azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

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.Oh, that's simple enough. It's defined as being a middle-ground between the working class and the wealthy. The working class has to work extensive hours to support themselves and their families, and are left with little time and energy to devote to other things. The wealthy do not have to work to support themselves, and are able to devote the entirety of their time and energy to other things. The middle class lies between these, in that they are able to support themselves and their families with a nominal amount of work, with a significant amount of free time and energy to devote to other things.It's not defined by median income- it's defined by standard of living. Many people consider themselves to be middle class, and should not. If you are struggling to feed your family despite your best efforts, you are not middle class. Simple as that.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 should note here that I offered bankruptcy as a last-resort option that anyone drowning in debt (other than student debt for some reason) should theoretically be able to fall back on. Adjusting ones priorities, swallowing ones pride, making use of social programs available, making other sacrifices, etc should suffice for the majority of those going hungry. I never claimed that all of them SHOULD file for bankruptcy, merely that it is an option that goes unutilized by many.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.I already acknowledged that we export more food than we consume ourselves. We also throw away more food than we consume ourselves. Food is in no way in short supply in the US.Food is not available. That is what lack of accessibility means. Economy is not as simple as demand leads to supply.Food is available. Refusing to get on food stamps because of pride does not mean that food is not available to you, it means you're prioritizing your pride above your basic needs. I'm still waiting for a single example of a hungry person in the US who is hungry due to a lack of available food after exhausting all options available. I'll refrain from replying further until you can provide such.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Your definition for middle class is not the only one as there is no standard definition.http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2014/04/24/what-it-means-to-be-middle-class-today Food is available. Refusing to get on food stamps because of pride does not mean that food is not available to you, it means you're prioritizing your pride above your basic needs.It is not about being on the program. Food availability differs by region. Many districts do not receive enough food to support all welfare individuals. That is why accessibility is an issue. Even with income, credit welfare programs, and food pantries, certain households are still unable to feed their families. This is due to how the US family handles debt.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Your definition for middle class is not the only one as there is no standard definition.You mean the once-clear cut definition has been altered due to the fact that numerous working-class individuals want to consider themselves middle class. That doesn't change the definition. If you are struggling to feed your family despite your best efforts, you are not middle class. That's pretty much how it is. It is not defined by median income, it is defined by standard of living.It is not about being on the program. Food availability differs by region. Many districts do not receive enough food to support all welfare individuals.Welfare programs do not just hand out food to individuals in the US- they are provided with funds or stamps to purchase food with. Can you advise as to what region of the US has insufficient food in its grocery stores to feed the populace, or are you just dissembling here?Even with income, credit welfare programs, and food pantries, certain households are still unable to feed their families. This is due to how the US family handles debt.This is due to how the US family handles debt.This is due to how the US family handles debt.Exactly as I've been saying- NOT food availability, poor prioritization and planning and unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices. Are we done here?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

You mean the once-clear cut definition has been altered due to the fact that numerous working-class individuals want to consider themselves middle class. That doesn't change the definition.There has never been a clear definition of middle class. This relates to our other debate. In both debates, you believe your personal connotations depict the standard definition.Exactly as I've been saying- NOT food availability, poor prioritization and planning and unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices. Are we done here?I don't think you have fully considered what this means. Most US households handle finances in this way. The households with sufficient income are not punished for these habits, but the lower/middle class are. That means there is an inherent bias in the system that punishes poor people. At least you finally recognize people are unable to feed their kids. You chock it up to neglect or lack of discipline. That is a common misconception. The poor are more disciplined with their budget by necessity. They cook at home more and eat out less. As CPI increases without increases in welfare assistance or income, the lower income population cannot keep up, regardless of budget discipline.http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/07/3423590/poor-budgets-spending/ http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2011/1214/The-middle-class-buys-more-fast-food-than-the-poor.-Surprised http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money We are not done here. You cite common misconceptions without doing any research. You brush off the systemic bias because it does not affect you personally.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

