The Instigator
Dave845
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

There should be websites that list the identity of people with HIV

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 2 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 913 times Debate No: 59451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Dave845

Pro

Gun owners must be registered, child molesters must be registered and placed on a public website. People with HIV should be listed on a website and openly viewed by the public. Hivlist.com kind of does this, but there should be a national HIV registry for every country. A person having HIV is like a human gun and their status should be public. Wouldn't you want to know if your babysitter, nurse, dentist, cook or date has HIV ?
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept.

Resolved: There should be websites that list the identity of people with HIV

Burden of Proof

Pro is affirming the resolution. Therefore, the entirety of the burden of proof lies with Pro. He must prove that we "should" in fact do this. The reason the burden is on him, however, is that this is more than a normative issue; it is also a legal issue and a drastic shift from the status quo. So not only must Pro prove that we "should" do this, thus making the moral case, but he must also prove that this is worthwhile, thus making the legal or the political case.

I am now going to rebut his arguments before offering my own contentions negating the resolution.

Pro says, "Gun owners must be registered, child molesters must be registered and placed on a public website."

First of all, this is a non-sequitur fallacy. Just because X may be true for Y does not mean that X must be true for everyone. Because there may be a punishment in place -- registration -- for child molesters, put in place because they have broken the law and pose a severe dangers to others, it does not follow that this should also be true for people with HIV. Pro must be able to prove why this should also apply to people with HIV, who haven't done anything wrong or broken any laws. They have not been convicted of a crime, so why should their freedom be compromised.


Though, as I have already pointed out, Pro's logic is deeply flawed, he inaccurately says that gun owners must be registered. This is only true in a very small minority of states and cities.

"Outside of 4 cities (DC, Chicago, Omaha, and Clark County, NV), and 3 states (California, Michigan and Hawaii), gun registration is essentially unknown in America." (1)




Pro says, "People with HIV should be listed on a website and openly viewed by the public."

Pro asserts this, but provides no reasoning as to why this should be so, and thus his burden remains unfilfilled.


Pro says, "Hivlist.com kind of does this, but there should be a national HIV registry for every country."

Again, he is merely making an assertion. He provides no reasoning as to why there ought to be an HIV registry.


Also, I checked the website he has referenced. It is "temporarily unavailable" (2). Obviously we can't verify the contents of it or whether it ever even fulfilled what Pro says it did. If I could act off a hunch, I would argue that it was shut down by virtue of impinging on people's privacy -- if in fact it even remotely served the purpose Pro has stated.

Pro says, "A person having HIV is like a human gun and their status should be public. Wouldn't you want to know if your babysitter, nurse, dentist, cook or date has HIV ?"

Pro states that a person with HIV is "like a human gun." But this is a patently absurd comparison. In fact, HIV is NOT contagious.


I'm quoting from an FAQ put together from the Chatham Council on Aging. The key parts that I want to emphasize are underlined. (Ok, almost all of it is underlined, but this proves conclusively that HIV is NOT contagious, so the walking gun claim is patently false.)

"Unlike common diseases like colds, flu, measles or chicken pox, HIV is not highly contagious. It is NOT transmitted through touching, hugging, sneezing, coughing, eating or drinking from common utensils, or being around an infected person. It is now clear that casual contact with a person with HIV infection does not place others at risk. No cases have been reported in which HIV has been transmitted through casual (non-sexual) contact to a household member, relative, co-worker, friend, teammate or student.

HIV is NOT transmitted through air, food, water, insects, or by contact with an object touched or breathed on by a person with HIV. There is no reason to fear becoming infected with HIV by using a public rest room or telephone, eating in a restaurant, riding in a taxi or bus, shopping, swimming in a pool or lake, sharing an office or a classroom" (3).


To answer Pro's question: I wouldn't care whether my babysitter, nurse, dentist, cook or date had HIV. Now, in the case of a date with whom I was going to have sexual relations, I would want to know. However, a national registry is completely unecessary toward this end. Would you want people to paranoidly start googling their dates? Relationships are about trust, and I would trust my partner to tell me if she did in fact have HIV.

I will, with the remaining characters I have, offer my own contentions.


C1) There is no need

This underscores my earlier point.

