The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
m.akermanis
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

AIDS sufferers and those at high risk of contracting the disease should be interned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
m.akermanis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,333 times Debate No: 12552
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

As we all know, the HIV virus leads to AIDS, which in turn leads to a slow and painful death, and there is no cure.

This terrible disease was originally called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID) or, informally, the gay plague, because the condition only affected gay men. [1]

However, as time went by and the severity of the disease became apparent, politicians became concerned that the gay community would become stigmatised by their association with the virus and be punished for spreading it, so the alternative name AIDS, standing for Acquired Immune Deficiency, was adopted.

Still, because the primary means of transmitting AIDS remains unprotected sex between men the condition continues to disproportionately affect homosexuals. [2]

Of course, it was only ever a matter of time before AIDS spread to heterosexual population, and this happened primarily through shared needles used to inject drugs, so today heroin addicts are also at high risk of contracting the disease. [3]

Now, while it is true that most people will have no sympathy with drug addicts and promiscuous gay men who contract AIDS, we must remember that the disease is not limited to these groups any longer.

For example, an infected mother can transmit HIV to their unborn child in the womb or to a suckling infant through her breast milk. These children are totally innocent but they are condemned to an early grave before they can even walk.

Clearly, as a society, we cannot allow this disease to proliferate any further and drastic action needs to be taken.

Since there is no cure for AIDS, and there is no prospect of discovering one any time soon, we have no choice but to separate sufferers and the high-risk groups from the rest of society.

I therefore propose that, in addition to existing AIDS sufferers, gay men and heroin addicts should be locked up in high security internment camps where they will be supplied with food, water and coffins via hermetically-sealed hatches in the facilities' walls.

In addition to humanitarian supplies, the inmates will also be provided with spades so they can create landfill sites to dispose of their refuse. They may also use the spades to dig graves for their dead, but, of course, there is also the possibility that some inmates may use them to dig tunnels in a bid for freedom. That's why it will be necessary to mine the area surrounding the camps and have armed guards patrol the perimeters.

I accept that this proposal will not eradicate AIDS completely – the disease could still be transmitted by ex-gays and closet bisexuals who have slipped through the net - but it will go a long way to containing the disease until a cure can be found.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://www.sfaf.org...
[3] http://www.avert.org...
m.akermanis

Con

This is interesting topic and to be honest - unorthodox solution.

I can not oppose your statistics because they seem to be correct, but I had some thoughts about global statistics - yes there is trend in increase in HIV infected people. But around 67% of people living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa so it seems to me idea about concentration camps is not going to be cost effective (maybe trying Nuclear Bombs will do?) [1]

My opposing point is - such encampments will cost a lot of money - there are between 2.3 to 2.5 million Americans incarcerated in prisons [2] and it costs a lot of money. And there are between 31.1-35.8 million people all over the globe living with HIV [3] So do you have any idea how much is it going to cost and who is going to pay? I personally don`t think it is great idea. Even if these won`t be high security compounds there is still need for acceptable hygiene standards and some perimeter security as well as food, clothing etc.. Also to stop disease there must be 3 different types of compounds - for heterosexual males, homosexual males and women.

Also - not all of HIV infected are so called 'low lifes' - many are well educated and living normal everyday life. So you plan to take every HIV infected person away from its home,friends, family and just imprison them? This cannot be good for economy because it doesn`t deal with the problem - if you are not killing these people they still need to be taken care of. If HIV infected person is working and earning money it means that he is self sufficient + paying taxes.

Have you thought about moral aspects of your idea? You presume that being infected with HIV is equal to crime? Imprisonment of person is considered lawful only by state after court sentence - and only when he has been proven guilty for crime. So it is criminal to be a drug user and being homosexual? Even if it is considered crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV (at least in my country) how can it be crime to infect yourself? Maybe stabbing yourself with kitchen knife is criminal conduct too? You cannot argue that becoming HIV infected will inevitably lead to another infected person. My point is that this will be very similar to Nazi Germany - Euthanasia, killings of asylum inhabitants and drug users. Didn`t we accuse Nazis for their atrocities against weak and different because it was morally wrong, though acceptable by their laws?

And even if we consider becoming HIV infected to be crime , what about those who were infected without knowing it? [4] [5] . How can we blame new born babies for being in wrong time, wrong place, wrong situation? So we could also imprison children from poor families because we can presume they have far greater chance to become drug dealers and violent criminals?

