Question: Should Law Enforcement Officers Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?

Resolved: Law enforcement officers must be mandated to wear body cameras.

His counterargument to my initial point was that we never claimed the consequences were just. In reality, the opposition has misconstrued and complicated the straightforward argument that body cameras will ensure fair consequences for criminals. After all, upon reviewing the situation, decision-makers will determine the appropriate punishment for the crime. Consequently, the punishment will not be unjust. If an unfair verdict is given, there is always the video footage as evidence, allowing for the simple statement: Based on the video, the verdict was either too strict or too lenient. The accused deserves fair punishment since their rights are protected under the 8th amendment. Next, he refuted my main point by stating that society may sometimes consider something wrong as right. He provided several irrelevant examples, such as Nazi Germany. However, there is a significant difference between these cases. The genocide was not intended to benefit the public; it was an obvious detriment. In contrast, the public supports a movement aimed at ensuring equality and reducing police force. Moreover, the people did not support Nazi Germany, which is why courageous soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, and other countries fought and risked their lives to end the terror. The second point, about the reduction in the use of force, remains valid as it was not refuted by the opposing side. Now, to restate my points, introduce a new argument, and expand on my proposal. My points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will decrease racial discrimination. 2. Decrease the amount of force used by the police. 3. Most of the population, including police officers and civilians, support the decision to implement body cameras. A new argument: 4. If we make a concerted effort to maximize police accountability and minimize privacy risks, it will benefit the people of the United States. The opposition's case in this debate will likely focus on the ineffectiveness of these cameras, costs, and even their uselessness. However, for this plan to be successful, the police department must select the appropriate camera, find the most affordable and efficient product, and conduct additional tests to determine the impact of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, the plan will fail. However, with the right equipment, the system will run smoothly and efficiently. For instance, the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers, can record up to 3

Round 1: Stance Round 2: Arguments/Rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal/Conclusion Lie Detectors are terrible. They are highly ineffective and harmful to all.

This is not a question of privacy, it is one of safety. If you truly feel that people shouldn't have to wear seat belts if they don't won't to, and similarly with motorcyclists; shouldn't have to wear helmets. I think the voting shall be rather predictable. Do you think the small hassle of putting on a seat belt and wearing a helmet out ways the life saving benefits of them?

I'd like to start my argument by saying that I do not agree with the fact that the government has placed "required" gun free zones such as schools, airports, etc. However, there are several reasons that I believe that making armed guards "required" in these zones is not logical, and in some cases unconstitutional. All citizens have the right to their private property, such as houses, restaurants, etc. And if these citizens do not want guns on their property, that is their right. Even though for the most part I don't agree with gun free zones, I will NEVER agree with the government infringing upon our right to private property. When push comes to shove, the owner of a restaurant, bar, or anything of the sort has the sole decision as to whether or not people can bring a gun onto his/her property. Also, if citizens truly are in fear for their lives upon entering a restaurant that is a gun free zone, they can simply not enter. Just as it is the owners right to prohibit weapons, it is the citizens' right to not enter that area. This brings me to my next point, in some cases citizens must enter a "governmental gun free zone" (area that the government requires by law to be a gun free zone) in order to continue their daily lives. Forcing armed guards to be posted outside of these gun free zones, such as schools, is what my opponent is proposing. Having armed guards at our schools is something that sounds quite logical, in a perfect world. The simple fact is that the amount of money it would cost to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy. President Obama has recently enacted a heavily scrutinized plan that will "provide $25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other education jobs." [1] The amount of taxpayer dollars that this new plan will require is substantial to say the least, and any additional money added to the education budget unfortunately is unrealistic at this time. A Cleveland State University Economics professor claims that "having enough officers to fully protect schools would cost $23 billion", which is "half of what the federal government spends on K-12 education" [2] . Imagine that, wiping out half of the United States' education budget to fulfill this plan. I cannot argue that it would substantially increase our children"s security, but it is simply too expensive. The logic for my argument is as follows: -in situations where citizens choose to prohibit weapons on their property, that is entirely their right -the government cannot constitutionally force private property owners to hire security. - no one is forced to enter gun free restaurants or bars, so don't go in if you don't feel safe. -in government forced gun free zones (schools, airports, etc.) hiring security is logical until the money situation is brought into play. - hiring armed guards at all gun free zones would be immensely expensive [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [2] http://www.newsnet5.com...

"law enforcement coming from the government comes in the forms of fines, penalties, and maybe an arrest if the crimes are severe enough."There are many different forms of "punishment" for non-obedience, up to and including being shot. The violence, however, tends to show itself clearly only when the other intimidation techniques don't achieve the objective of your obedience. In the US, for instance, you may get a fine, but that fine is essentially an extortion notice, and is itself an act of intimidation. You must pay, or else. If you do not pay that fine, they can increase the intimidation. For instance, they can send you a court date, which is to say, they can demand that you appear before them. If you do not show up, they can issue a warrant for your arrest, which is to say, they create a document which "authorizes" somebody to abduct you against your will. Even that is nice language meant to play down what actually happens, as the truth, at least in the US, is that men with guns come to your house, tie you up in metal shackles, throw you in a vehicle, many times a windowless van, and toss you in a cage that is famous for being a place where you will be beaten and raped*.If you defend yourself from this horrific threat of abduction and prison rape, you will be shot - murdered, slaughtered, executed, put down like a pig, and the only "crimes" you committed were disobedience and self-defense."law enforcement doesn't come from violence and intimidation"Law enforcement IS violence and intimidation, and it is explicitly so. There are plenty of justifications for this violence and intimidation, (ie, claiming that it is a "necessary evil"), but saying they have nothing to do with each other is like saying war has nothing to do with killing people. Not only is it not true, it is the exact opposite of truth. "You are allowed to move beyond boundaries between governments though, they are called passports and it happens all the time. "You are contradicting yourself. If I am required to ask permission to do something (passport), then, ipso-facto, I am not "allowed" to do it. The idea that I would be "allowed" to move beyond those borders with permission implicitly asserts that the corporation has the right to deny me access, which is the exact opposite of me being "allowed" to cross those borders. Let's say you didn't even need a passport, and you could just freely move across borders - that is irrelevant to the question of how the corporation behaves within those borders. Building walls and having checkpoints on the borders is just one more example of criminal behavior on the part of these corporations. Much like "taxation", it is something that, if you or I attempted to do to a third party, it would immediately be recognized as criminal behavior."So taxes may be involuntary, but they are a necessary evil"Whether you believe it is "necessary" is irrelevant. It has been argued that the black market is "necessary", as well, but that is irrelevant to whether it is criminal. Slavery was once thought of as a "necessary evil", but that doesn't change the nature of slavery.Also, you forget that it is not "the people" government spends money on, as there is no such thing as 'the people". The government takes money from SOME people and uses it to benefit OTHER people. The size of the groups involved are irrelevant. For instance, not all people agree with you that taxes are "accepted as necessary evils".Even if that money was spent to improve society, and that 99.99% of the population approves of the spending, it is still a violation of the law unless we allow for an exemption - you even admit this yourself by calling taxation a necessary "evil". What is "evil" about being consistent with our values and rules? For us to consider it "evil", it must be a violation of our value system." That being said all governments are NOT criminal organizations because governments are liable to the laws they pass"...except the ones that have exemptions that allow them to violate the law, which, I still maintain, is all of them. I freely acknowledge that government agencies and individuals working for government are subject to some of the laws that the rest of us are. However, a criminal is still a criminal if he breaks even one criminal law, regardless of how many laws he obeys. If that criminal could decide what the laws are, there is no reason for him to give himself an exemption for laws he doesn't want to violate - just the ones preventing stealing, intimidation, racketeering, etc... just like governments do."Those governments are not criminal organizations because even though they create laws and enforce them, have rights over a region, and collect taxes, they are fictional governments and thus are not criminal organizations even though they count as governments."There are many fictional crime families out there. To the extent that they are fictional, their crimes are fictional, but that doesn't change the fact that they are criminal. What you are essentially saying:In order to argue your case, you have done the following: Claimed that law enforcement (law enFORCEment) has nothing to do with force, violence, or intimidation, even though the exact opposite is demonstrably true. Claimed that taxation is a "special case" because "the people" (ie, you, and people who agree with you) consider it a 'necessary evil'. In other words, it is exempt from our standards and is "legal" even though it violates other laws - exactly my point. Used fictional (FICTIONAL!) governments as examples of governments which are not criminal (even though they still are criminal as fictional governments). In short, you have produced no compelling reasons to dismiss my arguments. * http://reason.com...