P1) If there is no need nor viable reason for doing X, we shouldn't do X.
P2) There is no need nor viable reason for doing X.
C1) Therefore, we shouldn't do X.

By attempting to do X, we are merely wasting precious time and resources we could devote elsewhere. This brings me to my next contention.

C2) Congressional Gridlock

Pro has stated that he wants a national registry for people with HIV. This, of course, would need to be passed by Congress. However, Congress has been less productive than ever before (4). Passing or attempting to pass a bill like this would upset the balance even further. Even if, in some unrealiastic hypothetical scenario, whichever side pushed for the bill would sacrifice an immense amount of political capital, meaning that would nothing would be passed in the future. Moreover, in line with my last contention, Congress would devote time and resources to addressing this non-issue for which there is no need to address when it could be solving real problems, like unemployment.

C3) People with HIV are not contagious


I addressed this point earlier, and am merely bringing it up again. We know that people with HIV are not contagious. Pro's "human gun" argument is unfounded.

C4) Pro's proposal is immoral

Pro is shaming an entire group of people who have done nothing wrong. Merely having HIV does not put you in the same category as a sex offender who has committed a vicious, vile crime and threatens everyone around him or her. Why does Pro want to shame innocent people, against their will, by making their names publically available?

C5) Pro's proposal could incite violence against innocent people

Some people are ignorant and may think that people with HIV pose a threat to their lives. As a result, they would be inclined to take matters into their own hands and physically harm these people. Or, people may look down upon these people and publically ridicule them, perhaps inflicting harm on them or injuring them in that way, or even causing so much pain to these innocent people that they decide to harm themselves. This, of course, is normatively wrong and we should not allow such a thing to happen to innocent people.

C6) Pro's proposal violates privacy

The Constitution affords us a right to privacy. The "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment -- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (5) -- has been interpreted by the courts as a right to personal privacy, and has been used as the justification for Supreme Court cases such as Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (6). Pro's proposal releases expansive, sensitive information that not only puts people in danger of, say, having their identity stolen or being personally harmed, but which violates their fundamental liberties.

Conclusion

I have refuted all of Pro's arguments and demonstrated why his proposal is ludicrous.

Vote Con.


Sources
(1) http://tinyurl.com...

(2) http://tinyurl.com...
(3) http://tinyurl.com...;
(4) http://tinyurl.com...;
(5) http://tinyurl.com...;

(6) http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Dave845

Pro

It is more important to keep a healthy person from being infected rather than protect the privacy of a person with HIV. A national HIV registry would indirectly save lives by exposing those who have it. If you contracted HIV from unprotected sex or needle sharing you don't deserve privacy. If you contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, from a bloody fight or rape then its not your fault, but you should still be listed.

Would you have sex with someone who you heard had HIV? Would you eat at a restaurant if you read that the chef has HIV?
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My thanks to Pro for his round. I will now rebut his arguments before rebuilding my own contentions.

Note, first and foremost, that Pro has not denied his burden of proof nor my analysis thereof. Extend my burden analysis.

Pro says, "It is more important to keep a healthy person from being infected rather than protect the privacy of a person with HIV. A national HIV registry would indirectly save lives by exposing those who have it."

Pro provides no justification for his claim that privacy may in this case be trumped. Indeed there are justifiable limits on privacy which we accept and whch are embedded in the social contract, but by no means should we accept a nearly limitless, unrestrained HIV registry. Not to mention, Pro asserts -- but provides no basis -- for why privacy can be trumped, and has not proven the validity of his assertion that there will be any benefit. He says that this will "indirectly save lives." Where is his evidence for this claim? Where is his evidence that the benefits of this proposal outweigh the costs? Who is to say that the amount of lives saved -- supposedly -- from this outweigh any additional increase in violence by virtue of the exposure of the sensitive information of millions of people?

Pro's argument is essentially the following:

P1) If (x) condition is met such that we can derive (y) benefit, we can justify an encroachment upon privacy.
P2) (x) condition has been met.
C1) Therefore, we can justify an encroachment upon privacy.

