The Instigator
harshavardhana
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
oheesak
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

In 21st c., Poor family shud hav no more than 1 offspring & rest no more than 2

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 6 votes the winner is...
harshavardhana
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 22533
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

harshavardhana

Pro

Defining pointers:
Poor individual - Any person living in the BPL segment.
BPL = Below poverty line = An international monetary threshold under which an individual is considered to be living in poverty. It is calculated by taking the poverty threshold from each country - given the value of the goods needed to sustain one adult - and converting it to dollars
Source: http://www.investopedia.com...

rest = here i will like to define rest as the individuals above poverty line in their respective countries.

offspring = A child of particular parentage
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Argument:
Any BPL person, as defined in his country of residence, should not have more than one child. The premise is that with such limited earning potential which cripples the livelihood & human development potential of the respective person it is unfair on the child to not get a decent livelihood out of the limited resources which he/she will have to share with his/her sibling if more than one offspring is there. Apart from this it will also be difficult on the respective nation to have truly effective financial inclusion policies.
oheesak

Con

If my opponent defined "offspring" as a biological child (as an adopted child is not one's offspring), what will prevent a poor family from adopting from other families? We will be, as he claims, crippling "the livelihood & human development potential of the respective person," as poor families may have an infinite number of children.

Therefore, it can be easily said that my opponent's idea is flawed. Since I only have to show why his idea is flawed, I believe I have already won at this point.
Debate Round No. 1
harshavardhana

Pro

Since in my 1st argument definition of the word "offspring" was already provided the rephrasing/redefining of the same word is redundant.
Thus, offspring stands as 'a child of particular parentage'.
Next, I will like to define:
parentage=state or relation of a parent
http://dictionary.reference.com...
So, even if an individual adopts he/she will be the respective parent. Hence, the argument is - Poor family shud not hav >1 offspring irrespective whether adopted or not.
Thus, argument is still on
oheesak

Con

I believe this is now a debate on the definition of the term "offspring." However, there is nothing to debate about. My opponent clearly gave the definition as a biological child. However, he later changes the term to mean something else by unnecessarily defining "parentage" in a less that commonly used context, which is unfair to me and the integrity of this debate. Dictionary.com's primary definition of parentage is "birth, origin, or lineage." Therefore, I believe I still win. Please vote CON
Debate Round No. 2
harshavardhana

Pro

My opponent's statement that ""My opponent clearly gave the definition as a biological child"" is a clear fallacy. Secondly, the source gives 2 meanings for the word "parentage". Thus, the meaning that is defined first stands irrespective whether it is commonly or "less than commonly used".
Unfortunately this debate seems to have got entangled in the web of technicalities.
But apart from the arguments in the debate, the topic of this debate I believe is worth pondering upon.
oheesak

Con

My statement was not a fallacy but a completely reasonable inference. 2nd definitions are used less commonly so my first post was in regards to the 1st definition. By specifying later, he takes an unfair advantage. My opponent seems to agree that this debate is entangled in a "web of technicalities." What does that stem from? His initial topic. Therefore, my opponent agrees that his topic clearly has fundamental flaws already.
Then, my opponent seems to go on a tangent.
I urge you to Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by oheesak 5 years ago
oheesak
People, I was given a 500 character word limit. Keep that in mind if you are wondering why I didn't argue something deeper.
Posted by oheesak 5 years ago
oheesak
Opponent is clearly taking advantage posting at 1130 characters while limiting others to 500. Since, due to those limitations I could not make my introduction: I thank my opponent for posing an interesting debate.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
Wow...
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
Make the argument length over at least 4000 and i'll accept.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
harshavardhanaoheesakTied
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 didn't argue the resolution
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 5 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
harshavardhanaoheesakTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved his definitions better... this debate turned into a definition debate...
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
harshavardhanaoheesakTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: i really wanted to vote for con, but he got entraped in definitions......sigh....at the end pro proved his definitions better...witch is what this debate turned into...........
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
harshavardhanaoheesakTied
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 ran a semantics argument about one definition of one word and didnt argue why people living below the poverty line should be able to have multiple children
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
harshavardhanaoheesakTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had poor grammar and conduct
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
harshavardhanaoheesakTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Indefensible resolution. However an almost no show from Con ensures win for Pro. A dispute over biological parentage and adoption change nothing.