The Instigator
Vinsanity
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
dobsondebator
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Child Limit Law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
dobsondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,985 times Debate No: 8160
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (11)

 

Vinsanity

Pro

A Child Limit Law in America is much needed. Mostly for these two reasons.

1)The world is over populating. We already have 6.7 billion people here, which causes: Starvation, hunger, poverty and many other negative things.
http://news.lesswaiting.com...

2)People are irresponsibly having children, just to get money from Social Services.
dobsondebator

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate, and what a mighty interesting topic this is.

I'm going to first present my own case, then refute my opponent's. Again, best of luck and thank you!
-------------------
1) Child Limit Laws are inherently unjust

It's not only unjust to deny a family or mother another child, but also immoral. In any situation where the government overrides the will of the people, you have, essentially, a dictatorship. But imposing will on anyone or anything is unjust because it doesn't provide the opportunities someone might set out for.

2) Child Limit Laws lead to higher abortion rates

This is going to be my key argument. What happens if a mother becomes pregnant, but giving birth to that child would violate this Child Limit Law? Abortion. This causes severe detriment in two ways. First, it's again, opposing on the will of Americans. If, for example, I hold very close moral or even religious values that abortion is immoral, I would HAVE to infringe on my own values for the sake of the government. But even more, secondly, you would simply be disagreeing with the majority of Americans, and in a democracy, that is unjust. The majority rule still finds abortion in America wrong; you can never infringe on the will of a democracy or else you have dictatorship.

3) Child Limit Laws effectively solve nothing.

What exactly are they stopping? My opponent brings up things like starvation, hunger, poverty, and "other negative things", which I will refute later. But this doesn't really stop anything. Like I'll bring up later, there are plenty of work arounds, like going to another country. Also, if the U.S. stops populating, other countries will bring up that role, so basically the "duty" per say will go to another country.

4) Child Limit Laws will collapse the American economy.

If a mother really wants to have a child, she'll move out of the country. When a lot of mothers want to do this, you're effectively cutting your population severely. But what if a mother decides to violate the law anyways and stay in the country? She can't go to the supermarkets to buy food, because buying food for more than herself and whatever the child limit laws state looks suspicious. So now she has to feed her family without being under American capitalism; she's basically forced to use a sort of underground system, such as a "black market", in which NONE of that revenue would go to the American people or government. So you're effectively going to cut off the American economy.

5) Nothing is wrong with America's child population today.
Let's say we suppose a two child limit. According to the U.S. Census, (http://www.census.gov...), the average number of children per family is only 1.86 children under 18 per household. So this isn't even necessary, because Americans aren't overpopulating.
--------

Now, onto the pro case.

First, just one flaw in this debate topic. What exactly are we going to set this new limit to, if we determine that we should? I believe it'd be more educational to this debate to set it, such as China's 2 child limit.

1) The world is over-populating
Basically, this argument is flawed in numerous ways. First, like I brought up previously in my case, world population isn't going to be limited to the USA. If one stops, others will take up the role and nothing ends up being stopped.

But my opponent's claim of leading to starvation and poverty is completely false. Premises like these assume no one is being added to the work force to provide for them, but this isn't true because when these new children grow up, they become workers too. To provide for more people, you need more people to work, so the demand will rise in the exact same ratio as nowadays.

Just within America, you don't have a large amount of poverty. But even so, I would argue that having more people to provide for those who are in poverty is a good thing; you can actually create less poverty.

Even so, the fact is, America's population isn't growing at some uncontrolled rate; remember, in the negative realm, things are being kept the way they are. We're perfectly capable of managing all these people.

2)People are irresponsibly having children

My opponent doesn't really elaborate or even back-up this claim; therefor, I don't have anything to argue so you must drop this argument on-face. It'd be unfair to the debate if he came back in his next speech and gave warrants to this.

--------
Again, thank you for the debate, and I await your responses.
Debate Round No. 1
Vinsanity

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I must apologize for taking such a long time to respond.

1) First of all, child limit laws would be, in no way "inherently unjust" As your own statistics stated, "The average family has 1.89 children." The child limit could be two children instead one. That would also stop world population. There are families who are having a lot of children, and these are things that should be stopped.

