The Instigator
Korezaan
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
NOK_Domination
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Universal health care should be supported

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,497 times Debate No: 3669
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (12)

 

Korezaan

Pro

I affirm.

DEFINITIONS
Universal health care (UHC) – Healthcare for everyone.
Should – Morally obliged to (do action X)
Support – participate in, believe in.

OBSERVATIONS
1) No specification of locality: The significance of this is that we are not talking about specifically in the US, in Zimbabwe, in Mongolia, but as a general concept.
2) No specification of time: This means we can go to any era in this debate, as long as the idea of UHC existed during that time.
3) Nothing is mentioned about implementation: Therefore, we aren't talking about any consequences that actually arise out of a specific UHC system. If we talk about a problems that, say, X country's Y aspect of its UHC system is faulty, then we're no longer talking about UHC as a whole, but rather, nitpicking at nontopical issues.
4) The definition of support does not necessarily mean that a supporter must be registered to some sort of organization legally, nor does it mean that a supporter must be an activist. For example, let's say a person likes the idea of small government. However, just because he supports something similar to libertarianism does not mean that he has to be registered with the Libertarian Party, nor does it mean he has to participate in libertarian activities, nor does it mean he IS a libertarian, nor does it mean he needs to speak about his opinion at all. All it says is that he supports the idea. It's just the same with this topic: all this resolution is asking whether or not we should believe in the idea of universal healthcare; not that we should go out and protest for it.

Value: morality
Morality is defined as "the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct" by dictionary.com. The question the topic poses is a completely moral one: when we look to the purpose of health care, to actually care for health, things like economics just fall away. Is it right, or is it wrong to support UHC? But morality is too broad, so we'll narrow it down by looking at whoever achieves the value criterion the best…

Value Criterion: benevolence
What defines right and wrong; what defines good and bad, is if it helps other people. If you use your toaster to make breakfast, that's not really moral or immoral. The only place where morality comes in is when we have interactions with each other. Dictionary.com defines benevolence as "desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness", and since we are not looking to the implementation or real world effects of any specific UHC system, a good intent is all one needs to achieve what is right.

My sole contention is that supporting a universal health care system encourages the concept of helping others. Using an example of a society today that does not have universal healthcare, the United States leaves the healthcare of its citizens to the "private sector". Corporations then are free to provide and deny insurance to people at will, and the people are given the idea that everyone really is out for themselves. However, by supporting a universal health care system, it enforces the exact opposite idea; that we can help each other instead of just looking out for ourselves and maybe our families. We no longer live in Hobbes's ‘State of Nature', yet today many Americans still act as if we are in an ‘every man for himself' world. It, simply put, is not. Former president John F Kennedy once said, "The links first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure." This idea that we live in a global community was not in JFK's mind alone: It has been repeated to us by many of our greatest leaders, over and over again. Yet too many people still continue to believe that everything is a war, and when one man wins, another man loses. That's not how it works with healthcare. Just because one citizen is granted insurance doesn't mean that a certain number of others need to be denied that same access. That whole mindset can be changed for the better by supporting universal health care. Universal health care supports a point of view in which we can and do help each other – something that would let us all do more of what's right.
NOK_Domination

Con

I will begin my debate by attacking your definitions. I agree with UHC, however your definition of should is based off of your own opinion. Below are the definitions of "should" directly off of dictionary.com.

should

1. pt. of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

In your definition you said "morally obliged to". Definition #3 has nothing to do with morality. On dictionary.com it is said that must is a synonym to should. Here is the definition of must.

1. to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement

I pose this question to you, "Why is it OUR duty and OUR imperitive requirement to make universal healthcare for everyone?" It isn't our duty, so by using the 3rd definition of should we MUST do nothing. Universal Health Care is not our problem.

You say in your 4th argument that support does not mean we have to do anything. Here is the definition for support:

to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence

As you can clearly see it says we must supply the "thing"(in this case, UHC) with necessary items. This can be from giving money to speaking at a convention or voting on a ballot. Either way it takes some work from the individual supporting it. Since it's clear that support takes work, let's break this down. The United States doesn't even have Healthcare for many of its people so extending it to the world be useless.

