- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I didn't say that they don't provide any quality care, just that they can't provide the same level of care as for profit clinics. You keep twisting my words in a way that doesn't make sense, and there's really no excuse to call me out over the claims I'm making considering I provided you with two links in my previous post that explain some of the issues with free clinics. This is really almost ironic, considering you yourself have made quite a few claims without providing any citation.
Free clinics aren't a perfect solution to some of the problems in our medical system, and some of the "free" healthcare programs you talk about still have a minor fee. And some doctor offices won't even accept certain insurances which typically cover low income people.
Well, you really seem to like arguing over word usage, but I never said that no one has access to health or medical care. Now what I did say is that people often struggle to get the care they need outside of emergency services.
Yes, free clinics exist and I have nothing but respect for the professionals who put their time into them, but according to what you said there's 20 per state, which really isn't a lot in larger places. And if someone who struggles to afford health care of any kind doesn't live relatively close to one of them, do you really think they'll have the means to travel several hours out of their way to visit one?
Even for the hundreds of people who do visit free clinics daily, they don't always get the same quality of care as patients who go to for profit clinics. These no cost facilities are often crowded which more easily allows for spread of disease, and the physicians/dentists who volunteer at these places are usually overworked and can't provide the ideal level of attention toward their patients. Sometimes people without insurance are even turned away from free clinics because of how busy they are. This can't be a permanent solution, and it shouldn't be controversial to note that yes, there are some problems with our medical system.
Believe or not, sometimes dental care falls under the same category as medical care. In certain instances when it is deemed medically necessary, health insurance will actually cover certain dental procedures. As far as the rest, parts of your argument are essentially based off of semantics and my use of the term medical care.
Prescriptions, unless immediately required, can't always be given away at no cost, and certain programs or free clinics aren't an option for everyone. Besides, free clinics are often understaffed and the doctors going there are commonly overworked with low budgets.
Sometimes people without insurance have to pay for often expensive medications out of their own pocket, and many people wait before seeing a professional in the US in part because of cost. Even with insurance, some people can't afford 20$ copays whenever they visit the doctor.
Now, nowhere did I say that in emergency situations people struggle to get the care that they need, but it really shouldn't be a point of contention whether or not every person should be able to afford the basic things they need to be healthy without getting into debt. Even being brought to the hospital in a life or death situation in an ambulance costs money.
Besides, even if you don't see this as a problem in this country, you can't claim that it isn't an issue in some others.
Damn, and here I was sure that YouTube's comment section was a great place for civil discussion
Nah, jokes aside, usually those types of arguments are more so meant to prove a perspective wrong than they are meant to show why theirs is the best one, whether that be objectively or not. I guess it's a contradictory cycle because if you're looking from it at that point of view, nothing is really being accomplished but someone still trying to get a thought across.
If you're purely talking about emergency situations then no, people without the means to pay for medical care can't be turned away, and it'd be ridiculous to claim otherwise. That's one reason why those who aren't financially well off will often turn to the emergency room for more minor afflictions. But dental care, prescriptions, and other things that aren't usually thought of as urgent people can and do struggle to afford.
tldr; Francamente, la política del gobierno de inmigración nos ha no funcionado pero no porque de inmigrantes indocumentados. Nos hemos hablado sobre esas personas ya con no resultados.
Tuve escribir esto resumen en español por la ironía, pero es cierto.
Really though, the wall is absolutely pointless. If everyone is so needlessly worried about border security that's already fairly strong, then we're better off enforcing the policies we have in place currently instead of making new ones that do nothing but fuel controversy. Some of the border is already covered by a fence, and with so many patrol agents surrounding the area and so many inspectors at places of entry, there really isn't much more that could be done to dissuade others from attempting to cross it without the required documentation.
Not to mention, illegal immigration from Mexico has actually declined in recent years and more people are leaving the US than trying to enter it, which makes it even more ridiculous how far some people wanna go now to divide the two countries.
Besides, despite popular belief, people who enter the country illegally usually don't pose much of a threat to our national safety. Personal opinions on undocumented immigrants aside, most of them come to the country without going through the proper processes because they don't have the means to enter legally. If they had the opportunity to, they would, and just because they want to better their lives for themselves and their families doesn't automatically make them immoral people. I'm not claiming that no criminals in that community exist, but if anything, immigrants have more of a deterrence to crime than fully fledged citizens do. After all, why would they go out of their way to cause trouble if it's just going to lead to them being deported?
