The Instigator
C.Artificavitch
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The USFG should fully fund drug treatment and HIV prevention, including syringe exchange programs.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,350 times Debate No: 9480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

C.Artificavitch

Pro

Inherency:
A. The USFG refuses to fund needle exchange programs because of misguided moralization, despite their proven effectiveness. What I'm saying is people have the mistaken belief that giving out clean needles encourages dug use. Which is why the USFG has not funded these programs. The USFG are letting a deadly disease/epidemic (HIV-AIDS) because they see it as encouraging something that is immoral in their eyes and also illegal. But scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that such programs do not encourage drug use--it actually saves lives by reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

B. The federal ban cripples the ability of local groups to provides NEPS. What that point is saying is tha there is a federal ban on using federal dollars for needle exchange,limiting how much we can help, forcing us to rely on private charities that are unstable. Every major Democratic president has gone on record supporting elimination of the Federal ban. Yet it is still in place. We should take a page from Washington D.C which is committed to spending a million dollars in local money to support and expand needle exchange

Harms:
A. Blood borne transmission has a cascading effect--spreads throughout the population. What that point is saying is that not only is aids being spread through drug use but through sex, birth, breast-feeding,etc. We need to work at reducing it now before innocent people die.

Solvency:
A. USFG should expand exchange programs, end the federal ban, increase treatment and education--this will reduce drug use while solving the harms. Wht that point is saying is if we do the things I am proposing, the HIV/AIDS epidemic will be dramatically reduced and so will drug use. Were killing two birds with one stone.

B. Exchange programs are effective, evidence shows no downsides. There is no evidence of such programs encouraging drug use. there is evidence of these programs reducing drug use.

C. It is unethical to allow drug users to die when we can prevent it--should combine exchanges with drug use reduction and treatment efforts. Pretty much as a government its there moral obligation to help there people. "A society is based on its weakest people". We can help, we can save people, children,etc. So why not?? So I ask you as voters to put aside your biases and pre-notions, to consider the facts, and weight the issues. Thank you.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

It is very rare that I get the chance to enjoy a CX debate on this site, and I very much enjoy getting to. I hope this is a friendly debate, and without further ado, let's go!:

I will refute my opponent's attacks in the order he presented them.

Inherency

A) So in this card my opponent states that the USFG should fund needle exchange programs to decrease the prevalance of HIV/AIDS. He also states that these programs don't encourage drug use. This creates a fallacy for a few reasons. First of all, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in the United States around 1/5 of all new HIV infections and the vast majority of Hepatitis C infections are the result of injection drug use. This means that it hardly ever occurs in people who use needles for legal activities, at least in the U.S. According to my opponents evidence, the needles won't go towards the 1/5 that actually use drugs, thus defeating the whole purpose. So my opponent's own evidence successfully proves that the USFG services are not sufficient in solving HIV/AIDS at all because it will not help those that use drugs via injection.

B) My opponent speaks of this local money, but does that even exist? My opponent needs to show some funding evidence about how much this will cost, how much the government will provide, and how the government will get it. So as of my opponent's current case, there is no funding. Without funding such a plan cannot go into effect, which wins me this debate.

Harms

A) I am not contesting that HIV/AIDS as it is an obvious problem.

Solvency

A) First of all, like I said previously, my opponent wants to increase funding to all of these things, but he has no physical evidence showing were he is getting this money from. This seems that it will take a large amount of money, and that amount of money cannot be just wished up. So this is a big problem. Secondly, My opponent states this will reduce drug use. How is this even logical? Increasing needles won't help as my opponent says they don't have anything to do with drug use. Increasing treatment will just make people more confident about drugs so this might even INCREASE drug use? Finally my opponent talks about education. Education from who? What kind of education will remove drug addiction? Does the opponent plan on educating children. [http://www.theantidrug.com...] This alredy happens with a plethora of programs, and yet drug users are just as common, so education won't help. It seems obvious that my opponent's solvency will actually solve for absolutely nothing, and perhaps may increase the amount of drug users, the opposite of the intended affect.

B) Can you provide some of this evidence? Why should we take your word if you don't even show this evidence. I could say evidence shows that llamas can read faster than humans do, but this does not make it true. Provide links to these statements and back up what you are saying, else they might as well be lies.

