The Instigator
Riza_Rosette
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is Irresponsible to have Children.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Riza_Rosette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,507 times Debate No: 20911
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

Riza_Rosette

Pro

It is irresponsible to have children.

I will argue PRO for this position, meaning that I believe that it is irresponsible to have children. My opponent will be CON, and will argue that it is NOT irresponsible to have children.

Round 1 will be for acceptance only. During round two, I will state my initial arguments (as well as definitions), and my opponent will refute them, as well as state his/her own. The debate will carry on naturally from there.

I only ask that my opponent be respectful, and I will return the same courtesy. I look forward to an intriguing and thought-provoking debate.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The Fool: Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
Riza_Rosette

Pro

It is Irresponsible to have Children.

By “Irresponsible”, I mean “Lacking foresight”.
By “Have Children”, I mean “Give birth to a human being”.


I will begin by pointing out that people who have children did one of two things.


1. They planned to have children, and succeeded.
2. They did not plan to have children, but chose to out of convenience.

Many people who have children did not plan them. The most common situation is that a couple has a lot of sex, and something bad happens. A condom breaks, or the pill doesn’t work due to a hormonal imbalance.
The woman later discovers that she is pregnant, and then proceeds to shrug her shoulders and say “Oh well,” without a second thought.

This is an incredibly irresponsible decision for a myriad of reasons.

1. It is Financially Irresponsible.
A single child costs AT LEAST $10,000 a year. This does not include the cost of schooling, hospital visits, or holidays. This cost covers food and clothes alone. Very few people who have a child actually stop and think about what this means.

Now, if you make $40,000 a year, that’s fine. The problem is that most people don’t. Most people are like me- they make minimum wage and live paycheck to paycheck. Giving birth to a child that you cannot afford to take care of is both irresponsible and cruel.

2. It is Physically Irresponsible.
Pregnancy is dangerous, and carrying it to term could have serious health risks- especially if the woman in question is underweight.
Childbirth is both incredibly dangerous and painful, not to mention extremely costly.


3. Giving Birth to a Child is Selfish.
There are already plenty of children, already alive, who need loving families. Bringing another child into the world without even a moment’s consideration for these children is more than selfish- it is absolutely callous. There are too many unwanted children in the world already to go making more.

4. Human Overpopulation is a Serious Issue.
There are almost 7 BILLION people in the world, and while it’s easy to think, “Well there’s plenty of room in Wisconsin. Why doesn’t everyone just move there?” the problem isn’t space, it’s resources. There simply isn’t enough food and water to go around, and adding another mouth to feed isn’t going to resolve the situation.


5. Finally, my biggest issue that very few people stop to consider the fact that, when you have a child, you become fully responsible for the life of another human being. Very few people think about how they would raise a child BEFORE having one. It’s not until they’re arguing with their spouse that they realize that they had never thought about corporal punishment before, or how they would handle the sex questions their three-year-old is throwing their way.

Most parents fail to realize that every single thing they do, on a daily basis, has a profound influence on their child. If she lets her husband knock her around every night, then her son is going to grow up thinking that that is the proper way to treat women.

If a man beats his daughter, he is teaching her that violence is an effective reaction to frustration, or that violence is a means to solve problems

People who choose to have children fail to realize that every moment of every day, they are being studied by their offspring. Every little thing that a parent does is taken in as a lesson, from swearing in frustration to how parents treat one-another.

I don’t think anyone can handle this level of responsibility- but the ones who realize this are better-suited than those who do not.
Therefore, choosing to become a parent is an irresponsible decision.


Due to time constraints, I did not have the time to cite sources. At my opponent's request, I am wiling to provide them in the next round.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals.














The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

It is Irresponsible to have Children.
By "Irresponsible", I mean "Lacking foresight".

The Fool: lacking in foresight is ignorance. It's the lack of information to predict the future consequences.

Irresponsible: is the lack of ability to fulfill you responsibilities. The problem is who says what your responsibilities are.
Evidence: It is often that we say that people who lack insight are our less likely to be responsible. but they are different things. more knowledge will give you forsight.

The Fool: Is it fair to say a responsibility is a duty.
What we should be responsible for is another thing.

But is it just to say that someone who is really ignorance of the situation is responsible.(without having to appeal to some Bold assertion)

By "Have Children", I mean "Give birth to a human being".
1. They planned to have children, and succeeded.
2. They did not plan to have children, but chose to out of convenience.

Many people who have children did not plan them. The most common situation is that a couple has a lot of sex, and something bad happens. A condom breaks, or the pill doesn't work due to a hormonal imbalance.

