The Instigator
e.gibson1987
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thaddeus
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should the U.S. government offer health care?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Thaddeus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,743 times Debate No: 16365
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)

 

e.gibson1987

Pro

My position is the U.S. government SHOULD offer health care.

We'll reserve this first round for acceptance and definitions.

Definitions/clarifications:
health care - efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals ("health care," 2008). Example: dermatologist, surgeon, etc.

By "government," I mean a publicly-funded(from taxes) branch or subsidiary of the federal government dedicated to medical assistance. Examples: Medicaid, Medicare, State Children's Health Insurance Program, etc. The alternate of this would be a private source of health care. Example: individual medical practices.

All sources and facts must be cited from CREDIBLE and ACADEMIC sources--not from places like www.abortionisbad.com or something to that effect.

Also, don't bother accepting if you cannot be civil or articulate. Meaning, DON'T SAY EVERYTHING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, or make claims that are completely unprovable and outrageous.

Good luck!

References:
health care. (2008). Merriam-webster collegiate dictionary. Retrieved May 9, 2011
Thaddeus

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating what I am sure will be an excellent debate. The resolution is "The US government should offer health care". The use of "should" means that, in addition top the practical issues, the ethics of the state offering health care are highly relevent to the debate.
As Pro, instigator and as the one affirming a change from the status quo, my opponent takes the burden of proof. This means that he must show that it would be clearly better from an ethical and pracitcal perspective to introduce completely state funded health-care. If there is sufficient ambiguity, the status quo wins by default.
I accept the definitions provided by my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
e.gibson1987

Pro

I appreciate Thaddeus's participation in this debate and I respect him for his commitment to intelligent discussion.

I will conclude that the U.S. should adopt a state-funded(i.e. universal health care) healthcare system based on the following premises:
-The current system of healthcare in the U.S. is less effective at maintaining health and wellness than other major countries with socialized medicine(i.e. United Kingdom, Canada, etc.).
-The goal in a capitalist society is profit. Therefore, this contradicts the final goal of medicine: health and wellness.

I will now support my first premise:
According to the CIA World Factbook, along with statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, the United States ranks more poorly than other countries with socialized healthcare in major areas of health and wellness such as: infant mortality rates(1), obesity(2), average life expectancy(3), public health expenditure(4), and suicides(5).
The U.S.'s expenditures for healthcare administration are twice as much as Canada's.(6)
Overall, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other country--socialised or private,(7).

I will now support my second premise:
Capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."(8)
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, healthcare is an innate human right.(9)
Is the desire for profit a more relevant expectation than the need--nay, the human right--of healthcare?
I challenge my opponent to prove that economic ideals are more relevant to human happiness than health and wellness.

References:
1. https://www.cia.gov...
2. http://www.oecd.org...
3. https://www.cia.gov...
4. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org...
5. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org...
6. http://www.pnhp.org...
7. http://content.healthaffairs.org...
8. http://www.google.com...=
9. http://www.un.org...
Thaddeus

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response.
I shall first address the issues in both my opponents premises and the conclusion he draws from them. I shall then provide my arguments as to why government funded healthcare and is impractical and unethical.

Pro's Premise one

"The current system of healthcare in the U.S. is less effective at maintaining health and wellness than other major countries with socialized medicine(i.e. United Kingdom, Canada, etc.)"

I concede this premise as being factually true, in that the USA's healthcare is worse than the countries listed. However, as I will now demonstrate this is not because it isn't socialised (in fact, as you point out, the government already spends a huge amount on healthcare, so it would be foolish to derive a correlation between how much the government pays for healthcare and how effective it is). Its poor quality in service can be attributed to the massive amounts of government regulation it is burdened with. [1]
Seeing as creating a completely state funded healthcare would increase the amount of regulation, this does not support the implied conclusion* that it would be practically advantageous to do introduce completely state funded healthcare.

*(on a side note; you haven't concluded anything. I assume this was an accident as otherwise premises are meaningless statements. I shall be assuming that your conclusion is along the lines of "therefore we should introduce completely government funded healthcare")

Pro's premise two
"The goal in a capitalist society is profit. Therefore, this contradicts the final goal of medicine: health and wellness."

