The Instigator
Adityavardhan
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

the future of health care in india lies in traditional knowledge

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 7/23/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,350 times Debate No: 4774
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

Adityavardhan

Con

i don't think traditional indian health care based knowledge is successful in today's modern times.Western health care based knowledge is better.
beem0r

Pro

First, I will go over what I see as my burden for this debate. My opponent can tell me if I have missed the spirit of the debate.

I will be arguing that traditional healthcare would lead to a better future for india than modern healthcare.

Again, please inform me if I have missed the point here.

Anyway, I will get on with my argument now.

1. Modern/western healthcare takes more to maintain than traditional healthcare does.

More money, more technical knowledge [that isn't currently widely available in India], more man-hours. There are much better things for the Indian people to put their money, time, and man-hours on. But this is something I will have to prove in my other points.

2. Western healthcare keeps more people alive than traditional healthcare.

This point by itself likely does not convince you of anything, at least nothing I would want to convince you of. However, I will use it as the basis for some other points.

3. Better healthcare builds a reliance on better healthcare.

This may not seem apparent at first, or to those lacking knowledge of natural selection and how it works. I'll split this point into sub-points to explain it.

3a. With better healthcare, people who generally have bad health have a better chance of surviving. [Kind of the same thing as point #2]
3b. Since people who generally have bad health are able to survive more often with good healthcare, more people in the population will have generally bad health, and therefore the population will be more in need of good healthcare.

So what does the more primitive traditional healthcare do? It ensures that those with bad health are not as fit to survive, and therefore are less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. This leads to a population that is generally healthy - a population that doesn't need modern healthcare.

4. Less people is good right now.

Less people means less greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere. It means we don't need quite as many plants to fulfill our Oxygen needs. It means more space per person. More resources per person. We do not need more people right now. Especially in third-world countries, where the average IQ is much lower than it is in the first world. Take a look at this bad boy:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
The average IQ in India is estimated at 81. This is because most of the smart people leave the country [brain drain]. Better healthcare in India means more ~81 IQ people for the world. Yay. I think I'll pass. Keep in mind that 70-79 is "Borderline mental retardation," and 81 isn't much higher than that. Generally not the kind of people whose number we should seek to increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org... [It's on the right side]

More people in India is bad, and as we learned in point #2, western healthcare allows more people to survive.

I believe that is enough for now. I will go over what I have shown.

Western healthcare is nothing if not harmful for the future of India. The more-effective healthcare would end up making India's inhabitants less able to withstand disease on their own. Rather than simply dying due to primitive healthcare, the unhealthy would be able to thrive and interbreed, thereby lowering the healthiness of the nation, and creating a reliance on premium healthcare.

Also, western healthcare requires a huge investment. Whereas traditional healthcare does not. India would need access to new information, it would need more able-brained people to be doctors, etc, [which it is short on due to brain drain], it would need more money and time to run, etc.

Lastly, western healthcare raises the population barrier. India is already overpopulated, with 1.13 BILLION people. The US has a little over 300,000,000 people. And the US is about 3 times as large as India.

Let's compare the two:
US Area: 9.63 million sq km.
India Area: 3.29 million sq km.
As you see, India is about 1/3 as large as the US.
US Population: 304,678,000 people
India Population: 1,135,779,500 people
Wow!

Let's see how much area there is per person for each country.
US: ~31607 sq meters per person.
India: ~2896 sq meters per person.
So here in the US we have more than 10 times the amount of space per person than they do in India. The last thing India needs is a bigger population. Better healthcare would only raise India's population.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The less people able to survive in India, the better. It's the most overpopulated country, not to mention the low average IQ of its inhabitants. Quality over quantity. We should let them compete in the harshest circumstances possible [as to maximize natural selection]. They need it more than anyone else. It's definitely what's best for India's future.
Debate Round No. 1
Adityavardhan

Con

Adityavardhan forfeited this round.
beem0r

Pro

My opponent forfeited, so I need not make any more points. My R1 case still stands. Go back and read it, you probably don't even have to scroll.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
And I hadn't even noticed I was at 100 already.
Probably gonna take a long break from this site. Be back in a couple months or so.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
How droll it must be that your 100th debate is against an opponent who not only didn't provide any real argument but forfeited the debate afterwards. :(
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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 Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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 indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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 Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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 appletreez 8 years ago
appletreez
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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
Adityavardhanbeem0rTied
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