Is healthcare a right? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is healthcare a right?
in Politics

I say yes because human beings have the right to live. Life without healthcare is cruel and unusual punishment.
  1. Is healthcare a right?

    11 votes
    1. Yes.
      45.45%
    2. No.
      54.55%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Yes. Every human being has the right to purchase healthcare services from private providers in a free market economy. The government taking over private healthcare and strangling competition by flooding the market with taxpayer-funded services would be cruel indeed.
    YeshuaBoughtJackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar I can't afford healthcare, and am disabled.
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    That is why the market must be opened up, without all those "intellectual right" and anti-trust laws, so small companies can chime in and provide cheap affordable healthcare services for everyone, at no expense to those who do not need these services.

    You cannot afford healthcare exactly because the outlandish anti-capitalist laws prevent any real competition from emerging on the private healthcare market, leading to oligopolization and skyrocketing prices.

    If you think that you have right to take my money in order to fund your healthcare, then you are wrong. If you think that you have a right to healthcare, then you are right, and your inability to exercise that right due to your personal situation does not change anything. Having the right to something is not the same as being guaranteed that something for free, as I told you many times - and as always you ignore everything and, a few days later, come back with the same refuted arguments.
    YeshuaBoughtJackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar I have the right to live.
  • @MayCaesar ;

    First why do you say your money. Most national currency's are Registered receipt meaning they belong to some-one else. Like most receipts a person has a Right to hold a registered receipt. A person can ask to receive a receipt for things they buy or things they are to receive as service. Not that this is the issue of medical insurance in general, i6t just appears as though more and more states and public are opting for an unregistered receipt in the form of Debt Dollar.  
    YeshuaBought
  • Unpopular opinion, outlaw all healthcare. Let nature retake control
    YeshuaBoughtJackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • @WordsMatter I have the right to live. People have the right to live.
  • Yes.

    Our Rights

    That you have the right to health is an undeniable basic fact recognised globally and pretty much unanimously.

    As well as the more general Right to Life which is often interpreted as including a right to health, a specific health to live is included in a massive amount of international documents detailing human rights from the UN Decleration of Human Rights where Article 25 specifies a right to health, medical care and social services to the less famous International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural rights which is nevertherless accepted by 169 countries representing pretty much the entire global population that says:

    "1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

    2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

    (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

    (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

    (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

    (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness."

    It seems obvious that people should have a right to healthcare because our health is a fundamental issue that effects our lives and is easily capable of causing the same kind of misery (or worse) as losing the right to free speech religious freedom. In fact that it's so obviously important is why it is one of our fundamental rights. Now that doesn't state single-payer healthcare specifically - but it does mean that there needs to be full healthcare provision across the entire population regardless of how much people can afford to pay out - even if someone has absolutely no money they deserve a right to good health - which in effect does mean at least government funded healthcare for the poorest in society if nothing else.

    The rationale for why this is a right is common sense and basic morality.

    Morality

    If you were sick or hurt, would you want medical care regardless of your situation, even if you are poor? Yes, you would.

    On this basis the Golden Rule, which is essentially "Treat others as you would be treated" would support that we should help others get medical care under all circumstances and should put a system in place that delivers such.

    This is important because the Golden Rule is perhaps the closest thing we have to a common ethical guideline. It isn't just the Bible where statements like "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) are made. Hindu texts from centuries BC state: "May the guest be your god. Those actions that are uncensurable, do such, none else. Those that to us are good acts, they should be performed, none else". Even more philisophical streams of thought incorporate it such as the Confucism teaching of: 'Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."'

    As stated in the initial link: "[The Golden Rule] dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BCE) according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies that this concept appears prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and "the rest of the world's major religions"" and '143 leaders encompassing the world's major faiths endorsed the Golden Rule as part of the 1993 "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"'

    In short though morality is vastly varied, the above moral perspective is one of the most universal and unanimous guides to moral action. In this situation the moral guidance would dictate a single payer health system or another form of health which delivers the best possible care to all.

    Now of course we do have the argument in this thread that private healthcare would somehow magically fix everything, though not even a speck of proof to actually back up such an assertion. The reason for this is that the evidence shows private healthcare is inefficient and harmful.

