Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

Discipline should be instilled at home, not in schools through corporal punishment.

Corporal punishment, which includes hitting with a hand or object, kicking, burning, shaking, or throwing a person with the intent to inflict pain, can have severe and tragic consequences. These include ruptured eardrums, brain damage, bodily injuries, and even death. While physical injuries can be treated, the emotional and psychological effects can be deeply scarring for the survivor.

In Zambia, corporal punishment is prohibited by law in schools but remains widely practiced by teachers and parents. A survey of 2,705 boys and girls aged between six and 18 years found that corporal punishment and other forms of humiliating and degrading punishment are still prevalent in both schools and homes. Children are often hit with hands, sticks, or hosepipes in schools when they misbehave, and at home, they are hit with sticks, belts, hands, or denied food.

Some parents and caregivers believe that children will not grow up to be well-mannered adults if they are not spanked or beaten when they make mistakes. Others argue that abolishing corporal punishment is a Western-centric concept that will lead to moral decay in African cultures. However, the effects of corporal punishment on survivors are damaging, and it should be noted that its use is more pronounced in low-income environments than in affluent communities.

According to Father Derrick Mewing, an assistant priest at the Anglican Cathedral of The Holy Cross Lusaka, corporal punishment only induces fear and distorts reasoning. It does not teach children the reasons and ethics for not behaving in a particular manner. Instead, it teaches them not to engage in a particular behavior because they risk being beaten. This approach does not instill self-discipline and respect for other people.

Some people have taken biblical scriptures literally, citing Proverbs 11: 7, which says "spare the rod and spoil the child." However, according to Fr Mewing, the portion of the scripture in question does not literally mean what most people perceive it to entail. The rod referred to in the Bible is the code of conduct that is meant to guide and instruct one in the right path for them to have a disciplined and fulfilling life.

Corporal punishment works against the process of ethical development and contributes to a perception from an early age that violence is an appropriate response to conflict resolution and unwanted behavior. It teaches children that it is acceptable for powerful persons to be violent towards the weak and to resolve conflicts

what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that

PRELIMINARIES To Pro: I didn't intend my language to come across as difficult or intentionally flowery/technical in any way. I hope that wasn't the impression I gave, and I'll be making an effort from now on to be as straightforward as possible. Also, no worries about the work, luckily I have the luxury of being a full time student. :-) RECAPPING MY ARGUMENTSRecall the challenge I set for Pro in the end of my last post: It's NOT ENOUGH to show that spanking has some good benefits (which it undoubtedly may have). Pro needs to show firstly that spanking is the only way to achieve the good benefits in question, and secondly Pro needs to show that spanking has no disproportionately bad side-consequences. As I have argued however, there are very strong reasons to think this is not the case!(I) Empirical evidence shows us that spanking is no more successful than other non-violent methods of discipline, such as using reward systems not to spoil children but rather to encourage disciplined behaviour. I cited two peer-reviewed empirical studies in support of this claim, Straus (2005) as well as Larzelere, Schneider, Larson and Pike (1996). Has Pro given us any reason to reject this claim? None. Pro simply asserts in reply: "NO other punishment is proved to work, where a spanking has been proven to work." But the empirical studies I cited precisely claim to prove this! So unless Pro can cast doubt on these empirical studies, his assertion is absolutely unfounded.(II) Empirical evidence shows us that spanking has wide-ranging and disproportionately damaging consequences on children. Again, I cited an empirical study, Gershoff (2002). According to Gershoff, spanking (i) increases the likelihood of decreased moral awareness and internalisation in children that carries on into adulthood; (ii) decreases the quality of the relationship between parent and child; and (iii) increased anti-social and delinquent behaviour in children. See my previous post for the reasoning I offered to connect spanking with these consequences.Again, has Pro given us any reason to reject this claim? Again, none. Pro says: "spanking a child may have a small percent change in the mental health where grounding them may teach them they can get off easy in the real world". But this is the same point Pro made earlier. He is basically saying that 'grounding' kids will teach a bad lesson, whereas spanking won't. However Pro has not considered the possibility of disciplinary methods other than grounding: for example, using a reward system as I mentioned earlier. And in any case, Pro's claim has been asserted with absolutely no evidence. As Christopher hitchens is fond of saying: "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" [1]. We must demand evidence from Pro if we want to believe his claims.(III)There seems to be no reason to think that if we allow spanking, we also shouldn't allow gradually stronger and stronger forms of violence against children. This is a 'slippery-slope' argument, but not all slippery-slope arguments are necessarily bad. (If you want evidence for this, see the Wikipedia entry on slippery slope arguments). To be honest, I don't think this third point of mine is very strong at all. But I leave it to Pro to debunk my point, if he so chooses.THE CASE AGAINST SPANKING STANDS UNREFUTEDIn conclusion, I must say that there is very strong reason for us to think that spanking is wholly unnecessary, in light of the points above. Before entering this debate I did not actually know about all the empirical evidence revealing these facts about spanking. Now that I do, my opinion is much firmer. I urge you all to go Con on this debate!REFERENCES / CITATIONS[1] This is in fact not an original saying of Hitchens', but a popular axiom of the great medieval Scholastic philosophers. *For full citations of other sources quoted in this post, cf. my previous post.

