debate study session, Nov. 6 @ TESC

Date: Thursday, Nov. 6
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: The Evergreen State College Library
Goal: research LD and PuFo cases, get critiques on our work.
Stay as long as you can. (The library closes at 10:45)

Vamsi and Grace's French Health Care affirmative

Affirmative

Resolve: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.
There are over 300 million people in America. Of these, 47 million of them, or 16 percent of the population, do not have health care. These people suffer under a society where they are unable to afford essentials, such as health care. Under the French system all residents are provided with basic health care. The Resolution for this debate reads as the following: "That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system." There are some important terms that need to be defined, implement, which means put into effect according to a definite plan or procedure. Universal, which in the French sense means to all residents, health care which means to promote, restore, and maintain health and modeled, which means to imitate a standard or comparison.
Contention 1: The French Health Care System is more affordable than US health care
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in 2005, the United States spent 1.9 trillion dollars on health, whereas France only spent 210 billion. This calculates down to $6 347 per capita and $3036 per capita in the US and France, or almost HALF as much as the US. This directly shows that the French Health Care System is more economically friendly than that of the United States.
Contention 2: The French Health Care System is more effective than US health care
In 2001, the French Health Care System was ranked #1 in the world. On the contrary, the United States of America, took 37th place. Many factors were used to determine these ranks, and in all of these, France outdid the US. For instance, the average Life Expectancy for Females in France is 83.7 years, whereas for in the US it is 80.4. Also, the Infant mortality rate in France is 3.8 deaths per 1000, whereas in the US it is 6.9, or almost double. This is due to the fact that the French Health Care views pregnancy as a precious stage of life. There are months of paid job leave to the mother before and after the baby is born, as well as house calls from nurses to make sure that everything is ready before and after the newborn arrives. Moreover, in 2003, two researchers from the London School of Health and Tropical Medicine challenged the World Health Organization results, and decided to make their own assessment. They made their test on the amenable mortality rate of countries, or basically a measure of deaths that could have been prevented through good health care. Once again, France ranked first (65 deaths per 100,000), and US ranked last (110 deaths per 100,000). Although the US is renowned for its premier Emergency health, France triumphs as the best because it has proven that it is better to prevent a problem, rather than cure.
Contention 3: French health care is given as a human right
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” The US health care system is flawed because it views this right as a financial privilege. Although medicare and medicaid are a step in the right direction, they do not go far enough because they only cover certain people. In contrast, this human right is offered in the French Health Care system for the French Health Care system covers all of its residents.

Conclusion:

These three reasons have established that the French Health Care System is superior to the United States Health Care System. Therefore, it is required for the well-being and preservation of the People of the United States of America, that the US Government should implement universal health care modeled after the French System.

Negative

Resolve: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

Capitalism is the basis of the United States of America. It has enabled us to flourish and prosper. Therefore, when it is challenged by a concept that appears to be beneficial to the society, but is subtly detrimental to it, we must protect and preserve this value.
The Resolution for this debate reads as the following: "That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system." There are some important terms that are in need of definitions, those being implement, which means put into effect according to a definite plan or procedure. Universal, which in the French sense means to all residents, health care which means to promote, restore, and maintain health and modeled, which means to imitate a standard or comparison.

