The Instigator
cahb
Pro (for)
Losing
41 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,685 times Debate No: 9956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (13)

 

cahb

Pro

Background of controversy:
The U.S. Congress is currently working on health care reform legislation. Some of the factors fueling the quest for reform are Americans losing their insurance coverage through loss of employment, the expense of obtaining individual, private health insurance, and pre-existing conditions and rescission used by private, for-profit insurers to deny coverage. Without insurance, health care costs are costly and out of reach for millions of Americans. Controversy exists about the best way to reform American access to health care. The media report daily about the disagreements in Congress and among citizens, opinion polls, and on the demonstrations and protests held by both advocates and opponents of reform. Do U.S. citizens deserve access to affordable health care? This leads to the argument that:

PROPOSITION OF FACT:
Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege

Definitions:
Right: noun; a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral

Privilege: noun; a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most

Access: noun; the ability, right, or permission to use

Affordable: adjective; that can be afforded; to be within one's financial means

Health: noun; soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment

Catastrophic: from the noun catastrophe; a sudden and widespread disaster; a great, often sudden calamity

1)Health is a basic human need, similar to the need for food, water, and shelter. All humans need to nurture and maintain their health in order to achieve their fullest potential.
Those with no access to affordable health care will die sooner from preventable ailments. Their quality of life will be diminished. Without their health, people cannot be productive members of society. Without productive citizens, the whole society suffers.
If health care is limited to only those privileged enough to obtain it, or in other words, to only those who have unlimited resources to purchase it, then they have advantages beyond most others. Thus, society is split between the haves and the have-nots.
As Americans, we can look to our own Declaration of Independence, which affirms the equality of all people and their rights:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men {people} are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men {people} deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

The unalienable right to "life" is futile without one's health.

U.S. Declaration of Independence: http://www.archives.gov...

See Article 25:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (U.N.): http://www.un.org...

2)Preventative care, obtained through access to affordable health care programs, is cheaper in the long run and benefits the entire society.
In the U.S., those who have no insurance or other form of coverage, or whose insurance company denies them care, must bear the costs of their health care on their own. Obtaining preventative care (wellness) care can become difficult to impossible due to its high cost. People will wait or put off seeing a health provider for the care of simple issues.
Left untreated, simple issues can turn into bigger issues, which can lead to higher costs of care and premature death. The cost of treating catastrophic illness/disease is much greater than of taking care of one's health on a regular basis. If citizens go bankrupt due to the costs of catastrophic illnesses, the society absorbs the loss, in both monetary and human terms.

See the Modern Hippocratic oath; "prevention is preferable to cure."

The Modern Hippocratic Oath:
http://www.pbs.org...

Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults:
http://pnhp.org...

3) Access to affordable health care is not pure commerce, such as a product or commodity that is bought and sold. Human life is at stake. Do we measure the value of a human life only in dollars and cents?
Access to affordable health care promotes the social welfare of a society. Our government has established other programs for protecting and promoting the social welfare of its citizens. Rights to education, police, and fire protection are in this category.
The U.S. Bill of Rights also guarantees the rights and liberties of its people that are inalienable. Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The U.S. Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov...

Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov...
Puck

Con

Welcome to your first debate.

As it stands your definitions arise to absurdity with your resolution, in essence transforming it into: Access to affordable health care is a right, not a right.

As such your definitions fail to properly detail the positions on either side of your argument, so I will take it
that you are pro-state welfarist (from your argument), that the government should intervene in regards to health care and that you sought someone to take the opposing stance. You have indicated the moral nature of rights, as is correct, rights are a moral concept and a definition of rights belongs within that framework.