Your second premise is completely unsupported. Stating that because one aims to achieve a profit, one is working against providing providing health and wellness is a complete non-sequiter and frankly ridiculous. Could an individual be able to achieve a profit in a totally private healthcare system by providing sickness and unwellness? Of course not. There would be no demand (OK, very little demand, some people are weirdos) for such services and no profit would be made. On the converse side, a private healthcare establishment which provides excellent healthcare would have more demand than an establish which provides mediocre healthcare. This will lead to more profits (ceteris paribus) for the excellent healthcare establishment. Therefore we can conclude that not only does the desire to make profit not hinder the goal of health and wellbeing, it also actively aids it!

Pro also makes an argument concerning rights which I will adress in the ethics section of my counter arguments.

Practical arguments;

Unnecessary.
Though the current US healthcare system is still comparitively bad due to government regulations, pro has not provided sufficient reason to believe that a fully govt. funded healthcare will fix these issues. This raises the question; why change it in manner which won't fix its short comings? (or even make things worse!)


Expensive
The cost of introducing state funded health-care in the US would be astronomical. For example the cost of Obamacare for the next decade is estimated at just over a trillion us dollars. [2] This raises the question of where this money comes from. The answer of course being taxes. Which leads us neatly onto;


Ethical arguments

Rights
Pro states that according to the universal declaration of human rights, health care is an innate human right. This is an appeal to authority. Unless pro can demonstrate that rights objectively exist such that they can be innate, this argument is without warrent.
Conversely I would argue that the only rights one has are negative rights; ie due to one having ownership of oneself and of property (due to the homesteading principle - please contest if you disagree with the homesteading principle and thus the concept of owning property), one has the right to be free from certain actions being done to oneself. That is one has the right that no-one should innitiate aggression towards that individual, but no-one has any positive rights that assert they have the right to get something, especially not at the cost of other individuals.
State funded services, and thus state funded healthcare violate these rights.

Taxation as theft.
It has already been established that taxation will fund the proposed state healthcare. Now, I ask you to consider; suppose you are walking down the street and a man walks up to you and requests money to so his son may get medical treatment. You refuse, which is perfectly moral, you earnt your money yourself, why give it away? The man now pulls a gun on you and forces you to give him the money. Could what he did ever be considered moral? In a reasonable society, surely not.
Now look at what happens if you do not pay your taxes; the government throws you in jail. Therefore they are in effect, mugging you by taking taxes with the threat of violence should you not comply. If we concede this as immoral, no state service can ever be justified.

In conclusion, not only has it been demonstrated that introducing state funded healthcare would increase costs and innefficiencies, but also that it would be totally morally bankrupt to do so.
I await pros response eagerly


[1] http://www.economist.com...
[2] http://spectator.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
e.gibson1987

Pro

Con’s counter-claim to my first premise:



  • The U.S.’s healthcare system is worse than the countries listed because of government regulations on U.S. healthcare.


-Con is referring to nations whose health care system is completely regulated by the government. He is implying—perhaps by accident—that these countries have fewer government regulations than the U.S. (a non-socialized system).


This argument makes no sense.


Con’s counter-claim to my second premise:



  • Your second premise is completely unsupported. Stating that because one aims to achieve a profit, one is working against providing providing health and wellness is a complete non-sequiter and frankly ridiculous.


-Perhaps Con has mistaken my reasoning on this. I was not suggesting that capitalism actively works against health and wellness. I was illustrating that the ultimate goals of the two systems—capitalism and medicine—will produce a circumstance in which one may have to choose between controlling profits and maintaining the wellness of patients.


My opponent is only hinting that profits are parallel to health and wellness in a wealthy society (i.e. a society that can afford their own healthcare). He does not speak for the millions of Americans who cannot afford healthcare or do not qualify.


Con says:


“…pro has not provided sufficient reason to believe that a fully govt. funded healthcare will fix these issues. This raises the question; why change it in manner which won't fix its short comings? (or even make things worse!)”


-Perhaps I do not need to give reasons why socialized medicine would be better. Perhaps a majority-supported decision to pursue universal health care would be sufficient(1). Given, this is the source of political change within the United States.


