2 sources
Pro vs. con view
434 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Human life is not possible without any one of these...

    Universal human nature

    Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.  

  • PRO

    Medical Malpractice and Universal Health Care". ... What...

    Universal health care creates a universal standard of care

    Nathan Newman. "Medical Malpractice and Universal Health Care". Progressive Populist. October 01, 2002 - "The other advantage of "Medical Malpractice and Universal Health Care". Progressive Populist. October 01, 2002 - "The other advantage of universal health care is that it creates a clear standard of care. What government pays for becomes the reasonable standard of care, a standard that can be debated democratically at appropriations time for the health care budget rather than haggled for erratically in the courts."

  • PRO

    Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we...

    The moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity, which the Geneva Convention embodies, must be retained

    Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity. There are certain acts, such as torture, to which no individual should be subjected, regardless of their own behaviour. The Geneva Convention is about universal respect for human dignity (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949), not merely for those who show it in return. Civilised nations can and should be expected to act in a humane manner, regardless of the barbarity of their adversaries. Only by acting in such a manner can states prove the superiority of their own humanity.

  • PRO

    In 1998 the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and...

    Labour standards are necessary to protect basic human rights

    Labour and business standards are a cornerstone of agreement on universal human rights between various international actors and so it is right that they should be linked to aid. In 1998 the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work were adopted and are considered binding on all members regardless of whether they have ratified the conventions.[1] The business and labour regulations protect the basic worker rights and improve job security through demanding the elimination of discrimination and empower workers through the recognition of “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining”[2] like in those in developed western countries. This then provides a minimum standard and aid should only be given to those that ensure those minimum standards they have signed up. It would also help compliance to prioritise those who go further in their protections of labour when it comes to receiving aid. It should be remembered that there has been general acceptance of international labour standards not just for human rights reasons but also because having minimum standards is beneficial economically – for example a 40 hour working week is more productive per hour than a 60 hour week.[3] [1] the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ‘About the Declaration’, International Labour Organisation, http://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/lang--en/index.htm [2] ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, Adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Eighty-sixth Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998 (Annex revised 15 June 2010), http://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--en/index.htm [3] Robinson, Sara, ‘Bring back the 40-hour work week’, Salon, 14 March 2012, http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/

  • PRO

    The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial...

    Universal Jurisdiction was never a legal principle

    Henry Kissinger. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tryanny". Foreign Affairs. Aug. 2001 - "The doctrine of "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tryanny". Foreign Affairs. Aug. 2001 - "The doctrine of universal jurisdiction asserts that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators should not escape justice by invoking doctrines of sovereign immunity or the sacrosanct nature of national frontiers [...] The very concept of universal jurisdiction is of recent vintage. [...] It is unlikely that any of the signatories of either the U.N. conventions or the Helsinki Final Act thought it possible that national judges would use them as a basis for extradition requests regarding alleged crimes committed outside their jurisdictions. The drafters almost certainly believed that they were stating general principles, not laws that would be enforced by national courts."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_International_Criminal_Court
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.17
      universal: 17.24
      conclusion: 8.87 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 7.44 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 0.93 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.95)
      should: 1.76
      premises: 1.67 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.87)
  • PRO

    With estimates that the cost of this investment might...

