The Instigator
greencanon
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
ProAutism69
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Child workers should not make our cloths.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
greencanon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 49912
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

greencanon

Pro

Since I am pro, I will describe the resolution.
Child workers are children who are paid to make our cloths. The child workers are making the cloths that are sold in your everyday store.

I believe that child workers should not be making our cloths.
Points:
It's wrong. No child should be forced to do anything the do not want to. It is in the Charter of children's rights and freedoms.

Also, most big companies make better quality cloths than a child could make, andthe sell them for the same price.

This is why children should not be making our cloths.
ProAutism69

Con

'The do not want to?' Is this a joke? Check your spelling before you submit, you imbecile. Okay, now down to the debate. Firstly, children should work, and be punished, they need to be taught and disciplined. Prepared for real life. They need to be more than mere mouths to feed. Anyway, we are above whatever they are. They live in the dirt! We are healthy, and they need to accept that they are low living scum. Big companies could save a lot of money from not investing in this simply pathetic activities, and they should be saving money for our countries as a whole. Boosting our economy means giving them money in the long term, and eventually they will be living in better conditions. Finally, please attempt to spell correctly, fool. Over to you, buddy boy. Ta-da!
Debate Round No. 1
greencanon

Pro

I would firstly like to say thank you for accepting my debate and for pointing out my error as it just shows me how much you pay attention to me and little you pay to yourself, as your yourself said "This simply pathetic activities,".
As for you saying that the children who work in factories are punished in preparation for later in life, many of them are killed before they have a chance to get to "later life". Also, when you say that they are lower than scum, that is irrelevant to this topic. The resolution is that children should not be making our cloths, and them needing to accept that they are lower than scum does not affect that in any way.
Thank you.
ProAutism69

Con

Please, one mistake? I was too busy reading your tripe that I accidentally missed a couple of letters. Anyhow, the debate, if you could even call it that. I didn't say they are lower than scum, I said they are 'low living scum', however, either description would most probably suffice. And this is relevant, because it's their place to work for us, and put clothes on our back. We need to stay healthy, and they can give us that. And to your comment about being killed, yes, well, trivialities really. Children or not, we get clothes. Just forget about where they came from. Over to you, buddy boy. Ta-da!
Debate Round No. 2
greencanon

Pro

When I commented on your mistake, I was not attacking you on your spelling (as you were me), but merely pointing out your hypocrisy. Well, on to the debate, which we can call a debate. When you say that the children DESERVE to be making our clothes, or that it is their place to do so, I am going to say that every human should be treated equally, because every human is equally human. If you were in a country that had child labour, and you were a child, I'm sure that you would not feel the same as you do right now. Also, how can you say that the owners of these factories killing children is a TRIVALTY? Well, as this is the last round, I would again like to thank you for debating, even if I strongly disagree with your points.
ProAutism69

Con

That's right, I was attacking your spelling, you half-wit. And no, we can't call this a debate. I've obviously won already. WE NEED CLOTHES! Don't you see, it doesn't matter where they come from, just as long as we get them. We are the superior beings! They are scum. It's that simple. And to your sad, pathetically thought out comment about every human being treated equally, this is simple idiotic. We have money, they don't. We have good food, they don't. We have prostitutes to hire, they don't. We have the wits to create a functioning and sufficient society. We obviously aren't living the same as them, so clearly we are better than they are. So we are not equal. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! And I am a child. 11 Years old to be exact. It's sad that someone my age can so easily beat you in an argument, fool. Now, over to you buddy boy. Ta-da!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by greencanon 2 years ago
greencanon
First of all, please don't let this comment affect your vote.
But, I would like to thank everyone who votes and say that this is my first completed debate and thank you for commenting and viewing this with me.
Posted by CloudKylion 2 years ago
CloudKylion
umm... first, they aren't forced to do anything. you said in your first speech that they were getting paid. lastly, the standard and cost of living is different in most of these countries. a dollar a day is sufficient to pay food, shelter and toiletries. good luck.
Posted by zkolodny 2 years ago
zkolodny
Con has no humanity and has poor conduct...
Posted by Jabuticaba 2 years ago
Jabuticaba
If I wasn't currently in 4 debates, I would be glad to accept this. Child workers help economy, and save lives. Usually, they are used to pay the debt of families. If they didn't become slaves, their families would be killed, including him. Also, though they are in constant labour, they are at least fed. In pour families, less food is provided. And lastly, in the end, slaves get a party.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
greencanonProAutism69Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed awful conduct towards Pro, to the point of trolling. Pro made actual arguments, all Con could say coherently was that "we need clothes", which is in no way a legitimate argument.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
greencanonProAutism69Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con mentioned the following words: Fool x2, Imbecile, Half wit and argued that Pro's thought was sad and pathetic. These were personal attacks, and they ruined the civility of the debate. Pro remained civil, as Pro made a few grateful remarks towards Con despite Con's offensive remarks.Con's failure to adhere to civility warrants a loss of conduct.Con even shows that he is a superior human being and downgrades the quality of debates on this website as he stated "Anyhow, the debate, if you could even call it that". All this warrants a strong conduct forfeiture beyond reasonable doubt. As for arguments, Fascist remarks can be properly substantiated as with other idealogies, but this is not the case as Con resorts to blank claims and ageist remarks. The only boring contention noted was the issue of big companies, but that is easily refuted by Pro's charter declarations. Other than that, Personal attacks. I refuse the S & G award, as Con used personal attacks to justify that point.