Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
NPC_1878734
Pro (for)
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)

Healthcare should not be a right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
NPC_1878734 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,695 times Debate No: 120746
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (146)
Votes (0)

 

NPC_1878734

Pro

Health care should not be a right, Due to the economic impacts that follow when we make it one, And there are other ways to achieve the same goals.
WrickItRalph

Con

So your justification for denying the right of healthcare is due to the economic impacts (plural) that (necessarily) follow when we make it such. This is a pretty hefty claim. You know what they say, Extraordinary claim, Extraordinary evidence. I'm a simple man. Sources are nice, But really I just need you to show me logically that your claim can be true, If you can do that, Then we can explore the possibility of it.

Healthcare is a civil responsibility. There is no reason for people to die needlessly over a some tax dollars. I don't even care if it's a lot of tax dollars. Pieces of green paper are NEVER. . . ". NEVER more important than societal well being. I cannot stress this enough. If your strongest argument is that it's expensive, Then I'm afraid you're gonna fall short of the goalpost on this one.

Now your last claim may have some more merit to it. You say there are other ways that can achieve the same goal. Please list these ways, Give logical details so we can ground the concept in reality instead of taking you at your word, And you must also prove that those alternatives are necessarily better than the current best solution, Which is to not let people die for no reason.

Your floor
Debate Round No. 1
NPC_1878734

Pro

NPC_1878734 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NPC_1878734

Pro

NPC_1878734 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NPC_1878734

Pro

NPC_1878734 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
146 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

"She is initiating conflict by imposing her interests on her son's. (Remember we are discussing "self-interests. ") If the mother simply decides to not purchase the toy, And refuses to provide transportation, She's not initiating any conflict; she's refusing to a party to her son's interests. We've already covered this concept:"
This is dependent on both being rational right? The thing is the child is not and the mother can take advantage and simply decide to not buy what the child likes or could be worse like halt the progression of the child. This can be using the child as a coping mechanism or blaming the child on your shortcomings. The child is not rational but will be impacted by that which can halt its progression.

"That has nothing to do with morality. Now, You're delving into law. How do we protect that peace? "
Yes it does like with most things. It requires to be practical.

"I presume only to know how we ought to act and how we ought to respond that is conducive to the our
moral ends. "
Isn't it more important if everyone was equal rather then optimizing morality? If everyone is equal we can as a collective improve ourselves whereas if we focus on optimizing morality how are we going to dictate across the rest of the population?

"Non sequitur. I made no mention of a person's "use. ""
So in order for a human to be fulfilled they require an environment of peace to make that happen?
Is that okay?

""Like" is value laden; satisfaction in peace's facilitating self-interests is not. "
How is equality not a better facilitator of a person's needs? If everyone is at peace but people are not equal how to expect everyone to meet their individual needs?

"That has nothing to do with rationality. That is your evaluation of another's"
Surely when you have the best form of morality you would like it to be imposed on others?
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
correction: "Then it doesn't reflect individualistic morals. "
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
. . Decision.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
If the mother punishes the child in a manner which constitutes coercion, Violence, Or any other form of aggression, Then does reflect individualistic morals. She is initiating conflict by imposing her interests on her son's. (Remember we are discussing "self-interests. ") If the mother simply decides to not purchase the toy, And refuses to provide transportation, She's not initiating any conflict; she's refusing to a party to her son's interests. We've already covered this concept: "So the optimal way to pursue self-interest is to do so in a manner which does not interfere with another's pursuit of self-interest. We sustain it as a maxim of a human interaction through peace. " If it does not meet this description, Then it's not representative of individualist philosophy.

"What is peace going to do against an individual that does not abide by peace instead would like to ruin it? "

That has nothing to do with morality. Now, You're delving into law. How do we protect that peace? Anarchy (or Autarchy. )

"My question is who is going to keep it that way? "

Essentially, You do. As an autonomous individual it's your responsibility to do your part. If you want a prescription on how we prevent each and every individual from breaking these laws or moral codes, I don't have an answer for you. I presume only to know how we ought to act and how we ought to respond that is conducive to the our moral ends.

"So in order for a human to be useful they require an environment of peace to make that happen? "

Non sequitur. I made no mention of a person's "use. "

"How so? "

"Like" is value laden; satisfaction in peace's facilitating self-interests is not.