2) "Child limit would cause higher abortion rate"
If we have a child limit law of two children or less, then I'm sure parents could handle that. I highly dought people could accidentally have three or more children. But let's say a couple accidentally had a third baby. They could give that baby to a family that doesn't have two or less.

3) US sets an example
The U.S.A is one of the leading countries in the world. So I'm sure that if we do this, then other countries would follow suit which would be a very effective way to keep us from overpopulation.

4)"(But my opponent's claim of leading to starvation and poverty is completely false)"
I must apologize, but this is one of the craziest statements I have ever read. If there are people on earth than there are that many more people who cannot eat, more people that are in poverty, and faster flow of disease. Think of it this way: If there are more people then disease can spread more through out the earth.

5) The earth has limited resources that cannot sustain us forever. I think it is our duty to stop overpopulation for our future generations. And there are only two ways to do this. We could either increase the death rate, which I think would be brutal and unethical. Or we could decrease the birth rate which would be an ethical easy way to decrease overpopulation.

I thank my opponent and wish him luck with his reply.
dobsondebator

Con

I'm going to address my opponent's counters in the order he's presented them; then address what he has missed and then provide a summary of the round.

1) "Child Limit Laws are unjust"

My opponent effectively misses the point of this argument. I argue that it's unfair to force any kind of moral jurisdiction over another; like forcing a parent to have only two children. But just because 1.89 children is the average, doesn't mean it's the case for every family. For example, I come from a family of 4 siblings, as does my mother. My father comes a family of 7. Both my mother and my father are the youngest in their family; so basically with this child limit law, they would never exist. Thus, I would never exist, which is unfair to my existence on-face.

My opponent just says that "families are having a lot of children, and these are things that should be stopped" but doesn't really support any reasoning to this. Sure, his case might back him up, but I've already refuted these points.

2) "Child Limit Laws Would Cause Higher Abortion Rates"
My opponent suggests the idea of giving a child away, should they accidentally give birth to more than two children. This isn't true for three reasons.

First, who would actually be able to accept this adopted child? If the average in America is two (rounding up) children per family, they won't have any room in their family to accept the child. Thus, the only option is to abort the child, or put it in an orphan house, of which are already over-populated, under funded, and rarely create any new families.

Second, BY LAW the parent can't have a third child by birth or adoption; so that right off the bat shows that a third child isn't even allowed to be born.

Finally, the mother may be reluctant to just hand the child that she just labored into life to another family. We all know the dependence a mother has on her child, and vice versa. A mother is more likely to raise the child up in secrecy than just admitting to her unlawful actions.

3) US Sets An Example
This point doesn't really hold any ground, for the fact that we're not the first to do this; China has had this law since 1979. And what incentives do other countries even hold to follow the United States? A lot of countries are rather displeased with us based on foreign affairs and other matters.

4) The Claim of Solving Starvation
So let me re-iterate what I said before. Basically, this claim is false because with more people equals more production of goods, so the balance is constantly maintained. It's a ratio that increases on both sides. Look at it like this:

Number of people in the world X a fixed number :: Number of people X a fixed number

These two always raise in proportion to another. Because of this, you'll always have the same ratio of people to provide for each other. Disease spreading can stop because now you have more people to fight against it. Again, the idea of ratios.

But to further my response, as the DEMAND (bigger population) rises, the SUPPLY (those who create the items for the demand) rises in exact proportion. This is what American Capitalism is founded on, and carries out with more population.

These arguments goes un-refuted, but I'll mention more on that later.

5) The Earth Has Limited Resources
First, this argument is unfair to the debate because my opponent never brought it up in his first speech, so there's no proper way for me to address this.

But second, I'm going to negate this completely. The earth contains bountiful renewable resources, and while they haven't been fully utilized yet, we will in due time. For example, corn not only provides food but it also provides for our vehicles like ethanol. More importantly, it's renewable, and with proper farming it can last forever.

Neither option my opponent makes is ethical for any reason, so therefor we have to solve the problem rather than stop it.

------------
The points my opponent fails to address. It's unfair for him to present any arguments against these in his next speech, because they've already been ignored. So disregard any attacks made on these.

