The Instigator
Its-you-or-me
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
daboss
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

It is justified to sterilize citizens with below average intelligence

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,850 times Debate No: 8124
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

Its-you-or-me

Pro

I would like to mention to my opponent that he/she please do an LD style format becase that is what this debate is.

"Those at the lower levels of society - those who are not able to manage even the simplest tasks and often not their children - should be dissuaded from having children. "Professor Helmuth Nyborg

Resolved: It is justified to sterilize citizens with below average intelligence.

V: Societal Welfare-The well being of a society in matters of health, safety, order, and economics

VC: Utilitarianism-The greatest good for the greatest amount of people

Definitions

Justified-To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

Sterilize-To deprive (a person or an animal) of the ability to produce offspring, as by removing the reproductive organs.

Citizen-an inhabitant of a city or town

Intelligence- the ability to understand, learn, and think things out quickly

Before I go into my contentions I would like to offer an observation of the resolution. When talking of below average intelligence we need something to base it off, to measure it by. The only thing we can do so is by the IQ test. According to the average IQ score of the U.S. it is 98. So anything below 98 is below average.

Contention 1-People with below average intelligence can not properly take care of a child.
A) We all know that children learn best by first observing what they experience. Then they imitate what they observe. They practice what they have observed or experienced. Imitation is the natural way we learn. If the Adult with below average intelligence didn't care for school the parent isn't going to push his child to either and then his child is going to take on the mentality of "School is not important". Also the adult would care more for its needs than the child's. If the adult does not care enough to push the child to care for school then it wouldn't care about the child's lifestyle. Since it would not care about school would become a nuisance to society by either joining a gang or becoming affiliated with crime. By sterilizing B.A.I. adults they won't pass on the same personality traits that they had and eventually leading to better test scores in school and safety.

B) People with below average intelligence will most likely be abusive. The type of jobs that below average intelligence people can maintain range between Factory worker and Machine operator. Now being on a low-income job usually brings hardships in American families. It is shown that child abuse and neglect has long noted an association between low-income and poverty status. This will leave the child with psychological problems, which would lead them to Complete less schooling, Having physical health problems that interfere with their job, and also mental health problems that interfere with their job. What this seems to be is a very vicious cycle going on. In order to stop that we need to sterilize them so their could be no child to abuse and their could be no child to have problems in society do develop leaving them unable to solve the most easiest situations eventually leading them down the path of the parents. Doing both these things will not only better society but also it will be doing it in the needs of the greatest good.

Con 2: Sterilizing people with B.A.I. with will, with time, lower crime. A study done by Robert Goldman shows that people with low IQ are associated with crimes such as stealing and lying etc. It is also mentioned that low IQ increases criminal behavior. By sterilizing people with a low IQ they couldn't have a child to introduce into that lifestyle. In my fist contention Sub-A, I mentioned that children learn by imitation, so if they see that the adult is committing felonies and that's all they know, that is all the child will know. So if we were to sterilize them crime would then, not go away, but decrease. This would better society in safety for the greatest good.
daboss

Con

CASE
"why can't we just all get along" - Rodney King
and because i agree that we should all be able to live together without having to turn to different meassures i rise to oppose the following resolution

Resolved: It is justified to sterilize citizens with below average intelligence

V:Justice
VC:Kant's categorical imperative

I agreee with all the affirmatives definitions

I also agree with his standard for intelligencce

cont. 1 - IQ's are not passed on from generation to generation
A. how smart someone is is not encrypted into their d.n.a it is based soley on the fact of how much they learn as they grow up.

cont 2- sterlizing citizens is against kants categorical imperative which is the only way to measure morality.
A.kant describes his categorical imperative as a standard or law governing our behavior. a categorical imperative sees the act as good in itself and of nothing it produces. so a categorical imperative is true no matter what.

AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
A.DISCURSIVE
he stated that someone with below average IQ cannot properly take care of a child and i argue discursive because that is a HUGE steryotype, there was no proof backing this up, and you cannot pass personality traits by genes. possibly by actions but why sould someone just because they have a below average IQ score act differently

B.IQ's being so low they will most likely be abusive
this statement might prove that they have trouble coping with certain issues but it was proven that doctors and architects ahve a higher chance of committing suicide than a lower middle class person does.

C. Lower crime
it will not lower crime it will stay at hte exact same point because the IQ level will slowly rise and rise until they're sterilizing citizens with IQ's higher than Einstiens.

D. Value
his value is societal welfare but that could also fall under justice because it is justified to have a well being of a society in matters of health, safety, order, and economics

E. Value Criterion
Kant's categorical imperative is the only way to prove what is right and what is wrong and utilitarianism although it might be good for the greatest amount of people.. through the categorical imperative it is good for EVERYONE.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
Its-you-or-me

Pro

Thank you boss for accepting this debate and good luck in next rounds. I will first begin by attacking my opponents case and moving on to defend mine.

His value of Justice. He Just says justice. Doesn't define what is being wronged or if something is wrong and needs justice. It is very unclear. Same with Kant's categorical imperative which I will elaborate later in my case.

Con 1- "it's are not passed on from generation to generation
A. how smart someone is is not encrypted into their d.n.a it is based soley on the fact of how much they learn as they grow up." While this may be true, I mentioned in my Contentions that the actions of an child will be Learned from the Low IQ parent. Whatever caused the parent to have a low IQ, the child will learn the same type of lifestyle by imitation.
Since that is all that the parent knew that will be all that the child will know, as I said in my contentions.

cont 2- "sterlizing citizens is against kants categorical imperative which is the only way to measure morality.
A.kant describes his categorical imperative as a standard or law governing our behavior. a categorical imperative sees the act as good in itself and of nothing it produces. so a categorical imperative is true no matter what." Well they way you put Kant's C.I.P. it is justifying what I'm achieving this is out of good for society to lower child abuse and crime. So in the sense you put it in yes I'm doing good for society and therefore I don't go against Kant.

Defense-Attack on Con1 sub A) "pass personality traits by genes"-true but they can be learned by the child.
Attack on Con1 sub B) "this statement might prove that they have trouble coping with certain issues but it was proven that doctors and architects ahve a higher chance of committing suicide than a lower middle class person does."-Statement is irrelevant. Doctors and architects have a higher IQ than 98 so they are excluded from this debate.

Value-No it can't you just described Societal welfare.
VC-While he says he is bringing good towards everyone he is not because he is still allowing child abuse to rise and crime rates to rise so utili is better than Kant's C.I.P.

Thank you
daboss

Con

ARGUMENTS
1)IQ's aren't passed by genes
I understand that in your first speech you stated its by imitation. In that argument i was just making sure everything was clear.

2)Kant's categorical imperative
clearly he doesn't understand the categorical imperative so i will better try to explain it. it is pretty much saying that it is wrong or it is right, right then at that exact moment it doesn't matter of what it produces. say if for example your friend was dying. killing him would be against kants categorical imperative even if you thought it was the best for him in the long run.

3)Doctors and architects
Doctors and architects do stand ground in this because they have alot higher suicide rate than the average person with a below average IQ. so therefore you will actually be increasing crime if you get rid of the below average.

4)Value
Justice is defined as - "the quality of being just or fair" -- to be just or fair you have to have the social welfare so since justice can uphold social welfare then it should be tooken over the social welfare.

5)Value Criterion
I'm not bringing towards more child abuse or higher crime rates as i showed in my third point he is and so he just helped my case

NEW ARGUMENTS
1)Imitation
He said that people learn from imitation but people can also learn positively from imitation. if my dad beats me and i don't like that chances are that i won't beat my kids so i will be an overall better father than he was to me.

2)Discursive
he has still not argued my discursive argument so it also still stands in the round

3)IQ's will slowly rise
He did not answer this argument either so it still stands.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
Its-you-or-me

Pro

Its-you-or-me forfeited this round.
daboss

Con

Clearly he forfitted the last round but i would like to touch on some voting issues

1)Line-By-Line
I argued everything he said with in my opinion at least legitimate arguments.

2)Values
He didn't argue against my value

3)Criterion
He didn't argue against my criterion.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by baggins 8 years ago
baggins
I found the topic shocking! Wasn't eugenics supported by the same arguements?

It reminds me of an Urdu couplet

Isse pahle aadmi ki itni bekadri na thee
Sochta hai aadmi ki aadmi ka kya kare

(Humanity was not so undervalued earlier / Mankind is thinkng what to do with mankind)
(Translation - mine)
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Intelligence isn't 100% genetic. 'Nuff said.
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
The resolution made me laugh out loud. Favorite'd.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Its-you-or-medabossTied
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:13 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
Its-you-or-medabossTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
Its-you-or-medabossTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Its-you-or-medabossTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
Its-you-or-medabossTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by daboss 8 years ago
daboss
Its-you-or-medabossTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07