For Pro to successfully fulfill his burden of proof, he must define and justify (x) condition and define and prove that (y) benefit will be derived. He has completely failed to do this. He says that this proposal will save lives, but I pointed out that people with HIV are not contagious, and his proposal could in fact incite violence and thus lead to gratuitous suffering. Pro has completely failed to find evidence, and thus his burden of proof is completely unfilfilled.

Pro says, "If you contracted HIV from unprotected sex or needle sharing you don't deserve privacy."

Pro makes a normative statement with respect to deservedness of privacy. However, why should we accept that privacy must be "deserved?" Who deterines the criteria of deservedness and assesses the degree to which we do or do not deserve privacy?

The problem with Pro's remark is that it is merely an assertion -- nothing more than a statement of opinion. He is opining on this issue in an attempt to establish an objective criteria for why we should take an actionn that is unjust, unwarranted, and unneeded -- and he cannot even prove that this would actually yield some sort of benefit.

Moreover, this brings me back to my constitutional argument from the last round, which Pro has dropped completely. We have a fundamental right to privacy which is embedded in the Constitution, the framework which we use as the starting point for crafting policy. Pro's proposal is unconstitutional because it violates our fundamental freedom. Furthermore it attempts to impose an arbitrary standard of "deservedness," which directly defames the principle upon which this country was founded on -- which is that people are equal in the eyes of the law and should have a say in what their government is doing. With his proposal, he is effectively denying millions of people a voice in their government and attempting to establsh a notion of deservedness. This arbitrary notion effectively desolves any objective standard or framework for rights. With Pro's proposal, we could establish virtually any law we wanted and wouldn't have to establish any degree of accountability. Without a doubt his proposal would propel a slipper slope, and we have a vested interest in protecting privacy -- especially because Pro has failed to adequately defend this standard, or to establish an objective criterion, or to account for any actual benefits of his proposal.

Pro says, "If you contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, from a bloody fight or rape then its not your fault, but you should still be listed."

Pro admits that there are exceptions to his proposal, but then makes the affirmative that his proposal should still go into effect. What he has done by saying this is that his criterion of deservedness -- entirely arbitrary -- does not apply universally. He has not established a criterion by which people in these types of circumstances should have to subject themselves to a national registery. This statement of Pro's alone should be seen as a concession.

Pro asks, "Would you have sex with someone who you heard had HIV?"

Pro poses this question, but this is completely irrelevant. It isn't necessary to have a national HIV registry in order to avoid having intercourse with someone with HIV. This does not in the slightst establish Pro's burden of proof.

Pro asks, "Would you eat at a restaurant if you read that the chef has HIV?"

Yes, I would. Allow me to quote from my last round:

"Unlike common diseases like colds, flu, measles or chicken pox, HIV is not highly contagious. It is NOT transmitted through touching, hugging, sneezing, coughing, eating or drinking from common utensils, or being around an infected person. It is now clear that casual contact with a person with HIV infection does not place others at risk. No cases have been reported in which HIV has been transmitted through casual (non-sexual) contact to a household member, relative, co-worker, friend, teammate or student.

HIV is NOT transmitted through air, food, water, insects, or by contact with an object touched or breathed on by a person with HIV. There is no reason to fear becoming infected with HIV by using a public rest room or telephone, eating in a restaurant, riding in a taxi or bus, shopping, swimming in a pool or lake, sharing an office or a classroom." (1)

There is no reason to believe that HIV could be transmitted from a chef. This contention falls.


Onto rebuilding my contentions:

C1) There is no need

Pro completely drops this contention. Extend it.

C2) Congressional gridlock

Pro completely drops this contention. Extend it.

C3) People with HIV are not contagious.

I cited this contention in order to refute one of Pro's argument. He completely dropped this point. Extend it.

C4) Morality of this proposal

Pro asserted a normative statement with respect to deservedness as a standard by which we can enjoy our right to privacy, but he did not address my point that his proposal is immoral. Moreover, I have already addressed his argument with respect to his arbitrary standard. Extend this point.

C5) Pro's proposal could incite violence against innocent people

Pro completely drops this point. Extend it.

C6) Privacy

I have already addressed this contention, and Pro dropped the constitutional ramifications I brought up and failed to adequately defend his standard. Extend this point as well.


Conclusion
Far too many of my arguments have been dropped, and Pro has provided us with no proof of his assertions. Thus far he has not come even close to fulfilling his burden of proof.


