azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Healthcare is a right. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

In the comment you replied to, I never claimed it wasn't. I only said there was no such thing as free healthcare (which is true).As for the statement you made, that's just insane logic. If you can make/get your own healthcare, then by all means do so.That said, this doesn't mean that other people should be obligated to provide it to you.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

From an moral standpoint, yes. I don't understand how anyone can claim to have the moral high ground and oppose universal health care. How is that not self-deluding?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Healthcare cant be right, a right cannot impose any obligation onto others except for the obligation to leave you alone.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

The word "right" has multiple meanings. My response was based on this definition:A right is something that is in accordance with what is just, good, or proper.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Then you used the wrong meaning - such definition would be used in a sentence as "right" not "a right".
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

I think the topic is referring to right as something you are entitled too. If we are to use your definition to a right, the argument will be almost impossible to discuses since it would even be more opinion based, not that the topic isn't already opinion based.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I think the topic is referring to right as something you are entitled too.Indeed. Which is quite different than the definition you said your response was based on.If we are to use your definition to a rightMy definition is the same as you just offered - entitlement and claim are synonymous.the argument will be almost impossible to discuses since it would even be more opinion basedSurely an opinion on a technical question of law is less ambiguous than opinions on what people consider right and wrong.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Entitlement and claim are not synonymous. Entitlement (noun)is the fact of having a right to something. Claim(verb)is making a statement or assert that something is the case, usually without evidence or proof. The definition of a right that i have been referring to is being entitled to something.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

To be more precise, in this context an entitlement is a type of claim. Did you still not check out the link from before?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

The definition of a right that i have been referring to is being entitled to something.You posted that you were not using that definition (at least initially).Is a requirement to provide emergency care not an entitlement in your view?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

That depends on how you define rights
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Then tell me how would you define a right?(This sentence you are reading is so just so there's enough words to submit)
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

It may not be obvious, but the last part of my sentence was a link to the wiki which discusses rights.Most basically, I would just define it as a valid legal claim (whether in the context of what is, or ought be). I don't claim that there are any "natural" rights.Colloquially, it generally gets used (ambiguously) to refer to the subset of above that people strongly support.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

According to the definition you give healthcare is still not a right. You are not entitled to healthcare.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Is it not legal to go to an emergency room and get (make a claim for) treatment?How would this not qualify as a legal claim right?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

First off you don't have to have healthcare insurance to go to the emergency room, your bill is just going to be much bigger. Second you can make any kind of claims you want, that doesn't mean there going to happen. Having the right to something and having the right to make a claim to something are very different. When you go to the emergency room the first thing they do, is analyze your symptoms, to see if your in a state of emergency, if you are not in a state of emergency and you just walk in there, they might tell you to leave.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

First off you don't have to have healthcare insurance to go to the emergency room, your bill is just going to be much bigger.I don't see how this is relevant.Second you can make any kind of claims you want, that doesn't mean there going to happen.From my definition before, it is that the claim itself is a legally valid one that is the right - not fulfillment by the other party. Generally you would be able to sue for non-compliance with the claim.Having the right to something and having the right to make a claim to something are very different.Not by the definition I gave. (nor the expounded upon definition that I linked to, nor the legal definition, etc.)if you are not in a state of emergency and you just walk in there, they might tell you to leave.This is more of a semantic issue regarding the meaning of healthcare in the debate. I don't believe any country has established a right to everything that could possibly be construed as healthcare, only some degree of healthcare. And, my contention is only that we have made "at least some healthcare" a right in the US.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes, I believe it should be considered a right. That being said, our current healthcare structure is not setup to support that. It would take a lot of effort and changes that both liberals and conservatives would not want to be a part of, but the result would be something that actually benefits everyone on both sides with the exception of a few lobby groups.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Free healthcare wouldn't benefit anyone, it's just another way for the government to spend money on something that won't work. The government is often bad at running businesses, government run healthcare would just be an unorganized mess. The best thing to do is to get government out of healthcare. This will either lower the prices of private insurance or at least keep them the same. It will also increase the amount of private charities. People that can't offered insurance can always look toward private charities, this will benefit people more then government run insurance could.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Free healthcare wouldn't benefit anyone? Uhhh how about, oh I don't know... the sick and injured?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

A better healthcare system would benefit us in a number of ways. The cost is not the problem, and it is not because of the government being inept either. The biggest problem in my opinion comes from private interest groups. The lobbyists they pay for shift new bills slightly in their favor, representives extend their influence to a number of physicians, and skilled PR teams help control the public's perception in ways most people do not recognize unless they are involved in public health careers. I am looking at case studies that show how standard "supply/demand" economics do not work well with healthcare needs, especially in the oncology field where it has practically become blackmail. Patients are forced to choose between a beyond unreasonable price for medication or death in some circumstances. As for your notion that charities can take over, it would not work. Aside from the fact that not all charities are as just as they make themselves out to be, people tend to be concerned with their immediate needs to support every charity that would be required to work at its maximum potential if we went the way you were suggesting. It is difficult to argue with your statement because you apparently lack a fundamental understanding of what they healthcare industry is actually like.What we need is better policies to prevent manipulation of private interest groups towards the public. After that, I think the steps towards changing out heathcare system will come a bit less difficulty.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I think it's inhuman for a government to govern and protect it's people but not offer any assistance to it's sick individuals.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I believe it is a right. The Government should maintain a good system of healthcare for all its citizens.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