C) This is like saying it is unethical to give people guns because they can kill themselves with them. People willingly choose to drugs and people are not ignorant of the fact they are education. Doing drugs is the equivalent of suicide, and is it really the governments responsibility to stop the insane from hurting themselves, when they have so much extra on their plate? A government only has so much political capital, and we need to push this towards programs that can actual stop the use of drugs.

Extra point

Also, my opponent mentioned in his harms of all of these extra reason why HIV/AIDS is spread, such as sexual activities. It is customary in CX to solve your harms, yet nowhere did my opponent solve for this type of spread. So until my opponent provides evidence backing up his statements and actually solves the harms he presents, the round must go towards me. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
C.Artificavitch

Pro

For a brief roadmap, I'll go AC-NC.

Inherency:

A) "So in this card my opponent states that the USFG should fund needle exchange programs to decrease the prevalance of HIV/AIDS. He also states that these programs don't encourage drug use. This creates a fallacy for a few reasons. First of all, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in the United States around 1/5 of all new HIV infections and the vast majority of Hepatitis C infections are the result of injection drug use. This means that it hardly ever occurs in people who use needles for legal activities, at least in the U.S. According to my opponents evidence, the needles won't go towards the 1/5 that actually use drugs, thus defeating the whole purpose. So my opponent's own evidence successfully proves that the USFG services are not sufficient in solving HIV/AIDS at all because it will not help those that use drugs via injection."

My opponent states that according to my evidence the needles we give out do not go to that 1/5. But since he doesn't further explain how my evidence says this, we assume he means because I give needles out to everyone and don't target just the 1/5. But the 1/5 will be those who come to take the needles, so they don't transmit HIV. Also, it's better to adress the IDU(injecting drug users) that haven't gotten the disease yet because my whole case is about drug PREVENTION. I'm preventing those who don't already have it, while stopping the spread of those who do.

B) "My opponent speaks of this local money, but does that even exist? My opponent needs to show some funding evidence about how much this will cost, how much the government will provide, and how the government will get it. So as of my opponent's current case, there is no funding. Without funding such a plan cannot go into effect, which wins me this debate."

Paola Barahona, May 18, 2009,
"In his 2010 budget, President Obama failed to deliver on his commitment to end the ban on federal funding of needle exchange services -- an action he promised to take before and after the election and one that would help protect the health and save the lives of tens of thousands of injection drug users -- in the U.S. and around the world. Every year since 1988, Congress has tucked the ban into the Labor HHS appropriations bill with a provision stating that "no funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug." These words have meant that communities across the U.S. are limited in how they can fight HIV among some of their most vulnerable residents."

This card says that we have a ban on funding, that should be lifted so we can fund. The funding would come from organizations and local and federal places.

Harms:

"I am not contesting that HIV/AIDS as it is an obvious problem."

Since he agrees its a problem, and does not offer a counter-plan, then that itself should be a reason to vote me, because I'm at least doing something.

Solvency:

A) "First of all, like I said previously, my opponent wants to increase funding to all of these things, but he has no physical evidence showing were he is getting this money from. This seems that it will take a large amount of money, and that amount of money cannot be just wished up. So this is a big problem. Secondly, My opponent states this will reduce drug use. How is this even logical? Increasing needles won't help as my opponent says they don't have anything to do with drug use. Increasing treatment will just make people more confident about drugs so this might even INCREASE drug use? Finally my opponent talks about education. Education from who? What kind of education will remove drug addiction? Does the opponent plan on educating children. [http://www.theantidrug.com......] This alredy happens with a plethora of programs, and yet drug users are just as common, so education won't help. It seems obvious that my opponent's solvency will actually solve for absolutely nothing, and perhaps may increase the amount of drug users, the opposite of the intended affect."

To clarify this for my opponent and make it "logical" in his eyes, by having NEP's, we give out free needles that can prevent the share of HIV from dirty needles. Satistics show that people will accept needles, and while their possibly accept drug rehabilitation.