(1) Round 1, Source 3

Debate Round No. 2
Dave845

Pro

My opponent admitted to me in a private message that he has HIV and that he wouldn't want his name listed on a HIV registry. Therefore my opponent is bias and should have never accepted this debate.

A website that list the names of people with HIV would be no more intrusive then a website that has a persons criminal record or the White Pages online which has a persons address and the names of their relatives. Personal information is already available to the public and it does not save lives it invites identity fraud, harassment and discrimination. A national HIV registry would prevent the spread of HIV and wouldn't violate a persons privacy any more than Spokeo, WhitePages, instantcheckmate, intelius and many others.

Vote Pro
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Pro says, "My opponent admitted to me in a private message that he has HIV and that he wouldn't want his name listed on a HIV registry. Therefore my opponent is bias and should have never accepted this debate."

I never said anything of the sort. Case in point? Pro is not currently accepting private messages, so this isn't even possible for me to have done that.

Moreover, I do not have HIV, but even if I did, this would be utterly irrelevant. I could use Pro's same logic to say that "because Pro doesn't have HIV, he is biased." Everyone is biased. That is utterly irrelevant and doesn't bring Pro even slightly closer to fulfilling his burden of proof.

Pro says, "A website that list the names of people with HIV would be no more intrusive then a website that has a persons criminal record or the White Pages online which has a persons address and the names of their relatives. Personal information is already available to the public and it does not save lives it invites identity fraud, harassment and discrimination."

Of course this would be more intrusive because it would reveal private, sensitive information about a person's illness. Medical records are now and have never been public information.

Moreover, Pro completely DROPS my contention that comparing people with criminal records -- who have committed a horrible crime, under the understanding that there is a sex offender registry and that they would be registered had they committed it -- to people who, at no fault of their own, have contracted an illness. Pro himself admitted last round that there is a subset of people with HIV who wouldn't "deserve this."

Pro then says that there is already public information that doesn't save lives but invites identity fraud, harassment and discrimination. Note that this is NOT a position in favor of his stance. He is effectively saying that a form of what he would like is already available and it invites problems instead of solving them, so therefore we should exacerbate the problem even further. This is an utterly ludicrous argument and effectively he concedes on his earlier points that this would in some way provide benefits.

Pro says, "A national HIV registry would prevent the spread of HIV and wouldn't violate a persons privacy any more than Spokeo, WhitePages, instantcheckmate, intelius and many others."

I've already explained how this WOULD violate a person's privacy more than Spokeo, Whitepages, et al. by revealing sensitive medical data and effectively alienating an entire group of people. Medical records are not public knowledge for good reason.

Pro claims that this would "prevent the spread of HIV." Where is his evidence for that? Where is the evidence that the benefits of this would outweigh the costs in lack of privacy or inciting of violence? Pro COMPLETELY drops the arguments I raised in the earlier rounds with respect to this. This contention, therefore, can be discarded.


My contentions have gone completely untouched. Contentions 1 through 6 have not been challenged nor refuted, which is enough for me to win this debate because Pro had the BOP.

Conclusion
Pro consistently dropped my arguments and refutations, and I only needed to win on a single one in order to win this debate. Pro fails to uphold his burden of proof.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by drewsaphor 2 years ago
drewsaphor
Pro, You are disgusting. Making up this so called message was wrong. You don't even accept private messages. I checked. You where just mad that Con destroyed you.
Posted by BigSlam 2 years ago
BigSlam
Great argument John.
Posted by Eggsample 2 years ago
Eggsample
Very well written John. Clear and concise argument. Hopefully Dave responds soon so we can see how he can rebut your points
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Dave845JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con raised cogent arguments about privacy, violence, and Congress, with sources. Pro resorted to INSINUATING CON HAS HIV/AIDS, AND LIEING ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION. Double point loss.
Vote Placed by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
Dave845JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy victory for Con. Pro never met the BOP, and Con comprehensively rebutted any argument Pro could offer, while simultaneously offering compelling analysis as to why this registry would be a terrible idea. Sources to Con, because Pro did not use any. Conduct to Con, because Pro's claim about a private message is absolutely disgraceful.