You say that UHC encourages the concept of helping others, but we must help ourselves first. In status quo we ourselves do not have full health care, so why worry about the rest of the world?
Debate Round No. 1
Korezaan

Pro

Note: Observations from R1 will be called OB (1,2,3,4), the Value Criterion will be VC, Value will be V, and the contention will be C1.

Line-By-Line, summarization.

CON's entire case is based off of the definition of "should". Let's start off by looking at his claim, where he says "I agree with UHC, however your definition of should is based off of your own opinion". He then proceeds to give us the definitions of should, and chooses "Definition #3", which he says "has nothing to do with morality". He finishes it off by saying "On dictionary.com it is said that must is a synonym to should. Here is the definition of must[:] to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement."

I shall now prove to you as to how "should" has everything to do with morality.

I'll agree with his definition of should, which is "must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)".

He gives you the definition of must.
I give you the definition of ought.

1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help.

Ding! Should has everything to do with morality, because "must" says 'obliged our bound to by an imperative requirement', in which the second part of the definition of the world should says 'used to express duty or moral obligation'. Therefore the resolution links to morality, please extend my Value and Value Criterion. But before we continue with my case, let's finish off with his.

"You say in your 4th argument that support does not mean we have to do anything. Here is the definition for support:

to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence"

- First of all, he's using definition 5. Although I agree that legs support a bench, I don't think that is the appropriate definition for this resolution. For reasons as to why my definition of support ("we should believe in the idea") is true, extend/refer to my R1's OB4.

"The United States doesn't even have Healthcare for many of its people so extending it to the world be useless."

- Extend and apply OB1.

"You say that UHC encourages the concept of helping others, but we must help ourselves first. In status quo we ourselves do not have full health care, so why worry about the rest of the world?"

- Extend and apply OB2.

Extend case.

SUMMARY:

My opponent came up in his R1 with 2 main things: New definitions, an argument about how we cannot support ourselves. Definitions had 2 parts: "should", which I have proven to be linked to morality (definition of ought), and "support", which I had pre-empted in R1 (OB4). The second argument asks about how we can support the whole world with HC if we cannot even supply America with it. This was taken out near the beginning of my R1 (OB1,OB2). Even if I give him that, however, he made no other attacks against me Value of Morality and Value Criterion of Benevolence, which is all I need to show that my case links to the resolution. My argument as the PRO is that Universal Health Care should be supported because it encourages helping others. Helping others is benevolence, and benevolence links to morality because the only time when morality weighs an action is when the action affects another person or other people. Since the resolution says nothing about implementation (OB3), then benevolence is all that is needed in order to support the idea. The topic asks us "should we or should we not believe in the idea of universal health care"(OB4), and I have proven in my case (C1,VC,V) that we should indeed support UHC.
NOK_Domination

Con

I'm not going to type a lot because

1. It is not necessary and
2. I don't want to waste your time.

So here we go. Since you don't like my definition of support here is the first definition.

to bear or hold up

So how are you going to hold up an idea without giving money or physically getting up off of your butt? So unless YOU actually do something YOU do NOT support the resolution. So in reality in order to agree with the resolution, you must get in there and do something, not just think that it is moral and right. Your thoughts do not help the idea become reality.

Which brings me to this....

If implentation is not a part of this debate then why debate? There is no reason to argue this point if it's not going to happen. So to go back to morality, it is your duty to provide the world with health care. So take the money out of your pocket and make it happen and I'll be all for it, but to use MY tax dollars to pay for it is unacceptable. The United States is in over 9 trillion dollars in debt with limited health care for its citizens. To go back to my first round, we must help ourselves first. We do not have the resources to do so.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
Korezaan

Pro

Line-by-line, summary.

"So how are you going to hold up an idea without giving money or physically getting up off of your butt?"
- You hold up an idea as long as you believe in it. (OB4, R1)
> None of his links to that argument matter because we're not talking about implementation.

"So unless YOU actually do something YOU do NOT support the resolution."
- This is based off of his definition, which has no warrant to be the one linked to the resolution.
> Since my definition of support (participate in, believe in) has a warrant, you don't look to his.

"So in reality in order to agree with the resolution, you must get in there and do something, not just think that it is moral and right. Your thoughts do not help the idea become reality."
- Where's the warrant for this?
> We aren't talking about something becoming reality.