B) Eric Blumenson, Fall 2002
Three other particularly thorough and prominent studies have each demonstrated how effective a treatment approach can be. These are the Treatment Outcomes Prospective Study ("TOPS"), a National Institute of Drug Abuse project based on interviews of almost 10,000 drug addicts between 1979 and 1981; a second NIDA study of similar scope conducted from 1991-1993, called the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study ("DATOS"); and a study of 1,799 users in treatment as of 1998 undertaken by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) entitled the Services Research Outcomes Study ("SROS"). Despite the wide variety of treatment modalities involved, each study found a dramatic decline in drug use after treatment. TOPS reported that heroin use among participants had declined 60% one year after the completion of treatment, and 70% two years after treatment. Cocaine use similarly declined, 35% one year after treatment and 56% two years after treatment. The subsequent DATOS study
found a 69% reduction in weekly heroin use after outpatient methadone treatment and a 48% reduction in weekly cocaine use after treatment. The DATOS study also showed that treatment is more successful in reducing drug dependency if it involves in-patient placement and/or a prolonged course of treatment. The SROS study, which interviewed drug users five years after completing treatment, reported a 45% drop in cocaine use, a 14% drop in heroin use, and a 21% decrease in any drug use following treatment.

C) I don't see a link to this argument and the debate.

HIV being such a widespread pandemic, we have to tackle it steps at a time. Right now we worry about IDU's seeing as that's the biggest problem. That's my solvency. I'm solving for drug injection use.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

I'll go straight down the flow.

Inherency

A) It wasn't my opponent's evidence that stated 1/5 of HIV/AIDS comes from drug use via needles, it was my own evidence that I brought into the argument that said this. It came from a reliable source (Center for Drug Control) and is therefore accurate and relevant information. Needles only cause 1/5 of HIV/AIDS, to it would make sense that these needle programs would target drug users. But my opponents very own evidence stated that scientific research showed that it does not affect drug users. If these needle programs cannot help these drug users, then in what way is HIV/AIDS actually being stopped? The fallacy here, is that this NEP won't work, because it doesn't target the needed group.

B) I asked my opponent to simply show some evidence explaining how the government will get the funding to support this case, and all that he provided was evidence saying the government CAN'T afford this case. Later, he goes on to say it will come from organization and local/federal places. But there is no mention of any specifics. If we are to really enact such a policy, it is necessary to have a firm, stable location of funding. My opponent's funding is conditional at best, and is not at all that firm source of funding we need to enact this plan. Unless my opponent can provide actual ways of getting funding, then this must flow to me.

Harms

A) Whoa, now. Just because I do not offer a counter-plan or disagree with your Harms, does not mean you should get the ballot. The voters should not vote for you because your plan will actually hurt the status quo. If it does manage to find funding, the plan still won't work, as I showed in Inherency A, so it will just end up being a waste of money. Right now there is a fire. All that Aff is doing is throwing fuel onto that fire, and there is no reason you should assumedly vote for him.

As another note, I would like to point out it is the Aff's job to solve his/her Harms. My opponent only messes with needle control, and cannot solve the 4/5 not affected by needles who have AIDS. Because he cannot solve this, it must flow to me.

Solvency

A) Now my opponent is saying drug users WILL take the needles? My opponent is directly contradicting himself from earlier. Also, my opponent does not say how he will stop people from using drugs, how this education will miraculously solve for the addiction, or how he will get his funding (once again.) My opponent has basically said nothing against this argument, and I hope he will really make it logical in my eyes in the final round.

B) Now my opponent is going to not only fund a NEP, but fund rehibilitation programs as well? There are multiple problems with this. An even BIGGER funding program, how will these people be encouraged to actually join these centers, and other such related conditional problems. Also, my opponent is not sticking with the resolution in this part, making him Untopical. In CX this is a large fallacy and just adds on the the plethora of reason this will simply not work, or be effective.

C) The problem is, it is the Aff's job to solve ALL of his Harms. If you couldn't solve for one, you shouldn't have put it in your case. It's relevant because you DON'T solve it, making Harms flow to me, and it will continue to unless you show NEPs can solve all HIV/AIDS in the world.

VOTERS

Because my opponent contradicts himself about his own plan, because he can't solve his harms, because his plan steps won't solve for the correct group, because he has absolutely no source of funding, I find it imperative that you vote for the negative side. Thank you.

P.S.: As kind as it is that you repost my arguments, I ask that you not do it, as it is distracting, and you also might find a waste of space. Thank you, again.
Debate Round No. 2
C.Artificavitch

Pro

Inherency:

A) I do not refute the accuracy of his evidence, nor did I ever. Also, my opponent said's my own evidence said's that NEP's don't work. Well please point it out to me, because as far as I know that's untrue. Also, look at the resolution. "....PREVENTION....". I do not get rid of harms, I tackle a part of it and save lives, compared to the Neg doing nothing.

