The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Kids should not grow up with their parents.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Masterful has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 100928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




This should be interesting.

The standard model of "family" is outdated, and impractical.

I propose a system where the top percentiles of performers in each discipline (mathimatics, sports, art, mechanics, etc.) are the only people allowed to procreate, and ALL children are raised in more of a boarding school type of environment where they are taught EVERYTHING, giving them the ability to choose their own paths through life.

Once kids choose a path, they work in their field, trying to be the best in their field so they can procreate. Creating an end result of an elevated society of more and more capable people. Simultaneously, freeing people from the distraction of kids allowing them to work harder in their disciplines.

Now I don't want to argue about my system I just described, its obviously not thoroughly thought out. But I needed to atleast give an example of a different system that would be feasible to contrast our current system where parents have kids whilly-nilly, regardless of financial capability, and lacking in gene pool monitoring. Parents also are in general not always the greatest teachers and influences to give kids the absolute best shot at being successful, and instead a lot of times are hindered by their upbringing far into their adult life.

Con should try to prove that kids growing up with their parents is still the best way to raise a child.

1. be respectable
2. No NEW arguments in final round

I've basically left this open for anyone

March boldly into battle.


I think you've given an interesting system that sounds good on paper, but is ultimately flawed.

You state-
"I propose a system where the top percentiles of performers in each discipline (mathimatics, sports, art, mechanics, etc.) are the only people allowed to procreate"

What you're suggesting is that only people who excel academically can breed, in order to better the human race.
It's normally people who suffer from autism that excel at one particular subject, so your idea would only breed a new generation of super autists.
This is called selective breeding and we do it in animals, such as dog. The problem with selective breeding is that you're limiting the gene pool and forgetting other very important traits, such as health.
I think you'd be hard pressed to remove children from their parents in order to have them breed selectively with other children. It has a creepy dystopian feel to it, so good luck gaining support for that idea. I’m sure it would work, but people don’t want to gain scientific advancement at the expense of their children.

A few reasons to keep children with their family-

1) Having a proper family is important for children. Many children love their parents and being around them makes them happy, parents can be key motivators for children.

2) While in school, it’s important that children feel a sense of belonging and comfort, especially while trying difficult tasks, such as exams.

3) Children are dependent on their parents to raise them, without parental guidance children will be lost.

4) How will children get the affection they crave? No teacher at a boarding school can give the emotional support a mother can.

Even if you could convince the children that leaving their parents is a good thing, how could you convince the mother to give away her child for scientific exploit?

As you said, people are having children “Willy-nilly” but if overpopulation is your concern then you should consider a different approach.

Debate Round No. 1


I am suggesting that not just people who excel academically get to reproduce, but those who excel as people. Whatever the field may be, Art, Music, Aircraft flight, etc. Those that are at the top of their respective discipline would hold the privilege of continuing their lineage.

I understand that a great artist may not give birth to another great artist. I would not be limiting the gene pool too much because those at the top of their respective fields are free to mate with anyone else in the top of any other field. Further, All children will still have the opportunity to engage in any field they believe they can excel in.

Yes, I would be extremely hard pressed to find real life support for such a system. It would require a huge change in our social dynamic, or a slow social evolution. Its more of a thought experiment.

There is no inherent reason why kids HAVE to have their perceived parents involved in their growth through life. I think I described my dystopian future a little too disconnected. I don't think kids should live like Vulcans, devoid of emotional satisfaction. I think something boarding school-like would be effective, but nothing like we have today. Kids could be lumped in groups of maybe 20 (but that number could fluctuate based on age) and that would be a "family" with rotating guardians. Also kids would be free to intermingle and make friends in other families. but lumping kids in 20's would require fewer parents overall, because they could be handled by two adults at any given time.

This would overall free up the time of "parents" since raising kids becomes more of a 9-5 kind of a job, instead of 24/7 (obviously night shifts would be needed to make sure kids are always under supervision). This ultimately allowing adults to have ample spare time to further their own lives, without the stress of 24/7 responsibility of kids. All "parents" would be trained to raise kids in the best ways we are aware of, and the rotation of "parents" creates a sort of checks and balances system.

Over-population is not the concern. The concern is that we are already as a species beginning down a path of diverging evolution. The illiterate are breeding faster than the intellectual because smarter people tend to understand their financial capabilities and time constraints better than those with lower IQ's. Thus are having fewer kids overall. Extrapolate that out to the future and you end up with a population with an overwhelmingly small intellectual pool. (kind of like we already do, lol)

Something has to be done about the fact that more and more kids are being raised in hostile environments. You've said a lot about how parents are needed for emotional satisfaction. However in a lot of situations, parents are actually the cause of emotional distress. Todays parents aren't trained in raising kids, and are doing it poorly.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Skeptologist 1 year ago
there haven't been any studies on "no parents"
that would be unethical.
studies say you should have both parents with our current system for family, but these studies would not translate to a new system for family.
Family is the way it is now because of culture, not science.
Posted by Dirty-Morgs 1 year ago
someone is mad at their parents also love "super autists" the family is very important to life in fact university studies say you are more likely to be successful if you have both parents not one or no parents you need both
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.