1) "Child Limit Laws Will Collapse the American economy"
You can read more on this in my first speech, but basically because a parent has to raise a third child in secrecy without the support of American capitalism, you're creating a sort of "black market" of which NOTHING goes to the American economy, effectively crashing it.

2) "Child Limit Laws Solve Nothing"
Like I brought up before, mothers will go to other countries to raise their children, which not only will collapse our economy more, but will cause a decrease in population and strength in the American government. Effectively, you're pushing everyone out of the country who wants to have more than two children.

3) "Nothing Is Wrong With The Current Population"
What I argue here is that there's no need for a child limit law because we're already under that limit as an average. So no real reason to have a child limit law. Those who are above average, like myself, are negated by those who are under average, like having no or only one child. This is called the "Law Of Averages".

4) "Supply And Demand"
I argued this in response to my opponent. Basically, because the demand rises for goods, so will the supply. Likewise, the number of well-off people rises proportionally with the people in poverty. But, because we have more population to solve for those in poverty, we can actually decrease the number of people in poverty and heighten the well-off side of that ratio.
---------

So what do we see in this round? I'm going to wrap up the two biggest arguments on either side. Keep in mind, I've already refuted these points so there's no need to attack my summary. Just to save us both some time :].

On the PRO side is the argument that over-population leads to starvation. Basically, because there's more people creating more demand, the supply can never match it, so we lead to more starvation.

I've responded in a number of ways, such as saying that supply will match demand like it always has, the well-off have more opportunity to supply the poor, etc. I also propose renewable resources that we never really can run out of.
--
On the CON side, we see the argument that Child Limit Laws are unjust, unfair, and unethical. Basically, because we're forcing our moral will on others, you're infringing on their rights as American citizens.

The PRO argues in response that Child Limit Laws don't infringe on anything because the average is already under the law.

Remember that I respond to this by stating that there are still extremes that would be infringed on, and that it doesn't matter because we're still infringing, whether or not it actually occurs.
-------

Thank you for such an interesting debate, I've truly enjoyed this.
Debate Round No. 2
Vinsanity

Pro

My opponent has made a very convincing argument however I do not think he has completely argued my points.

1)My opponent is looking at the starvation, poverty, and other negative things as just the U.S. I am talking about the entire world overpopulating. In 2050 scientists predict the world will reach an incredible height of 9.1-10 Billion people.
http://www.un.org...
Over population will occur with 12 billion people. It doesn't matter how we use our renewable resources, not everything is going to bountiful. Millions more people will not have access to fresh water, heat, electricity and etc..

2) You stated that theses child limit laws are unethical. But I'm sure, even you would agree it will be much more unethical to let our grandchildren hold the burden of our irresponsibility.
dobsondebator

Con

First we'll start by addressing what my opponent has brought up, then going over points he hasn't addressed, and then voting issues also known as reasons to vote for the CON side of the debate.

1) World Starvation
My opponent comes back in his last speech and basically states that it's not just the United States that is looking at this problem (due to over-population). But let me argue a couple things in context.

First, we're only talking about the United States here. Like my opponent has set up in his first PRO speech, he states it's the United States who ought to have this law, which automatically puts the focus of the debate on the United States specifically.

But second, I never really focused my analysis over just the United States. The arguments on ratios (which my opponent has not addressed) still carries on throughout the entire world. In fact, unless there was some extreme growth in one country rather than the United States, not only does it not matter to this debate, but it also is just a very extraneous variable.

To the point of renewable resources, my opponent states that we're eventually going to run out anyways. First, he doesn't back up this claim with any kind of warrent whatsoever, but more importantly, the idea of renewable resources is just that: they're renewable. They are plenty bountiful because they are constantly coming back to use again and again, with minimal environmental impact if used responsibly.

2) Child Limit Laws are Unethical
My opponent responds by saying that it's unethical to allow our grandchildren to carry the burden of our current mistakes. You can reject this response for multiple reasons.

First: What burdens? My opponent doesn't really clearly define what these burdens are. Are they environmental damages? Over-population? Finances? I don't know what to argue so it's pretty unclear what to say here.

