The Instigator
SitaraMusica
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Imperfiect
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

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 13 votes the winner is...
SitaraMusica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,856 times Debate No: 64059
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (13)

 

SitaraMusica

Pro

No need to wait, just jump right in. All I ask is that you address each of my points according to the number I gave it. 1. Contraception improves the health of women by allowing them to prevent pregnancy. 2. Childbirth is much more expensive than contraception. 3. No matter how you feel about abortion, people do have the right to choose what to do with their bodies as long as they do not hurt anyone. 4. Contraception saves money by allowing a person to avoid the cost of pregnancy, childbirth, recovery after childbirth, and so on. 5. Unwanted children are more likely to suffer and be abused, so why not prevent their conception. 6. Contraception is cost effective.
Imperfiect

Con

No one has to have sex until they want to conceive.

If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse.

Debate Round No. 1
SitaraMusica

Pro

Welcome to my opponant. I will address each of your claims. You said: "No one has to have sex until they want to conceive." I say: No one has to be a parent until they are ready to go through pregnancy, childbirth, recovery from childbirth, and parenting. You said: "If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse." I say: Poor women have the same right to choose as rich women. Contraceptive coverage actually helps any woman, but especially poor women. If you cannot trust women to use the right contraception, what makes you think you can trust them with a child? Without contraception, there would be more abortions and no matter what you believe about abortion, you have to agree that reducing abortion is a positive. You have failed to address each of my claims according to the number I gave them. Would you care to do so now?
Imperfiect

Con

ConR1: No one has to have sex until they want to conceive.
Pro: No one has to be a parent until they are ready to go through pregnancy, childbirth, recovery from childbirth, and parenting.
ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina.

ConR1: If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse.
Pro: Poor women have the same right to choose as rich women.
ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it.

Pro: Contraceptive coverage actually helps any woman, but especially poor women.
Con: That proves nothing...

Pro: If you cannot trust women to use the right contraception, what makes you think you can trust them with a child?
Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution?

Pro: Without contraception, there would be more abortions and no matter what you believe about abortion, you have to agree that reducing abortion is a positive.
Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill?
Debate Round No. 2
SitaraMusica

Pro

ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina. ProR: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it. ProR: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice. Con: That proves nothing... Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy. Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution? It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose. Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill? Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.
Imperfiect

Con

Pro: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.
Con: there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.

Pro: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice.
Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.

Pro: Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy.
Con: Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.

Pro: Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.
Con: What does this have to do with anything?
Debate Round No. 3
SitaraMusica

Pro

Con: "there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment." I say: People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If a women wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. You say: "Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate." Who are you to force your beliefs on others? If people want to have consensual sex or use birth control, they have that right. You say: Con: "Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant." I say: I never said that condoms should be covered by insurance, but I think the more effective methods should be covered. You said: "Con: What does this have to do with anything?" I say: The issue of consent is key in this issue. If women do not want to be pregnant, they should be able to prevent pregnancy.
Imperfiect

Con

Regardless of a woman's right to her own body women have no medical need to have sexual intercourse and thus should not be forcing a health plan to fund their sexually active lifestyle (this entire argument by Pro is sexist since men need contraception too since they may be having sex with a girl who is not on the pill or want it for actual prevention of STDs which the pill does not offer).

In Round 1 I stated that no one has to have sex but that some people need to be cured and can't afford it at time unless they are on a health plan. Health plans are about spending the money that all the insurance company's clients put in on the clients the need it the most. It is not fair to be spending valuable money on contraception and then realizing that not enough is left over for the people who actually need it (such as cancer patients undergoing chemo-therapy or donor recipients for a transplant operation).

You did not rebut this at all and even when I expanded on it in R4 you state that the condoms should not be covered by insurance but the other methods (that prevent birth only) should. If you are going to not fund the STD-preventing method of contraception that is condoms but fund the less medically relevant sex-enabler that is just ridiculous.

Okay, I am going to use big font here just to say the same thing that I have said all debate:

If women do not want to get pregnant but cannot afford contraception there is this great money-saving tactic called not doing penile penetration during the experience of sexual pleasure. Furthermore if they do not want to risk STDs, there are options of masturbation with a variety of toys, both for men and women.

There is absolutely no reason for the resolution to hold true.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

This debate seemed a little like two ships passing in the night. Both debaters seem to stick pretty solidly to the arguments they made in R1, adding a few points here and there, but the ones made early are the ones that appear to matter most in the end as well. Generally, I don't see that as good. Both sides really need to be putting down responses that are actually responsive instead of simply cross-applying arguments.

