The Instigator
chihiro
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
leet4A1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Nadya Suleman should lose custody of her children!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,406 times Debate No: 8597
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

chihiro

Pro

Nadya Suleman has obviously been USING her children for fame and money that she has (and may be receiving in the near future from Britan?).She has no real job,and has been mooching off of anyone that is gullible enough to take pity on her.She spends money beyond her means on plastic surgery and implanting an absurd amount of embryos inside her.She is,without a doubt, using her money more on herself than her children.I find it unfair that someone so self absorbed should be allowed to use her children as if they are "pay checks" rather than living,breathing human beings that rely on financial support and,just as much needed love and attention.But,how can a mother do that if she is constantly focused on becoming.It is unhealthy for children (or anybody in general)to be put in front of a camera for a long period of time.Look at all of these celebrities that have turned to drug abuse and alcoholism,some have even resorted to suicide due to the stress of fame.Also,if you act caring to your kids in front of a camera,yet do a complete 180 when the camera is off,it tends to confuse the children involved and eventually they will question whether their parent(s) really love them or not.Children have enough stress dealing with things like schoolwork and a social life among peers.It would be common sense to see that these children are at an all around disadvantage.This is what they lack in order to grow as a child needs.
-A father figure
-A mother that is (sincerely) focused on her children (and their welfare),rather than fame and getting freebies.
- A mother with an actual JOB
-Security(not talking about bodyguards),but financial stability as well as one on one(and group time) with their parent(s)/guardian(s)

So I propose that these children be placed under foster care/adoption with RESPONSIBLE adults that are capable of taking care of children.Since they are still young and are often not together all at once,now,or soon,would be a perfect opportunity to place them with people who actually care.
I have a personal saying about family,"Family isn't by blood nor marriage,but of the heart" You could be born in China yet adopted by an American family,and still be their child.Not just legally,but in your hearts.

If you look at Nadya Sulemans background (not necissairly in trash magazines like "US" and "Life & Style") from watching the news and even hearing her side,it is clear that she tries to hide behind weak statements as to why she has walked this path in life."My daddy never loved me" is a statement she made in "The Tennessean" newspaper a while back.It is a weak statement to blame your greed on the lack of love from a father figure,especially when you're an adult! You are responsible for your own actions as an adult,not just morally,but legally as well.I find it immoral to leave children in the hands of people who do not care about them or their welfare.

So what if she is their biological mother? There are plenty of biological parents in this world who don't care about the lives they bring into this world.Look at the abortion statistics,look at the percentile of children who were given up for the sole purpose of being unwanted,not just because of bills and housing issues.Some people do both for a better cause than, "I just didn't want my child",so not all are as heartless as Nadya Suleman.It is unfair for a child to be in custody of such vile women who feed off the pity of the gullible.Nadya Suleman is far from a decent mother.She is only a half witted,self absorbed,and heartless woman who preys on the gullible for support rather than helping herself first.She is an eyesore to many Americans based on what she has done to her brood.She has no real means to support them and acts like a die hard diva with weak excuses as to why she brought so many lives into this world.This is not an argument against single mothers,but so-called "mothers" who act as if they care for the well being of the lives they bring into this world. Many people are more concerned for her children than Ms.Sulemans own wellfare.Which is why I have brought this up as not just a debate,but a mere suggestion for those who are concerned about these children.I find it despicable for any woman to claim they love their children when her actions clearly state otherwise.There is no excuse for abusing,neglecting,nor exploiting a child for fame.

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
(and just about anywhere else really)You almost can't go anywhere without hearing about her business no matter how private.
leet4A1

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. It is my opponent's burden to show that the Octomom should lose custody of her children, and my burden to show otherwise.

