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

Is it ok to allow the handicap and defective from birth to exist?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 20925
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




under the concept that the earth has to many people as it is. The handicapped and defective offspring are unable to constructively contribute towards the improvement of the human society as a whole. They seriously disabled are little more than a constant burden to to those around them and the community they reside in. the allowing of such humans to exist and possibly bread only spreads the genetic defect fathers in to the world over weakening the entire species.


First, I would like to thank noctos for proposing the affirmative (aff/pro) on the subject of the disabled in today's society. I will take the negative (neg/con) side of the debate and look forward to educating both myself, and the judges.

I would like to point out that in the Affs first argument, there are a few grammatical errors. The first of the errors is not capitalizing the word "under" when it is at the beginning of the sentence. The aff should also have capitalized "Earth," and used the correct form of (two/to/too) when describing the Earth as being "to" populated. The correct form in this instance would be "too." There is also a typo when the Aff states "They seriously disabled..." when I believe it should be, "The seriously disabled..." The aff also repeats the word "to" in the same sentence. Again, in the next sentence "the" should be capitalized, as it is the first word in the sentence. The word "breed" is also misspelled to read "bread." In the same sentence the Aff misspells the word "furthers" to read "fathers." Still, in the same sentence he splits the conjunction of "into" into it's two main words, "in" and "to."

Other than these grammatical errors, I find the Affs case quite interesting and look forward to a worthwhile debate.

The value I will be upholding in this debate is justice, which is the quality of being fair and reasonable. Justice balances the rights of every individual. Justice should be valued above all other possible values because when debating the laws that apply to all of those that life in the United States, we must be fair and reasonable to everyone; essentially, we need to be just.

My value of Justice will be upheld by the criterion of providing equality. Equality is, in a purely formal sense as understood by Aristotle, justice. We can understand equality as fundamental equality in the sense that all human beings have the same fundamental moral status. By providing equality, we can achieve true justice.

I can prove that justice should be valued because simply enough, we are discussing future laws in this debate. Allowing the disabled to life would be a choice made now, and conducted throughout time, therefore, a law. If there was a choice, it would not be, but as the Neg can infer, the Aff is stating that there will be no choice, and we will not "allow" the disabled from birth to live.

I turn it over to the Neg.
Debate Round No. 1


if if you want to take the time to correct and judge me on my grammar errors feel free to waste your time for i do not and will not ever care. be honored and feel lucky i bother with periods.
OK lets take your justice and balances the rights of every individual and throw it out. it has nothing to do with that. Could you still argue with me? i seriously doubt it. While we are at it remove emotion and compassion from this as well. none of these thing hold up to the grand scheme of it. It's seriously about facts nothing more. this is also nothing to do with solely America it's a world problem. your first posting had nothing for me to argue against out side of what i spoke above. i see little reason to continue until you actually post anything to dispute my argument. i will keep it simple to help you verbally attack me and my view.

Cost ::defective and handicap babies cost billions of dollars a year to the us government is care and through special programs designed to assist the children and the families. That money could be used else where.

population:: the world has 7.6 billion people estimated 800,000,000 people are defective or handicap that's more than 1/10th of the world population that could be removed to increase the living quality of the remaining humans.

genetics:: defective humans and handicap people have bad DNA that they pass on to there offspring weakening the over all species known as humans as they breed.


I would like to point out that the grammar and spelling of the Aff does indeed matter in this debate. Education is a primary voting factor, and you cannot educate the judge and audience well if you do not use proper grammar, thereby not allowing them to fully, and easily, grasp your own arguments. My point on the Affs grammar stands, extend it, as my argument that it counts as an extreme voter in the debat outweighs his "not caring" about it argument.