So let's look at the cases themselves.

Pro:

1. Health

I don't think this point was ever addressed. I'll get to Con's cross-application on his case, but this is a pretty big drop. Admittedly, Pro doesn't warrant this statement, but if there's a health issue, as he's asserting, then this prevents that issue more often. There are reasonable arguments against this, especially challenging the view that pregnancy is inherently linked to illness, but I never see them.

2. Expense

I think this could have used a lot more analysis by Pro. Why does it matter that they're more expensive? It's because that bankrupts poor single mothers. It drains hospitals of funds by forcing them to pay for the birth. These counter-balance a lot of the costs, especially since the latter adds to insurance premiums. I don't see that argument. So while I buy this, and Con doesn't give me any response, it doesn't mean much. Maybe I believe that this puts a higher onus on mothers by not having contraception, but that's much weaker than it should be.

3. Right to choose

What does this mean? I'm given several assertions throughout the debate that the right to choose is important and that no one should be able to take that right away from women, but not a reason why that right is important. I buy that it's lost, but I can't piece together an impact from what I'm given.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

4. Saves money

We get to the cost of pregnancy and childbirth here... very generally. I don't know what these costs look like and who they affect, but they're costs. I buy that those costs exist and counter the costs of paying for contraception, but I don't know if I should view these as fully eliminating those costs or even turning them into surpluses, and for whom.

5. Child abuse

Probably the strongest point in Pro's argument, which is why I'm surprised that the word "abuse" only shows up once in this debate. It's the only point that applies solely to the child, and therefore all of the responsibilities that Con heaps on the women don't apply here. Their failure to adhere to what he views as common sense harms another person. Con never responds to this point, so I'm buying that child abuse will occur. If this impact had been warranted at all, I wouldn't have to look at the rest of the debate.

6. Cost-effective

So I'm noticing an odd trend here. Points 2, 4 and 6 are all about costs, and should all be a part of the same point. All of them should have been evidenced, or at least warranted, but they're not. This, especially, is very lacking. Con asserts that these are huge costs, you assert that they're cost effective. Who should I believe?

7. Equality

This should have been a big point, but it was practically nonexistent. Pro argues that poor women should have the same rights as rich ones, but still fails to explain why that choice is important, and, worse yet, fails to show why that equality is beneficial. That's the entire point here, and it's nonexistent.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

Con:

1) Abstinence

I'll hit this one right off the bat " it misses the point. Abstinence is not a counter-plan. You can't force people not to engage in vaginal intercourse, nor have you provided any means to reduce the incidence of intercourse. Yes, abstinence stands as an alternative choice for women. They often choose not to engage in it in status quo, so what they choose to do has little to do with it. Perhaps what you were trying to argue here is that they make the decision when other options are available, and that other people shouldn't bail them out. I'm not really given a reason why that's inherently harmful beyond the money loss, which I'll address shortly.

2) Government-subsidized

This is really a half-baked counterplan with little explanation, and worst of all, it's not distinct from the plan. Government subsidized health care is, functionally, a health plan. Pro never argued that private health insurers are the only ones his case applies to, and so I didn't assume that. Con did, for some reason. That's not to mention that it bites all of the same harms Con points out.

3) Health insurance losses

This seems to be a running problem in the debate " each debater points to cost concerns, but no one weighs them against one another. Pro makes a number of claims as to what will happen to overall costs. Con makes this claim that costs will be a hefty burden and lead to some cancer patients not getting care. I don't know whose argument to buy, and neither side gives me any warrants or evidence to sway me in this regard. How do I know that reduced pregnancy rates aren't going to counter these costs, or even exceed them? I buy that there's some possible harm, but it's difficult to believe that any costs that exist are going to come directly out of the chemotherapy funds.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 4)

4) Sexism

Brand new argument in the final round. It's a decent point (though Con never tells me how I should weigh it within the debate), but even if I bought it, it comes too late to be factored into the debate.