Wow. I only have 5 minutes. Children are property until cognition and should therefore be treated according to the whims of their parents or guardians as long as they are not beaten or killed. The argument that children should not be put on leashes because children are not animals is moot because humans are animals themselves. the only distinction between humans and other animals is that animals never gain cognition. Source: John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

I accept the challenge of why homeschooling should be allowed in society. Myself being homeschooled, I will argue on why homeschooling is good and shouldn't be banned.

The Alabama slave code of 1833 states that slaveowners must “abstain from all injuries to them [slaves] extending to life or limb.” So, beating your slaves was not allowed. In fact, the law enjoins slave owners to treat their slaves “with humanity.” But we all know that African-American slaves were horrifically abused in spite of these laws. Why? Because slaves were viewed by their owners as “property”; not human beings.Like the African-American slaves, the Israelite’s foreign slaves were considered “property.” Beating your slaves was permitted by the Mosaic law, on the grounds that slaves are the “property” of their owners. However, there are a few stipulations: (1) Don’t beat your slaves to death. (2) Don’t beat your slaves so badly that they’re disabled for more than two days. (3) Don’t damage their eyes or teeth, otherwise they go free. Note that slaves were beaten “with a rod.” See Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, and Leviticus 25:44-46.But who were these foreign slaves? Were they all a bunch of depraved, infanticidal villains?Well, there were people who sacrificed children back in those days. These people were the Canaanites. The Canaanites worshipped a god known as Molech. They sacrificed children to Molech to "ensure financial prosperity for the family and future children.” [1] Yahweh was opposed to this practice: “...you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.” See Leviticus 18:21.The Israelites never enslaved the Canaanites; they exterminated them. See Deuteronomy 20:16-18: “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you.” My opponent argues that the Israelites only enslaved infanticial pagans. This verse proves him wrong**. Hopefully now it's clear why I brought it up.So, who did the Israelites enslave, if not the Canaanites? When the Israelites attacked a city, they would first make its people an “offer of peace.” If the “offer of peace” was accepted, “all the people” in the city would become their slaves, and would be “subject to forced labour.” Women, children, and livestock could be taken as “plunder.” By the way, “plunder" is defined as “property acquired illegally and violently…in a time of war or civil disorder.” So, the Israelites enslaved women and children. Women and children, they thought, were equivalent to livestock.Israelites purchased slaves from other nations. They are expressly permitted to do so by God, in Leviticus 25:44-46. Foreign slaves didn’t get the cushy deal the Israelites gave their fellow countrymen. Their treatment was largely unregulated. We know that they were slaves for life. According to Exodus 21:4, the children of slaves were born into slavery, as it was with African-American slaves. They were beaten, just like African-American slaves. [1] http://www.gotquestions.org...** I have no idea why my opponent brought this verse up in Round #4, as it totally undermines his argument that the Molech-worshippers were *mercifully* enslaved by the Israelites. Deuteronomy 20:17-18 is an explicit commandment to SLAUGHTER the Canaanites; not enslave them. What were you thinking?

I do apologize, but I disagree. Morally speaking, no one has the right to abuse. Perhaps I shall challenge you to a follow up debate on how morality can differ from legality, but that is beside the point. In many countries (Britain, Canada, and so on), abusive speech is a crime, as it should be. Note that i speak of actual abuse, and not just plain rudeness. Example: N*****rs should die: abuse. Eff you: rude, but not abuse.

Hey everybody :)! This is a challenge to anyone who wishes to have a pleasant debate with me. I believe with all my heart a coach should be forbidden to yell at their players. I find it in poor taste, and embarrassing. I will develop this in later rounds. First round=Acceptance. Good luck!

Much time and expense would be saved in the judicial system by allowing courts and, perhaps, even our 'in the field' police officers to authorise / administer discriminate forms of corporal punishment. I recently discussed this issue with some colleagues and we all agreed that, in general, corporal punishment has a useful role to play.

As someone who's had coaches that yell a lot, I think they should. Good players are only formed with discipline. You may be thinking "Can't there be another way of disciplining the players?" And yes, there are, but at the same time, getting yelled at pushes the player to their limits and beyond. Reasons a student or player would be getting yelled at is lack of effort, not paying attention and etc. If they were to get yelled it, it would hit them and they'd be like "Oh, I think I need to try harder than what I am doing right now," it's just common sense. It pays off at the end because the coaches smile when they see the player they yelled at doing really good.

