The Instigator
NathanPotato
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Health Care

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,020 times Debate No: 11350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

NathanPotato

Con

I have absolutely no confidence that our dysfunctional federal government can run anything never the less something as large as health care that makes up about 1/6 of the US economy. The polls have shown that the people don't believe so either but yet they still try to cram it down our throats. I would like to hear from some people who still have this blind faith in big government.
sherlockmethod

Pro

I thank my opponent for offering this debate. I wish him good luck.

I stand in refutation to my opponent's contentions and will address them.

Con wrote, "I have absolutely no confidence that our dysfunctional federal government can run anything."

I disagree. Our government has run one of the most powerful armed forces in the world. As for dysfunctional government, I recommend Somalia.

Next my opponent offers that health care, an ambiguous term, encompasses 1/6 of the US economy. I ask my opponent, as he is the instigator, to support this statement and I ask for a definition of economy in relation to this figure. I cannot attack a figure my opponent does not source. Define health care also please.

Con offers polls, but offers…no polls! Show me and I will deal with them. He then offers some rhetoric in the form of "cramming down our throats". Cramming what? Be more specific. Tell me what the US government crammed down my throat.

Con wants to hear from those who have blind faith in big government. I am not sure who these people are, but I support my government and as a former member of the greatest
Air Force in the world, I swore my life to our defense. I no not support blind faith in any matters, religious or otherwise, and Con did not define big government or blind faith.

At this point, the instigator has only offered one solid contention and that contention is that the US government cannot run anything, but I submit that the US military run by our government is the greatest in the world. I can do little more until the instigator presents a case with something more than rhetoric.
Debate Round No. 1
NathanPotato

Con

First of all I want to say that i love the US military. Pro is right it is a very functional part of government. However, I certainly would not put the military and government in the same category. They respond to executive commands from the feds but are a completely separate substructure to the government. It is made up of extremely talented and qualified personnel operating under a chain of command in a enviroment of extreme competition and accountablity. There is absolutely no way that a government take over of health care could ever operate as efficiently as the military. Besides the military is something that the citizens can not do for themselves. Health care on the other hand is. The people are perfectly capable of providing their own health care with out the big bloated federal government getting in the way. Abraham Lincoln said that "The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves". If only we had less government involved in health care then free market would be allowed to work as it is supposed to. I can't event buy health insurance across state lines if I want to. The solution is less government, not more. What if I went to my job and the more I screw up the more i was promoted. That would not make sense. So why with the feds we continue to give them more power the more they screw up? I am sure that pro will ask me to scour the internet looking for data from some research agency to back up my claim that government has continually made things worse for the average american but that would take a very long time and be inconclusive so I'm not going to do it. But I think most people know it to be true. Just look at the debt we are in that we will never be able to get out of. Health care for everyone will only ad to this debt. If you believe universal health care will save us money than i have some beach front property i would like to sell you. If you'll notice the proposed bill does not address any common sense solutions like more competition across state lines or tort reform. This is not an accident. This health care reform is not about health care but a gigantic power grab by administration to advance its radical socialistic agenda. I'm not saying that socialism is a bad thing as long as everyone knows exactly how it works and what it is. First I would like everyone to understand that socialism is the polar opposite to the way our founders established this country with limited government. If we are able to have an open and honest debate about how much government we want and Americans decide they want to move away from our founders had intended then I am ok with that. But it does not happen like that. Progressive steps are made toward socialism in the cover of darkness without honest debate.

I found in Rasmussen that 52% of voters oppose the proposed health care plan while 44% favor.
As far as the 1/6 economy comment, just type that sentence in google and you will see lots of stats to prove it.

I agree with Pro that what i have said is mostly rhetoric based on opinion. But this is the format of debate i would like have with someone. Statistical battles rarely get you anywhere. I would like to have a general discussion about how much government we want and how much individual responsiblity we want.

Pro has a tactic to win a debate which consists of delegitimizing my argument but i am still waiting for someone to come up with some solid points that stand on its own to support the need for big government. Can anyone out there do this?
sherlockmethod

Pro

I thank Con for his response and I want to be clear that I am not trying to be difficult. I ask for definitions so I can see your full point and I can avoid misunderstandings. At this point, Con has only used hot button terms like "big government". I enjoy debating not punditry. Television personalities like Hannity and Olberman enjoy throwing out vague terms so they can change the definition when a guest responses well. I have no time for such nonsense.

I asked for definitions and Con refused to provide them. I asked for sources and Con made little effort to supply them. Am I asking too much? I will try to deal with Con's response.

Con agrees the government has run the military efficiently so the statement referencing the government's inability to run anything is refuted. Con then moves the goal posts on me and now claims, "There is absolutely no way that a government take over of health care could ever operate as efficiently as the military." Ok, I don't use the word "absolutely" in reference to future outcomes unless I am dealing with math, and even then I am cautious. If you would tell me what you mean by a government take over then we can talk. Do you mean regulations? Hospitals becoming government owned? Do mean government ran health care competing against private carriers? Are you talking about Medicare? How can I address such a vague point? The statement is simply rhetorical and has little meaning.

Con follows with a statement referencing less government in healthcare right now. Well we do not have a universal health coverage plan currently so are you referencing current regulations? Medicare? Do you see the problem here, Con? You chose hot buttons "big government" and "government take over" and then referenced the present day situation. He states:

"The people are perfectly capable of providing their own health care with out the big bloated federal government getting in the way."

"If only we had less government involved in health care then free market would be allowed to work as it is supposed to."

