args

CON

• CON

  Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can: Limit MSM's...

  Show full argument

  Resolved: Private corporations supportive of gay rights should turn neutral on the position instead.

  I thank my opponent in this acceptance of this resolution, and I stand on the CON in this argument: Private institutions supportive of gay rights should not change to a neutral position on the matter. I will provide the following parameters for the debate, beginning with the definitions of the resolution: Gay rights (n.): Rights that specifically deal with the issues of homosexuals, including gay employment, gays in the military, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. [This is used as a general term] With the essential definition in this debate case established, I move on toward the observation(s) for this round. Observation 1: Gay rights are a subset of human rights because they deal with equalizing respect and status to homosexuals as human beings and citizens in the community. Therefore, the context of gay rights should be looked at through the lens of human rights in this scenario. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains the concern for gay rights through the context of human rights: "Concern for the equal rights of disadvantaged groups is a longstanding concern of the human rights movement. Human rights documents emphasize that all people, including women and members of minority ethnic and religious groups, have the same basic rights and should be able to enjoy them without discrimination. The right to freedom from discrimination figures prominently in the Universal Declaration and subsequent treaties... Minority groups are often targets of violence. Human rights norms call upon governments to refrain from such violence and to provide protections against it. This work is partly done by the right to life, which is a standard individual right. It is also done by the right against genocide which protects groups from attempts to destroy or decimate them. The Genocide Convention was one of the first human rights treaties after World War II." Observation 2: The BOP is shared between the two opponents with consideration that both sides make a positive statement with regard to their position. The burden most particularly on the PRO is to prove that there is sufficient reason for private corporations to turn to such a position away from the support of gay rights. I move on toward my contentions: Contention 1: Gay rights should be indubitably accepted in society. In order to maintain and preserve equality and dignity for all members of the community, gay rights should be accepted in order to equalize the status of homosexuals to those of fellow human beings of the counterpart sexual orientation. Sub-point 1a: Human rights are important. The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) explains the importance of human rights as well as reasons why they must be upheld by the society: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations" Sub-point 1b: Denial of gay rights creates second-class citizens. The systematic discrimination of gays via denial to recognize their rights designates gay people as second-class citizens of inferior status. Because of this treatment, they fit the qualifications of what is characterized as the second-class citizen: A person considered inferior in status or rights in comparison with some others (The American Heritage Dictionary) a person whose rights and opportunities are treated as less important than those of other people in the same society (Collins English Dictionary) Sub-point 1c: Denial of gay rights causes negative social effects. The CDC speaks on the effects of the denial of gay rights and equal recognition: " Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can: Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were: 8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex Contention 2: Private corporations can be influential in promoting gay rights. Private corporations have been considered a great asset in the scope of promoting gay rights in the society, especially when it comes to the matters of monetary concerns. Microsoft Windows, for instance, had donated $100,000 in order to support Referendum 71 in Washington, and additional dollars came in from Chairman Bill Gates and chief executive Steven A. Ballmer. Apple had donated the same amount of money against Proposition 8 in 2008 in California. Even if, however, organizations aren't supporting monetarily, they still provide great services toward the LGBT community through their support and actions. Oreo and Kraft Foods have posted propaganda in support of gay rights and pride, for example. http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.queeried.com... "Stigma and Discrimination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 June 2012. <" target="blank">http://www.cdc.gov......

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Private-corporations-supportive-of-gay-rights-should-turn-neutral-on-the-position-instead./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.12

    universal: 3.26

    premises: 2.61 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.65 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.36)

    basic: 1.74

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.50)

    should: 3.12

    conclusion: 1.48 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 1.53 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  They give these benefits out as they have subsidized the...

  Show full argument

  Gay Marriage should be legalized in the sate of California

  Is there a right to same sex marriage? My opponent’s main argument throughout the debate is homosexuals need equal rights and have a right to choose whom they marry. But this is irrelevant unless my opponent can prove there is some sort of right with same sex marriage. He must prove, legally, they are being violated of some constitutional right rather then just assuming this right exists. This opinion is not universal; therefore my opponent must justify his claim. My opponent has failed to define or prove his terms on why banning homosexual marriage is illegal based on loss of rights, therefore fails on a legal basis on which the resolution is based. Benefits of marriage There are, indeed, many benefits of marriage. All of which cost the state millions of dollars to provide. They give these benefits out as they have subsidized the marriage business, hinting they have some interest in the institution. So they are giving benefits out for a reason, and only if there is a good reason are they obligated to hand these benefits out. So the question here is not what the benefits are, rather why the state gives these benefits out to specific classes of people (married couples). Marriage is a legal institution, which is former around one man and one woman in attempt to create procreative type unions. Many think marriage is about love, but this is a perk of marriage not its purpose. If it were, then ordinary friendships would also be regulated by the state. So the only viable state interest in marriage is a procreative type union that creates proper family structure that helps further the production of society. The states subsidization of marriage means they are using marriage to promote responsible and healthy procreation to raise a healthy society, as only procreation is not in the bests interest of society as a whole, rather how it is done is. Therefore the states interest only applies to heterosexuals, and not homosexuals. They love each other!! This is not a valid reason to allow homosexual marriage as love is not a valid states interest nor does it serve any purpose to the state worthy of millions of dollars in benefits. Therefore this point is irrelevant to a legal debate and is only an emotional argument. Conclusion: My opponents argument fails to prove on a legal basis whether or not gay marriage should be legal, it first asserts there is a right to gay marriage. But it is only backed up by assertion and not actual evidence. He later argues there are benefits to marriage; evidence suggests some type of government interest in the marriage institution. Therefore its not if there is benefits, rather why the state should grant them to certain people and not others. The reason they grant benefits is procreative-type unions, therefore there is no reason for homosexuals to get these benefits nor do they deserve them. Love is irrelevant as love serves no purpose to the state therefore they have no obligation to recognize their relationship as marriage.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-should-be-legalized-in-the-sate-of-California/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.12

