The Instigator
Masterful
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

I think we should have UFC for under 10s

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
PowerPikachu21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 98234
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Masterful

Pro

Ultimate Fighting Championship. Is a mixed martial arts face off, where two guys are put in a cage and fight till one taps or is knocked out.

We should open this up to under 10s.
PowerPikachu21

Con

I think I understand your argument, but I'll have to disagree.

I'll get into arguments later. In the next round, I would like Pro to expand on why 10 year olds should be put in cages and beat each other up. I'm not going easy.
Debate Round No. 1
Masterful

Pro

What's the purpose of this debate?
The purpose of this debate is to propose a solution to children under 10 committing criminal offences and misbehaving in school.

What's the general idea?
What I believe is that we should pit < 10 years old against each other in a gruelling cage fight. We would select the most ill behaved children and force them to fight. It would serve as a punishment and encourage better behaviour out of badly behaved children.
We would erect facilities especially for these fights, I also believe the taxes made of these cage fight events would generate millions of income and generate dozens if not hundreds of new job for referees and staff.

How would we select the participants?
We would send out a management team to survey every school and select only the most criminally hardened children to partake.
These criminally hardened children will be pitched against other criminally hardened children.
If a child ever got expelled from school, for bad behaviour, that child would have to come and fight in the cage. These expelled children, would only fight vs other expelled children. You have to fight until you win, otherwise there would be no need to actually try in the cage.

How can we justify allowing young children to beat each other up?
These children threw away their privileges the moment they committed their offence. It's true that children are committing more offences today, than ever before. Now we must enact some tough love and give the children of today a reason not to misbehave.
We need a "stick" approach to naughty children and this is a profitable and effective way to do it.

I will close my opening argument with this.
There are many children in schools who behave very well, but their education is being ruining and disrupted by evil and criminal children. We must protect these children and we need to take drastic action.
I firmly believe this drastic measure is the answer we need to prevent the growing number of criminal children.

thank you for listening to my pitch.
PowerPikachu21

Con

I'll start with rebuttals, then begin my argument.

Rebuttal:

"The purpose of this debate is to propose a solution to children under 10 committing criminal offences and misbehaving in school."

How will beating up other kids make them behave? And what criminal offences?

General Idea:

"We would select the most ill behaved children and force them to fight. It would serve as a punishment and encourage better behaviour out of badly behaved children."

Would it teach them better? Kids mostly get in trouble because they hit someone. They could've also swore, insult, or did something like rip apart another student's assignment, or drawing dildos. I don't see how fighting solves these, especially hitting. If anything, making them fight will make them think it's okay to hit others.

"We would erect facilities especially for these fights, I also believe the taxes made of these cage fight events would generate millions of income and generate dozens if not hundreds of new job for referees and staff."

Have you ever watched a WWE match? It involves beating other people up, and the fighters have unique moves, and tactics. Now, does this apply to a 5 year old? I don't see how little Tommy can do the 619, or even a suplex. If anything, the poor kids will either cry, sit there, or poop in their diapers.

Participants:

"We would send out a management team to survey every school and select only the most criminally hardened children to partake."

What if the kid wants to beat up other kids? If the reason for being a "criminal" is being an outright bully, how is bullying more going to help? Anyways...

"You have to fight until you win, otherwise there would be no need to actually try in the cage."

And if they don't want to try?

Justification:

"It's true that children are committing more offences today, than ever before. Now we must enact some tough love and give the children of today a reason not to misbehave."

Evidence of little Brocky being a bad boy? You can't assert that kids under 10 are 'criminals' unless you present a link. Also, will letting the kid beat up other people teach the kid to not beat up people?

Argument:

I have my own arguments as to why kids shouldn't beat up other kids, even in WWE. First, it'll only make things worse. Second, it'll be hard to get spectators.

Violence begets more violence:

If there's one thing we all have in common, it's ego. When we get praised for our actions, we feel proud of ourselves, and deem the action good.

In WWE, it's okay to beat up your opponent. Not in a school environment. But what if by beating up Timmy, you get sent to fight little Dennis, who got sent to Little Kids Brawl, because he burned his assignment? Heh, I'd beat up Dennis, since LKB is about beating up other kids.

The crowd cheers for you, because you beat up Dennis. That must mean violence is acceptable, right? So I'll beat up Susie, so I can beat up Bill. By allowing them to beat up others, you're teaching them violence is the answer. Eventually, they might beat up the teacher because they don't like her, then beating up more kids!

Hard to gain views:

For LKB, the criteria is kids under 10 years old. But young kids can't comprehend until they're around 6 years old (just an estimate). So you must be 6 - 10 years old to enter. How many kids misbehave and are within this range? Not many. Kids also cry when they got bopped on the head, so all it takes is one smack, and Timmy's crying on the floor. How boring! You're better off making another WWE ring rather than a place solely for 7 year olds to hit each other once.

I don't know if it'll hinder the economy, but it surely won't help it.

Conclusion:

7 year olds aren't entertaining to watch, really. And allowing them to hit others only teaches them that you should hit others. What are your thoughts?
Debate Round No. 2
Masterful

Pro

You mention a lot about WWE, this would be nothing like WWE. It's clear you don't know WWE is fake and for show. This UFC cage fight would be real and it would have real positive effects on our society. Let me rebut your statements and explain why child UFC is a good thing.

You state that
"Would it teach them better? Kids mostly get in trouble because they hit someone. They could've also swore, insult, or did something like rip apart another student's assignment, or drawing dildos. I don't see how fighting solves these, especially hitting. If anything, making them fight will make them think it's okay to hit others."

The only kids who would be fighting, would be the the kids that constantly hit other kids and cause serious problems within the schools or streets. We would not be picking on children who draw willies in their books, so don't be so ridiculous.
The reason why this would lessen violent crimes is because for every one fight, one child has to lose, that child getting beat up in front of a huge crowd would make him think twice before re offending. Yes one child would win and gain satisfaction from that, but the point is half of the children that enter the cages will be far less likely to re offend. That's a big deal.
While the other half that do win will have a shot at becoming celebrities, which will progress their career. Win Win solution.

You stated that
"What if the kid wants to beat up other kids? If the reason for being a "criminal" is being an outright bully, how is bullying more going to help?"

If kids do want to beat up other kids, then it's clear they're lost to society anyway, so we will happily take them on and pit them against other kids, who also want to fight other kids. We will turn these children into celebrities, like the UFC celebrities of today.

You stated
"Evidence of little Brocky being a bad boy? You can't assert that kids under 10 are 'criminals' unless you present a link. Also, will letting the kid beat up other people teach the kid to not beat up people?"

This UFC punishment solution, is a stick method of encouragement, it's clear any current carrot methods are not working. The children will know fighting is bad, we aim to hit that home.

This is a link to the sources which proves my claim that "criminal offence in children are on the rise,"

https://www.justice.gov...
Source.

You sated that
" Kids also cry when they got bopped on the head, so all it takes is one smack, and Timmy's crying on the floor. How boring! You're better off making another WWE ring rather than a place solely for 7 year olds to hit each other once."

I agree and also see this as a real problem. I believe that pumping them full of the drug caffeine, ( which is a stimulant drug) before the fight would put them in a drug induced rage, this would allow them to fight until they can fight no more. Problem solved.

You state that
"Violence begets more violence"

This isn't entirely true, if children know there is no real consequence to their actions, then they won't be afraid to commit offences. Sometimes showing violence will prevent a problem from occurring.
The idea of this cage fight is that we have a place for all those children who are already violent. We are moulding their punishment around their behaviour.
Because you would be put against offenders who commit similar offences, it basically means the worse the offence you commit, the harder your opponent.

Your conclusion was:
"7 year olds aren't entertaining to watch, really. And allowing them to hit others only teaches them that you should hit others. What are your thoughts?"

I do believe this would be entertaining. We would switch up the fights, it wouldn't be just 1v1 fights, we would have special events, 5 v 5, 10 v 10 and even 20 v 20 caffine drug pumped children fighting.
The most violent children would even have blunt wooden instruments, such as a small rounders bat
We would even have 5 children v 5 rabid dogs
It would be gladiatorial and spectacular! There is no denying that it would be amazing. These children would effectively be gladiator midgets.

To conclude my UFC proposal:

The main reasons why UFC for children is a good idea is because it would lower child offences, create jobs and money from taxes and it would give children, who otherwise would fail in society, a purpose.

I understand my opponent is worried about children getting hurt, not every child will have to fight, only the most foul children will fight.

I know this topic is controversial, but the fact is there is a growing child offence rate. Desperate times call for desperate measures! You must understand, these children are not innocent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
PowerPikachu21

Con

My opponent agrees that these wouldn't help economy that much, or at least ignored that argument. The main issue, though, is "Would UFC for children teach them better than to fight?"

Rebuttal:

"The only kids who would be fighting, would be the the kids that constantly hit other kids and cause serious problems within the schools or streets. We would not be picking on children who draw willies in their books, so don't be so ridiculous."

Acknowledged.

"The reason why this would lessen violent crimes is because for every one fight, one child has to lose, that child getting beat up in front of a huge crowd would make him think twice before re offending."

There's a possibility the child might choose to bully anyways. Inspiration and whatnot.

"While the other half that do win will have a shot at becoming celebrities, which will progress their career."

Their career of beating up kids, sure. What about these kids? The ones that win every match? Are you going to make them fight John Cena or something?

"This UFC punishment solution, is a stick method of encouragement, it's clear any current carrot methods are not working. The children will know fighting is bad, we aim to hit that home."

They'll know fighting is bad? A bad idea, sure... if you're a wimp. But if this idea became real, then there would be a few kids who rarely lost. Whatever praise the audience gives will do the opposite effect; the kid thinks fighting is good!

