args

PRO

• PRO

  However, animals are alive. ... you have not established...

  Show full argument

  Bestiality should be illegal

  ‘Your rights are only limited in that you should not violate the rights of others. These rights include life, health, happiness, safety and freedom. My argument states that bestiality is comparable to rape, and as such an abuse of such magnitude that it should be illegal.’ Are you saying the law should ignore these rights in other cases? In response to the list of rights violations: I will happily debate you at a later date on whether these violations ought to be illegal. We are, however, not discussing slaughter for food or animal testing for scientific progress, but bestiality. I stand by my position. I also don't think the law should "ignore" rights; however, recall that "your rights are only limited in that you should not violate the rights of others". The law should only limit people's power if that power is used to violate the rights of others. However, not every minor instance of violation can or should be illegal – it's a question of how severe the violation is, this is what I mean by "magnitude". I roughly contrasted raping vs. slapping someone. Rape is a violation of extreme severity; one slap is a violation of negligible severity. In the case of one slap, the severity is so negligible that the slapper's right to be free to slap someone once overrules the severity of the violation. It is true that these are subjective standards, but when they are on the extremes of a spectrum – as rape is – it shouldn't be too difficult to say that nobody is "free" to legally rape others. As my argument compares bestiality to rape, i.e. sex without consent from at least one party, and rape is an abuse of such magnitude that it should be illegal, so should bestiality. Anyone on this site is welcome to argue with me over whether rape should be illegal, and I hope very dearly that they lose miserably. You said all animals had those rights, I am challenging that premise What are your reasons? Since we are speaking about the legalization of an interaction with animals, I find the question whether animals have those rights very relevant. Here is an example excerpted from Virginia law: VA. CODE ANN. § 3.2-6570 (2013). Cruelty to animals. A. Any person who: (i) tortures, ill-treats, abandons, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly or unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal; (ii) deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment; (iv) willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal; (v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. I stand by my beliefs, but for the purpose of this debate, I will narrow it down to one point: animals have the right not to be abused by humans, particularly not for a purpose as selfish and destructive as rape. Why just human? Because we know for a fact that humans are far more capable of faster, more complex and more sophisticated decision-making. Surely animals can consent to sex within their own species. Whether or not they can consent to sex outside of their species is irrelevant to the debate, with the exception of the human species. What does animation have to do with it? Um, everything? You can't rape a non-living thing. However, animals are alive. So it’s not rape unless there is a possibility for mental trauma and distress? Wha? When did I say that? I was pointing out that rape is not only a physical, but also an emotional crime, and that the emotional aspect is applicable only to living things that can feel. Incorrect, this debate is about whether bestiality should be illegal. A law is a universal. Banning bestiality bans all bestiality. That's literally what I said in the next 2 sentences :) As we know, human-human sex can sometimes be nonconsensual, but it should only be made totally illegal if there is no way for one or more parties to (a) communicate and (b) understand consent. This is the debate I was referring to. We could come to the conclusion that only some bestiality is in fact rape, but if animals are incapable of communicating consent to humans, and/or if humans are incapable of understanding consent from an animal, both in all cases, bestiality should be illegal because there is no way to legally discriminate (through "consent in law") between sex and rape. If the possibility for misunderstanding rendered the practice unacceptable then human on human sex would be unacceptable. Not what I said. If the law cannot discriminate between a case where both parties reached an understanding and a case where there was a misunderstanding, the practice should be illegal because there is no legal way to distinguish abuse from non-abuse. The law cannot control everything its purpose is to define what actions warrant punishment Among other purposes, two other relevant purposes of law are (a) preventing crime and (b) protecting those under the jurisdiction of the law from damage/harm/abuse. As you said, law is universal. Appealing to other subjective standards won’t make yours objective. I thought we agreed that this was going to be a "from scratch" debate. You can't possibly expect a random debater to come up with an objective standard for defining rights and abuses, thousands of years of human history were unable to accomplish it and I personally don't think it's possible. However, I consider modern law a pretty reasonable standard. After all, the standards of legitimacy of the law are what you wish to extend to bestiality. You have yet to provide objective arguments for that yourself. That is circular logic. ‘Consent in the law should be what consent in the law is.’ Please explain what about "legal recognition of [an action]" is synonymous with an action which applies to legal standards. I said, "Only 'consent in law' should be legally recognized." If I had said, "Only a will signed in the presence of two witnesses should be legally recognized" would that be circular logic too? I'm referring to the fact that "consent in law" has certain standards; consent which meets those standards should be legally recognized. These standards do not include legal recognition, they are a prerequisite to legal recognition. Consent is the opposite of coercion Now that's subjective! The dictionary begs to differ. Consent: permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Persuade: (1) cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument; (2) cause (someone) to believe something, esp. after a sustained effort; convince; (3) provide a sound reason for (someone) to do something. Something … such as consent? Nothing about the definition of consent you provided demands that the permission/agreement be given freely. The opposite of consent is dissent, which, by defintion, excludes coercion. People have the right to make irrational decisions based on ignorance. The argument is not that they do not have that right, the argument is that these decisions are not necessarily legally valid due to the condition of the decision-maker. And we aren't even talking about "people", we are talking about non-human animals. Do non-human animals have the right to make irrational decisions based on ignorance? A seven-year-old child may have the "right" to make the irrational decision based on ignorance to "consent" to sex with a thirty-year-old, but this act is not recognized as "consent in law", nor should it be, because we understand that this condition renders the decision invalid. It is your job to prove to us that bestiality is any different. you must prove that it should be illegal; not that it is illegal or that based on other legal traditions it would be illegal Strangely, I find whether bestiality is illegal or whether based on other legal traditions it would be illegal very relevant to the question of whether it should be illegal. Please explain to me why this is an illogical or inappropriate position. The law does not evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement unless it must enforce that agreement Incorrect. The law may evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement if there is reason to believe a party that entered in the agreement was illegally victimized by it. For instance, before the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, a contract where a master had legal ownership over his slave in certain states was valid. After, it was rendered invalid, not because it hadn't been enforced yet, but because slavery was deemed abusive, a violation of basic rights, and as such unconstitutional. In other words, the contract may have been enforced and executed already, but the defendant suffers from its consequences. Again, we aren't talking about a contract that you sign with witnesses present – you don't do that in human-human sex either (unless you're just weird). However, a contract is any formal and legally binding agreement. Because we are discussing whether bestiality should be illegal, we should examine whether the agreement reached by both parties to participate in the act is at all legally valid – and if not, it should be illegal. One definition of agreement is "a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action". Because we are debating this agreement's validity in a legal context, I took the liberty of using the term "contract" to refer to it, in the sense of "a formal and legally binding agreement". The word exploiting is ambiguous. I provided a clear definition of the relevant meaning I was using: "the use of a living thing in an unfair way". you have not established that animals must consent before the law or at all yet But I have established that sex without consent is rape, and my argument remains that animals are incapable of consenting in law to sex with humans.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Bestiality-should-be-illegal/3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.22