The Fool: is it bad? I mean we think that from this in a previous perspective, but maybe it will change their lives for the better.

The woman later discovers that she is pregnant, and then proceeds to shrug her shoulders and say "Oh well," without a second thought.

The Fool: it's a possible scenario, but unlikely to be most ways. But life is full of surprises.
This is an incredibly irresponsible decision for a myriad of reasons.

1. It is Financially Irresponsible.
A single child costs AT LEAST $10,000 a year. This does not include the cost of schooling, hospital visits, or holidays. This cost covers food and clothes alone. Very few people who have a child actually stop and think about what this means.

The Fool: I don't think putting it is that simple to put a price on life..
Now, if you make $40,000 a year, that's fine. The problem is that most people don't. Most people are like me- they make minimum wage and live paycheck to paycheck. Giving birth to a child that you cannot afford to take care of is both irresponsible and cruel.

The Fool: I would think it's irresponsible if you have to rely on other or the system. But that i

2. It is Physically Irresponsible.

Pregnancy is dangerous, and carrying it to term could have serious health risks- especially if the woman in question is underweight.

Childbirth is both incredibly dangerous and painful, not to mention extremely costly.

The Fool: Well is what the body was made for, you are right it can be painful,

3. Giving Birth to a Child is Selfish.
There are already plenty of children, already alive, who need loving families. Bringing another child into the world without even a moment's consideration for these children is more than selfish- it is absolutely callous. There are too many unwanted children in the world already to go making more.

The Fool: do you really think people don't have moment's consideration? Really?

Not all selfish reasons are bad and I think having your own child is a just reason to be selfish. Everyone should be allowed to at least have one. Between two people that still cuts the population in have per generation. The conditions would have to be a lot worse than this. Like maybe if the parents were alcoholic or drug addicts. But even then that is an addiction.

4. Human Overpopulation is a Serious Issue.
There are almost 7 BILLION people in the world, and while it's easy to think, "Well there's plenty of room in Wisconsin. Why doesn't everyone just move there?" the problem isn't space, it's resources. There simply isn't enough food and water to go around, and adding another mouth to feed isn't going to resolve the situation.

The Fool: that is a bit random. It's an issue but it's not that easy, they would need welfare and then jobs. And the less educated may hamper the system. It may decrease the efficiency of a society.

5. Finally, my biggest issue that very few people stop to consider the fact that, when you have a child, you become fully responsible for the life of another human being. Very few people think about how they would raise a child BEFORE having one.

The Fool: Honesty I don't think this could sufficiently be demonstrated.

It's not until they're arguing with their spouse that they realize that they had never thought about corporal punishment before, or how they would handle the sex questions their three-year-old is throwing their way.

The Fool: what the hell!! I had to look corporal punishment up.. We don't do that in Canada, you can't beat kids here. You will go to jail. It doesn't work anyways. It just make the child hate you and resend you. They will just to things when you are not thier It's not weird to talk about sex with your children when there is not religious context.

Most parents fail to realize that every single thing they do, on a daily basis, has a profound influence on their child. If she lets her husband knock her around every night, then her son is going to grow up thinking that that is the proper way to treat women.

The Fool: NO!. It can influence, education can give them a mind of their own. Just not religion.

If a man beats his daughter, he is teaching her that violence is an effective reaction to frustration, or that violence is a means to solve problems

The Fool: No ! many kids grow do to the opposite because they don't want to be like their parents.

People who choose to have children fail to realize that every moment of every day, they are being studied by their offspring. Every little thing that a parent does is taken in as a lesson, from swearing in frustration to how parents treat one-another.

The Fool: that is way to general. I mean you realize right? So why do you think most others would not realize.
I don't think anyone can handle this level of responsibility- but the ones who realize this are better-suited than those who do not.
The Fool: Suited in what sense, I have seen a lot of people who were not doing so well. And having a child gave made them more responsible and serious about their lives.

Therefore, choosing to become a parent is an irresponsible decision.

Due to time constraints, I did not have the time to cite sources. At my opponent's request, I am wiling to provide them in the next round.

The Fool: I dont think it would matter.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
Riza_Rosette

Pro

"he Fool: lacking in foresight is ignorance. It's the lack of information to predict the future consequences."
This is mere semantics. I believe that the connotation here is more important than the denotation. Therefore, I reject my opponent's definition.

Many people who have children did not plan them. The most common situation is that a couple has a lot of sex, and something bad happens. A condom breaks, or the pill doesn't work due to a hormonal imbalance.

The Fool: is it bad? I mean we think that from this in a previous perspective, but maybe it will change their lives for the better.