I'll begin with some refutations Public school is an unsafe environment for children. Guns Concerning guns, my opponent makes a very unsound argument. My opponent means to imply that "hundreds" of incidents of school shootings occur on an annual basis. This is simply nonfactual. One would have to actually go back quite a bit before the more recently sensationalized stories of violence at school to even find a ten year period where more than a hundred homicides occurred in school. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu... Scattered, isolated incidents don't show a trend which is capable of justifying such a grand statement as "This is only one of hundreds of stories..." Drugs It is certainly undeniable that drugs are sold on campus. However, my opponent provides no reasoning as to why we should view this as a bad thing in any way except for the fact that most of them aren't 18 yet. There is no mention of anything that proves that the public school environment is what causes minors to do drugs. Here lies the difference between correlation and causality. My opponent is confusing the presence of drugs in public school as the reason these kids are doing drugs. Drug addiction and other such things frequently begin and continue to occur outside of school. Furthermore, most of the heavier drug abusers are truants who waste most of their free education. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Sex There is no real substance to this argument. Much of it is based off the notion that sex is wrong. There is no reason to believe that having sex is wrong, yet my opponent says it is the worst thing about public education. It is as if my opponent wants promiscuity to be a punishable offense. Abstinence until marriage is a personal choice, and has little correlation to the safety of the school environment or the moral standard in said environment. While there are statistics to show that much of what my opponent says is true in regards to STD's, I disagree largely with my opponents certainty that it is an issue of major importance. My opponent is attempting to use alarming sounding numbers to disguise the insignificance of sex to the issues of public education. My opponent is implying throughout his point that sex is killing off our children, which it is not. A quick look at the sampling methods and introduction of the following report shows this to be truth. http://www.cdc.gov... Sex related deaths barely even register next to the grim reaper known as the automobile. Quality of education I have a very simple refutation to this point, and I derive it directly from some basic thoughts on the nature of statistics. It is obvious that there will be more outliers and under-achievers in a school population if you sample more of them. My opponent seeks to show, primarily by means of standardized test results, that homeschool results in superior quality education. However, there simply aren't as many people being home schooled, and so there aren't quite as many under-achieving dregs holding down the averages. Most individuals of that description are in the public education system. Attempting to use statistics which will clearly be skewed beyond all recognition to establish superiority is ridiculous. My argument is simple. I maintain that they are basically the same. My opponent came in seeking to establish that one is superior to the other. As the Con, however, I can simply maintain a neutral position. Neither is better than the other. I believe I have sufficiently shown already that most of the arguments presented by my opponent are either dramatizations of fringe statistics or simply unreliable. Home school and public school students typically learn the exact same things. If the students do what they're supposed to do, which in the higher achieving minorities in public education they do, then the learning is equal in quality. The instructors in public school are trained educators, which can fully compensate for the lack of a personal touch provided by a parent. However, these things both vary tremendously. Unsupportive or inattentive parents may be just as unhelpful as an extremely poor teacher. New social, scientific, and religious ideas This is more of a secondary point, but worth mentioning all the same. My opponent doesn't wish for his children to have to learn about horrifying things like homosexuality. However, once again, what is wrong with this? Nothing. Homosexuality isn't so horrifying that children can't know about it. Much the same with many other things. Some parents may take advantage of the opportunity to neglect teaching their children anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs, such as evolution. These are things which one must learn in public school, and generally they all serve to enrich each child's understanding of the world.


Question: Should Social Security Systems be Transformed into Private Sector Solutions?

Social Security should not be a government-run program but instead be privatized, allowing individuals to have control over their retirement savings.

Point 1: Some government programs are necessary, but the current structure of Social Security is unsustainable. The funds for Social Security should come from individual states, rather than the federal government, as states are responsible for providing services to their residents. The taxes for social programs and safety nets should be significantly reduced. I support cutting taxes and spending, not just one or the other. We should rely on our own safety nets instead of depending on the government. Taxes do not improve the standard of living, as the benefits received are offset by the taxes paid. Wealthy individuals have no moral obligation to give back to others, as they contribute to society by providing high-quality, low-priced goods.

Point 2: Lowering taxes for individuals frees up money for them to spend on goods and services without regret. The deficit talk under Bush was a result of Clinton's policies taking effect. After 2003, deficits decreased significantly. The wealthy not only invest in stocks and securities but also spend on expensive items like cars, houses, and yachts. They reinvest money back into their businesses, which benefits them, their employees, and consumers. A privatized Social Security system would be the employee's choice, not the government's mandate.

Point 3: Sales taxes can be used during inflation to curb spending and reduce GDP. However, this tax should be reconsidered.

Point 4: Privatizing Social Security would decrease taxes, reduce the deficit, and lower government spending. It would also benefit employees more than the national program, as they could opt out during financial difficulties. Businesses offering Social Security would not give it up, as it does not waste their money and ensures their employees live a good life.

Point 5: Property taxes penalize people with large land holdings, regardless of wealth. Estate taxes are unnecessary because they affect both the poor and the rich. All people inherit, and these taxes should be eliminated.

Point 6: Products sold underground do not pay taxes by definition. Excise taxes do not deter dangerous or poor behaviors, as these behaviors are often addictive. Prohibiting such materials is unconstitutional and not the government's job.

Point 7: The economic issues are not due to tax cuts but rather market speculation and Obama's policies. Tax cuts free up money for businesses, allowing them to expand, hire more, and increase GDP. If the tax code were more efficient, it would encourage foreign investment

I have accepted your argument. Now, I want to clarify my position on this debate: I am NOT advocating a complete Socialist revisioning of America: You won't see concepts such as advertising and private ownership of land disappear off the face of the Earth. I am of the opinion that Socialism still has a place beside Capitalism in this country, and I firmly believe that there is no freedom to be 'made a complete mockery of' in using this system.

