The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
HandsOff
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Universal healthcare

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  
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: 3/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,046 times Debate No: 3203
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (91)
Votes (16)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

I would lke to challenge Handsoff to a debate on universal healthcare. The match will be scheduled for four rounds so that I can blow off my first round with pleasantries.

My only debate with you, handsoff, was not very competitive and I would like the chance for a good exchange with you. I saw you were against universal healthcare, so I just threw it up there. I haven't, as of yet, read any of your debates but I see your record is exemplary and I would like to take a crack at you! Our last debate was productive despite its complicated nature, and I reference it often in my other debates.

If you have a stronger opinion, about a different subject in which we disagree, then feel free to challenge me instead of taking this debate.
HandsOff

Con

Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

Thanks for accepting my debate handsoff!

I won't argue with you that MOST goods should not be socialized, like housing, clothes, etcetera. But doesn't there exist goods that ought to be? What about fire service? If your house is on fire, are the firefighters going to discriminate between those who have firefighter's insurance and those who do not? If the person in the apartment below you has firefighting insurance and you don't, should they only extinguish the fire on the floor below you? Police service follows the same argument, and arguably speaking, our government in general is a sort of socialism in itself, since the poor have an intrinsic right to it whether or not they can afford it. I have the utmost respect for the concept of Laissez-fare capitalism, however there are areas in which it works well, and areas in which it does not. Monopolies, for instance, represent one of the peculiar areas in which Laissez-fare must be controlled. If our Government were purely capitalist, it would be equal in corruptness to a purely socialist one. The technique of forming an effective government, therefore, lies in knowing what areas to capitalize and what areas to socialize. I am arguing that healthcare is an area best socialized.

I have no health insurance at this time. I'm not trying to whine, I just want to use myself as an example. Last year I got sick, went to the hospital, and got treated. I was unable to pay for my visit, so the bill went to a collections agency(I did eventually get it paid, but my credit was harmed and I had to postpone payment of other important bills). My situation is reciprocated countless times throughout the country, and it is logical to presume that many people will never get to paying that hospital bill. Medical assistance is a fundamental need, and should be guaranteed by any modern country whether or not you have the ability to pay. When you cannot pay, your credit is ruined as if you went out and bought some product you can't afford. My friend recently went to secure a car loan, and was denied due to an old medical bill on his credit report, so even though creditors are supposed to give you a little extra leeway because it is medical in nature, this clearly does not make that much of a difference. We are harming our citizen's credit histories with these medical bills, and those who do pay their hospital bills can be crippled financially. When you make your monthly budget, you usually aren't going to have extra money set aside for medical emergencies. Health insurance is a complete ripoff, expensive, and hard to get for students (like myself) who cannot afford to work full-time. I sustain enormous pressure right now to drop out of school and go work for some crappy employer who will offer me health insurance at an affordable rate. Even when you have health insurance, you are still going to be hit with hundreds of dollars of bills if you get sick, and you're lucky just to break even with what you have already spent on the health insurance payments. This whole situation is simply a disaster that does not need to be an issue if we simply switch over to universal health care. And I don't mean the insurance kind... The insurance companies have been preying on our citizenry long enough and it is about time we free our citizens from the deceitful practices that these outfits engage in. I personally do not have any plans to obtain health insurance in the near future, not because I don't want to, but because I cannot afford it. If something happens to me anytime within the next four-five years then my credit will be destroyed and I will never have the chance to secure a loan in the future. The only chance I possibly have is to pray that one of these democrats gets elected and enacts universal healthcare, and does it SOON.