"If implentation is not a part of this debate then why debate?"
- Because we want the $100.
- Because it's fun.
> Because I said so in OB3 R1 and you didn't say why it's wrong.

"There is no reason to argue this point if it's not going to happen."
- Why must there be a reason for everything?
- We do things like this (http://www.debate.org...), this (http://www.debate.org...) and this (http://www.debate.org...), they're certainly not going to happen, but they happen anyways. We want to do it, so we do it. That's the mechanism of humanity.
- Therefore, extend OB4.

"So to go back to morality, it is your duty to provide the world with health care. So take the money out of your pocket and make it happen and I'll be all for it, but to use MY tax dollars to pay for it is unacceptable. The United States is in over 9 trillion dollars in debt with limited health care for its citizens. To go back to my first round, we must help ourselves first. We do not have the resources to do so."
- Extend OB1. It is not specific to US providing or China providing or anyone.
- Extend OB2. It is not specific to any time. We are not talking about specifically right now.
- Extend OB3. Whoever said UHC was going to be paid for by tax dollars?

SUMMARY:

The biggest conflict in this debate is whether or not we're talking about a UHC's implementation. His only response to it last round was that "If we weren't talking about the implementation of UHC, things would be pointless". Well first he never provided a warrant as to why everything needs to have a point, second he never gave an impact to that point, and finally, even if we need to have a point for everything, you can clean drop that argument because I give you a reason for why this debate is happening without the implementation section: Because we feel like it. Or rather, because I feel like it, since he doesn't agree. But since he gives no other reason as to why you as the judge ought to reject my interpretation of the resolution, my observations on the resolution stands.

Even if he gets past that, he then hits my OB1 and OB2: He keeps saying over and over again how it's bad for me to use his tax dollars and how America is in a 9 trillion dollar debt, but none of that really matters, since the resolution doesn't specify that only the US or even any of the US is going to be funding the UHC, and it also doesn't specify that we are talking about funding a UHC at the present date. Both these observations just go back to prove my OB3, which says that we can't talk about implementation because then we wouldn't be talking about UHC as a whole and therefore our discussion would be nontopical.

But let's assume he breaks that as well; the definition of support is our next site. He says in his previous round that in order to support an idea, you need to either "giv[e] money" or "physically get up off of your butt". But this argument, originally placed to attack my OB4, never refutes the warrants of OB4. The observation proves why you don't need to do anything other than believe in order to support an idea.

And then there's my case, which he doesn't touch. It says that supporting a UHC encourages the idea of helping others. Helping others is benevolent, which is the only value criterion in this round for the value of morality, and since he's agreed that the resolution talks about morality - he argued in R1 that the resolution wasn't talking about morality when he defined should, but I proved in R2 why should meant moral obligation, and he dropped it - and because the resolution doesn't talk about implementation in any way, all I need to do is reach the value of morality. I have done that.

Four layers.

1) He doesn't get past OB3, 2) he doesn't get past OB1 or OB2 (which together are another reason why OB3 stands), 3) he doesn't get past OB4, and 4) he has never responded to my case, which shows that we should support a universal healthcare because it's moral. Since the resolution reads "Universal health care should be supported" and that's what my case shows, I win the debate.

Vote PRO.
NOK_Domination

Con

NOK_Domination forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Aqua34 8 years ago
Aqua34
I really liked your round here very interesting.

I am new to this site so I was just wondering please if it won't be a problem if you could maybe explain how things work on here.

Really nice job to both of you on your debate.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
To quote Con:

"So to go back to morality, it is your duty to provide the world with health care. So take the money out of your pocket and make it happen and I'll be all for it, but to use MY tax dollars to pay for it is unacceptable."

So much for nobles oblige!
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
lol. thanks to you too for the debate.
Posted by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
lol i forgot to post. dammit. Good debate Korezaan. I liked your reasons to debate, especially the $100 one. Good luck in the tourney.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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 Snakepliston 8 years ago
Snakepliston
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by honey 8 years ago
honey
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by brie 8 years ago
brie
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 8 years ago
ecstatica
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
KorezaanNOK_DominationTied
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:30