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com...[/IMG]Take a look at this World Happiness Report on Wikipedia. Motice how most of the countries here have some form of strong socialist polices like universal healthcare and free college education. Of those countries, Norway just happens to have around a 7% budget surplus and a $74,930 Nominal GDP per capita income. Finland is also preparing to test a new universal income system. Maybe Socialism isn't the nightmare people make it out to be?

Socialism is a bad idea: Private Property: People should have a right to own and do anything that isn't illegal on their property. Otherwise, people would feel deprived. Means of Production: The government telling other companies what to do would plunge them in to the ground. Distribution of goods: The distribution of goods. You might get it, but the problem is you have to wait FOREVER to get the services or goods. For example, I have a friend in England that had a broken jaw from a bar fight and he had to drive from hospital to hospital waiting to get surgery. Is that how you want it? Socialism is Bad: Prosperity is good, I admit it. But would you like severely reduced rights? Yes or No? China is a fascist-state capitalist country. They just say their Communist. Otherwise, why would their economy be booming? Your rebuttal?

Now to the issues. Second I live in America in the lower middle class with very limited health care. I would give anything to have the comfort of knowing if something happens I can get the medical care I need. You should be grateful that you have that. "I believe the government is a system that tends to simply makes certain peoples' hard efforts. .. and convert them into a cushioning device for those who, knowing that they will be cushioned, or simply don't care about the consequences of their actions, decide it's the government's responsibility/fault for their actions. " From what I can tell from research about your government everyone pays for their share of this plan in taxes and what's wrong with that? Though some people may mess up and simply don't care because they know there's a safety net there are a lot more people who get into medical or other troubles and it's not their fault. There are many people who can't afford help and need this plan to live. Are you saying you would deny someone medical treatment because they have less money than you? "This means taxes ascertained from people, instead of going into ways of making society more progressive ( culture,education,etc), goes into helping people for their own actions" In my book getting rid of sickness and disease counts as making society more progressive. Allowing everyone not just those with money to feel better is more progressive. And as for helping people sick because of whatever stupid things they did is a good thing as well. If their in there for overdosing on drugs or addiction to drugs and you help them instead of allowing them to go back onto the streets not only are you probably saving a life you could be taking a few more drug attics of the streets. "The government should make it clear that if you do the aforementioned action (or anything else illegal) you will be denied treatment on the grounds that what you do is your own responsibility and to help you would be wasting money from taxpayers" This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard or in this case read. First you must consider the backlash from the masses when they hear that you have denied even the most basic help. Even in America we treat people who come in for overdose we may complain about the money wasted on them but we would never deny treatment. That is the equivalent of murder if someone is about to die even if it's their own stupid fault we help that's being human. "I don't understand why the government has decided to take responsibility for people to such a degree when it obviously hinders society" Well I do the way I see it a healthy country is a happy country, and a happy country is a prosperous and successful country. And further more the government does have a responsibility to take care of it's people that's one of the reasons they were even made a government be it a democracy or a monarchy is there to protect, serve and govern its people so that the country runs smoothly and you can't do that with a bunch of sick people running around. Now take the floor Tom9206! !! !! !! ! !

First, thanks to Wj for proposing this very interesting topic. I am making the assumption that the debate is focused on the current US situation, but if that is not the case I will be glad to expand it to other countries in the second round. Somebody -I think it was Churchill?- once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. Something similar can be applied to the welfare state. It is full of inconsistencies, loopholes and potential for abuse, yet it beats the alternative -the lack of it. I see it in evolutionary terms: animals (other than humans I mean) use diverse combinations of cooperation and violence to reach their goals. When it comes to what to do with the destitute, the weak, the sick or the injured, their strategies vary from community help (survival) to open violence or abandon (both an effective death sentence). Humans have the cognition ability to realize there are multiple alternatives, but we don't necessarily agree on which one to use: so when we are faced with that situation, some of us choose to assist the ones in need, while some others will effectively kick the weaklings out of the group. Add to this that human power goes well beyond animal's: while animals can only assert themselves in terms of physical force, humans extend that power by long reach influence (i.e. a paunchy, feeble CEO can decide the destiny of thousands of physically stronger men). And this is when the need for a welfare state kicks in -an institution above individual power, in charge of redistributing wealth and assistance where the community alone is unable to, be it because of unwillingness or lack of power. Add to this the issue of inequality, be it gender based or racial. Women have made significant progress but are still far from effective equal rights (sometimes the laws exist, but their application leaves much to be desired). Racial minorities are in the same boat -Jim Crow laws are long gone, but a color blind society is still a pipe dream, and in many ways the palliative measures such as Affirmative Action do more to freeze a situation of practical inequality under "tolerable" terms than to pave the way for true equality. I would like to end this with a key question: who is on welfare? The answer is you, me, and the vast majority of Americans. When we think of welfare we think of food stamps, welfare checks and Medicaid. Actually, the bulk of American citizens are subsidized by the State. We assume it's our own taxes which pay for welfare, but in reality, the roads we drive on, the electricity we use, the police that keeps us safe (sometimes...), all this is paid by the very rich. I know this is hard to swallow, but take a closer look at the brutal income inequality today (the infamous 99% vs. 1%, which is a figure of speech but not too far from reality), then at taxation which is slightly regressive but not that much, and do the math. You'll be surprised.