We cannot pretend to be blind and ignore fact that there are millions of dollars spent each year for HIV/AIDS research. Experiments has gone so far that even if person is infected with HIV, by taking appropriate medications it is possible to delay AIDS phase. [6]. There are experiments confirming that there is real possibility that there won`t be any more babies born with HIV by 2015 [7].

In the end I wanted to ask a question - what are the origins of AIDS? Couldn`t it be that it is just a side effect of our society (at least in the Western world) - if imprisoning and isolating AIDS infected persons for life is acceptable when they haven`t committed any crime, how can it be that killers and maniacs with numerous crimes get out of prison after some time, but AIDS infected have to spent rest of their lifes somewhere in the middle of nowhere? I find it hard to accept idea that AIDS is main source of our global problems and that it causes so much social trouble, that have to isolate infected, while letting to freely live corrupt government officials, genocide producing warlords and many other evil men and women. I don`t think that your offer is justifiable with these crimes against humanity - Drug Trade [8] and Arms Trade [9]

[1] http://www.avert.org...
[2] http://proxychi.baremetal.com...
[3] http://www.avert.org...
[4] http://www.kaisernetwork.org...
[5] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...
[6] http://www.cdc.gov...
[7] http://english.cctv.com...
[8] http://stopthedrugwar.org...
[9] http://www.globalissues.org...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank my m.akermanis for his considered remarks and respond to each one as follows:

My opponent wrote:

"But around 67% of people living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa so it seems to me idea about concentration camps is not going to be cost effective (maybe trying Nuclear Bombs will do?)"

============================================================

It is true that the majority of AIDS sufferers are located in sub-Saharan Africa but rather than resort to nuclear bombs, which would be akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, surely international aid could be made conditional upon African governments addressing the problem of AIDS by interning all HIV infected people, together with heroin addicts and gay men in secure camps?

============================================================

He continued:

"My opposing point is - such encampments will cost a lot...Even if these won`t be high security compounds there is still need for acceptable hygiene standards and some perimeter security as well as food, clothing etc.. Also to stop disease there must be 3 different types of compounds - for heterosexual males, homosexual males and women."

============================================================

Of course, there will be a cost associated with internment but it need not be prohibitively high. Yes, the inmates will have to be provided with food and water and coffins and spades but I don't recall mentioning any provision for hygiene or clothing or segregation. The inmates will be free to live together as a homogenous community and they can use their spades to construct cesspits. As far as replacement clothing is concerned, they can obtain them from deceased inmates before they are buried.

No matter what the cost, though, internment will save innocent children's lives and you can't put a price on that.

============================================================

Then he wrote:

"Also - not all of HIV infected are so called 'low lifes' - many are well educated and living normal everyday life. So you plan to take every HIV infected person away from its home,friends, family and just imprison them? This cannot be good for economy because it doesn`t deal with the problem - if you are not killing these people they still need to be taken care of. If HIV infected person is working and earning money it means that he is self sufficient + paying taxes."

============================================================

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that all HIV sufferers are low life but my opponent is correct that my scheme will take them away from their friends and family. Indeed, that is the whole point – by isolating them from society, they will be unable to infect other people with HIV.

It may be the case that this will result in a loss of revenue for the taxman, but it will only be a matter of time before the AIDS sufferer becomes too ill to work anyway and by preventing them from spreading the disease to other taxpayers there will be an overall net gain to the government's coffers.

============================================================

My opponent went on to write:

"Have you thought about moral aspects of your idea? You presume that being infected with HIV is equal to crime?...My point is that this will be very similar to Nazi Germany - Euthanasia, killings of asylum inhabitants and drug users. Didn`t we accuse Nazis for their atrocities against weak and different because it was morally wrong, though acceptable by their laws?"

============================================================

My opponent is wrong to suggest that internment is a punishment for contracting HIV or for being a member of a group at high risk of doing so. Instead, it is merely a preventative measure designed to protect society as a whole.

Of course, we cannot be certain that someone with HIV will infect other people but by interning them we can be certain that they will not!