So let's clear up a bit of mess: Privilege vs. Rights. In a discussion of rights, equivocation seems to be a ready trap
many fall into. Privilege in this context, refer to those actions where claims are not to the contrary of it - no reason,
not to perform an action. It inadequately captures the opposing stance of a welfare advocate (it does not adequately detail what rights are), so lets drop that from the discussion. This isn't going to be an abuse of the resolution - your own definition of a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights in opposition to your stance and the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of rights.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

So what are rights? Rights are a concept, a moral one. If I have rights, then they exist as a concept, not as something I keep in my pocket. Since you evoke the founding fathers later (and to shortcut that argument), their concept of rights was based upon this same Aristotelean concept - so, rights then, are the concept (moral) of principles guiding an individuals action in relation to others. More specifically they are negative, by which, rights detail freedom of action in social contexts. For example, a right to life means the freedom to pursue an action free from interference, and in corollary, non-interference in another's right to that same freedom. Property, is the corollary of a right to life, like life also negative, meaning not free to obtain property, but what property one has is ones own, free from those who would seek to interfere with it without consent (including ones own body). Liberty then, is essentially a redundancy to the prior two, the freedom of freedom.

See, rights, properly defined, should have non-contradictory implementation. In other words, for a proper concept of rights, their implementation should give rise to no contradictions and this is where your argument fails. A right to life, under your definition, is a positive right, it is a claim on something to someone. A right to this life, under your premises, is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life. Your position, is in contradiction with its implementation - and to briefly cover your U.N. claim, if implemented, easily in violation of article 4.

Let's explore what you are really saying. A right to health care, is an admission that force is required to provide health care for others. See the cost of health care needs to arise from somewhere, and as such, you are enslaving others production, to pay for it. Not so? Please try not paying taxes, see how it is enforced.

What else is required for such a 'right'?

The the efforts of medical practitioners, doctors, nurses, researchers, engineers etc. Their services can be offered, in exchange for value or, under your equivocated right, they can be forced to. What sort of force? The government of course. Do these professionals then not count as individuals with rights? Should we enforce all those able to maintain this 'right' to life you seek? You have no viable 'cut-off,' no viable premise that maintains this position. The individual in need of a kidney has a right to anyones? Such a right exists in your premise, even taking the healthy kidney by force - it is no different to the other types of force you approve, all approbate the concept of individual rights. If I am shot on the street, I have a right to your car to get me to hospital, and so on it goes. See by advocating a positive right to health care you are advocating the enslavement of others to provide it.

==

"The unalienable right to "life" is futile without one's health."

Right to life means the freedom to pursue ones life as one wishes, not to be alive. A train runs me over it violated my right to life? Nature violates my rights via cell degradation? No. It's an absurd stance on rights to take.

"See the Modern Hippocratic oath; "prevention is preferable to cure.""

Fantastic; eat well, exercise properly, wear sunscreen etc. It is not the governments role, nor mine, to dictate how you should look after your body. If you value it, take the steps to maintain it.

"Access to affordable health care is not pure commerce, such as a product or commodity that is bought and sold. Human life is at stake. Do we measure the value of a human life only in dollars and cents?"

Why not? That is precisely what you are asking, you are pricing one life above another, ones freedom above another's, you cost it through the method of how you seek to achieve it, taxes. As for the pricing mechanisms of Health Care, it is a bit beyond the scope and remaining character limits of this debate, however government intervention is precisely what raises this price.
See http://www.theobjectivestandard.com... for an indepth look.

==

"I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind-yet what is it they expect to depend on when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of the victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it-and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't." - Atlas Shrugged.
Debate Round No. 1
cahb

Pro

Thank you for your welcome and for taking on this debate.
1. "As it stands your definitions arise to absurdity with your resolution, in essence transforming it into: Access to affordable health care is a right, not a right. As such your definitions fail to properly detail the positions on either side of your argument..." I see we have a problem with what the definitions are for ‘privilege' and ‘right'. You are saying that these two words mean the exact same thing. I disagree. There is a difference between a privilege and a right, and most people know it, even without written definitions (as were given at the top of the debate). A privilege refers to a benefit enjoyed by a person(s) beyond the advantages of most. It is granted to some and not 'most'. A right is a just claim (whether legal, prescriptive, OR moral) or title, and thus, belongs to all persons. The two words are not interchangeable. If they were, it would be absurd to discuss this proposition with anyone, which would lead me to question why anyone would agree to debate it. Also, the definition of a right includes those other than of a moral nature, thus the "moral" nature of rights is a trivial point and irrelevant. The primary inference of the proposition of fact, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege" is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). Your definition of pro-state welfarist (that the government should intervene in regards to health care), and your assumption that this is what I am, are not topical to the proposition as stated. I am not arguing a policy claim. The argument concerns right versus privilege in regard to access to affordable health care.
2. "It inadequately captures the opposing stance of a welfare advocate (it does not adequately detail what rights are), so lets drop that from the discussion… your own definition of a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights in opposition to your stance and the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of rights." Yes, let's drop that from the discussion because I don't even know what you are talking about. :-) Again, I deny that 1) the definition given for a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights (see definitions above in 1.) and 2) that the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of a rights. The moral concept of a right is irrelevant to the proposition (see above in 1.).
3 "Since you evoke the founding fathers later (and to shortcut that argument), their concept of rights was based upon this same Aristotelian concept – …In other words, for a proper concept of rights, their implementation should give rise to no contradictions and this is where your argument fails." Please provide support for these claims, beginning with the founding fathers and the Aristotelian concept. I am aware that our founding fathers were influenced by enlightenment thinking, in particular, by John Locke's ideas. http://plato.stanford.edu... Also, please explain, in simple terms, why your definition of a right makes a difference to the proposition and what bearing that and "no contradictions" have on the proposition as stated. Again, I disagree that "a proper concept of rights" is the issue in the proposition. You are avoiding the central issue of the proposition which is about right versus privilege, two different words with two different meanings, and how they relate to access to affordable health care.
4. "A right to life, under your definition, is a positive right, it is a claim on something to someone. A right to this life, under your premises, is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life. Your position, is in contradiction with its implementation." My definition of a right to life is the same as the one given in the Declaration of Independence. Please provide support for your claim that the unalienable right to life, positive or not, as stated in the Declaration is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life and is easily in violation of article 4.
5. "Let's explore what you are really saying. A right to health care, is an admission that force is required to provide health care for others." So you say. Your conclusion that force is required is a hasty generalization, untrue, and not based on the proposition. We are talking about a right of access to affordable health care, not a right to health care. The proposition indicates that people will pay for the health care that they need; that health care is not free. How they will pay for it is the subject for a different argument.
6. "What sort of force? The government of course. … Should we enforce all those able to maintain this 'right' to life you seek? You have no viable 'cut-off,' no viable premise that maintains this position." Since there is no force required for professionals to provide health care for others (5. above), your argument here is irrelevant.
7. "Such a right exists in your premise, even taking the healthy kidney by force -… See by advocating a positive right to health care you are advocating the enslavement of others to provide it." You are appealing to fear, of trying to arouse concern over a potential, hypothetical consequence which is untrue, particularly since no force is required (5. above). Access to affordable health care is a right rather than a privilege, not a right to health care by any means available and the enslavement of others to provide it.
8. "Right to life means the freedom to pursue ones life as one wishes, not to be alive. A train runs me over it violated my right to life? Nature violates my rights via cell degradation? No. It's an absurd stance on rights to take." If one is not alive, then one is probably not concerned with the freedom to pursue one's life as one wishes.
9. "Fantastic; eat well, exercise properly, wear sunscreen etc. It is not the governments role, nor mine, to dictate how you should look after your body. If you value it, take the steps to maintain it." You've shifted ground here. Have you ever known anyone who has done all the right things to maintain their health and who still has gotten ill? How about someone injured in an accident, through no fault of their own? What about people with hereditary diseases or birth defects? How about pregnant women? Do they value their lives? How do they maintain their health and body? Taking steps to maintain their body and health include having the right of access to affordable health care.
10. "That is precisely what you are asking, you are pricing one life above another, ones freedom above another's, you cost it through the method of how you seek to achieve it, taxes." I do agree with you that the pricing mechanisms of health care is (more than) a bit beyond the scope of this debate because this debate is not about that or achieving it through taxes or that government intervention is precisely what raises this price. "Access to affordable to health care is a right, not a privilege" in no way prices one's life or freedom above another's. On the contrary, it values all life as equal and is a concern for others. The general welfare and common good of our society is the concern. Going Galt won't answer the issue of access to affordable health care.
Puck

Con

"You are saying that these two words mean the exact same thing. I disagree."