So handsoff, I'll pose you a hypothetical. A poor person is sick, and does not have health insurance, and is definitely not going to be able to pay the bill. Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk, and then clean it up and send the family the cleaning bill? Or do we let the person in to be treated, and absorb the cost. As it is now, the person will not be left outside to die (thankfully), but the person's credit history will be destroyed, and it will be that much harder for them to climb out of poverty. What good does it do you to ruin this person's credit? Your not going to suck the money out of this person no matter what your policy suggestion, so why perpetuate this problem? I hear the Republicans saying that we will "destroy the best healthcare system in the world", and without even going to statistics, how are we "saving" the healthcare system right now as it is? We still have to treat the person anyway, so it doesn't make any sense that we are saving it at all. The only possible way we can save it is to deny treatment to sick people, and let some rich people in who are better off. Sure, we can coerce these poor people to not get treated in the first place (threaten them with a crippled credit rating) but their long-term health detriments will multiply in old age and they will end up costing the system even more money when they eventually do get treated. I'm sorry, handsoff, but universal healthcare is the only just way to approach this issue. Please explain to me how your argument is not terribly immoral. Please explain to me how these european countries are so bad that we have to stoop down to their level, those dirty socialist europeans. And finally, please explain to me how I am not entitled to healthcare. Thank you!
HandsOff

Con

Well done. You illuminated many aspects of the problem we face.

The problem with liberal policies is that they create injustices that can only be redressed with more liberal policies. Unfortunately affordable healthcare went out the window when our government decided that its citizens were entitled only to the highest standard of healthcare. Therein lies the problem.

Healthcare has been put on a pedestal in this country. Even though a majority of medical services could be adequately provided by facilities and individuals who have far less invested than say doctors and hospitals, our government has told us that we are not free to seek such services. Licensing, medical degrees, board certifications, malpractice insurance, and various other requirements have made it so only the best (and most expensive) medical services are available to the consumer. Many would consider it absurd if the government required that all citizens drive only expensive German imports, even if for our own protection. Luckily we maintain the right to purchase lower quality vehicles we deem less safe but more affordable. And even if we did opt for the more expensive German import, there's nothing stopping us from having it serviced by a common mechanic rather than by a more expensive certified dealer technician. The healthcare industry is yet another example of a well-meaning government stepping in to take power away from the individual for his own protection. The result is almost always counter-intuitive.

The solution lies in reversing the liberal big-government policies that got us into this mess in the first place. To do this we need less government involvement in the healthcare system, and we need to allow for low-cost medical care to compete with high-cost medical care. Much of the overhead involved in providing healthcare makes affordability simply impossible. I submit that most of the overhead required to do business in the healthcare industry is cause by government regulation, malpractice insurance and licensing requirements. I attribute sky-high malpractice insurance costs to government as well, because is has not pursued effective tort reform and continues to provide a lawsuit-friendly civil justice system-- again in the interest of "protecting" its citizens.

Finally, we require healthcare facilities to provide services for all who seek them, whether they are able to pay or not. This is another liberal idea that can be sustained only by enacting more liberal ideas. I could see if free services were limited to life-and-death situations. But even this idea, despite its acceptance, forces otherwise free individuals to give their time, money and resources to strangers who offer no means of repayment. Upon minor examination this seemingly harmless concept sounds a bit ludicrous.

Unfortunately, as liberalism spreads, ludicrous ideas become common place. Eventually society sees them as irreversible facts of life. Because of this effect, the variety of perceived solutions becomes severely limited. I sense this desperate frustration in your 2nd round argument. In your eyes liberalism is the only answer, and the sooner we get to it the better. Your mindset demonstrates that you have accepted the current situation as hopeless and irreversable. But if you are able to identify the major cause of the problem(government policies that have insulated the healthcare industry from the free market), you will find there is an alternative solution you have not considered. It involves freeing the healthcare industry from the big-government regulations that bind it. It is the job of capitalism to uncover the needs of citizens and find affordable and profitable ways to meet them. Complete government control is no way to combat problems cause by excessive government control.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess. So you propose that we lower the bar for licensing, protect doctors more from lawsuits, and decrease gov't regulation to lower costs. I could possibly consider going along with this, but I don't know if the rest of the country would - an interesting subject for new debate.

I see now what Republicans mean by "destroying the best healthcare system in the world". Kind of like that flashy german car you were talking about, they don't want to see the changes you are proposing take effect. Possibly, the changes you are proposing WOULD take effect if we did switch over to a socialized medical system. They would be forced to. Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system? The best one in the world, that's so good that more and more people can't even afford to use it?

So how do we pay for the obvious rises in health care costs that would be accrued to actually take care of the physical health of our citizens? I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about? Or wait, I've got an even better idea! You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens! Let's see here... 50 Billion dollars per year for the war on drugs... The WoD doesn't due a scrap of good for anyone, and the money we spend on imprisoning all the non-violent drug offenders will save us even more! Let's see here, it costs as much as a harvard college education per year to keep each drug offender in prison. We have more people in jail, percentage-wise and absolute number-wise than any other country, so we probably have a few people to spare.
- 249,400 drug offenders in federal prisons(2006)
- 93,751 drug offenders in state prisons(2006)
- $19,002 per year for each one
- It costs over 6 and a half billion dollars to keep drug offenders in prisons each year, and this does not take into account jails at all.

The war on terror, which also isn't doing anybody any good, costs 260 billion per year. With 317 Billion dollars of extra revenue each year, we ought to be able to keep our health care system working just fine. And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically!

While you're considering answering the questions I posed to you in round 2, consider 1 more question as well: What are the wacky liberal policies you would rather get rid of to pay for a better health care system?
HandsOff

Con

"Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system?"

This type of statement on the part of Republicans is pure rhetoric. You are right in contesting that the "greatest healthcare system" in the world is of little use if few have access to it.

"I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about?"

I wish I was talking about trivial liberal policies that we could cut out in order to save a few bucks. But I'm talking about massive government intervention that has required healthcare providers (along with drug companies, supply manufacturers and equipment manufacturers)to spend billions to conform to government standards. It's impossible to accommodate champagne taste on a beer budget.

"You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens!"

You're preaching to the choir on this one. But I believe any savings realized by reducing our military ventures should go right back into the pockets of American tax payers, and not toward artificially inflated healthcare costs resulting from government interference in the free market.

"And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically!"

Any spending (and resulting taxation) on the part of the federal government which is not absolutely required to defend just the most basic rights of its citizens is superfluous, wasteful and unjust. This includes entitlements to the undeserving, pet projects for state representatives, and unnecessary wars. I have a problem with wasteful spending, period-- regardless of which party is responsible.

Your round 2 question: "Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk?"

This is definitely an emotional gambit, but I certainly would not let someone bleed to death on the street. Is someone who has not paid for medical insurance entitled to not bleed to death on the street? I'd say no. He has put himself at the mercy of others by opting to pass on health insurance. He is fortunate that society will find a way to take care of him. That is our nature, but it is not our obligation.

"I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess... I could possibly consider going along with this"

I'm glad you understand where I am coming from. I can definitely see your point as well. I want you to consider one thing: almost every product and service available in this country (via free enterprise) has been made available (at some level) to most people, regardless of economic status. I don't know many welfare recipients (much less working people) who do not have a roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation, etc. You can thank the free market for that.

When the free market senses a need, products and services are immediately developed to accommodate that need, and at a price to satisfy almost every budget. Yes, quality is sacrificed in many cases. But the overall need is typically met. The same could happen with healthcare. There is currently a HUGE need or affordable healthcare, and entrepreneurs are chomping at the bit to get rich meeting that need. Unfortunately, government interference in the free market has made it implausible and unprofitable at this time.
Debate Round No. 3
Rob1Billion

Pro

Sorry for the long wait for my final round, I have caught the cold that has been passing through this area lately and I am not feeling well.

So it seems that we agree on some of the things I had previously thought we would automatically disagree with on this issue, given our stances. I will try and isolate here what we still do disagree on.

So you are saying that Laisezz-fare will take care of our sick, to be blunt. They have a need, and where there is a need and a dollar, capitalism will find a way to address the need. But what about where there isn't a dollar? You say that all these things - "roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation" - are taken care of anyway. But there still remains a need for social departments - fire, police, housing, healthcare, government officials. There are many that only have a place to stay due to socialized housing. We could just let these people sleep on the street. Evolution seems to dictate that we do just let the weak die, so the strong survive. But I don't think this is really an option. We should initiate universal healthcare for those of us who are alive, and also enact some population control measures (like China) by the end of the century to stop out-of-control population growth. Those who are not alive yet are going to have to be controlled heavily in the future, so that we can maintain good care of those who are.

"our nature... not our obligation". An interesting idea, but I think the policy will have to reflect our nature. Truth is, all we are doing is ruining people's credit histories by leaving big medical charges on their credit reports. They did not make a conscious choice to get sick, and shouldn't have to be penalized for such basic procedures. Furthermore, most people are going to get treated whether they have the money or not, and we are not accomplishing anything by intimidating them away from the hospital. It is "our nature" to eventually take care of them, but this procedure should be streamlined through policy, and these people should not have to trade physical health for financial health. Many of us, including myself, are having to make the choice between going to the hospital and incurring a credit hit when we can't pay for it, or just trying to tough it out without hospital aid. You see, this is exactly the defining attribute of a capitalist vs. socialist argument. You have to decide whethere the said item/service is going to be more efficiently distributed one way or the other. Microwaves would not be more efficient as a socialist item, because they would cost more that way. Healthcare is, because getting people into the hospital more often for trivial visits reduces the huge complicating visits down the line. The fact that people are living longer doesn't affect either of our positions, I hope [unless you are going to argue to have people die sooner to save us money!].

You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, but your paragraph is a little contradictory, I hope you will admit. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, personally, but that society should have the choice to(I gather?). Then you go on to describe a gamble of choosing to buy health insurance vs. not buy it. I don't buy this argument, and this general situation only goes to hurt people, not help them. Furthermore, it is only the bottom-rung of society that has to make this choice, and while I don't have a problem with the super-rich getting super-expensive doctors, I do have a problem with super-poor getting NO doctors.

Otherwise, you have a very level-headed view of the situation in general, and you make some good points. Good debate!
HandsOff

Con

"I will try and isolate here what we still do disagree on."

HERE IS WHERE I THINK EACH OF US STANDS:

1. You think people are entitled to free health care as one of their natural rights-- if not a natural right, a right that we should secure after the fact, similar to public education.

My view: I do not think free health care is a natural right, but that affordable health care is a need likely to be met by unfettered private enterprise. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual to realize the importance of such a need and budget for health insurance appropriately, just as he does for food, clothing and rent. I feel the same about education.

2. You think, because health care is a natural right (or close to one), we should find a way to guaranty it to all. Although you might agree that government would not be the most cost-effective way of providing it, it must because private industry may allow some people to fall through the cracks. So efficiency sacrificed in exchange for certainty is worth the cost (in taxes).

My view: Since I never agreed with the presumption that health care is a right, I don't think we morally have a say in how it should be provided, at what cost, to what extent, nor by whom. I believe it should be left to the free market to provide very affordable services (hence very affordable insurance) of acceptable quality wherever there is a need. If health care is still not financially feasible for some, then family, friends or charitable organization may or may not step in. But without insurance there is no guaranty.

THAT'S MY VIEW ON OUR DIFFERENCES. HERE IS MY ROUND 4 ARGUMENT:

"So you are saying that Laisezz-fare will take care of our sick, to be blunt. They have a need, and where there is a need and a dollar, capitalism will find a way to address the need. But what about where there isn't a dollar?"

If government got out of the way, entrepreneurs could provide extremely affordable medical services, and that in turn would result in extremely affordable private health insurance. I realize some would still fall through the cracks, but that is where family, friends and charity may or may not step in. There are no guaranties. However, I have no problem with city or state governments deciding to provide additional safety nets beyond this point. At least citizens can decide whether they want to live there and pay the taxes required to support such programs. But, given that costs would me much less due to our hypothetical deregulation, it may not be that costly.

"You say that all these things - "roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation" - are taken care of anyway. There are many that only have a place to stay due to socialized housing. We could just let these people sleep on the street."

I am not for government providing housing to anyone. No one has a natural right to housing. The government is here to protect our natural rights. Anything beyond that is the job of private charity-- another industry that government intervention has crippled by forcing prospective voluntary donors to give involuntarily by way of taxation. Can you imagine how much more charities could do if taxes were lowered so individuals had more to give?

A SIDE NOTE ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES VERSUS PRIVATE CHARITY: With government taking over half one's income it's amazing any private charities survive at all. Government is in the business of taking money from would-be donors and inefficiently spreading it about, all while robbing donors of any good feeling in exchange for their forced generosity. I read somewhere we are luck to see one of every four dollars spent on welfare programs reach the recipient in some form. That means government needs to confiscate more than four times the amount required to solve the problem. If citizens were allowed to keep the tax revenue currently spent on welfare programs they could pocket half, donate half to charity and nearly double the current dollar value of services provided to recipients. A similar analogy could be drawn from the money spent on unnecessary wars. Imagine how low are taxes would be and how well charities would do.

"our nature... not our obligation". An interesting idea, but I think the policy will have to reflect our nature."

I always accuse liberals of being like the protective parents who feel (because it is in their nature) they must create a safety net for their child to save him from the real-life consequences of his behavior or lack of. Case in point would be the 35-year-old unemployed slacker still living at home. His well-meaning, good-NATURED parents have effectively robbed him of the benefits of life's harsh lessons, which would have been helpful to him in developing his own self-reliance. Which brings me to my opinion on your personal credit situation.

If feel you are one of the most fair-minded debaters on this site, and have enjoyed our acquaintance. But allow be to be blunt for a moment. By having your credit ruined, life has handed you a consequence in response to your behavior-- that of not securing private medical insurance. This action (or lack of) essentially led to your involvement in what is tantamount to grand theft of medical services. You should feel fortunate that you are being harassed by creditors and not by law enforcement. I don't see pilfering $5,000 worth of medical services from a doctor as any different from stealing a $5,000 motorcycle out of his driveway.

I think you simply felt insurance was not a priority. I'm willing to bet you have a cell phone you pay for each month, rent, food, nights on the town, etc. You may even have a car payment. If so, you are like so many others who go on and on about how important universal health care is, yet they choose to spend their money on everything but health insurance. Your friend is a perfect example. He's bummed that his credit it trashed because he couldn't afford health insurance, yet he's out car shopping and obviously believes he can afford a monthly car payment. I'd ride a bike, use pay phones and eat Top Raman before I stopped making my health insurance payments. My values (how I spend my money) demonstrate how important I believe health care is. But again, it is not my right.

"people should not have to trade physical health for financial health."

No, just as I should not trade the condition of my house for financial health. That is why I bought a homeowners insurance policy. Private companies have devised a way to make it relatively affordable to avoid a major financial crisis in case my house burns down (similar to assurances provided by government in exchange for tax dollars, but much more affordable). In fact they are able to insure a home worth more than $500K for a measly $600 per year. But then again, the government has not gotten involved in the contracting industry and made the cost of rebuilding a burnt house astronomically high.

"You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, but your paragraph is a little contradictory, I hope you will admit. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, personally, but that society should have the choice to(I gather?). Then you go on to describe a gamble of choosing to buy health insurance vs. not buy it."

I searched for a contradiction here and could not find one. I will come back to it if you are able clarify it to me in the comments section. If so I will correct my position. I see no contradiction when I say that people are likely to (but not obligated to) help others, and that as a result of this fact it would be wise to get insurance.

I hope I've clarified my position and helped you hone your's. We agree on what an ideal outcome would be: adequate and affordable healthcare for ALL. We disagree on how to get there and on whether people have an absolute right to said outcome. Thanks for your time and thoughts on this.
Debate Round No. 4
91 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I'm hoping common sense starts to loosten a little and I get some more votes! :)
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Rob,
YOU HAVE TO READ THIS ARGUMENT ON THE RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE. THIS IS THE CLOSEST THING I'VE FOUND TO MY OPINION ON THE MATTER.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org...
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Hey, I'm back on top! Common sense is taking hold. Healthcare is not a right and should not be singled out to become one. Food and shelter are just as important, and are not to be furnished universally by the government. To be consistant liberalism would have to end in socialism.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
rob, unfortunatly most people dont leave a RFD, even though they should. it should really be a requirement to vote, that way people dont just vote for their personal opinion without reading the debate.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
holy s#$^ you just got 3 more votes? Can you hit and run voters at least leave an explanation instead of just punking me without even taking me out to dinner first?
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Yes, anyone who comes on here with all these intelligent people just to be stubborn with their opinions is only hurting themselves!

Well, I have been playing about 10 years. I play a plethora of songs, mostly alternative rock. I have a dash of a lot of different other things I hear, like folk, pop, hard rock, country, classic rock... I have even started playing little richard and micheal jackson just for fun... I like the energy they put out. Anything I can make sound good with my voice is fair game. Some of my best ones are "long tall sally" by little richard, "simple man" (the shinedown version), and "where did you sleep last night" by nirvana. I have never been in a band but I am trying to get one together right now, it will be a hard-rock band since that gives us the best chance to get out and get into some bars to play. I also occasionally dabble in classical guitar, but I can no longer afford the lessons and it is very challenging to read music.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
"people who have a vested interest in their beliefs, and cannot accept another perspective because they can't afford to, even if you do provide convincing evidence"

This is the one that gets me. You would think people are here to find the truth, not simply defend their party or opinion. What type of stuff do you play on the guitar?
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
I would agree, although I haven't really figured out the intricasies of the voting trends yet. There are just too many potential complicating factors:

1) people using multiple accounts
2) people who you offend that are tempted to access your other debates and vote against you just to MAKE you wrong
3) people who have a vested interest in their beliefs, and cannot accept another perspective because they can't afford to, even if you do provide convincing evidence

I don't know for a fact that any of these do take place, but any and all of them could. I would say that chances are good that they all exist in a small amount, and there really isn't much we can do about it. All you can do is debate your best, I guess. I just try to use this as a learning experience, and not get too tied up with the voting.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
"unless there is a clear disadvantage to one argument then people are probably just going to reinforce their own ideologies"

I think you're dead on with that comment. Would you agree that when one is taking the side of an argument in opposition to emotional appeal (such as pro-choice, anti-god or anti-welfare), he encounters additional difficulty in getting people to vote for him, regardless of debating skill?
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Well yes, but it is a little more complex than that I guess. Why don't you refer to our first debate, and the voting spread, and then tell me if you disagree with me. If we both make good arguments, chances are we will just split the votes according to bias alone. It's not necessarily a purely vice-oriented phenomenon, as we are not professionals on this site and time is short, but unless there is a clear disadvantage to one argument then people are probably just going to reinforce their own ideologies; call it a self-fulfilling prophecy if you will.

I like to entice people with different ideologies as well. I will post a debate like "God is dead" just to stir things up and get people going. I think you learn more when you get people who disagree with you out to debate because you cannot create a synthesis without a thesis and an antithesis - you need to expose yourself to your polar opposites to fully appreciate your own ideology.

Is it a good strategy for you? Well your record is much better than mine so maybe I should be asking you that question!
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 Araku 8 years ago
Araku
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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 Handout 9 years ago
Handout
Rob1BillionHandsOffTied
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