Hmm. I may have been a bit inconsistent. I'll elaborate. I'll get better as we go along, don't worry. I just wanted a strong opening argument. I do understand that the United States is one of the richest countries in the world, and, thus, if I live in the United States, I am in the top 1% of the people on earth. However, this doesn't matter, because we aren't a utopia, we have poor people here, too. Averages don't matter. What does matter is that one person is poor. It doesn't matter if they live in the best country on earth. If they are poor, their lives are awful. Communism should be applied everywhere, in my opinion. Whether the country is first world or third world doesn't matter. If there's poverty there, something needs to improve, because poverty is a detriment to humanity and it shouldn't exist in the 21st century. Communism is a good system for eradicating it completely, and people refuse to use it because they have gotten used to capitalism, and, since rich people have the most power and make all the decisions, capitalism is preserved as something that should have gone a long time ago, like some kind of rotting mummy. I'm OK with Obama, just so long as he's nice to poor people. Rich people are fine if they realize that being rich is wrong and poor people are in a bad situation. Obama is my favorite president, because he's black. he represents the beginning of a new era, for me. Anyway, I'll answer all your questions, one by one. In future rounds, though, I suggest you don't hit me with too many questions at once, OK? Take it easy, save some debate for later. 1. Who is going to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor? The government. The government can do whatever the Hell it wants to, it just chooses not to take money away from rich people because the government itself is composed of rich people, so taking away their own money seems ridiculous to them. Thankfully, they do implement taxes and stuff, but poor people rarely ever see even a fraction of those taxes. Poor people have to pay things like parking tickets, which drives them even further into debt. The government uses the money to build new buildings, like bridges. Bridges that homeless people can sleep under. 2. How do we know they won't keep some for themselves? This one is pretty simple, we need to implement a law that prevents it. Laws can prevent anything. If a rich person has, say, three million under his mattress, he goes off in the paddy wagon. He'll also be forced to pay a certain sum every year, more than just income tax. Instead of going through some kind of government process, I suggest the money is broken up into ones and sprinkled over the city in a helicopter. 3. Even if you abolished currency how would you value goods? This one is simple too. If one product has more value than another one, it's worth more to someone. For instance, take a hamburger and a TV. People will need hamburgers every day, so a lot of hamburgers will be produced. But people only need one TV, or two at the most, so less TVs will be produced. This is how products are manufactured today. There are more French fries than cars. The only difference in my new ideal utopia is that everything is given away for free. If people get too greedy, and take four TVs or something, they go to jail for two weeks or so. Simple and effective. Most people will just take what they need, if greed is prevented with reasonable punishments. 4. How would you make sure that no one is being evil by producing low quality goods that is being distributed by the government I would presume? This one is the weirdest, and kind of sounds like Kindergarten gibberish, but I'll try to get it as best I can. The goods don't need to be low quality. They can be top notch. Just so long as everyone gets roughly the same stuff. And, like I said, people are prevented from being evil by going to jail. And, if your question refers to a person who wants to make his own stuff, he can make whatever the hell he wants to, just so long as everybody else gets to. People can farm, make art, or whatever, and they can trade stuff with other people just so long as the trade is fair. And, as for those last 4 questions, I do value life, I do value my own life, I'm near the bottom as far as class goes, and I would not like Stalin to kill me. I don't like communism to be associated with death, because it's not something evil, and to associate it with fascism is a sign of ignorance, just like perceiving Islam as an evil devil cult. Our idiot minds percieve new things as a potential threat to our existence, so we turn those things away, even if they could be used for the benefit of our species and a major step in progress. I love communism, and Stalin, and Karl Marx. They are all very nice people. In the next round, I way talk a little about the Cold War. Until then, I await your next argument.

O.k I concede i accidentally screwed up the names but my points still stand that there isn't an agency that could do a universal health program. Its really regardless. 1. All my opponent has done is say that as of now there are people without coverage and even Medicare and Medicaid cant solve it all. For this point to really have merit please try and present a organization that is up to the task. And as to what you were saying about the secretaries. All they are is advisor's and the president doesn't completely run the country thats why it is so great. There are three main branches and each branch is split up into smaller sections. But still no organization that could run the program offered by my opponent. 2. So on this part of the flow my opponent says when charges go up we take it from programs, when it goes up again we tax the affluent, when it goes up again...... It might seem to be a long run or short term fix but it isn't at all. There still isn't an answer id like to point out to my answer about the recession and how the transition would impact it. Oh and if you haven't been watching the news rates have been severely dropping and its up to the employer most the time as to which insurance you can get so rarely do people end up with a terrible one once employed. 3. Thats what im saying im saying you cant have private practices and a universal health system together it completely contradicts each other because if its universal it cant be private. While you say that inflation wont happen in the new system you give no reasons why, it still will because due to the loss the hospitals lose they will overcharge to compensate. 4. Again look to above sorry for mixing them up but it wont lower taxes it will raise those looking to some of my original arguments. And if the hospitals got less money they would be as poor as other countries. As Ill get to a bit lower. 5. Ill get to most this arguement about comparing countries a little later but it cant be too enlighting but if you want to compare sources http://www.news.harvard.edu... 6. Well for one the affluent in the country eventually trickling down to the middle class like I pointed out above. Also you think 25% is out of control once the universal health care program is implemented it will spiral out even more only now you cant do anything about it. Keeping the status quo is still the best system to keep. I'm sorry for your girlfriend i am, but if we were under your program any extra costs above the single pay would cost me or the government a lot of excess money for something not involving me in any way. 7. So Doctors would enjoy having worse condition and lower wages. Using some of my arguments from above. Why would a nurse use that much of her wage on such a trivial matter. That is a useless waste of money and Im sure there is alternative reasoning behind her problem. 8. I can concede that yes thats a small role in why people become doctors but people do become doctors for other factors like the fame and money, there would be a decrease in doctors no where near an increase. 9. I did mis read this a bit but in all it isn't a "right", it is something that you work for and pay for its not something to be handed to you. Hell i could consider welfare a right even though i don't need it. But id take it any way because its my "right" 10. Before you consider this argument you put up look at the actual source link on that page and read it all. It ranks the US in the issues that matter, timing of service and quality of service. The rankings were placed as they were based on how cheap each operation is. If you did go to a place like Canada the wait for an operation takes months if not years to actually get to the top of the list. This is because of how poor the actual system is and once they are in it it's impossible to change back. Thats why we must keep up the working program we have now.