Contention 1: The French and US cultures are different
French culture is far different than that of our American culture. While the French is geared more towards quality and simplicity, our society has a higher necessity for convenience. Plenty of things in our society do not work towards the preservation of the human body. There are hundreds of products that people around the world use everyday that are harmful, such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, experiencing sleep deprivation and dehydration, and eating cheap food that can later lead to health hazards, such as atherosclerosis and obesity. Using and abusing these substances is their decision. They hold responsibility for what they put into their body and how they treat it. Therefore, it is ridiculous to assume that after trashing their body their entire life that the government should bail them out. It is their own decisions that have made them that way, not the government. Therefore, the government is not responsible, they are.
Contention 2: The French Health Care system is contrary to capitalism
According to the French Health Care System, health care is provided simply on the basis of residency. This means that anyone, no matter what they do, how much they contribute to society, or who they are, can just walk into a clinic, ask the doctors a few questions, and be reimbursed by the government for the bill. Anyone and everyone. This sounds a lot like communism, a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, society, where all people are treated similarly, by being given the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. Fortunately, the United States of America follows capitalism, or an economic system based on private ownership of capital, or wealth. Hence, the adoption of the French Health Care System, would mean the adoption of a socialistic (based on government ownership) structure with a communistic outcome to it, which is contrary to the capitalistic America. Hypothetically, if we even were to implement this system there would be private insurance companies and such that would wish to stay private. Good doctors would then leave the government system to go and work for these private companies, because they would receive more money than the government standard. This would cause a segregation of the quality of doctors available. Those who are wealthy enough to afford the better doctors would receive better coverage. Leaving the less fortunate with the lesser skilled doctors. This is clearly contrary to our country's ideal of inspiration

Contention 3: The French Health Care system is not financially correct for the USA
Lastly, the reason that the French Health Care System is being considered, is because it was ranked #1 in 2001 by the World Health Organization. Agreed, France surpasses the US in health statistics, but that does not warrant a total changeover, simply because it is not practical. France's health expenditure may be lower, but the for the two countries is totally different. US is almost 5 times larger than France in population, and way over 10 times bigger in size. Also, the US environment is different to France's environment.
Moreover, France's Health Care System had a 9 billion dollar deficit last year. If converted equivalent to the USA, this debt would be massive. Also 21% of resident's income taxes go towards France's health care system, and half of the financing for the Health Care plan comes for employer taxes. With our economy is such turmoil, we can't risk raising taxes on the struggling public and their potential employers. Taking into consideration the current economic crisis, any such hefty plan would be impractical.
Conclusion:
These three reasons establish that the French Health Care System is not a correct option for the USA. Therefore, it is obligatory, for the preservation of the United States of America and its beliefs, to vote negative for this resolution.

BLOCK : Health Care is not a right
A major focus of this resolution is the word universal. Universal, as defined before means prevalent over all, or all including. Therefore, this resolution is suggesting a health care system that is provided to everyone, as a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "Everyone has the right to...medical care...". The definition of medical care is professional treatment for illness or injury. On that basis, the USA has cutting edge medical care. What this resolution suggests is health care, not medical care. Where medical care is necessary for the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, health care, or access to a doctor for general check-ups, physical exams, and bad days, is not.

Mr. A's sample "felon voting" Affirmative

Dr. Martin Luther King, while imprisoned in a Birmingham jail, famously wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It was a call to action, and the reason I affirm the resolution: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote."

To clarify, I offer the following definitions. "A democratic society" is not any one particular society, but rather any society that possesses fundamentally democratic characteristics. These include--but are not limited to--political equality, universal adult suffrage, direct or representative elections, majority rule, and constitutionally protected rights.

"Ought" expresses not a practical "should" but a moral "must." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary's first two definitions capture this well:

1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help.
2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed.

A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition, is a person convicted of a felony, which is "a serious crime usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death."

To "retain," according the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, is "to keep possession of." The right to vote is the right to cast a ballot in any election in one's area of residence, be it local, state, or national; synonyms include "the franchise" or "suffrage." To sum up: a felon in the affirmative world does not lose the franchise because of a conviction. In the negative world, felons lose the franchise for an unspecified time--even, potentially, for life.

Because the resolution centers on an "ought" claim and concerns citizens who have been convicted of a serious crime, and because democracy is a form of government that respects the moral equivalence of its citizens, we must consider as our primary value Justice, defined as the principle of "to each their due." In a democratic society criminals are due punishment for their crimes, but are also due fair treatment in a legal process that respects their rights. My thesis, essentially, is that we must reject felon disenfranchisement because it is unjust.

How do we clarify the demands of justice? Here we must consider a two-pronged approach, given context of the resolution. In a democratic society, punishment must serve a valid retributive purpose, and it must include safeguards to preserve rights. I'll explain each criterion in its own contention.

