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

Pro says, "My opponent admitted to me in a private message that he has HIV and that he wouldn't want his name listed on a HIV registry. Therefore my opponent is bias and should have never accepted this debate. "I never said anything of the sort. Case in point? Pro is not currently accepting private messages, so this isn't even possible for me to have done that. Moreover, I do not have HIV, but even if I did, this would be utterly irrelevant. I could use Pro's same logic to say that "because Pro doesn't have HIV, he is biased. " Everyone is biased. That is utterly irrelevant and doesn't bring Pro even slightly closer to fulfilling his burden of proof. Pro says, "A website that list the names of people with HIV would be no more intrusive then a website that has a persons criminal record or the White Pages online which has a persons address and the names of their relatives. Personal information is already available to the public and it does not save lives it invites identity fraud, harassment and discrimination. " Of course this would be more intrusive because it would reveal private, sensitive information about a person's illness. Medical records are now and have never been public information. Moreover, Pro completely DROPS my contention that comparing people with criminal records -- who have committed a horrible crime, under the understanding that there is a sex offender registry and that they would be registered had they committed it -- to people who, at no fault of their own, have contracted an illness. Pro himself admitted last round that there is a subset of people with HIV who wouldn't "deserve this. " Pro then says that there is already public information that doesn't save lives but invites identity fraud, harassment and discrimination. Note that this is NOT a position in favor of his stance. He is effectively saying that a form of what he would like is already available and it invites problems instead of solving them, so therefore we should exacerbate the problem even further. This is an utterly ludicrous argument and effectively he concedes on his earlier points that this would in some way provide benefits. Pro says, "A national HIV registry would prevent the spread of HIV and wouldn't violate a persons privacy any more than Spokeo, WhitePages, instantcheckmate, intelius and many others. " I've already explained how this WOULD violate a person's privacy more than Spokeo, Whitepages, et al. by revealing sensitive medical data and effectively alienating an entire group of people. Medical records are not public knowledge for good reason. Pro claims that this would "prevent the spread of HIV. " Where is his evidence for that? Where is the evidence that the benefits of this would outweigh the costs in lack of privacy or inciting of violence? Pro COMPLETELY drops the arguments I raised in the earlier rounds with respect to this. This contention, therefore, can be discarded. My contentions have gone completely untouched. Contentions 1 through 6 have not been challenged nor refuted, which is enough for me to win this debate because Pro had the BOP. ConclusionPro consistently dropped my arguments and refutations, and I only needed to win on a single one in order to win this debate. Pro fails to uphold his burden of proof.