    universal: 3.81

    premises: 3.23 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.58 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.22)

    should: 3.93

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.94)
• CON

  But this leaves the rationing and decisions in the hands...

  Show full argument

  Novice Tournament R1: The United States should implement a system of Single Payer health care.

  I am going to start by clarifying two aspects about my case: 1 – I’m not advocating for the status quo when I push for a free market system. In his attack on my case, my opponent would attack my points on the benefits of a free market system, by showing how they are not holding true in this status quo. However, by doing this he makes the false assumption that our status quo is a free market system, which is isn’t. “The thing to remember in America is that we have single-payer health care for the elderly and for the poor: the two costliest groups. In addition, the relatively healthy middle class has heavily-subsidized private health insurance, in which few individuals have the freedom to choose the insurance plan they receive. Neither of these facts commend the American health-care system to devotees of the free market.”11 Since the status quo isn’t a free market, my opponent’s attacks that utilize the status quo to show the errors in a free market actually fall, as proving something is wrong with the status quo doesn’t prove that something is wrong with a free market system. 2 – The main fault with the status quo is government involvement. When addressing entrepreneurship, my opponent states that I concede that insurance companies are to mostly to blame for inhibiting growth, showing how therefore we ought to move to a universal system to give them substantially less power. However, the main inhibitor is not insurance companies. “Of the three third-party payer institutions, government is by far the worst at resisting entrepreneurship – even when the government itself is implementing radical change.”3 Therefore, we see that if we do truly value entrepreneurship, we should not go to a universal system where the government is in charge of providing everyone access to health care. Having clarified these points I will now go on to address the major points of contention between our cases. Effects of a True Free Market a) autonomy In his rebuttal, Pro stated, “Thus, the status quo of HMOs, PPOs, and otherwise private insurance denotes managed care, and the erosion of personal liberty with regard to health decisions … Under a system of Single Payer health care, citizens are offered free choice of doctor”. First of all, note that he attacked how under the status quo autonomy is not preserved, not analyzing it in the form of an actual free market. Furthermore, he assumes that a Single Payer system will maximize autonomy, but this is not the case. “But this leaves the rationing and decisions in the hands of government officials and bureaucrats, and the special interests that influence them, rather than with the consumer. Rationing leads to long delays for some types of operations, or never doing it at all.” Again we need to see that a single payer system takes power away from citizens and puts it in the hands of the government, which is seen to result in long delays – an observed problem in the Canadian system (more on that below). As my opponent hasn’t actually attacked autonomy under a free market system, and there are clear offenses to it under a Single Payers system, it is clear that autonomy is better preserved when we negate. b) entrepreneurship I already attacked the first portion of my opponent’s attack on this under my second point of clarification. Then on the matter of the number of doctors, my opponent again pits the status quo against Canada to illustrate how a Single Payer system better protects for the number of doctors. However, this fails to demonstrate how it compares to a free market system. Furthermore, it is natural to assume that there will be some variation in the number of employees in each field from country to country. By my opponent’s statistics Switzerland has a 79% doctor satisfaction rate and lower spending as it is advocated for as a model of a market-oriented system11 – taken by itself that indicates that doctor satisfaction is increased by turning toward a market-oriented system. What needs to be seen is that doctor satisfaction is variable and cannot simply be reduced down to a Single Payer system increases it. However, entrepreneurship in general is discouraged by government involvement because it thrives in an environment where patients have autonomy and pay directly for their care3. Again a free market is preferred; however, to uphold that even if that falls we must negate we turn to the following. Providing Care to All In his constructive, my opponent claimed a government should provide care to all because, “Access to health care directly dictates our quality of life and ultimately our freedom”. Yet, this was countered when I illustrated how with long waits, “Canada is effectively reneging on its promise of universal health care…”9 in my own constructive. To rebut this he then claimed, “… wait times have nothing to do with overall health outcomes”. What needs to be seen is that Canada is not providing universal health care because it blocks access to it by increasing the wait times for services dramatically; yet, by claiming that wait times don’t affect your health, my opponent is in contradiction with his original claim that it is having access to care that dictates our quality of life. This is a logical inconsistency to his case. Uninsured vs. Insured with Lines My opponent opened his case with an introduction in which he stated, “Currently slightly over 48 million Americans are without health insurance … A system of Universal, Single Payer health care in the United States will dramatically expand coverage …” Here he frames going to the Canadian system as reaching out to this 48 million and offering them coverage. Yet, the crisis of the 48 million isn’t as drastic as it appears at face value. In fact, when looking at who these uninsured are what arises is that half will covered within a year, 3-6 million are believed to have falsely reported being under insured, and many who make up both the higher portion of the “Middle-Income Families” and the “Young Invincibles” are believed to have opted out of coverage. The crisis isn’t one that speaks to the need for government involvement, but is simply attributed to, “population growth, immigration, the recession and – some instances – individual choice”13. Ultimately, going to a Single Payer system won’t drastically expand coverage, as many who aren’t currently covered are either expected to become covered soon or don’t want coverage. Given that it won’t do this, we see that a Single Payer system simply reduces care as it increases waiting times. My opponent quotes Dr. Carrol to justify these waits, “they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative” which brings us to our final point of contention. Cost My opponent disregarded my statistics on the rising costs of the Canadian system because they are linked from the Daily Caller. However, the actually source for these numbers is a report done by the Fraiser Institute which is an independent Canadian public policy research and education organization. The reason I linked the data to the Daily Caller is because it seemed you had to purchase it to access it; however, to validate it I found a free electronic version14. Ultimately, the Canadian system is clearly not preferred as it has unsustainable price increases. My opponent also countered that part of the reason for the American spending drop is that, “this is in large part to the slow U.S. economy”; yet, my evidence points that this is in large part due to the ACA8, more so than the economy. This further emphasizes the undesirability of the Canadian system, showing we must negate. Sources 11 - http://www.forbes.com... 12 - http://www.progress.org... 13 - http://www.ncpa.org... 14 - http://www.fraserinstitute.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Novice-Tournament-R1-The-United-States-should-implement-a-system-of-Single-Payer-health-care./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.06