    Private Sector Inefficiency

    The private sector is a bloated mess in many areas of the economy and healthcare is a prime example and a basic fact for anyone knowledgeable about healthcare. By pretty much every set of figures from independent expert evaluations to official government figures, private healthcare insurance has massively more administration overheads - a common figure cited being "Private insurers’ overhead currently averages 12.0%,as compared with only 2.1% for fee‐for‐ service Medicare." This is because "The complexity of reimbursement systems also forces physicians and hospitals to waste substantial resources on documentation, billing and collections. As a result, U.S. health care administration costs are about double those in Canada, where the single‐payer system pays hospitals global budgets and physicians via simplified fee schedules. Reducing U.S. administrative costs to Canadian levels would save over $400 billion annually"

    The argument is pretty clear cut that single payer results in massive efficiency savings that to consolidating things under a single administration rather than 300 redundantly competing beurachracies, not to mention saving the massive amounts of money  currently wasted on trying to make sure you buy insurance from company A rather than Company B based on the strength of their advertising jingle or how cool their youtube video is rather than any difference in quality of coverage; or trying to make physicians buy branded drugs rather than the much cheaper and exactly identical even down to the molecular level generic drugs.

    This is why even right-wing think tanks funded by the Kock Brothers that are doing their best to advocate for free-market options, etc have had to admit that implementing Single Payer healthcare in the USA would save trillions of dollars and yes that's TRILLIONS of dollars with a 't'.

    MayCaesar said:
    words

    These kind of empty ideological arguments are the only real defence anyone is likely to put forward for a private healthcare system - a series of empty claims without a single iota of evidence to support them because a person would rather hold to ideological fairy tales than look at reality.

    YeshuaBought

  • @Ampersand

    There are a lot of words written with very meaningful intention of nobility. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of religion are basic principles and it is this quality which helps place them as a united state in writing as a Constitutional Right. The issue arising with healthcare is more and more medical personal address work opportunity in insurance companies as it pulls them away from direct liabilities placed on them by patients.

    The idea it is the market being available and is to blame for this is migration is observed. Also you are addressing saving Trillions of dollars in an economy isn’t it better to understand a stable cost of dollar as impartial then setting an idea that simple removing a quantity of value serves a better economic purpose?


  • No, Healthcare is a service, If it were a right you would be able to demand free treatment from a doctor which you can't, its like saying its a right to be well fed, just because im hungry doesn't mean i can go and steal food from the store and starvation is arguably worse than having a broken bone for example, you can live with a broken bone, you cant live without food but it still doesn't make it ok to steal food from stores.
    we need a competitive healthcare market so prices will be competitive therefore cheaper and quality higher, take Britain for example, were all paying for each others healthcare in a socialist system and still hundreds of thousands of not millions go untreated or are provided poor quality healthcare.
    Zombieguy1987MayCaesarOppolzer
  • @JackNewton I have the right to my body, and to live. That is what it means to be prolife.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 756 Pts
    edited December 2
    @YeshuaBought

    I have told you probably over 20 times already that there is a difference between having a right for something, and being guaranteed something. You still have not learned the distinction.

    Yes, you have the right to live. You also have the right to die. Which right of these two you exercise depends only on you. Nobody owes you protection from either of these two. 

    Nobody except your health insurance company with which you have signed a voluntary contract. This is not what you advocate for, however; you want this contract to be with the government, you want it to cost 0 pennies for you, and you want it to be forced on everyone. In a typical socialist way, you prefer to violate other people's property rights in order to defend some of your rights. This is not how a liberal society works; in a liberal society, one's rights cannot be traded for another's rights. But in your authoritarian view, they absolutely can.

    @JackNewton This is a great example! I was going to request a free helicopter based on my right to own one, but your food example is much more showing.
    Although, I am not sure it will be appreciated, since the idea that the government must provide poor people with free food is not that uncommon nowadays.
    JackNewtonOppolzerZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar Pretend I'm a fetus and care. As a prolife Christian, I believe all humans have the right to live. Without healthcare, I will die from neurological disease, and I believe I have the right to live, even if I can't afford to pay for it. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to deny me healthcare, and other people like me have the right to their bodies, and to live, as well.
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • Ampersand said:
    Yes.

    Our Rights

    That you have the right to health is an undeniable basic fact recognised globally and pretty much unanimously.

    As well as the more general Right to Life which is often interpreted as including a right to health, a specific health to live is included in a massive amount of international documents detailing human rights from the UN Decleration of Human Rights where Article 25 specifies a right to health, medical care and social services to the less famous International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural rights which is nevertherless accepted by 169 countries representing pretty much the entire global population that says:

    "1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

    2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

    (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

    (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

    (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

    (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness."