“The cost of introducing state funded health-care in the US would be astronomical. For example the cost of Obamacare for the next decade is estimated at just over a trillion us dollars. [2]”


-My opponent references the conservative blog/magazine The Spectator for this citation. This does not disqualify its research. However, it does ring suspicions of a biased agenda. Nevertheless, my opponent suggests that implementing socialized health care would be expensive. Yet, this does not prove anything. Any new government program could be expensive. Does this fact mean that it does not serve a greater purpose?


“Unless pro can demonstrate that rights objectively exist such that they can be innate, this argument is without warrent.”


-I am not sure what Con means in this argument. Please elaborate on “objectively exists.”


“Now look at what happens if you do not pay your taxes; the government throws you in jail. Therefore they are in effect, mugging you by taking taxes with the threat of violence should you not comply. If we concede this as immoral, no state service can ever be justified.”


-My opponent is drawing a false correlation in this argument. When someone is being “mugged” (i.e. robbed), there is no exchange of services. However, when a person pays taxes, the taxpayer is exchanging their currency for the government’s protection of their rights(see: Bill of Rights(2)).



References:



  1. 1. http://abcnews.go.com...

  2. 2. http://topics.law.cornell.edu...

Thaddeus

Con

I pro for his response. I would ask readers to note that he still has not made a formal argument, only defended his premises and attack my arguments. Premises alone do not make an argument. He must demonstrate why, if he is able to show his premises to be true, they mean that a government funded healthcare system would be better, as well as refute my arguments.

I shall first defend my rebbuttals of pro's premises.

1.
"Con is referring to nations whose health care system is completely regulated by the government. He is implying"perhaps by accidentâ€"that these countries have fewer government regulations than the U.S. (a non-socialized system)."

I agree with my opponent that my argument here needs clarifying. Currently the US spends more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than any country with a socialised healthcare. This is because of the massive amounts of inefficiencies in spending. This is caused by the combination of government spending and lobbying power of pharmaceutical companies. In effect the US healthcare system is harmed by it socialised elements and crony capitalism (an evil worse than government interference! (also please don't confuse it with capitalism in the sense of a free market))
The main argument against this premise has however been dropped; that is, that pro has not demonstrated a causal link between better run services and government funded healthcare. I do not deny that it is impossible to do so, merely that pro has not done so in this debate.

2.

"I was not suggesting that capitalism actively works against health and wellness. I was illustrating that the ultimate goals of the two systemsâ€"capitalism and medicineâ€"will produce a circumstance in which one may have to choose between controlling profits and maintaining the wellness of patients."
I find this argument very strange. He firstly states that he did not mean capitalism works against health and wellness and then asserts in the next sentence that they do conflict! Without any reasoning given to support this premise we cannot consider it to be valid.

"My opponent is only hinting that profits are parallel to health and wellness in a wealthy society (i.e. a society that can afford their own healthcare). He does not speak for the millions of Americans who cannot afford healthcare or do not qualify."
I would ask what my opponent means by society. Surely in a poor society even a socialised healthcare system would not be able to provide for people adequately given that funds come from the people. If the people are poor with a capitalistic healthcare system many will not be able to pay for healthcare. If the people are poor in a socialised healthcare system, the state will not be able to provide healthcare (ceteris paribus), and thus no-one will recieve healthcare. This is ofcourse assuming a fixed cost of health care at a fixed level of quality. If we remove this assumption than pro's objection falls down completely as in capitalistic healthcare scenario, cheaper worse healthcare institutes will be implemented for the poor, and in the socialised healthcare scenario, that cheaper worse healthcare will be the standard for everyone.

"Perhaps I do not need to give reasons why socialized medicine would be better. Perhaps a majority-supported decision to pursue universal health care would be sufficient(1). Given, this is the source of political change within the United States"
I would remind my opponent that this is an ought question, not a question of whether people support it. Therefore he is still under the burdon of proof to show that changing the system is what the ought to be done. He has still failed to provide sufficient reasoning.

"My opponent references the conservative blog/magazine The Spectator for this citation. This does not disqualify its research. However, it does ring suspicions of a biased agenda. Nevertheless, my opponent suggests that implementing socialized health care would be expensive. Yet, this does not prove anything. Any new government program could be expensive. Does this fact mean that it does not serve a greater purpose?"