    universal: 5.51

    premises: 4.57 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.94 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.98)

    should: 2.37

    conclusion: 1.48 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.75)
• CON

  The bureaucracies of government involvement also affect...

  Show full argument

  Novice Tournament R1: The United States should implement a system of Single Payer health care.

  A brief outline of my case – my first point upholds that a free market system is better than a universal one, showing that a better system exists to a single-payer system; my second point critiques the Canadian health care system, illustrating that even if a universal health care system is deemed better in general, the resolution ought to be negated because the model system for this debate is undesirable for the United States to implement. A Free Market System is Superior a) it better values autonomy It is important to adopt a system that respects autonomy. Autonomy is often compromised in health care setting because illness increases individuals’ dependency on others: “it [illness] reduces patients’ power to exercise autonomy and it also makes them vulnerable to manipulation and even to outright coercion by those who provide them with needed health services … Without a strong principle of respect for patient autonomy, patients are vulnerable to abuse or exploitation, when their weak and dependent position makes them easy targets to serve the interest (e.g. financial, academic or social influence) of others.”1 (pg. 14) ­What’s preferable about a free market system is that it gives individuals direct control of their money by eliminating third party interference: “unlike price controls and other tools of government rationing, markets allocate resources according to consumer preferences, rather than the preferences of politicians, government bureaucrats, or special-interest lobbyist.”2 (pg. 4) When evaluating the protection of autonomy, a free market system is preferable because it allows individuals to better align their care with their interests. b) it encourages growth A free market health care system promotes growth in two key areas – entrepreneurship and the number of doctors. While many entrepreneurs exist in the health care field, they are discouraged by third-party payers (insurance companies, employers, and government) which, “With respect to healthcare, they tend to be bureaucratic, wedded to tradition, and resistant to change. They are, in a word, the entrepreneur’s nemesis.”3 Under a free market system these same hindrances don’t exist, as giving individuals more control over spending is incredibly beneficial to entrepreneurship. The bureaucracies of government involvement also affect job satisfaction in the medical field. Looking at the Great American Physician Survey of 2013, 31.7% of respondents list third-party interference as the primary reason to not be a physician4 (slide 13). America is already facing a doctor shortage, with the American Medical College estimating that by 2015 there will be 62,900 fewer doctors than needed, and the idea of universal health care does not sufficiently add to this pool, even with government attempts to incentivize it5. It is clear that a free market is preferable for growth because it frees the system from the burdens caused by third-party intrusion. Canadian System is Flawed for the U.S. a) costs of the system are too high The current health care system in America is very costly, with 17% of the GDP going to health care6; while this is cited as one of the number one concerns for why America ought to adopt a new system, what needs to be seen is in the increasing instability of the Canadian system. The Fraser Institute published a report in 2011 looking at Canadian health care spending concluding, “that Canada’s health system produces rates of growth in health spending that are not sustainable solely through redistributive public financing”7. This report found that Ontario and Quebec were spending 50% of their revenue on health care in 2011, and that by 2017 four more provinces would reach this high level of spending. While Canadian spending is on the rise (“Total federal, provincial and territorial government health spending has grown by 8.1 percent annually”7) current U.S. per capita spending is slowed down to a record 1.3% growth rate over the past three years, “That is the lowest rate on record for any three-year period and less than one-third the long-term historical average stretching back to 1965.”8 This decreased rate is credited to both economic recovery, and implementation of ACA. Given these current settings, it is clear that the U.S. ought not adopt a Canadian system of universal health care, because it encourages unsustainable spending growths that cannot be justified onto the U.S. b) quality