Conclusion:

So, how do I vote? Con makes some good points, but fails to impact them within the debate. Pro makes more good points, but also fails to impact them. The cost arguments seem to wash with maybe a small advantage to Con for a clearer story. The right to choose, equality, sexism and the abstinence issues wash. That just leaves the possible health and child abuse issues, which both belong to Pro, and despite their limited warrants and lack of extension, they stand unopposed. So I vote Pro.
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
I'm proud you're such a sore winner
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
i reported u
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
If you think I am votebombing, report me. You ignored half of pro's r1 arguments and then implied that cost effectiveness, the point he was making, was important in your conclusion. And you ignored the format. Don't tell me I'm vb'ing if you don't have the stones to report it.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
The issue is not that I'm not "think[ing] about it", it's that you're ignoring what I've said. I don't really see how this is a productive dialogue if you're going to not read, and then argue based on that failure to read.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
It COULD be combatted with a counter assertion. It *wasn't*. I tried to read your statements as charitably as possible--I try to read both sides as charitably as possible. But you never actually addressed your opponent's point. In part because you chose to ignore the framework she requested--I'm not going to cut you slack because you chose to ignore the setup you were requested to follow. You ignored the point, and AT BEST made an oblique reference to it. As I said, that was the closest you came. If you were saying the point that I noted, I noted you'd have to actually SAY that. Because your implication, which I only got via a charitable reading of your case, didn't hold on its own.
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
OKAY SO YOU ADMIT THAT PRO NEVER BACKED UP AND MY ASSERTION CONTRADICTS FULLY TO NEUTRALIZE BOP TO 0 LEVEL THEN I AUTOWIN BY DEFAULT BOP ON PRO THINK ABOUT ITzz
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Sitara M. voiced the concern of money, and it went largely unanswered. A healthplan, any healthplan is the resolution, and the contender agreed in part that it should be included.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the interesting argument that in almost all cases in which contraception becomes necessary, it could have been avoided in the first place by simply practicing abstinence. Pro is ultimately unable to overcome this; he tries to argue that a woman should be allowed to have sex if she wants to, but Con is able to pull his point through-- accidental pregnancy is the natural consequence of irresponsible sex, so it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to avoid that consequence to take the necessary precautions (i.e. abstinence).
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I found that Pro had better grammar as Con had no coma between a dependent and an independent clause, which requires a coma. For this I give Pro the Conduct Point. For Arguments I will give this series of points to Con as he points out and wins two key major arguments that actually solves for both, The first being that of no vaginal penetration and that you can still have sex which would lead to no pregnancy. The second major argument is that Pro does not argue the use of condoms though Con points out that they are more effective than many uses that Pro had brought up and that this alternatives would be a better inclusion and alternative than the birth control that Con pointed out that would lead to cancer. If anyone needs any clarification than please ask.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT (pro): First of all con intentionally surrendered the conduct points in the comments, second he kept insulting at least half the debate audience. S&G (tied): Pro nearly lost this with the walls of text, but than con thought big words (the equivalent to yelling at the audience) would actually help his case rather than be disjointing. ARGUMENTS (pro): First off the setup, #2 and #4 are the same thing, with #6 seeming to be the conclusion to those lines of thought, rather than its own line.. #5 seems irrelevant... With that rocky start, con chose to ignore the setup he agreed to, and immediately fell behind (I don't just type "BoP" as a RFD, but that would almost be valid after that blunder). R2's "If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich?" was pointlessly offensive, up there with helping women "proves nothing." Anyone in doubt of this vote, please do a word search to find where con addressed 1-6 as the setup required. Both sides should have used sources.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither followed the rules after round 3. It morphed from numbered arguments to "you say:" and then just general arguments in the final round with no numbering. So it balances and thus is a tie. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major spelling or grammatical errors that would cost points here. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to provide rebuttals for a few of cons counter-arguments. Since Pro failed to maintain the BOP after dropping those arguments, these points go to Con. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins conduct points, as Con flagrantly violated preferred debate rules and is lobbying in the comments. Pro wins S&G due to superior spelling and format. Con wins arguments as Pro failed to rebut Con's claim that any benefits awarded from health insurance could be easily fixed by abstaining from sex; Pro would have won arguments had she noted the uses for contraception outside of preventing pregnancies. As no sources were used, no source points are awarded.
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because con ignored pro's desired format (which would have made this easier to read). I think pro has this debate won, because con completely dropped the points (2, 4 and 6 in r1) that contraception is cost effective. If it is cost effective to the insured person to use contraception. Con never touched this argument. He said that insurance companies should avoid unnecessary spending, but if contraception is cheaper than birth (which he effectively conceded by not addressing) than insurance companies would want to pay for contraception. The rest of the debate, about whether or not people should have sex, is irrelevant, because the point of whether or not a health insurance company covers something will really come down to cost, and con dropped those points. No points for sources or s&g.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no valid reason why health plans should cover contraception.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
SitaraMusicaImperfiectTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really give a valid reason why conctrecption should be provided by health care. A woman's right to not get pregnant doesn't have anything to do with someone else fronting the bill. Something which Con was trying to say the entire debate. All else are tied.