The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Lannan13 vs. FourTrouble: Abolishing Medical licensure.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,928 times Debate No: 88770
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)




This debate is appart of the Live debate Tournament ran by TUF.

The Full resolution is as follows: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should abolish licensing requirements for physicians to preform medical practices.



Alright, then.
Debate Round No. 1
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
I'm up for voting on this, but I'd like to be sure: can other people in the tournament (admittedly, I'm out now) vote on debates like this?
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
== RFD == (Part 1)

Pro's BOP is to show that his world, a world without medical licensing requirements for medical practice, would be more desirable than a world with medical licensing requirements. Con's BOP is to show the opposite; that licensing requirements are, on balance, desirable.

(1) Increased malpractice

The main point of clash with regards to Con's offense is whether medical licenses will reduce the number of "incompetent" doctors. Con essentially argues that without an official license, anyone can pose as a doctor and so there'll be a lot of incompetent doctors, and much more medical malpractice. Con notes that if people can so easily become incompetent doctors, they might very well engage in medical malpractice. Pro says abolishing such licensing requirements would allow the private sector to regulate competence of doctors, and that already existent malpractice laws already cover the gap by the lack of mandatory licenses. Con's response to the first point is that the private sector doesn't adequately regulate competence of doctors, and that the reason licensing requirements were created was because the private sector failed to ensure adequate regulations. I don't find the second point convincing since it's essentially preempted by Con's offense, in that while malpractice is punishable, it will still happen the first time. So, in essence, I find Con's narrative that medical licenses help prevent medical malpractice in some cases compelling. The impact is pretty clear: health harms, and potentially lives lost.

(2) Public trust

Pro says something about abolishing medical licenses allowing easier accessibility of information to patients, and that this additional information increases public trust. Pro does nothing to elucidate the causal link between abolishing required licensing and information, so I have absolutely no idea why this is the case by the end of the debate.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
(Part 2)

Con extends on the impact from increased incompetence, and says that public fears of incompetence due to the lack of certification will increase. This will lose public trust. Since Pro fails entirely to articulate the link between medical licenses and public trust properly, and Con has a much more compelling narrative, Con wins this issue.

(3) Healthcare costs

Pro also argues that abolition of licensure will cause a reduction in healthcare costs, due to enforcement concerns, et cetera. Pro also mentions "cost wars," and I have no idea what that means. There's no clear impact to this and malpractice outweighs.

Con has a much more compelling narrative with regards to increased malpractice, since he elucidates his links much better. I don't buy either of Pro's preemptions to this, and I buy that abolishing mandatory licensing requirements will cause more malpractice. I also buy that public trust in doctors will significantly reduce, though the impacts here are more speculative. The healthcare costs impact is very unclear, and there aren't many details in explanation. Therefore, I vote Con.

Two comments to Pro: (1) explain your arguments better, since most of your arguments were incoherent and your links weren't clearly explained, and (2) structure your phrases properly and avoid adding unnecessary words/phrases, e.g. the overuse of "we can see." Shorten your sentences and focus on concision.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
very funny.
Posted by FourTrouble 2 years ago
lol no idea, don't care
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
Why is this -7?
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
Why is this -7?
Posted by ScotieRainwater 2 years ago
Dude why do you keep making debates where you don't want anyone to debate you?
Posted by 1john222 2 years ago
I'd like to take this debate.
Posted by mattjstead 2 years ago
You may want to update the question and/or definitions. In that the question states that the "Federal Government" should abolish the act of medical licensing. Although licenses are given by the "United States Medical Licensing Examination," it is not by the United States government. It is actually through each individual state but it just has United States in the name.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins