http://www.parents.com...
-
CON American people have not gotten obese and addicted to...
The United States Should Segregate by Race
I almost forgot about this debate, since it's a steaming pile of garbage, but let's have at it, shall we? It is not racist to call somebody racist, it is anti-racist to call out racism wherever it occurs. You are a racist, and segregation is a racist policy which infringes basic human rights. People should be able to live wherever they want to and do whatever they want to. That is liberty, and to end liberty would be to violate the constitution of the great and prosperous land in which we reside. If we were to enact such a policy, there would be a mass uproar in the streets and the United States government would be overthrown, resulting in complete anarchy. We are not going to enact segregation. There is no reason to. American people have not gotten obese and addicted to video games because black people have entered our schools, the American people have gotten obese and video game addicted as the result of white people producing too much food and developing addictive video game software. We should not blame black people for our obesity and reliance on technology- those events and the desegregation of schools have no correlation. As for disorders, they existed for a long time before desegregation, but we did not classify them as well as we do now. They are not the result of black people entering our schools. They are the result of white European nobility having incest or, in some cases, simply a chance genetic mishap. You're a beast.
-
CON Such students only attend because it is free to do so,...
This House Believes that Government Should Pay for University Fees
As my opponent has forfeited the last round, I am going to reiterate what I said in the last round so he/she can make rebuttals. The social-democratic model, most prevalent in Europe, is a failure. The system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt the countries maintaining them; it is simply unsustainable. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high. The government money needed to be channeled into universities to provide for free education, as well as into various other generous social welfare benefits, has been a case of borrowing from future generations to finance current consumption. For these countries to survive, and lest other countries attempt to follow suit with similar models, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. In the case of education, it seems fair to say that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities, since the skills acquired during such education are absolutely necessary for citizens to function effectively within society; reading, writing, basic civics, etc. are essential knowledge which the state is well-served in providing. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it; it can be nice to attend, but one can live effectively without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non-essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but they cannot view it as an entitlement owed by the state that will simply provide it to everyone. The cost is just too high, and the state must act from a utilitarian perspective in this case. Instituting fees will place the cost of education upon those wishing to reap the benefits of education, and not on the taxpayer. When the state offers a universal service, inefficiencies inevitably arise with its provision. There are four principal economic problems that arise from free university education. First, there is a major problem of resources being lost to bureaucracy. In a state-funded university system, tax money is wasted on paying civil servants to deal with procurement questions with regard to funding for universities, as well as in mis-allocation of funds due to bureaucrats" lack of expertise and specialist knowledge necessary to know the correct funding decisions, which independent universities would be able to make on their own more efficiently. Second, when the state funds all university education for free, funding will be allocated to unprofitable courses. As there is no profit motive or price mechanism driving these decisions, there is no way of reaching an efficient decision except by guesswork. The funding of students who are not really interested in attending university or who are apathetic toward higher education creates the third problem. Such students only attend because it is free to do so, and it would be much better to enact a system whereby such students cannot claim a trip to university as an entitlement. A moral hazard problem emerges among such students. They are allowed to reap all the benefits of education, while needing to incur none of the costs. The student who goes to university to waste three or our years and study an easy arts course imposes an unjust cost on society, who has to pay for these students who are not in university to gain from it, but merely to waste time and not work hard. The fourth problem of free university education is saturation of degree-holders in the market . In order to have value, a degree must be a signal of quality. When everyone has a degree, the value of such a qualification plummets. The ability for employers to ascertain high quality potential employees is thus presented with greater difficulty in making a selection. The flip side of this is that graduates end up serving in jobs that do not require a degree-holding individual to do them. Thus, a system of fees is superior to free education because it allows for more efficient allocation of resources to universities and to individuals. Without university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. The problem with this is that the state"s aim is to increase university attendance levels for the sake of political gain, while at the same time striving not to increase spending on the universities. The result is an increase in attendance, without commensurate increase in funding from the state. This leads to larger class-sizes and less spending per student. Furthermore, these problems result in disconnected lecturers who, due to increased class sizes, cannot connect to their students or offer more than cursory assistance to struggling pupils. The decline in teaching quality is further exacerbated by their need to focus less on teaching and more on research, which is more profitable and thus encouraged by cash-strapped universities. With fees, on the other hand, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need rather than with making do with whatever the state gives them to fund teaching. The result is a consistent quality in education resources rather than it being dependent upon what the state happens to give universities, and on how many students it pushes to be accepted. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality. Universities thus stay in business only so long as they remain purveyors of high quality educational goods. They must thus let in smart people, irrespective of their financial background, which will in part serve to admit and finance capable people from disadvantaged backgrounds through targeted financial aid programs. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education, which can be quite substantial. They will thus be more attentive and more interested in doing well. An example of higher quality education stemming from fee-paying higher education systems is that of the United States, which has twenty of the top fifty ranked universities in the world. Quality is clearly improved when university is not free. Not everyone goes to university. Many do not go because they simply do not want to. Others feel they can do something more productive than continuing in education. Yet all taxpayers fund higher education when it is a state-funded enterprise. The state funds essential services, but higher education is not such a service. People do not need it to live. For this reason the state should not allow a subset of society to mooch on the taxpayer for its own benefit. Attendees already tend to make lots more money than non-graduates, and will, if they make good decisions, have the facility to pay back loans if they need them in a fee-paying system. Additionally, the specific subset free university education tends to benefit is not the disadvantaged, the group the state talks about helping when it institutes such policies, but rather the middle and upper classes who would have paid fees, but now can enjoy a free education courtesy of the taxpayer. This pattern has been seen in Ireland, for example, where poorer communities still view higher education as something for the rich even though it is free. These groups continue to enter the workforce in similar numbers as they had before the ending of fees, and they still tend to prefer trade schools to universities if they do seek qualifications beyond the secondary level. Clearly, the implementation of free university education does not open it up on an instrumental level to individuals who would not have attended otherwise due to being from poor areas. [Source: http://www2.idebate.org......]
-
CON A moral hazard problem emerges among such students. ......
This House Believes that Government Should Pay for University Fees
The social-democratic model, most prevalent in Europe, is a failure. The system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt the countries maintaining them; it is simply unsustainable. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high. The government money needed to be channeled into universities to provide for free education, as well as into various other generous social welfare benefits, has been a case of borrowing from future generations to finance current consumption. For these countries to survive, and lest other countries attempt to follow suit with similar models, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. In the case of education, it seems fair to say that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities, since the skills acquired during such education are absolutely necessary for citizens to function effectively within society; reading, writing, basic civics, etc. are essential knowledge which the state is well-served in providing. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it; it can be nice to attend, but one can live effectively without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non-essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but they cannot view it as an entitlement owed by the state that will simply provide it to everyone. The cost is just too high, and the state must act from a utilitarian perspective in this case. Instituting fees will place the cost of education upon those wishing to reap the benefits of education, and not on the taxpayer. When the state offers a universal service, inefficiencies inevitably arise with its provision. There are four principal economic problems that arise from free university education. First, there is a major problem of resources being lost to bureaucracy. In a state-funded university system, tax money is wasted on paying civil servants to deal with procurement questions with regard to funding for universities, as well as in mis-allocation of funds due to bureaucrats" lack of expertise and specialist knowledge necessary to know the correct funding decisions, which independent universities would be able to make on their own more efficiently. Second, when the state funds all university education for free, funding will be allocated to unprofitable courses. As there is no profit motive or price mechanism driving these decisions, there is no way of reaching an efficient decision except by guesswork. The funding of students who are not really interested in attending university or who are apathetic toward higher education creates the third problem. Such students only attend because it is free to do so, and it would be much better to enact a system whereby such students cannot claim a trip to university as an entitlement. A moral hazard problem emerges among such students. They are allowed to reap all the benefits of education, while needing to incur none of the costs. The student who goes to university to waste three or our years and study an easy arts course imposes an unjust cost on society, who has to pay for these students who are not in university to gain from it, but merely to waste time and not work hard. The fourth problem of free university education is saturation of degree-holders in the market . In order to have value, a degree must be a signal of quality. When everyone has a degree, the value of such a qualification plummets. The ability for employers to ascertain high quality potential employees is thus presented with greater difficulty in making a selection. The flip side of this is that graduates end up serving in jobs that do not require a degree-holding individual to do them. Thus, a system of fees is superior to free education because it allows for more efficient allocation of resources to universities and to individuals. Without university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. The problem with this is that the state"s aim is to increase university attendance