Yes, this is bad. This is about the children, growing up in less-than-ideal conditions. This is NOT about the parents. If a parent needs to change their lives for the better, then they are NOT ready to have children.

A single child costs AT LEAST $10,000 a year. This does not include the cost of schooling, hospital visits, or holidays. This cost covers food and clothes alone. Very few people who have a child actually stop and think about what this means.

The Fool: I don't think putting it is that simple to put a price on life..

I don't think it's fair to have a child without considering the resources they require.

Childbirth is both incredibly dangerous and painful, not to mention extremely costly.

The Fool: Well is what the body was made for,

Millions of women die EVERY SINGLE YEAR doing this. It may be what the body was made for, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or costly.


There are already plenty of children, already alive, who need loving families. Bringing another child into the world without even a moment's consideration for these children is more than selfish- it is absolutely callous. There are too many unwanted children in the world already to go making more.

The Fool: do you really think people don't have moment's consideration? Really?

Yes.

There are almost 7 BILLION people in the world, and while it's easy to think, "Well there's plenty of room in Wisconsin. Why doesn't everyone just move there?" the problem isn't space, it's resources. There simply isn't enough food and water to go around, and adding another mouth to feed isn't going to resolve the situation.

The Fool: that is a bit random. It's an issue but it's not that easy, they would need welfare and then jobs. And the less educated may hamper the system. It may decrease the efficiency of a society.

I don't see how this is random at all. Furthermore, it isn't about the system. It's about natural resources. We don't have enough of them. By 2072, it is predicted that there won't be enough freshwater to go around.

It's not until they're arguing with their spouse that they realize that they had never thought about corporal punishment before, or how they would handle the sex questions their three-year-old is throwing their way.

The Fool: what the hell!! I had to look corporal punishment up.. We don't do that in Canada, you can't beat kids here. You will go to jail. It doesn't work anyways. It just make the child hate you and resend you. They will just to things when you are not thier It's not weird to talk about sex with your children when there is not religious context.

It's incredibly common in America. These are real issues that people still need to think about, and, more importantly, DISCUSS. My point here is that couples don't TALK TO EACHOTHER before having a child, and that's a problem.

I thank my opponent for her responses, and urge readers to vote Pro.


The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

Definition of IRRESPONSIBLE


: not responsible: as


a : not answerable to higher authority <an irresponsible dictatorship>


b : said or done with no sense of responsibility <irresponsible accusations>


c : lacking a sense of responsibility


d : unable especially mentally or financially to bear responsibility



Definition of FORESIGHT


1: an act or the power of foreseeing : prescience


2: provident care : prudence <had the foresight to invest his money wisely>


3: an act of looking forward; also : a view forward


http://www.merriam-webster.com...



I believe that the connotation here is more important than the denotation. Therefore, I reject my opponent's definition. I don’t think


The Fool: rejection, overruled. The connotation is relativistic, it would just mean you feel its bad.


Many people who have children did not plan them. The most common situation is that a couple has a lot of sex, and something bad happens. A condom breaks, or the pill doesn't work due to a hormonal imbalance.


The Fool: is it bad? I mean we think that from this in a previous perspective, but maybe it will change their lives for the better.


Yes, this is bad. This is about the children, growing up in less-than-ideal conditions. This is NOT about the parents. If a parent needs to change their lives for the better, then they are NOT ready to have children.


The Fool: The point I am making is:


P1 to say many people had them doesn’t say anything about how many exactly.


P2 there is no way to tell if it is more or less common, unless you got stats, you are affected by the false consensus effect. That is when you go to think about how common it is depending on the people you know, which makes you think like its common, when it might not be. E.g. smokers tend to think most people smoke when they less people do. Another example is that Christians will tend to think more people are Christian in the world then there really is.


http://en.wikipedia.org...


P3 even if it is by accident it doesn’t mean they is will turn out bad, like I said it may turn out for the better. It may be positive on the parents; it often makes them more mature. And this maturity causes them to put more effort on increasing.


P4 ideal conditions is vague, as long as you can feed them give them attention with adequate shelter, it may be alright. The two major factors correlated with success of the child is the education and financial status of the parent level of the parents. But I think the financial part is mostly beneficial for paying for college, because you could be rich and still a bad parent.


A single child costs AT LEAST $10,000 a year. This does not include the cost of schooling, hospital visits, or holidays. This cost covers food and clothes alone. Very few people who have a child actually stop and think about what this means.


The Fool: putting a price on life is not so simple.


I don't think it's fair to have a child without considering the resources they require.