My opponent comments on the source but does not question the validity of the statistic. This seems mildly pointless. If you contest the source, I can find another which says the same, otherwise such commentary is irrelevent.
Pro fails to realise that he must demonstrate that he must show that a socialised healthcare system would be worth this cost, especially considering the financial woes of the US.


"I am not sure what Con means in this argument. Please elaborate on œobjectively exists.�"

I mean that you must demonstrate that it is accurate to say that the right to healthcare is innate, and observable as opposed to a nice idea someone had along the lines of "hey! Wouldn't it be awesome if we all had healthcare?"
To clarify further I contest the idea that just because someone claims they have the right to this or that, that it gives them the mandate to enforce they have this or that.
How is the claim to the right to healthcare any more valid than me saying that "Thaddeus River has the right to be king of the earth", or if you demand that I generalise it to all people, me saying "All people have the right to wear funny hats, and the government (at the expense of other rights) should enforce this right by buying everyone a funny hat"
Ofcourse if my opponent does claim that the right to wear a silly hat and the right to healthcare are both valid, I shotgun the wizard hat.


"My opponent is drawing a false correlation in this argument. When someone is being “mugged� (i.e. robbed), there is no exchange of services. However, when a person pays taxes, the taxpayer is exchanging their currency for the government’s protection of their rights(see: Bill of Rights(2))."

Pro references the bill of rights. This is again an appeal to authority. He must demonstrate such rights exist. Furthermore, though the analogy is perfect, it cannot be likened to transaction purely because there is no choice for the consumer in such a transaction. He cannot choose to not pay his taxes and buy protection for his rights from a private military company for example. If he does try to do this the government will use violence to attempt to force him to pay taxes. This makes it seem like a tribute carried out on threat of violence rather than a transaction.

Therefore, to conclude, the objections to state funded healthcare that it would be expensive, less efficient and immoral have been sustained.
Debate Round No. 3
e.gibson1987

Pro

“I would ask readers to note that he still has not made a formal argument, only defended his premises and attack my arguments. Premises alone do not make an argument.”

-I’m not sure what Con means by this.

I agree that premises alone do not make an argument. However, in both of my premises, the implied conclusion is the government should adopt a state-funded healthcare system.

[An argument consists of one or more premises and a conclusion.(1)]

I agree that my conclusions didn’t directly follow from my premises. However, my first premise is not a deductive argument (i.e. ”1+1=2”); it is an argument that reasonably infers a conclusion by showing a correlation between major countries with socialized healthcare and health and wellness.

My second premise was to shed light on the ultimate problem of capitalism—a concept based solely on profit.

Now, I will address my opponent’s additional rebuttals:

“Currently the US spends more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than any country with a socialised healthcare. This is because of the massive amounts of inefficiencies in spending. This is caused by the combination of government spending and lobbying power of pharmaceutical companies.”

-This is unsupported speculation.

“I would ask what my opponent means by society.”

-Society: 1. The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

  1. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.(2)

“Surely in a poor society even a socialised healthcare system would not be able to provide for people adequately given that funds come from the people.”

“…in the socialised healthcare scenario, that cheaper worse healthcare will be the standard for everyone.”

-I agree that a poor society would not be able to fund healthcare sufficiently. However, this is not the case in the U.S. For example, the U.S.’s national defense program is fully capable and funded by taxes.
So, instead of Americans paying solely out-of-pocket for healthcare and insurance, these bills would be replaced by a tax, equaling much less.

My opponent is contesting the utter existence of human rights. Yet, he claims that humans have “negative” rights. Therefore, rights actually exist—but, only negatively. This renders the government unable to take positive actions to protect the rights of its citizens, which include creating a justice system. I need not point out the self-contradictory nature of this principle.Providing effective legal protections is providing services, not merely refraining.”(4)

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Human rights are specific and problem-oriented (Dershowitz 2004, Donnelly 2003, Shue 1996, Talbott 2005). Historic bills of rights often begin with a list of complaints about the abuses of previous regimes or eras. Bills of rights may have preambles that speak grandly and abstractly of life, liberty, and the inherent dignity of persons, but their lists of rights contain specific norms addressed to familiar political, legal, or economic problems.(3)”

Now, I understand this does not prove beyond a doubt that healthcare is a human right. But it is a start to a discussion that could go much more in depth. However, my current platform is limited.

