Any source
Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    But to someone who doesn't know what numbers or addition...

    Universal Truth/Morality

    Here's what this debate comes down to: you are confused on the distinction between what we THINK is true and what is actually true. This quote from you is particularly telling: "To most of us, one plus one equals two. But to someone who doesn't know what numbers or addition is, they don't agree. In their minds, it is correct, and, for them that is true." essentially, you are just denying that anyone can ever be wrong. Empirically, this seems false and it goes back to my first point in round 1. You do not actually believe this because you are debating with me over what's true. If you bought your own argument you should just say "the universality of truth is true for you, but it's not true for me". Look, it's built into the concepts of 1, 2 and addition that 1+1=2. If you disagree, you have not understood the concepts. A priori knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) works this way, the fact that some people disagree is no argument against it. In fact, even if everyone agree, it would not change the truth of the statement. You are working off of a definition of truth that is inextricable from public opinion -- this definition does not work. The Truman show example is also a poor one. When Truman thought his family really loved him, he was wrong -- no two ways about it. Now, your point is that I could be wrong in all of my assumptions and I grant this point, but the actual truth of the matter is independent of my beliefs and is But to someone who doesn't know what numbers or addition is, they don't agree. In their minds, it is correct, and, for them that is true." essentially, you are just denying that anyone can ever be wrong. Empirically, this seems false and it goes back to my first point in round 1. You do not actually believe this because you are debating with me over what's true. If you bought your own argument you should just say "the universality of truth is true for you, but it's not true for me". Look, it's built into the concepts of 1, 2 and addition that 1+1=2. If you disagree, you have not understood the concepts. A priori knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) works this way, the fact that some people disagree is no argument against it. In fact, even if everyone agree, it would not change the truth of the statement. You are working off of a definition of truth that is inextricable from public opinion -- this definition does not work. The Truman show example is also a poor one. When Truman thought his family really loved him, he was wrong -- no two ways about it. Now, your point is that I could be wrong in all of my assumptions and I grant this point, but the actual truth of the matter is independent of my beliefs and is universal. Our ability to approach it, however, may not be. In fact, "I think therefore I am" is a good example of a statement that is true for everyone if you have understood the concepts of the syllogism. This also links into the morality debate. Solarman's disagreement that the holocaust was wrong has absolutely no effect on its wrongness. Morality is universal, some people are just wrong.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Truth-Morality/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.54
      universal: 16.02
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.26 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.97 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.04)
      should: 1.21
      premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.07 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.54)
  • PRO

    I could possibly consider going along with this, but I...

    Universal healthcare

    I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess. So you propose that we lower the bar for licensing, protect doctors more from lawsuits, and decrease gov't regulation to lower costs. I could possibly consider going along with this, but I don't know if the rest of the country would - an interesting subject for new debate. I see now what Republicans mean by "destroying the best healthcare system in the world". Kind of like that flashy german car you were talking about, they don't want to see the changes you are proposing take effect. Possibly, the changes you are proposing WOULD take effect if we did switch over to a socialized medical system. They would be forced to. Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system? The best one in the world, that's so good that more and more people can't even afford to use it? So how do we pay for the obvious rises in health care costs that would be accrued to actually take care of the physical health of our citizens? I would hope that anyone would put I could possibly consider going along with this, but I don't know if the rest of the country would - an interesting subject for new debate. I see now what Republicans mean by "destroying the best healthcare system in the world". Kind of like that flashy german car you were talking about, they don't want to see the changes you are proposing take effect. Possibly, the changes you are proposing WOULD take effect if we did switch over to a socialized medical system. They would be forced to. Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system? The best one in the world, that's so good that more and more people can't even afford to use it? So how do we pay for the obvious rises in health care costs that would be accrued to actually take care of the physical health of our citizens? I would hope that anyone would put Possibly, the changes you are proposing WOULD take effect if we did switch over to a socialized medical system. They would be forced to. Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system? The best one in the world, that's so good that more and more people can't even afford to use it? So how do we pay for the obvious rises in health care costs that would be accrued to actually take care of the physical health of our citizens? I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about? Or wait, I've got an even better idea! You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens! Let's see here... 50 Billion dollars per year for the war on drugs... The WoD doesn't due a scrap of good for anyone, and the money we spend on imprisoning all the non-violent drug offenders will save us even more! Let's see here, it costs as much as a harvard college education per year to keep each drug offender in prison. We have more people in jail, percentage-wise and absolute number-wise than any other country, so we probably have a few people to spare. - 249,400 drug offenders in federal prisons(2006) - 93,751 drug offenders in state prisons(2006) - $19,002 per year for each one - It costs over 6 and a half billion dollars to keep drug offenders in prisons each year, and this does not take into account jails at all. The war on terror, which also isn't doing anybody any good, costs 260 billion per year. With 317 Billion dollars of extra revenue each year, we ought to be able to keep our health care system working just fine. And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically! While you're considering answering the questions I posed to you in round 2, consider 1 more question as well: What are the wacky liberal policies you would rather get rid of to pay for a better health care system?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-healthcare/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.52
      universal: 14.74
      conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.89 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.87)
      basic: 2.69
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.44 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.39)
  • PRO

    Essentially, there is simply too much moral variance in...

    There is no universal moral standard.

    This is my first created debate at this website, so please bear with me as I experiment. I apologize for my possible miscategorization. At first blush, the most common arguments for moral absolutism will be from a theistic standpoint, but I address the biological con as well. This is a debate that I will be performing very soon in public, and wanted to test drive it here! This particular debate boils down to the universality of a moral code amongst members of the human race. For the purposes of debate, my position is that all moral conceptions are relative, hence established by cultural/geographical/etc. schema, rather than via a priori knowledge or knowledge otherwise transmitted by a deity, whichever you will. Since I'm not sure how much detail goes into my initial post, I will simplify my answer for the purposes of beginning a debate and refine my position as needed. Essentially, there is simply too much moral variance in the world to believe that a supreme being has instilled in us, via a priori methods, divination, holy communication, etc., any sort of universally right or wrong moral code. The issue of the death penalty is a very illustrative example. Though most first world countries have eliminated capital punishment from the punitive menu, and though Western religions clearly forbid murder (the commandments are often cited as a Essentially, there is simply too much moral variance in the world to believe that a supreme being has instilled in us, via a priori methods, divination, holy communication, etc., any sort of universally right or wrong moral code. The issue of the death penalty is a very illustrative example. Though most first world countries have eliminated capital punishment from the punitive menu, and though Western religions clearly forbid murder (the commandments are often cited as a universal code of ethics), the United States, to the chagrin of the first world, still allows murder by the state in exchange for extreme criminal activity. I will even go so far as to say that moral universalism based on human biology is also flawed. Though I have a decent fundamental knowledge of genetic histories of human beings and especially of our behavioral and genetic tendencies to being social, evolution clearly negates the possibility of a universal moral code. After all, societies routinely incorporate what some of us would call "morally objectionable" actions into their daily lives, and they still exist and thrive. Again, murder becomes my example of choice, specifically in the context of warring tribes & other, more rural societies. Warring tribes in sub-Saharan Africa conflicted naturally and "normally" for centuries prior to Western invasion. Those tribes thrived via their "uncivilized" and often "barbaric" conflict codes. It was not until their value and societal systems were crushed and supplanted with Western systems that they were devastated. In fact, it could be said that attempting to promote, or especially enforce, a universal moral code actually leads to more violations of human rights and human dignity than leaving a culture to its own devices. The fact that countries are even able to hegemonically spread their cultural belief systems negates the existence of a universal moral code. Have at me! :D

  • PRO

    My only question i this: "Why shouldn't the U.S. have a...

    The U.S. should have Universal health care

    It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited this round. My only question i this: "Why shouldn't the U.S. have a health care system covers every medical service except prescribed drugs for every man, woman and child, regardless of their financial circumstance or age. Therefore, I conclude that My only question i this: "Why shouldn't the U.S. have a health care system covers every medical service except prescribed drugs for every man, woman and child, regardless of their financial circumstance or age. Therefore, I conclude that Universal Health Care is better that America's current health system and is even the best type of health care system in the world.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-should-have-Universal-health-care/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.34
      universal: 14.50
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.73 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 1.02 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.14)
      should: 2.46
      conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.89)
  • PRO

    Despite the fact that nowhere in our founding documents...

    Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc.

    If universal health care crowd were capable of being a little more consistent, they'd be communists. Despite the fact that nowhere in our founding documents is health care declared a "right," proponents who want to make it a right point to the fact that health care is a human necessity. But there is a huge problem with this argument. If the degree of necessity is the criteria for converting a private service into a public entitlement, why isn't universal food, clothing, water, shelter, transportation, etc. on the agenda? These items are considered much more important than health insurance. This is demonstrated by the fact that so many people without health insurance forgo it voluntarily to make room for their car and even cell phone payments. What gives?

  • PRO

    For example historically slave-owners still desired...

    Universal individual desires

    Certain desires, such as the desire for happiness, are universal to all human beings. Even if they actively deny them to others, every individual works towards the fulfilment of these desires for himself, and recognise that the denial of this fulfilment is harmful to himself. For example historically slave-owners still desired freedom of movement and labour for themselves, even if they denied it to their slaves on the basis of selfish interests. Therefore, because all humans desire happiness for themselves, and also desire the means to this end such as freedom of speech and the freedom to make their own choices, there exists a universal basis of desire for human rights in every individual. The enshrinement of 'fundamental human rights' simply universalizes what every individual acknowledges for himself: that the denial of certain rights is always harmful. This already even has a basis in the 'Golden Rule', to not do what is harmful to yourself to others, which can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition.[1] [1] Blackburn, Simon. “Ethics: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. p.101

  • PRO

    My opponent should sit down with a dictionary and review...

    Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions

    This debate has been full of miscommunication. The first and most obvious case was in the very titling of this debate; my opponent made a mistake by not saying we would be debating the probability of implementation. Then, despite this obvious error, he continued not to listen to me pointing this out, and simply asks why I don't want to debate that. Well, the answer is obvious: we never agreed to debate if a plan COULD be implemented, so why should I have to? But I have spoken on this issue enough already. Just because my opponent can't understand this doesn't mean the people reading this debate won't. Obviously my opponent isn't the only one who made mistakes. I cited the CEA study which was not SPECIFICALLY about Universal Healthcare (although the principles apply). However, my opponent keeps saying that I made a mistake and should not have cited it (which is more or less true), yet still continually points to that study throughout the debate. It should go without saying that this doesn't make much sense. These kinds of logical fallacies have run rampant in this debate, and I think we can both agree that this was not as productive a debate as we hoped. Here I will refute my opponent's final arguments: Most of what I say in the following paragraphs I have already stated, but as my opponent seems to have missed these points, I will restate them here for his benefit. My opponent says that I asked him to argue more about implementing this plan. This is simply not true. In round three I said I would like him to provide evidence as to why Universal Healthcare would be impossible as "he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up." My opponent tried, but his argument of course fell flat. And we have already argued enough about the topic of this debate; it should be obvious to people who is right as soon as they read the title. Not to get too deep into proper word usage, but my opponent seems to think his usage of "should" is justified just because this is a political debate. That just doesn't make sense. Again, you are confusing the words "should" and "could". My opponent should sit down with a dictionary and review his statements (if he refuses to just use common sense) (1). I never said I didn't read my own source; that is preposterous. My opponent really needs to read everything he quotes more carefully. In the quote he provided you can see that I did not say what my opponent thinks. But the fact that my opponent is still bringing up my source from round 2 in the final round should tell you something: my opponent has run out of valid arguments and has sunk to name calling. As for how much Universal Healthcare would slow the growth of healthcare costs (again, my opponent uses the CEA study as a crutch), the obvious answer would be almost 100%. The reason why is because nobody would directly have to pay for their own healthcare anymore. Of course this wouldn't be completely accurate because money would still be relocated from other areas of spending, but insurance would no longer have the leverage to charge nearly as much as they do now. Logically, a 1.5% decrease is easily achievable. And I already admitted that the CEA study shouldn't have been brought into this. That is more proof that my opponent doesn't read my arguments. About my opponent's plan: First of all, my opponent says he doesn't even support his own plan. If this is true, than he shouldn't have provided that plan in the first place, as both of us agree it is a horrible idea! And I have stated why it is worse, many times, in round 4. It is in no way better than Universal Healthcare. Anyone can see why my opponent's plan is bad. To recap, it denies coverage to many people, it forces people to pay extra taxes and get nothing in return, it is full of budgetary problems and couldn't be paid for the way it was outlined, and it is much more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare. I exposed many additional problems with my opponent's plan in Round 4. The fact is that in your plan, you are STILL forcing people to pay taxes for the healthcare for the poor, without getting anything back. And if they opt out, which seems likely, than your plan can't be paid for because there's no money going into it. Note on my opponent's closing statement: I don't want to argue about the implementation of this plan because that's not what we agreed to argue about, not because I can't. Would you want to turn this into a debate about whether or not the tooth fairy is real? Of course not, because that isn't what this debate is supposed to be about. Again, my opponent keeps saying that I have not addressed all of his arguments, but doesn't point out what he wants me to address. I believe I have addressed all of his points, and he is simply trying to distract from the overall debate. If he really wanted me to address specific points, he should clarify which ones. Closing statements: Universal Healthcare would increase the health, happiness, and lifespan of Americans. It would boost our economy, and encourage small businesses with the freedom to choose whatever career you want (without worrying about coverage benefits), helping to get money flowing. Healthcare should ethically be provided for everyone because of how essential it is. Almost every other major western country in the world has provided healthcare for all their citizens. Implementing Universal Healthcare would be very beneficial and have very few or no downsides, as my arguments throughout this debate prove. My opponent has continuously dragged this debate off topic and made false statements, provided little to no evidence, and doesn't even know what we are supposed to debate about. He has said virtually nothing about why implementing Universal Healthcare would be bad, only saying it would be unlikely. Please look at this, and decide for yourself who had the better argument. I look forward to debating my opponent again, and thank you to everyone who read through this. Vote for pro! (1) http://www.dictionary.com...

CON