of care is low Quality of care in Canada is seen as low due to two factors – inaccessibility and placement of people in improper care. Canadian care has become increasingly inaccessible over the past couple of decades. Whereas 20 years ago, people had to wait on average 9.3 weeks to receive treatment, another report from the Fraser Institute found that it is currently up to 18.2 weeks9. Furthermore, this rate shows that waiting time increased a total of 3 days from 2012. The report goes on to state that looking at the number of procedures Canadians are waiting for across the 10 provinces, in 2013 it was up to 928,120, an increase of 57,658 from the previous year. A Senior Healthy Policy Analyst from the Fraser Institute sums up the impact of these numbers in his statement, “Canada is effectively reneging on its promise of universal healthcare for those citizens forced to endure these long waits … These lengthy delays have real and important effects on Canadians’ health and wellbeing, imposing pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost productivity at work and leisure, and possibly even disability and death.”9 Unfortunately inaccessibility isn’t the only negative quality to the care that’s being delivered -- often people are placed in improper care under this system. Dr. Jeffrey Turnbull, a Canadian doctor in the Ottawa Hospital, is largely dissatisfied with how the Canadian system is implemented. The main problem he sees with the system is how it doesn’t put alternative level of care patients (ALC’s) in the proper location. While they should be quickly moved to nursing homes or other long-term care facilities, they are kept in the hospital too long due to the poorly organized system. Turnbull explained, “There are maybe 160 people in the hospital at $1,100 a day waiting for long-term care. So we’re spending maybe $180,000 a day for care that is crappy, not in their best interests. In a nursing home, it would be about $200 a day.”10 An actual evaluation of the statistics of patients in the Ottawa Hospital on one day showed that, “Thirteen percent of the beds, therefore, are occupied by people who, under ideal circumstances, should not be in the hospital.”10 Given that this is a largely inefficient system that leaves too many people waiting for proper care too long, and displaces a considerable amount of patients in improper facilities, it is clear that the Canadian system has strong costs and its implementation is not desirable system for the United States. Sources 1 -http://books.google.com... 2 – http://www.cato.org... 3 – http://www.ncpa.org... 4 - http://www.slideshare.net... 5 - http://www.nytimes.com... 6 - http://assets.opencrs.com... 7 – http://dailycaller.com... 8 - http://www.whitehouse.gov... 9 – http://www.ctvnews.ca... 10 – http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Novice-Tournament-R1-The-United-States-should-implement-a-system-of-Single-Payer-health-care./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.06

    universal: 5.51

    premises: 4.57 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.94 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.98)

    should: 2.37

    conclusion: 1.48 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.75)
• CON

  One person claimed on his profile that he's against taxes...

  Show full argument

  Taxes Should Not Exist in the United States

  Until recently, I would've assumed that my stance on this issue would've been unanimously agreed upon by all sane individuals. However, recently I've come across various profiles on this site of people who claim that they're against taxes. One person claimed on his profile that he's against taxes because "taxes are stealing." Aside from the fact that taxes are necessary for our government to even exist (let alone function), the government isn't "stealing" when it taxes its citizens. As a universal rule, the term "money" refers to a circulating medium of exchange. When someone earns money, it is in their possession only until they decide to exchange it for something else. The fact that money can be used in this way is entirely because the government recognizes it as such; currency is sponsored by the government, and therefore, any given holder of any given amount of money does not OWN that money. The fact that the government lets them hold it is entirely in recognition of the fact that they are entitled to any product being sold for equal or lesser value.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Taxes-Should-Not-Exist-in-the-United-States/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.04

    universal: 5.00

    premises: 4.46 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.14)

    should: 2.80

    conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.83)
• CON

  If you have a verbal confrontation, and it turns into a...

