The Instigator
fire_wings
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading

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 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/8/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 82050
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

fire_wings

Con

Only Wytled can accept this debate

Rules

1. No forfeiting
2. 10k, select winner
3. Only Wytled can accept.
4. I can do both sides so say in comments if you like my side
5. No kritiks.
6. Have to be over 3000 Elo unless over 100 wins. 75 debates min.
7. 2500 ELO to vote
8. Not follow rules, automatic loss.

Structure

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals, Counter Arguments
4. Rebuttals, Defending Case
5. Defending Case, Rebuttals, Conclusion

Definitions

1. Healthcare: Treatment of any kind of doctors, to overcome diseases, to make better health.

2. Organ Trading: Trade of human organs.

Thank you.
Wylted

Pro

My opponent is taking the pro side on this debate. I'd also ask that rule number 8 be ignored.

Also, I'm not running any K's. However I'd like to point out that, a K would challenge the rules or presumptions of the debate, so it's kind of pointless to bring it up.

I have further demands for my opponent. My opponent has basically said I suck worse than 16K in a thread. I'd like my opponent to challenge 16K to the same debate, so he can judge who has harder arguments to defeat.

Also I am not a homosexual, so my opponent should stop sending me the messages he's sending me in an attempt to psyche me out. Please just debate me straight up, instead of trying to psyche me out!

Further more I'd like my opponent to answer the following three questions in his next round, so we can focus on debating.

1. Can liberals be pro life?
2. What do you think of the erotic poetry of Colin Lesley Dean?
3.Vi-Spex=God among men?

Also let's throw in a fourth.

4. Better moderator Lars or Airmax?
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Con

Thanks for Wytled to accept my challenge. I am Pro in this debate, however it says I am Con. That is just one mistake. Secondly, Wylted asked me to debate 16k on this one. I might, however I think it will be much better if you two do a debate with each other.

Framework

The debate is about we should deny health care to the people who had engaged in illegal organ trading. I will talk about the effects and the consequences of this. My opponent will talk about the consequences and effects. If I fill the BOP, I win the debate. If my opponent fills BOP, he wins.


Okay, I will get into my arguments first.

Arguments

Before I will go to my arguments, I think we need to crack down on the black market and also punish the people involved in illegal organ trading because, it is wrong in principle.

1. Underestimates the health care system

My first argument is that this underestimates the health care system. If you just read the argument title, it is a bad idea. Our team thinks that we need consequences because of this.

People should be getting organs under the government health care system, not through the black market. Only through the government system can we ensure that the donated organ was not given out of abuse, Now, if some people obtain organs faster through the black market, then everyone who needs an organ will turn to the black market instead of waiting for the government, which makes bad consequences. Not only illicit organ trade crime, we believe that there should be additional consequences harming the health care system, otherwise there will be some bad effects to the government's health care system, and also to the citizens. I think that this should not happen. If we do this we will underestimate the health care system like it is nothing however, we think that we need special consequences.

2. Indirectly subsidizing the black market.

Okay, this argument is about if we do not do what the resolution says, it is indirectly subsidizing the black market.

If the national health care system continues to subsidize these people who illegally participated in the black market of organ trade, then the state would be indirectly subsidizing the black market. This is principle wrong, which means that we should not do this. That means that the resolution is right and also we have to deny healthcare to these people who engaged in this illegal and harmful organ trading.

3. Send a strong message

Okay, my last argument is that it sends a strong message.

I think that our policy will have a deterrent effect. Since organ transplanted patient needs long-term health care for their condition, cutting national health care would significantly increase the costs of their medical bills which is good for the patient. We think this will disincentivize many people from engaging in illicit organ trading because, if you do not thing, you have good effects, when if you do engage in the illegal organ trading you won't. Even if the policy fails to deter to everyone, it will at least reduce the black market compared to at first which is a very good thing.


Conclusion

Because of these three arguments, I think that we should not support health care to the people who engaged on illegal organ trading. We need to crack down on to the black market and punish the people who engaged in illegal organ trading. Thank you.