levels for the sake of political gain, while at the same time striving not to increase spending on the universities. The result is an increase in attendance, without commensurate increase in funding from the state. This leads to larger class-sizes and less spending per student. Furthermore, these problems result in disconnected lecturers who, due to increased class sizes, cannot connect to their students or offer more than cursory assistance to struggling pupils. The decline in teaching quality is further exacerbated by their need to focus less on teaching and more on research, which is more profitable and thus encouraged by cash-strapped universities. With fees, on the other hand, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need rather than with making do with whatever the state gives them to fund teaching. The result is a consistent quality in education resources rather than it being dependent upon what the state happens to give universities, and on how many students it pushes to be accepted. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality. Universities thus stay in business only so long as they remain purveyors of high quality educational goods. They must thus let in smart people, irrespective of their financial background, which will in part serve to admit and finance capable people from disadvantaged backgrounds through targeted financial aid programs. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education, which can be quite substantial. They will thus be more attentive and more interested in doing well. An example of higher quality education stemming from fee-paying higher education systems is that of the United States, which has twenty of the top fifty ranked universities in the world. Quality is clearly improved when university is not free. Not everyone goes to university. Many do not go because they simply do not want to. Others feel they can do something more productive than continuing in education. Yet all taxpayers fund higher education when it is a state-funded enterprise. The state funds essential services, but higher education is not such a service. People do not need it to live. For this reason the state should not allow a subset of society to mooch on the taxpayer for its own benefit. Attendees already tend to make lots more money than non-graduates, and will, if they make good decisions, have the facility to pay back loans if they need them in a fee-paying system. Additionally, the specific subset free university education tends to benefit is not the disadvantaged, the group the state talks about helping when it institutes such policies, but rather the middle and upper classes who would have paid fees, but now can enjoy a free education courtesy of the taxpayer. This pattern has been seen in Ireland, for example, where poorer communities still view higher education as something for the rich even though it is free. These groups continue to enter the workforce in similar numbers as they had before the ending of fees, and they still tend to prefer trade schools to universities if they do seek qualifications beyond the secondary level. Clearly, the implementation of free university education does not open it up on an instrumental level to individuals who would not have attended otherwise due to being from poor areas. [Source: http://www2.idebate.org...]
-
CON I did show why it is inherently wrong in my second point...
Personal suicide should be legal.
"My opponent appears to be dumbfounded over my use of the words 'personal suicide', so I should clarify." I am not "dumbfounded". I am simply cynical of your choice to only pursue this level of suicide since all are equally wrong for the same reasons. But enough of this. On to the debate. By the way I thank my opponent for posting this debate. It is a usefull way to clarify the issue and the truth about it as I am about to reveal to you all. "First, if you think that's the Government's business, then that's fine. We can rehabilitate without ridiculous laws." The government requires a law in order to enforce rehab. "Second, suicide is not always an act that needs rehabilitation. If I am tired of living, why should the Government have a say in whether or not I should live or die? It has nothing to do with them." Suicide is always an act that requires rehab. 90% of suicide cases happen while the victim is either impared through alchohol and/or sleep deprivation. Going seventeen hours without sleep is equivilent to the legal alchohol blood limit. The user named Seeker esplains it best."When someone considers suicide, he usually is in a state of severe stress or depression, possibly due to chemical changes or unnatural reasons. In other words he does not have clear judgement to make such a permanent and devastating decision. If everyone who had once contemplated suicide had decided to go through with it then there would be a much smaller population on Earth. The idea that suicide involves only one individual is completely false; someone may touch thousands of others from the extremely personal relationship from father to son to to the impersonal but widespread effect of a popular idol to his fans. In this respect suicide can effect millions of people and negatively impact their lives. The decision to give up shouldn't be their decision because not only will so many others disagree with the thought of killing yourself, but yourself in another state of mind would also disagree with that decision. If suicide wasn't illegal then the state would be encouraging people to end their lives. Misguided individuals would kill themselves to get the insurance money for their families instead of taking the responsible action of providing for them." http://www.debate.org... "This is basically saying that suicide is inherently wrong, so we make a law against it to show everyone how 'wrong' it is. Aside from the obvious circularity of this argument, the problem here is that suicide is not inherently wrong, for the reasons I gave in my first round and for many other reasons. My opponent must show why suicide is inherently wrong before we start concluding that a law should be instilled to prevent it." First of all, you didn't actually say anything to the inherent rightness of suicide in your first round. You just talked about legality problems. Get it right. I did show why it is inherently wrong in my second point when I brought up social contract. I'll come back to social contract. "Well, I certainly don't know where my opponent got his definition for 'inalienable right to life', but I assure you it has nothing to do with God, Nature or Chance. The phrase 'Right to Life' is from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights." I got it from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's book "Du Contrat Social" which outlines the definition of inalienable rights. My opponent's definition from the UN is invalid because the law in question is an American law. Thus we must look to American Government foundations. Our government was founded on social contract not the UN charter. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." http://en.wikisource.org... "My opponent has clearly confused the 'right' to do something with the 'obligation' to do something. When a police officer tells you that you've got the 'right to remain silent', this doesn't mean 'shut up!'. It means IF YOU CHOOSE to remain silent, you may. What it also says is that NOBODY has the right to make you talk if you don't wish. We can draw a simple parallel between this case and the case of the 'right to live'. We have the right to live IF WE CHOOSE to continue doing so. NOBODY has the right to make us live if we don't wish to. This is basic human rights we are talking here." The right to remain silent is not inalienable and thus doesn't apply. In the event of inalienable rights we do have both a right and an obligation to preserve them. You seem to mistake the capability of killing one's self with the justification for doing so. You can't kill yourself just because you can. Nobody has the ABILITY to keep you from killing yourself, but they ALWAYS have the RESPONSIBILITY to at least try to prevent such a stupid desision. "Be that as it may indeed, this is not a reason to make it against the law. In this day and age, with all we know, I find it a massive manifestation of a person's ignorance to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Would you condone making that train of thought illegal? I certainly wouldn't." Hey!! That's a matter of opinion. There is physical evidence that points to creation also, but since this is not that debate and I'm running out of room then I'll refrain. Just keep your opinions to yourself. "What the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks are you talking about man!?! Every 'non-suicidal' person can say whatever they want about their life." They can say what they want but a surprising amout of people have contemplated suicide. But why don't the majority follow through with it? Answer: They are more reasonable, logical, resoponsible, unselfish, and intelligent than those who do follow through with it. "You are saying that somebody should endure with a life they've tired of because you have a personal attachment to them. Again, this is the very definition of 'selfish'." You cannot expect them to not be attatched. It is a natural inclination for a person to become attatched and thus you cannot condem them for an unconsentual attatchment. As I've said before. If you commit suicide it's like forcibly cutting off the emotional limbs of the person who is emotionally attatched to you. "Because it has the potential to hurt people is not a good reason to forbid the action. Indeed, forbidding suicide is an attempt to inflict pain, to continue somebody's suffering. Once again, we have the RIGHT to live, but not the OBLIGATION. Nobody has the right to force death OR life upon us." Yes it is a good reason. We don't allow assault in America because it has the potential of hurting someone. Suicide is the same. You are depriving those people who are emotianally attatched to you of their INALIENABLE RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness. I again refer you to Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence. I will again correct your statement. Nobody has the ABILITY to force life on us. Just the responsibility. See for statistics and ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I have unrefutably proven the inherent wrongfulness of suicide and the only logical choice in this case is the negative. Thanks again to my opponent for posting this debate. This is a serious issue in our society that needs be resolved as quick as possible. I believe that I have given sufficient evidence and superior logic in the defence of the the negative and that I am thus the victor in this debate. As a final remider to the voters. My opponent is advocating the hurt of people as justified. This is wrong.
-
CON I'm sorry my friend but you didn't really do any...
Should the US take military action against syria
Since this is the last round I would like to point out the fact that voters are voting on the debate, not their opinion. I'm sorry my friend but you didn't really do any debating. No offense, but it's the truth. I would remind you as I stated earlier that the FSA has committed drastic Human rights violations as well. Around 1,300 people died from chemical weapons, which still have not been ultimately confirmed as Assad's actions. The War, waged by both sides killed 100,000 and displaced millions long before the chemical weapons were used. (1) American efforts of peace building and democratization have been largely unsuccessful. Our attempts to turn nations into "peace-loving states" have not done this. Peacebuilding is extraordinarily time consuming, difficult and carries no guarantee of success. Does America really have the means to support that kind of policy right now? The assumption that capitalism and democracy are the universal solution to everything, is a misstep, we never seem to pay attention to the grassroots. What do the Syrians want? There is very little evidence to suggest that the Syrians actually want an intervention either. (2) American citizens are largely opposed to it as well, as I cited earlier. So Peacebuilding is extraordinarily time consuming, difficult and carries no guarantee of success. Does America really have the means to support that kind of policy right now? The assumption that capitalism and democracy are the universal solution to everything, is a misstep, we never seem to pay attention to the grassroots. What do the Syrians want? There is very little evidence to suggest that the Syrians actually want an intervention either. (2) American citizens are largely opposed to it as well, as I cited earlier. So should the American government really defy the desires of it's own populous? I certainly don't think so. Intervention at this point in time would be illegal. As I said earlier, it is a sad irony that America breaks international law in order to enforce it. Why don't we use the global mechanisms created to enforce peace to mitigate the situation? (1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
