Debate Rounds (4)
Since Bluesteel and I have both agreed to debate this I will use the same rules as the original debate.
For any voters who are still concerned about how they should vote: there is no change to the voting system.
I look forward to a good debate.
To set this debate in the right context I propose only the adoption of children in this country (Britain) count under this motion. Also by "legally allowed" I mean any couple under the current structure who would normally be allowed to adopt. This means factors such as criminal records, poverty, mental health, age (too old or too young) will usually mean that couples are not legally allowed to adopt. By couples I mean those who are married or have a civil union since for this debate I see these partnerships as equal. The most important thing that I will set in this motion is what I mean by compulsory. For this debate I say it means all accepted couples are legally required to adopt at least one child and will be fined, say �50, after being together 25 years if they do not comply without adequate reason (not legal or no children to adopt). To define this as a valid mechanism I will prove why the fine is so important. The fine is firstly put in place as a punishment for not abiding by the laws of the British Government. Why I see a fine as the most appropriate punishment; because this forces them to subsidise the care of the children who are still in care that they are refusing to take into their home. We have to do this because I see this motion as a way to force the people to take a vested interest in each other to solve Britain's broken society. If you have been in a relationship for 25 years you have successfully proved that marriage to be a stable one. You have had time to gain a strong career. You have time to have your own children and let them grow up but will still be young enough to successfully care for the adopted child. My opponent may say that we already have these benefits provided through the tax system but I say this system is not good enough. It is on the grounds that this proposition will get secure our most vulnerable children a home and a family and it shows society that we are taking a vested interest in looking after these vulnerable children to the very best of our ability. To open the Government's case I bring you two points; the state's duty and the "class" system.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been telling us that we have to work together to mend Britain's broken society. I whole heartedly agree with this but at the moment we are not doing enough. Britain is a democracy and we must remember that. The government can only fulfil this role when it accepts responsibility for the care of the weakest in our country. The weakest are the children that have been left with out a home and with out a family to care for them. The Government has accepted that it must help them that is why they are removed from dangerous households and that is why the adoption system is in place. That may have been enough thirty years ago but not anymore. I see the biggest problem in society at the moment is that we have been put under a false sense of security. We just think, well the social work is there it must be ok for all the children who are suffering, we don't need to think about them because someone else will. This is fundamentally wrong. We are one society and if we are to move forward as a society everyone has to have a vested interest in the others in that society. The Government has the legitimacy and the incentive to make this happen. At the moment this is simply done by taxes. This approach is not working. The only way to make sure the people have a vested interest in each other is to make the incentive something real and something that everyone can relate to. I think this best takes the shape in the form of a child. When the Government forces couples to adopt we destroy this image that, someone else can do it. Instead we have the view that, I should be doing it. The suffering of the children and the problems in our society become real and tangible not simply statistics and Government warnings. We know the problems exist and we are actively engaging with them to improve our society as a whole. This is the Governments duty.
This brings me to my second point. In Britain we are again beginning to see class separations in our society. I see this as one of the main causes of the "broken society" Mr Cameron keeps telling us we have. By proposing this motion we solve this problem. What we have at the moment is a lower class problem of poverty which the upper classes can chose to help out in if their feeling generous that day while the rest of us just live out our lives ignoring the problems around us. When people of every background and every "class" (above the poverty line) is forced to adopt they are forced to pull their heads out of the sand. No longer is poverty just a third class problem, it is everyones problem. No longer is a lack of education a third class problem, it is everyones problem. When every "class" is actively engaging in the problem of the others boundaries break down. We get told throughout our childhoods that a problem shared, is a problem halved. With this motion we can put that into practice to benefit those who are most vulnerable in our society and reintegrate this "broken society" we have created.
So, for the reasons that it is the state's duty to intervene and because it breaks down this dangerous class system we have fallen back into, this motion must be proposed.
== Definitions ==
My opponent does not define the world compulsory, which by the rules of Parliamentary Debate, allow me to do so. According to Random House, compulsory means "mandatory." 
A 50 British pound (79 US dollar) fine does not make adoption "mandatory." The majority of people would choose to pay the fine rather than adopting since the fine is non-significant whereas adopting a child is a significant undertaking.
Where does this leave us? Technically, under the strict rules of Parliamentary Debate, my opponent already loses the debate. He has interpreted this topic as a "plan" topic and offered his plan. Parli rules state that any plan offered must be "topical," meaning that it upholds the wording of the resolution. If a plan is non-topical, the rules instruct you to vote Con. Since my opponent's plan fails to make adoption compulsory, you automatically vote Con.
== Objections to the plan ==
1) No need
There are approximately 65,000 "foster children" in Britain.  74% were living with foster parents, 9% were living in a foster care facility, 6% were living with their actual parents (under State supervision), 4% were living with adoptive parents, and 3% were living in boarding schools.  Given that all foster children have a home already, the affirmative plan is unnecessary. There is no evidence that adoptive parents who were FORCED by the State to adopt would be better caregivers than foster parents, who VOLUNTEER to take children.
2) Cost of raising a child
According to a new report called "Cost of a Child: From cradle to college 2012," the cost of raising a child in England has risen to 218,000 British pounds (or 345,000 US dollars), which is 9,000 pounds per year ($14,000 per year).  Obviously a 50 pound ($79) fine is not going to encourage ANYONE to adopt, given the prohibitive cost. Only a fine larger than $14,000 per year would encourage people to adopt, but such a fine would be excessive.
My opponent claims that the burden will be "shared equally" by all classes, but this compulsory adoption policy will be much more burdensome for the people who are barely above the poverty line.
3) Additional problems
A study by Wun Jung Kim found that there was a "significant overrepresentation" of children requiring institutionalization among adoptive children.  In fact, one of the *primary* reasons families give up children is due to severe mental illness and violence caused by mental illness. According to a report entitled "Families on the Brink: The Impact of Ignoring Children with Serious Mental Illness," 20% of parents said they were relinquishing custody due to their child having serious mental illness.  Many foster care children are "problem children," so the cost of raising them (both fiscally and psychologically) goes up. "In many cases, the cost runs as high as $250,000 per year for a single child."  In addition, adopting a troubled child is dangerous. News reports abound of foster children killing or attempting ot kill their foster parents. 
4) Too many parents, not enough children
In England, 237,000 couples get married each year.  Yet there are only 60,000 children (total) in need of adoption. How does the government decide which couples need to adopt and which do not? There is no fair way to make such a determination (except self-selection, meaning allowing adoption to remain voluntary).
50% of marriages end in divorce. Half of all adoptive children will find themselves right back in foster care since after a couple separates, adoption no longer becomes compulsory for them.
== Sources ==
Fluer forfeited this round.
In the meantime, these arguments occurred to me right after I posted my previous round:
6) Disincentive to marry
According to the Daily Mail, married couples are now in the minority in England because more are deciding to be co-habiting partners rather than marrying (due to disincentives to marriage): "The ONS report yesterday said: 'The number of people available to marry has been increasing but the number choosing to marry has been declining.' The minority status of married couples follows years of falling numbers of weddings. *It comes after the removal of tax advantages once extended to married couples and the slanting of the benefit system so that single people get higher state handouts than couples.* Millions of young people now choose to live together as cohabiting partners rather than to marry."  This evidence empirically proves that when England creates financial disincentives to marry, fewer people choose to do so. My opponent's plan creates a huge disincentive to marry, so even more couples will simply choose to refrain from marriage in order to avoid compulsory adoption and the associated high costs ($14,000 per year).
7) Unfair and costly to parents who have other kids
This is self-explanatory. However, if you factor in the lower marriage rate because of this disincentive to marry and the additional cost of raising another child ($14,000 per year), people in England will choose to have fewer children as a result of compulsory adoption. However, this would be a serious problem because England's birth rate is already extremely low: 1.3 births per female, which is WELL below the replacement level of 2.1. If these trends continue, Europe's population is slated to decline by nearly 50% by mid-century. England needs to encourage its citizens to have more kids, not fewer.
Fluer forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple Forfeitures loses Arguments and Conduct. Sources to Con seeing that he has so many and Pro doesn't really have any. EDIT Sorry the votes went to the wrong said.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.