My first contention is that denying felons the franchise is irrelevant to the retributive purpose of punishment, and is therefore unjust.

As Richard Lippke writes in "Retributivism and Plea Bargaining," Criminal Justice Ethics, New York: Summer 2006,

[L]egal punishment is to be understood as an institutionalized form of censure for conduct that is morally blameworthy. Criminal offenders, on this account, have not simply acted in ways that are socially disapproved of or contrary to their own interests, but have acted in ways that are morally unjustified. Either they have invaded the moral rights of others or have threatened or attempted to do so, or they have violated legal rules the enforcement of which usefully coordinate complex interactions among citizens or allocate access to scarce resources in ways that are fair. Legal punishment censures offenders' conduct by imposing losses or deprivations on them proportional to the seriousness of their offenses.

The losses of liberty and property are sufficient and rationally connected to the kind of "invasions of moral rights" that offenders have perpetrated; disenfranchisement, by revoking a right unrelated to the nature of the offense, is therefore gratuitous.

Furthermore, the regulatory nature of disenfranchisement is completely divorced from any criminal justice purpose. In "Lock Them up and Throw away the Vote," found in the winter 2005 edition of the Chicago Journal of International Law, Robin Nunn creates a compelling argument to that effect. Ultimately, felon disenfranchisement is worthless, since it is imposed automatically, above and beyond the retributive purpose of criminal punishment. The process ensures the "invisible" nature of disenfranchisement. Nunn writes,

Since statutory law determines whether felon offenders retain their right to vote, criminal disenfranchisement is not imposed by order of a judge as part of a criminal sentence. It is a collateral consequence of conviction that occurs automatically and administratively.

It is the negative's burden to prove that disenfranchisement is not gratuitous. In the absence of such proof, the judge may automatically grant an affirmative victory.

My second contention is that denying felons the franchise destroys the safeguards in a democratic system, and is therefore unjust.

Crime, under any definition, is an offense against morality, with an important qualification: that morality is codified in law created by a democratic process. In other words, in a democracy, laws are not handed down by gods or kings, or derived by purely rational principles. They are hashed out in city councils and courtrooms and legislatures. Thus, it is entirely feasible for democracies to establish unjust laws. Consider Dr. King, cited above, who was imprisoned under obscure statutes for daring to dissent against, of all things, segregating "Jim Crow" laws--laws that, ironically, mirrored felon disenfranchisement statutes created for the same purpose, to deny power to African Americans. Their sad history is relayed in...

Better than anyone, King understood the importance of dissent against unjust laws.

To sum up: a democratic society must treat all citizens--including felons--justly. Since the practice of felon disenfranchisement not only has no retributive purpose, but destroys essential safeguards in a democratic system, it is unjust, and therefore we must affirm the resolution.

how to define the principles of democracy

If you're trying to figure out what the core value of a democratic society is, you might look to the U.S. State Department's analysis.

# Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.

# Democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom; it is the institutionalization of freedom.

# Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.

# Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.

# Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.

# Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.

# Democracy subjects governments to the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system.

# Democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.

# Citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.

# Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."

Which of these principles, if any, might be violated by denying felons the right to vote--or by allowing them to vote?

Mr. A's sample public forum debate case

A VERY rough draft. Hopefully it's useful as an example.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

Thus, I stand resolved that the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

To clarify today's debate, I offer the following definitions. The United States government is the federal government and its agencies. "Modeled after" means based in large part upon the core principles. In essence, those principles are:
1. Basic coverage for all legal residents.
2. A mixture of private and public programs.
3. Funding based on income taxes.


According to Medical News Today,

The funding and benefits of the French public health insurance system (PHIS), much like Germany's, were originally based on professional activity. The main fund covers 80% of the population. Two other funds cover the self-employed and agricultural workers.

Once varying depending on the fund, disparate reimbursement rates were replaced by uniform rates. The funds are financed by employer and employee contributions, as well as personal income taxes....