Next, I would like to point out that the Aff rejected my point that Justice is a key value here. Because this was only a value, and not even a contention, please throw out his argument on this case. By claiming that we should not think about justice, he is ruining the actual debate that should be going on here. Again, the Aff limits the education of the round by immediately rejecting any propositions that the Neg can make. He claims that I should also not bring up compassion or emotions. By doing so, the Aff limits the Neg ground immensely by not even being open to some of the only arguments the Neg would be able to make, throw this out as well.

In "the grand scheme of things" as the aff clains, this debate should be purely based off of facts. What the Aff doesn't realize is that any arguments stand in this debate, and limiting it to statistics only teaches the audience and judges what numbers there aree when discussing disabled persons. However, the Aff also does not support his statistics with any evidence or sources, so every one of his contentions containing any ammount of number should be thrown out.There is also the point that there are definitely not 7.6 billion people living on the Earth, as the most recednt cencus of August '11 has stated we have just reached 7 billion. The fact that the Aff claims their statistics are true is insane, and should gain no ground. I extend all of my previous arguments as the Aff has no sufficient evidence to counter mine, and cannot support his own.

For all these reasons, please vote Neg (Con) in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


I find it rather disturbing that grammar Nazi's are here and arguing with me. i honestly hold not a single care about winning the debate. I only posted this for the interest in the views and the comments coming out of peoples minds based on those views. if a voter wishes to ignore my points due to grammar errors then they do not truly understand the point. For this is a debate often spoken aloud and not typed. Typed has typo's and typo's just don't matter since most people can't separate their emotions and feels out of a decision they are about to make. i don't see any way for me to be voted victor in a topic about killing nearly a billion people living today and the removal of estimated another 100 thousand each year who are born. Only another person such as my self who can ignore all emotion and leave compassion on the side line is even capable of delivering an honest unbiased vote.

Ok my opponent would like to include justice still. claiming it is a key value? really?? who's justice? What angle are you deciding what is justice? Justice is nothing more than a group of ideals created by man. As far as i can tell justice would be a debate all of it's own.
As an intellectual and seeker of truth i find emotions to be an interference. A good researcher or scientist must do away with emotions and personal views in order to uncover the absolute. This topic is not about how humans feel to me it's about weather it's the correct course for the planet and he human species as a whole not. If people will be sadden or angered by it for such emotions do not matter to the planet.
Emotions are the irrational response of a human brain to the information it receives though the sense and the mental process carried out with said information.

You would care to take the time to point out that the world only has an estimated 7 billion people when in fact every censea about population ever preformed has stated that they expect a 10% error from those not accounted for. So the reports own admission they state they are wrong and number should be assumed to be higher. That in mind your 7 billion with a 10% increase would be more 7.7 billion and what had i stated 7.6 because decided rather than make it 10% i assumed even that would be wrong. Dis spite all this it wouldn't matter not in the slightest for 7 billion people with 800 million being defective furthers my point that there is more than 10% of human unable to contribute towards the improvement of or existence or society as a whole. All you did was lower the number of total people there for increasing the percent that shouldn't be around.

People should keep in mind that my opponent has yet to argue a single point as to why handicap and defect humans should be allowed to live and pollute the world's human species with there defective DNA he wants to waste each of these debate rounds pointing out things with no influence on the topic at hand. If he needs to use points that i find invalid to defend handicap peoples lives. basing the weakening of the human race by allowing and expanding the number of defects present i the genetic build of humans on irrational response of a human brain or an undefined justice. Do so with the understanding that a sense of justice and compassion is based solely on humans imagination.

now if you would please try to defend your side with something as i find it difficult to raise and defend issues not even being challenged.


In real life, this would be debated before a court and legal judge, as what the Aff proposes would (in real life), be considered as a law. When Affirmative plans are presented to a court, they are immediately rejected if there are any grammar errors. The Aff has also admitted to the fact that he does not care about winning the debate at hand. Whether or not this debate is typed out, or spoken, the ideas would be valid only if in correct grammatical context. Again, if a resolution was grammatically incorrect, it would be rejected instantly.

