The Instigator
vaibhavbhati
Pro (for)
The Contender
am2312
Con (against)

Should government spend money on health OR DEFENCE

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
vaibhavbhati has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 187 times Debate No: 118075
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

vaibhavbhati

Pro

Defence is a vital component of nation
am2312

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate.

From the title of the debate, I am unsure of your position. I assume from your first argument that you are in favour of the state spending on defence rather than health, If it were a choice betwen the two.
I would be happy to argue against that.
I'll make a few rudimentary points and will hopefully get a chance to expand on them as the debate progresses.
1. In the past, I would be inclined to agree with you. Wars have rocked nations throughout history. Since World War II, However, I would argue that the use of conflict to resolve international issues has fortunately declined. Of course, This is entirely relative. I would agree that defence spending was more important than health if the nation were in the 1930's Europe, Or 100AD Mediterranean. In this era however, Which I would imagine is the setting for your proposition (please correct me if I'm wrong), The importance of defence spending has decreased significantly for most nations. Not only does the argument depend on the timeframe, But also the location. I would concede that in certain areas, Like the Middle East, Defence spending is still important. So would you agree to either of the following: we are talking about a modern Western nation or some kind of abstract nation where none of these things matter, And you would like to debate the topic on principle, Rather than circumstance?
2. You use the word "vital". This word comes from the Latin "vita", Meaning "life". Both defence and health are important for the preservation of life. At the outset, Based on principle, I would however argue that spending on health is inevitably for the purpose of peserving life. Defence budgets, However, Are often spent for ulterior motives. Such motives as conquest, Wealth, Power and hate have been countlessly followed when weapons and defence budgets are spent. For what other reasons do wars start? Perhaps you would like to specify what you mean by both defence and health spending? What purpose do they entail? What will the money actually be spent on?
3. In regards to your opening argument, Do you mean that defence is vital for preserving the nation, Or that it is vital for establishing the identity of nation?
Debate Round No. 1
vaibhavbhati

Pro

IF COUNTRY DOESNOT HAVE DEFENCE IT MAY BE ATTCAKED AND DEVAST MORE THAN THE AMOUNT SPEND ON HEALTH SO HOW CAN YOU SAY GOVT. SHOULD spend money on health RATHER THAN ON HEALTH PROVE VIA STATS
am2312

Con

Still I am not too confident or sure of what your position is. I'm not arguing that the country should spend absolutely no money on defence. As one comment points out, The proposition and its arguments lack clarity. In my last argument I attempted to encourage some clarity in the next round. Unfortunately I still have some questions:

1. Which country are you talking about? Where is the country? What era?

2. Are you debating that the government should spend no money on health, And all it's money on defence?

3. Are you debating that the government should not spend no money on defence, Nor spend all its money on health?

I would stress the importance of you answering these questions, Or we are going to find it very difficult to debate eachother.

For now, I would just say that the burden is not on me to prove anything by stats. You have not used any statistics, And my primary purpose in this debate is to undermine and counter your arguments.

To directly counter what you said, I would point out that you said something may happen. If no money is spent on health, People will definitely die as a consequence. You have focused on the consequence in purely monetary terms; "Devast (? ) more than the amount spend on health". I would argue that the amount of lives saved by health spending cannot be quantified in monetary terms, And should not be directly compared to the amount of spending. If you would contest this point - how much is one life worth to you in dollars, Pounds, Or any currency you can think of?
No lives are necessarily saved from defence spending. More lives will probably be lost. My statistic for that is the number of people that have died from war in human history. No lives have been lost from health spending.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by am2312 2 weeks ago
am2312
@Block19

Ah sorry I thought it was aimed at me as I was in favour of health spending.
Posted by Block19 2 weeks ago
Block19
@ am2312
No i was referring to the vague question posed by vaibhavhati.
Posted by am2312 2 weeks ago
am2312
At the moment I"m not suggesting we do anything. I"m suggesting a hypothetical nation (since I don"t know which one the motion refers to) should on the balance of things spend more on health than defence. Besides, Do you mean to say that my post actually lacks clarity compared to my opponents?
Posted by Block19 2 weeks ago
Block19
Im a little confused. Are you trying to say that the total amount of health spending should be higher than our defense budget, That we should increase our health spending and decrease defense spending, Or that we should stop defense spending and instead use those funds to pay for government health reform.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.