The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Is Taking Candy From a Baby Easy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2013 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 41088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Though used as an idiom to describe a task as effortless, I am here to show you that the actual act of taking candy from a baby can prove to be much more arduous than commonly suspected. Please join me in this journey.

This is how the debate shall go:

Round 1 - Introduction
Round 2 - Main Arguments
Round 3 - Rebuttal and Closing Statements


Thank you for this topic, supershamu. I do think taking candy from a baby is easy. In fact, I have taken candy from a baby with ease in the past and I'm amazed that you are saying otherwise. I look forward to reading your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you very much for accepting the debate rross. I suspect it shall be a riveting discussion with hopefully minimal tears being shed.

First off I would like to say that you should be ashamed of yourself for taking candy from a baby! This brings me to my first point

1) The Moral Dilemma
Taking candy from a baby is a cold and calculated act that few have the brimstone in their hearts to even attempt. To look into those adorable little eyes, to take something they hold dear and to know you will bring sadness to that poor innocent baby is a difficult task in itself. I believe this begs the question, why have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for stealing candy from a baby? This leads me to believe that for anyone with half a conscience, to steal candy from a baby is more difficult to do morally than given credit for.

Not impossible of course but none the less difficult. This brings me to our next point.

2) The Physical Act
Though the hands of a baby are notably less powerful than those of an adult we must remember that candy is sticky in nature and most likely (when in the possession of a baby) already be inside the baby's mouth. To pry candy from the mouth of a baby is not easy, especially without causing harm to the infant. A candy tug-o-war can result in the destruction of the candy as well.

Finally if you do bypass the other two steps in this foul act, there is one more you must overcome.

3) The Security System
Babies are commonly accompanied by parent's, siblings or relatives who look out for the baby's interests. To simply walk up and take something from a baby will be made much more difficult by the baby's guardian. Even if you possess the skills of a ninja and manage to grab the candy without the guardian seeing it, the baby itself has a built in security system..."The cry" which is bound to alert the guardian and the authorities. From there you would have to rely on your endurance and speed (which could be less that that of the guardian) to escape with your prize.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing your counter arguments. Perhaps even your story of candy thievery.


The morality of taking candy from a baby

Babies should not have access to candy. Most candy is a choking hazard. According to the NY Department of Health, every five days in the US a child will die from choking on food. The Department lists candy as a hazardous food, warning particularly about hard candy, gum, lollipops, marshmallows, caramels and jellybeans (1). Even less dangerous candy, such as chocolate shavings, are bad for babies. They are empty calories when babies need nutrients to grow healthily, and a baby who eats chocolate is learning bad eating habits, which may lead to lifelong ill-health. (2)

Of course, candy may be attractive to babies because of its bright presentation and sweet taste. Taking candy away from a baby may make the baby sad, because it doesn't appreciate the dangers of choking nor the benefits of a nutritious diet. However, it's commonly accepted that adults are responsible for babies, may make decisions on their behalf and may even override babies' wishes, since we accept that adults have more experience of the world and that significant input from adults is necessary for babies' continued health and development.

Therefore, it is a moral duty to take candy from babies, even if it is in direct opposition to the baby's own wishes.

Ease of seizure

baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born (3)
a young child who is just beginning to walk. (4)

Thus, we can take babyhood as referring to the time from birth until beginning to walk. Babies are either sitting, crawling or lying, probably in some kind of container. There are no difficulties with them running away, as there might be with older children. Also, although they can yell, they cannot communicate with language, so there is no danger of any kind of verbal confrontation.

Until they are eight months old, babies have no sense of object permanence - that is, if they can't see something, they will forget that it exists. (5) Thus, it's very easy to take candy from them, because you just need to distract them or hide the candy and they will forget all about it.

After about eight months, they begin to work out that objects can be hidden, but at this point, they have lost their early, monkey-like gripping ability (6), and so it is very easy for an adult of average strength to pry open their fingers and seize the candy.

baby's guardians

As described above, candy is bad for babies. If you see a baby with candy, you can say to the mother or guardian, "OH MY GOD, the baby's got candy!!" grab the candy, and be hailed as a hero. Even eating the candy, and eating it quickly, will be seen as heroic since small children have been known to access garbage bins and eat the contents.

In some rare cases, the guardian may not be aware of the dangers of candy. Then, all you need to do is shout, "What's wrong with you?? You don't deserve to have a baby," before taking the candy and eating it as before.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your response rross and you do bring up some interesting points.