    universal: 2.60

    premises: 2.17 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.52)

    sourceText: 0.43 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.91)

    basic: 1.31

    premises: 1.02 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.30)

    sourceText: 0.29 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.91)

    should: 5.31

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

    premises: 2.22 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.74)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.11)
• PRO

  A doctor charging a patient for their services. ... The...

  Show full argument

  let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

  Your link is to a pharmaceutical company. I didn't say drug manufacturers were banned, it is the private practice of medicine that is banned. A doctor charging a patient for their services. In the last provincial election Deb Matthews MPP an influential member of the McGuinty government set up a snitch line where consumers could call in and snitch on doctors who were charging for their services and the government would ensure they gave a full refund to the consumer. The private practice of medicine is illegal in Ontario. http://news.nationalpost.com... here's an excerpt : "Ontario has taken the unprecedented step of setting up a toll-free snitch line for people to report cases of illegal private health care " and says it has triggered 35 investigations in barely a month."

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/let-it-be-resolved-that-universal-health-care-is-a-bad-idea/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.19

    universal: 8.70

    conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.95 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.00)
• PRO

  Let's note that the United States was one of the founding...

  Show full argument

  Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

  Awesome, I'm so excited to do this debate. I've been creating cases for my parliamentary debate league, and this is one that I have been working on. Note that the BOP in this round is obviously shared. I will argue that the United States should intervene in Rwanda. I have two reasons to present for doing this. I. The United States is obligated to prevent genocide. A. The United States is morally obligated. Right now, in the wake of the Cold War, the United States is the sole superpower in the world, the hegemon. This means that, in some way, the United States is responsible for ensuring that egregious human rights violations not take place, because it is in the unique position of being able to do so. This stems from the basic concept that killing is wrong, and killing on a massive scale is exponentially more so. Thus, not intervening amounts to a tacit condoning of the genocide, which, in any moral code, would be a horrible violation. What is important to note is that this genocide is unprecedented since World War II; no genocidal killing on such a massive and systemic scale has occurred since then. Even worse, more lives could be lost if the conflict escalates, which I will discuss later. I do not feel that this argument is particularly complex, so I will leave it there. If I need to, I will elaborate further later on. B. The United States is legally obligated. Let's note that the United States was one of the founding members of the United Nations, which was founded in response to World War II. One of the founding documents of the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explicitly commands the UN to uphold basic human rights, which life would qualify as. Even more importantly, the UDHR requires intervention when a genocide is taking place, a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, after which the world vowed it would never again stand idly by. However, the UN has been hamstrung by France, which, because of imperial colonial ties, refuses to agree to any intervention, other than one by France (which would likely back the genocidal government). This means that, as the hegemon, the United States ought to uphold the word and the spirit of the United Nations, since it is unable to otherwise. Again, this is fairly straightforward. II. Stability is in the best interest of the United States. A. The genocide is likely to escalate. The situation within Rwanda and neighboring countries, right now, is incredibly precarious. A genocide has begun in Rwanda, spurred by the downing of the Rwandan and Burundian presidents' plane. What is important to note is that other countries in the region have interest and ties into this conflict ongoing in Rwanda. What this means is that allowing the genocide to continue risks an escalation in the conflict, which risks evolving into a regional conflict. This is possible for two main reasons. The first is that large Hutu and Tutsi populations reside in countries like Zaire and Burundi. Animosity between these groups expands beyond Rwanda, and has spurred (albeit smaller) killings before. This leads to further civil war and instability in these countries. The second is that other African countries have stakes in the Great Lakes region. Uganda, for instance, is currently backing the RPF rebels in Rwanda, and Angola is backing anti-Tutsi groups in Zaire. Thus, any increase in stability could lead to non-humanitarian interventions on both sides, which would likely lead to an intercontinental war. B. Such an escalation will likely be detrimental. This domino effect is dangerous because the main United States allies in sub-Saharan Africa, namely Zaire, are in the direct line of fire here. Any instability in the region leads to massive losses in two forms. The first is that the United States stands to lose massive amounts of money from mining operations in the Great Lakes region, which tangibly restricts the ability of American businesses to produce basic products, like pipes. The second is that the United States stands to lose political sway in the region. The RPF has not been friendly to the West, and similar groups that could form in other groups would likely take on a similar character. Thus, the United States allies in the region, including the governments of Burundi and Zaire, are likely to fall if the genocide is allowed to continue unabated, which would lead to a complete dearth of friendly governments in one of the most resource-laden places on Earth. These two impact to a loss in American hegemony in sub-Saharan Africa, which has dire political and economic impacts. All of this is notwithstanding the massive humanitarian costs a war of this kind would result in, which would be footed, mainly, by the United Nations, with the United States paying a large portion. Conclusion When we compare the massive costs the United States stands to bear, from both moral and political sources, with the small cost of sending a few thousand troops, we see that the United States should intervene to stop genocide. The United States would benefit from increased international legitimacy, and increased hegemony, both of which allow the United States flourish in an increasingly-globalizing world. Thank you, and I look forward to reading Con's arguments. Note: No sources, per parliamentary style.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-the-United-States-have-intervene-d-in-Rwanda-See-further-details-below-./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.17