We are, in fact, done here, even if we weren't at the time I posted last in this thread.With all respect, I have noted elsewhere my lack of desire to continue discussion with you further. Your constant dissembling, biases, and misinformation, as well as your complete refusal to address points that may be inconvenient to your position are unacceptable to me in a debate partner. It is strikingly similar to the behavior of many of our biggest troll personas on here, though admittedly you are rather more eloquent than most of them so I do not currently suspect you as being a troll yet, much less one operated by any of the same users at this time, yet. Regardless, I will not be goaded into a further back and forth with you until the seemingly unlikely event that you get your act together. Good day.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Your constant dissembling, biases, and misinformation, as well as your complete refusal to address points that may be inconvenient to your position are unacceptable to me in a debate partnerI have responded to all your points. I even provided sources to refute your misconceptions. You have actually ignored all of my sources whenever they are inconvenient for you.If anyone is a troll, it is you. I am not familiar with this site and you may have indeed trolled me completely. Or you are just blinded by your personal opinions.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Why is it every time one uses links to support their position, you act as if they are a troll? The troll is clearly the one that voices their opinion and I said their opinion, deeming it as fact. The troll is thousandin1. Those that you accuse of being trollish are those that provide evidence contrary to your biases.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Thank you so much for chiming in :) Your posting is just the icing on the cake here. I feel vindicated now!
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Is it a right to go to bed with a full stomach?Is it a right to have access to the internet?Is it a right to have clean water?Is it a right to have indoor plubming?Is it a right to be able to purchasing things at a store?Is it a right to own a car?Is it a right to own a home?Is it a right to be able to drive a car?No, rights most often simply say you have the right to do something. It is not a right to consume a service. It is not a right to get free money.All of those things come with either you working hard to make money or a subsidy to cover the cost. Subsidies coome from taxpayers.No, healthcare isn't right...it is a subsidy given by a goverment using taxpayers money they worked hard for.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

The weakness of your argument is that you are not addressing healthcare specifically, but services generally. I think very few people would claim that there is any such general right to "services", but a considerable number would certainly support the claim that there is our ought to be a right to life. Healthcare is not comparable to internet access or buying a car because the latter have no direct bearing on vitality, whereas the latter absolutely does. Effectively, the argument would be that healthcare is a secondary right because it is an arguably necessary instrument for upholding the right to life. Perhaps we ought not care about supporting the right to life through healthcare, but I would suggest that if that is the case then one needs defend that stance rather than relying on an inaccurate conflation with services that do not pertain to the right to life. For what reason should we consider the secondary right to healtcare invalid even though we derive laws such as the prohibition of homicide from the same exact rationale?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

I agree with you. You are a reasonable Republican. .
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

The only right anyone has is to a six foot hole in the ground when they die, and even that has to be paid for. Everything else is covered by the old adage, you get out of life what you put in. Lie in bed and fart all day and you're entitled to sweet fanny all. A straight and simple answer to a straight question.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

It's like you didn't even try to dispute at all.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes I did. I proved from the founding fathers that rights exist.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Statements are not proof.Healthcare isn't even mentioned as a right in the passage you provided.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Healthcare is a right because people need healthcare to be secure in their person, which is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment. People own their bodies.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

While I agree with the general sentiment that healthcare should be a right, you argument is invalid. The fourth amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizures, which I fail to see relating to the question of whether or not healthcare should be provided to them.Secondly, while people do own their bodies, that is not what is being debated. Healthcare is a service provided from a second party to that individual. While an individual "owns their own body" they do not own the second party or the resources belonging to the second party.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Fair enough. I freely confess that ,y views are not the norm.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I am a little frustrated because my response was not an opinion based one. The reference to defining the 4th amendment is purely objective since all one has to do it look it up to see the definition in black and white. While there is a range of interpretations it can be used for legally, it's focus is one unreasonable search and seizures, and does not even broach the topic of healthcare rights in anyway what so ever.As for my second point about how as health care is provided by a second party making you statement about people owning their own bodies irrelevant, and may even hurt the arguments for healthcare as a right by extension. I am not questioning you from any social "norms", I am using logic. You don't just shrug off logic as simply a different opinion.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Healthcare is a right because people need healthcare to be secure in their person,No. Not necessarily, at least.If we follow this line of logic, nearly anything that anyone could deem as necessary to "be secure in their person" could be called a right.which is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment.The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable/unwarranted searches into a person's home. I don't know where you got the idea that this has something to do with healthcare.People own their bodies.Yup. They don't own other peoples' money or resources though, which they need in order to get "free" healthcare.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I disagree with your OPINION. People own their bodies. Healthcare is a right for thisd reason. My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Let's extend this insane piece of "logic".I don't want to be poor, so the government should give me 100 trillion dollars. My body, my choice.If I don't want to be a non-trillionaire, I don't have to.My right, my choice. The government now owes me 100 trillion.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes or no: Do people have the right to do what they want with their bodies?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes. Their bodies and their property. Not the bodies or the property of other people (varying degrees of control over one of those, or both, is usually necessary for "free" healthcare to work)
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

If people own their bodies, they have the right to receive healthcare. My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Your logic is insane and idiotic.Again, under your train of thought, if I don't want to be poor, I don't have to. If I don't want to be alone, I get to force someone to be with me.Your rights end where those of others begin.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

People may own their bodies, but that does not mean we can simply "choose" not to get sick. Given enough time, we will ALL get cancer (unless technology advances enough). We do not have a choice, despite owning our bodies.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I never said that people choose to get sick. I just said that healthcare is a right.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

" If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to."Direct quote from you.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

