The Instigator
ReganFan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Lets Make Healthcare Reform a referendum

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 8/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,471 times Debate No: 9209
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

ReganFan

Pro

So we have all seen the passion of those protesting at the townhalls of liberal demorats in favor of public option so lets put the public option on a referendum
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for this opportunity.

I shall negate the resolution, "Lets Make Healthcare Reform a referendum."

As The Instigator and Pro, my opponent posseses the Burden of Proof to affirm and uphold the resolution. If I am able to prove otherwise, the resolution shall be negated.

I would like to begin with several definitions:

Healthcare Reform Bill- http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...

referendum- the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection.

electorate- the body of persons entitled to vote in an election.

=============================================

My opponent quoted:

"So we have all seen the passion of those protesting at the townhalls of liberal demorats in favor of public option so lets put the public option on a referendum"
Protesting is not a valid reason to put the Public Option on a referendum. My opponent has failed to provide a single argument.

=============================================

As a Quick Note:

This debate will solely be focused on the electorate in America, for the Healthcare Reform Bill would only be voted upon by Americans of voting qualifications if it were to be put on a referendum.

==============================================

The Healthcare Reform Bill should not be a referendum. Being that the bill itself is over a thousand pages long, I highly doubt that most of the electorate would read the entire document before voting upon it. Thus, it would lead to an uninformed and ignorant vote, which would cause massive faults in American democracy and future legislation.

Conclusively, the Healthcare Reform Bill should not be a referendum. My opponent has failed to provide any argumentation to support his side, so I shall await his response in the following round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
ReganFan

Pro

I would first like to make note on my opponent's mention that the particular bill (one of six) and the fact that the length of the bill is over 1000 pages, but I would like to point out that the comparison of the size of between Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the Health care reform bill is minuscule and as many people are aware you can go to a variety of links to find out what happened in it, lets use this link as an example: http://www.bookrags.com... . Now this may seem irrelevant but it highlights the fact that it would easy for voters to have understanding of the contents of a health care reform bill without reading the full 1000 pages.

Now, the reason why it should be made a referendum is because of the polarizing nature of the subject, an example of this would be the conflicts in town hall meetings all over the United States. In the past referendums have been successfully used to help extinguish the partisanship and the division. I use for example the Quebec Independence referendum of 1995, http://en.wikipedia.org..., the people of Quebec where so divided over whether they should separate a referendum was the only thing that would lead to calm waters after the consequences of it had occurred. Many people also feel as if they are being misrepresented by the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate because of the massive influence that the bug Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance companies have over them, for example how can we trust Senator Evan Bayh when we know he gets paid large sums of money from the health insurance companies to help them. A referendum would be the best way for the American people to be represented, and is the only thing that will cause the cease of partisan bickering over this particular subject.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and the readers for another opportunity.

I shall refute my opponent's contentions by directly quoting him:

=============================================

"I would first like to make note on my opponent's mention that the particular bill (one of six) and the fact that the length of the bill is over 1000 pages, but I would like to point out that the comparison of the size of between Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the Health care reform bill is minuscule and as many people are aware you can go to a variety of links to find out what happened in it, lets use this link as an example: http://www.bookrags.com...... . Now this may seem irrelevant but it highlights the fact that it would easy for voters to have understanding of the contents of a health care reform bill without reading the full 1000 pages."

First of all, my opponent claims that the particular bill I defined is "one of six." That is simply untrue. The source I provided is the bill in its entirety. Next, my opponent attempts to connect the reading and page length of "Harry Potter and the Death Hallows" with the Healthcare Reform Bill. However, these two different writings cannot be compared simply because they are close to one another in page length. Almost any literate person can read and understand "Harry Potter and the Death Hallows." It has a plot and actually interests the reader with action and mental images. However, the Healthcare Reform Bill takes a much deeper understanding of government and the law to be able to comprehend and correctly interpret. The bill also does not really attract the readers into reading 1,000 pages about healthcare, so people would be more likely to either skip sections or not read the bill fully, leaving an ignorant and uninformed vote. To effectively vote on a bill, one needs to read the entire document to make sure everything is understood and reasoned. Most people of the electorate will not be able to do this, for various reasons. The main one is simply that reading and interpreting the Healthcare Reform Bill takes understanding and full comprehension of the law and the government, which many people of the electorate do not contain, which is definitely a turn-off for referendums.
My opponent's source is completely irrelevant to this debate. The Harry Potter novel and the Healthcare Reform Bill require much different capabilities of the mind and comprehension of items such as government and law. My opponent quotes that it would be simple for voters to understand the contents of the bill without reading it fully. However, this still leads to an ignorant and unfair vote, for the voter does not know all of what is being voted on. Besides, the sources from where the voters can get a summary of the bill can influence the voters to vote a certain way, creating a bias.