"I am claiming without evidence. I can assume something like most people who voted for Trump were irrational and for sure who supported Hillary. This is due to identity politics and lies. Is that good enough? I can try to find a source. "

That has nothing to do with rationality. That is your evaluation of another's
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

"If you want to conduct a moral analysis on a majority of people, Then yes, "
Do you think we can analyse morals in the present?

"We presume that the shark's conduct is informed by instinct, Not reason. "
How do you know people with the capacity of rational thinking actually use it?

"It's actually defined that way. "
What if the alternative version of peace is used more pragmatically than it is defined now?

"There are individual needs which can be addressed by acting together or acting one one's own. "
That together part requires a collective. A person to reproduce with. A person to send off in order to learn while you as the head of the family provide for it. Family sure have individual goals but in order to say as a family they need to work as a collect. The mother and father can provide and keep the house in order while the child goes to school to be the future of the family and in hopes the child will take care of his/her parents. The collective goal is caring for one another.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345:
"How much do they use is the problem and it only take one bad apple to ruin the rest. We must first have the majority of people thinking rationally before we consider optimizing it. "

If you want to conduct a moral analysis on a majority of people, Then yes, A majority of people would have to be capable of reason. And to have them interact peacefully would necessitate their being moral.

"Is this a hypothetical then since in reality many irrational people have done bad actions against rational people which has at the very least halted their optimization of morality. "

No, It isn't hypothetical. If a shark kills a person, One does not state that that which the shark has done was "wrong" or "immoral. " We presume that the shark's conduct is informed by instinct, Not reason. The same presumptions are made with infant children.

"A concept that is lost to many people since I think there are more people who use a different concept of peace then the one you state as actual peace. "

It's not just the one I used. It's actually defined that way.

"No but we need someone else to reproduce, Rely on when ill and take care in return for their help in the future. "

Be that as it may, That does not make a collection of people, Even with identical goals, A distinct being; therefore, There are no "needs of the collective. " There are individual needs which can be addressed by acting together or acting one one's own.

"The child would require the transportation from the mother to be near the item to purchase. Mother's approval in order not receive punishment in leaving her sight etc. "

Yes, But the child is not entitled to it, Less it decides to coerce its mother. There's nothing stopping the child from getting money (assuming of course child labor laws don't exist;) there's nothing preventing the child from transporting him or herself to the store and purchasing the product. (To be continued. . . )
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

That was not really evidence but I can't find anything. Weird it is the practice of human behaviour I would have thought they would focus on if humans have improved or not instead I found Neanderthals were probably redheads.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=UhfXa6IaY5U
This might help but it is difficult to find me facts on human behaviour. If the links does not work copy this to YouTube "The Illusion of Control- Human Behavior and Donuts: Dr. Elissa Epel at TEDxSF"
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"There's no morality to it. "
Isn't it linked in order to make a human useful?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

"The mother refuses to submit her resources in order to serve the interest of her child. "
She sees little gain due to it not having a long enough lasting impact.

"Then there will be nothing to stop the child from making that purchase. "
The child would require the transportation from the mother to be near the item to purchase. Mother's approval in order not receive punishment in leaving her sight etc.

"If the mother were to somehow coerce the child from not purchasing the toy, Even if it's the child's own money, Then there would be conflict. "
Yes that is what happens when a mother does not buy the child a toy. There is a conflict.

"The former is representative of individualist philosophy, The latter is not. "
What do you mean? In what way was the conflict due to individualism?

"It facilitates an environment or condition in which one can express or act out self-interest undisturbed, Which is optimal. "
What is peace going to do against an individual that does not abide by peace instead would like to ruin it?

"And once again, You are confusing terms. I've already described "satisfaction" to you:"
How does satisfaction not come into peace? I would say your position is peace and individualism is required in order for the person to be useful and happy with his life. My question is who is going to keep it that way?

"I don't mean that in the value-laden sense, But more so the business sense, In which a product's performance meets expectations"
So in order for a human to be useful they require an environment of peace to make that happen?

"You are conflating your value-laden description with my value-free description"
How so?

"Do you have a reference which informs your statement? "
I am claiming without evidence. I can assume something like most people who voted for Trump were irrational and for sure who supported Hillary. This is due to identity politics and lies. Is that good enough? I can try to find a source.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.