I was not saying that people choose to be sick or injured. I was saying that when people are sick or injured, they have the right to receive healthcare. You are guilty of the strawman fallacy.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I really don't think you know what the strawman logical fallacy is, given how you have employed it. Regardless, you said that you don't have to be sick if they don't want to be, which is untrue, and I demonstrated evidence of that. Additionally, even if you believe healthcare SHOULD be a right, in this country one does not have a right to healthcare. I am not saying I disagree with the idea that healthcare should be a right, mind you.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

A strawman is when you misrepresent your opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Proof: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

And can you demonstrate how I have done that, exactly? I provided an exact quote of what you said.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

You misrpresented what I really meant. .
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

How so? You said " My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to." That very clearly implies that you have a choice to not be sick and injured if you "don't want to be". Where was the misrepresentation?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Strawman. You are twisting what I said. Me saying that it is my body does not equate to me saying that we choose to be sick. I was just saying that if someone is sick or injured, they have the right to receiver healthcare. I am tired of you strawmanning me.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

"Strawman. You are twisting what I said. Me saying that it is my body does not equate to me saying that we choose to be sick. I was just saying that if someone is sick or injured, they have the right to receiver healthcare. I am tired of you strawmanning me."Again, you do not understand what a strawman is. I DIRECTLY quoted you, then explained to you the ramifications of what you said. If you believe that the words YOU said do not accurately portray your opinions, then that is fine, but that isn't on me. When you say "" My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to."", you are saying you have a choice (again, you used the word choice) in regards to being sick or injured. When I am quoting the very words you say, there is no strawman. If you want to take back what you said because it isn't representative of what you mean, that's fine.But seriously, don't go around using the word "choice" then get mad when people respond to the fact that you used the word "choice".
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

You have the right to your OPINION. I have already proven that I know what a strawman is.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Except you haven't. You have claimed multiple times that I have employed a strawman logical fallacy when quoting the very words you have used, and I really don't understand why.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Yes I have. I have provided a link proving that I know what a strawman is.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

And yet when you accuse me of employing a strawman, I have done no such thing. Again, I quoted you, and you called it a strawman.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

You have the right to your opinion. I'm sure you're an amazing person, but I feel like you are not understanding what I am saying.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Then please, try explaining it to me, because you seemed unhappy when I tried responding to the way you previously worded it.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Thank you. I am just saying that if someone is sick or injured, they should receive healthcare. :)
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Theoretically I am in agreement with you, but there are a lot of variables at play. Should this cover all illness, both avoidable and unavoidable? Should it cover preventative as well as reactionary? Should it be covered by tax payers even if the individual could afford to cover it themselves?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Agreed. If a patient is abusive, the doctor has the right to refuse service.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Do you consider doctors people? ..
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

Do you consider patients people? .
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yesnow back to my question, do you consider doctors people?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Awesome. .
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

it is a yes or no question, but for the sake of argument, I will assume that you have enough reason to agree that doctors are in fact people, and as people they "own their bodies", so that you can not force them to provide free labor in giving healthcare.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

"You get out of life what you put in"Sounds nice, but what about all of those people who put in a lot of work and still can't afford basic healthcare? There are people in America who work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet with no money to spare for healthcare costs. And it's not because they deserve that life- a lot of the poor in this country were born that way and can't seem to climb out of the hole. So what, since they're born poor and unable to pay for medical attention they shouldn't receive it?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

You mean to say it is to be free ,well that can't be;how would the government get the cash if you make 'it' a right;that's not possible for all nations;America,Norway,Luxemburg might make it a "right" but ask the government of Ghana,Ethiopia,PNG, they would simply laugh it off.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Strawman. You don't get to dictate what I mean or say. I only think healthcare should be free if someone is unable to pay. Otherwise, people of course should pay for their healthcare. Healthcare is a right because people own their bodies. If someone doesn't want to be sick or injured, they don't have to.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

What happens if someone else doesn't want to help them, should they have to?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Answer my question: What if someone cannot afford to pay for healthcare?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

If they cannot afford it, then they cannot afford it. Now answer my question: What if no one wants to help the person who can't afford it? Should they be made to? If so, how does that fit with your idea that a persons body is their own?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Just to be clear: Are you saying that people who cannot afford healthcare should have it anyway?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Are you saying that people who cannot afford healthcare should have it anyway?No
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Thank you. I am not accusing, just clarifying what you mean.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Now that I have clarified, will you answer the question I posed to you?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Can you repeat the question? .
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

If no one wants to help the person who can't afford it, should they be made to? If so, how does that fit with your idea that a persons body is their own?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Thank you. A doctor's place is to provide healthcare. If he does not want to provide healthcare, he is free to leave his practice. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to do their job.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

22 hours ago you saidI only think healthcare should be free if someone is unable to pay. Otherwise, people of course should pay for their healthcare.Apparently most of the people in the US agree with that. Maybe you should move there.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

A car dealership is there to provide people with essential transportation. If I go there wanting a car that I can't pay for, should the dealer quit because he didn't give me a car?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Strawman. I never said that it is right to steal a car. I just said that healthcare is a right.