Apparently not. Read your posted definition: "Privilege: noun; a right"

"A privilege refers to a benefit enjoyed by a person(s) beyond the advantages of most. It is granted to some and not 'most'."

If that was the case then the debate would simply be about statistics. You however placed it in the realm of rights, ethics, and in ethics a privilege refers to those actions one can perform without any opposing claim e.g. the privilege, right, to tie my shoelaces if untied, provided no opposing claim can be made to that action. If you want me to take the side of privilege, easily done, it's the freedom to spend one's money as one wishes, from those willing and free to accept it.

In 2006, the percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.8% - US census bureau. That does *not* make it a right. Even then 'granted to' fails; health care is a tradeable value which people purchase, or allow the government purchase it for them.

"A right is a just claim (whether legal, prescriptive, OR moral) or title, and thus, belongs to all persons."

Rights (moral) are derived from the nature of being man, yes universal as such, no not a claim, which is positive. Legal rights refers to mainly contractual issues (not health care unless we all sign), prescriptive rights relate to property claims and have absolutely nothing to do with health care.

"The two words are not interchangeable."

Don't blame me for your definition of privilege, which lists right under it. :) I took the debate to challenge 'health care is a right' which is your stance.

"Also, the definition of a right includes those other than of a moral nature,thus the "moral" nature of rights is a trivial point and irrelevant."

Ya wouldn't have made a spiel about the DoI if that was so - moral is under your definition. Any other definition of rights in this context is an equivocation on what a 'right' is. A legal right is contractual based for example, not dealing with the ethical concerns of which health care belongs and which you put it. See your own definition.

"Your definition of pro-state welfarist (that the government should intervene in regards to health care), and
your assumption that this is what I am, are not topical to the proposition as stated. I am not arguing a policy claim"

I am also not arguing policy, or I would have actually argued it. You however equivocate legal with moral, policy by necessity legal based. :) What I did do was specifically argue ethics, more specifically what rights *are* and why a 'right to' health care is an erroneous stance.

"Again, I deny that the definition given for a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights
that the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of a rights. The moral concept of a right is irrelevant to the proposition."

You oppose two stances, rights vs. privilege. Under your definition of privilege, you include right. Under rights you include moral (ethics). Privilege in regards to a concept of rights is an end concept, synonymous with freedom of action, to say a privilege is opposed to a concept of rights (moral - your definition) is incorrect, as privilege belongs in the concept hierarchy of rights itself, namely the freedom to act. To say a privilege is removed from the concept of rights would be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.

"Also, please explain, in simple terms, why your definition of a right makes a difference to the proposition and what bearing that and "no contradictions" have on the proposition as stated."

Because your stance is that health care IS A RIGHT. Therefore what rights are is the key to the discussion. As it stands, a positive definition of rights, and its resultant implementation results in a contradiction. Contradictions are bad in reality, and highlight the incorrect epistemological and ethical stance you hold, or at least advocate, that rights are positive, and what that details in regards to a 'right to' health care.

"You are avoiding the central issue of the proposition which is about right versus privilege"

Sure, see the stat if that's all you want to argue. However saying it's a right, therefore it's a right so it's a right, doesn't get you very far.

"My definition of a right to life is the same as the one given in the Declaration of Independence."

No definition; "Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - founding fathers were largely based on the Enlightenment era of philosophy of which Aristotle was popular, and their concept of rights was founded on such. See Jefferson's, Paine's writings for examples.