Though the temptation to be heralded a hero is enticing I still stand by the pleas to morality I have made earlier. Another point stated by the source you sited (1) is that "any food can provide a choking risk." With this in mind you had better be ready to take all sorts of different kinds of foods from babies because there is a risk they can choke on everything. Before you know it you will be on a slippery slope of stealing from babies until you are stealing from newborns themselves! Also as stated by the same source, foods that have a choking hazard are labeled with warnings to educate the parent or guardian of the baby. I still argue that it is a difficult task morally to take what is not yours and an even harder task to take it from the most innocent of creatures. I stand by my claim that this is a major cause of why we don't see any cases of people stealing candy from a baby.

Another (Wikipedia might I add) source you sited (2) spoke about object permanence. In the same source they state "There is not yet scientific consensus on when the understanding of object permanence emerges in human development. Some researchers contend that it is acquired within the first two years of life, while others believe that it is an innate or built-in understanding present at birth." If children are in fact born with this ability to know something exists though they can no longer see it, It reinforces the notion that babies will and I quote "sound the alarm."

In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed this short and sweet debate. I did find it all a little hard to swallow and at times I found myself choking on the ideas presented. Though a bit of a sour subject I feel taking candy from a baby proves to be a pretty sticky situation. On a side note, this is also the most candy puns I have ever included in a closing statement.

Thank you very much for the debate rross and I have had a wonderful time with it!




This debate reminds me of the novel Mansfield Park by Jane Austen (1). In that novel the heroine, Fanny Price, is a worthy douche who is totally overshadowed by the glamorous Crawfords. As the novel progresses, the reader - along with all the novel's characters except the worthy Fanny - becomes seduced by the Crawfords even though their characters show signs of cynicism and frivolity. In the end, only Fanny holds out against them and we are all united in our impatience with her.

But Fanny is right, of course, as we see finally when the Crawfords disgrace themselves with a slew of inappropriate and public liaisons. And by writing in this way Austen is warning us against the CHARM OF EVIL.

Cut to the current debate and the same is dynamic operating. How delightful Con is with his candy puns! How charmingly he describes babies with their colourful candy and their big happy eyes!

How dour I must seem in comparison, pressing on with my safety and nutritional concerns. But babies can choke on anything, Con says airly! And it's the manufacturer's responsibility to put a warning. We don't need to bore ourselves with those sorts of details, he argues.

But no, tedious though it may be, breastmilk and mashed banana are much less likely to cause babies to choke than candy, and nutritionally these foods are far richer and more appropriate. There is no need to take healthy kinds of foods away from babies. It is not a slippery slope.


This debate comes down to the questions - should we embrace hedonism or should we do our duty to others. And which is easier?

Con argues that it's easier to do what's immediately gratifying. That if we see a baby about to injure itself with a piece of candy - either by choking or by loading its body with empty calories - we should ignore it. After all, the candy will probably be unpleasantly sticky, the baby might yell, and who knows how its mother might respond.

But I say it all comes down to perspective. If we are obsessed with our immediate sensations, then it will be easier to respond as Con suggests. But if we open our minds with love for others, and think about the welfare of the baby, then there will be nothing easier than doing our duty. We will barely notice the stickiness of the toffee or the screeches, if indeed there are any, because we will be filled with joy and relief at the thought of the dear little baby's well-being enhanced by our actions.

And as that baby's candy melts on our tongues, its sweetness will be nothing compared with the sweetness of knowing we have done a kindness to another.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by supershamu 3 years ago
Seriously my hats off to you rross! That was a ton of fun and very silly all the same
Posted by rross 3 years ago
Thanks for the debate, supershamu. I loved the topic.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
I personally wouldn't be able to get past the Moral Dilemma part.
That was a pretty hilarious debate, though.
Posted by MartinMSC2014 3 years ago
No because the last time I saw someone steal candy from a baby the baby called in security and attacked the person.......
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Congrats to both Pro and Con. I think Con had better arguments, since Babies are very hard to take things from, since they are fragile and small.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: What a fascinating topic to debate and one deserving to be in the philosophy section. The argument of Con were more convincing. Although Pro came close to swinging my views I was morally obligated and swayed to stick to Cons side. Pro definitely had far more sources so I award the points to Pro, although this was a tough decision as the authors of some of the articles were clearly biased towards liberation of candy from babies. Conduct and grammar points are awarded equally as the conduct was outstanding. Thanks for a great debate ;)