Even with the wall, if people really wanted to get in they could find ways, whether it be by digging tunnels or traveling by air. It's not an end all be all idea and it doesn't actually solve any problems. It's just a useless preventative measure that's gonna disrupt relations between our two countries even more than Trump's generalizations already have.
The wall would be a waste of millions of dollars that could be spent on things so much more valuable (public education anyone?) than a false sense of security. The safer someone feels, the more likely they are to participate in risky behavior, and given the current political climate I think it's important to minimize conflicts wherever possible.
Enrique Peña Nieto is understandably against the prospect of Mexico paying for the wall, so how exactly is the cost gonna be covered? Trump's considered everything from cutting the funding of other government departments to putting a 20% import tax on products coming from Mexico, which would end up pushing the cost on consumers in the United States anyways. I've seen others in this thread mention that no one cared when other presidents spent money on things like this, but that's completely irrelevant. Regardless of the criticism past leaders may or may not have been faced with, it doesn't suddenly make misusing our budget justifiable.
And finally, although I'm not saying it's right for them to enter the country at their own digression, undocumented immigrants aren't nearly as much of a burden to our economy as people seem to think and we need to stop using them as a scapegoat for everything wrong in our country. Contrary to popular belief, they do pay taxes, and they also can't benefit from government assistance programs like welfare or food stamps, though they can use emergency health services and the children can sign up for school. They contribute largely to our workforce, particularly in farming and construction occupations, but no, that doesn't mean that they're stealing jobs. There's actually no direct correlation between US citizen unemployment rates and the number of illegal immigrants in the country. Some employers will actually go out of their way to hire undocumented immigrants because they can get away with working them longer hours for less pay. Though this doesn't bode positively for the wellbeing of the workers, goods produced by them tend to cost less because of the cheap labor force.
The misinformation and fear mongering being spread everywhere, on both sides of the coin even, is ridiculous. I respect the views of people against undocumented immigration, but those who support the wall really need to consider what our country's priorities should be. It would just be a colossal misuse of our money that's meant to solve a fairly insignificant problem, despite the very real issues coming from right inside the US.
A few sources, though I'd be glad to find more:
Well, this is moreso dependent on whether this question is asking what it is currently or what it should be. Either way, under the assumption that a commodity is something useful that can be bought or sold, I guess healthcare technically qualifiies as that, but that doesn't mean it should be something that exists purely to fuel the economy. Regardless of socioeconomic status, no one should suffer because they can't afford apt medical care.
There's a difference between physically disciplining a child and making a move so that they don't harm themselves, though. I don't think anyone's gonna claim it'd be a super bad thing to slap a kid's hand away from a hot pan when you might not have the time to verbally warn them not to, nor does anyone equate that to beating a child. Besides, even if a parent did just pull the kid away, scolding them isn't the only option available. Even younger children are usually perceptive enough to understand basic explanations as to why they shouldn't do something.
Though I may not agree with any kind of physical discipline, I know that there's a difference between spanking and flat out child abuse. I'm not arguing that they're the same thing, just that there's more effective ways to discipline children that don't have the potential to cause them long term mental distress. It's not so much that it's all of a sudden bad as it is that more research is being done on the effects of corporal punishment, and that it's now more widely understood that there's better ways to show your kids how to behave.
Like I said, maybe this has worked for your family in particular, but that usually isn't the case. Even if it does send a quick message to a child that what they did was wrong, what good does that do if they don't understand the rationale behind it?
The children who misbehave in public are likely either too young to understand what they're doing, or they just aren't disciplined period. Corporal punishment actually sometimes leads to more defiance.
Anyways, I think our difference in perspective on this issue more comes down to different experiences than it does anything else, though I will say that there's a big disconnect between this and transgender bathroom rights in schools. The latter is something that affects everyone's children, including the ones who are actually transgender. It's not something you should be concerned about though, no one is going to pretend to be trans just to be able to enter a certain bathroom or changing room. This is off topic though, and it could probably be an entire other debate.
Yeah, perseveration would fit much better in this context, though even that's just a sign/symptom of a mental disorder and not actually one in itself. It's interesting, but imo still not enough to classify someone who incessantly debates as having disrupted cognitive abilities.