    It seems obvious that people should have a right to healthcare because our health is a fundamental issue that effects our lives and is easily capable of causing the same kind of misery (or worse) as losing the right to free speech religious freedom. In fact that it's so obviously important is why it is one of our fundamental rights. Now that doesn't state single-payer healthcare specifically - but it does mean that there needs to be full healthcare provision across the entire population regardless of how much people can afford to pay out - even if someone has absolutely no money they deserve a right to good health - which in effect does mean at least government funded healthcare for the poorest in society if nothing else.

    The rationale for why this is a right is common sense and basic morality.

    Morality

    If you were sick or hurt, would you want medical care regardless of your situation, even if you are poor? Yes, you would.

    On this basis the Golden Rule, which is essentially "Treat others as you would be treated" would support that we should help others get medical care under all circumstances and should put a system in place that delivers such.

    This is important because the Golden Rule is perhaps the closest thing we have to a common ethical guideline. It isn't just the Bible where statements like "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) are made. Hindu texts from centuries BC state: "May the guest be your god. Those actions that are uncensurable, do such, none else. Those that to us are good acts, they should be performed, none else". Even more philisophical streams of thought incorporate it such as the Confucism teaching of: 'Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."'

    As stated in the initial link: "[The Golden Rule] dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BCE) according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies that this concept appears prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and "the rest of the world's major religions"" and '143 leaders encompassing the world's major faiths endorsed the Golden Rule as part of the 1993 "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"'

    In short though morality is vastly varied, the above moral perspective is one of the most universal and unanimous guides to moral action. In this situation the moral guidance would dictate a single payer health system or another form of health which delivers the best possible care to all.

    Now of course we do have the argument in this thread that private healthcare would somehow magically fix everything, though not even a speck of proof to actually back up such an assertion. The reason for this is that the evidence shows private healthcare is inefficient and harmful.

    Private Sector Inefficiency

    The private sector is a bloated mess in many areas of the economy and healthcare is a prime example and a basic fact for anyone knowledgeable about healthcare. By pretty much every set of figures from independent expert evaluations to official government figures, private healthcare insurance has massively more administration overheads - a common figure cited being "Private insurers’ overhead currently averages 12.0%,as compared with only 2.1% for fee‐for‐ service Medicare." This is because "The complexity of reimbursement systems also forces physicians and hospitals to waste substantial resources on documentation, billing and collections. As a result, U.S. health care administration costs are about double those in Canada, where the single‐payer system pays hospitals global budgets and physicians via simplified fee schedules. Reducing U.S. administrative costs to Canadian levels would save over $400 billion annually"

    The argument is pretty clear cut that single payer results in massive efficiency savings that to consolidating things under a single administration rather than 300 redundantly competing beurachracies, not to mention saving the massive amounts of money  currently wasted on trying to make sure you buy insurance from company A rather than Company B based on the strength of their advertising jingle or how cool their youtube video is rather than any difference in quality of coverage; or trying to make physicians buy branded drugs rather than the much cheaper and exactly identical even down to the molecular level generic drugs.

    This is why even right-wing think tanks funded by the Kock Brothers that are doing their best to advocate for free-market options, etc have had to admit that implementing Single Payer healthcare in the USA would save trillions of dollars and yes that's TRILLIONS of dollars with a 't'.

    MayCaesar said:
    words

    These kind of empty ideological arguments are the only real defence anyone is likely to put forward for a private healthcare system - a series of empty claims without a single iota of evidence to support them because a person would rather hold to ideological fairy tales than look at reality.