I should clarify while I'm starting out here: I do believe that health care SHOULD be a right, but that in practice we cannot currently treat it as one.Does everybody have a right to food? I mean, we need it to survive. We have sufficient food production and excess foodstuffs in the developed world to maintain food stamp programs and the like for those who aren't capable of providing for themselves (and an extreme minority of lazy individuals abusing these programs, unfortunately).But food is relatively easy; in addition to being widely available in the developed world, preparation of most of it is well within the abilities of most people.That said, when there are food shortages, some go without. This is almost always determined by wealth, with the poorest individuals being unable to purchase food at inflated prices during a shortage.Health care, on the other hand? Not so much. Health care in general requires highly trained practitioners that are in short supply. Further, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals are expensive to develop (and sometimes expensive to manufacture) and in many cases do not lend themselves well to mass production.In short, we don't have enough doctors, equipment, or medicine to give every single person the treatment that they need within a reasonable timeframe.As such, as long as there is an issue with scarcity of supplies and personnel, there will always be some individuals who have to be left out, by necessity.In a capitalist society, who can and cannot receive care tends to be determined by the gravity of their medical situation and their ability to pay for it- personally, or with insurance.If we are to make healthcare available to everyone at no charge, how do we determined who does and does not receive a portion of the limited supplies, a portion of the limited man-hours that physicians and other medical professionals can actually work?I would love to live in a post-scarcity society where this is a non issue- but as long as scarcity is an issue, some form of selection has to be made. How do we make those calls? When there isn't enough food to go around, we can't feed everyone- much less for free. Health care as a right uses the same logic as food as a right; neither is sustainable without a very large supply.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

I should clarify while I'm starting out here: I do believe that health care SHOULD be a right, but that in practice we cannot currently treat it as one. Thank you. You win best argument. I do want to state that morality and legality are often in conflict. S;avery is wrong but it used to be legal. Thank you for being part of this debate.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I do not necessarily disagree with your premise at large, but I might push you a little on the scarcity claim. Is society actually incapable of providing for everyone, or is it a consequence of inefficiency and/or prioritization? (The same could be said for food; some research has suggested that there is not a food shortage but rather an issue of food allocation and equity.)
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Regardless of whether or not the scarcity is legitimate, artificial, or incidental, there is certainly a measure of scarcity in play in practice, which is what I was rolling with.As to whether or not society is actually capable of providing all the health care needed for everyone, I can't say for sure. Might be worth looking into. If I were to follow my gut (I typically don't) I'd say that there is legitimate scarcity affecting some resources (generally specific medicines and man-hours by medical personnel) in some locations, but that some of it is artificial, either by intentional artificial inflation or inefficiency and various logistical issues.I believe I said before that if the scarcity issues could be resolved I'd be all for treating healthcare as a right.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Sound response; I was largely curious, so thanks for your reply.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Food is not widely available in the developed world. 1 in 5 US children go hungry. The US has the highest rate of childhood poverty in any developed nation.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Food is in fact widely available in the developed world, and almost every developed country has food stamp and similar social programs for those unable to feed themselves. The US has these, along with numerous organizations that feed others for free.The US produces far more food than we consume, and while individual specific items are scarce at times, it has been a very long time since there was any kind of significant food shortage here.If an adult individual goes hungry, he or she has not availed himself or herself of the help available. When it comes to children going hungry, that is predominately caused by neglect/abandonment on the part of their parent/guardian(s).
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I am guessing you think that the only kids who go hungry must be doing it by choice or through poverty. There are welfare gaps just as there are healthcare gaps. Welfare programs cover the bottom. Almost 50% of Americans have CC debt with an average debt of $15,000+. When you include mortgage debt as well, middle class households, not just welfare class households, struggle to feed their family. Not to mention the recent economic recession effect on the middle class.It is not because of neglect/abandonment. Why just assume bad parenting? Does it make it easier to ignore the issue?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

You really like to compare apples to oranges, don't you?A family struggling to feed itself is in fact feeding itself. Difficulty does not mean they are going hungry. A parent unable to feed his or her children due to having to pay credit card debt is being negligent in not filing for bankruptcy, and is effectively putting moderate-term goals ahead of both short term needs and long-term gains.It's not necessarily bad parenting- the parent in question may be excellent overall- but may well be negligent in their handling of finances. They may be too proud to request aid.It is never, in the US, about a lack of availability of food. We export more food per year than our entire nation eats, and waste nearly as much.Show me kids starving in the US, and I'll show you something lacking in the parents. Does it make it easier for you to ignore the parenting problems rampant through our society by blaming the issues on the system?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

