The Instigator
Killer542
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
FlashFire
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Most Children are parasites

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: 6/5/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,884 times Debate No: 8538
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Killer542

Pro

Definitions:
Children: anyone the age of 12 or under
Most: more than 50%
Parasite: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.(definition of parasite is from dictionary.com)

Children clearly demonstrate the the meaning of parasite. They live with thier parents, they go to school at no cost to them, they eat for free, they get free transportation, as well as any number of other benefits, without giving anything tangible in return. In short, they live on the hospitality of others.
FlashFire

Con

I accept Pro's definitions. I'll take your word for it that you got those of dictionary.com, but I think that the definitions of useful and proper would be helpful to my argument, so I will give those definitions.

Useful(1): Being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Proper(1): Adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Now on to my counters/actual arguments.

Counter Point 1:
"Children clearly demonstrate the the meaning of parasite. They live with thier parents....."

Yes, they (assuming you mean children) do, but they are useful to their parents. It is common practice for children that are above the age of five to do chores for their parents. That qualifies as "being of service". Even if the child is under or is age five, doing something as simple as putting a toy away could pass as "being of service".

I'm sure most parents have said "Bobby, when you're done playing with that toy, please put it back." That would be advantageous because it would give the parent more space, and the parent wouldn't have to worry about stepping on it and hurting their foot, or just being plain annoyed. I'll add more to this next round if I need to.

Counter Point 2:
".....they go to school at no cost to them....."

True, but most parents still get something out of it. Besides basic education (which is important, don't get me wrong), school provides discipline. Whether it be home school, private, or public school, discipline is still taught. With a more disciplined child than before schools, a parent doesn't have to worry about a child's bad behavior as much. Besides, public schools don't cost anything, and so most children go to a public school.

If a child didn't get an education, imagine the trouble they would cause. They wouldn't be useful when looking for a job, because of virtually no qualifications, so their parents would have to wait on them. They also wouldn't be able to follow basic commands.

Counter Point 3:
"they eat for free"

Yes, but you can't expect a child to get their own money. An adolescent could get money from a job, but a child is prohibited from working by law. Food and drink are needed to sustain human life, and so if a child was not fed they would never get an education, get a job, etc. The children are still "of service" at this point, see counter points one and two.

Counter Point 4:
"they get free transportation, as well as any number of other benefits, without giving anything tangible in return. In short, they live on the hospitality of others."

Transportation is needed to get from place to place, which ties into education, food, etc. Which also ties into service, as you can see from the other counter points.

The "anything tangible in return" part doesn't really matter for two reasons.
1. I refuted this point
2. The matter of tangibility is irrelevant, as "giving any useful or proper return" does not have to be tangible
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My Argument:
I'll just give some sources that show that (Source One) parents like their kids, and (Source Two) that most of the public wants children. As you can see, Source Two mentions the word "ideal" a fair amount of times.

Ideal(1): A conception of something in its perfection
http://dictionary.reference.com...

As you can see, that means that since none of the public (in this specific area) voted for zero kids, that the public (in that area) believes that having kids is perfect.

Source One: http://www.parents.com...
Source Two: http://www.ynetnews.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
You may see that I have not proved that all children are not parasites, but I only have to prove the majority. Actually, I don't really have the burden of proof since I'm Con. All the better reason to vote Con. I have successfully refuted all of Pro's points, and have made some arguments of my own.
Debate Round No. 1
Killer542

Pro

Picking up something YOU got out is not performing a service to someone else, it is balancing a dis-service. As for doing chores, no-one I know actually did any meaningful chores(that I know of) until they hit their early teens.

Now onto school. Public school is not actually free, you must pay taxes in order to finance it. As for the assertion that schools teach discipline, it is irrelevent. Wether the parents teach disciplin, or the schools do, the child is still benefitting from it at a cost to society. Moving onto what would happen if children weren't educated, through most of human civilization education was either non-existent, or reserved for the wealthy, and yet: here we are. Formal Education is not neccisary to succeed. In fact, Andrew Jackson(president of the U.S.A.) had very little formal education.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yet again, we come to an irrelevant point. Wether a child is allowed to work has NOTHING to do with wether he/she is parasitic.

And for something to be "useful" it must tangible (definition of useful: "of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs"; From dictionary.com)

Wether people like or want children is also COMPLETELY irrelevent.