The public health insurance system covers about 75% of total health expenditures. Half of the outstanding amount is covered by patients' out-of-pocket payments and the other half is paid by private health insurance companies. These supplementary health insurance policies can be taken out by individuals or groups.

About 85% of the population own such policies.

The United States government should adopt this system for three reasons.

My first contention is that the French system is, by and large, effective and successful.

My second contention is that under our current system, health care costs have soared, leaving millions of Americans un- or underinsured. Lack of access to health care causes infant mortality rates far above those of our European neighbors, and quality-of-life measures below those same neighbors through the increased incidence of disease and death. All of these would be eliminated should the U.S. adopt the French model.

According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,

Medicaid covers many low-income children, but delaying or forgoing needed care can lead to more serious health problems, making the uninsured more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable conditions. Overall, the uninsured are also less likely to receive preventive care. Researchers estimate that continuous health coverage could decrease premature mortality rates by up to 25% among uninsured adults.

Cost barriers to health care have been growing in the past decade, even among insured adults. But the uninsured have lost the most ground and it impacts even more than their health. The uninsured are twice as likely as the insured to be unable to pay for basic family necessities, like food and housing, due to medical bills—which can quickly grow into medical debt for those with low incomes.

My third and final contention is the moral imperative: health care is a human right. The French system provides basic care for all residents. It is commensurate not only with the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our laws, but with the international understanding that all persons deserve access to medical treatment.

Thus, for these reasons, we not only can, but should implement the French health care system in the United States. Vote affirmative.

student congress legislation, 2008-2009

Student Congress participants, you can download a PDF packet of all of the approved legislation here.

Study up! It's time to gather sources for evidence in your speeches.

labels and links

Hey debaters, notice that I've added labels and links to Anthony's most recent post, and I'm adding a "labels" feature to the sidebar at right. Don't go crazy with labels, or they'll quickly become useless, but if you're smart about them, labels provide a powerful way to organize information.

Potential Neg argument

The current resolution is: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

For neg, the only thing I can think of so far is the social contract; felons didn't uphold their end, so the state doesn't have to uphold its own. However, when I was looking at Mr. Anderson's definitions of democracy, I noticed that most of them say that the people wield supreme power through elected officials or directly.

So here's my line of thought: Initiatives are either voted on by people, or by officials elected by people. So the "supreme power" of the people is basically wielded vicariously. For an individual, that supreme power would be represented by voting. So by allowing felons currently serving time to vote, you've given supreme power to someone whose actions indicate that they will act against the best interests of the society. Is that the kind of person we want to give supreme power to?

Does this sound like a reasonable argument? Or does it sound like basically a re-wording of the social contract argument?

Welcome to Capital Speech and Debate

Welcome to CHS's speech and debate blog. I will be continuing to do extemp and impromptu this year, and possibly an oratory or two. If you need any information on any of these I would be willing to help. As the extemp group looks small this year, feel free to print out any especially interesting or relevant articles.

Welcome to debate!

Fellow debaters and speech event participators,
We are starting a new season, and I can say that I am thrilled to see the new faces of the team and all our old returning members. I hope everyone can find a event that works well for them, and I want to offer my help to anyone interested in any speech events (dual, dramatic or humorous interpretation in particular). I hope to see many of you at Gig Harbor and I look forward to the possibility of going to state this year!

Hanne

LD Debate Captain

Welcome to the Capital High School Debate team's blog. I'll be in charge of the LD debaters along with Anthony and Mr. Anderson. I've been doing LD for 3 years and impromptu for 2, as well as a year of expos. I'm looking forward to this season with everyone, and hope we get a crop of people for LD in the coming years.

Welcome to the CHS Debate Blog

Welcome to the 2008-2009 Capital High School Speech and Debate blog. This blog is for sharing cases, links, and information, as well as discussing ideas. Hopefully this can help us communicate more effectively about LD and other debate events. I look forward to us all going to state and/or nationals this year!

President: Anthony Macuk
Vice-President: August Mattson
Secretary: Hanne Ockert-Axelsson
Treasurer: Nathan Pincus