To address the comparison with Nazi Germany I should point out that not everything associated with that regime was bad. For example, when a German motorist is sat in safety and comfort behind the wheel of his Porsche 911 travelling at 150mph (240kmh) along one of Germany's many excellent Autobahns, he might remember that it was the Nazis that first developed that fine motorway network and that the car he's driving is a direct descendent of the VW Beetle which first saw service as a Nazi staff car.

Nevertheless, internment is not designed to weed out societies weakest members, rather it is designed to protect them from contracting AIDS from drug addicts or homosexual men.

============================================================

Then, my opponent wrote:

"And even if we consider becoming HIV infected to be crime , what about those who were infected without knowing it? How can we blame new born babies for being in wrong time, wrong place, wrong situation?"

============================================================

My opponent raises a very good point here – what to do about all the poor little kiddies who have caught AIDS through their drug-addicted mothers or by being raped by gay, HIV-infected paedophiles?

Clearly, they cannot be interned with the adults but must be cared for in secure children's homes until they are adults. Then they can be transferred to the internment camps.

============================================================

My opponent continued:

"We cannot pretend to be blind and ignore fact that there are millions of dollars spent each year for HIV/AIDS research. Experiments has gone so far that even if person is infected with HIV, by taking appropriate medications it is possible to delay AIDS phase. There are experiments confirming that there is real possibility that there won`t be any more babies born with HIV by 2015. "

============================================================

I very much hope that a cure for AIDS can be found, but until one is, we must protect ourselves from the carriers of HIV.

============================================================

Lastly, my opponent wrote:

"In the end I wanted to ask a question - what are the origins of AIDS? Couldn`t it be that it is just a side effect of our society (at least in the Western world) - if imprisoning and isolating AIDS infected persons for life is acceptable when they haven`t committed any crime, how can it be that killers and maniacs with numerous crimes get out of prison after some time, but AIDS infected have to spent rest of their lifes somewhere in the middle of nowhere."

============================================================

Again, my opponent is confusing prisons with internment camps – confusing punishment with a public health measure.
However, one of the fringe benefits of internment will be to reduce crime, and by extension, the prisoner population.

That's because much of crime is associated with the trade in drugs and with no customers there can be no drug barons or drug pushers and there will be no junkies to rob people in order to feed their habits.

============================================================

In conclusion, internment is not a measure any government would want to introduce without good cause and it will cost money but if it secures the long term health of nation and saves children's lives then it has to be not only a worthwhile measure, but an essential one.

Thank you.
m.akermanis

Con

Interesting debate, however I can`t accept your opinion from moral point of view.

Even if every nation on the world would be ready to spend such enormous sums of money for establishment of these internment camps, where is it going to lead our society?

* What are going to be those institutions and how will they be operated - are they going to be police like or elected?
* How will they be funded - by governments or by U.N. (for example)?
* How will they be regulated?

My opponent said that internment is not a punishment but preventive action. Yes, there were times were internment was necessary - wars or big catastrophes, but these were temporary solutions.

There is no difference between imprisonment and term-less internment. And for every internment there must be justification. Preventive measures can`t last forever (or as long as we find cure for AIDS) - it is punishment for being infected. [1]

And talking about society and positive aspects - what is the purpose of justice system? It`s purpose is to bring justice to criminals measuring their crime and sentencing to adequate prison term. If we are starting to chop off hands and bringing every burglar to electric chair there won`t be proper crime to penalty proportion.

How can we be sure that there won`t happen crimes associated with possibility of internment - like intentionally infecting someone with infected blood (using needle as a weapon) and then reporting this person as intern able? Do my opponent really think that interning a HIV positive person without even investigating the way he was infected with virus is a way to go?

Making of such camps is going to crush confidence of society against government - seeing that government is not fighting with causes bot only with results (because it is easier).

If we are talking about internment camps for mentally ill or
people with negative attitude towards society as whole then we can assume that these persons are not going to be supportive and mentally healthy members of society anyway. HIV infected persons are just as (non)destructive as a person living with cancer.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for debate and pity there won`t be another round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vivalayeo 6 years ago
vivalayeo
lol if you change the context to Jew's etc this debate look's quite funny
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
brian_egglestonm.akermanisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by mcc1789 6 years ago
mcc1789
brian_egglestonm.akermanisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
Steelerman6794
brian_egglestonm.akermanisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
brian_egglestonm.akermanisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70