There should be websites that list the identity of people with HIV

My thanks to Pro for his round. I will now rebut his arguments before rebuilding my own contentions. Note, first and foremost, that Pro has not denied his burden of proof nor my analysis thereof. Extend my burden analysis.Pro says, "It is more important to keep a healthy person from being infected rather than protect the privacy of a person with HIV. A national HIV registry would indirectly save lives by exposing those who have it." Pro provides no justification for his claim that privacy may in this case be trumped. Indeed there are justifiable limits on privacy which we accept and whch are embedded in the social contract, but by no means should we accept a nearly limitless, unrestrained HIV registry. Not to mention, Pro asserts -- but provides no basis -- for why privacy can be trumped, and has not proven the validity of his assertion that there will be any benefit. He says that this will "indirectly save lives." Where is his evidence for this claim? Where is his evidence that the benefits of this proposal outweigh the costs? Who is to say that the amount of lives saved -- supposedly -- from this outweigh any additional increase in violence by virtue of the exposure of the sensitive information of millions of people? Pro's argument is essentially the following: P1) If (x) condition is met such that we can derive (y) benefit, we can justify an encroachment upon privacy. P2) (x) condition has been met. C1) Therefore, we can justify an encroachment upon privacy. For Pro to successfully fulfill his burden of proof, he must define and justify (x) condition and define and prove that (y) benefit will be derived. He has completely failed to do this. He says that this proposal will save lives, but I pointed out that people with HIV are not contagious, and his proposal could in fact incite violence and thus lead to gratuitous suffering. Pro has completely failed to find evidence, and thus his burden of proof is completely unfilfilled. Pro says, "If you contracted HIV from unprotected sex or needle sharing you don't deserve privacy."Pro makes a normative statement with respect to deservedness of privacy. However, why should we accept that privacy must be "deserved?" Who deterines the criteria of deservedness and assesses the degree to which we do or do not deserve privacy? The problem with Pro's remark is that it is merely an assertion -- nothing more than a statement of opinion. He is opining on this issue in an attempt to establish an objective criteria for why we should take an actionn that is unjust, unwarranted, and unneeded -- and he cannot even prove that this would actually yield some sort of benefit. Moreover, this brings me back to my constitutional argument from the last round, which Pro has dropped completely. We have a fundamental right to privacy which is embedded in the Constitution, the framework which we use as the starting point for crafting policy. Pro's proposal is unconstitutional because it violates our fundamental freedom. Furthermore it attempts to impose an arbitrary standard of "deservedness," which directly defames the principle upon which this country was founded on -- which is that people are equal in the eyes of the law and should have a say in what their government is doing. With his proposal, he is effectively denying millions of people a voice in their government and attempting to establsh a notion of deservedness. This arbitrary notion effectively desolves any objective standard or framework for rights. With Pro's proposal, we could establish virtually any law we wanted and wouldn't have to establish any degree of accountability. Without a doubt his proposal would propel a slipper slope, and we have a vested interest in protecting privacy -- especially because Pro has failed to adequately defend this standard, or to establish an objective criterion, or to account for any actual benefits of his proposal. Pro says, "If you contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, from a bloody fight or rape then its not your fault, but you should still be listed."Pro admits that there are exceptions to his proposal, but then makes the affirmative that his proposal should still go into effect. What he has done by saying this is that his criterion of deservedness -- entirely arbitrary -- does not apply universally. He has not established a criterion by which people in these types of circumstances should have to subject themselves to a national registery. This statement of Pro's alone should be seen as a concession. Pro asks, "Would you have sex with someone who you heard had HIV?"Pro poses this question, but this is completely irrelevant. It isn't necessary to have a national HIV registry in order to avoid having intercourse with someone with HIV. This does not in the slightst establish Pro's burden of proof. Pro asks, "Would you eat at a restaurant if you read that the chef has HIV?"Yes, I would. Allow me to quote from my last round: "Unlike common diseases like colds, flu, measles or chicken pox, HIV is not highly contagious. It is NOT transmitted through touching, hugging, sneezing, coughing, eating or drinking from common utensils, or being around an infected person. It is now clear that casual contact with a person with HIV infection does not place others at risk. No cases have been reported in which HIV has been transmitted through casual (non-sexual) contact to a household member, relative, co-worker, friend, teammate or student. HIV is NOT transmitted through air, food, water, insects, or by contact with an object touched or breathed on by a person with HIV. There is no reason to fear becoming infected with HIV by using a public rest room or telephone, eating in a restaurant, riding in a taxi or bus, shopping, swimming in a pool or lake, sharing an office or a classroom." (1) There is no reason to believe that HIV could be transmitted from a chef. This contention falls. Onto rebuilding my contentions: C1) There is no need Pro completely drops this contention. Extend it. C2) Congressional gridlockPro completely drops this contention. Extend it. C3) People with HIV are not contagious. I cited this contention in order to refute one of Pro's argument. He completely dropped this point. Extend it. C4) Morality of this proposal Pro asserted a normative statement with respect to deservedness as a standard by which we can enjoy our right to privacy, but he did not address my point that his proposal is immoral. Moreover, I have already addressed his argument with respect to his arbitrary standard. Extend this point. C5) Pro's proposal could incite violence against innocent peoplePro completely drops this point. Extend it. C6) PrivacyI have already addressed this contention, and Pro dropped the constitutional ramifications I brought up and failed to adequately defend his standard. Extend this point as well. ConclusionFar too many of my arguments have been dropped, and Pro has provided us with no proof of his assertions. Thus far he has not come even close to fulfilling his burden of proof. (1) Round 1, Source 3