And you never stated you wanted violence to increase; you stated, and I quote, "It would serve as a punishment and encourage better behaviour out of badly behaved children." My point is, the UFC kids idea wouldn't do its intended job very well (only half well).

Cross Examining the Link:

I looked thoroughly, and I couldn't find anything about 10 year olds. Here's a few lines from the article talking about roughly 15 to 18 year olds:

"The number of teenagers under eighteen arrested for murder has risen over one hundred fifty percent from 1985 to 1994."

"Between 1992 and 1993, homicide arrests of adolescents under age fifteen increased twenty-four percent, while arrests of youth in this age group for weapons violations increased twelve percent." We don't know if these people are 10 years old. They could be 12, 13, or 14.

"The rates of robbery and burglary, based upon the offender's age, indicate the peak age for offending is about seventeen."

"Among black males aged fourteen to seventeen, the murder rate from the mid-1970's to the mid-1980's consistently ran four to five times higher than the murder rate of similar aged white males."

If there is something about 10 year olds, I would like Pro to show me where. And "juvenile" merely means "a young person", and can mean teenagers.

Caffiene:

"I believe that pumping them full of the drug caffeine, ( which is a stimulant drug) before the fight would put them in a drug induced rage, this would allow them to fight until they can fight no more."

I have to object here. Childrens' bodies aren't as developed as adults, so they're more suceptable to drugs, like caffiene. Too much caffiene can give you:

- jitteriness and nervousness
- upset stomach
- headaches
- difficulty concentrating
- difficulty sleeping
- increased heart rate
- increased blood pressure

I don't think caffiene gives you a "drug induced rage", but you don't want to fight, especially with a headache or upset tummy. (Source: http://kidshealth.org...)

"I do believe this would be entertaining. We would switch up the fights, it wouldn't be just 1v1 fights, we would have special events, 5 v 5, 10 v 10 and even 20 v 20 caffine drug pumped children fighting."

So 40 kids are now in the hospital because of caffiene overdose. Congratulations, you are probably going to get sued.

"The most violent children would even have blunt wooden instruments, such as a small rounders bat"

That is a weapon. That's all I have to say here.

"We would even have 5 children v 5 rabid dogs"

Aaannd you murdered Bill. You are definitely going to get sued for child abuse, and maybe animal abuse. I don't care how many people those 5 kids beat up, they're not going to survive 5 pitbulls.

Now that I think about it, and you've expanded on what exactly the fights would be... you're allowing children to not only fist fight, but bludgeon other kids over the head, possibly giving the poor kids a concussion. Remember this isn't WWE, and, as my opponent said before, only the kids know what will happen next.

"I understand my opponent is worried about children getting hurt" and possibly killed. There's one more reason why we shouldn't make kids fight in a gladiator style scenario.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Taust 1 year ago
Taust
I think I've found the new most insane person on this site.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I don't watch South Park, and my parents wouldn't let me watch it anyways. And I rarely make jokes in my arguments. I usually only troll when my opponent is likely to either time out, or lose. Or when I'm just bored.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Advise on troll debates (at least I hope this was established as such): https://goo.gl...

@PowerPikachu21
His lines were pretty reminicent of a certain SouthPark episode: http://southpark.cc.com...

@RyuuKyuzo
Nice vote!
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I was being serious in my arguments. I don't know how serious Masterful was in this debate, but please vote as if this were a true debate.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Entertaining troll debate, at least I hope that was a troll debate. I will say that from a literalist judging perspective, pro would win (he really does seem to believe this is a good idea). From a comedy perspective (usual standard for troll debates) I don't feel strongly in either; while the idea presented was amusing in its own way, as were the additional sub-notations, con managed to add a decent bit of course humor by reminding us that these likely fatal gladiatorial matches could could upset stomachs for the participants...
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
It's the "hard to gain views" part.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
I also don't remember seeing an economical argument in your argument, or I would have at least mentioned something.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
Nice
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Well, it's now "Almost every argument has a flaw". The sun is definitely over 5,000 degrees Ferenheight.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
I have to point this out. On your profile you have a quote

"Every argument has its flaws. You just need the courage and information to do so"

If you were to use that quote in a debate, then one of two things could happen.

Either someone debunks that quote and proves that some arguments don't have flaws. Which would obviously prove your quote wrong.

Alternatively, Your argument that "Every argument has its flaws." is flawless and proves impossible to debunk, which would then create a paradox, as it proves some arguments can be flawless, which in turn proves you wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
RyuuKyuzo
MasterfulPowerPikachu21Tied
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: Pro is essentially arguing that we should sentence violent children to beatings inflicted upon them by other violent children, less they find themselves capable of beating the other child first. This is obviously madness, and as Con correctly points out, would only encourage violent behavior in the half of the children who manage to win. If losing a fight discourages violent behavior in children, then it follows that winning would encourage it, which is a point pro fails to defend against. Arguments to Con.