I will address my opponent's relevant arguments in order:

====
"Nadya Suleman has obviously been USING her children for fame and money that she has (and may be receiving in the near future from Britan?).She has no real job,and has been mooching off of anyone that is gullible enough to take pity on her."
====
She has 14 children in total, all seven years old or younger.[1] My opponent expects a woman who gave birth to octuplets less than a year ago to have a "real job", but this is obviously ridiculous. Also, the "mooching" and "using" of her children is to make money so that they can eat. Time Magazine has reported that the cost of raising JUST ONE child has soared to above $200,000 from birth to the age of 18. Nadya has 14 children, which means to raise them as they are supposed to be raised, she's going to have to come up with 2.8 million dollars.[2] Clearly, this amount of money is not going to come from a job at Wendy's (my opponent's so-called "real job"), and so if these children are to be raised properly, Nadya must accept any money which comes her way. If this means accepting money from media outlets interested in her story, so be it.

Even if this argument were valid against her personality, it in no way effects the well-being of the children, and is therefore not a reason to remove them from her custody.

====
"She spends money beyond her means on plastic surgery and implanting an absurd amount of embryos inside her."
====
The plastic surgery she had done was done before the octuplets were even conceived.[3] She has also said she will never have another child, which makes the embryos argument moot.

====
"She is,without a doubt, using her money more on herself than her children."
====
This is a big call, do you have any proof?

====
"It is unhealthy for children (or anybody in general)to be put in front of a camera for a long period of time.Look at all of these celebrities that have turned to drug abuse and alcoholism,some have even resorted to suicide due to the stress of fame."
====
Do you honestly believe the babies will even remember their 15 minutes of fame, much less commit suicide because of it? This is just plain silly.

====
"Also,if you act caring to your kids in front of a camera,yet do a complete 180 when the camera is off,it tends to confuse the children involved and eventually they will question whether their parent(s) really love them or not."
====
How do you know she does a "complete 180" when the camera is off? If you have anything at all to back these wild claims up, I suggest you post links in your next round.

====
"This is what they lack in order to grow as a child needs.
-A father figure
-A mother that is (sincerely) focused on her children (and their welfare),rather than fame and getting freebies.
- A mother with an actual JOB
-Security(not talking about bodyguards),but financial stability as well as one on one(and group time) with their parent(s)/guardian(s)"
====
- People grow up healthy, happy and intelligent ALL THE TIME with no father figure in their lives. My girlfriend spent half her childhood without a father-figure, and she is one of the most well-rounded, intelligent, sociable people I know. Point moot.
- Please provide any evidence you can to suggest that she is not focussed on her children's welfare.
- I discussed this "actual job" stuff earlier.
- You want her 14 children to have financial security, but you deride her decision to accept money from media outlets interested in her story? Make up your mind.

====
"So I propose that these children be placed under foster care/adoption with RESPONSIBLE adults that are capable of taking care of children.Since they are still young and are often not together all at once,now,or soon,would be a perfect opportunity to place them with people who actually care."
====
I propose that my opponent realize the weight of the words she is throwing around here. We are talking about a mother and her children. Unless the children are in danger, there is no reason to even think about removing a mother's children from her. This is elementary human rights we're talking here.

====
"If you look at Nadya Sulemans background (not necissairly in trash magazines like "US" and "Life & Style") from watching the news and even hearing her side,it is clear that she tries to hide behind weak statements as to why she has walked this path in life."My daddy never loved me" is a statement she made in "The Tennessean" newspaper a while back.It is a weak statement to blame your greed on the lack of love from a father figure,especially when you're an adult! You are responsible for your own actions as an adult,not just morally,but legally as well.I find it immoral to leave children in the hands of people who do not care about them or their welfare."
====
Nothing of substance here.

====
"So what if she is their biological mother?"
====
Boy oh boy, I hope this is a joke.

My opponent's final paragraph is a nasty, insult-ridden rant about a woman my opponent clearly knows nothing about. There is nothing of substance to the debate, so I will ignore it.

----------------------
I will now provide the one and only argument I need in this debate: The Octomom has done NOTHING to warrant the removal of her children from her custody. My opponent is yet to show otherwise.

Thanks.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://www.time.com...
[3] - http://www.theinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 1
chihiro

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponenet for taking this debate with me :D

As I've said before,she lacks the parenting skills to raise healthy children,mentally in particular.My opponent says I know nothing about her,when,in fact,that is false.here is a link to prove what I'm talking about.

http://news.softpedia.com...

