The Instigator
Masterful
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
factandevidence1234
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Dead babies should become a form of currency.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
07days22hours18minutes48seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 116432
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (54)
Votes (0)

 

Masterful

Pro

I propose before you today, that we should begin using dead babies as a form of currency.

Dead babies would make a good form of currency due to the fact that a babies corpse would eventually rot. This would encourage spending and thus stimulate the economy, creating new business opportunities and increasing employment.
Babies are renewable and can be made by anyone, which in turn, would create equality of wealth among the currently divided social classes.

One may also wish to use this as an opportunity to enact ethnic purging, which is normally desirable, less one desires marauding bands of black men raping and pillaging the local white neighborhoods.
White babies would be worth the least amount, while African and Muslim babies would fetch a hefty price. This means more people would be killing black and Muslim babies, thus reducing their populations.
Due to their population being reduced, we would experience various societal changes such as, lower crimes rates, lower poverty rates and cleaner air.

As you can see using dead babies as a form of currency is not only economically stimulating, but allows us to push other, more malicious agendas in an attempt to end barbarism and savagery.

Nigg on my friends.
factandevidence1234

Con

Masterful, you are a racist fool, like it or not. It's inhumane to kill babies and not to mention disgusting. However since I'm debating on the stupidest thing ever, I will address your idea. Using dead babies as currency would result in extinction. You'd be killing babies who'd be the next generation, and then there would be nobody to create more babies, thus leading to mass extinction. As I've said before what about the savage whites? You are the most racist freak ever. It is not economically stimulating as there would be no economy to be stimulated.
Debate Round No. 1
Masterful

Pro

Humans have been used as a form of currency for 1000s of years, even still to this day they're used in the form of slaves.
Slavery, while regarded as morally inhumane, has yielded many wonders and constructs of today, such as America. Such wonders would otherwise not have been made and have made life easier for everyone. Due to aiding the construction of America, one can say that slavery has aided the well being of man kind and millions of people. Thus slavery is good in some context.

This brings me to my next point. Considering there, as demonstrated above, is a context where slavery yields positive results, is it unreasonable to assume that dead babies can yield positive results? Let's look into that.
Where legally permitted, mothers commit abortions all over the world as if they're having their morning coffee, they don't think twice about killing a baby and see abortion as morally ethical. It's also a statistical fact that women kill more babies than men through their infanticide violence. [A]

Considering women are the biggest killers of children in the known world, how is it that a woman stands before me today, defiantly and so self righteously telling me that I can't use a babies corpse as currency? Wouldn't that seem almost, hypocritical? I would urge my opponent to cease THEIR statistical violent tendencies, before criticising mine.

Using babies as currency would allow for us to take a eugenics approach to reproduction. One can now trade any babies with poor traits, leaving only the most healthy and beautiful babies to survive. This would mean children whom do survive, are good looking and live happy and healthy lives.
I would ask my opponent, why are you denying babies their right to a healthy and happy life? Are you morally coherent?

I expect my opponent to touch upon all points and answer all questions or else my opponent must forfeit in typical female fashion.

[A] https://www.childtrends.org...
factandevidence1234

Con

1. "Humans have been used as currency for 1,000s of years." First of all, that doesn't mean it's good, second of all, LIVE HUMANS, who in most cases are partially or fully matured.
2. "Slavery while regarded morally inhumane, has yeilded many wonders and constructs of today." Well, if they were going to
yeild many "wonders", as you say, couldn't people at least be ethical and pay their workers?
3. "Where legally permitted, mothers kill babies all over the world." Yeah sure, they kill their babies for money. And if you think that they don't think twice, I feel sorry for you. OF COURSE THEY THINK TWICE. Would you just kill your baby without thinking?! That would make you very stupid and unethical. Women most likely do abortion because they have been raped or sexually horrassed. They don't just kill their babies because they feel like it. I'm sorry if as a man you can't understand that.
"Only good looking babies would survive." Really, can you hear yourself? That's discrimination, and unethical. The majority of the worlds babies don't actually survive birth, and then you add that to killing babies which are poor looking??? That's about 90% of the world you're taking away buddy.
My points still stand: Mass extinction, savage whites.
Debate Round No. 2
Masterful

Pro


Con seems to believe I advocate slavery, I do not advocate slavery. I have only pointed out that slavery has had a permanent positive effect on mankind, such as the construction of wonders. While only resulting in a short term negative effect, being the low quality lives of the slaves involved.

The same would be true for using dead babies as currency, the truth is, babies have not reached the stage known as person-hood, where they develop neurological functions that allow them to be biologically classified as a person. Such neurological functions include a distinct personality, the ability to reason or use logic and the ability to empathise with other human beings in any manner.
Due to not having met person-hood, one can declare babies to be non-people and therefore a disposable resource to either, be use for creating a person, or to be used as currency in order to stimulate the economy and attempt to close the societal difference between the lower and middle class.