Your turn Flash :)
FlashFire

Con

Counter One:
"And for something to be "useful" it must tangible (definition of useful: "of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs"; From dictionary.com)"

That definition is definition two. I used definition one, which I believe is definition one because it's either better or more commonly used. I would more commonly use definition one, but that's just my opinion.

Can we try not to turn this into a definition argument? How about we just use both since they both define useful (see the link to the definition in round one).

Counter Two:
"Picking up something YOU got out is not performing a service to someone else, it is balancing a dis-service. As for doing chores, no-one I know actually did any meaningful chores(that I know of) until they hit their early teens."

But if you balance a dis-service, then it is made a service. Maybe we need to define surface. We really need to stop getting into semantics. Whatever, here's one.

Service(1): An act of helpful activity; help; aid: to do someone a service
http://dictionary.reference.com...

So, while the fact that the child hasn't put their toys away until then still remains, actually putting them away is still helpful, for my reasons stated in round one. It really doesn't matter if anyone you know has done any meaningful chores, for two reasons. The people you know are not the majority of children. Plus, would someone randomly say "Hey man, I just got a chore done, and it was meaningful!" Anyway, even if a child did some kind of meaningful chore, like cleaning their room once in their childhood years they would not be considered a parasite. The majority of children have done that.

Counter Three:
"Now onto school. Public school is not actually free, you must pay taxes in order to finance it. As for the assertion that schools teach discipline, it is irrelevent. Wether the parents teach disciplin, or the schools do, the child is still benefitting from it at a cost to society. Moving onto what would happen if children weren't educated, through most of human civilization education was either non-existent, or reserved for the wealthy, and yet: here we are. Formal Education is not neccisary to succeed. In fact, Andrew Jackson(president of the U.S.A.) had very little formal education."

Okay, I forgot about that. But nevertheless, education is still helpful to a parent for my reasons in round one. Even if you say discipline is irrelevant, it's not. The child may be getting education from a cost to society, but discipline is still helpful for my round one reasons. If it's helpful, then it's a service, so it's useful, and so not parasitic.

Counter Four:
"Yet again, we come to an irrelevant point. Wether a child is allowed to work has NOTHING to do with wether he/she is parasitic."

I agree with you on that, but you still have to counter all of my points above.

Counter Five:
"Wether people like or want children is also COMPLETELY irrelevent."

No it isn't, because if someone wants children, then obviously they believe they would benefit them in some way. Whether that be love, traits to pass on, or the reasons above, it is still relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments:
I don't think I need any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
In conclusion, you should vote Con. Also, the spell check isn't working. I'm sure some people know that already, and they probably know that it's irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 2
Killer542

Pro

This is alot more challenging than I thought it would be, but that's OK; I like a challenge.

"So, while the fact that the child hasn't put their toys away until then still remains, actually putting them away is still helpful, for my reasons stated in round one. It really doesn't matter if anyone you know has done any meaningful chores, for two reasons. The people you know are not the majority of children. Plus, would someone randomly say "Hey man, I just got a chore done, and it was meaningful!" Anyway, even if a child did some kind of meaningful chore, like cleaning their room once in their childhood years they would not be considered a parasite. The majority of children have done that."

I accept that picking up the toy is a service, however when you consider that the child must first get the toy out, it cancels out any beneficial effect thet picking up the toy may cause, but that's only if they put the toy away right when they are done playing with it, if they leave it out, and the parent/sibling steps on it, then they comited yet another dis-service. Consider this, if I were to shoot someone, then call an abulance, would you consider the event do a service for someone? What if they died before it got there? As for the chores, I know that you didn't do any meaningful chores other than the ones you were(very) well compensated for(I was very jelous).

"Okay, I forgot about that. But nevertheless, education is still helpful to a parent for my reasons in round one. Even if you say discipline is irrelevant, it's not. The child may be getting education from a cost to society, but discipline is still helpful for my round one reasons. If it's helpful, then it's a service, so it's useful, and so not parasitic."

Teaching them is doing yourself a service, as the children don't actually do anything. The children only do a service if they USE what they are taught(which they rarely do). This may seem like semantics but it's a BIG distiction.

"No it isn't, because if someone wants children, then obviously they believe they would benefit them in some way. Whether that be love, traits to pass on, or the reasons above, it is still relevant."

People don't always do things to benefit themselves, sometimes people do things just to be nice. We call those people alruists(dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com...). We(or at least I) see commercials all the time trying to get me to send money to help people in Africa(which I would if I had anything to give), they must be getting money from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be able to air commercials.
FlashFire

Con

COUNTER ONE:
"I accept that picking up the toy is a service, however when you consider that the child must first get the toy out, it cancels out any beneficial effect thet picking up the toy may cause, but that's only if they put the toy away right when they are done playing with it, if they leave it out, and the parent/sibling steps on it, then they comited yet another dis-service. Consider this, if I were to shoot someone, then call an abulance, would you consider the event do a service for someone? What if they died before it got there? As for the chores, I know that you didn't do any meaningful chores other than the ones you were(very) well compensated for(I was very jelous)."

What happened before doesn't matter. What matters is that it's helping the adult at the moment, even if something bad was caused by the child to offset it. If you were to shoot someone and then call an ambulance? Despite the fact that it's a funny situation, that's blowing this way out of proportion.

I'll give a more closely related situation. I throw a party with my parent's permission, and my friends leave trash around the house. I may have indirectly caused the trash to be scattered on the ground by inviting these people over, but if I clean the house afterwards it's still a good deed (helpful). This is more closely related because both situations involve leaving junk around the house, but later cleaning it up.

What I did for chores doesn't matter. I'm surprised you would bring something (not that groundbreaking people) that happened a few years ago up in a debate. Please leave personal discussions out of the debate, as Pro and Con are both adolescents and are not the majority of children.

COUNTER TWO:
"Teaching them is doing yourself a service, as the children don't actually do anything. The children only do a service if they USE what they are taught(which they rarely do). This may seem like semantics but it's a BIG distiction."

Please give me some proof that the majority of children rarely use learned skills. You are Pro, therefore you have the burden of proof.

COUNTER THREE:
"People don't always do things to benefit themselves, sometimes people do things just to be nice. We call those people alruists(dictionary. com: http://dictionary.reference.com......). We(or at least I) see commercials all the time trying to get me to send money to help people in Africa(which I would if I had anything to give), they must be getting money from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be able to air commercials."

I believe you mean altruists, but that's neither here nor there. I see those commercials a few hundred times a month also. Please don't bring up the emotional arguments in this debate like "If I only had some money I would give it to charity." We don't need to play the emotional card.

If a person chooses not to have a child, that isn't depriving anyone of a benefit/right. The child doesn't exist at the moment. Besides, if someone is nice to another, then it creates a good feeling inside, which is a benefit. This benefit is coming from the child, it doesn't matter if it was directly or indirectly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:
There's really not much to say here. I honestly don't think my conclusions are the least bit important to anyone.
Debate Round No. 3
Killer542

Pro

First, I will tackle the argument I was slightly offended at:
I believe you mean altruists, but that's neither here nor there. I see those commercials a few hundred times a month also. Please don't bring up the emotional arguments in this debate like "If I only had some money I would give it to charity." We don't need to play the emotional card.

I don't play the emotion card. Ever. I will explain the reason why I made that comment at the end of the debate as agreed upon by myself and my opponent.

"If a person chooses not to have a child, that isn't depriving anyone of a benefit/right. The child doesn't exist at the moment. Besides, if someone is nice to another, then it creates a good feeling inside, which is a benefit. This benefit is coming from the child, it doesn't matter if it was directly or indirectly."

Actually, the child doesn't give the person any "good feeling", the person gives it to themselves. The feeling is the reaction of chemicals in the persons brain, not from any of the child's actions, and if they don't give birth to the child they are still depriving it of life, as it would still exist as an egg/sperm pin the parents' body. You also have to give evidence of a "good feeling" in people when they do something nice.

Now onto other things:
"What happened before doesn't matter. What matters is that it's helping the adult at the moment, even if something bad was caused by the child to offset it. If you were to shoot someone and then call an ambulance? Despite the fact that it's a funny situation, that's blowing this way out of proportion."

What happened before must be considered because it is directly responsible for making the child put the toy away. They do it all the time in trials, it's what differentiates "murder in the first degree" and "murder in the second degree", it also is what makes self-defence a viable defence. This leads me to the next argument, I may have used a different scenario, but the principle is the same.