"Please provide support for your claim that the unalienable right to life, positive or not, as stated in the Declaration is a cost to another's life"

Not cost per se, simply you can't claim on others. A negative concept of rights, that they detail freedom *from*
not *to* actions, is all that is necessary to conclude that means, a right to life, ones own life as ones own, means I, anyone cannot claim on another to provide for me, including the necessary requirements for health care.

Article 4: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude" - a positive concept of rights requires in its enactment the use of force, and in the context of health care, 1. collection of taxes. 2. Forced service by medical practitioners to it (as is the current situation). To say you don't want that is irrelevant to the reality of what positive claims mean on others.

"Your conclusion that force is required is a hasty generalization, untrue, and not based on the proposition. We
are talking about a right of access to affordable health care, not a right to health care."

Nope. If you hold that they have a right *to* it, hence one cannot *deny* another access to it. It by necessity involves force to ensure it. If you are simply arguing, if its available, and I can afford it, then I should be able to buy it - still
doesn't equal to being a right.

6."Since there is no force required for professionals to provide health care for others"

Then your position that anyone has a claim, right to it, is false. If you hold they will all do it on some form of goodwill, also false.

"You are appealing to fear."

Any other concept of a 'right to' is meaningless unless contractually based, which was clearly not your sole contention, nor have I signed. I merely extrapolated your premises, it's not about fear at all, simply the extension of what you propose, whether you realise it or not. :)

"If one is not alive, then one is probably not concerned with the freedom to pursue one's life as one wishes."

You are trying to include negative and positive definition of rights in the one - freedom to pursue one's life =/= a claim on others to keep you alive.

"Have you ever known anyone who has done all the right things to maintain their health and who still has gotten ill?"

Straw man. Clearly people get sick, and if they want to pay for medical care, that's fine. If they want insurance for unforeseen circumstances, also fine. That =/= a right.

"Access to affordable to health care is a right, not a privilege" in no way prices one's life or freedom above another's."

Sure it does, it's why certain conditions cost more to treat. Health care is a tradeable asset produced by some, valued by many. Those who produce it are in no way morally bound to make it available to everyone or costing it so that it is. It is a tradeable value no different to any other tradeable value.

"The general welfare and common good of our society is the concern."

There is good for individuals, what is good for me, is not necessarily good for another. Want affordable health care, sure, get the government out of it. It still doesn't make it an equivocated right.
Debate Round No. 2
cahb

Pro

Summary

The issue of access to affordable health care has become a pressing concern in these hard economic times,

exacerbated by high unemployment and loss of job-based health insurance, the expense of obtaining individual,

private health insurance, denial of care by private, for-profit insurers through pre-existing conditions and rescission,

and the increasing costs of health care while wages are stagnating. The change from historically non-profit to

for-profit insurance providers in the latter half of the 20th century is probably another factor that has affected the

nature of access and delivery of care. As our government is based on the consent of the governed, please note that

the U.S. Congress has recently passed one health care reform bill in the House of Representatives; the Senate is

working on their version.

The primary inference in the given topic of this debate, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a

privilege", is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). I have

based this conclusion on 1) the structural inherency that we possess inalienable, human rights and that our society

was established, among other things, to promote the general welfare; 2) health being a primary need that is required

for people to become productive citizens; 3) the benefit to individuals and society as a whole; and 4) this right being in

the same category as the rights to education, police, and fire protection (none of whom are forced or enslaved to

deliver their services), which all citizens currently have access to.

My opponent's reasoning rests primarily on the fallacies of avoiding the issue and shifting the ground. From the

beginning, he and I were arguing about different topics. His first sentence in his first round was an ad hominem

argument, shifting the attention from the argument to my ability to reason and know the difference between the

definitions of a privilege and a right. Challenging the definition is the opponent's prerogative; however, at that time,

he neglected to provide another definition with a more reasonable interpretation of the proposition and thus, avoided

the issue through simple evasion. Instead, he deliberately distorted the definition by truncating the one I provided and

used the fallacy of composition in arguing that this was my definition. He chose to alter the topic of the debate, not

once, but twice, by 1) changing my argument to one of a policy claim ("the government should intervene in regards to

health care") and later, in his own words, 2) he "took the debate to challenge 'health care is a right' which is your

stance." Both of these are major shifts in ground, neither are topical to the debate that he accepted (see proposition

of fact above), and thus, avoid the given issue. In other words, my opponent accepted the given debate and then

argued against other topics of his choosing, without regard to my stated claim.
Puck

Con

"denial of care by private, for-profit insurers through pre-existing conditions and rescission, and the increasing costs of health care while wages are stagnating."