    Thank you. I agree. I have a question. Why do so many prolifers support healthcare for an unborn baby, but not born people? If I had the right to live before I was born, why can't I have life saving healthcare now? Am I the only prolifer who supports single payer healthcare as a right to life issue?
  • @YeshuaBought you're under the impression healthcare is something you have the "right" to, well even under a socialist healthcare system its still not a right, i live in a country with a socialist healthcare system and i have been denied treatment twice.
    declaring something a right doesn't automatically make it more accessible. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @JackNewton I am a centrist Democrat, not a socialist. If you're going to be rude, at least get the labels right.
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought im not being rude.
    im simply stating that for you to receive "free" healthcare as a "right" it would be done under a socialist system, correct or incorrect?
    OppolzerZombieguy1987
  • @JackNewton And I am saying to you that I have the right to my body, and to live. #Prolife
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought
    i agree, if you pay for it.
    YeshuaBoughtZombieguy1987
  • @JackNewton I can't afford to pay for it, because I'm disabled, and I should not have to pay for my right to live.
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought who should then? who do you suggest pays for you to get treatment? because doctors are not volunteers, so the money has to come from someones pocket. 
  • @JackNewton I have the right to live, even if I can't afford to pay for healthcare.
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • @YeshuaBought can you please answer my previous question?
  • JackNewtonJackNewton 38 Pts
    edited December 2
    @YeshuaBought I addressed what you have said and i have directed a question towards you regarding what you think we should do to deal with the healthcare issue.
    insulting me doesn't solidify your argument, it makes you look childish.
    if you can no longer defend your position there's a "persuaded" button bellow this message for the situation you're in :wink:
    Zombieguy1987
  • @JackNewton Yes or no: Do i have the right to live even if I cannot afford to pay for healthcare?
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • JackNewtonJackNewton 38 Pts
    edited December 2
    @YeshuaBought yes you have a right to LIVE, but you don't have the right to healthcare because it isn't a right, no one is "taking your right to live" just because you cant afford healthcare. (healthcare and life aren't the same thing)
    Now, back to my question which was "who do you suggest pays for you to get treatment? because doctors are not volunteers, so the money has to come from someones pocket."
    Zombieguy1987
  • @JackNewton I need healthcare to live, therefore, healthcare is a right.
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • @YeshuaBought and back to my question, who pays for your healthcare? who would grant you the right to healthcare you can't afford?
  • @JackNewton Answer my question first.
    JackNewtonZombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought i have, I've said yes, you have a right to live but healthcare isn't life, you can argue that YOU need healthcare to live but that isn't the case for most of us, again its like i could say "i need a keyboard to type with a computer but i don't have the money to buy one" i cant then declare the keyboard my right and then have it suddenly appear, unfortunately it doesn't work like that, which is why im arguing that declaring things rights doesn't make them any more accessible, what makes things more accessible is a competitive market with an incentive for people to go out and compete with lower prices, better quality and overall healthcare more accessible.

    now this is the last time i ask before i assume you've given up on this and assume you've lost.
    who do you suggest pays for you to get treatment? because doctors are not volunteers, so the money has to come from someones pocket, who's pocket would that be?

    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 756 Pts
    edited December 2
    @MayCaesar Pretend I'm a fetus and care. As a prolife Christian, I believe all humans have the right to live. Without healthcare, I will die from neurological disease, and I believe I have the right to live, even if I can't afford to pay for it. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to deny me healthcare, and other people like me have the right to their bodies, and to live, as well.
    This is what the private charity organisations are for. They exist specifically to help people who cannot afford something they really need. They work based purely on the principle of consensual donations: those who care about people suffering donate their money by choice, and the organisation then delivers that money to the needing recipients.

    What you advocate for, however, is forcing other people to help you, at their expense, without asking for their consent. Is it cruel for me not to give you some money that will save your life? Maybe. But that hardly gives you right to take my hard-earned money without my permission. 

    I have helped quite a few people and donated to quite a few organisations to support causes I cared about. You hardly can accuse me of being a selfish bastard. But I do it out of my own volition; I do it because I want to. Those who think I am obliged to do so, and if I refuse to, then I should be forced to do so - those are the real cruel people. Highway bandits who believe that just because they are poor, they can go ahead and rob travellers that are better off than them.

    They are wrong, and we have laws in place against robbery that protect our individual property. However if the government or the society as a whole wants to rob travellers on a highway in the name of some higher goals, then some people suddenly believe that there is nothing wrong with that... They are mistaken.

    To summarise, you cannot appeal to morals to justify violating people's property rights. If you do, then it is not the rights that you advocate for - it is the outcome, in the process of achieving which rights can be traded and/or sacrificed.
  • @YeshuaBought ;No human being has a right that requires something of others, that’s just how it is. Yes, you have the right to live, but you don’t have the right to oblige someone to do something for you. A “right” is abused when someone else is obligated. That being said, your health is your right. Albeit, when you make someone else care for you, even though with virtue intentions, it obligates them. To summarize, I’m stating that rights are individual concepts. Rights are quelled on when they require something from someone else, thus violating the idea of a “right.”