"I'll give a more closely related situation. I throw a party with my parent's permission, and my friends leave trash around the house. I may have indirectly caused the trash to be scattered on the ground by inviting these people over, but if I clean the house afterwards it's still a good deed (helpful). This is more closely related because both situations involve leaving junk around the house, but later cleaning it up."

This may be closely related, but it doesn't work because you didn't make the mess, your friends did.

"What I did for chores doesn't matter. I'm surprised you would bring something (not that groundbreaking people) that happened a few years ago up in a debate. Please leave personal discussions out of the debate, as Pro and Con are both adolescents and are not the majority of children."

I used you because I see you as a pretty normal kid, therefore representative of the whole. And I'm not an adolescent, I'm eighteen, just look at my profile.

"Please give me some proof that the majority of children rarely use learned skills. You are Pro, therefore you have the burden of proof."

First, it is not "learned skills" that matter, it is discipline. Second, all the proof I have is anecdotal(definition: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence. from dictionary.com), none of the children I know have the least bit of discipline(and I know quite a few).
FlashFire

Con

Now the debate's gotten challenging. I'll be responding in the same way as the previous rounds, save a few opening comments. I did agree to Pro's statement about the emotional card. I'm laughing at the "look at my profile" part right now. Although it might not have been meant as a joke.

COUNTER ONE:
"Actually, the child doesn't give the person any "good feeling", the person gives it to themselves. The feeling is the reaction of chemicals in the persons brain, not from any of the child's actions............"

Actually, the child gives the feeling to the person. The child is existant because of the parent's will, and so the child being there affirms the parent's belief that they did a good deed. This triggers the chemical reaction above.

COUNTER TWO:
"...........and if they don't give birth to the child they are still depriving it of life, as it would still exist as an egg/sperm pin the parents' body. You also have to give evidence of a "good feeling" in people when they do something nice."

The child does not exist until the egg cell and the sperm cell join together (conception). Then the cells develop into a baby. The sperm is just a cell that acts on instinct. From what I've gathered over the years on DDO (yes, years), the burden of proof is generally on Pro, since Pro has to prove the resolution. Con generally has to debunk, refute, counter, or rebut Pro's arguments.

COUNTER THREE:
"What happened before must be considered because it is directly responsible for making the child put the toy away. They do it all the time in trials, it's what differentiates "murder in the first degree" and "murder in the second degree", it also is what makes self-defence a viable defence. This leads me to the next argument, I may have used a different scenario, but the principle is the same."

It may be directly responsible for making the child put the toy away, but putting the toy away is still a useful service for my primary reasons.

"This may be closely related, but it doesn't work because you didn't make the mess, your friends did."

What does it matter? The point is, the mess was made, it becomes or is the child's fault, and the child must clean it up.

COUNTER FOUR:
"I used you because I see you as a pretty normal kid, therefore representative of the whole. And I'm not an adolescent, I'm eighteen, just look at my profile."

The voters don't know how I act. If they voted based on this information, then the information would be inaccurate. Besides, my opponent's perception of normal may be different from others.

COUNTER FIVE:
"First, it is not "learned skills" that matter, it is discipline. Second, all the proof I have is anecdotal(definition: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence. from dictionary.com), none of the children I know have the least bit of discipline(and I know quite a few)."

So you're saying it's discipline that matters. Schools teach discipline, as you can see in my round one argument. I think anecdotal evidence is unreliable, because now the voters just have to take your word for what you say is true. I could vouch for you, but then they would have to take my word for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:
Vote Con, because Con makes great arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Killer542 7 years ago
Killer542
I have Dysgraphia, so I apologize if any of my arguments seem to be missing something.
Posted by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
..............so neither of us are cold-hearted jerks, to set the record straight.
Posted by Killer542 7 years ago
Killer542
I posted that I would have given money to the people in africa thing so people wouldn't see me as some cold hearted jerk, I would have put that in me argument, I thought we had one more round.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
I feel stupid now. I did a similar debate recently, but it wasn't with you. So never mind.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"Parasite: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others."

I see that you've changed your definition. Very clever.
Posted by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
Thanks for putting this up, finally.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Killer542 7 years ago
Killer542
Killer542FlashFireTied
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 sk8jeff1 7 years ago
sk8jeff1
Killer542FlashFireTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Killer542FlashFireTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
Killer542FlashFireTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05