Thanks, finally you admit where the source of your concerns lay, those who provide, and in corollary, the proposal to enforce how they may act. :)

"The change from historically non-profit to for-profit insurance providers in the latter half of the 20th century is probably another factor that has affected the nature of access and delivery of care."

Health care as a service is relatively new, as are competent doctors. The government has less incentive to produce competitive services if they control it, on the contrary precisely because they control it, the standards lower to maintain it.

"As our government is based on the consent of the governed, please note that the U.S. Congress has recently passed one health care reform bill in the House of Representatives; the Senate is working on their version."

i.e. the abuse of the minority - since I don't see them holding a National Referendum on the issue, point is moot.

"Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege", is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). I have based this conclusion on 1) the structural inherency that we possess inalienable, human rights and that our society was established, among other things, to promote the general welfare"

Your notion of what rights are however is erroneous, based in what I'm not sure, something like entitlement - certainly
not in relation to the concept of rights as laid down by those you seek to support your position - saying in essence, 'whoa they said rights,' doesn't ground your position in reality, you merely seek to approbate a concept for your own ends, ignoring what the concept is based upon, in essence committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Certainly your position is not soundly based in any epistemological or ethical base you have detailed, you've just gone and found instances of the word 'right' and subsumed them as one construct upon which you demand action. See the issue of saying someone has a right to it, entails, by necessity, they can have it - which means any attempt to deny it is in violation of this concept. What you appear to fail to see is the derivative of this premise; if you purport rights as positive, one can claim on another - you by necessity enslave those required to produce whatever you are claiming.

"health being a primary need that is required for people to become productive citizens"

Health sure, health care no - which is patently false, see oh, the history of humanity before the modern occupation of competent doctors with general access. Desiring to be healthy =/= a right to health care. I need a house to sleep to stay healthy to work productively, so I have a right to a house, I need food to have energy to be productive, therefore I have a right to the contents of your fridge, and so on it goes.

"the benefit to individuals and society as a whole"

Contradiction, there is no whole, only individuals, and demanding the production of others to some end is clearly not in their best interests. Indeed, the harvesting of your organs would benefit more individuals, more than you the individual. When you work out why anyone should not maybe you will be getting somewhere.

"this right being in the same category as the rights to education, police, and fire protection (none of whom are forced or enslaved to deliver their services), which all citizens currently have access to."

There is no right to these either, all are services provided morally or immorally, private or tax funded (that is your force). None constitute as being a right, at best commonly desired services - and let us be clear, you have entirely ignored the discussion on what rights are, for whatever reason, which only serves to highlight the lack of founding you have in the concept, if unwilling to defend your stance on it outside of, these people wrote it here sometime.

"His first sentence in his first round was an ad hominem argument"

"As it stands your definitions arise to absurdity with your resolution" - nope, nothing noted about you at all.

"shifting the attention from the argument to my ability to reason and know the difference between the definitions of a privilege and a right."

"Privilege: noun; a right"

YOU put privilege in the realm of rights, I supported that position - you failed to argue away what your own posted
definition agrees with - which was I. So don't be blaming me for this, choose, research your definitions more adequately next time.

"he neglected to provide another definition with a more reasonable interpretation of the proposition and thus, avoided the issue through simple evasion."

Oh really? Did you ignore my paragraphs on rights in R1? Perhaps you missed my paragraph on what a privilege is in regards to rights? All were expounded definitions on what rights and privileges were. Perhaps you ignored the link too, supporting my position.