It would be better to wear a helmet than no helmet if you are involved in an accident, but making it a law to wear helmets does not save lives. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind voters that "saving lives" is used to justify doing just about anything including war crimes such as the japan bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki where more lives were lost than saved in the end, and the bomb was used to save soldiers not civilian life. Laws should be made to protect people from other people, not from theirselves.

Your first debate, let the mayhem begin! Just kidding, I am no better at this than you are most likely. Don't let my win ratio fool you. A couple of weeks ago I was 0-27 now as of this posting I am 24-3-1 I am a controversial personality and people mess with my voting record, it is a completely unreliable indicator of my debating skills or is it HMMM. Anywaaaay. Let me start by saying your entire opening argument infers that all forms of public humiliation must include bodily harm. I specifically stated that if you needed examples to make your case I would provide them. Public humiliation that does not cause bodily harm is not against the law. "Do not confuse slander with public humiliation" Exhibit (A) All the major tabloids and news outlets publicly humiliate people everyday. They can say what ever they want about anybody without impunity. You can not sue anybody for publicly humiliating you. I can walk up to you in a crowd of people and make fun of you and make rude comments about you and there is nothing you can do about it. Public humiliation is in fact being used in several places around the country right now with very good results. Tents for jail cells in the Arizona desert: http://www.cnn.com... The recidivism rate for the inmates that go through the sheriffs rehabilitation program is 14% verses 60% on the national average. You will note that every single human rights and civil rights group in the country has been unsuccessful at closing it down. So this is proof that public humiliation and harsh living environments are not inhumane as long as they don't cause bodily injury. This judge in Texas makes people where signs, again not unconstitutional with better recidivism rate than national average. http://articles.latimes.com... Only 3 out of 600 people have repeated offenses. "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process? This argument clearly falls." This link explains the vicious cycle that 4 out of every ten people get caught up in starting out as misdemeanor offence in most cases and end up convicted felons because they can't pay the fees associated with it. It is cruel and unusual punishment to condemn people to a life of crime over a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars. http://www.thenation.com... "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process?" The above comment is also addressed in the last link. The legal justice system today is pretty much a business or a corporation theses days. Entire sub businesses are propped up by the legal system. For example: DUI schools, Anger Management Schools, Financial planning schools, Driving schools, they have a school or a class or some sort of councilor for just about anything you can think of. And you have to attend these classes for weeks if not months and the cost of all these things add up: Fines, probation, schools, counseling. The vast majority of the people who have to attend and pay for these things are often indigent to begin with and wind up violating their probation because they can't pay all these fines and fees. Next thing they know they are convicted felons for VOP violations and are given more fines and ordered to more classes and more counseling on top of what they already can't pay for. The vicious cycle begins and a once misdemeanor offence ends up as a felony and the person just gives up and lives it up or runs from the law until the next time they get caught because they now have nothing to lose. "My opponent also states that they often resort to stealing to meet the cost of being a criminal, but no facts or statistics were provided so this point falls" This comment is addressed by the fact that people who get caught up in the legal system are unable to find employment because they have warrants and such that prohibit any kind of permanent gainful employment forcing them to engage in illegal means to earn or steel money. Public humiliation is a much better option. People 9 times out of ten will choose to pay a fine or go to jail over being publicly humiliated. People choose to pay because public humiliation is just that "public humiliation" I have given numerous examples and statistics to prove that public humiliation of the types presented in my argument are far more effective at detouring repeat offenses than probation or counseling or schools. All these people caught up in the justice system should be publicly humiliated for their original offence and have all the fines and schools and on and on dropped so the person can get back to living. Public humiliation would reduce crime especially if it is used on first time offenders in particular as it will have a lasting and unforgettable deterrence effect.

All right, where to begin? First of all, thank you for accepting my debate. I shall now dissect my opponents arguments. "The idea wouldn't really go with with a lot of people most likely." The lack of proof negates this argument. Not to mention, there are lots of things in life that people don't like. Sometimes you just have to suck it up for the greater good. "Getting every single American citizen to wear a name tag would be pretty hard. It would take a while for everyone to actually get one and many people would never get one." People would schedule appointments with their county weight center. each person would have a set date to come, and name tags would be made on the spot. After a few months, the U.S will put the law into action the punishes those who do not wear the name tags. Simple, no? If the IRS can mail every single American their stimulus check and succeed, this is almost guaranteed to succeed, as mail is not involved. "There would be so many protests against it. A person's weight is there own business. There first and last name should also be their own business to give out to whomever they choose." But don't you think the fate of the public is more important than some people being embarrassed? I'd rather save countless lives. It would be selfish to say that this is an invasion of privacy. "Some people might be so embarrassed that they would just stay inside alone all the time. Others might for eating disorders because they feel so terrible about their weight." It is to be expected. But it will help American society on a whole, and if we can help even one person, it's better than never passing the bill. The casualties will be worth the ultimate reward of a healthier and more prosperous society. "Overweight people already have enough problems going out in public and that is a good enough reason for a lot of them go lose weight, but adding a name tag with their weight won't change much for a lot of them if they are already okay going out in public." I suggest reading citation four. Public humiliation works. And it will change those who are going out in public, as they now have a badge of shame. It's like the government is telling everyone who looks at them that they are fat and unhealthy. Overall, good effort, Con.

I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.