As for the plastic surgery,what sane mother has 6 kids and no job,then turns and thinks, "I want plastic surgery"? Link provided below.It doesn't matter if she had 14 before hand or not,what matters is that she had 6 at the time and .

http://www.makemeheal.com...

The comments from both links provide just reason for her to lose custody.

http://www.associatedcontent.com...

She is UNEMPLOYED and that can mcause her to lose custody,as well as this bit of a link
http://glosslip.com...

She thinks she can get away with using them as some paycheck rather than getting off her butt and doing something for them,and MEAN it.She spoke in an interview that she expects help from her family and church,funny how you need help from those certain sources in order to have no points against you for custody.Does she even GO to church? She never talks about it,except for that one time.

I thank my opponent once again for taking this subject.
leet4A1

Con

====
"As I've said before,she lacks the parenting skills to raise healthy children,mentally in particular.My opponent says I know nothing about her,when,in fact,that is false.here is a link to prove what I'm talking about.

http://news.softpedia.com...;
====
Despite the fact that this link is composed entirely of opinion and conjecture, and that the paparazzi will make anything up to sell a story, I'm willing to concede everything in the link as true. There is still nothing in it to suggest that she should lose custody of her children. I can think of several reasons a court would or should grant a custody change, such as drug abuse in the house, physical or mental abuse of the children, malnutrition of the children, unsuitable living conditions, and so forth. A mother should NOT lose her children unless they are in danger of some kind, and nothing my opponent has provided so far has shown this to be the case.

====
As for the plastic surgery,what sane mother has 6 kids and no job,then turns and thinks, "I want plastic surgery"? Link provided below.It doesn't matter if she had 14 before hand or not,what matters is that she had 6 at the time and ."
====
I can't believe you are questioning this woman's sanity merely because as a mother of six, she felt unattractive and decided to have plastic surgery. This is America, and that is completely normal behaviour.

There are people out there who teach their children that they will burn for eternity if they masturbate. There are parents in this country who believe a man was God's son, but was also actually God himself and a ghost at the same time, and then when he was murdered he came back to life, and now, 2000 years later, that means that we can do anything we want and we will still go live on a cloud with a big bearded man in the sky forever. Believing this myth is considered sane in this country, but you would have us believe that the Octomom is a nutcase because she got a bit of plastic surgery? Come on.

====
"http://www.makemeheal.com......
http://www.associatedcontent.com......

The comments from both links provide just reason for her to lose custody."
====
No they don't; the first one is just proof that she had plastic surgery, and the second one gives a list of 20 reasons why a parent may lose physical custody of their children in America. As far as I know, and as far as my opponent has shown thus far, the Octomom is guilty of none of the 20 in the list.

====
She is UNEMPLOYED and that can mcause her to lose custody,as well as this bit of a link
http://glosslip.com......
====
My opponent continues to jump from one side to the other on this issue. For reasons unknown, she doesn't want the Octomom to sell her story to media outlets and make a lot of money in the process. But then my opponent repeats the irrelevant fact that the Octomom is technically unemployed. What does this matter? Just because she doesn't wear a work uniform and clock in and out every day, is no reason to take her children from her. I showed in Round 1 that it will cost her around $2.8M to raise these children, so it's good that she is able to sell her story for so much money. I really don't see the problem.

====
"She thinks she can get away with using them as some paycheck rather than getting off her butt and doing something for them,and MEAN it.She spoke in an interview that she expects help from her family and church,funny how you need help from those certain sources in order to have no points against you for custody.Does she even GO to church? She never talks about it,except for that one time."
====
Nothing of substance to the debate, just more Octomom-bashing on behalf of my opponent. You don't know what she's thinking, so why speculate? Everyone expects help from their family and church, what of it? Who the hell cares if she goes to church or not, if churches wish to keep their tax-exempt status they'd better be helping everyone who shows up, whether they're Flanders-esque churchies or Satanists. She has a right to expect help.

--------------
I will repeat the one and only argument I need to uphold my burden in this debate: The Octomom has done NOTHING to warrant the removal of her children from her custody. My opponent is yet to show otherwise, and indeed the very link my opponent provided gave a list of 20 reasons a parent MAY lose custody of their children in this country. The Octomom is guilty of none of them.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
chihiro

Pro

As a matter of fact,on the link I provided as to how she is capable of losing her children is the fact she HAS NO JOB.
What part of "No job" do you not understand?
That means she doesnt have stable income,also the link I provided about her mothers house
(where she and her children currently reside) could be foreclosing in the near future.Stable income comes from doing steady work.What she is doing right now is taking money as charity as well as her interviews and papparazzi paying for photos of her and her brood.Doing interviews and getting paid by the razzi and charity is not exactly stable.Being under the spotlight is very demanding and stressful,any celebrity can honestly tell you that.From what I understand the razzi and interviews pay a decent amount,especially if you can haggle.Charity can also run out when people stop having the will to care about her or her children.

Also,the DEATH THREATS she and her children have been receiving from upset citizens endanger them as well as Nadya herself.Have you not been watching the news?

I have constantly been backing up my statements as to the fact she is neither financially nor emotionally steady for
being a real parent.I ignore the "God" issue as it is off topic.So what if she felt "unattractive" after having 6 kids?
It's called makeup.And her irresponsibility to use that money on her unecissairy surgery instead of her children
further proves my points.A responsible parent doesn't burden their children by signing papers saying it's okay to put
them under a microscope!A responsible parent doesn't spend an absurd amount of money(given to them by the papparazzi or any other means) on things they don't need like plastic surgery.

I have constantly been providing links that make my statements accurate.But no link can be as accurate as this.

No loving mother uses her kids to con the system into giving her freebies.

It would be much easier on society as a whole if they were individually given to couples who cannot physically have children,yet are perfectly capable of
adopting or fostering them.People who honest to goodness care about them,not someone who flashes them in front of the cameras as if they're the latest fashion accessory.Justice is rare in America.Over 92% of convicts are repeat offenders,yet they are still allowed to roam free amongst us and do as they wish.Just because something is law doesn't make it right.

I can personally say I feel sorry for California citizens if they are to pay for that womans irresponsibility to take care of them on her own.
As I've said in previous statements,there is no logic in having that many children.The only excuse,as weak as it truely is,is if you plan on using them to con the system as some individuals on welfare have done before.(Not saying all do,however you'd be amazed at the amount who do)

It seems my opponent doesn't watch the news,otherwise he'd know exactly what I'm saying and where I'm getting my statements from.
The only way you cannot know any of this is if you live under a rock,or a 3rd world country with no television-ever.

There is a different path she can walk down rather than getting California to baby her.She can give them to responsible people and live a perfectly normal,and healthy life.
Look up on youtbe for her interviews.They have interviews asking her about the death threats,about her fear of losing her paychecks,a.k.a. "children" and pictures.It's really hard to not find any of it if you go to
youtube.com
and type in "octomom death thereats" and such.So,no need to copy and paste links on this round.

Is it really in the childrens best interest to leave them with someone who doesnt really love them?
Is it really in the childrens best interest to be constantly surveilanced and grow up being scrutinized for what their mother has done?
Those questions should be asked in favor of the children getting what they NEED,not necissairly what Nadya Suleman WANTS.

If you say "no" to both questions then there is no reason to support con whatsoever.Otherwise,feel free to hear angry Californians give her and her children more death threats.

Thanks
leet4A1

Con

====
"As a matter of fact,on the link I provided as to how she is capable of losing her children is the fact she HAS NO JOB.
What part of "No job" do you not understand?"
====
I understand it fine, but merely stating the fact does not argue your position. Are you suggesting that all unemployed parents should lose custody of their children, or just this one, who you seem to have an unhealthy hatred for? You have not argued WHY having no job makes her an unfit mother. As I've argued twice now, a so-called "real job" WILL NOT produce enough income to raise these children. She will be able to milk money from the media for years to come, so there is no reason to think that these children will be in any way disadvantaged economically.

====
"Also,the DEATH THREATS she and her children have been receiving from upset citizens endanger them as well as Nadya herself.Have you not been watching the news?"
====
This is an indictment of a bunch of "upset citizens" (read: overzealous morons) making death threats, NOT of the Octomom or her parenting abilities. Celebrities get death threats all the time, would you suggest we remove their children from the forever? And that's the thing; you are arguing that she lose custody of her children forever, but the death threats will no doubt cease when the hype dies down. Hopefully by then my opponent has also settled down a bit.

====
"I have constantly been backing up my statements as to the fact she is neither financially nor emotionally steady for
being a real parent.I ignore the "God" issue as it is off topic.So what if she felt "unattractive" after having 6 kids?
It's called makeup.And her irresponsibility to use that money on her unecissairy surgery instead of her children
further proves my points.A responsible parent doesn't burden their children by signing papers saying it's okay to put
them under a microscope!A responsible parent doesn't spend an absurd amount of money(given to them by the papparazzi or any other means) on things they don't need like plastic surgery."
====
Ok, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You think what she did was irresponsible parenting, and that's fine and dandy. But how in your mind, or for that matter in the link you provided detailing reasons one may lose custody of their children, does this equate to "she should lose her children forever"? People do stupid things all the time. There are strict guidelines a parent must adhere to in order to retain custody of their children, and abstaining from cosmetic surgery is not one of them.

====
"It would be much easier on society as a whole if they were individually given to couples who cannot physically have children,yet are perfectly capable of
adopting or fostering them.People who honest to goodness care about them,not someone who flashes them in front of the cameras as if they're the latest fashion accessory.Justice is rare in America.Over 92% of convicts are repeat offenders,yet they are still allowed to roam free amongst us and do as they wish.Just because something is law doesn't make it right."
====
Unsubstantiated conjecture, or otherwise pointless to the debate.

====
"I can personally say I feel sorry for California citizens if they are to pay for that womans irresponsibility to take care of them on her own. As I've said in previous statements,there is no logic in having that many children.The only excuse,as weak as it truely is,is if you plan on using them to con the system as some individuals on welfare have done before.(Not saying all do,however you'd be amazed at the amount who do)
====
Perhaps she, oh I don't know, WANTED that many children. That's why most people do most things they do. The Octomom may be, and in my opinion is, responsible for extreme idiocy for wanting that many children. But the doctor who allowed this to occur is the one at fault. My opponent is suggesting that the Octomom had this many children so that she could use them for money. Nothing other than paparazzi garbage and my opponent's bias to back it up, so I'll disregard it.

====
"It seems my opponent doesn't watch the news,otherwise he'd know exactly what I'm saying and where I'm getting my statements from.
The only way you cannot know any of this is if you live under a rock,or a 3rd world country with no television-ever.
====
I know the story quite well, but I'm not going to take the news' version of the story's word for it in this debate. YOU are my opponent, YOU are tasked with showing why she is unfit to raise the children, and you have failed to do so. The information I obtain from the news is not relevant to this debate.

====
"Is it really in the childrens best interest to leave them with someone who doesnt really love them?
Is it really in the childrens best interest to be constantly surveilanced and grow up being scrutinized for what their mother has done?"
====
"No" and "perhaps", respectively. You have done nothing to show that she doesn't love her children, so that point is out. Perhaps it is in their best interest to continue living with their mother, and perhaps it isn't. Only time will tell. What's really important, though, is that she has done nothing to warrant having her children removed from her custody. Call her an idiot, call her selfish, call her crazy, and I'll probably agree with you. But, as I've said, there are very strict guidelines in place to ensure people don't unnecessarily lose custody of their children, and my opponent has done nothing to show that the Octomom is guilty of any offense which would warrant it.

====
"If you say "no" to both questions then there is no reason to support con whatsoever.Otherwise,feel free to hear angry Californians give her and her children more death threats."
====
"Angry mob mentality is no longer the exception, it's the rule, and I'm startin' to feel a lot like, Charlton Heston, standin' on a primate planet, apes and orangutans, who ran it to the ground, with the generals and the armies that obeyed them." Sorry, I don't know what came over me.

My opponent had the burden in this debate to show that the Octomom should have her children removed from her custody, because my position was the default (i.e. that they should stay with her). My opponent has shown that the Octomom is unemployed and that she has had plastic surgery, but these are clearly not reasons in and of themselves for the removal of these children. The rest of my opponent's argument has been pure conjecture, such as that she doesn't love the children and that she is spending most of the money which is meant for them. As there has been no evidence provided for these claims, we can ignore them. Vote CON.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Thanks, I wish you luck also. Welcome to the site.
Posted by chihiro 7 years ago
chihiro
Just because I agree with something doesn't make it false,or "emotional". I told the truth about her being an "eyesore" to people who were upset about her decisions.Keep in mind that the truth is not always sunshine and daisies.You seemed quite emotional using the words "what the hell..." in one of the rounds.Who had more emotion?Eh,who knows/cares?I will admit I AM passionate about sticking up for things I truely believe in though.If there is at least one thing I've learned from this debate it is that you should NEVER take on a debate unless your heart is really into it.I'd like to thank you,leet4A1 for being an example to me.Especially since I normally don't like debates.I know that sounds contradictive for someone like me to be on this website,but as I've said before,I AM passionate and will stick with things I truely believe in.Perhaps debating is something about myself I refuse to acknowledge?Eh,you're right leet4A1,the debate is over and we've tied.I wish you luck on your next debate ;)
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
The debate is over, and I've said all I wish to say about the Octomom. Thanks for the debate, I'm sorry you got so emotionally involved.
Posted by chihiro 7 years ago
chihiro
Nadya has been offered free help from certain organizations before and has declined them.What I find odd is that she refuses the help of SOME organizations,yet accepts nannies and other particular assistance.All of which are free,of no cost to her.Does that not sound mentally messed up to go back and forth like that? And even if she just decided for the heck of it one day to have 13 or 14 kids,it still makes no logical sense when you have no income at that time to actually DO it.The fact that this,in itself,is crazy,proves she may even be mentally unstable for motherhood.

here are the links I meant to provide earlier.

read the comments and watch the video.

(he made a boo boo saying 16 instead of 14)

And I'd love to see proof that she IS,indeed, fit to raise her children.Something my opponent never did show in any of the rounds,nor in this comment thread.

"It would be much easier on society as a whole if they were individually given to couples who cannot physically have children,yet are perfectly capable of
adopting or fostering them.People who honest to goodness care about them,not someone who flashes them in front of the cameras as if they're the latest fashion accessory.Justice is rare in America.Over 92% of convicts are repeat offenders,yet they are still allowed to roam free amongst us and do as they wish.Just because something is law doesn't make it right."
====
Unsubstantiated conjecture, or otherwise pointless to the debate.

Actually,the POINT of this part was to prove to people that just because something is law doesnt make it right,and that just because something ISN'T law doesnt make it wrong either.
Posted by chihiro 7 years ago
chihiro
The choices I was given in my drop down were 3 rounds at most,not 5.That was entirely not my fault.
The "resolution" has nothing to do with "murder",it has to do with crappy parenting and irresponsibility that should lead to someone losing custody of their children.What she does to her children is,in a way,child abuse.And not only that,but I meant to provide more links. which explains "(he made a boo boo saying 16 instead of 14)"

"spouting off" and "carrying on about"? What the hell? Childish and reactionary to say the least.

Actually,you WERE "spouting off" the word "moot" to almost everything that was supportive of my statements.

And I WAS clear.There is a difference between, "Nadya suleman SHOULD lose custody of her children" and "Nadya suleman WILL lose custody of her children". Common sense tells you that it was meant as opinion,not a straight up fact.Debates can cover facts,but mostly to start one they are just opinions.Which is why there is a "pro" and a "con" to debates.

