part of my aff case
this is a new case. and i need ideas for a third contention
Affirmative
Is it not better to have a just government than an unjust, and what is a just government? Isn’t it a government that can provide for the knowledge and health of its people. A quote from the philosopher Plato. Because I agree whit Plato I stand to affirm the resolution that states, “A just Government should provide health care for it citizens”. My value for today debate will be Justice, supported by my criterion of John Locke’s social contract. I offer the following definitions for today’s debate.Provide: to make arrangements for supplying means of supportHealth Care: The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.Justice: the moral principle determining just conduct.Definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary
My first contention is according to John Locke a government must should health care for it citizen. Can a government not provide health care and be just. John Locke didn't think so when he wrote Equality of Opportunity. In this document he put forward the criterion that civilized governments are ruled bye. In Equality of Opportunity he states that a “just government must eradicate Illiteracy, Poverty, and provide for the health of its citizens.” Russia under Czar Nicholas the second was so hard on the people with its taxes that the people went into poverty, and because the people were poor they couldn't go to school, and because the people didn't go to school they didn't have any doctors to treat the people, and even if they did they couldn't pay for the treatment. Eventually the government collapsed. As John Locke stated a government that removes one of this things from its citizens will be unjust and needs to be dissolved. It is for this reason that a government that doesn't provide health care is an unjust government.
My second contention is that Liberalism requires that a government provides health care for its citizens. Under Liberalism a Government must provide health care because of the Philosophy of political tradition. In political Liberalism a government absolutely must provide for the needs of its citizens. Liberalism was highly influenced by John Locke and because of this Liberalism says that health care is necessary for a government to be just. This is because Liberalism holds both Personal freedom and economic freedom. Personal freedom states that the citizens are in control of the government and if the people need the economy to provide for them then the government must provide for that need according to Liberalism. For instance America provides a form of health care for all of its citizens. The government has some limited financial aid programs, but for those that don't qualify for the government aid, the government provides for free treatment for citizens. America provides for the health care of its citizens, therefore under the health care clause America is a just government.
posted by Anonymous at 3:14 PM
4 Comments:
mike
the first contention is too vague right now, i see where your going but be more specific, you have six minutes to fill, 2 shiould be the ist contention
the second contention is far to presumtuos to have any real merit, narrow the focus and give a concrete example of a society where one of the three criterions were'nt met and the society collapsed
third contention, saying the first contentions "greivances" clause is far too wide of an interpertation, if that clause applied to health care, the government would have to pay for it, "peteition the governmnet for a redress of greivances"
I'd rebuild the 3rd con from the ground up, explain more why health care is a "need" and why it's not just a luxury
all in all though their are some good ideas here and i understand this isn't a finished case, just expand on what's good and delete what's not
(p.s. Don't mention HITLER, it's a concession of the idea of absolute justice not existing)
Mon Oct 02, 11:05:00 AM 2006
They all say the exact same thing, with little evidence to support any of them. You need examples. Without them, you lose to a possibly inferior case with evidence to back it up. I also think you should try to diversify your argument, if it covers more it should show it has more merit.
Wed Oct 04, 05:57:00 PM 2006
I can't add much to what Norman said. Josh has a good point about evidence.
Maybe a touch more statistical fodder about health coverage such as how many people have access to health care or how many use health care in a year. Maybe drop a word or two about how our system is private versus government run because it was set up that way (Neg should be arguing that point - say it first with your spin on it).
That second contention is more of an observation within a contention. Something to support rather than a contention by itself. Thus it is a very long observation.
The third contention screams for where Locke, Plato et.al actually say that. Quote something if you must keep that line of thought. The constitution is possibly "interpreted" to say what you say was "written". Quote it if it's there. Easier, maybe, to go in another direction.
I suppose that's it for now.
Mr. C
Fri Oct 06, 09:55:00 PM 2006
well abby thanks for asking to use it and yes you could, but then agian josh is useing Hitler for his case which is a really dirty idea but it works great, but that dosn't mean that u would want to use it. but anyway if u want to you may want to change the wording around to make it fit human rights which wont be to hard to do. but if you have any ideas for a third contention let me know.
Wed Oct 11, 07:55:00 PM 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home