  Show full argument

  Hate Speech Should Not Be Protected Under Freedom of Speech

  If you have a verbal confrontation, and it turns into a physical one, the aggressor can be indited for aggravated assault. (Don't worry, I never curse at people during debates) Freedom of speech always has to be top priority. It should never be that in a public setting you have to think of what to say. If you are physically attacked for what you say, that impedes on your right to free speech, and also it is classified as assault, and you can press charges. However, any word, no matter the severity should be protected. That does not mean, in any way, that you should use it, but there should never be a time when you can be fined or jailed for what you say. Psychological stress or harm does not matter to me. Again, it should never be considered breaking the law if you say something to someone, no matter the severity. There are rules in courts and public hearings, that you cannot verbally harass someone. Harassment is, of course, something you can be reprimanded on by the justice system. Continuously insulting someone is harassment, unless you are doing it out of verbal defense. "Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right of free speech is broad and guaranteed to all. This Amendment prohibits the federal government from abridging this right, and the U.S. Supreme Court in modern times has interpreted the First Amendment as also limiting the ability of state and local governments to regulate speech expression."[1] First, certain kinds of contents has been ruled to have either more limited protection, or in some cases, no protection at all. Among unprotected categories of speech are pornography (obscenity), child pornography, "fighting words," and incitement to imminent violent action, such as threats to kill an individual. "Commercial speech and speech that constitutes libel or slander are provided with a lesser level of protection. Commercial speech can be regulated to make sure that it is not misleading or fraudulent, and defamation, while it can"t be prohibited outright, can subject a speaker or author to a lawsuit for damages. "Indecent" speech may face particular restrictions when minors are exposed to it, and this has resulted in the regulation of indecent expression in broadcasting." http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com... I agree that it is not very good to slander someone and demean them, but you should be able to. If we cannot express our grievances with anger, then what good is it? Need I remind you that the nations with the most restrictions on Freedom of Speech are authoritative nations, mostly in the Middle East. Anything said against the Muslim authority is justifiable by flogging, imprisonment, or death. This is America, not Iran. We cannot lose this basic Constitutional right that millions died protecting.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Hate-Speech-Should-Not-Be-Protected-Under-Freedom-of-Speech/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.03

    universal: 0.37

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)

    sum: 3.05 (product 2.68, product 0.36)

    sum: 3.04 (product 0.79, product 2.15, product 0.10)

    basic: 3.05

    premises: 2.68 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.14)

    should: 4.62

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 2.15 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.69)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.03)
• CON

  No matter what socialism will look like as a less strong...

  Show full argument

  Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances

  First, I will give the definition of Communism Communism: A political and economic ideology based on communal ownership (while private property is abolished) and the absence of class. (http://www.investopedia.com...) 1. In your argument, you have defined socialism as ‘a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care.’ Yet later you defined communism as a stronger version of socialism. ‘Concept of Communism, which is a stronger version of Socialism, is misunderstood by many people.’ ‘Communism, which is stronger socialism.’ so I will understand that you are defining socialism as a less strong version of communism as well. Communism has 2 key features, communal ownership and the absence of class. No matter what socialism will look like as a less strong form of communism, it will be fundamentally different to his first definition of socialism, which does not involve any absence of class on any degree. My opponent is inconsistent in his definition of socialism. This suggests that he is unclear about what exactly he is advocating which I think voters should take into account. 2. In response to point 2 of your argument Adam Smith’s definition of capitalism is irrelevant to this debate and of no concern to us. In this debate the definition of capitalism is ‘an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are 1. controlled by private owners 2. for profit, rather than by the state.’ 1. Private companies do have control in Norway’s trade and industry. 2. The objective for these private companies was to earn money for profit. Under this definition, it is perfectly safe to say that Norway is a capitalist country. Therefore, my opponents’ analogy of using Norway as a socialist country is inappropriate. 