    Universal healthcare is not affordable

    No policy is created, debated or implemented in a vacuum. The backdrop of implementing universal health coverage now is, unfortunately, the greatest economic downturn of the last 80 years. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the recession to be over, we are not out of the woods yet.[1] Is it really the time to be considering a costly investment? With estimates that the cost of this investment might reach 1.5 trillion dollars in the next decade, the answer is a resounding no. Even the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – a left leaning think tank – opined that the Congress could not come up with the necessary funding to go ahead with the health reform without introducing some very unpopular policies.[2] Does this mean universal health care should be introduced at one time in the future? Not likely. Given that there are no realistic policies in place to substantially reduce the “riot inducing” US public debt[3] and the trend of always increasing health care costs[4] the time when introducing With estimates that the cost of this investment might reach 1.5 trillion dollars in the next decade, the answer is a resounding no. Even the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – a left leaning think tank – opined that the Congress could not come up with the necessary funding to go ahead with the health reform without introducing some very unpopular policies.[2] Does this mean universal health care should be introduced at one time in the future? Not likely. Given that there are no realistic policies in place to substantially reduce the “riot inducing” US public debt[3] and the trend of always increasing health care costs[4] the time when introducing universal health care affordably and responsibly will seem ever further away. [1] New York Times, Recession, published 9/20/2010, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/recession_and_depression/index.html, accessed 9/18/2011 [2] New York Times, Paying for Universal Health Coverage, published 6/6/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07sun1.html, accessed 9/18/2011 [3] Taylor, K., Bloomberg, on Radio, Raises Specter of Riots by Jobless, published 9/16/2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/nyregion/mayor-bloomberg-invokes-a-concern-of-riots-on-radio.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=public%20debt&st=cse, accessed 9/18/2011 [4] Gawande, A., The cost conondrum, published 6/1/2009,  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande, accessed 9/18/2011

  • PRO

    France’s system of single-payer health coverage goes like...

    Universal healthcare systems are inefficient

    One of the countries lauded for its universal health care is France. So what has the introduction of universal coverage brought the French? Costs and waiting lists. France’s system of single-payer health coverage goes like this: the taxpayers fund a state insurer called Assurance Maladie, so that even patients who cannot afford treatment can get it. Now although, at face value, France spends less on healthcare and achieves better public health metrics (such as infant mortality), it has a big problem. The state insurer has been deep in debt since 1989, which has now reached 15 billion euros.[1] Another major problem with universal health care efficiency is waiting lists. In 2006 in Britain it was reported that almost a million Britons were waiting for admission to hospitals for procedures. In Sweden the lists for heart surgery are 25 weeks long and hip replacements take a year. Very telling is a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court, another champion of universal health care: “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”.[2] Now although, at face value, France spends less on healthcare and achieves better public health metrics (such as infant mortality), it has a big problem. The state insurer has been deep in debt since 1989, which has now reached 15 billion euros.[1] Another major problem with universal health care efficiency is waiting lists. In 2006 in Britain it was reported that almost a million Britons were waiting for admission to hospitals for procedures. In Sweden the lists for heart surgery are 25 weeks long and hip replacements take a year. Very telling is a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court, another champion of universal health care: “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”.[2] Universal health coverage does sound nice in theory, but the dual cancers of costs and waiting lists make it a subpar option when looking for a solution to offer Americans efficient, affordable and accessible health care. [1] Gauthier-Villars, D., France Fights Universal Care's High Cost, published 8/7/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Tanner, M., Cannon, M., Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets, published 4/5/2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2681638.story, accessed 9/18/2011

  • PRO

    If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must...

    Universal rights and collective compromises

    Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultures and cultural beliefs are of equal value and that right and wrong are relative and dependant on cultural contexts. Accordingly, relativists hold that universal human rights cannot exist, as there are no truly universal human values. If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must also be relative. If we accept proposition’s contention that culturally relative values can evolve in response to conflicts and crises, then any perverse or destructive behaviour given the force of ritual and regularity by a group’s conduct can be taken to be relative. If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days. Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days. Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the universal human rights doctrine are fragmentary, not collective. While a handful of communities in Yemen may object to a ban on the use of child soldiers, many more throughout the world would find this a sensible and morally valuable principle. It is necessary for both the international community and individual nation states to adjust their laws to reconcile the competing demands of plural value systems. Occasionally, a value common among a majority of cultures must overrule the objections of the minority. It is perverse to give charismatic leaders who convince impoverished communities to send their sons and daughters into combat an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Officers, politicians or dissident commanders are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. The commanders of child soldiers are the only class of individuals who should fear the ICC.

  • PRO

    For example, a society which guarantees the security of...

    Universal benefits of human rights

    All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there.[1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852.[2] [1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997 [2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995

CON