The Instigator
ILoveSitarMusic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bballcrook21
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Healthcare is a right.

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 3 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 77910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Let me say why healthcare is a right. People own their bodies. People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, it is wrong to force them.
bballcrook21

Con

Firstly, you state that healthcare is a right. Then you go on to talk about abortion. Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is a medical procedure.

Nonetheless, I accept the challenge. I will be arguing in the sense of the United States, where as per the Constitution, you are guaranteed 3 things : Life, Liberty, and Property. Nothing more.

I will be arguing that healthcare is not a right, and that government should not force the public to have to care for someone who cannot take care of themselves.

This is a natural issue. The weak, the unfortunate, the stupid do not deserve our sympathy. They deserve to be treated as a food chain. The strong rise above and the weak die.

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Straw,am. I did not mention abortion, I just stated the fact that people have the right to do what they want withg their bodies. My body, my right. If I do not want to be sick or injuyred, I do not have to. Did you even read my argument?
bballcrook21

Con

Your argument lacks factual sense and is ripe with hypocrisy.

I can make the same argument about my money. My money, my right as to who it goes to. I do not care about your health, I care about my money. If you are wealthy enough to buy a computer and spend your time typing away, you then are wealthy enough for a few checkups at the doctor. You are not entitled to any one else's money or belongings.

Also, "If I do not want to be sick or injured, I do not have to".

That is not your choice. It is not your choice whether you become sick. Being sick is a consequence of something you did before, and that sickness is a direct result of your own judgement and lack of personal responsibility.

Also, you did mention abortion, even if it was indirectly. You stated people have control over their bodies, which is directly correlated to the arguments people make about why abortion should be allowed.
Debate Round No. 2
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

So money is more important to you than people? How conservative of you. The truth has come out. You care more about money than you due people. The Bible says to help the poor. I have the right to choose what to do with my body.
bballcrook21

Con

If you do not value money equal or more then you do people, then your nation will implode upon itself.

I do not care more about money then I "due" people. I care about my property and my earning, and frankly do not care in the least about other's health. I care not about what does not affect me. This is called nature. The weak will die and the strong will live.

Taking my earning and property in the name of health is not a justifiable reason. If you cannot take care of yourself, and you are young, then you deserve to be left to die. If we built a society based on sympathy, then we would destroy humanity in an instant. You cannot make the human race better by pampering the stupid and the lazy and telling the smart and the strong that they have an obligation to care for strangers.

You are a liberal from what I see, which means you do not necessarily believe in religion being a part of government.

The Bible does say to help the needy, but it sees laziness as a great sin. Also, do you not think it is hypocritical to incorporate Biblical laws into government? If you want to justify helping the lazy by using the Bible, then we should also go forward to deem homosexuality as an immoral act and ban all homosexual marriage federally. We should also then ban divorce, adultery, and execute all women who lose their virginity before marriage.

MY money is more important to me then mere STRANGERS. I care not for strangers or their well being. Their death or mutilation does not affect me, unless I am bound to be subjected to the same treatment. I have the ability to pay for my own healthcare, therefore the misfortune of others is not my concern.

You have a right to what you own. You have no right to something paid for by other people's money. That is directly theft and nothing more.

Once again, being sick is not a choice. You become sick because of what you did before. You can choose to buy healthcare yourself, however you cannot expect others to pay for your life. Under the Bible, you would be considered lazy, which evidently not only makes you a sinner, but a hypocrite. Which is worse can be left to someone else's interpretation.

As per the Constitution, you have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. You may live, you may speak freely and practice whichever religion you chose, you make keep your house and your money, and you may indulge to your hearts desire. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that you have a right to someone else's property because you are too stupid, lazy, or poor to take care of yourself. Stupid, lazy, and poor can be interchangeable. In most cases if you are one of those then you are the other two as well.

With all that said, your argument is invalid.

http://www.afcm.org...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: OliveJuice/ Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con was immediately rude, although neither side presented a decent argument.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct really isn't explained well. The voter makes an assertion that one side was rude without stating what made Con's statements rude or why that rudeness was sufficient to award conduct to Pro. (2) While the voter is not required to provide any analysis for why they've chosen not to award certain points, this voter clearly chose to assess the arguments in his RFD. This assessment requires more than just an assertion that both sides failed. The vote is not simply an opportunity to deride the debaters. If the voter does think that both sides have failed to present a decent argument, then the voter can either choose to elucidate that view, or simply say nothing.
******************************************************************************
Posted by ILoveSitarMusic 1 year ago
ILoveSitarMusic
Thank you to my supporter.
Posted by ILoveSitarMusic 1 year ago
ILoveSitarMusic
If healthcare rights are denied, people will be forced to be sick or injured.
Posted by Vox_Veritas 1 year ago
Vox_Veritas
However, Sitara may have a case if she argued that it's a net benefit to human beings for society to consider human beings as being entitled to healthcare.
Posted by Vox_Veritas 1 year ago
Vox_Veritas
Sitara's argument has a fundamental flaw:
"People shouldn't be forced to be sick."
Who is forcing them to be sick? No person is.
In truth, "rights" and "entitlements" are generally two different things. A "right" means freedom from other people putting you in a certain negative condition that you wouldn't otherwise be in. That is, freedom from negative alterations by people to your default state. For instance, "I have a right not to be stolen from" or "I have a right to not be raped" or "I have a right to live my life without another human being murdering me". Those are rights. After all, you wouldn't be stolen from, raped, or murdered without some other human being doing those things to you.
However, sickness is something that naturally happens to human beings (though one could argue that viruses intrude upon otherwise healthy humans). Nobody is violating your default state. You got sick naturally. It sucks, you might die, end of story (this especially applies if the cause of death or illness does not come from a virus, such as a heart attack, stroke, lung cancer, etc). If the body breaks down naturally then the body has changed its own state and you thus have no entitlement to medical treatment.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Boesball 1 year ago
Boesball
ILoveSitarMusicbballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side had a convincing argument, but con did a lot better in basically everything else. I'm even giving conduct to con because they appeared to take the debate a lot more seriously than pro.
Vote Placed by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
ILoveSitarMusicbballcrook21Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both participants seemed equally cordial and polite. Con had better spelling and grammar. Even with the little Pro said, they messed up quite often. Examples: "Straw,am," "injuyred," etc. Con's arguments were far more convincing. Pro's arguments were always addressing a single issue or a nitpick of something that Con said. Con provided evidence and coherent arguments.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 1 year ago
republicofdhar
ILoveSitarMusicbballcrook21Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate began with a very odd and unintelligible interpretation of healthcare as a right. I do think that Pro and Con diverged in their understanding of the debate resolution and so this is more of a collection of assertions from each side than a logical debate. I nevertheless interpreted the resolution the same way as Con and so am awarding him points for convincing arguments. I would have liked to see refutations of the claim that "people have the right to choose what to do with their bodies" because this is disproved by the concept of the inalienable right to life.