Thanks for the argument, Con. Well, it is quite apparent that my opponent has dropped a few of my points. I had more than 7 points while he had only 5 in rebuttals. First, allow me to rebut the one's he did actually refute, and then I will display the arguments he didn't even touch. 1. Lands can benefit the collectiveMy opponent concedes here that this is simply a matter of opinion. That's not a very good way to refute an argument, however, especially no in the last round. We have differing opinions and no one proved it either way. Luckily for me, my opponent has the BOP. It was his job to convince the audience that this would indeed benefit the collective, he did nothing of the sort. All that my opponent is saying on this matter is that "I honestly believe that having more people in the workforce, stimulating the economy and consumption, is more beneficial to the collective at this point in time. " Saying you think one way or another is not proving a point. This point is effectively shattered. (I'm lumping the second paragraph in my next rebuttal. )2. Land UseThis is a fine demonstration on how the land would be divided up, by isn't my opponent getting a little ahead of himself? This seems pretty far from anything I said in the debate, so it must not be a rebuttal. I'm not sure why at all this is necessary. I actually never questioned how the land would be cut up or challenged the idea that giving the same amount of land to all poor would be unfair. Again, it is a nice demonstration and equation, but has no bearing on the case at hand. My opponent claims that the average private (sort of) farm given to poor families would be 1000-3000 acres. Lets just make it 2000 for simplicity. I'm going to try my hand at some math here as well. Since m opponent did earlier say, "Millions of workers operating private farms for free. " earlier, I think I can expose a fallacy. I'm still not clear on my opponent's intentions. He claims that receiving land would now be based on your income. However, there is a problem with this. Not everyone with a low income can be given land. The U. S. government simply doesn't have enough to do this. Lets just take one million private farms (that is what my opponent proposed is it not? ) and times that by 2000 (2000 acre farms). The number you receive is 2 billion. Yes folks, that's 2 billion acres my opponent think the government has, ready for farm use. That is preposterous. We have millions of acres of government land, not billions. My opponent's idea is much smaller than he imagined. However, no matter the size, it wouldn't even work.3. Operating Costs Exceed DemandI find this point to be very, very weak. First off, my opponent claims that "operating a farm costs more than the average real estate bid. " I honestly do not see what you are getting at. What is the connection between the case at hand an average real estate bids? Audience, please ignore that point, it has no connection to the case. My opponent also brings up the USDA trying to push for an agricultural surplus. This may be true. However, the U. S. is not "sitting on all the land we need to do this. " My opponent completely ignored my point about the ways in which this land actually is being used. These uses included recreation, energy production, animal grazing, and many others. See my link in round 2 for more. "We are sitting on all the land we need to do this, and since people are spending no money, and the sharecropping institution is ran collectively, we can operate and run farms for nearly free. "Don't be misled by this nice plate of word salad. Since people are spending no money? Which people is this referring to? The U. S. citizens I know spend their fair share of money. My opponent claims that somehow this statement shows how farms can be run and operated for nearly free. However, this does not really make sense. No matter what, tractors must be purchased, diesel and gas must be supplied, seed must be bought, repairs must be paid for, and taxes must be fulfilled. That seems like a good number of expenses there. Farming is hardly free, even sharecropping.4. Success on the homesteadI'm certainly glad my opponent clarified himself. However, I have little to refute here because I have now been using the idea of sharecropper farms for all my rebuttals. I do want to highlight one thing though. "Under the supervision of the government. " This may not be a problem, but again it may. I'm not saying the government is corrupt or something, I'm simply saying that when things are fully in the hands of the people, they seem to be much more effective and productive. I want talk to much about this point, but I thought I should point it out. My opponent's explanation of the housing on these collective farms is fine, I suppose I have no real problem with that. However, it doesn't really correspond to any of my arguments. Again, I think my opponent is getting ahead of himself. He is trying to start the project before he has been granted approval (by the audience that is). I can see my opponent has put a lot of time into developing his idea, but I am sorry to say, it wouldn't work. 5. I will concede this actually. I thought that by "distribute" my opponent meant to just give the lands away. This makes more sense. I'm glad we are now on the same page. Don't think this has much bearing on the debate though, audience. This point is relatively meaningless. We have been debating over the leasing idea this whole time anyway. DROPPED POINTSMy opponent has completely dropped a few of my points. I won't restate them, but I will list them here. Point 6 regarding the rancher scenarioPoint 1 regarding land usagePoint 2 regarding future developmentPoint 7 regarding the purchasing of equipmentCONCLUSIONMy opponent strengthened his case perhaps, but not considerably. He still fails to show that his would benefit society as a whole, how operating expenses would be paid for, and what land the government actually holds that could accomplish this. Pro had the BOP on this one and he did not fulfill his burden. The resolution has not been proven and is therefore, null. Thanks for an awesome debate ChosenWolff. This really was a lot of fun.