The Fool: There is no way to tell how many people consider it or not. It much more rational, likely and charitable, that most people consider that. If you consider it, and you have are at the lower part of the social ladder then you should think that most people consider it.


Childbirth is both incredibly dangerous and painful, not to mention extremely costly.


Millions of women die EVERY SINGLE YEAR doing this. It may be what the body was made for, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or costly.


The Fool: we have been over finance, I don’t know think the deaths are even close to that high, I am sure this is mostly in vary undeveloped countries in the word. Death is not something woman in most of the world have to worry about. Pain comes, and it sucks but it goes. Live goes on. I think woman are strong enough.


There are already plenty of children, already alive, who need loving families. Bringing another child into the world without even a moment's consideration for these children is more than selfish- it is absolutely callous. There are too many unwanted children in the world already to go making more.


The Fool: do you really think people don't have moment's consideration? Really? More than selfish? So like so selfish that its altruistic? So that is good isn’t it. ;)


Yes.


The Fool: If I am to take you word for word it would be a ridiculous statement. You would be saying that everybody in the world doesn’t even think about having a child. Not even the thought of recognizing they are pregnant. I think it’s fair to say you are more than exaggerating. ;)


There are almost 7 BILLION people in the world, and while it's easy to think, "Well there's plenty of room in Wisconsin. Why doesn't everyone just move there?" the problem isn't space, it's resources. There simply isn't enough food and water to go around, and adding another mouth to feed isn't going to resolve the situation.


The Fool: Empty stats are not enough to suffice as important information. In the sense that 1000 points means nothing if you don’t know what it’s out of, or how others scored. The Fool: that is a bit random. It's an issue but it's not that easy, they would need welfare and then jobs. And the less educated may hamper the system. It may decrease the efficiency of a society.


it isn't about the system. It's about natural resources. We don't have enough of them. By 2072, it is predicted that there won't be enough freshwater to go around.


The Fool: I am aware of those issues, but like I said even if we only had one child each it would still chop the population in half. So any argument against having no children will not suffice. Again like before


It's not until they're arguing with their spouse that they realize that they had never thought about corporal punishment before, or how they would handle the sex questions their three-year-old is throwing their way.


The Fool: I don’t see how this is related to the irresponsibility have having children. And it’s impossible to support this claim.


It's incredibly common in America. These are real issues that people still need to think about, and, more importantly, DISCUSS. My point here is that couples don't TALK TO EACHOTHER before having a child, and that's a problem.


The Fool: lol I DON’T THINK YOU EVEN REALIZE HOW OFFENSIVE THAT JUST WAS. LOL, BUT I WILL LET IT SLIDE.


I certainly don’t think they are not real issues or they wouldn’t exist. You are not saying anything about how common it is that people don’t talk about it. Obviously it’s a ridiculous claim to all couples in the world don’t talk. That is not even argumentatively defendable.


There are better issues to be considered as irresponsible before we have to make any general claims about having children. For now, I don’t think if fair yet to say that people are irresponsible for have children. In fact it would have to really be drastic to find any justification that that. The speed of increase is not that high in developed countries. We need to be more responsible with getting educated; America is doing very poorly on that measure. And they need to do it
Debate Round No. 3
Riza_Rosette

Pro

The Fool, I simply refuse to argue semantics with you.

Roughly 1 in every 2 pregnancies in America is unplanned.

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org...

My opponent states:
even if it is by accident it doesn’t mean they is will turn out bad, like I said it may turn out for the better. It may be positive on the parents; it often makes them more mature. And this maturity causes them to put more effort on increasing.”

As I said before, this is about the children, not the parents. People need to mature BEFORE they have children, not afterwards.

ideal conditions is vague, as long as you can feed them give them attention with adequate shelter, it may be alright. The two major factors correlated with success of the child is the education and financial status of the parent level of the parents. But I think the financial part is mostly beneficial for paying for college, because you could be rich and still a bad parent.”

“may be alright” isn’t good enough. If we truly care about the children in question, then we should be feeding the best quality food available.
The money isn’t just about paying for college. It’s about keeping the lights and hot water on in the house they live in. It’s about being able to pay for something other than ramen noodles for dinner (which has next to no nutritional value).

Yes, you could be rich and be a bad parent. But not being able to provide for your child makes you a bad parent by definition.

"There is no way to tell how many people consider it or not. It much more rational, likely and charitable, that most people consider that. If you consider it, and you have are at the lower part of the social ladder then you should think that most people consider it."

I contend that
If most people thought about it, then less people would have children.

"we have been over finance, I don’t know think the deaths are even close to that high, I am sure this is mostly in vary undeveloped countries in the word. Death is not something woman in most of the world have to worry about. Pain comes, and it sucks but it goes. Live goes on. I think woman are strong enough."

I never said where, and your statements are pure speculation.

“Pain comes, and it sucks but it goes. Life goes on.”
What a callous thing to say. It's as if my opponent simply refuses to connect with the suffering of other women.

The Fool: do you really think people don't have moment's consideration? Really? More than selfish? So like so selfish that its altruistic? So that is good isn’t it. ;)

Yes.”

It is callous to realize that there are 523,000 children in foster care in America alone. Over 119,000 are waiting to be adopted. So yes, it is absolutely cold, callous, and selfish to see these numbers, and want to make your own. These statistics, combined with human overpopulation are reason enough to see that having a child is an incredibly irresponsible decision.
http://answers.yahoo.com...

Also, (and I hope that the readers realize this) but my opponent clearly quote-mined me here. I asked for a respectful debate, but I guess I’ll let this slide.

"I am aware of those issues, but like I said even if we only had one child each it would still chop the population in half. So any argument against having no children will not suffice.”

Chopping the population in half would be a huge improvement

I thank my opponent for her... Emotional responses. And I urge readers to vote Pro.













The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
What's the purpose of sex? To have children. Therefore, if you don't want children, DONT HAVE SEX!
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
This is stupid. If you don't want children, DON'T HAVE SEX!
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
To call somebody or some act irresponsible is to assert a negative connotation to the person or matter.

To say they are lesser for doing so. And even that they should not.

I don't think any of my opponents claims are less them extreme exaggerations. They are things to consider. But none really being defendable in the form that they have been presented.

There are fundamental equalities that all life shares, that is motivation to survive and insure the success of its progeny. That is we live forever through our children and so we could never really expect it from somebody to not want the same destiny. There may be benefits to society for doing so. But this right is and individual one. That is pre-society. We may not like or think it wrong. But no matter in the end we always obliged to say that we understand.
just think
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
What is going on there? a rigged vote.??
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
lol Religion. ???????????
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
ahh. I posted it here instead.. loll
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
To call somebody or some act irresponsible is to assert a negative connotation to the person or matter.

To say they are lesser for doing so. And even that they should not.

I don't think any of my opponents claims are less them extreme exaggerations. They are things to consider. But none really being defendable in the form that they have been presented.

There are fundamental equalities that all life shares, that is motivation to survive and insure the success of its progeny. That is we live forever through our children and so we could never really expect it from somebody to not want the same destiny. There may be benefits to society for doing so. But this right is and individual one. That is pre-society. We may not like or think it wrong. But no matter in the end we always obliged to say that we understand.
just think!
Posted by Riza_Rosette 5 years ago
Riza_Rosette
Duolos,
Of course, the human population will never actually die out. There's too many of us. But if even if everyone would have only one child (cutting the population in half) it would be a huge improvement. There would be more jobs and resources for everyone, and more children would be adopted (because there would be fewer of our own).

I have yet to find a debate that isn't opinion- after all, what's the point in arguing scientific or mathematical fact?

Also, it's not about luxuries as much as it about basic necessities, such as food, rent, hot water and electricity.
Posted by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
Though there can be complications with pregnancy to call it "incredibly dangerous" is overkill. The focal point of your argument seems to be finance/resources. Some people are willing to make sacrifices of previous luxuries to have a child, does that make them irresponsible of course not. Simply because values differ does not make someone irresponsible. In regards of resources and over population. Are you suggesting the population needs to die out before we can have children? You're argument seems to be mere opinion to be terrifically honest.
Posted by Riza_Rosette 5 years ago
Riza_Rosette
I assure you, Doulos1202, that I have put a great deal of thought into this.
I realize that my stance is an unpopular one.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
Riza_RosetteThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I disagree with Pro's stance, she was the only one to formulate an argument.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Riza_RosetteThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did really badly in this debate....I'm just saying.... I mean Pro was arguing in ALL circumstances it is irresponsible to have children. All Con had to do was find one circumstance where it would be responsible to have children. Con failed to do this....and Con also forfeited....since Pro's arguments were not actually refuted by Con in any logical manner, the resolution is upheld.
Vote Placed by Blithe 5 years ago
Blithe
Riza_RosetteThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: This debate was rather odd. I strongly disagree with Pro, but she her arguments made more sense, at least—visually. Con's were kind of all over the place, and didn't correctly refute Pro. And then Con brought religion into it in round 2 when that had nothing to do with it. Overall I think the debate goes to Pro for the presentation.