Second: Our current generation is carrying burdens already. I'm a high-school student, and one of the burdens I carry is the need to go to college, and the racism on the more southren side of my family. Burdens have always passed through generations, that's unavoidable.

Third: Future generations will know how to better handle whatever situation they must burden because now they have the potential to. For example, advancing technology, improving techniques, etc.

---------
Un-refuted arguments.

I'm going to quickly list and summarize points here. Basically, my entire initial case is ignored in the last speech, so we'll start with that.

1) Child Limit Laws lead to higher abortion rates
When a parent has more than the child limit law allows, they're going to have to abort the child because it's the only feasible option. Scan the debate in order to find attacks/defenses and how this carries through.

2) Child Limit Laws effectively solve nothing.
I'm arguing here that people will find workarounds should they really want to have more than the limit law allows, including leaving the country. So the laws, on a global scale, don't solve for anything.

3) Child Limit Laws will collapse the American economy.
This point hasn't been addressed at ALL during the debate. If a mother really wants to have a child, she'll have to supply for that child in ways that don't look suspicious. If a mother goes to a grocery store buying for 6, how bad would that look? So she finds other means to supply for her child, which is going around the American economy to do so.

4) Nothing is wrong with America's child population today.
I argue here that, according to the United States census of 2000, we're already under a reasonable birth rate right now, and that the extremes balance problems out. Sure, having a child limit law wouldn't hurt us, but not only is it unnecessary but it wouldn't be solving for anything.

5) Mathematics to Overpopulation
I argue here that there is a ratio of rich to poor in the world, and that ratio stays constant despite the increase in population. It's supply and demand. As the DEMAND (bigger population) rises, the SUPPLY (those who create the items for the demand) rises in exact proportion. This is what American Capitalism is founded on, and carries out with more population.
-----------------------------
Reasons to vote CON

First, look towards the 5 arguments that have been dropped. Those are your first 5 reasons to vote CON, right off the bat.

Second, vote because Child Limit Laws are inherently immoral and unjust. Like I've defended completely throughout the round, you're taking away opportunities from mothers, families, and potential rising stars in the world. Not only that, you're infringing on people's will, and that's incredibly immoral. This argument is the biggest one the CON has to propose.

Finally, vote because the PRO no longer has any offense, and the CON has done his job. I respect my opponent and his steadyfastness. However, over the course of the debate, the just of his offense has been reduced because on balance, the CON side is much more weighed than the PRO side. As the CON, I believe that, in the end, I've effectively shown that these laws are unjust, and therefor let it be resolved that "Child Limit Laws ought NOT to be in the United States."
---------------

I thank my opponent for an incredible debate. I fully intend on re-using this topic in the future, because it was a great topic and a great debate. Thank you to the readers who have also followed this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by demosthenes12 7 years ago
demosthenes12
my dad had nine children in his family, all naturally conceived and mothered. I love all my extended family. no way could they exist with laws like that. I would be against it.
Posted by sershawn44 7 years ago
sershawn44
lol I am pedobear
Posted by sershawn44 7 years ago
sershawn44
Stop flirting. You are about 25 years too old for me.
Posted by gator_girl15 7 years ago
gator_girl15
The world needs a child limit. People should be allowed to have only 2 kids per house hold. with the economy as bad as it is in the us many families are struggling with only a few kids. families with over 3 kids are probably faring worse
Posted by dobsondebator 7 years ago
dobsondebator
Exactly my point PedoBear.
Posted by Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
Don't believe the hype of over population. It's just as over rated as swine flu and global warming. The world population will peak at about 8-8.5 billion people, and we will then see a rapid decline after that due to forced abortions and other child limiting laws.
Posted by PedoBear 7 years ago
PedoBear
Actually the majority of americans agree with abortion, so sorry, you lose. however pushing that on a women is wrong.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by threelittlebirds 7 years ago
threelittlebirds
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by aeopimp92 7 years ago
aeopimp92
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ninjaraygun 7 years ago
ninjaraygun
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Marine1 7 years ago
Marine1
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 7 years ago
thejudgeisgod
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 7 years ago
Molokoplus
VinsanitydobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70