Your arguments against the entire privatization of police forces is plainly ridiculous, with all due respect. I do not see how a high school diploma is anyhow relevant. I have a high school diploma but there are countless of better-suited individuals that have dropped out of high school that could become security providers. A certificate showing that you know how to Spark Note a book and do your homework 15 minutes before class has nothing to do with one's capacity to protect people. Maybe police officers are subjected to psychological tests now and then, so what? Police brutality is a daily thing, even in the United States, where pregnant women can be tased and old men beaten to death with little or no consequence on guilty officers. On the other hand, private security officers are automatically taught to be more respectful, more helpful, more trustworthy, and much nicer to people in general. Why? Because of the same profit-seeking interest that you oppose. Mall and shop owners have an interest in bringing in more clients, which means they have to provide a safe and relaxing environment. Private road and land owners could offer the exact same protection with the same level of effectiveness and efficiency. After all, where do most crimes happen? In the privately-secured stores or in public streets? In the streets, and I doubt this is just a coincidence. Now it is true that many opponents of the abolition of the State like to dubb the ensuing system as "anarcho-feudal". But this does not mean they are right. Clearly, you are misconceiving the very concept of feudalism. Feudalism, as even your Wikipedia article points out, was a "decentralized dictatorship" with national laws and rules to be applied on the local scale by lords, counts, dukes, princes, etc. In a sense, feudalism is the ultimate result of pure socialism, which seeks for a decentralized socialist state. But it is not the representation of stateless society. In a feudal society, one lives on a lord's land and has no right to leave this land to change masters. Such peasants that would dare to leave their homes would be pursued and severely punished in medieval France. In a free society, people would either own the land they live on or rent it from an actual owner. Obviously, since you would have the choice to pick which owner you'd like to rent your land from, most people will look for someone who does not try to control every aspect of their lives. I mean if you had the choice, would you look for a rent money-seeking owner or a freak that forcefully takes away 3/4's of everything you earn every day? In a feudal society, the central state makes rules about the ownership of land. In France, for instance, lords would be prohibited from passing their land onto females unless authorized by the King. In Great Britain, the sale of feudal land was authorized only if made to the King or if no family member remained alive. In a free society, such restrictions would not exist, allowing a wider marketplace of land to be established with competitive owners deciding to improve their properties and attract clients as if they were entrepreneurs. The lack of a State will not somehow awaken a dark aspect of humankind. Most likely, since the economic status of the stateless society would be capitalistic, deeper entrepreneurial and social cooperation will lead to a more peaceful environment. But I am not trying to give you one of those soft anarcho-communist arguments that mankind will be different so I'll rather use a realistic argument for my rebuttal. In a private country, the goal of the military would be to do its initial intent: protect people. Condominums will keep their current private protection apparatus, while oil fields could hire private militias to defend themselves. Now, remember that everything has a cost. People cannot buy everything for the very reason that everything is more or less scarce and price fixing is applied accordingly to the scarcity of the good. A private security or private militia group will be costly to take care of if it carries the duties of a defending army on a smaller-scale. So what do you think will happen if anyone dares to attack a neighboring oil field? Costs will be astonishing as one will have to pay for the extra weapons, the medical assistance, the food and clothing of the soldiers or fighters, etc. Those that have such adventurous minds as to conquer a neighboring field might as well see the military insurance premiums go up in a sharp way to cover the possible deaths that might ensue from an attack. The price incentive for not fighting will simply be too large for a feudal-like society to arise. I'll remind you that feudal armies were afforded by the forceful taxation of lords and churches. In the absence of this forceful taxation, who exactly will be able to afford a standing army? This reminds me of one libertarian scholar, Ludwig Von Mises, who said that in today's world, virtually nobody could be able to afford the construction of the Versailles Palce and that it took the forceful hand of government taxation to build it. Now, let us look at your case for a government-provided law. The first argument against my case is more of an argument against private courts that the concept of private law itself. You ask, "What if the people involved in the litigation cannot afford the judge"? To begin with, why would the people in a legal conflict want to hire a judge they can't afford? One cannot pretend all judges will be expensive. It is like claiming that without the government, all shoes, all clothing, or all housing would be too expensive for the poor to afford them. This is not true. The market adjusts itself to all the demands of society. Unreachable, over expensive judges would be a luxury service, not a general one. Now, is it fair or just to allow judges to rule without an universal standard? Not considering the fact that this system is the one already in use in the United States without problems, I would like to ask you a similar question. Is it fair to allow a few central planners, union bureaucrats, and powerful technocrats to decide what competent and educated judges should do? Central planning never works, so don't expect litigation to be any different. Another case against private litigation resolution you pointed out is corruption. You agreed that corruption already exists. The difference is that in today's monopolized system, the customer (you or I) have no choice. We have to remain with the same government judges all the time. If private companies were in charge of conflict resolution, wouldn't you choose the least corrupted company? You know, thanks to the transparency of the free market, when a corporation is corrupted or breaks a contract, so the rational goes that if a company dares to adventure itself into contract-breaking, people will leave it and it will start a long road toward decline or reform. In short, private companies would be less corrupted than the government monopoly of courts. When it comes to the polycentric theory of law of David Friedman, I can tell that you had the heaviest problems with this system (while it is probably my favorite one). You, to a weak extent, correctly pointed out that bad laws might lead to chaos and violence. If one allows rape on his land, those that would visit this land would soon be raped. Violence right there. But to begin with, why would you even consider going somewhere where rape is allowed. That would just plain stupid, or daring. And this would be a very isolated case. I don't see the domino theory that you pointed out ("bad for the whole country") even possible. Let's assume you have two neighbors: one with a good yard and one with a ugly one. Would you be more influenced by the first or the second one? So I think the domino theory would go the other way around. Space limits me. Your turn