Obviously the premise behind using dead babies rather than money, is because this will take financial power away from large government and give it to the people, due to the people generating the currency. The truth is, money is worthless and could be replaced with anything, the one common and sustainable thing that people can create, is babies.

Inflation will not occur due to the 9 month pregnancy period that will make generating babies a slow one and of course the corpse will rot away, this means for any large scale storage of currency, people will have to use banks with industrial freezers. Such freezers would be too expensive for the ordinary person to own on a large scale, meaning various black markets, such as drug rings will not be able to store large sums of this currency and will be forced to use banks, allowing for easy identification by local authorities. This is called "The no more money under mattress effect" and will also help circulate wealth.

It will also encourage men and women to come together and procreate, strengthening social bonds thus leading to more sex overall. While it's true that a large portion of the newborn population will be culled for currency, the maternal instincts of mothers and the increased rate at which they are now giving birth, will ensure the mothers desire to keep some of their babies and in turn, will increase the population. This will also allow for defects to be removed from the gene pool.

I urge my opponent to stop being so closed minded and consider the possibilities of accepting change.


Djksp has been banned from voting due to being a vote spammer
factandevidence1234

Con

Actually, if it weren't for slavery, the civil war wouldn't have happened.
1." Inflation will not occur due to the 9 month pregnancy period that will make generating babies a slow one and of course the corpse will rot away, this means for any large scale storage of currency, people will have to use banks with industrial freezers. Such freezers would be too expensive for the ordinary person to own on a large scale, meaning various black markets, such as drug rings will not be able to store large sums of this currency and will be forced to use banks, allowing for easy identification by local authorities. This is called "The no more money under mattress effect" and will also help circulate wealth." Not true. If the black markets are making enough money from drugged people, they will always have enough money to afford those freezers. Not to mention the freezers are adding unnecessary taxes to the economy, which would actually make a MUCH larger government.
2. "It will also encourage men and women to come together and procreate, strengthening social bonds thus leading to more sex overall. While it's true that a large portion of the newborn population will be culled for currency, the maternal instincts of mothers and the increased rate at which they are now giving birth, will ensure the mothers desire to keep some of their babies and in turn, will increase the population. This will also allow for defects to be removed from the gene pool." It would also lead to more raping and abuse, when a man wants money. If the babies are money, they won't want to keep them and rather, get rich.
3. "I urge my opponent to stop being so closed minded and consider the possibilities of accepting change." I'm not being close minded, I'm just pointing out that this is the most unethical way of doing things.
Debate Round No. 3
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Masterful 8 hours ago
Masterful
+1
I would suggest changing your name to Fatandemotional1234
Posted by What50 13 hours ago
What50
I mean it is reasonable. For a person who has the title facts and evidence, you use a lot of emotion for your argument.
Posted by factandevidence1234 18 hours ago
factandevidence1234
ugh, has your mind really gone THAT backwards?!
Posted by Masterful 1 day ago
Masterful
@What50

It would work the same way gold does, we would value it buy weight.
The general idea would be to weigh slabs of baby meat on scales that would normally have been used for weighing pork.
Posted by What50 1 day ago
What50
My question to you Masterful is are we using the whole part of the dead baby, or are we using parts like arms. For example:
Arms+Legs=1$ in USA currency
Toes+Fingers= 25 cents USA Currency
Head=20$

I am very interested.
Posted by factandevidence1234 1 day ago
factandevidence1234
There still wouldn't be enough babies.
Posted by Masterful 1 day ago
Masterful
Dylan

So if we have a shortage of dead babies, the value of dead babies would rise. Now that babies are so valuable, people will reproduce to create more, this will create an equilibrium.

As for inflation, you miss understand what that economic concept means. It's a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.
So if we have an overabundance of currency, then items become very expensive. You misunderstood it to mean if we have a lack of currency then prices in items would increase. Wrong.

If you know what bit coin is, they are worth 6000 dollars, not enough for everyone. What we can do is trade half a bitcoin, likewise we could always trade half a dead baby. Thus your premise regrading not enough babies to go around is flawed.
Posted by DylanTheGreatk 1 day ago
DylanTheGreatk
We would still be nowhere near the amount of dead babies we need even if we make more babies. We would need more babies then normal people and women would have less babies because they know that their babies would die. If there's 1 billion babies then we would not have enough babies because most people would not have any dead babies at all so therefore most people would be broke and starving.
Posted by Alex.oland 1 day ago
Alex.oland
Dylan, people would make more babies if babies were valuable.
Posted by Alex.oland 1 day ago
Alex.oland
Con, even if you think an idea is absurd and it has no possibility of being true, you are in a debate here and you will lose if you do not make arguments. Well, it's too late now.
No votes have been placed for this debate.