First off I apologize for FF the last roundIll refute the Pro's points from round 3 then challenge his views in round 4"at least in the US, is that men with guns come to your house, tie you up in metal shackles, throw you in a vehicle, many times a windowless van, and toss you in a cage that isfamousfor being a place where you will be beaten and raped"You like to put a dark spin on things huh? First off a law is a law and if you break it then that is your own damn fault not the governments. That being said people who are arrested still have rights, they can still have attorneys, they have the right to remain silent, they are not slabs of meat like you think they are for some reason. Governments acknowledge that people are people, criminal organizations dont because criminal organizations dont give people rights. "Law enforcement IS violence and intimidation"Yeah if asking nicely and giving you an option to choose youre own fate is counted as violence"The idea that I would be "allowed" to move beyond those borders with permission implicitly asserts that the corporation has the right to deny me access, which is the exact opposite of me being "allowed" to cross those borders."The reason they can deny you access is if youre a smuggler or a criminal or someone wanted for committing a crime. If youre not a criminal or a smuggler then youre allowed to go around anywhere. "Also, you forget that it is not "the people" government spends money on, as there is no such thing as 'the people"."You really are a close minded anarchist huh...Here's the thing, If you were born in a hospital, been to a hospital, seen a dentist, or gone to a school, then the government has spent money on you.... So the government does spend money on EVERYONE"...except the ones that have exemptions that allow them to violate the law, which, I still maintain, is all of them."You still havent given any proof that this is close to being true. For ALL governments to be criminal organizations you must prove that all governments are criminal organizations. You cannot assume that just because 1 might qualify that all others do qualify. "There are many fictional crime families out there. To the extent that they are fictional, their crimes are fictional, but that doesn't change the fact that they are criminal. "Im not talking about fictional crime families, im talking about fictional governments. You said all governments are criminal organizations, I named several that are not criminal organizations, you have yet to give proof that they are indeed criminal organizations. "Claimed that law enforcement (law enFORCEment) has nothing to do with force, violence, or intimidation, even though the exact opposite is demonstrably true."Law enforcement still acknowledges that people have rights, that law enforcement is limited in how they treat people, and that law enforcement lives by codes and laws that they have to obey. Things like the Miranda rights are codes that law enforcement have to work by. Criminal organizations do not have these codes and thus are not criminal organizations. "Claim that taxation is a "special case" because "the people" (ie, you, and people who agree with you) consider it a 'necessary evil'." Yeah, I agree with this, for a government to work it needs taxes which can come from tariffs, excise taxes, or the most common form, income taxes. "Used fictional (FICTIONAL!) governments as examples of governments which are not criminal"Im allowed to use fictional governments to prove you wrong, and you have still not offered evidence showing that each and every one of these are criminal organizations. "Is it really hard to accept that the next to be called into question is the dominant institution of our day?"Well to accept something that challenges the norm, you need proof that shows you are correct, you havent offered any tangible evidence or examples of how all governments are criminal organizations. " Is it really that far of a stretch to think that institutions (governments) which killed nearly 300 million people in the 20th century may not be rational?"Nobody is here to say that governments are rational 100% of the time, but you are certainly the only one here who thinks that American intervention in WWII makes America a criminal organization. "Is it really hard to accept that using an institution which steals nearly half the nation's income is not a good strategy for protecting property rights?"Half of the people in the US doesnt even pay taxes and the half that does is taxed by less than 40% 99% of the time so re-evaluate your math and then when you realize that the government uses a good majority of that to help us live better lives, you might start singing a different tune"Is it hard to figure out that the more soldiers "fight for our freedom", the less freedom we actually have,"Yes because had we not fought the Revolutionary War we would all be somehow MORE free"as measured by the massive amount of legislation coming out of Washington, from SOPA and PIPA to the NDAA and the Patriot Act?"You mean those things that were vetoed, amended numerous times, vetoed again, struck down, limited, and applied only to potential terrorists? I thought so"We can either choose to be on the right side of history, or we can choose to indulge in the delusion that the status quo is always correct - a delusion that, history has shown, will almost always be wrong."Ill call Bullsh*t on that out of all the other ridiculous arguments youve made. According to the Pro all forms of anarchy are better than any form of government. So lets compare governments to AnarchiesGovernments give people rights, Anarchies dontGovernments acknowledge people's property rights, Anarchies dontGovernments provide services to its people, Anarchies dontGovernments puts criminals, murderers, and rapists in jail, Anarchies dontGovernments fund jails to keep criminals in, Anarchies dontGovernments acknowledge the right to bear arms, Anarchies dontLet me summarize this whole moshpit of a debate. Pro is a die hard anarchist who probably believes that making your kid go to school counts as child abuse and absolutely refuses to acknowledge anything good the government has ever done. I am arguing that since governments provide services to people, give rights to people, protect and acknowledge people's rights, repeal laws that are found to be unjust, give rights to people even when they are criminals, and passes laws that benefit people when they do not benefit the government. Governments are not criminal organizations, and by extension just because one government crosses the line one time that certainly does not mean that all governments are somehow all criminal organizations because the Pro has still yet to offer evidence of just how each and every last government is a criminal organization. Fictional or not

Hmm I assumed that your forfeit meant you were giving up this debate, so I didn't bother posting another rebuttal.But, here it goes:My extensions to arguments (my opponent only rebutted to one of three)A. History: "violence begets violence"Sure Pro. But these aren’t just the qualities of a heavily armed police state. I even daresay the police today are much more nicer-- think about your local policeman. He's nice, he's helpful, he volunteers at elementary schools. Should we go back to times where we had police mericelessly beating protestors with sticks? Police today might have more armor, but at least they don't beat the crap out of every protestor walking across a bridge-- *ehem* Selma *ehem*.Rebuttals to PRO:1. Police cause riots.Police don't cause half as many riots as you'd like to think. These "cop riots" are a modern thing, and should not be correlated with abusive force. Heck, the 1960s had three times as many riots as we have today-- and those were "race riots"--, and I'm sure the police back then only had a cotton uniform and a wooden stick. Even the LA riots-- not caused by direct police action-- are considered one of the biggest riots of America. We shouldn't correlate more police equipment to riots. Moreover, riots like Ferguson were caused by accidental shootings that were attributed to racial discrimination, not police militarization. PRO's point fails.2. UniformsI took my evidence directly from PRO's source. Pity.3. SwattingDefinition of swatting: act of tricking an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing an emergency services dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response (Wikipedia).My opponent's argument, however, was two parts: Swatting and drug busts. I'll respond to both.I rebutted to the concept of swatting. I gave PRO how swatting will happen, no matter the abudndance of SWAT team, because that is the definition of swatting-- giving 911 enough reasons to send a SWAT team. If the city has enough teams, the caller can just say "I see drugs." If the city doesn't have many SWAT teams, the caller can fabricate elaborate evidence.PRO responded to my "swatting" counter with an argument about drug busts, so my counterpoint still stands.So moving on, PRO's argument of "drugs bust" doesn't fit under "swatting", but I'll rebutt to that anyways.In an average drug bust, a police force will find: 423.6 grams of cocaine 63.8 grams of heroin 7 grams of methamphetamine 5,157.8 grams of cannabis 453 illegal pills $15,676.02 in cash 2 assault rifles, a shotgun and a pistol 3 stolen vehicles You can't say these drug busts aren't ineffective. 2 assault rifles, a shotgun, and a pistol!? That's enough to call a SWAT team, unless my opponent would like to make an entire case to advocate gun control as well as fish out his sinking demilitarization case. But of course, there are unfortunate casualties, such as a baby. Losing a baby was sad, but it was an accident. It was a one-time deal, where the police on the scene screwed up. But what does that have to do with militarization? If the SWAT team had been wearing pink Hawaiian shirts, would the baby have lived? No. It was an accident, and it should not be attributed to pollice "militarization", but to general police care. 4. MRAPS save lives I argued above that the police DO NOT cause riots. In the case there ARE riots, MRAPS can supplement ambulances to save lives, especially when the general population is shooting each other. Conclusion: So what have I, the CON, achieved? I told you, the audience, about the history of police brutality and how they are not correlated with militarization-- in fact, riots have decreased since the 1960s--, how police use these equipment to fulfill their duty and make sure their "I love you" to their spouses wasn't their last, and how the PRO utilizes cherry picked evidence. Then I responded to each and every one of my opponent's arguments, rebuttals, and extensions. On the other hand, the PRO didn't achieve much. They dropped two-thirds of my arguments, barely responded to my rebuttals and extensions, and, like I prophesized, cherry-picked evidence from a source that I later used against them. PRO did not respond to my burden that I imposed on them since my first speech. Their next speech is their last chance to answer my burden. Audemus jura nostra defendere


Question: Should Every Individual Receive a Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income as a Replacement for Welfare Programs

The proposal is that the United States should initiate the transformation of its current welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are approximately 126 distinct welfare programs in existence.1My argument is that these programs should be gradually replaced with a UBI. It is not necessary to argue for the immediate elimination of all 126 welfare programs, but rather, I will advocate for their eventual phase-out and the commencement of a transition to a universal basic income. The first round is for acceptance, and no new arguments should be introduced in the final round. I will detail my UBI proposal in the arguments section. Accepting this debate without prior permission will result in the forfeiture of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;

I have seen the rampant hypocrisy in your argument. I will elaborate on my argument further on, but let me start off by stating that your argument is entirely referrable to Communism, which is a socio-economic ideology that prohibits the ownership of private property. What you say, is that instead of a population forming around the successful, they should instead form around the unsuccessful. Instead of everyone having lots of land and wealth, everyone should lack wealth and land, as to create equality. Communism sets to create synthetic equality by eliminating the need for more, which in turn creates inequality. A Democratic Republic, or anything of the latter, sets to create equal opportunity, rather then equality altogether. If you look at the human population, there is nothing but inequality. Different race, religion, gender, size, strength, intelligence, etc. Instead of creating equality altogether, which you cannot do without a complete racially motivated genocide, you should create equal rights and equal freedoms. By looking at your statement, you should give up your own home, your own computer, and your own belongings, because others lack some thereof. Do you now understand the hypocrisy in your statement? "Most people cannot grow their own food" - this is untrue. Everyone, by definition, has the ability to grow food. They, however, lack the will to do so, because that service is provided for them by people who are entrusted to grow food, and then sell it at a price. This is called a profession, and that profession provides a type of service or a type of product, which in this case, is food. Without private property, which you seek to abolish, we get rid of all industry altogether. We get rid of competition, which gets rid of incentive. When we get rid of incentive, we state that harder or smarter work means you will gain the same amount as one who works poorly. You cannot support a nation in this way. As Winston Churchill stated "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Also, upon analyzing your statement once more, I come to see that you have denied your own claim. At the start you say "Most people cannot grow their own food", and then you begin to say "Everyone can grow their own food." I await your response.

There are many ways to gauge and potentially measure equality. By every metric everyone is unequal. From amount of performance at a job, to ability to retain and form new ideas, and health everyone is unequal. Certain metrics may align such as performance at a job and meet at an equal endpoint. However, there are too many aspects to an individual for consider people equal. Consider Bill Gates and a heroin addict. Bill Gates has clearly, measurably, improved the human condition. It is possible these two individuals may meet at an equal endpoint by certain metric(s) however they are different. This is a result of biology. If we were all robots many metrics would be equal.

Well, I know that we need Scholarships and Disability, but I am talking about welfare people where they get money from the government. They need to work! What is wrong with them in not working. Government giving them money for nothing. Except there kids. I am ok with disabilitly checks but I meant come on. There should not be welfare checks for the people that don't want to work.

1. im referring to all types of caitalism. 2. you are obviously having a difficult time debating, seeing as you have made all of these claims in round 2 but you have not given any reasons or basis for why you believe it. in a sense you havent even been debating, you have just been stating your opinion and arrogantly expecting people to just have faith in what you say. 3. you act like society couldnt work without money but there are cultures and societies in the the past and present that dont use money at all. you even said yourself in the comments that you are in favor of a barter economy which still wouldnt work in a future civilization but it shows your hypocrisy. 4. the soviet union has nothing to do with what im talking about. you are using old conventional thinking. 5. a) society can own the machines in the future, it doesnt have to be individual ownership. b) your claim that machines wont have creativity has no basis and therefore should be dismissed. many scientists disagree with you. there is a growing awareness of something called the technological singularity that is predicted. russia has even started a congressional committee dedicated to figuring out ways to deal with the impact that the singularity will have on society. its called russia 2045. c) it doesnt matter what anyone thinks about the ethics of greed. there is no choice, either we adapt and have a great standard of living, or we ignore the fact that machines will eventually be able to take over our jobs leaving us poor which will probably lead to more conflict, if not the demise of our species. 6. once again, my argument isnt about the ethics of wage slavery or any of that, we simply have no choice. technology is rendering money obsolete. 7. incentives to be rich are cute ideas but it holds back technological advancement. that is why computer operating systems like windows always release updated versions of heir software that we must buy, rather than making it open source so that individuals can improve on it and share it for free. the internet is one of the first examples of how innovation is eliminating capitalism with things like media and software pirating and open source web browsers just to name a couple.

I’d like to thank my opponent and state, with the hopes of not sounding condescendingly paternalistic, that this was very well done, no doubt suggesting a great deal of effort went into your research and arguments. That being said, I look forward to this debate and hope voters take the time to read the arguments presented. I will begin with an opening statement: Welfare, when applied appropriately, contributes to the over-all well-being of society. I must point out that this does seem to contradict your resolution of welfare being detrimental to the United States. Welfare in the United States has become a deeply divisive point in which the Republican Party has adamantly challenged as an affront to the American individualist identity. In doing so, have brandished the 4 million Americans currently on welfare as “takers” “dependents” and “moochers”. Understandably, it is quite easy to conceive why tax paying citizens would have an issue with the government seizing any portion of their income for any reason whatsoever. Consequently, this is the reason why this particular message has been so effective in its vitriolic intent. However, the true nature of this issue is far more complex than partisan chicanery and could potentially have disastrous consequences if abandoned. WELFARE AS A RESPONSE It should come as no surprise, to anyone, at this point that that United States is in the midst of a recession; one unlike any other in American history. In 2008 there was roughly $40 billion being spent on unemployment insurance and from there a quite noticeable spike in government social benefits occurs. (1) Unemployment insurance rose to approximately $160 billion in 2010, the reason for this was the 2008 credit crisis. (1) I will return to this subject to discuss the repercussions of not implementing an income replacement service. THE SOCIOECONOMIC PREMISE OF WELFARE The notion has greater significance than the obvious rhetoric of ensuring the most vulnerable citizens in society don’t wallow in poverty, essentially markets need consumers. To briefly explain the cyclical phenomena, corporations need to make money and this is accomplished by consumers purchasing their products or services. Consumers can only purchase these items if they have some level of disposable capital/income; by ensuring that individuals in the middle and lower class have a “safety-net” to aid them, they can continue to consume and the market can continue to operate. This is the principle of capitalism and the modern day society, which of course would allow these individuals the freedom to spend their money any way they please. MISLEADING TACTICS Peter Lindert published an article in The Nation in April of 2012 highlighting some of the deceitful and deceptive manners in which politicians and media personalities present their “evidence” against welfare state economics. Stating that the general misconception is that governments recklessly spend money on welfare programs during periods of economic uncertainty, this is of course false. (2) During recessionary periods unemployment will invariably rise, resulting in higher costs for social welfare programs. As I stated earlier these social “safety-net” programs increase overall spending; which reduces economic exposure. (2) CONSEQUENCES OF ABANDONING WELFARE With this recent global recession we have been given a unique glimpse into the economic strategies of other nations; notably Ireland and Greece. Surely, their struggles are common knowledge; however, few realize how very similar Ireland and the US crisis truly are. Both stem from a burst mortgage bubble and highly leveraged credit, their differences are in their Net Income Replacement in the Initial Period after Job Loss. The United States’ Net benefit / Net earnings in employment (%) was 60%, compared to Ireland at 49% and ranking the lowest was Greece at 41%. (1) This effect on their GDP can be quite easily observed: the annual growth for the United States in 2011 was 1.7%, for Ireland 0.7% and Greece suffered a loss of 7.1%. (3) It cannot be disregarded that the nations that achieved the highest annual growth in GDP were the same nations who contributed to social welfare programs. Thus indicating that not only is welfare not a detriment to US society but an economic benefit, one in which their economic woes would only increase without. There were several points that my opponent made in which I feel I should point out: $1 Trillion comes from tax payers and goes to those who apply to welfare through the government. I’m not entirely sure where this figure came from but it is highly inaccurate; the Final Monthly Treasury Statement from the US Government, states that the prior fiscal year to date contribution towards the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or more commonly referred to as welfare, was approximately $17 billion.(4) This figure is nowhere near $1 trillion. […] not because the theory behind it is astray, but because of how it is put through the system. $.09 of tax dollars go to welfare […] This figure was taken from a blog, in which the author admits to making an error in calculation: “I made a slight math error (subtracting 3 cents instead of adding it) in the original calculation. For consistancy, in case you are a returning reader, I left the original numbers intact [sic]”. (5) This of course renders Con’s argument to be without adequate evidence. I remind you that when I mean nothing, I am referring to those who are capable of working, or have landed themselves in these situations by dumb decisions. This statement is entirely speculatory; neither I nor Con have any understanding of the circumstances in which 4 million Americans have required the aid of TANF. Certainly not to the point of being able to refer to these circumstances as “dumb decisions”; according to Con, a “dumb” decision would be a woman having pre-marital sex while living in an area where birth control and abortion are not readily available. This situation is further aggravated by the great likelihood that had she sought out an abortion, she could have been ostracized by her community; given the current climate on abortion in the United States. As for welfare fraud, quite simply there is nothing that Con has presented that suggests that this is a serious issue. 4.3% of Americans are on welfare (according to Con’s sources); if welfare fraud does exist it is quite likely that only a fraction of a percentile are guilty of this fraud. Thus a much less significant issue than the fraud committed during the 2008 credit crisis. Sources: (1): http://www.businessinsider.com... (2): PETER H. LINDERT: SLANDERING THE WELFARE STATE, The Nation. April 9, 2012. (3):http://data.worldbank.org... (4): http://www.fms.treas.gov... (5): http://myesoteric.hubpages.com...

1. Unimportant If there is too many graduates, the government doesn’t need them. It is just for their good. We should not really give them education if they can’t take the responsibility to take care of them. Also not everything is free. Everything needs a price. If governments give free education, they need that money back. The government can’t do the important stuff of their job. They can’t do anything great because they are helping all the people and can’t do things for the economy. 2. Opportunity Cost Even if we pay for university education, we need to pay higher taxes. That is almost the same thing. Also then because of the poor who need the education, the rich need to pay taxes they don’t need to pay. 3. People will think that education is nothing. People will think that education is nothing. They won’t pay for it. They will not try their best and just relax. Then they will get bad or no jobs which is basically the same as paying education.

Con fails to prove to us that the system doesn't get taken advantage of. Instead, he agreed that it does get taken advantage of and that "The poor steal from the rich". Con simply agrees that the system gets taken advantage of.You take my quotes out of context, in this arguement it is for you as the instigator to show me facts a figuers that prove your right as the burden of proof is on you and you have failed to do so. althought as a realist i did agree with you on very cirtane matters you have only said that charities that are privatly owned and have no gaurenteed funding will sort out the problem while showing me no sistics on how offten they succeed or fail. If poor people steal from the ritch they obviously dont do a very good job. my arguemnet is for such a small amount of money welfare does help alot of elderly disabled and children, your arguement is that the welfare system is taken advantage of and people should all go to univercity to get better jobs, yet you didnt show me proof that this would help anything, you dismissed my outsaucing and techinlogical agreement that we need welfare more than ever now because of outsaucing and machines that do the working class jobs, and the fact that their are less jobs now than ever, this you can not denny. My argument is that if you take away peoples welfare they will most cirtanly turn to crime as their arent enough jobs for the people on welfare to do. This si my first debate on this site so thank you very much Pro it has been fun.Vote con!!!

"We can't support people laying around and do nothing"I make an argument for Universal Health Care and you resort to making judgements of people you've never met in your life. I see how it is, though I'm not really surprised."we have to think of practicality, not taking millions of jobs and forcibly taking over multiple businesses (which by the way is completely illegal) and could to easily lead to government tyranny."So your definition of 'government tyranny' amounts to: 'They have a system I don't like, therefore government tyranny'?"Tyranny comes from the government, there is no time where America's corporations could turn tyrannical, because the government would smack it down into the abyss like it does with all modern first world countries because they're all socalist's who put huge taxes and restrictions on buisneses."America's corporations have already turned tyrannical. The Head of the FCC is a former Verizon CEO. The president is closely linked with Trump Towers. Most of his cabinet appointments are Wall Street cronies. If you don't think America is a corporate tyranny, then you're not paying attention.

"to become a free individual they must exit our society. To exit our society, is to remove any debt of obligation to that society" In other words, society requires nothing of truly free individuals. So it follows that you agree with my premise that truly free individuals are not required to do anything for the benefit of others. What now? I like your discussion though. I agree with you that truly free individuals do not exist in any society today-- "free" or otherwise. First of all, for individuals to be truly free in a society, each would have to be given the choice of whether or not to enter into the "social contract" of which Locke wrote. A truly free individual cannot be born into such a contract or subjected to it by any force other than that of his own free will. If he were to (for his own motives) enter into such a contract and hope to preserve his classification as a "truly free individual," it would require that he have the option to void or renew the contract if the terms of the contract were to change. If an individual voluntarily consents to terms which can change without his consent, he has, in effect, used his right of free will to forfeit his rights and free will altogether. At this point (and in all cases where he is forced into such a contract) he ceases to be truly free, and society can and will require all sorts of things from him, and for the benefit of whomever it sees fit. Can one be truly free in nature without choosing to enter into agreements with others to help protect his freedom? In the short term possibly-- if he had the means to adequately defend himself and his property from others. In the long-term, an individual will be wise to voluntarily enter into a social contract. But again, he does not so with the interest of others in mind. His only motive is to secure protection for himself, his property, and his personal freedoms. I believe the above scenario is about as close as an individual can get to being "truly free" in a society. It would require that the social contract provide us with just a few vital services, namely a justice system, military and police force. It is what I and most libertarians see as the perfect social contract-- a very limited government, restricted for the purpose of protecting only those most basic rights to life, property and liberty. Do we propose anarchy, as so many claim? Absolutely not. Do we want to live in a society that is as close to "truly free" as possible? Guilty as charged.

http://www.youtube.com...#! I accept my opponent's debate and wish him luck! I am against universal healthcare. Argument Control If the United States put into effect a universal healthcare system then they would need a seperate government agency to run it. Think about America today. Name one department that runs efficiently. Social Security Administration? Nope! Department of Energy? Nope! I could go on and on. Face it, if the government even tried to run a healthcare system it would be terrible. If something is simple leave it be! If it's not broken don't fix it! Look at this statement from one of my sources: Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system [1]? Private businesses do far better when dealing with healthcare. If they didn't do well then they'd be out of business! If the government ran the healthcare system then they could ration equipment, drugs, and services. Anything could possibly get your healthcare rationed. Lifestyle, age, political ideaology, or how whoever's in power feels could change your healthcare. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues [1]. For example, an elderly man could receive less healthcare than a man in his mid 30s. Elderly people might not be able to get the treatment they need to stay alive. What if you were a Republican in a Democratic government? Would they deny you healthcare services because of your party affiliation? Liver disease from alcoholism, diabetes from obesity, lung cancer from smoking; Would the government help you or tell you to change your lifestyle? Cost They say that medical costs have risen greatly. Of course they have. There are more advances in the medical field and way more technology to pay for. Cars, computers, houses, everything has gone up in price! Should we make them all apart of the government? Many things we buy today have increased in cost because of the addition of new technology, but allowing the government to intervene so they can supposedly wave their hand and reduce the price is more than wishful thinking, its unrealistic and its impossible to speculate the effect it would have on the nation. People think "free healthcare" is great because it has the word "free" in it. Nothing in the world is free. The people of the U.S would have to pay a great deal of taxes in order to support the government's healthcare. The government has to pay for the healthcare somehow. Like I said, NOTHING is free. So where would they get the money for this? Of course! The American taxpayers! Would it be worth the cutting of multiple funded programs in order to support our universal healthcare? Would funding/regulatory decisions on certain drugs, treatments, research, etc. be decided based on those who give the most political support? In addition, co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Eventually there would be a great deal of patients going to the doctors for minor things. Normal people would not go to the doctors for a headace, a cold, or some aches and pains. Why is this? Because there is money involved for every doctor visit. If it's free then why not go? Right? In this case, doctors would spend time on a headache patient who had an appointment sooner than a patient who is in dire need of assistance. Also, healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc via greater taxes. Universal health care would spread the cost of it throughout the nation. Healthy people would be paying the same as unhealthy citizens. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't? Personal Freedom If the government runs the healthcare then what's stopping them from taxing cigarettes, fast food, and other items that jeopardize people's health? With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. People who enjoy a nice alcoholic beverage or a smoke will no longer be able to afford it. Therefore, those businesses would eventually crumble. Personal freedoms would be erased. The government could control what you eat, drink, and do. In conslusion, a government run healthcare system would ruin our country. Government would run your daily life and tell you how to live your life. Your freedom to eat, drink, or smoke will no longer be there. The cost would be immense as seen by my video. How can a government with TRILLIONS of dollars in debt possibly run universal healthcare efficiently? Thank you and thanks to 16kadams for the video! Sources [1] http://www.balancedpolitics.org... [2] http://healthcare.procon.org... [3] http://www.clarksvilleonline.com...


Question: Should Every Individual Receive a Universal Basic Income?

A Universal Basic Income (UBI): A Progressive Social Policy for the Modern Age

A Universal Basic Income, characterized by its periodic, unconditional, automatic, and guaranteed nature, is a payment provided to all citizens, irrespective of their income. As one of the most progressive social policies of our time, UBI is currently being explored through feasibility trials in over 15 countries [1]. Why are so many scientists, politicians, and economists dedicating their time to researching this seemingly unconventional idea? The primary benefits of a UBI can be summarized as follows:

1. Poverty Eradication: A UBI has the potential to completely eliminate poverty by providing a basic living income to all citizens, effectively ending homelessness, hunger, and destitution overnight.

2. Economic Boost: In a recent study, a UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12.5% in 8 years [2]. By increasing the spending power of the poor, overall economic demand would rise, generating more tax revenue and fostering a stronger economy.

3. Work Incentives: Unlike traditional welfare systems, UBI does not discourage employment, as individuals retain their basic income regardless of their job status. Research indicates that while some people may initially leave their jobs, they often use the freedom provided by UBI to pursue more suitable careers, enhancing productivity.

4. Bureaucracy Reduction: The complexity of modern welfare systems is significantly reduced with UBI. It eliminates the need for income verification, tax departments, eligibility checks, and other bureaucratic processes.

5. Healthier Population: By providing individuals with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, UBI can alleviate the strain on healthcare systems. Increased economic security leads to reduced stress, disease, and self-destructive behavior.

6. Smarter Society: Studies have shown that poverty-induced stress impairs decision-making abilities, equivalent to a 13-point drop in IQ [4]. By alleviating the distress of millions, we can foster a more rational and intelligent society.

7. Crime Rate Reduction: Desperation is a significant factor contributing to crime. By lifting society out of poverty, we can reduce desperation, thereby removing a major incentive for criminal activity, potentially leading to a significant decrease in crime rates globally.

In addition to its social and economic benefits, UBI addresses a pressing challenge: job insecurity caused by automation. As technology advances, job creation struggles to keep pace with automation. While innovation generates new employment opportunities, the number of jobs lost to technological

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, thank you for reading this debate. I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting, and wish him/her good luck. My rebuttal will begin next round. My argument will revolve around one of the most successful theories in economics today, free-market capitalism. I'd just like to provide a short explanation, borrowed from the famous economics expert, Milton Freedman [1] Take a pencil. The state has never had any control over inventors. Nobody told an inventor 'make a pencil'. But it was invented anyway, and now anyone who wants to can go into a stationary store and buy a pencil- or to be more precise swap their expertise for that good. In order to show why almost any argument my opponent can make is invalid, I need another analogy. Let's take the car. If you have a driver’s licence, you can drive a car. Do we require knowledge of how a car works? No. If I was driving a car, and it broke down, I would not have the first idea how to fix it. So with computers! So, do we really need to learn exactly how they work to use them? I’ll leave that with you to decide. I will develop this more next round. [1] Capitalism and Freedom, Freedman,Milton 1962

There are many ways to gauge and potentially measure equality. By every metric everyone is unequal. From amount of performance at a job, to ability to retain and form new ideas, and health everyone is unequal. Certain metrics may align such as performance at a job and meet at an equal endpoint. However, there are too many aspects to an individual for consider people equal. Consider Bill Gates and a heroin addict. Bill Gates has clearly, measurably, improved the human condition. It is possible these two individuals may meet at an equal endpoint by certain metric(s) however they are different. This is a result of biology. If we were all robots many metrics would be equal.

The topic I have chose to debate is the need for Uiversal Healthcare. This is an extremely volatile issue, due to our way of life in the United States. We live in a society based on free enterprise, and free choice. While at the same time we are one of the richest countries on earth, we have tens of millions of people who don't have Health Care. There are thoses on both sides of the issue that feel that they have are right and their way is the best. The United States provides the best medical care in the world, but many wonder if we should adopt a government administered Health Care system like Canada provides to its citizens. After you have heard the arguments that are for and against Uiversal Health Care I think you will be able to make a more informed decision.

"Everyone has to pay tax so I'm not sure what you mean." When the government decides to tax who and at what rate its picking winners and losers. Who will win at keeping the most of their money and who will lose at keeping most of their money. "The real role of a government is supposed to ensure the rights and equality of everyone" This is again, picking winners and losers. "If the government declares war, that means that nobody wins, because by your statement, it means that both parties get to choose who wins or lose, so both parties could be winners." When war is fought one side always comes out victorious by submitting the other into defeat. This is another example of government picking winners (It's own citizens) and sending it its army after another group of citizens to defeat them in battle and declaring them losers. I challenge my opponent to name one specific government that doesn't pick winners and losers.

One key point in my theory is that there exists such a superabundance of everything that it need not be you-or-me. My opponent resisted this with regard first to water, then with regard to population, then with regard to farmland. He has now graciously conceded this aspect of the debate, so I will consider the question as settled. These resources are the building blocks of the post-scarcity society. With them in place, let's now move on and look at the organizational and psychological aspects – = HUMAN MOTIVATION TO WORK = My opponent says, apparently in full seriousness, that he worries about what will happen if no one is "forced to work for other's entertainment". This brings us to an important point. What motivates human beings to work? What do we know about why people do what they do? My opponent (like most economists, business managers and politicians of the old guard) assumes that people work only if tempted by rewards or coerced by poverty or threats. To get people to do something, you offer them a shiny something; to get them not to do something, you threaten to take away their stuff. I call it the carrot-and-stick theory of human motivation. It resembles the most primitive forms of behaviourist psychology. It may be true of some lower mammals - gerbils or something - but it doesn't explain the complexity of even a rat's behaviour, and it is hopelessly oversimple when it comes to explaining Man's behaviour. Why have people spent a hundred million hours editing Wikipedia? Why do people, when they are fully fed and clothed and sheltered, go looking for something to do? Why not just sit around? Why do people jump out of planes, do adventure races across South America, or climb Mount Kilimanjaro? Why do people train tens of thousands of hours in ballet or music or meditation? Why did I spend more than twenty hours last week working on open-source projects that don't stand a chance of making me money? I once heard about a sadhu who travelled from Delhi to Lumbini, pushing a radish along the ground with his nose the whole way. Clearly, there is more to human motivation than money. My opponent argues that no one will dance or sing or write if they are not forced to by harsh economic conditions. Ridiculous! Do you think that Dante wrote The Divine Comedy because his month's rent was due? Every psychological theory of motivation since at least the 70s has recognized that people have needs beyond bodily and material needs: Maslow's theory, Heider's, Bandura's, Reiss's, Herzberg's, Alderfer's, Robbins's, etc. etc. etc. The carrot-and-stick theory of motivation has gone the way of the dinosaurs and rightly so, because the evidence against it is overwhelming. It explains nearly nothing about our lives. While most economies hitherto existing have used mostly carrot-and-stick motivation, it is clear that Man has other desires than just stuff. Man has the need for a purpose, a mission. Man has passions. Man can be moved by empathy, compelled by compassion or stirred by passion. My opponent argued that if you take away the economic carrots and sticks, you take away motivation. The opposite is true: by taking away the drudgery caused by money and by incomplete automation, you create an environment in which people can pursue their real motivation and live according to their real passion. = THE MONEY QUESTION = "The fact is that you create a paradox, as being independent to money due to self-serving industry would require an enormous amount of money to create at first aspect." Maybe I'm missing something here; are you claiming that it's somehow logically impossible to use money to get rid of money? Say a fat guy lifts weights, gets in shape, and so loses weight. Is that a paradox? I mean, he couldn't possibly have used weights to get rid of weight, right?! Can ivy choke trees? Or is it too "paradoxical" for plants to get rid of plants? We are building free resources from ones we paid for. It is not a paradox. It's not even news to anyone. Most of the readers of this have probably done it themselves. Someone buys a computer, buys some CDs, and shares the music for free on the Internet. They have created free resources by spending money. And all over the world, hour-by-hour, more and more free resources are becoming available. The Internet is doubling in size every two years (http://www.singularity.com...) and before long it will contain (nearly) all useful knowledge, including designs for useful machines, medical knowledge, scientific data, complete educational curricula etc. It can be done surprisingly cheaply, as the workers are mostly volunteers. And there are millions of good people working at this. Many of them - like Alan Kay or Jimmy Wales - are rich. There is big, big, big money going into researching and developing the enabling technologies to a post-scarcity society. Take nanotechnology: in 2008, $18.2 billion was spent on nanotech R&D (http://www.whitehouse.gov...). In solar power: the US government gave $237 million in 2009 for solar R&D (http://www.photon-expo.com...). The EU is giving fifty billion euro – fifty billion! – over seven years to photovoltaic research companies (http://www.rdmag.com...). Private sector funding likely matches that, and China are certainly spending hundreds of millions, or billions on solar R&D. You are right that it requires money to develop technology (under the current system). But, if you think that financial obstacles are stopping either free resources or new technologies from being created, you have the facts strongly against you. = CH-CH-CH-CHANGES = SX23: "the changes proposed by the theory requires large amounts of investments" AdCiv: "Let's be specific: The "changes" my thesis requires are some successful open-source projects, ones that will create free education, free healthcare, free fabrication etc. If my opponent was referring to some other "changes", I would ask him to be specify what changes he means." SX23: "Your theory is inviable in the next few decades as it would require hundreds of change in actual industries" .... "too many factors would require massive amounts of change within the current society." This is the only part of the debate I haven't demolished yet, and you are being incredibly vague. My theory won't work because it requires too many changes? I would be grateful if you could show me the specific changes it requires that aren't already happening. Post-scarcity requires automation; automation is happening. Post-scarcity requires a massive stockpile of free digital resources; this too is happening. Post-scarcity requires the development of small, cheap, self-replicating digital fabrication technologies; this is happening. = AUTONOMOUS NUCLEAR REACTORS = My opponent asks for examples of autonomous power stations. Alright, there's the Toshiba 4S and the Small Sealed Transportable Atomic Reactor (SSTAR), both of which I believe are on the market now. They are fully autonomous. The Soviets apparently had hundreds of autonomous nuclear microreactors powering remote lighthouses (http://englishrussia.com...) (though that didn't end well).

1. So, we all earn their keep. Mental illness is random, it can strike anyone. It could have stricken you. Part of society is paying for things that don't directly help us. You pay for public school even if you have no children, you pay for roads if you don't bike, etc. These people are a given of society and should not be expected to pay for their keep. Those people do it willingly, or, if it is unwilling, such as human trafficking, it is a violation of human rights. 2. Yes, but those people who dress like that are not harming anyone. Sure they may be insulting people, but it is not near the level of distaste as it is to poke and prod a live, breathing human for kicks. 3. I'm not sure people want insane and possibly dangerous people at their parties. What about lawsuits? Finally, this idea is no different than slavery because inmates could not opt out of it and would be unable to do so. Keeping them is not slavery because they would hurt people if they were not kept in that way. Thus I may conclude my argument. Thanks brian for this humorous debate.

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!

First of all, thank you for accepting this debate and I was actually referring to the UK welfare state but I suppose the debate can be applied to both nations. Now, I agree with some of these points that there aren't many alternatives but I believe as a nation if we were more collective then the welfare state could be adjusted. The main problem I see in the welfare state is that there isn't as thorough background search of the person applying for it as maybe there should be. This could easily be set up by looking at the census of everyone and medical history, wage etc. and applying data to a computer system and actually looking to see if some people aren't as in desperate need as some. I believe varying the amount of money given to these people is important as an old person isn't as in need of money than someone who has a life threatening disease e.g. cystic fibrosis. This would be the easiest alternative to ask of the government but going back to the idea of more voluntary work I think a reward scheme could be set up for doing a certain amount of voluntary work. For example "100 or $100 for 10 hours of service to the community. This would be cheaper than the current welfare state is and it would give people the incentive to give something back to their community. Welfare state can encourage people to not get better jobs who may be in school and barely able to pay the bills, even if they work. They may make just enough money to qualify for benefits, but not enough money to fully support themselves unless they live in a bad area. People apply for benefits if they are unemployed but surely even in this day and age getting a job would be a more efficient way of earning money and it is problems like this that make the welfare state so evasive. My final reason about how the welfare state is unreliable is it is people who work hard to make a living that are effectively paying for some people to not bother getting a job and get money given to them and them not earning it. These people are not playing their part to help boost the economy which isn't helping the UK out at all. In conclusion I will fire back a different question; Do the negatives outweigh the positives? And frankly I don't believe they do. The welfare state was better when it was first introduced in 1906 but I feel it has taken us a significant way forward but it is old and can no longer lead us in the right direction, it too needs a pension after its retirement.

look at minimum wage. it exists now. the stock market is not crumbles. inflation has not gone through the roof or caused bad problems. i thought that stock market statement wasn't worth dignifying with a response. i'm not even arguing everyone gets the same wages so why did you make that statement? also, as i said, we're not giving them an excessive minimum or the same as everyone else, but just an amount a single person could live off at the minimum without living on the streets, as i said. but, i suppose if i look beyond your words I might be able to salvage some reasoning, even though you did not state the reasoning. the argument of inflation. i'll simply refer you to my already stated argument on that matter. "also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living or run amok prices for everyone else. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum." to explain more, mcdonald's for example would charge more, and their suppliers would charge more and everyone else would too. yes inflation would increase. but, this would not be true inflation where everyone's wages is increased, so the increase in the minimum would be more proporitonally to hte increase in inflation.

1. The first arguement that id like to take up on this point is that yes medicare does help alot of people, lower income etc this just further fuels my point on point 4 so thank you. The second part is that while yes it does work it is not a universal program it only focuses on a section of the people not everyone. Also as a side note one person cant keep an entire system working and by saying you have a good president still wont solve the problem of having a working program, its just to big of a job. 2. The first point on this flow id like to say feeling good because its one less thing to worry about wont protect the people from the absurd taxing like you proposed in the plan. Also they wont be paying less because as it is now the companies help pay and fund the different insurances. In all a unviersal health care would completely collapse our already fraying economy. 3. So this whole argument contradicts the point of a universal health care, to keep hospitals and doctors still private would not reach the perspective of a universal health care since not everyone is entitled to the same thing. Bringing us back to the heart of capitalism, competition which will be lacking if the plan is implemented. 4. Your still missing the point there are systems like Medicare like you mention that cover people who are in need of it. The reason why I mentioned this is because you could argue that if people wouldn't get attention which i was proving incorrect but since you agree theres no need to argue this any more. 5. Really the points you make here are just not true, when funded by the government like every other program ran by the government the doctors will be told what to do and how to do it. I mentioned India because they have a universal health care system and it is one of the poorest in the world this being the leading reason, doctors don't care as much anymore. 6. No it wouldn't lower because in this new system everyone basically pays the same amount, for people like me I go in once a year for a physical other than that I'm relatively healthy so why should i pay that much more, when other people who choose a unhealthy lifestyle and cost more a year eventually raising prices for me to help take care of the unhealthy person thats why a universal health care system would be bad. 7. While that may be true eventually its the transition that will kill the economy before the cavalry comes. Also look to point 8 on the flow and this ties in with this point in the fact that less doctors would want to do the job so they wouldn't be in such large demand. 8. Again look to point 3 and how this contradicts the point of a universal health care if everything is still privatized. To deny the fact that doctors become doctors because of the fame and status is just ignorant, sure some may not fit the type but the vast majority do. 9. So basically your conceding to the fact that since our health coverage is working why change it so thank you. As another side note any country with a universal health coverage none of them have a good system, just a bare system. Also its not a right its a privilege that you should work hard for not be given to you on a silver spoon. 10. The point to this argument here is that health care in other nations like India, see point 5, because they are so poor and ours is so great changing that would hurt everything in our medical infrastructure and see my other points as to how universal cant be socialized or privatized. It may not be everyone which yeah i suppose i can attest to that but in the status quo nothing is broken when you compare us to every other country, just try and name one with a better health system.