Your link did work this time. I will not deny any claims in the link because it was factual, however I will say that the United States is currently in 2 wars, we have a huge army reserve, our national debt is much higher than that of Canada, and we have many more people. We also have to take into account many variables, such as illegal immigration, smoking, drinking, and air quality. I feel that we need to fix up our current socialized systems before we add any others. 1) Sketchiness: Well, if you carefully read the article, you will find this sentence, "The Democrats among us accepted an end to the tax-free treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance; instead, everyone -- not just those who currently get insurance through their employer -- would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance -- and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy" (Wyden). I'm sure the government would find a balance between what saves Americans, as well as America, the most money. "A voucher system would preserve the current costly (administrative costs of all health insurance companies - is just one component) status quo. " But how would a public option or single payer be any different? "A few years ago the CEO of United Health Care retired. His retirement package was $490 million! $490 Million! $490 MILLION! I hope my point is evident. " Unfortunately, you have just laid out an exceptional argument for evolution. If we were intelligently designed, we would be way less greedy and we would be able to do the best for the company and the people, instead of what's best for the CEO. But the head of the public option or national health system would also be human, so I see no inherent benefit. 2) Second argument: "Could an employer decide to discontinue his group health plan and tell his employees to apply for a government voucher? " In the article, it says, "Most have agreed to require employers to contribute to the system and to pay workers wages equal to the amount the employer now contributes for health care. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that this framework is the only one thus far that bends the health-care cost curve down and makes it possible for the new system to pay for itself" (Wyden). In other words, Bill would give you exactly the same pay system he currently gives you, but instead of giving you health benefits, he pays you what he would be paying the insurance company, and you use the voucher to choose your company, and if your chosen insurance company is more expensive than the voucher provides for, you can use the extra money from work to pay it off. "Regarding efficient administration, the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are able to accomplish their missions relative, potentially, to the whole population. " I once got a letter from the IRS saying that I owed them $10,000. I owed no such money. Is that effecient? So what if I got a lobotomy when I asked to have an appendectomy? And the IRS is not a fair comparison anyway, as they collect much more money than they need to operate. 3) Third argument: "For thirty years I practice law. I interacted with government (and private corporate) bureaucrats every day. This is my opinion: Generally, most bureaucrats are honest, competent, and just want to do their job and stay out of trouble. Some are incompetent. And some are corrupt. The bureaucrat, WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE CORPORATION, has a certain mentality. All such bureaucrats are potentially corruptible, INCLUDING THE BUREAUCRATS WHO WILL ADMINISTER THE HAA. " You are correct that they are corruptable. But with a private option, the most likely consequence of a corrupt bureaucrat would be that it would turn into a monopoly by using tax money to superfund it, so they can cut rates to crazy lows. With single payer, a corrupt bureaucrat could essentially cut off health insurance to everyone. Now compare that to the HAA. With a corrupted bureaucrat, it seems that the worst they could do is cut all funds, essentially bringing us back to our current system. It's bad, but much better than the other two. Also, when the economy is hurting, everything is impacted, and often the easiest way to provide aid is to cut funds from socialized areas. For example, I know many teachers, as well as students in Oregon public schools. Now our governor has some budget issues to deal with, and so he decides that some government employees should go a few days without pay. He committed a few days, and guess which government employees he told to work without pay. That's right, the teachers. I'm not sure why, although he is the oldest governor in the nation, maybe he doesn't care about the future, I'm not sure. But my point is, something similar could happen to healthcare. I don't want the government to decide how much coverage I get, I want to decide how much coverage to get, but I also want those less fortunate to have the ability to have a decision, and that decision should allow them to have decent health coverage from the company of their choosing. This has been an excellent debate, and I would like to thank my opponent, Dogparktom, for providing such interesting arguments. I know you have a choice in which healthcare provider to use, and I think that choice should cost you less!