3. In response to point 3 of your argument In the Declaration of Independence (United States) it is written that: ‘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' It is clearly stated that natural rights are NOT GIVEN by the government and cannot be given by our government they are given by our Creator (God). They are simply SECURED by the government. When slaves are emancipated, natural rights are not GIVEN to them. They are simply included in the protection of their natural rights by the government. My point still stands that your definition of the roles of government is not correct. 4. In response to point for of your argument No, communism ≠ equal pay pardon my ignorance in the previous round. Yes, Karl Marx did say once, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ in his Critique of the Gotha Program. However, you have overlooked my next sentence ‘Even if you reward their work by paying them wages, standardised or not, isn't that unequal to people who have jobs replaced by robots and don"t get paid?’ I have addressed both equal and unequal pay as I have said ‘standardised or not’ My point here is to show that either way, some form of inequality exists. On one hand, some people have to work while others don’t – this is unequal. On the other hand, people who work get paid while others don’t. Inevitably, some form of inequality exists. Furthermore, the government itself is an inequality with some people being more powerful than others. My point that it is impossible to prevent any inequalities and therefore it is not a job of the government still stands. 5. In response to point 5 of your argument What I meant was saying by providing ‘basic’, few essential needs your government is not fulfilling its duty to ‘achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens’ and cater to many more extravagant and unnecessary needs. In this case, the socialist government DOES NOT meet the requirement and my point still stands. Well, of course you can say that by providing the basic needs you are already providing your citizens with the highest standard of living, In this case, my point IS INVALID. But, IF YOUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT EQUATES BASIC NEEDS TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING, it shows us the poor standard of living in as a result of socialism and it gives us another reason not to switch to it. Either way, it favours my side that governments should not switch from capitalism to socialism. 6. In response to point 6 of your argument ‘As I stated in my response to no.4 Communism, which is basically stronger socialism, is also about distributing goods based on ability, and therefore, there will be incentive for people to work since the pays will be different.’ Yes, it is true that the pay is based upon abilities and necessities. However, you seem to confusing which is which. (But, as you said, the concept of these ideologies is misunderstood by many people.) Goods are not DIStributed based on ability. Goods are CONtributed based on ability and DIStributed based on necessity. This is clearly shown in Karl Marx’s famous quote from ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ (and also on the business dictionary website of which the link you have provided at the end of your own round 2 argument): ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ Secondly, in response to ‘there will be incentive for people to work’, I will say that I never stated that there wouldn’t be an incentive; what I am saying is: Yes, there will be incentive for people to work. It is simply lowered because of SOCIALISM. In conclusion, my opponent’s rebuttal is invalid because 1. My opponent has misunderstood the concept of how resources are distributed in socialism and because 2. My opponent’s rebuttal does not even challenge my point. Because of the following reasons, I maintain that the government should not switch from capitalism to socialism: I. I will further elaborate my point on how socialism lowers the incentive for people to work. 1. Taking based on necessity is a low incentive for people to work. Knowing that we can only take what is necessary under socialism, knowing that our desire for extra material possessions (that are more than the basic needs to sustain life) cannot be in any way fulfilled, it will be very likely that we will not even try to fulfil this desire. This results in a lack of motivation to fulfil our desire for these extra material possessions through working. Since there is no way you can get more than what you need for subsistence no matter how long or how hard you work because socialism prevents you to do so, you will merely work long enough or hard enough to earn the basic needs. In other words socialism lowers the incentive for people to work. 2. Adam Smith once said ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.’ (The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2) A person naturally cares for himself more than for others. Similarly, one naturally works harder if he is working for himself (capitalism) rather than for the state from which he takes only a portion of what he produced in his work back (socialism). In other words, one naturally has a higher incentive in capitalism and a lower incentive in socialism. Therefore, my point that socialism lowers the incentive for people to work still stands. I've reached the character limit and the rest of it is in the links. I don't know if this is against the rules or not, but I hope you won't mind for the sake of having a good debate. http://i.imgur.com... http://i.imgur.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Governments-should-switch-from-capitalism-to-socialism-due-to-technological-advances/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.03