The Aff proposes that we pretty much eliminate all arguments to do anything with emotion and feelings of any kind. However this does not provide the Neg as much ground in this debate, I will concede and only argue the "facts." However, again, due to the lack of sourcing we have to negate all of the Affs arguments containing any statistical information.

The Aff states directly that he does not plan to win this debate unless there are voters without the ability to take emotions into their decision. However, I will follow the Affs lead and debate only statistics, as I've stated above. Whether or not the vote is unbiased or not in terms of "emotions," I still have the upper hand in this debate because there are clearly no reasonable statistics presented by the Aff.

The Aff attacks my value of Justice, when in fact it is not a valid contention argument. By valuing justice, I am only saying that my coming arguments will be based upon equality and justice. Justice is not, as the Aff states, a human idea. Justice is as defined above in my first round argument. Justice is not what is being debated, and because the Aff did not realize this, he must gain no ground on these arguments.

The Aff claims to be an intellectual and a seeker of truth as an explanation for not wanting to discuss morals of humans. However, this is only the Aff trying to limit the Negs ground in this debate, because he knows that in a moral debate he would gain no votes.

The Aff also gives another statistic about the census organizers claiming a 10% margin of error. Again, he provides no sufficient evidence, and can gain no ground on this, or any statistical arguments.

The Aff wants to debate using only facts, but until he can provide facts with sufficient source citations, we cannot take any of his arguments in this debate. Therefore, I still have nothing more to debate on his side of the case.

The Aff challenges me to present my own points, so I will do so. I only have one, but it will be the overarching value here, and will cover the entire basis of my main argument.

It is not only immoral to get rid of 800,000,000 people on the planet simply because they were born with a handicap, but it is also bad for the economy. In a time where the economies of the United States, and many other countries around the world are teetering, the loss of the handicap would create an even larger unemployment rate.

The Aff fails to realize that in today's society, there are thousands of jobs based off of helping handicapped people. There are special education tutors, there are physical therapists, mental therapists, and so much more. By eliminating all of those who are disabled, we only provide a worse economy due to unemployment rates skyrocketing.

With this, I hand the debate over to the Neg.

If my opponent would like to do a cross-examination round, he can type only questions in the next round. I will respond to his questions, and ask my own in my argument. Then, in the fifth round, he will answer those questions and post his last rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3


are you ever going to argue the point of the debate? or just score points by issuing complaints about my debate that you challenged.


I have been constantly debating the resolution you have stated. A good debate does not only require new arguments, but refuting those of your opponent.

You say you don't expect to win this debate, and that you only posted it to get the opinions of others, did you not expect that the opinions would be as mine were?

What are your voters (why people should vote for you)?
Debate Round No. 4


noctos forfeited this round.


As noctos has forfeited this round, I will only extend my arguments, because it is unfair to present new ones in the final round.

Thank you for the debate, noctos.

My votes are fairness and education.
I provided a very fair debate to noctos, and did not leave his case un-addressed, as he did not address much of my own case.
I provide the best education in this round, as I provide examples and reasonable explanation for all of my points, along with credible sources.

For all of these reasons, please vote neg/con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ThePhilosophersDeduction 6 years ago
Thank you, noctos, for presenting a clear and reasonable debate.
Posted by noctos 6 years ago
do it
Posted by ThePhilosophersDeduction 6 years ago
A cross-examination round involves no emotions, just questions.
Posted by noctos 6 years ago
glad i didn't confuse you and if you want a q and a round do it. as i say i'm only talking facts. i removed emotion from my view
Posted by ThePhilosophersDeduction 6 years ago
It was understood what your position was. Do you plan to use one of these rounds as a CX (Q and A) round?
Posted by noctos 6 years ago
i seriously just noticed that the question is wrong for it should of be phrased in a fashion to show that when i choose pro it was pro there elimination.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This claim is absurd; Con's arugments were better.