I retract my claim that healthcare is an explicitly “innate” human right. This is indefensible. Instead, I argue that the right to healthcare is a normative right within society that runs parallel to the right to life.

In conclusion, socialized health care addresses the socioeconomic issue of the lack of access to health and wellness for millions of Americans. Our current system, obviously, does not address this problem.

There is no such thing as a self-correcting health care system—period.

References:

  1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
  2. http://www.google.com...=
  3. http://plato.stanford.edu...
    4. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Thaddeus

Con

I shall first address the remarks made by my opponent last round before summarizing the debate.

The issue of the seperation between premise and debate

My opponent claims that he does not understand why I brought this up. As I stated in my first round of arguments, though your conclusion can be inferred from your premises, you are still asking the debaters to do your job for you; creating the argument. There are several ways one could have used your premises to formulate an argument. I was asking you to choose one of them.

Assertion of crony capitalism (from 1 - previous round)

I agree that I have not supported it.
Here is a source providing evidence of crony capitalism [http://directorblue.blogspot.com...] (note to the readers, doesn't look majorly reliable - I need not even respond to this point, as my argument holds without it) Here is a link illustrating some of the negative consequences [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

At this point I would like to draw attention to the fact that my opponent completely ignores the second part of the point 1 (which I specifically state is the more relevent and important part of that argument)

Capitalism and wellness not being in conflict (from 2 - last round)

This argument is completely dropped. I shall assume he concedes that they do not conflict at all.

In which Pro misses the point here so bizarrely I haven't the foggiest what to subtitle this.

"I agree that a poor society would not be able to fund healthcare sufficiently. However, this is not the case in the U.S. For example, the U.S.’s national defense program is fully capable and funded by taxes.

So, instead of Americans paying solely out-of-pocket for healthcare and insurance, these bills would be replaced by a tax, equaling much less."

My first objection here is that you forget what your response here was responding to. You conceded "profits are parallel to health and wellness in a wealthy society (i.e. a society that can afford their own healthcare)"

You then proceded to imply that the USA is not a wealthy society.I therefore made an argument that takes into account my opponents belief that the USA is not a wealthy society. In your argument in this round you concede that America is wealthy enough to afford healthcare, thus making my previous argument unnecessary. Pro's definition of society shows that he did not have some strange idea of what a society is (which may have resulted in us arguing past each other)

You then go on to make a truly bizzarre assertion that because people are paying for healthcare through a tax, the overall cost is less. Pro does not even try to use a fallacious claim of economies of scale (fallacious because the innefficiencies in govt counteract any benefits gained through EoS), but just asserts something which is obviously illogical.

For those skim reading, here's why it is illogical;

- Say Bilbo, Frodo, Gollum and Samwise all have the same income of 10 pounds. A particular service requires 20 pounds a year to cover costs (including wages) to provide the service to four people. For the sake of convenience in numbers the optimal pricing point after demand has been taken into account is 5 pounds. The service charges the four small dudes 5 pounds for feet washing and everyone is happy.

Now say Saruman rolls into town and starts taking shizzle over. He decides feet washing should be available to all and so takes over the service and decides to pay for it through taxes. Once he's in charge, feet washing still costs 20 pounds to provide the service to four halflings (actually even more now, as Saruman needs to be paid too!), even though the money for the feet washing is being automatically taken it does not lower the costs. Even worse the taxes are being taken through the use of violence, which upsets Merry and Pippen as they most certainly did not want feet washing and are upset at having to pay for it.

I hear you cry, surely this situation is better as before Legolas could not afford such feet washing services (or by the looks of him, a haircut) and now because Merry and Pippin are not using it, but still paying for it, he can have his feet washed? In response I ask; why does Legolas have the right to take that which he did not earn, at the expense of someone else? Because some despot named Saruman says its OK? This question of rights leads us nicely onto;

Rights (again)

"My opponent is contesting the utter existence of human rights"

Strawman. I only contested the ones you brought up,(that is the supposed right to healthcare) and asked you to support them logically. Which you have failed to do so.

" Yet, he claims that humans have “negative” rights."