R2 I agreed if you wanted me specifically, to label an argument as 'privileged' I would, and I gave it. You chose to ignore that too it seems.

"used the fallacy of composition"

Which is not in the class of definitional fallacies. Let's be clear again, wherever you posted your
definitions from, you clearly didn't pay too much attention to how they related to your resolution. Again, R2 even if given your argument I defended it using privilege, an argument you chose to ignore.

"in arguing that this was my definition. He chose to alter the topic of the debate, not once, but twice, by 1) changing my argument to one of a policy claim ("the government should intervene in regards to health care")"

I didn't make policy arguments, I extended YOUR premises, to show you why your concept of positive rights fails in certain ways - part of that is showing you how such things are enacted. Which went to show *why* rights do not detail things like access to health care.

"he "took the debate to challenge 'health care is a right' [...] In other words, my opponent accepted the given debate and then argued against other topics of his choosing, without regard to my stated claim."

Nope, access to, is synonymous with right to here, again you fail to realise the implications of the words you use, words you defined in the arena of morality - your remaining applications of the word PER YOUR DEFINITION I dealt with (legal, prescriptive) multiple times, all you ignored, all that was left, in regards to the topic of health care was health care + right > moral, and this stance you have utterly failed to uphold - my own arguments on it, unrefuted and ignored.

My opponent has failed utterly to support the notion of health care as a right. That access to health care should somehow (she purposefully evades the how) be available to all in some manner (also unclear). I defended my reading of her definitions, supported my interpretation. I gave an argument on privileges and rights, both were ignored.

==

:)
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Lifeisgood, I've noticed this in a number of debates recently, where Leftists assert beliefs on what amounts to leaps of faith. In another debate http://www.debate.org..., I showed that health insurance industry profits were $8.4 billion of $2.2 trillion of total health costs, but voters in substantial numbers voted that they were a major part of total costs, with none giving any reasons.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
The voting in this debate does not seem right. Con was clearly the winner, yet Pro nearly has as many points as him.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Very well argued by Con. The claim of "rights" by Pro was a mess.

Pro argued there were rights to human needs like "food, water, and shelter." Let's add sex to the list of human needs, because it is clearly required for continuation of the species. So if a right to health care implies that government ought to tax everyone to provide health care to each individual, then clearly that ought to apply to other human needs like food, water, ...
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
I find it odd that people use tax-payer education as a argument for medical care..

Before the state started to pay for the education of our youth, I am sure people like PUCK would be fighting against it, with simular reasons why he is fighting against tax funded health care..

Saying "See there is socialism is implemented in THESE areas.. why not implement it further in these OTHER areas?" IMO is a poor argument..

Now, What I would like to see is a economic debate on health care..

I hear that the prices of health care would DROP if we all pitched in..

Ie I would rather people's medical bills be 5000, with tax payer money, then 10,000 without it! (Again I would have to read further into this)
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Depends if the store owner wants to bar you. :P

There are plenty of definitions in which one can use 'right' in a given context - the issue is how it relates to morality.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Semantics-**ACCESS* is a right. Just like how I have ACCESS to that loaf of bread in the store window. I still have to pay money in order to OBTAIN it :P
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Gah, wall of text.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Two more rounds for her to explain, the first premise in itself is false so.. :)
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to point out the elephant in the room...

Major Premise: People need healthcare in order to survive, be productive, etc.
Minor Premise: ???
Therefore, healthcare is a right.

Non-sequitur, anyone?
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
"doesn't everybody agree with that?"

You might want to do some self examination to rid yourself of that propaganda.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cahb 7 years ago
cahb
cahbPuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
cahbPuckTied
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 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 cmarrier 7 years ago
cmarrier
cahbPuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by cwbaker2 7 years ago
cwbaker2
cahbPuckTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by RKiverso 7 years ago
RKiverso
cahbPuckTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
cahbPuckTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
cahbPuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
cahbPuckTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by tynews2001 7 years ago
tynews2001
cahbPuckTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
cahbPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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