    universal: 0.32

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.66)

    sum: 4.41 (product 3.80, product 0.61)

    sum: 2.00 (product 0.65, product 1.25, product 0.09)

    basic: 4.41

    premises: 3.80 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.61 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.92)

    should: 3.30

    conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 1.25 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.98)
• CON

  Both domestic and international law recognize the...

  Show full argument

  The "I was just following orders" defense should not shield soldiers from criminal culpability.

  Thanks to Fourtrouble for having this debate, and I look forward to an engaging round. Con Case C1: Victor’s Justice (Systemic Justification) [1] [2] Victor’s justice is the international relations term applied to “justice” distributed by a winning power(s), the victor(s), in a war or dispute. After the war or dispute, the victors establish their own ad hoc courts to prosecute the “war criminals.” Since the Allies were the victors in World War 2, the trials established, like Nuremberg, were tried and managed by the Allies themselves. The first applicative problem with this is that the moralistic-legal decisions in the trials are constrained by convention, subjectivity, and politics. Meernik explains, “Realists maintain that international institutions are superfluous at best, because they are simply a reflection of the underlying balance of power, and misguided at worst, because they inject moral issues with their accompanying fervor and stickiness into diplomacy… If international laws are enforced only when states are subjugated to those laws by more powerful states, the power to enforce and interpret the law resides with a war’s winning coalition or a winning coalition on the UN Security Council. In this view, international justice is the product and subject of international politics… There will be institutional biases and inequities between the parties that will affect the personnel and procedures of the tribunal. These biases, so it is argued, will tend to promote the international community’s interests in deterrence and retribution and tend to work against the interests of the accused.” The second applicative problem is when good people get caught on the wrong side of history. Imagine that instead of the Allies winning WW2, the Axis powers had won instead. Rather than having trials prosecuting Nazi war criminals, there would be trials prosecuting Allied war criminals. Now apply Fourtrouble’s analysis to this case here: Allied soldiers would have little to no defense in say defending themselves against charges on the bombing of Dresden. However, the following order’s defense would be viable and applicable because the duty of a solider is to follow orders and to create victory soldiers must sometimes do immoral acts. Thus, victor’s justice works both ways and is constrained by the subjective moral opinion of the one’s presiding over the war tribunals. The third applicative problem is judicial bias in universal jurisdiction cases. Posner writes, “The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction over disputes between nations and has decided dozens of cases since it began operations in 1946…Its critics argue that the members of the ICJ vote the interests of the states that appoint them…We test the charge of bias using statistical methods. We find strong evidence that (1) judges favor the states that appoint them and that (2) judges favor states whose wealth level is close to that of the their own states.” The model Posner uses indicates that universal courts are highly biased and politicized which in the vast majority of cases undermines and skews the legitimacy of the trial. Judges are appointed by winning coalitions (victor’s justice) and the powers of the defense or negligible. As such, universal jurisdiction cases themselves do not work to protect the accused. This systemic failure on the part of universal jurisdiction should allow for the order defense to be a viable defense. Why? Because insofar as the system is politicized, biased, subjective and based on convention and history there needs to be a mechanism which protects accused soldiers from an abusive international order. C2: Self-Defense Justification (Individual Justification) [3] The orders defense and self-defense are legally intertwined which makes the orders defense a viable defense tool. Both domestic and international law recognize the inherent right of self-defense as a legitimate reason for protection against criminal culpability. The first argument will be related to the Nuremburg trials. The Nazi regime was clearly brutal and had no respect for the dignity of human life (as evidence by the fact of the Nuremburg Trials). If this is true about the outlook of the Nazis, is it unlikely that this view was true in military command? Most likely no. Breaking the chain of command, especially in German tradition, brings disgrace upon you and your family. In the Nuremburg Trials, there were many citizens and soldiers who would falsely or truly expose their fellow comrades to the Nazi authorities for disobeying Nazi rules or even showing simple compassion to prisoners. Essentially everyone was a rat, and as a result everyone feared retribution from Nazi authorities. Therefore, soldiers and citizens alike would do inhumane things to protect themselves against retribution to them or their family. Thus, the orders defense is legally viable because it is an extension of self-defense law. The second argument relates to asymmetric warfare. Recently the Obama administration has pulled soldiers out of Iraq to avoid prosecutorial abuse on the part of Iraqi tribunals. The Iraqi’s allege that U.S. soldiers are war criminals and must be prosecuted as such. The problem with this is that in asymmetric warfare the rules of engagement are fuzzy and distorted. In asymmetric warfare literally anyone can be the enemy – a kid, a prostitute, an enemy combatant dressed as a woman. One can only imagine the psychological distortions that has on a soldier’s mind. This can lead soldiers to lose judgment and act too quickly in situations. As a result innocent’s will be harmed, but this shouldn’t make soldiers criminally culpable for simply following orders in a type of warfare which makes engagement with the enemy difficult. Thus, the orders defense should be a viable option for soldiers in asymmetric warfare. Pro Case C1: Moral Judgment [4] Fourtrouble makes the argument that since soldiers have the capacity for moral reasoning then they ought to be culpable for their actions. My argument against this is soldiers actually have desensitized moral reasoning, which would reduce their culpability. Williams writes: “Positive changes in decision making and values were not necessarily moral in content. Additionally, soldiers stated that the extreme focus on rules eliminated the need for personal decision making. Soldiers also reported mixed changes in personal values. Some experienced an increase in moral character while others declined. In interpersonal relationships, learning to interact with diverse people was contradicted by growing distrust of others.” Willam’s analysis indicates a few things: (1) one of the most important moral characteristics developed by military training is duty/obedience, as such other characteristics such as compassion are reduced, (2) moral training is highly outweighed by practical training and on the field work which results in soldier’s losing moral intuition and (3) military training develops pragmatic thinking and not moral thinking. C2: Consequences My opponent argues that allowing the orders defense will result in consequences such as more abuses and inhumane acts. For this to be true my opponent needs to prove a strong correlation or causation of legal culpability and military cruelty. If not my opponent is simply asserting an unwarranted position. However, I would maintain that this argument does not preclude the use of military court martials or military tribunals used against soldiers for committing crimes or abuses. Thus, even in the pro/affirmative world there is still protection against abuses. My advocacy is that in relation to universal jurisdiction or international disputes, the orders defense ought to be a viable defense tool. [1] Meernik. Victor’s Justice or the Law? [2] Posner. Is the ICJ Biased? [3] Hart. Grudge Informers and the Rule of Law. [4] Williams. An Assessment of Moral Character Education in IET.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-I-was-just-following-orders-defense-should-not-shield-soldiers-from-criminal-culpability./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.00

    universal: 5.22

    premises: 4.57 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.65 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.37)

    should: 2.38

    conclusion: 1.48 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  But there is a striking difference, the American...

  Show full argument

  Should the US take military action against syria

  Yes, it is very convenient that shooter was classified as "unidentified", very suspicious to say the least. But we do know that Assad's troops did not openly and obviously attack the U.N as you stated. It's interesting that you bring up the American revolution. Yes, we would have undoubtably lost without French aide. But there is a striking difference, the American revolutionaries were not involved in an Intra-state civil war like Syria is. Syrians are going to have to learn to live with each other after this, and somehow build peace. Time and Time again, history shows us that all to often, leaders proclaim freedom and liberty, an revert to authoritarianism. Numerous savage dictators have risen up under the guise of a liberation movement. I don't suggest that the Assad Regime is superior to the FSA, but I do submit that if the United States should play no role in this decision. If we are to militarily intervene, we are subsequently responsible for whatever the outcome of that nation. We assume the responsibility to reconstruct what we destroyed. Building a new nation, and building peace is extraordinarily difficult, and America has seen how difficult this is firsthand in Iraq and Afghanistan. After nearly an 8 year occupation in Iraq, we have left behind us a failed State (1), that lacks the most But there is a striking difference, the American revolutionaries were not involved in an Intra-state civil war like Syria is. Syrians are going to have to learn to live with each other after this, and somehow build peace. Time and Time again, history shows us that all to often, leaders proclaim freedom and liberty, an revert to authoritarianism. Numerous savage dictators have risen up under the guise of a liberation movement. I don't suggest that the Assad Regime is superior to the FSA, but I do submit that if the United States should play no role in this decision. If we are to militarily intervene, we are subsequently responsible for whatever the outcome of that nation. We assume the responsibility to reconstruct what we destroyed. Building a new nation, and building peace is extraordinarily difficult, and America has seen how difficult this is firsthand in Iraq and Afghanistan. After nearly an 8 year occupation in Iraq, we have left behind us a failed State (1), that lacks the most Syrians are going to have to learn to live with each other after this, and somehow build peace. Time and Time again, history shows us that all to often, leaders proclaim freedom and liberty, an revert to authoritarianism. Numerous savage dictators have risen up under the guise of a liberation movement. I don't suggest that the Assad Regime is superior to the FSA, but I do submit that if the United States should play no role in this decision. If we are to militarily intervene, we are subsequently responsible for whatever the outcome of that nation. We assume the responsibility to reconstruct what we destroyed. Building a new nation, and building peace is extraordinarily difficult, and America has seen how difficult this is firsthand in Iraq and Afghanistan. After nearly an 8 year occupation in Iraq, we have left behind us a failed State (1), that lacks the most basic of services and protections for its occupants. There is still widespread violence and unrest. (1)http://ffp.statesindex.org... It is my main contention that Military Intervention is self defeating and counterproductive. Mass violence and death is no way to show a people how to live in peace. America, with a depleted economy and large scale internal strife, is in no place to fight a war, and assume the responsibilities of post war occupation and reconstruction. The majority of America opposes military intervention, (2) which is yet another reason not to attack. Our government is designed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. So if the majority of Americans oppose intervention, we should not intervene. There is too much at stake. We are not world police. (2)http://www.cbsnews.com... Aside from that, you did not really make any clear arguments.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-the-US-take-military-action-against-syria/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 8.00

    universal: 0.37

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)

    sum: 3.55 (product 3.07, product 0.48)

    sum: 2.50 (product 0.79, product 1.62, product 0.10)

    basic: 3.55

    premises: 3.07 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.50)

    should: 4.08

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.62 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  Embryologic View: Which is when the embryo undergoes...

  Show full argument

  Abortion should be illegal

  For this first rebuttal, I will be using some information from a previous debate of mine. 1) 'The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life.' The debate on when life begins has been worldwide since before we even knew what it was. Many people have many different views on when this happens. What I'm saying is not that science has proved when human life begins, but it has proved some basic guidelines for an idea of it. For example: At Or Near Birth: Which is measured by fetal viability outside the mother's body. Meaning around a month or few weeks before the due date of the pregnancy. Neurological View: Which is measured by brainwave criteria. Meaning life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected, about 24 to 27 weeks. There is a strong argument between scientists that the recognizable EEG patterns produced by a mature brain is a defining characteristic of humanity. Therefore, the moment that a developing fetus first exhibits a consistent EEG pattern is indicative of the beginning of human life. It is from this point and onward during development that the fetus is capable of the type of mental activity associated with humanity. Embryologic View: Which is when the embryo undergoes gastrulation, and twinning is no longer possible. Gastrulation commences at the beginning of the third week of pregnancy, when the zygote, now known as an embryo is implanted into the uterus of the mother. this occurs about 12 days into development. The philosophers who support this position argue that there is a difference between a human individual and a human person. A zygote is both human and numerically single and thus a human individual. However, because individuality is not certain until implantation is complete, and because individuality is a necessary condition of personhood, the zygote is not yet a human person. http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com...... science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/.../Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf I agree with your statement that the unborn does meet the criteria of organization and growth as of conception, but the rest are met later on in the development. 2) 'There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life.' What defines innocent? Many people have different perspectives on this viewpoint. The overall flaw in this statement is that it is absolute. Above everything else we are obligated to preserve life no matter the circumstance. For example, you are driving on the road with the rest of your family in the passenger and backseats. A little girl runs out into the road. You can either hit the brakes and cause the vehicle to spin off the road, killing the people in the backseat but saving the little girl. Or you can hit the little girl and save the people in the vehicle. Which life do you take? In some circumstances this cannot be avoided and therefore your 'moral obligation to preserve innocent human life' is broken. 3) 'This moral obligation is of the highest order.' The highest order should be utilitarianism, which is maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Take Hitler for example. At the time, was our goal to preserve his life? No, it was to kill him and end the suffering of the millions of people he was killing. My Case: My argument is quite simple really: consider the circumstances. I do not believe that you should just have an abortion because you made a mistake and don't want to take responsibility for it. I believe that in cases of abusive relationships, rape, incest, and life-threatening circumstances then an abortion should be an option. Abortion being illegal wouldn't give these women the freedom of choice, a choice to keep their lives from going down the drain.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-illegal/19/
  • score

    BM25 score: 7.98

    universal: 0.72

    sourceText: 0.72 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.50)

    sum: 2.61 (product 2.25, product 0.36)

    sum: 2.66 (product 1.00, product 1.56, product 0.09)

    basic: 2.61

    premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.14)

    should: 4.65

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.56 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.23)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.96)