    Rights are associated with corresponding responsibilities. Therefore, your “right to live” is not the responsibility of someone else. I merely state that society can’t provide for everyone. Therefore it is difficult to tend to everyone requiring medical services. If healthcare were to be a “right,” it would be immediately violated, because people die from devoid access to medical services every day. 

    JackNewtonZombieguy1987Applesauce
  • @MayCaesar Nope.
    Zombieguy1987JackNewton
  • @Oppolzer I have th right to live because this is MY body.
    Zombieguy1987JackNewton
  • When @YeshuaBought goes to make an irrelevant argument

     

    OppolzerJackNewtonMayCaesar
  • @JackNewton I have the right to live, even if I can't afford to pay for healthcare.

    You do realize the people who give you healthcare need to be paid otherwise they won't give you said healthcare right?
    OppolzerJackNewton
  • @YeshuaBought Stating that you have the "right to live" over and over again is not strengthening your argument. Everyone has the right to live, yet people die. I know you have the right to live, but you're misapprehending what the "right to life" is. Your right to live is not the responsibility of others. You're violating someone else's rights when you (in this context) are asking for healthcare to be a right because that would mean healthcare would be free. Money is a resource, and resources are limited. The world doesn't have an infinite supply of money to tend for everyone. People die every day, so what about their right to life?
    Zombieguy1987JackNewton
  • You have the right to pursue happiness, you don't have the right to happiness, you have the right to pursue healthcare, but you don't have a right to it.
    To pursue happiness requires nothing of anyone else, it's all up to you.  Demanding someone give you services, even if paid is unconscionable.  Just because you want or need something doesn't mean you have a right to it does it?
    Do you have a right to  clothing?
    Do you have a right to  shelter?
    Do you have a right to  food and water?
    you need those to survive if you think back to elementary school when we learned that.

    you have a right to try and attain all those things and more, which isn't the same as saying you have a right to them. this is only meant to add to the following which really puts an end to this idea

    Oppolzer said:
    @YeshuaBought ;No human being has a right that requires something of others, that’s just how it is. Yes, you have the right to live, but you don’t have the right to oblige someone to do something for you. A “right” is abused when someone else is obligated. That being said, your health is your right. Albeit, when you make someone else care for you, even though with virtue intentions, it obligates them. To summarize, I’m stating that rights are individual concepts. Rights are quelled on when they require something from someone else, thus violating the idea of a “right.”

    Rights are associated with corresponding responsibilities. Therefore, your “right to live” is not the responsibility of someone else. I merely state that society can’t provide for everyone. Therefore it is difficult to tend to everyone requiring medical services. If healthcare were to be a “right,” it would be immediately violated, because people die from devoid access to medical services every day. 



    Oppolzer
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @YeshuaBought

    Okay, understanding deep explanations does not seem to be your forte, so let me make it very simple. 

    Right: "I can do X."
    Guarantee: "I can force others to do X."

    Right: "I can go to a hospital and offer the terms of a healthcare provision contract for them to sign."
    Guarantee: "I can go to a hospital and force them to sign a healthcare provision contract on my terms."

    Right: "We can go to a bar, and I can offer you a drink".
    Guarantee: "We can go to a bar, and I can force you to drink".

    Right: "I can complain on the Internet about our healthcare system."
    Guarantee: "I can force the government to change the healthcare system the way I want".

    The rights define freedom and liberty. Guarantees define oppression and authoritarianism. The guarantees are the opposite of rights. Your argument is that healthcare should be a guarantee; your argument is that healthcare should have nothing to do with being a right.

    Now, guarantees can be warranted by a contract one voluntarily signs. For example, I can sign a trade contract with my supplier: the supplier is obliged to deliver 1 ton of timber to my warehouse, and I am obliged to deliver $350 to his account. In this case, if the supplier refuses to do his part of the deal, then I can force him to abide by the contract or pay the compensation for its violation by filing a lawsuit.

    However, the contract was signed VOLUNTARILY, with both parties fully understanding the duties they take on.

    ---

    So, if you want your system to truly be rights-based, then do this. Offer a contract to each American: each American signs or does not sign the document increasing their monthly tribute to the government. All the collected extra taxes fund the national healthcare, which covers those who signed the document.

    Oh, but I just essentially described the health insurance market! Just imagine, the system your narrative supports is already in place. And we have not just one health insurance provider, but thousands!

    So, I guess, you already have what you asked for, and the question is closed? ;)

    ---

    'Course not. Rights are not something you care about much.
    Zombieguy1987OppolzerApplesauce
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch