The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
thethickgreyline
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts

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: 7/3/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,680 times Debate No: 8865
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Michael Jackson's recent demise was premature and unexpected. Indeed, he was due to embark upon a series of concerts at London's O2 Arena next week. At this this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers must be with those people who have suffered a tragic loss of money as a result of his untimely death.

As you may know, Jackson passed away over $400 million in debt, so his assets will be auctioned off to the highest bidder in order to help discharge this vast financial liability.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Unbelievably though, nobody has yet suggested that the three pet children Jackson ordered to be specially bred for him should be included in the sale. These are 12-year-old Michael Joseph "Prince" Jackson Jr., 11-year-old Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and 7-year-old Prince Michael II Jackson.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Now, before you think that these children should be exempt from the sale, please consider the facts: nobody knows who his pet kid's biological parents are but Michael Jackson certainly wasn't their father and, furthermore, he never legally adopted them. Therefore, they are not his legitimate children, they are merely play things that he bought and paid for.

http://www.tmz.com...
http://www.tmz.com...

It is morally imperative that the people that lent Jackson cash in good faith should get their money back and his pet children should be treated in the same manner as his other assets in order to minimise his creditors' losses.

The inclusion of Jackson's pet children in the auction could attract wealthy bidders from around the world. Interested parties might include homosexuals who are ineligible to adopt, Arab sheiks looking for child camel jockeys and drug-addicted, middle-aged pop stars with severe mental health problems and kiddies' fairground rides in their back gardens who are in the market for young children to share their beds with.

Now, while his pets might not fetch enough to cover all his debts, every penny helps and I therefore affirm that Jackson's kids should be put up for auction along with all his other possessions.

Thank you.
thethickgreyline

Con

Thank you for bringing such a ridiculous debate to what is usually a serious site.

I will use my first round to make a serious argument against the idiotic notion of selling children to satisfy debts and my second as my opponent wishes it. As a big joke.

1. Jackson's kids should not be auctioned off as they are human beings, not his property and cannot be a financial asset.

2. The legitimacy of whether he fathered his kids or not is not an issue as even if he didn't nobody can own, sell or buy a human being.

3. Jackson's assets are greater than his debts by an estimated $500,000,000 so selling his kids would be sick and pointless.

4. You cannot own a person. Slavery and the trade of human beings is illegal, morally wrong and I find the fact that you can even consider this, completely ridiculous.

5. Imaging if you were a child and I sold you to the highest bidder. Would you like that? No.

Now that I have won this debate I will use my next round as a stupid joke round like my opponent wants.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks to thethickgreyline for taking on this debate and for correctly discerning that it is meant to be 'ridiculous'. But then, isn't that appropriate given Michael Jackson's life? Nevertheless, the welfare of his children is a serious concern and, in the light of this, I would like to address his points as follows:

1. I accept that buying humans is not morally permissible, but that is what Jackson in effect did when he paid enormous sums of money to unscrupulous doctors, sperm and egg donors and surrogate mothers to breed his kids for him. Consider this, if he was just an ordinary single man (suspected paedophile or not) the authorities would never let him obtain children in this manner - and neither would they allow him to adopt. He wanted free access to children (for whatever reason) and since he couldn't have them naturally his solution to the problem was to throw vast sums of money at it. Personally, I don't know how he got away with it. He shouldn't have done, but like so many other of his repugnant antics, he did.

2. It is true that in the United States it is illegal to trade in human beings but the Jackson kids have spent much of their young lives abroad. There is no reason why the executors of Jackson's estate couldn't persuade them to jump onto a private plane which would then fly them to somewhere like Somalia, where there is no functioning government and no law enforcement agencies and where people trafficking is rife. This type of location would make an ideal venue for the auction.

https://www.cia.gov...

3. If my opponent's source is correct and Jackson's assets are greater than his liabilities then the auction will not be necessary and those kids will then have to either live with a woman that rented out her womb and who disowned them saying "I knowingly and voluntarily waive my right to contest Michael's paternity" and "They are not my children, I have no rights over them" or Jackson's elderly parents who have a history of violence against children. Not much of a choice is it? They may as well take their chances and go with the highest bidder in Mogadishu.

http://news.sky.com...

4. I refer the voters to the response I made in the paragraph above last.

5. I agree that I wouldn't like to be auctioned as a child, unless of course my 'dad' liked to dangle me me out of upper storey windows and who invited other boys round for sleepovers, not for me to play with but him, and who wouldn't tell me who my mum was and who made me wear a mask when I went out and who was high on drugs half the time and who was always in and out of court accused of child molestation and who got us kicked out of our house because he couldn't pay the bills, in which case I think I'd put myself up for sale.

In conclusion, the Jackson kids have suffered very disturbing and abusive childhoods, they deserve better now that the man that had them bred to satisfy his own nefarious desires has passed away.

Thank you.
thethickgreyline

Con

I think we all realise that michael jackson had some SERIOUS problems, even more than most celelbrities face at one stage or another. I mean comeon the guy looked ghoulish to say the least and was not a fan of being black. Id also like to add that I hate it when people say that he did so much for black people when he tried so hard to look like a white woman. Whats up with everyone loving him so much after his death. The guy was a psycho, he constantly did crazy stuff and overdosed on drugs. Its funny how your a saint after you die.

I feel sorry for his kids who were probobly abused by Jackson and scarred by the odd life he sturctured for them which involved wearing masks and dangling from windows. I hope these kids are confidentially adopted by a loving family so they have a chance at a normal life.

To sum up
1. Selling children is morally wrong and inhumane
2. You say the children deserve a better life since Jackson has passed away, yet you are argueing for selling them to the highest bidder who could be even worse then Michael Jackson, could you contradict yourself any more?
3. My opponent has agreed that the Auction is unnecesary as Jacksons assets are greater than his liabilities. Therefore no one would be better off if michael Jacksons kids were sold except maybe the guy who buys and then rapes them.
4. It has been reported that michael Jackson ate puppies.
5. My opponent claims put in the kids situation he would put himself up for sale. I put it to my opponent that he must really enjoyed getting raped by Saudi princes and other nefarious acts because people who buy children dont have good deeds in mind.

Vote Pro, because i rock.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Those kids wouldn't be alive in the first place if it wasn't for modern fertility techniques - they were conceived in vitro, that is outside the womb, which wasn't possible until fairly recently and is hugely expensive.

Every day they are alive is a day more than nature intended - if they have got any problems with being people trafficked they could kill themselves and still be well up on the deal.

Just think of all the potential children that were never born because their would-be parents couldn't afford expensive fertility treatments.

That said, the whole concept is, of course, a joke!
Posted by JohnGotti 7 years ago
JohnGotti
so Brian, your insisting on human trafficking? quite odd
Posted by thethickgreyline 7 years ago
thethickgreyline
I got the information on Jacksons assets and liabilities from this site http://www.dailyfinance.com...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I still can not accept...

Your age regulations are tyranny.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I was so gonna take this until I realized I would have to negate. And your age critera.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
I'm a mature minor.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Sorry about that...I have now amended the minimum age to 18.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria."

Dang.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"I'm in the habit of adding an age restriction to debates because I don't want to be accused of playing with minors!">

I'm not a minor, and I can't accept it.
Posted by EmyG 7 years ago
EmyG
Are you aware that they aren't even his kids?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
brian_egglestonthethickgreylineTied
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 patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
brian_egglestonthethickgreylineTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Osiris 7 years ago
Osiris
brian_egglestonthethickgreylineTied
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 JonathanCid 7 years ago
JonathanCid
brian_egglestonthethickgreylineTied
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 youngpolitic 7 years ago
youngpolitic
brian_egglestonthethickgreylineTied
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 KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
brian_egglestonthethickgreylineTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43