The Instigator
NKJVPrewrather
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pill_Junkie_Monkey
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Is healthcare a right?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Pill_Junkie_Monkey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 325 times Debate No: 106915
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

NKJVPrewrather

Pro

This is my body, this is my right, for my body, I will fight, this is my body, only mine, back off of me, we'll be just fine.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

Saying you have the right to healthcare is an example of passive voice. In literature this is not big deal. An of example of passive voice is this, "The door was shut" However when discussing politics this is an important sophist trick used by those who haven't thought out their worldview very well. When you say, "I have right to healthcare" you're leaving out a crucial part of that...BY WHO? To claim you have a right to free healthcare you're actually claiming the right to control someone, that being a doctor. By doing this you are saying that they are your SLAVE!

I'd really like to see you justify your supposed right to healthcare using logic and reason.
Debate Round No. 1
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

This is my body. I have the right to choose whether I am sick or injured, or to prevent conception. Without healthcare, my life is in danger, and IU have the right to live.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

"This is my body. I have the right to choose whether I am sick or injured, or to prevent conception. Without healthcare, my life is in danger, and IU have the right to live." - Prove it.
Debate Round No. 2
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

Prove me wrong. I don't have to prove that I have the right to live, or that this is my body. Liberals and conservatives should join in the center and create a public option for healthcare. You can be a moderate Republican and support healthcare rights. I am and I do. Too far left or right on anything rarely works. It is about people and infividual policy, not collective ideology. My off topic rant addresses some of the problems with healthcare.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

"Prove me wrong." - Shifting the burden of proof.

"I don't have to prove that I have the right to live, or that this is my body." - Yes you do. You made a posit, thereby you have to prove the posit. Until then I will disregard the posit as false.

"Liberals and conservatives should join in the center and create a public option for healthcare. You can be a moderate Republican and support healthcare rights. I am and I do." - This is irrelevant to your posit. I'm also an Anarchist, I don't subscribe to a political party.

"Too far left or right on anything rarely works. It is about people and infividual policy, not collective ideology. My off topic rant addresses some of the problems with healthcare." - I don't care. I'm against theft, thereby I'm against all form of government.

I'm going to prove property rights, and the non-aggression principle using nothing but logic from the first principles of logic and reason. I start this, with the very first principle of all logic and reason...

1. The Principle of Non-Contradiction. This is the first principle of all logic and reason. If a posit contradicts itself, it is false, and thereby must be rejected. In example, if I claim something is (A) and not (A) at the same time, then you can reject that claim without a second thought as it is impossible.
2. The Consistency Principle. This is just an extension of the principle of non-contradiction. So if it holds, then this principle holds as well. If a posit is logically inconsistent, then it must be rejected. Moreover, if two things are a true dichotomy, and one is falsified, the other must be true as well.
3. The Burden of Proof is on the active side. If it is on the passive side, then the passive side must justify everything they are not doing. This is clearly impossible, thereby the burden of proof must be on the active side.
4. Force is active, therefor those who wish to use force have the burden of proof
5. You own yourself, if not then who owns you? Who gets to determine who gets to own slaves? Moreover, if you reject the notion of self-ownership, you cannot justify your own existence. Since the posit that you do not own yourself is VERY inconsistent, you must own yourself.
6. You own the fruits of your labor, and the results of your actions. If not, then who does? The posit that you do not own the fruits of your labor is inconsistent, thereby must be rejected.
7. Aggression cannot be justified, as it is a violation of these property rights

It is unjustifiable to ENSLAVE another person, which is what you are advocating for. You are either an idiot, or evil. Pick one.
Debate Round No. 3
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I don't have to prove that this is my body or I have the right to live. All human brings have the right to live. It is in the Constitution.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

"I don't have to prove that this is my body or I have the right to live. All human brings have the right to live. It is in the Constitution." - And if it said you had the right to rape children would it be just as valid?

Saying it is true because a piece of paper says it is logically fallacious. appeal to authority fallacy.

This is a question from me to you, completely irrelevant to the debate but, why are you on a debate website when you don't know how to reason?
Debate Round No. 4
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

You God damn troll, no one is suggesting child rape. I was raped as a child, so check your God damn privilege. You have been reported, and are using the strawman fallacy. Phuck you.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

"You God damn troll" - Argumentum ad hominem.

"no one is suggesting child rape." - Of course, I used child rape as an example to show how appeal to authority is not a valid argument (Which it isn't, that is logic 101)

" I was raped as a child, so check your God damn privilege." - Argumentum ad hominem.

"You have been reported, and are using the strawman fallacy." - Irony? What did I ever say that was logically invalid? When did I strawman your position?

Within this debate you committed these logical fallacies (chronologically)
1. Shifting Burden of Proof
2. Appeal to Authority
3. Argumentum ad hominem
4. Argumentum ad hominem

How about you actually make an argument for your position rather than spew your sophistry and hate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by S.K 5 months ago
S.K
You cannot be denied healthcare. Walk into any hospital and they will take care of you. But I wouldn't trust just anyone handling my tax dollars for the sake of having sub-par healthcare.
Posted by Mike_10-4 6 months ago
Mike_10-4
The only rights we have are our "unalienable Rights"!
http://www.bookdaily.com...
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 6 months ago
Tommy.leadbetter
If its your body then you have no right to healthcare. Because who has the right to force ones body to help another? (E.G. government forcing doctors to provide healthcare). What right do you have over another human to force them to go to medical school and treat you?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
NKJVPrewratherPill_Junkie_MonkeyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a "troll". This is poor conduct.