To be fair I'd wager that a lot of the time when people argue, they don't actually expect to change the other person's opinion. I guess with anything that's not totally based on facts though the problem of induction is a fair thing to bring up. No matter what conclusion ends up being reached someone out there is still gonna argue that whatever was figured out because of the debate doesn't necessarily translate into usable information
That's not even the definition of insanity, it's just a quote. Trying to dispute someone else's opinion isn't equivalent to a having a disorder that's detrimental to life quality, but gg
Even if an atheist were to pick a religion, that doesn't automatically mean it would be the correct one. Going by the logic expressed in the opening post, you could argue that any system of belief is lose-lose. Technically if religious people are correct, then there won't be anyone around who disagreed with them for them to be able to say "I told you so" to either, which in itself is a questionsble value to be so concerned about. But then, say atheism or an ideology a religious person wasn't a part of ends up being correct, they'll likely suffer the same fate as a nonbeliever would. In this sense, are we not just better off picking whatever seems the most likely to us without worrying so much about consequences that may or may not even exist?
Does that not say more about the character of that one person than it does the community as a whole? If someone you're going to be romantically involved with is trans, you should have the right to know before things get serious. But regardless, how does that have anything to do with LGBT people being accepted or being treated equally? There's assholes in every group, and you shouldn't judge based on that.
I explained that I know the two words have different connotations. Obviously if you were in a fight, you wouldn't say something like "I spanked them across the face", you would say hit. But in talking about a child, the two terms are more interchangeable, although they generally reference a different level of severity. Regardless, I don't see how someone's ability to form an argument is really dependent on them knowing the definitions of two similar words. Anyone can make a statement like that and present it as the truth, purely based on how the other person arbitrarily structures their sentences. It doesn't speak for the other points that they're making.
Nonetheless, I do understand that data doesn't always reflect the truth, depending on any number of variables such as how the research is conducted, where it's conducted, etc, which is one reason that experiments and surveys are often repeated in similar or drastically different circumstances. And yes, sometimes the person presenting the information doesn't show both sides equally in order to further their own opinion. However, when both the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that corporal punishment has more negative affects than other forms of discipline, it shouldn't be held up as the gold standard of parenting without question.
Despite speaking of biases, you're also just citing your own personal experiences. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because relating things you've witnessed can help convey your perspective better than statistics sometimes, and your opinions are often formed in part because of your background. But with that said, it is hypocritical to talk about how pointless some research is only to cite an article once it supports your argument. It seems as though your own idea of cherry picking is just whenever someone shows a source that contradicts whatever it is you believe.
Speaking of your own family, I never said that every single child who has some form of corporal punishment used on them will turn out the same way. Even if I did, it's near impossible to argue against someone's personal experiences. You can't exactly disprove them, even if you disagree with the point they're used to forward. However, even if every single child in your family grew up just fine, how does that somehow speak for everyone else? Maybe your family strayed from it, but there's still a pattern correlated to what happens when you physically discipline your kids, which can't just be tossed under the rug as left wing propaganda or whatever you wanna call it.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never said that gang members only turn to crime because they learned violence from their fathers. As a matter of fact, I would actually agree with you that part of the reason some children join gangs is because they lack structure at home, but again, that doesn't apply to every family, nor is that the only reason this stuff happens. Hell, it's not even the only reason cited in the article you provided. Some children turn to crime because they want to belong to something, or because they grow up in a more dangerous neighborhood and feel the need for protection. Low socioeconomic status and living in areas of poverty are also contributing factors. I'm not saying that any of this is justified, just that it isn't as straightforward as "liberals and democrats and progressives don't discipline kids properly and they grow up with no respect."
Juvenile crime is more complex than that and it can't just be explained away by a dysfunctional family structure, even though that can contribute to it. I know how difficult it is for single moms and how busy they are, but they aren't incapable of disciplining their kids. And even if they were, how do you conflate fathers leaving their children to a lack of corporal punishment? Respect can be instilled through things other than violence.
Is it worth arguing semantics over two words that essentially mean the same thing? They have different connotations, but in the specific context of this debate, it isn't difficult to work out what they mean. And besides, it's not as though there's never been parents who've been overly violent for the sake of discipline. The line between punishment and child abuse quickly blurs, and even if we aren't referring to the types of people who cross that line, it still doesn't justify that style of parenting once you consider the affects studies have proven that corporal punishment can have on an adolescent's development.
Just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't automatically make it right, especially when the "great results" you talk about are really anything but. Actually, research has shown that children who grow up in homes where corporal punishment is used are more likely to resolve conflicts through aggression, are more likely to develop anxiety or depression, and are more likely to act out defiantly. So while I'm not claiming that spanking your kid is the equivalent to beating them and that those two things are gonna have the same physical and psychological affects, I genuinely don't see how attempting to explain to your child what they did wrong instead of using straightfoward discipline is somehow a radical and weak idea.
Whether or not those who support the death penalty are pro-lifers, people do place different values on human life, so yes, someone who holds that position could still be in favor of capital punishment. This is more dependent on the individual than it is on general opinions. But, even regardless of perspective, since 1973 at least 144 men and women who were wrongly convicted have been released from death row, and even more than that are believed to have been innocent and not released, or wrongfully executed.
People against abortion maintain that they want to protect innocents, and though I won't argue directly against that, do the lives of these men and women who haven't committed a crime not matter? The fact that anyone who wasn't guilty was killed as a result of our justice system should be enough to make us question whether this is really the best way to go about punishing criminals, especially when life without parole and high security prisons exist. Whether or not the death penalty is justifiable is almost irrelevant when guiltless people have suffered because of it.
I'm sure someone of a different opinion could argue something similar against my perspective on abortion. That said, I think that people on each side of the debate want the best resolution for everyone involved, but just have different priorities. I place more weight on pregnant women with established lives having the choice to control their futures than I do on the rights of potential lives that aren't even viable outside of the womb yet. But in talking about innocent people charged with the death penalty and the human rights violations they're faced with, I'm pretty sure most can agree that it's something that needs to be addressed at the least.
- One source for statistics: http://www.newsweek.com/
A mental disorder is a behavioral pattern that impairs a person's ability to function in life. Being gay or bi or anywhere on that spectrum doesn't prevent you from living a good life as long as you're comfortable with yourself. Comparatively, having an illness like depression or schizophrenia or anxiety greatly affects a person's physical and emotional well-being if it isn't addressed.
Homosexuality, something that doesn't harm anyone, shouldn't be conflated with illnesses which make people miserable, and in extreme cases even lead to them ending their own lives. That's not to say a gay person has never been unhappy or committed suicide, but only that it wasn't directly related to the existence of their sexuality, which would have to be the case for it to be qualified as a mental disorder. If these things occurred in any sense because of what gender someone is attracted to, it would be because of other people's reactions, not implicitly as a result of their sexual orientation.
So though being gay or being mentally ill isn't a choice, in no way should the two be thought of as correlated. It sets a harmful precedent that assumes simply liking your own gender is equivalent to living with a disorder that can partially if not completely hinder life quality, which really isn't fair to people in either or both categories.
No, children shouldn't be hit as a form of punishment. Sure, it's important to have boundaries as a parental figure, but disregarding a kid's current and future emotional well-being for the sake of getting them to stop misbehaving in the short term does nothing but build mistrust and resentment.
If someone supports corporal punishment because they think it shows a child they've done something they shouldn't have, doesn't lashing out purely through violence defeat the purpose of wanting to teach them right from wrong in the first place? For example, if a kid were to lie and they admitted it, and in response their parent hit them, how does that explain to them that what they did wasn't ethical? How will that show them why telling the truth is the right thing to do morally? It won't. If anything, in this context it might just make them think that they shouldn't be honest if it keeps them from getting hurt. Or if they are honest in the future, it might only be because they don't wanna suffer the consequences, and not because they comprehend the reason why they shouldn't lie.
Even if it isn't important to someone that their child knows why they shouldn't do something as long they don't do it, or if they argue that they can still have a discussion with their kid if they hit them, then wanting to be a positive figure in their life rather than a source of anxiety should be enough of a motivating factor to try communicating with them instead of acting out physically. There's a difference between fear and respect, and raising your child using the former won't do anything to garner the trust needed for them to know you have their best interests in mind, or to give them the stable environment most conducive to them building a healthy future.