B) The point of this debate is to lift the federal ban so state and federal government can fund. Until then its illegal, so no funds can be set up yet. 1 step a a time Con.

Harms:

A) No, you don't lose because you don't offer a CP. You lose because you agree to my harms, then not having a CP. Because in the Neg world your content letting the lives the Aff can save, die.

Solvency:

A) When they come to get clean needles, they will be encouraged to get into a detox program. Yes, that won't "stop" drug ue, but as the Rez said's, I'm only "preventing".

Voters:

My opponent agrees with the harms, but offers no CP. Even if proven that my case is 100% efficient, Ido at least more than the Neg. Thats the biggest voter in the round.

He came up with good arguments, but when he ban lifts my case still stands to PREVENT IDU and drug use.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Straight down the flow.

Inherency:

A) So I would like to point out my evidence that states the one-fifth of HIV/AIDS people because of needles comes from drug use. This means virtually none of the HIV/AIDS comes from people using needles for purposes OTHER than drug use. This might be fine and dandy if the opponent could solve for drug use, but as he stated he can't. Also, his evidence he provided stated that the NEP would not effect drug users. So on two accounts, one evidential and two opponent assertion, I have shown that it will be impossible for my opponent to solve any significant amount of HIV/AIDS that he mentions in his harms. Because he cannot solve this, this point must flow Con.

B) My opponent still has not provided a sound funding plan, or for that matter, any sort of funding plan at all. My opponent says this is ok because he is just taking it, "One step at a time." My opponent's job is to show a problem, and present a plan to prevent/solve it. There is no such thing as a one step plan that has any chance of working. A plan has multiple steps, and is detailed so that it is known what is done when the final moment comes down to whatever particular step. My opponent fails to do this. So what happens when this ban is removed? How will the funding come? My opponent does not provide a plan, so we cannot accept his case; and this point also flows to me.

Harms

A) My opponent believes that he should win simply because he is doing something. This is simply illogical, as his action cold very well be destructive. Just because the opponent is Aff, does not mean that he automatically will improve the status quo. I have shown that, in this case, my opponent will not be able to improve the status quo, and may actually hurt it. Don't allow the opponent hurt the world's people on the assumption his plan will work because he is Aff

Solvency

A) So my opponent is now adding (by which I mean he did not originally include this very important piece of information) this new step to his plan. This is obviously unfair, but it doesn't matter as they don't do enough anyway. Drug use exists despite current laws and there is no reason to believe (especially as my opponent has shown no evidence saying) that these drug programs will solve drug use. As I've shown, my opponent only has the CAPABILITY of POSSIBLY affecting 1/5 of the situation he is trying to solve for, and unless my opponent can solve drug use, this means that even that 1/5th won't be solved. So, in essence, my opponent's plan will do nothing.

Voters:

So you should vote Neg for multiple reasons. First, because my opponent can not even solve the mere ONE harm he presented. Secondly, because I have shown that he does not even have a plan of action, which includes the critical part of funding. Thirdly, because my opponent's solvency has been shown by his own evidence to be completely ineffective, and lastly, because of the whole lack of preparations in the opponent's case. If my opponent really wanted to win this debate, he would have been able to present a case that met the common requirements needed to solve problems like this in the hypothetical manner that debate has. For these reasons, I urge you to vote Con/Neg. This has been a fun debate, thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by rawrxqueen 6 years ago
rawrxqueen
Is this next year's CX topic? Didn't you have a case for needle exchange programs for this year's topic Chris?
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
That wasn't too harsh was it?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Oh, come on, Nixon. You need to at least TRY to make it fun.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
I love CX. Happy to accept
Posted by C.Artificavitch 6 years ago
C.Artificavitch
I made this debate a few months ago but I keep setting it back out because no one accepts...it's CX format. Accept it. =). It will be fun. I promise no forfeiting on my part
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I thought about taking this and just indicting government funding and public programs... I decided not to do it, though. You're welcome.
Posted by dvhoose 7 years ago
dvhoose
Give me a day to think about this one... I think I'm gonna take it I just wanna make sure I get all the evidence I think i want before I accept it. This could be a good debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rawrxqueen 6 years ago
rawrxqueen
C.ArtificavitchMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
C.ArtificavitchMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by C.Artificavitch 6 years ago
C.Artificavitch
C.ArtificavitchMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32