This is the end of my arguments. Even if my position says Con, I am actually Pro as Wytled has requested. Thank you. I hope Con write his arguments. Vote for Pro.(Actually Con in site header.)

Thank you. Over to Pro.

Sources


1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

2. http://www.foxnews.com...

3. http://idebate.org...

4.
http://dsq-sds.org...

5. http://newint.org...

6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Wylted

Pro

I'm on a phone right now and can't really post any pictures, but I encourage the readers and my opponent to click on the following link to look at the beautiful Ashley Harris Moore. http://www.mirror.co.uk...
Ashley is indeed a very attractive woman, but also a wonderful mother to a very adorable baby boy, as can be seen in the same pictures. She has a husband (Alistair). Her only wish is to be able to be a mother to her adorable baby boy, but she'll probably die before this debate is even out of the voting period. You see she is waiting for a double lung transplant.
People in this condition are very desperate. My opponent would have this beautiful and fragile mother condemned to death if she were to take an illegal organ transplant to save herself. That's exactly what denying healthcare to people does, especially those in an already fragile position, it's a death sentence. Because this woman did something anybody would do in her situation, my opponent would rob her little baby, that innocent child of a mother.
This could literally happen to any of us. I could give my friend a kidney who is on his deathbed under the condition that he buys me a Pepsi. My opponent would deny my friend his right to healthcare over a Pepsi. (That exchange is technically illegal in many places).
I get it though, firewing. Fvck Ashley Moore, who will die any second without a transplant. If she does something illegal to save her life she should get the death penalty, her child should be punished by growing up without a mother, her husband will suffer. I don't understand your sick mentality, but I'm aware of it.

System Failure

If illegal organ trade is going on it's a system failure. The fault is in the system. Instead of literally murdering desperate people who are just doing what's necessary to survive, perhaps we should take steps to legalize the purchase of organs, so that it can be regulated and safer.
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

Thank you for your arguments. I will go on my rebuttals.

Framework

Okay, my opponent has not put any framework. BOP is shared equally, and the one who fills the BOP will be the winner.

Organ Trading is a very serious matter. It is first of illegal, and also very bad for people. There is no reason to do this. My team will show you why we should not let these illegal doing things people have the not equivalent rights as us. Why should we make things equal for us who did nothing illegal or someone who did illegal things. Are we able to get the same rights? Our team is here to explain why we should not have equal rights.

Rebuttals

1. Okay, let's go with the Ashley Harris-Moore first. Why she got this effect? Becuase she did illegal things, which made harm to her family. It is not the governments fault that she did this illegal organ trading. It is her fault she did this. If no one did this illegal organ trading, then everyone can give healthcare to people around the world. It is depending to the parents choice, not the government. If this is the best they want to do to their child, this is the way they do it. Basically, it is their fault that they did illegal organ trading to defend themselves. This person had done this to defend herself however, she made a bad choice. Right now, our government side wants to help the citizens unless they ban this illegal organ trading. If that person did not do illegal organ trading, she could have got healthcare. This depended on this person's actions, not the government.

2. Now let's go with Pro's second argument which was about system failure. Con tried to say, let's not deny healthcare to this illegal crime people, and legalize the purchase of organs. First of all, that will become more of a failure. It is illegal to do so. It will just make the citizens to more illegal acts. I think denying healthcare is better because it is not illegal, however, legalizing the purchase, is going to be hard to manage. Also, only the poor people will sell these organs to get money, when they harm their own body, and it is useless.

Contentions

I will go to some more arguments, then finish this round.

1. We should not do illegal things.


This one is obvious. We should not do illegal things.

Okay, as the resolution says, this organ trading, is illegal. The meaning of illegal is not allowed by law. That is why we should ban organ trading. However the problem is that the government cannot do this. That is why we need to make something happen to never do that again. This is one reason why need to deny healthcare for them. The second reason is that there is no reason to treat these illegal organ traders. They should not get the benefits we do. This is another reason we need to deny healthcare.

