The Instigator
Sitar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustVotingTiedDebates
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Do parents own their children?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
JustVotingTiedDebates
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 343 times Debate No: 93369
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Sitar

Con

Con means that I say no, and Pro means that my opponent says yes. My opponent will make the first argument.
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

Thnx.
My opponent wants me to start the debate, so I will.
Let me just remind that we cannot use man-made laws in this debate, as laws cant be wrong or unjust.

If you make a machine, you own it. Technically, your parents made you, as they had sex, you are made of your father's semen, and still you want to be not of him?

I strongly ask voters to vote by power of debate, not by opinion.
Note: My arguments don't represent me, as I don't beleive parents own children. God owns everybody.
Debate Round No. 1
Sitar

Con

Parents do not own their children. Children like other people, are not property. OIne person cannot own another person. To say otherwise would be slavery.
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

I thought this would be a powerful debate:(. I was wrong.
Because of the power of my argument, my opponent couldn't do any rebuttal.

" Children like other people, are not property."
Grammatical mistake. Children do like other people. You should put a comma after children.

" OIne person cannot own another person. To say otherwise would be slavery." Right. Exactly. But not something YOU have made technically. just as if you make a machine, you own it. Nobody can call you a thief!

Adil.
Debate Round No. 2
Sitar

Con

Did you read what I wrote? One person cannot own another person. People are not property. Children are people with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your personal attacks do not equal a debate.
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

Right. Two own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. Children are people with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But at the same time, thier parents own them. I'm not saying that parents can do anything with thier children. Yet, they own them.

I strongly ask voters to vote for this debate by power of debate, not by opinion.

Thnx,
Adil Muhammad,
Qatar.
Debate Round No. 3
Sitar

Con

That is slavery. Saying that one person can own another is slavery. People are not property to be owned.
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

If one person owning another is ALWAYS slavery then owning a machine is ALWAYS a theft.

What is the definition of slavery?

Slavery: A legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property, to be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and they cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement.

Now, apply this to children. It contradicts in the following things:
1. Property law.
2. Buying & selling

Thnx,
Adil,
Qatar.
Debate Round No. 4
Sitar

Con

Machines are not people, people are people. Your analogy is false. You have failed to prove that parents own their children, and have only offered your opinion.
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

Yes. People are people and that's why I brought the definition of slavery. There's nothing called machine slavery. I was 100% succesful in proving that parents own thier children, but not to be treated like machines. Yes, I have offered only my opinion. Do you want me to show your opinion? Is that called a debate?

VOTE PRO.
Adil Muhammad,
Qatar.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Sitar 7 months ago
Sitar
You have proven nothing, and only given your opinion.
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 7 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
ill win for sure
Posted by Sitar 7 months ago
Sitar
My opponent has proven nothing. Opinions do not equal facts or proof.
Posted by Sitar 7 months ago
Sitar
I mean that children should not be considered property.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
my cat says i dont own anything
Posted by David_Debates 7 months ago
David_Debates
Do you mean children ought to be considered property or that parents ought to be completely responsible for their actions?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FurryDragon 4 months ago
FurryDragon
SitarJustVotingTiedDebatesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not refute any of pros arguments.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 7 months ago
lord_megatron
SitarJustVotingTiedDebatesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that one person cannot own another and its slavery, but pro had already made the rule that man-made laws (slavery) cannot be used for justification, and therefore the slavery argument was rebutted. Moreover, con did nothing to counter pro's analogy that if you invent a machine, it is not under your slavery or theft. Con didn't show how the concept of a human should be different from a machine, except "machine is not a human".