This must be present day so how does it apply to current legislation in Congress which has not passed? Now if this is the case we can avoid any discussion about health care proposals, but Con goes further and asks for tort reform.
He states:

"If you'll notice the proposed bill does not address any common sense solutions like more competition across state lines or tort reform."

I thought you wanted less government involvement. Tort reform in reference to malpractice cases would require MORE involvement from the government, not less as tort law and damages is generally left up to the states, not the federal government. http://www.settlementcentral.com... This is one of the problems with allowing interstate commerce with insurance companies. Your proposal involves more federal control, not less. Why would you remove state involvement in torts, by claiming the federal government should step in and reform torts at a federal level all the while claiming you want less federal government? At this point, your rhetoric is contradictory so how can I debate an issue you refuse to define and go against a contradictory position? All I can do is point out the flaws in your position as I still have no idea what the Con position is saying.

Con states:
"I am sure that pro will ask me to scour the internet looking for data from some research agency to back up my claim that government has continually made things worse for the average american (sic) but that would take a very long time and be inconclusive so I'm not going to do it. But I think most people know it to be true."

This is an argument from ignorance and yes claims need support. If you are unwilling to support your arguments, don't present them. I have no need to address this further.

Con states:
"This health care reform is not about health care but a gigantic power grab by administration to advance its radical socialistic agenda."

Did I mention Hannity already? This statement needs support. Define radical socialists, administration, and what exactly this "administration" has done concerning a furtherance of this "radical socialist agenda." This is just hot button rhetoric and needs not be addressed further. Con must do better than right wing pundit talking points.

"First I would like everyone to understand that socialism is the polar opposite to the way our founders established this country with limited government."

If you would have defined socialism I could have addressed this point. Socialism is so broad that I cannot, in the space provided, explain all facets, but as instigator you certainly could have done so. You chose not to give us a definition so I have nothing to clash with at this point.

"Progressive steps are made toward socialism in the cover of darkness without honest debate."

On a dark and stormy night … not so much. President Obama spoke directly to Republicans concerning many issues in the health care debate. How is this in the cover of darkness? I can read all the legislation presented on this subject as it is publicly available. President Obama made clear when running for President that he supported universal coverage in reference to health care and would focus on implementing legislation in this respect. We all had a vote. We elected him. How is this secretive? More and more rhetoric, nothing solid here.

I'm tired. The only point Con brought forward was a poll. He did not link the poll, the methodology, the margin of error, nothing. He said it was there. Rasmussen? I would love to view the methodology used and see the full results but unlike truly scientific polls, the results are hidden … unless you pay for them. "All the data collected by Rasmussen Reports, not just the portion we make public." For 20 bucks a month, no thank you.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

Really? Talk about "in the cover of darkness".

The instigator has offered very little here. I cannot address a contention unless it is defined. Rhetoric is for the mindless masses, I need facts and data, or at a minimum, definitions.
Debate Round No. 2
NathanPotato

Con

Wow, Pro is quite the technical debater. I have a lot of respect for his skills. To be honest I was expecting to have an ideological debate. I think Pro would make a fine politician. However, here is the problem as I see it. Americans hate politicians because they are masters at doing the same thing you are doing. They talk and talk about data and polls and margins of error and everyone is left with their heads spinning. It is a very calculated technique used to where down opposition until they just throw their hands up and say fine just do whatever. To use another sports analogy, I shoot and you block over and over again. This is a very safe way for you to win a debate and you most likely will but we still have little idea of why universal health is good for America. Instead of only blocking how about a shot. Pro chose to be pro on health care. So lets hear some pro commentary. Pro does not need to sit there on his high horse waiting for me to deliver the perfectly executed and statistical debate. Pro should just state where he stands. If Pro was a politician, what would his platform be. I want to hear why moving toward more government control of our health care is better. I believe the reason the health care bill is having so much trouble is because no one can really explain why and how it is better. Admittedly I spend most my time working so I do have time to hear or read everything but this is true with most Americans. So why doesn't Pro educate me and tell me and anyone who might read this what part of the health care monstrosity bill is good and what part is not. I will be honest about my ideology. Brace yourself because it is very radical. I want to return to the constitution. What is Pro's ideology.
sherlockmethod

Pro

Health care is a hot topic right now. I would love to have debated whatever facet the instigator offered. He refused.
1.I asked for definitions and Con refused.
2.I asked for clarification on broad terms and Con refused.
I cannot debate the Pro side of a topic the instigator refuses to define and clarify. When a new debater offers a debate with vague terms, I generally attack whatever premise can be culled and I ask for definitions and sources. This method allows for a solid round 2 and a chance to offer a conclusion. I was more than fair in this debate. I am sorry to voters that Con insisted on using broad terms so as to move the definition when challenged. The best method to deal with rhetoric is to force the user to provide definitions for the offered terms. Con simply refused to define his position, so I had no need to present mine. He formed the debate; he posts the requested information. I was not asking for much, just some support and some definitions for the terms he decided to use so I could clash with them.

I challenged the few positions Con offered and none deal with "health care". I recommend Con try much harder next time. Con offered nothing but rhetoric and hot buttons words, but still finds the need to compare me to a politician. Con is experiencing psychological projection here as politicians avoid direct answers and, generally, refuse to define terms.

The Pro/Con here is not relevant. Con instigated a debate and refused to clarify the resolution or provide some context and meaning to the used terms. I cannot be forced to support a burden for a position that the instigator refused to define. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Johnny_Canuck 6 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
NathanPotatosherlockmethodTied
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 Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
NathanPotatosherlockmethodTied
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:16