=============================================

"Now, the reason why it should be made a referendum is because of the polarizing nature of the subject, an example of this would be the conflicts in town hall meetings all over the United States. In the past referendums have been successfully used to help extinguish the partisanship and the division. I use for example the Quebec Independence referendum of 1995, http://en.wikipedia.org......, the people of Quebec where so divided over whether they should separate a referendum was the only thing that would lead to calm waters after the consequences of it had occurred. Many people also feel as if they are being misrepresented by the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate because of the massive influence that the bug Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance companies have over them, for example how can we trust Senator Evan Bayh when we know he gets paid large sums of money from the health insurance companies to help them. A referendum would be the best way for the American people to be represented, and is the only thing that will cause the cease of partisan bickering over this particular subject."

My opponent does not provide a coherent argument in the first sentence, so that should be ignored. He then gives a source in an attempt to prove his point about referendums. However, his source quotes: "When the counting was completed, approximately 86,000 ballots were rejected by scrutineers as "spoiled ballots", meaning that they had not been marked properly by the voter." At the top of the source, it states: "The referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by a very narrow margin of: 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes"." Those 86,000 ballots could have ended up changing the entire outcome of the decision if they were properly marked by the voter and counted properly. My opponent's source brings about the errors and tediousness it takes to make a referendum, once again providing evidence for my side.
Then, my opponent proceeds to mention that many people feel they are being misrepresented in Congress. However, the men and women in Congress understand the process of passing bills, the functions of the government and the law, making them well-qualified for voting on the bill. If a referendum was created, the average person/voter would not be as well-qualified and fall short in complete understanding of the bill and its eventual effects.
My opponent then attempts to prove a point by declaring that Congressmen are being bribed to vote in a certain way. However, although he makes a reference to a Senator, he does not provide any sources or evidence that this is happening, he only creates an assumption. Most Congressmen are not bribed, for they know how severe the punishment is and that the security/reporters around Washington D.C. can catch on quickly. Besides, if the bill were to be a referendum, people would still be getting influenced by websites, television commercials, and personal messages expressing what view on the bill should be voted for.
A referendum would not be the best way for the American people to be represented. As I pointed out in your source, there would still be many errors and faults involved with it, not to mention a lack of understanding regarding the bill in the first place.

I have negated the resolution by refuting my opponent's contentions. I heavily urge a Con vote.

I thank the readers for the opportunity and await my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
ReganFan

Pro

"First of all, my opponent claims that the particular bill I defined is "one of six." That is simply untrue. The source I provided is the bill in its entirety."

It would appear that my opponent has misread what I have said I was not saying that the link he sent me was one sixth of the bill i was saying its one of the six proposed bills 3 of them in the house and 3 in the senate.

"Next, my opponent attempts to connect the reading and page length of 'Harry Potter and the Death Hallows' with the Healthcare Reform Bill."

Actually i was nearly pointing out how are person could go about figuring out what happened in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows without reading it by going to book rags, I was saying that voters would be able to find out the details of the bill without reading the entire 1000 pages see as it would probably be broken down and analyzed just as Harry Potter was by Bookrags.com.

Secondly the fact that you try to diminish my first argument as being incoherent is deplorable and insulting, perhaps my opponent just doesn't understand the argument or feels he can simply dismiss it because he has no counter argument for it; just in case he didn't understand the argument allow me to reiterate the people are not represented properly because pharmaceutical and health insurance companies pay our elected officials to the way THEY want them to. What my statement went on to say was with these congressmen and senators being "bought off" the average American isn't represented properly. In fact the Senator i mentioned earlier takes $66,100 from the health insurance companies as well as senators from Georgia, Montana, Arizona etc. It's all available here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

I would now like to make mention of a point that my opponent brought up that actually re-enforces the validity of my argument. This was what my opponent sighted as a tediousness of a referendum "he referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by a very narrow margin of: 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes"." this is the point of a referendum its designed to make take action on an issue even if it is an issue where people are very divided. And as for the lost votes this happens in pretty much every election whether its for the Senate, The House or the Presidency, and rarely are the overall results contested (see 2008 Minnesota Senate Election, 2000 Presidential Election).
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the response and the readers for the opportunity.

I shall quote my opponent and refute him:

=============================================

"It would appear that my opponent has misread what I have said I was not saying that the link he sent me was one sixth of the bill i was saying its one of the six proposed bills 3 of them in the house and 3 in the senate."
My opponent did not create an argument from this, but I would just like to mention that I was the only one in this debate to post a source of the Healthcare Reform Bill. Since my opponent did not post a source or guideline to which one of the proposed bills he wanted to argue, my source providing one of the proposed bills still stands. If my opponent wanted to debate about all of the proposed bills, he could have done some research and found the documents for the others. However, he did not, and thus his quote does not hold water.

==============================================

"Actually i was nearly pointing out how are person could go about figuring out what happened in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows without reading it by going to book rags, I was saying that voters would be able to find out the details of the bill without reading the entire 1000 pages see as it would probably be broken down and analyzed just as Harry Potter was by Bookrags.com."
Once again, my opponent tries to compare "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" to the Healthcare Reform Bill. Although "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" could be summarized and made easy to understand for readers, it would be unethical to summarize a Healthcare Reform Bill that affects many aspects of the nation. One would need to look through every page of the bill, simply because that is the only way to understand the bill completely and not be led into a certain viewpoint by those summarizing it. As I stated previously, much of the electorate would be unable to sustain reading the entire bill or really comprehending all of it. Summarizing the bill would lead to bias and slanted viewpoints of the bill without reading the entirity of it.

=================================================

"Secondly the fact that you try to diminish my first argument as being incoherent is deplorable and insulting, perhaps my opponent just doesn't understand the argument or feels he can simply dismiss it because he has no counter argument for it; just in case he didn't understand the argument allow me to reiterate the people are not represented properly because pharmaceutical and health insurance companies pay our elected officials to the way THEY want them to. What my statement went on to say was with these congressmen and senators being "bought off" the average American isn't represented properly. In fact the Senator i mentioned earlier takes $66,100 from the health insurance companies as well as senators from Georgia, Montana, Arizona etc."
I did not diminish my opponent's first argument. I simply ignored the first sentence of his second paragraph in Round II of the debate. My opponent did not follow through on the entire idea or provide any evidence as to why his statement is true. My opponent then criticizes me without even understanding what I meant by my elimination of the first sentence in that paragraph.
My opponent once again brings up the fact that some Congressmen accept money from health insurance companies. However, the source that my opponent provided states that Republicans oppose the bill on general principle, proving that money does not influence most of the Republicans in Congress. The source also lists several Democrats who are not influenced by the insurance companies. My opponent's source also gives examples of Congressmen who were given money from insurance companies to change their views, but the Congressmen did not change their opinions on the issue. There will always be corruption in politics, but that is not an excuse to make a referendum. If a referendum were to be created, insurance companies would simply go to the public and try to pay them off. See what I mean? My opponent does not bring up a valid point. Besides, Congressmen have enough knowledge of the government, law, and passing of bills to make an informed vote. However, most of the electorate, which do not have an in-depth knowledge of government or law, would not vote as informed as the Congressmen.

=========================================================

"I would now like to make mention of a point that my opponent brought up that actually re-enforces the validity of my argument. This was what my opponent sighted as a tediousness of a referendum "he referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by a very narrow margin of: 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes"." this is the point of a referendum its designed to make take action on an issue even if it is an issue where people are very divided. And as for the lost votes this happens in pretty much every election whether its for the Senate, The House or the Presidency, and rarely are the overall results contested (see 2008 Minnesota Senate Election, 2000 Presidential Election)."
My opponent really does not bring up an argument. In the sourced referendum my opponent provided, the scrutineers spoiled the votes of tens of thousands of voters that could have completely changed the outcome of the decision. For the passing of the bill, votes would not be lost because it would only be left to Congress. Every member in Congress is accounted for, and since the number of people involved is small enough, there will not be any miscounted votes. This just reinforces the fact that there would be a more informed and exact voting if it were left to Congress and not made a referendum.

====================================================

I have refuted my opponent's points effectivley. My opponent has simply attempted to make accusations against the current voting stature of the bill, but his conentions did not hold water. I heavily urge a Con vote.

I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for the opportunity.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Con dominated this one. Pro presented little to nothing and the comparison to Harry Potter was too much. A 30 page piece of legislation could require weeks to get through. The language is necessary because it is subject to legal attacks and must be done carefully. Pro never got this point and Con presented it to him. Poor performance for Pro.
B/A Con
Conduct: Tied, this was close
s/g Con. Pro's argument was riddled with poor word choices.
Arg: Con
Sources: Con
Posted by tBoonePickens 8 years ago
tBoonePickens
Con all the way. Very poor grammar & reasoning on Pro's behalf.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I appreciate the RFD
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
B/A - TIED/CON
C - TIED
S/G - CON
ARG - CON
The examples, the complexity, the whole deal.
SRC - TIED
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
Make an 1,000 page Health Care bill a yay/nay vote for the masses?

Eww. no.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
You should consider expanding on your first round and drawing up your argument.

Why should they hold a referendum? Why would it be better that way? On what grounds? These are just a few of the questions you should answer in your opening argument. It is the job of the person issuing the debate to outline the contours.

This is an interesting topic for an interesting issue - I'm just trying to help make the debate more useful.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
ReganFanstudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
ReganFanstudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
ReganFanstudentathletechristian8Tied
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 tBoonePickens 8 years ago
tBoonePickens
ReganFanstudentathletechristian8Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ReganFanstudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
ReganFanstudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04