Conclusion

Our team believes that organ trading is very bad thing because it is illegal. As I said in the framework, Pro side had filled to explain why we should not get the equal rights as these people who did illegal things. Rebutted all of Con's mistakes also. Please Vote for Pro!

Sources

http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Thank you!
Wylted

Pro

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
fire_wings

Con

Extend my arguments.
Wylted

Pro

I could care less about this debate at this point. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. My arguments and rebuttals are enough to win this, based on the fact that my opponent is so clueless and off topic, as well as having his entire argument center around a non sequitur. Vote me
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Balacafa// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: The forfeitures are mitigating to Pro's case and I almost voted him down because of it (I'm referring to Wylted as Pro for convenience). Pro's argument, was surprisingly dismissed by Con, simply by saying that they deserve to die. With no real weight on top of this argument I view it as an appeal to the audiences emotion and therefore I allow Pro's argument to stand. Con's arguments 1 and 3 are based on person opinions without proof. Claiming that it will act as a deterrent bares no weight unless you have proof. Stating that people should be getting it under government health care is no good unless you explain why people should be getting it. Con's argument that we should not do illegal things is weak since it is entirely subjective with nothing to support or explain it. So I'm left with an impact from both Pro and Con. If I affirm I stop death. If I negate, then I subsidize the black market. I am given a reasons why death is bad. Con doesn't say why it's bad. I vote Pro based on this

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains their decision, referencing arguments made by both sides to inform it, though one or two lines are confusing.
************************************************************************
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
I can't believe that Wylted's winning. lol
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I didn't say he didn't read the debate. I said that part of the standards require that voters point to specific arguments made by both sides. He clearly didn't do that. And I don't think we've removed votes on clearly conceded debates, though if you have examples, I can take a look.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
It's clear he read the debate from the RFD. Does he really need to mention exact arguments? You guys are absurd. It's like the votes you guys remove on debates that are conceded by the other side.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: XLAV// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments is full of fallacies and his rebuttals fail to rebut Pro's arguments. Pro may have forfeited a lot of rounds, but his arguments still stand.

[*Reason for removal*] The vote is overgeneralized. The voter needs to point to specific arguments made by both sides and assess them, coming to a decision on that basis rather than on the basis of such generalities.
************************************************************************
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Actually my round pretty much was all that was necessary. Con just made non sequiturs
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Very busy, I'll get on it
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Wytled...
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
I am Pro.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
It still says you're con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
fire_wingsWylted
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeitures are mitigating to Pro's case and I almost voted him down because of it (I'm referring to Wylted as Pro for convenience). Pro's argument, was surprisingly dismissed by Con, simply by saying that they deserve to die. With no real weight on top of this argument I view it as an appeal to the audiences emotion and therefore I allow Pro's argument to stand. Con's arguments 1 and 3 are based on person opinions without proof. Claiming that it will act as a deterrent bares no weight unless you have proof. Stating that people should be getting it under government health care is no good unless you explain why people should be getting it. Con's argument that we should not do illegal things is weak since it is entirely subjective with nothing to support or explain it. So I'm left with an impact from both Pro and Con. If I affirm I stop death. If I negate, then I subsidize the black market. I am given a reasons why death is bad. Con doesn't say why it's bad. I vote Pro based on this
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
fire_wingsWylted
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: It's an extremely clear-cut win for pro. Con says that there might be maybe some harm to citizens through illegal trafficking, that we are fueling the black market, and the con plan deters people from this trafficking. They go on later to say that we shouldn't break the law because it is bad. None of what they are saying has any logical warrants behind it, and even if it did, I can't weigh anything because they provide no impacts associated with anything. Pro says that we are murdering people unless we affirm, and this was never really refuted by the con, just saying that this mother deserves to die (what) and their attack on the 2nd point was really meaningless, I felt it didn't need to be said. So, it's that there might be some maybe harms, versus literally murdering people. Easily vote pro. (As for the forfeits, I don't see that as a concession, just a lack of time or care for the debate. I'd take conduct if this was 7-point but it is not)