If there are any LD debaters out there, then help me! I think you all would know the topic (a just government should provide health care to its citizens.) I just went to the UPenn tournament yesterday and I had an opponent (he was aff; I was neg) who gave a general observation that "the negative position's burden is to prove that the job of a government is to deprive its citizens." I didnt know how to respond, so I dropped it, which of course ruined my entire case. Also, I had another one on the aff that said they're not providing "socialized medicine" (which is where everything is controlled by the government) but the gov. could indirectly give money or something. I need to think of blocks for both of these. HELP!
2006-10-08 07:13:53 · 4 answers · asked by Me 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Seems to me on the first one that he is way out of line by saying not providing health care is the same as "depriving its citizens". There is a clear difference between not providing something for free and willfully preventing people from having it. Just because a government does not provide something does not mean they are depriving its citizens, otherwise you would have to say that a government needs to provide its citizens with EVERYTHING, which is an absurd conclusion. Like I said, he's taking an overly strong position, I think it could be broken by taking his position to the extreme.
The second one I'm not sure I understand, but if whether a government is doing socialized medicine or giving cash indirectly, the question remains: should the government give money for health care? I think your rebuttal in this case might depend on the particulars of your argument, but that hasn't really resolved the question yet.
I used to do LD debate. It's fun, but looking back I'm not sure how applicable it is to the real world. It's not about who is right, it's about how convincing you can sound inside of about 25 minutes. Too hectic.
2006-10-08 07:28:23 · answer #1 · answered by s_e_e 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the neg position's burden is to prove that the govt benefits the 'welfare of the People' better when it lets private enterprise provide healthcare. This is done by letting the profit motive spur innovation and efficiencies the public sector can't do. Economically speaking, a free market assures no waste and no shortage. There will be more disparity in healthcare but the overall level of health will be enhanced. It is our society's judgment that this disparity is tolerated in order to achieve the overall increase in health care. Other societies like communist countries value equality of healthcare over Quality of healthcare.
Good Luck!
2006-10-08 14:21:17 · answer #2 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
im a fresman at stockdale and this is my first ld debate, but for a aff,provide does not meen to give for free, it meens to give available, so bring up some where in your case that if they diagree with you then they are disagreeing how the gov is runnig the us and bring up some ideas about that and a googd link for both aff and neg is http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm#no
well g00d luck
2006-10-09 19:44:49 · answer #3 · answered by Joel C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no defense, because you are wrong. Sorry.
2006-10-08 14:16:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