    universal: 2.49

    premises: 2.12 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.51)

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

    basic: 4.05

    premises: 3.62 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.05)

    sourceText: 0.43 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.36)

    should: 2.63

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

    premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.86)
• PRO

  And even if it *did* require a tax increase, which I...

  Show full argument

  Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

  The three points of your last argument seem to be the primary problems most people have with the idea of government-run healthcare, so I'm glad you brought them up. 1)On the claim that government-run healthcare would require a tax increase: This is not necessarily true. We're spending billions and billions of dollars unnecessarily on things such as the Iraq war, and as you said yourself in your first statement, there are a number of frivolous government expenditures that could easily be cut back. If we were to cut back on such unnecessary expenses, it could *easily* cover the cost of a government health care system. And even if it *did* require a tax increase, which I admit is possible, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, because it would mean replacing the cost of insurance payments and out-of-pocket medical expenses with a progressive tax plan, which would be much better for the vast majority of Americans. 2)On the claim that the free market handles healthcare more cost-effectively than the government would: Right now, almost a third of all healthcare spending in the United States goes straight into corporate profit and executive salaries for health insurance companies. In a non-profit, government-run system, there would be none of this to pay for. In other words, a third of the total cost of healthcare in the United States right now would be completely eliminated through the transition to a government-run healthcare system, thus making the system a full third cheaper, and beating the free market at its own game. 3)On the claim that government-run healthcare would require rationing of care: ANY healthcare system requires rationing of care. Under the current free-market system, everyone who cannot afford health insurance or out-of-pocket medical expenses, or who the health insurance companies can effectively deny care for, are *completely* excluded from *all* healthcare. Under a government-run system, the necessary rationing of healthcare would happen on the basis of the necessity of the procedure, rather than on the basis of the patient's ability to pay - this is a MUCH better system.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Healthcare-be-provided-to-all-American-citizens/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.11

    universal: 8.67

    conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.93 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.94)
• PRO

  Insurance companies make money off of not providing care,...

  Show full argument

  Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

  Seeing as how we have 4 rounds in this debate, I'm going to state my case in a simplistic manner, and I'll go back later to elaborate on any points that cause confusion. There are a lot of problems with the healthcare system that the United States currently has. Insurance companies make money off of not providing care, and 31 cents of every dollar that goes into healthcare goes into the maintenance of these corporations, rather than to the actual healthcare. These problems are cleaarly directly related to the free-market economy's control over healthcare; these are multi-billion dollar corporations operating in the free-market economy, and they are clearly where the problems in healthcare are coming from. In short, the free market is to blame for a good deal of the healthcare woes of the American system, so the only logical alternative is to take the system out of the hands of the free market, and into the hands of the government, where it can be strictly regulated to reduce problems. As I understand it, most of my opponent's claim is based upon the current inefficiency of government-run programs in the United States. I would certainly not argue with the fact that many of the government programs we have in the United States right now are overly bureaucratic and slow-moving. But this has no bearing on what a government-run healthcare system would be like. To say that the fact that some government institutions today are inefficient means that government-run healthcare would be inefficient, is like saying that because it rains on some days one can assume that it will rain tomorrow. This is clearly a logical fallacy.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Healthcare-be-provided-to-all-American-citizens/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.11

    universal: 8.67

    conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.93 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.94)
• PRO

  Unwanted pregnancies and rape cases could be prevented by...