A family struggling to feed itself is in fact feeding itself. Difficulty does not mean they are going hungry. A parent unable to feed his or her children due to having to pay credit card debt is being negligent in not filing for bankruptcy, and is effectively putting moderate-term goals ahead of both short term needs and long-term gains.A family struggling to feed itself means a family that does not get the necessary meals they need. Since we were talking about people that do not get enough food, I am not sure why you changed the definition to people who get enough food but struggle to do so.I am not sure if you understand how bankruptcies work. If every family that struggles with debt payment should file for bankruptcy, then half of American families would be bankrupt.It is never, in the US, about a lack of availability of food. We export more food per year than our entire nation eats, and waste nearly as much.Availability does not equate to production or export. Accessibility and cost are the primary factors that affect availability to an individual not the national production/export rate.Basic article from 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/12/13/food.insecurity.holidays.middle.class/ "These families face a never-ending treadmill of tough decisions. Do they use their income -- if they have one -- to pay their mortgage or feed themselves? Do they pay for a hospital visit or put dinner on the table?"That is called struggling.Your suggestion is to file for bankruptcy and default on loans. If all struggling households did this, the economy would go into a tailspin.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

No, a family that does not get the necessary meals they need is failing to feed itself, not struggling to do so.You are arguing over semantics and ignoring the fact that these people (some in the middle class) are failing to feed themselves.Only the children NOT getting enough food qualify.Yeah. This is about children who do not get enough food.I said that a parent who is unable to properly feed his or her family due to debt payments has a responsibility to place feeding his family first, even if that means filing for bankruptcy.As I pointed out above, I have been talking about people who cannot go hungry. Still far too many to declare bankruptcy. Nothing has changed about my argument other than use of "failing" vs "struggling".Enough food is available for everyone, cost notwithstanding. But no amount of money can instantly generate a fully trained physician, for example.Cost is generally considered a factor in terms of availability of a product. I am not sure why you have removed it as a factor for food availability.Maybe the economy needs to go into a tailspin to give us all a reality check. We're all living on massive amounts of credit and debt, even the excessively wealthy. It's a broken system that needs to come down sometime.I agree with the broken system part, not on the tailspin part.The real suggestion inherent in what I was saying was that sacrifice is often needed in a struggling family, and that sacrifice should not be of the families basic needs, regardless of the circumstances.Sometimes, sacrifice is just not enough. There are also a lot of people too ignorant or proud to get welfare, especially with the negative connotations associated. Only 25% of people eligible for welfare programs sign up for them.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

You are arguing over semantics and ignoring the fact that these people (some in the middle class) are failing to feed themselves.I keep asking you for examples of individuals in this situation who truly do not have a way to get the food they need, and you keep failing to provide. Last time I'm asking.As I pointed out above, I have been talking about people who cannot go hungry. Still far too many to declare bankruptcy. Nothing has changed about my argument other than use of "failing" vs "struggling".Who says it's far too many to declare bankruptcy? What is the acceptable bankruptcy threshold?Cost is generally considered a factor in terms of availability of a product. I am not sure why you have removed it as a factor for food availability.You've got it backwards. Cost is determined by the availability of a product and the demand for said product.Sometimes, sacrifice is just not enough. There are also a lot of people too ignorant or proud to get welfare, especially with the negative connotations associated. Only 25% of people eligible for welfare programs sign up for them.And it is this ignorance and pride that is preventing them from feeding their children- NOT a lack of available food.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

It depends on how you define middle class. The 2nd and 3rd quartile for median income cover the range 30k to 95k. A household of 3 with an annual gross of 30k qualifies for the common welfare programs like SNAP, WIC, TANF, etc.Who says it's far too many to declare bankruptcy? What is the acceptable bankruptcy threshold?There is no explicit standard. The logic behind my "too many" comment would be that if 17% (1 in 6 hunger stat) of the US files for bankruptcy, the economy would collapse. Bankruptcy rates have never even reached 2% of households. I am not sure how you could justify 17% of households filing for bankruptcy as a solution to food insecurity.You've got it backwards. Cost is determined by the availability of a product and the demand for said product.Economics is complicated as hell. I do not understand much about it.Surplus production does not relate directly to accessibility. If it is more profitable to export surplus than to transport to remote markets, then the producer will export it. Accessibility depends on many factors including socioeconomic class, geography, market size, existing distribution network, demand, and so on. Just because there is demand does not mean the market will fill that demand. If the demand is stronger in another portion of the market, then producers will choose the most "economic" route. That is the point of capitalism.And it is this ignorance and pride that is preventing them from feeding their children- NOT a lack of available food.Food is not available. That is what lack of accessibility means. Economy is not as simple as demand leads to supply.