The Instigator
Spunkyasp
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Koopin
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Limit of amount of children per couple

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Koopin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,310 times Debate No: 10440
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Spunkyasp

Pro

This is my first debate on this website, so feel free to correct my mistakes. One topic that I have strongly felt about is limiting the amount of children a couple can have. Before getting straight to the point, I would like my opponent to take some things into consideration. In America, we are struggling with a bad economy and limited labor availability. Thousands of people are fired from work daily, and they are left helpless in the world. It is very hard to find a job once you are fired, and if you have a family what will you do? Most people blame illegal immigrants for taking our jobs, but that's not the case. They might be illegal, but they are hard working and they have the jobs that most of us won't even want. If we would want jobs like this, their are tons of them available in local fast food places. Even if we deport all the illegal immigrants, we will only realize that we have ourselves to blame. Today, the world is filled with envy and greed, people just stopped working together. Americas poor relations with other countries has caused the bad economy. We are in debt, and for what? This all brings me to my point. Overpopulation is a big issue in America. I understand that other countries such as China have 3x the population as we do. But we must think about the future generations that will be ahead of us. How will our children survive in such chaos? With so many children being born, just imagine what they will have to deal with when they are grown up. There is always a chance some of them will have no jobs, no food, and their own kids to feed. Most people aren't prepared for job loss, and then it hits them. Companies only fire their employees because they have to cope with this economy as well. If Americans keep on having as many kids as they do now, only God knows what will happen in the future.
Koopin

Con

Thank you for starting this debate, you picked hard subject to argue for your first debate.

First I would like to state the obvious, the moment we let the government tell us how many children can be in our family is the moment we give up our freedom.
Already the Government has so much power. They can start a war, they can raise taxes, they could even legalize meth if they wanted to.
Why would someone want to let the government control their families?
It is also against the bill of rights to let the government have that power. The ninth amendment says:

Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Secondly, I noticed that you are against abortion. If someone has three children and gets pregnant again they will have to either put their own child up for adoption, or terminate their baby.
The rate of abortions will hit the roof if there was a limit.

I will save the rest for round two.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Spunkyasp

Pro

I understand that you believe that the government has to much power over what we do. However, they hardly ever use their powers, and if they do violate our freedoms at least we will be better off in the long run. I'm sure if we sit down and realize that overpopulation is harming both us and future generations we will take this into consideration. I'm not saying to limit the amount of children to 1 like in China. I believe that 3 children is enough for a household, anything more than that is unreasonable. Lets say someone has 4 children and loses their jobs the next day. How will they feet their children? In such an unstable economy, things such as this should be taken into consideration by our citizens. Even if this is taking our freedoms away, we will soon realize this was done for the greater good. I mean why do these children have to suffer with starvation, its not their fault. If we sit down and think, we won't be missing out in life by getting this freedom taken away. I'm sure 3 children is more than enough for someone to satisfy their needs of enjoyment of life. Most of us don't know what we're expecting when we have a child, and most of us aren't prepared for things such as job loss. As far as my views on abortion, I never found it fair because you can always prevent having the child in the first place. Just use condoms and birth control during sex. I'm not completely against abortion, if the person was forced into having the child then it is fair to have an abortion. However, the reckless abortions these days are not fair neither to the child of to the mother.
Koopin

Con

Thank you for your next post.

You say that the just because the government has power does not mean they will use it.
So does that mean we should let the government raid our houses if they want? Or what about letting them put our kids in any school they wish?
The government could use it, that is the point.
You also said this ‘And if they do violate our freedoms at least we will be better off in the long run.'
Excuse me if this sounds rude, but you kind of sound like a citizen of a communist country. Our founding fathers said that if there is one thing to keep in America, it is our freedom. You also did not comment on the ninth amendment. Are you going against that?

Over population is not hurting us to the point where we need to limit our families.
If you are talking about running out of room, America still has lots and lots of acres.
If you are talking about jobs, the more people, the more businesses.
More than three children to you may seem unreasonable, but not everyone thinks as you do.

So you think that it is better for a child to not have a life at all then risking a life of being poor? Wow.
I am the third child of my family and have a brother who is the forth. We had nothing in the bank, but always had food to eat, there are many programs and people out there to help. So just because we hit rock bottom did not make my mother wish that she did not have my little brother. We are doing just fine now, and he is still here.
We can not let chances take away our freedom.

You claim that people can always (note the always) prevent having a child.
There are many reasons why that is not true. Condoms do not guaranty that pregnancies will not happen. Sperm can get through the holes that condoms have.
It is the same thing with birth control, it is not a promise. There are many people out there who think that killing a baby is wrong. So they would also be very angry.

In China, there are a lot of abortions because people want to have boys. It has been going on for awhile now. But now China faces a problem, there are a lot more boy children then there are girls. If they keep doing this at the rate they are going, it will be hard to get married. There will be a lot more rape crimes in the future. Why would we want to bring that here?

Also, what if someone had four, but had to put the last one up for adoption. That kid would grow up sad because he or she was ripped away for his or her family. It would be cruel and unusual.

There is so much I can go on about but I will save the rest for later.

Sources:
(1). http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
(2). http://archive.newsmax.com...
(3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4). http://www.watchblog.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Spunkyasp

Pro

We may not have issues right now but I am talking about future generations ahead. I believe you do not understand what exactly I am trying to say. I know that the government can do whatever the wish, but they don't. I don't mean that this limit should be enforced as harshly as in China, but overpopulation is slowly becoming a large issue for us all. Lets first take into consideration the fresh water crisis. The world as it is is VERY low on fresh water. Desalination systems are too costly yet fresh water is on a minimum. Just imagine what will happen by 2050 if the world continues to grow. In America alone, the government has predicted that the population will rise to at least 500 Million people by 2050 in America. Now imagine what our water supply will look like then. Now, lets talk about energy. Considering that non-renewable energy is being harshly drained by the second, what do you think will happen when the country is overpopulated? Renewable energy is too costly in order to be used, and even if we begin deploying renewable energy we will be too late. I think that taking away a minor freedom is better than going back to the dark ages. Lastly, take a look at the money that is being drained from the government. A majority of illegal immigrants and other people have over 5 children, and request welfare for all of them. Not only does this create overpopulation, but it drains loads of money from our government. You say that programs are available to people with starving children, but these programs exactly are the ones which are increasing our debt. It all adds up, and the final number is breathtaking. I completely understand that there is no problem now, but if you run the numbers you will see what will happen in the future if this continues. I have more to say but I will first wait for your reply. Also as a side note, you shouldn't be taking this debate personally. It's a debate so if your not up for it nobody is forcing you to continue. Every person has their own opinion and I am willing to share mine with the public. Also, I am the 2nd out of 6 children in my family, so I know how you feel.
Koopin

Con

There is not much that needs to be said, seeing that I have already made my point, and you have still failed to answer the big question.

You are contradicting yourself, in round two you said:
"I'm sure if we sit down and realize that overpopulation is harming both (US) and future generations we will take this into consideration. "

Then you go on and say: "We may not have issues right now but I am talking about future generations ahead."
Please stick to what you say.
It is not fair to go back on what you say because then I have nothing to argue against.

Cost, cost, cost, you keep talking only about cost. If we take away freedom from our families so we don't have to spend money, what makes us different than computers?
Most true Americans who still want freedom would rather pay for water and electricity then limit there families.

Like I said before, the more people, the more businesses, the more wealth. There is still plenty of space in America.

Again you have failed to answer my question about rights. Do you think that we should go against the Bill of Rights?
It is a simple question.
I have another question to ask you, What do you think should be the penalty? Will they take the child away from the family? Will the parents go to jail?

In no way did I say, or even hint that I would like to drop out of this debate. I was simply using my story as an example.

Even though there is another argument, I believe that I have already won spelling, reliable sources, and conduct. Who has the most convincing argument is up to the audience.

Sources:
(1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Spunkyasp

Pro

Spunkyasp forfeited this round.
Koopin

Con

My opponent must have seen that I was right.

Please vote for me.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
Koopin has bad conduct.
Arrogant and assuming the win while admitting that he/she isn't even trying because "it's so easy".
I agree with Koopin, I just wish he/she had better conduct.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
You know, Spunkyasp: you cannot vote for yourself.
Posted by Spunkyasp 7 years ago
Spunkyasp
IMHO, I'd rather keep the elderly. They deserve our respect, and we owe them a lot.
Posted by retarded-flamingo 7 years ago
retarded-flamingo
Actually, the worlds growing population is because of many factors, not just more babies. We developed better technology to prevent dieseses and the death rate has gone way down compared to one hundred years ago. Plus more babies are born then old people die. And obvisously we are not going to dumb down our technology capabilities, so it's either this Spunkyasp- rob people the freedom of having to many children and have them either watch their baby get sold to someone else or terminate them, or exterminate people when they reach an "elderly" age. Yea. I would just let people give birth to how many babies they want.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Carlosspicey, I see no need really to try here because it is so easy.
Posted by carlosspicey 7 years ago
carlosspicey
Pro is definitely not "Pro"

arguments tl;dr/dc (too long, didn't read or care)

both sides love to beat around the bush
Posted by Spunkyasp 7 years ago
Spunkyasp
Of course its serious. Of course the chances of that happening are very slim, but its a debate.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Spunkyasp, is this serious debate? Do you really believe in taking away rights? lol
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
yeah, but not everyone want to go through that, it would suck.
Posted by carlosspicey 7 years ago
carlosspicey
"If someone has three children and gets pregnant again they will have to either put their own child up for adoption, or terminate their baby.
The rate of abortions will hit the roof if there was a limit."

Well there is also the option that after the third birth, a tubal litigation procedure is performed

(not that i oppose or support the topic, just pointing that out)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Spunkyasp 7 years ago
Spunkyasp
SpunkyaspKoopinTied
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 Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
SpunkyaspKoopinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
SpunkyaspKoopinTied
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