Yes, and I supported it through the homesteading principle (which you could have atleast tried attacking if you didn't like my arguments). You only provided, X says its a right, therefore it is an innate human right. This is an appeal to authority.

"Therefore, rights actually exist—but, only negatively. This renders the government unable to take positive actions to protect the rights of its citizens, which include creating a justice system."

What? Because only negative rights have been established in this debate, it means the government can't create a justice system to protect them? That is ridiculous. It is obvious that positive actions (which presumably is an action which does something as opposed to one preventing it - wikipedia only provided reference to affirmative action) =/= positive rights.

"I need not point out the self-contradictory nature of this principle.“Providing effective legal protections is providing services, not merely refraining.”"

It seems Pro is confused as to what positive and negative rights are. Again positive actions =/= positive rights

"“[quote on bill of rights]”

Now, I understand this does not prove beyond a doubt that healthcare is a human right. But it is a start to a discussion that could go much more in depth. However, my current platform is limited."

The source he quoted does nothing at all to suggest that healthcare is a human right. It does not even provide any arguments as to what is a human right or not, only what certain Bills claim are human rights.

"I retract my claim that healthcare is an explicitly “innate” human right. This is indefensible."

My opponent concedes the ethical argument.

"Instead, I argue that the right to healthcare is a normative right within society that runs parallel to the right to life."

This is a completely unsupported claim. Furthermore, "a right running parallel to the right to life" is meaningless if the right to life has not been established. (I have argued for the right to not have someone take your life, not the right to live forever)

Miscellaneous

"There is no such thing as a self-correcting health care system—period"

A totally bizarre and unsupported assertion.

Summary and conclusion
My opponent has dropped these arguments;
- Tax is theft
- Cost
His arguments are weak and unsubstantial on the ethics of healthcare, in particular the matter of rights. He does not provide compelling reason to why it would be moral for a state funded healthcare system, nor a pragmatic one. To conclude, on the basis of my opponents arguments it would be foolish and morally impermissible to implement state healthcare.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
"There is no such thing as a self-correcting health care system—period"

A totally bizarre and unsupported assertion.

I think this is where the misinformed supporters come from. Would you rather have professionals at a HMO ration healthcare or a government bureaucracy? If you don't think that any resource must be rationed then you obviously don't understand finite resources.
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
I know, but I liked your argument
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Totally not a fallacy.
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
Argumentum ad LOTR.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
No idea why I put after the "fact", after the debate even.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Seriously, do you want to have the meta-debate after the fact? I personally don't, but I am happy to destroy you in the comments too.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
LOL @ your arguments below.
Posted by e.gibson1987 6 years ago
e.gibson1987
Also, the "evidence" you cite for crony capitalism...is that a joke? You're getting your "evidence" from some blog, which doesn't even cite ANY sources--much less CREDIBLE ones?
Posted by e.gibson1987 6 years ago
e.gibson1987
"Instead, I argue that the right to healthcare is a normative right within society that runs parallel to the right to life."
This is a completely unsupported claim. Furthermore, "a right running parallel to the right to life" is meaningless if the right to life has not been established. (I have argued for the right to not have someone take your life, not the right to live forever)"
-This is, almost, hilariously misrepresenting my argument(as you've done for most of them). How could I have possibly been arguing that someone has the right to live forever?

"Yes, and I supported it through the homesteading principle (which you could have atleast tried attacking if you didn't like my arguments). You only provided, X says its a right, therefore it is an innate human right. This is an appeal to authority."
-It seems that you don't truly understand the homesteading principle. The homesteading principle hinges on the idea of negative rights.
Posted by e.gibson1987 6 years ago
e.gibson1987
"The issue of the seperation between premise and debate"
-lol What are you TALKING about?
I, honestly, think you don't understand the parts of an argument.
You have a PREMISE, which is logically inferred to a CONCLUSION. I don't know how I could possibly put that any more clearly. That's freshman philosophy, for God sake.

"Dude, what did I claim was a source/reason for negative rights?"
-You're saying because you didn't cite a SOURCE for negative rights, I couldn't even argue it? I have no idea what you mean by that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
e.gibson1987ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con showed that socialized hc wouldn't be make healthcare any better therefore it is unncessary