  Show full argument

  Should abortion be illegal

  Thanks to Con for this interesting topic and contentious issue. Because it is such a controversial issue, I'm going to try my best not to offend anyone. To start off, I believe that Con mischaracterizes what pro-choice people generally are. What they tell you is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion, But rather pro-privacy, Which means that the decision to abort should not be part of the government's affairs. First of all, If we make abortion illegal, This would not be a problem at all because the illegality itself would be a powerful enough deterrent to stop most women from getting abortions. Second, Pro would like to contend that pro-choice people ARE indeed pro-abortion. Many of the social movements we have in the status quo promote empowering women, Giving them the right to choose, Etc. These pro-choice advocates are arguing that it is purely the woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Therefore, Since these advocates represent the majority of America's pro-choice constituency, Then it is only logical to assume pro-choice equals pro-abortion, And my argumentation will be based on that fact. Now onto some refutation: 1a. Con tells you how a woman's unwanted child is 'her property until it is out of her'. Pro will concede that this child is the woman's property as it is in her body. However, This does not justify why the woman should be able to kill her child when doing so would violate that child's fundamental right to life. Just because the unborn child is inside of its mother's body doesn't diminish its universal right to life that we uphold in society. We'll deal with this later on in my constructive arguments. 1b. Con also says that 'forcing a woman to give a painful birth that could negatively affect her and her partner is even worse than killing an unborn child in my opinion'. They also give an example of a 15-year-old girl being raped and forced to go through with her pregnancy. Three lines of refutation to this: Con makes the comparative that forcing a woman to give a painful and detrimental birth is worse than killing an unborn child. This claim is completely unproven and subjective. What Pro believes is that all human beings, Regardless of circumstance, Should all have the universal right to life. The woman may have to undergo pain and take care of the child, But at least we would not be violating this child's right to life. Con also argues how women are often put into these situations and how it's unethical to force them to continue (e. G their example of rape). However, This is not a problem with abortion itself, But rather the issues that lead to women seeking an abortion. Unwanted pregnancies and rape cases could be prevented by other measures, But Con's argument does not prove the necessity of having abortion legalized. On that note, By banning abortions we would be shining more light on the issues on the issues of rape, Unintended pregnancies, Etc. , Thereby empowering women rather than putting a temporary stop-gap to their problems. On Pro's side, Society stands to benefit just as much if not more. 2. Con states how 'Everyone should agree that the goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. ' They then state that because of that, No one should prevent people from having access to birth control. Obviously, This is a goal that Pro also supports. We also recognize that yes, Young adults certainly are the most vulnerable group in the debate. However, Understand that making abortion illegal would already be a strong enough deterrent for people to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Having abortion legal would hold these young couples less accountable for their unintended pregnancies because they know that they'd always have a way to undo that. Furthermore, Simply giving these women abortions will not free them from the constraints of their societal situations. If Con does argue that preventing abortions would strain these women financially, How exactly would abortions solve these (often) single mother's situations? The only way government could truly help these women get a better life is by providing them with the tools to liberate them financially. Constructive arguments: 1. Abortion is violating the baby's fundamental right to human life. As Wikipedia states: "The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, In particular, Should not be killed by another human being. " (1) There has been scientific debate over what point a fetus can be considered a life. However, If we ignore these stipulations altogether and consider the humanity of a fetus, It is undeniable that that fetus will become a human in the future. They may not be sentient or experience anything at a certain point, But that should not detract from them their universal right to be alive that we value in society today. The extent in which we punish violators of this principle, At the extreme, Is demonstrated, For example, By the application of capital punishment in many nations around the world today. It is important to uphold this value in society, Even if it may not be applicable practically. 2. There are many complications with having abortions that cause practical harms, Both physical and mental, To the woman. Some physical complications involved include abdominal pain and cramping, Nausea, Vomiting, Diarrhea, Etc. (2) There can also be much more severe side effects in certain cases. Mental complications include feelings of regret, Anger, Guilt, Shame, Insomnia, Etc. (3) Ultimately these feelings could culminate in depression and anxiety for these women, Putting their lives at stake. Pro does not believe that placing these undue burdens on women is moral or practical in any case, Even if Con contends our first point. Although abortion may seem appealing or necessary to some at first, The fact is that these spur-of-the-moment decisions may not reflect what they actually want. When you look at the burden that these women have to deal with following an abortion, It is clear that abortion can't simply be justified just because Con thinks it will help all women in society. 3. Abortion empowers women to pursue social justice for their gender. In my refutation, I've already touched on this idea, But I'll expand on the impacts for these women, And society in general. The problem with abortion is that while many argue it's protecting women's rights, It is in fact just putting a wool blanket over the real issues in American society today. On the other hand, By making abortion illegal, We would be shining a light on many issues surrounding women, Such as rape, Unwanted pregnancies, Abusive relationships, Financial difficulties (as I've stated earlier). To extend, By having an abortion as an option, We are vindicating many men from their irresponsible sexual activity and allowing them to continue exploiting women in many cases. They think that they are able to get away with their actions because they can avoid accountability often just by using that abortion option. This is counterintuitive to the feminist principle that I think Con is trying to uphold here. The impact resulting from these two premises is we overall get a more socially just society that promotes feminism on a broader scale than the status quo, As we are able to raise more awareness about issues that actually matter. Thus far in the debate, Pro is the only one that provides detailed analysis to how abortion is principally unjust in violating the right to life, And how it will harm women and society, Impeding the feminist movement. I look forward to Con's response. (1) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Right_to_life (2) https://americanpregnancy. Org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-side-effects/ (3) https://americanpregnancy. Org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-emotional-effects/

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-abortion-be-illegal/37/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.06

    universal: 4.08

    premises: 3.43 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)

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

    should: 4.73

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

    premises: 1.64 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.28)

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

  I will attack one point per argument, respectively. ......

  Show full argument

  Flag Desecration should always be legal

  I would never burn a flag. I feel like it is completely disrespectful and immoral. If you want to burn a flag, I would respect you that much less. If I saw you burn a flag before you interview for a job with me, your chances of getting the job are very slim. However, should the government outlaw flag desecration, I don't care if you were the president, you are not getting that job! There are three points here that I think are central to my stance. They are the first amendment, Morality v. Legality (Oppression), and the overall ludicrousness of it all. I will attack one point per argument, respectively. This argument I will be discussing the first amendment. The first amendment gives us basic rights, citing specifically the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. I generally consider it to be my favorite amendment, even though it means we can't outlaw Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I like it because it is the basis of basic personal freedoms (say that ten times fast). It means we are constantly censored (in theory). Tell that to the FCC and they'll find you some loophole, but the theory is the same. It keeps the government out of your personal life. If Rick Warren wants me to go to church every Sunday morning and then kick me out when I drop the F bomb and then doesn't publish my complaint in the church newspaper because we assembled and petitioned to kick him out, so be it. If it's Barack Obama doing that, it's illegal. Burning a flag is a form of speech. It is illegal for it to be illegal. Pure and simple. Go ahead and tell me that it isn't speech. Much like songs and American Sign Language, censor it freely. I'm sure my deaf friend Betsy would be absolutely giddy to learn that she can no longer sign anything that insults the government. I'm looking forward to your response (as long as it doesn't insult the government, of course)!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Flag-Desecration-should-always-be-legal/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.05

    universal: 0.37

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

    sum: 4.74 (product 4.38, product 0.36)

    sum: 2.14 (product 0.90, product 1.14, product 0.10)

    basic: 4.74

    premises: 4.38 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.27)

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

    should: 3.95

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

    premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)

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

  Massachusetts now has the most expensive Health Care...

  Show full argument

  The 2010 Health Care Reform Should be Repealed

  In March 2010, Barack Obama passed Health Care Reform Legislation. This legislation has generated substantial controversy. I argue that Health Care Reform should be repealed in its entirety. The Bill represents a massive expansion of government into a sector that has already been severely distorted by government policies. It includes hundreds of new regulations, massive tax increases, and a huge increase in debt. On top of all that, this bill will lead to rationing and wait times like they have in other Universal Health Care Systems abroad in countries like Canada and in American states like Massachusetts. The Canadian system has to deal with chronic waiting times and weak quality. In Massachusetts, where a form of Universal Health Care was implemented, people have to wait almost twice as long for care as they do in other states while prices have had massive increases. Massachusetts now has the most expensive Health Care System in the Country. The 2010 Health Care Legislation included a massive expansion of Medicaid, a program that is very unsuccessful. Numerous studies find that Medicaid has a negligible effect on its recipient's health. This is largely due to the fact that Medicaid patients have to wait long periods of time for care, because most doctors don't take Medicaid Patients due to low reimbursements and innefficiency. It also includes an employer mandate, which will simply worsen the problem our Health Care System already has: People don't pay for their own Health Care. We need to move towards a more consumer driven system for Health Care that will drive down costs and improve quality. This has happened with Lasik Surgery and Cosmetic Surgery where prices have fallen and quality has improved. Both of these services are not covered by insurance, meaning patients pay for their own Health Care. This gives consumers an incentive to shop for lower prices and more quality. This debate is not just about the 2010 Health Care Reform. This is also about Single Payer Health Care Systems, and whether or not they have succeeded (I argue that Single Payer is a failure). Advocates of Single Payer or Socialized Medicine are welcome to this debate as well, even if they oppose the 2010 Health Care Reform. This debate is about broader Health Care Policy. I personally advocate moving towards a more consumer driven system, that will be included in this debate as well.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-2010-Health-Care-Reform-Should-be-Repealed/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.04

    universal: 5.42

    premises: 4.77 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.15)

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

    should: 3.45

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

    premises: 0.99 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.87)
• PRO

  With more capital, there is more room for reform. ......

  Show full argument

  The Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

  a. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is famously summarized as "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." A crime is a violation of social law, of the society in which the person observes. By committing a murder or another heinous crime, the criminal universalized his action, and thus they lose the right to be members of the society and need to be punished. Kant has two conceptions of crime; private and a social crime. A private crime is like deceiving a person to gain personal goods, while a social crime is like theft or murder. The difference is that social crimes affects society, while private crimes affect a person; though the severity of both are not different. However, for social crimes it is up to society, to government, that this be punished." There are some huge flaws in Kant's philosophy. Kant's categorical imperative states that people should obey the maxims and that this applies to everything. The problem with Kant's deontological philosophy is that it puts all emphasis on actions and not consequences. Meaning, every wrong action is unjustified, no matter what the effect. For example, one of Kant's maxims is that lying is always wrong. Even lying to preserve the well-being of others is unethical, regardless. Also, following the same logic, being the victim of rape is wrong. You are engaging in a morally wrong action. Therefore, you are immoral, you must be ostracized from society. Yes, I agree that a murderer should be deprived of the liberty to be a part of society, but this can be done with life without parole. Most certainly, killers should be punished for their actions, but the death penalty is not the best option. "The main point of death penalty however, should lie in moral absolutism: this is the foundation of human rights. If we were to punish people based on societal benefit, then this could justify punishing innocent people if doing such will benefit society." First off, let's not commit the straw man fallacy. I am not saying that the death penalty should be abolished based solely on societal benefit. My points are as follows: The state, by implementing capital punishment, lowers its standard to the mentality of the killer. In an infallible system, such an irreversible punishment should not be instated. The death penalty is illogical. The cost of the death penalty is exorbitant, while life without parole is much cheaper. The death penalty is not a deterrent. Secondly, your point about societal benefit is completely moot. I argue that the death penalty should be superseded with life without parole because the cons of capital punishment outweigh the pros. "By most accounts this is valid, but do remember the notion of retributive justice; the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. The corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right to humans; life no matter how bad is more preferable to death (Kant explains this by illustrating the example of suicide). By violating this right, your own right is discarded." If the corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty, then, following the same logic, the punishment for rape should be rape. By the same token, the punishment for arson should be ignition of the arsonist's property. I do not agree that by violating this right, your right to life should be discarded. I argue that by violating this right, your individual rights should be discarded. Theses include the rights to property, the right to liberty, and the right to be a part of society. "d. A system of laws that fails to punish criminals is weak, and since laws are what create a society, the society in turn is weak. This is why punishment must be dealt out; it would undermine the moral values to not otherwise." The system does fail to punish its criminal when condemning murderers to life without parole. Capital punishment is a primitive issue and should be eradicated, so we can progress as a nation. Over 130 countries, as of 2007, have already abolished capital punishment. None of the the western European countries utilize it. Most of these countries are not weak and continue to prosper. How do you define weak? Japan has instated capital punishment and is militarily weak. North Korea has instated capital punishment and is economically weak. "a. Prisoners can and often do kill others in the prison system." With more capital, there is more room for reform. Like I've already stated, the extra funds should be used to fortify prisons and improve conditions. That is why the economic factor is significant in my argument. "b. 70% of criminals released from prison in California come return to the prison for another offense. [1]" I'm sorry, I can not find the source you are referring to... This is a very broad statement. To what does this apply? I am assuming that you mean that, even with life without parole, murderers will be released after 30 or 40 years and commit more crimes? Anyway, life without possibility of parole is just as permanent as the death penalty. "c. When dealing with the DP, extra measures should be taken to ensure accurate rulings." I agree, if the death penalty is to be implemented AT ALL, extra measures SHOULD be taken to ensure accurate rulings. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. Some have advantages over others. Usually, the prosecution's resources are almost limitless. Juries have biases. "-I can't see where my opponent is getting at. This point is valid; murders will almost always be murders. Statistics show that released or escaped murders to kill more, and with he advent of the death penalty, this can be solved. YET again, I do want to stress the importance of my first argument; from Kantian ethics. Social benefit is never part of the case." Following the same logic, we could execute everyone in the United States, everyone with the capacity to kill, so murderers are deterred. This is why, even though it is based completely on technicalities, you point is moot. "Right to life is a fundamental liberty of all humans. To break it is to jeopardize your own." No, to break it jeopardizes your own individual rights: right to be among society, liberty, right to property. "Rape can be consolidated in other terms." That is why the death penalty is illogical. "Unjust usage of the law does not undermine the death penalties principles. You have failed to show how increasing court appointed attorney's salaries is difficult, and how the law being fallible is relevant to the death penalty's validity. Just because we don't have a perfect or a more ideal system of laws does not mean the DP should not be instated. As it stands right now, it is morally correct." Uh...yes it does. In areas where crime is abundant, it is costly to hire adequate attorneys and to invest adequate funds in individual cases. For that reason, courts appoint attorneys that are ill-trained. In addition, sometimes an attorney is paid less than the minimum wage. Thus, an attorney is unmotivated to devote the 700-1000 hours to a case that are necessary. Also, in adequate funds are authorized for investigation, etc. I'm just regurgitating info I already stated. With such a fallible system, the death penalty should not be instated because it is irreversible. With life without parole, accused murderers can be proved innocent (during the duration of their lives) and not unjustly executed. It is morally wrong because it causes us to lower our standards to the mentality of the murderer, etc. THEREFORE, THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. Thanks, Sam, for the great debate!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Death-Penalty-Should-be-Abolished./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.03

    universal: 2.12

    premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.59 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.24)

    basic: 1.59

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)

    should: 5.32

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

    premises: 2.22 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.74)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.08)
• PRO

  You"d think that many mothers in Alyce"s position would...

  Show full argument

  Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government

  Barack Obama, JD, US President, US Senator (D-IL) and presidential candidate at the time of the quotation, stated during the Oct. 7, 2008 presidential debate in Nashville, TN, moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC News: "I think it [health care] should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.""The hour has arrived to begin anew the Civil Rights Movement, this time for Health Care for All... The Preamble to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution both describe an originating purpose of our United States: to promote the general welfare. Health care is a legitimate function of our government. Health care is a basic right in a Democratic society. It is no more a privilege based on ability to pay than is the right to vote, which was once accorded only to property owners." Edward M. Kennedy, LLB, late US Senator (D-MA), stated in his July 18, 2009 article "'The Cause of My Life'" published in Newsweek magazine: "[Q]uality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face... This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver... to make sure, as I said, 'that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American"will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege'... [I]t goes to the heart of my belief in a just society..." The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the official organization of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States, wrote in its June 18, 1993 resolution titled "A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform": "Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.' Health care is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, an essential safeguard of human life and dignity. We believe our people's health care should not depend on where they work, how much their parents earn, or where they live. Our constant teaching that each human life must be protected and human dignity promoted leads us to insist that all people have a right to health care." Let me start by telling the story of Deamonte Driver. Deamonte lived on the wrong side of the tracks, in Prince George"s County, Maryland, outside of Washington, D.C. He was raised by a single mother. He spent his childhood in and out of homeless shelters. He was a black kid on welfare. The Apothecary Insights into health care and entitlement reform. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Avik RoyAvik Roy, Forbes Staff Yale University - Davenport College Facade - N... Facade of Davenport College, Yale University. (Photo credit: Adam Jones, Ph.D. - Global Photo Archive) Many moons ago, I served a term as chairman of the Conservative Party of the Yale Political Union, a parliamentary debating society The reason I"m here is to explain to the members of this website why health care is, indeed, a right. Let me start by telling the story of Deamonte Driver. Deamonte lived on the wrong side of the tracks, in Prince George"s County, Maryland, outside of Washington, D.C. He was raised by a single mother. He spent his childhood in and out of homeless shelters. He was a black kid on welfare. Deamonte died at age twelve. But Deamonte died, not in a drive-by shooting, or in a drug deal gone bad. Deamonte died of a toothache. In January 2007, Deamonte told his mother, Alyce, that he had a headache. She took him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a severe dental abscess and given some medication. But the next day, his condition worsened. It turned out that the infection from his tooth had spread to his brain. He was taken to the hospital again and underwent emergency surgery. After a second surgery, he got better for a while, but then began to have seizures. Several weeks later, Deamonte was dead. Of course, that was in the old, barbaric America, the one before the enactment of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After that law is fully implemented, nearly every American will have health insurance, and stories like Deamonte"s will be a thing of the past. Except that Deamonte Driver died not because he was uninsured. Indeed, Deamonte Driver died because he was insured"by the government. Deamonte, it turns out, was on Medicaid, America"s government-run health care program for the poor. Although Deamonte was insured, he never received routine dental care. It turns out that only 16 percent of Maryland dentists accept Medicaid patients. Fewer than one-sixth of Maryland kids on Medicaid have ever had a cavity filled. Deamonte"s younger brother, DaShawn, had six rotted teeth, but it took dozens of calls before DaShawn could find one dentist who would see him. When the dentist concluded that DaShawn"s teeth were beyond repair, and required extraction, it took another several months to find an oral surgeon who would see him.The reason why so few doctors accept Medicaid insurance is that Medicaid, in many states, pays doctors far less than it costs those doctors to care for Medicaid patients. Here in Connecticut, Medicaid pays 63 cents for every dollar that a private insurer pays a doctor to treat someone. In New Jersey, Medicaid pays only 33 cents. In New York and Rhode Island, it"s 29 cents. Doctors here face the impossible choice of treating these indigent patients, and bankrupting their practices, or not treating them at all. You"d think that many mothers in Alyce"s position would find a way around this problem, that she could offer to supplement Medicaid"s penurious fees in order to gain access to a better dentist for her two sons. But that would be illegal. For those enrolled in government-run health insurance, it is illegal to try to gain better access to doctors and dentists by offering to make up the difference between what health care costs, and what the government pays. That basic right"the right of a woman and her doctor to freely exchange money for a needed medical service"is one that 90 million Americans have been denied by their government. Forcible enrollment in government health care Let me tell another story, the story of Brian Hall, of Catlett, Virginia. Brian is a 69-year-old retiree. Brian did what we"d want all retirees to do: he saved for his own health care. Brian"s office job allowed him to stay on private insurance after he retired. Brian"s health coverage included a high-deductible insurance plan that would take care of him if he got hit by a bus, or fell down the stairs, or suffered from a stroke. It also included a health savings account, to which Brian made annual deposits of about $4,000 a year. Brian collected interest on that savings account, and could use those savings to pay for routine health expenses. Unlike Deamonte Driver, Brian could use his health savings account to gain access to just about any doctor he wanted, because he was paying cash. There was only one condition: Brian could only continue to use his health savings account, and his high-deductible insurance coverage, if he did not enroll in Medicare. Brian was okay with that. He had saved enough over the course of his life that he preferred the plan he was on, rather than a Medicare program that was increasingly facing the same problems as Medicaid. But on January 3, 2009, when Brian turned 65, he received a phone call from the Social Security Administration, informing him that he had no choice but to enroll in Medicare, and that he could not withdraw from the program. If Brian insisted on withdrawing from Medicare, the agent told him, he would forfeit his right to his monthly Social Security benefit, a benefit that he had paid for with every paycheck he"d ever received. Now, think about that for a moment. Brian Hall is telling the government that he doesn"t want to take advantage of a government program. He"s saying, "take this taxpayer money and spend it on someone else. I"m happy to continue to pay into my private insurance plan and my private health savings account instead." And the government responds by telling him that he has no choice but to enroll in Medicare and shut down his health savings account. If he doesn"t do what the government has told him to do, the Social Security Administration will confiscate his pension, even though his pension has no financial connection to the Medicare program. Brian did something that Alyce Driver couldn"t afford to do. He sued. In court, Brian argued that forced participation in Medicare violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. But Hall lost the case, in district court. He appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where he lost again, in a 2 to 1 decision. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. But the Supremes, in their infinite wisdom, refused to hear the case. "We understand plantiffs" frustration," wrote the majority in the Court of Appeals opinion. But "plaintiffs" position is inconsistent with the statutory text." In other words, that basic right"the right of a retiree to turn down a federal program, and pay for the health insurance plan of his choice, is one that every retired American has been denied by his government. Infringing the rights of young people It"s not just the poor and the elderly whose rights to health care have been infringed by the government. It"s also the young. The Affordable Care Act contains a provision called "community rating." It requires that insurers charge their costliest customers a maximum of three times what they charge their least-costly customers. The problem is this: the average 64-year-old consumes about six times as much health care as the average 18-year-old. So the economic consequence of community rating, in the vast majority of U.S. states, is that many young people will see their premiums rise by more than 100 percent, so that some older individuals will enjoy modest discounts of 10 percent on their premiums. This provision was added to Obamacare at the behest of the AARP, the famous seniors" lobby. Our new health law cuts Medicare by $716 billion over the next ten years, and Democrats needed AARP"s support in order to pass the bill. So they added community rating: in effect, a massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old. And here"s the kicker: thanks to Obamacare"s individual mandate, young people are no longer allowed to opt out of the system. They must pay these drastically inflated rates for health insurance, even if they never go to the doctor. The average 20-year-old consumes about $700 a year in health care, but will be forced to pay $4,000 a year, or more, for health insurance. You see, health care is a right, in the same way that liberty is a right. And that liberty"to freely seek the care we need, to pay for it in a way that is mutually convenient for us and our doctors, is one that our government is gradually taking out of our hands. Positive rights vs. negative rights Now, I"m not going to drone on tonight about Locke and Bastiat and Nozick and Rawls, but I do want to address the difference between negative rights and positive rights. I know that those on the left side of this House do not necessarily accept that there is a meaningful difference between negative and positive rights. So let"s talk about the progressive conception that we all have a positive right to health care, care largely paid for by other people. It"s a great applause line, isn"t it, to say that "health care is a universal human right." But after the applause has died down, we"re left with the question that the left rarely takes time to answer: what is health care? Let"s say there"s a new treatment for terminal prostate cancer, one that extends your life, on average, by two months. The treatment costs one million dollars per patient. Does every American have a right to that treatment? Is two months of life worth a million dollars? What if I smoke two packs a day, and I come down with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a costly chronic condition. Do I have a right to the money of other people, in order to care for a disease that I, in all likelihood, brought upon myself? A progressive might respond that we need to provide basic health care to everyone, so that no one is left dying on the street after getting hit by a bus. But we already provide "free" emergency care to every American. So what else counts as basic health care? Is Viagra health care? Is all health care a right, or just some? And who decides? These are the questions that no applause line can adequately answer. In Great Britain, the moral logic of the progressive right to health care is carried to its conclusion. In Britain, a bureaucracy called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE, has determined that a new treatment that extends life by something called a "quality-adjusted life year" is only worth paying for if it costs less than "20-30,000, or about $30-$45,000. This formula leads NICE to make, from time to time, some interesting decisions. In 2005, Genentech, the pioneering biotechnology company, announced impressive clinical trial results for a new drug called Lucentis, that treated the leading cause of blindness in the elderly, a disease called age-related macular degeneration, or AMD. Genentech sought to charge "2,000 a month for Lucentis, amounting to "28,000 for a 14-month course of treatment. NICE, however, thought this too expensive, and decided to only recommend payment for Lucentis if a patient was already blind in one eye. NICE"s logic being that a person who has two eyes, and loses one, is not that badly off; whereas a person who has one eye, and loses that one, is completely blind, and that"s no good. Literally, England has become the land of the blind, in which the one-eyed man is king. The strongest progressive argument But the progressive side has better, stronger arguments that I will make on its behalf. Let"s take the example of a young, pregnant mother, who has just learned that the baby in her womb has Down Syndrome. She is faced with the terrible choice of knowing that if she carries her pregnancy to term, it will cost her a fortune in money, time, and effort to care for her new child. She has every economic incentive to undergo an abortion, even if she doesn"t want one, even if she is pro-life. There are other children born with disease and disability, like cystic fibrosis or juvenile diabetes. Unlike our chronic smoker, who has brought about his own health problems, these children face severe disadvantages in life, through no fault of their own. These children"and the many adults who endure similar misfortune"are worthy of our attention, and our charity. By the classical liberal understanding of negative rights, that mother who bears a child with Down Syndrome has no right to my financial support. But surely, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we can afford to pool our resources to care for those who truly need our help. I, for one, would be glad to pay a portion of my earnings to fund high-quality health care for the truly needy. But that is not what we do in America. We massively subsidize health care for wealthy seniors, through Medicare, and for wealthy workers, through a provision of the tax code called the employer tax exclusion. Those two programs alone cost us over $1 trillion a year, and do much to make American health care absurdly expensive. They also make it much harder to fund health care for the poor and the uninsured, by starving the government of resources it could direct to that purpose. Did you know that in America"this alleged bastion of the free-market"the government spends more per capita on health care than all but three countries in the world? In 2010, U.S. public entities spent $3,967 per person on health care. That"s far more than Germany, Canada, France, Britain, and all of the other countries we conservatives normally think of as socialist dystopias. This point is so compelling that it has become a standard talking point on the left. "Not only would a single-payer system provide health care to everyone," they say, "but it would also reduce the deficit." And they"re right. But what progressives neglect to point out is that, while every developed country in the world other than ours has universal health care, some of those countries achieve universal coverage using market-oriented methods that emphasize personal choice and responsibility. Singapore spends one-seventh of what we spend on health care, and one-quarter of what Europeans do. And yet Singapore has managed to cover everyone, with health outcomes that are as good or better than the rest of the world. They"ve done it through a system of universal health savings accounts, in which every Singaporean saves for his own routine health expenses, while gaining insurance coverage for catastrophic events. Now, Singapore"s political system is hardly the model of freedom. But its health care system teaches us much about how affordable it can be to provide health care to everyone, if we do it the right way. We would be running massive surpluses, instead of deficits, if we had a health-care system like Singapore"s. So, let me leave the House with this thought. Some of us believe that health care is a negative right: that it"s the government"s obligation to maximize the degree to which we have freedom to seek the health care of our choosing. On the other hand, some of us believe that health care is a positive right: that the government has every prerogative to appropriate our income, for the purpose of providing some sort of health care to everyone. The progressive conception of health care as a positive right misses something important: that we could provide better, and more affordable, coverage for everyone if we understood the degree to which classical liberal principles, like choice and competition and voluntarism, can achieve a superior form of universal health care. The libertarian conception of health care as a negative right, however, also misses something important: the degree to which it is a worthy thing for us to pool our resources in order to support those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves with disability or disease. As two commentators recently put it, "equality of opportunity is not a natural state; it is a social achievement, for which government shares some responsibility. The proper reaction to egalitarianism is not indifference. It is the promotion of a fluid society in which aspiration is honored and rewarded." A child with Down Syndrome may not have the right to my money. But we are a better community, and a better country, if we give it to him anyway.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Health-care-is-a-right-and-thus-a-service-that-should-be-provided-by-a-government/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.02

    universal: 3.56

    premises: 2.64 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.64)

    sourceText: 0.92 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.92)

    basic: 3.03

    premises: 2.49 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.72)

    sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.70)

    should: 2.44

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

    premises: 0.39 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.31)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.84)