And,yes,she has broken a couple of custody issues.Child abuse an ,again,no job,as it stated in the "20 ways to lose custody of your children".If you actually listen to what she says and watch what she does,then she makes her intentions very clear.As they say,actions speak louder than words.

This was not some "rant",the facts are that she IS irresponsible and she really DOES get death threats.You can even find a few on youtube.com.My opponent has provided NO evidence as to what actually makes her fit to keep her children,Instead,he has only been picking at my statements with his own bias and no real evidence to prove she has done nothing wrong.It is my job to find support for my statements as it is my opponents job to find suport for his side as well.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
"Too bad we can only have so many rounds.These are not "Moot" as my opponent keeps spouting off."

Errm... you could have chosen up to 5 rounds. Your fault. Also, "spouting off" and "carrying on about"? What the hell? Childish and reactionary to say the least.

"Oh and btw,When you look up "Child abuse" on wikipedia here is a def:Behavior directed towards a child by an adult that harms a childs psychological or emotional health or development.If you read what psychologists have to say on Nadya allowing her children to be in the spotlight then you'd be able to see,that in a form of a certain kind,using her children for fame DOES harm the development of her children.You don't always have to hit or talk down to your children to be considered abusive."

It's too bad none of this relevant information actually made it to the debate. :D

"This debate was not meant for legal banter,but to support why/not you THINK Suleman should lose her kids.This is not a courtroom,it is a debate site where you support your own opinions."

Then you should have been more clear. You'll learn. If you can get past your anger, consider this scenario for a second:
---
RESOLUTION: Person X should be imprisoned for murder.
PRO: Person X should be imprisoned for murder because he is a bad person.
CON: But... he's never murdered anyone.
PRO: So? He got plastic surgery and the paparazzi seems to think he should be tried for murder.
CON: But... he's never murdered anyone.
PRO: I think what he has done in his life is tantamount to murder, therefore he should be tried for murder.
CON: But... under any definition of the word "murder", he is not guilty. Therefore, he shouldn't be tried.
---

This is how our debate went. The arguments you provided would do well in a debate entitled "The Octomom is a terrible mother" or "The Octomom is selfish", or something similar. But there are clear-cut laws which warrant a custody change, and I'm afraid she hasn't broken any. Sorry.
Posted by chihiro 7 years ago
chihiro
Too bad we can only have so many rounds.These are not "Moot" as my opponent keeps spouting off.

read the comments and watch the video.

(he made a boo boo saying 16 instead of 14)

Honestly,you'd have to be REALLY gullible to believe she should have the right to keep her children.Oh and btw,When you look up "Child abuse" on wikipedia here is a def:Behavior directed towards a child by an adult that harms a childs psychological or emotional health or development.If you read what psychologists have to say on Nadya allowing her children to be in the spotlight then you'd be able to see,that in a form of a certain kind,using her children for fame DOES harm the development of her children.You don't always have to hit or talk down to your children to be considered abusive.Also,if you look on youtube you'll see news footage of child protection services checking in on the family.Simply google both and you'll find many links as well as footage.Watching someone fail at parenting and stating they are irresponsible are not "moot" as my opponent keeps carrying on about.This debate was not meant for legal banter,but to support why/not you THINK Suleman should lose her kids.This is not a courtroom,it is a debate site where you support your own opinions.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I agree with PRO, though I haven't read the debate.

I hate that woman.
Posted by chihiro 7 years ago
chihiro
I agree Brian,both are irresponsible.And it is that irresponsibility that makes her an unfit mother.If she finds enough suckers to support her she may get to keep the kids.However,just because something is law,doesn't make it right.There are people in this world who are financially and emotionally more capable of taking care of these children than her.Which is what I've been trying to say throughout this debate.Besides the fact that she really doesn't care about them.Which should play a major role in whether or not she still has custody of them.(Which I doubt since there is no real justice in America most of the time)The only reason she's kept them alive is so she can become famous,which thanks to the medias attention she got her wish.The more attention the media focuses on someone the more popular they become.Reguardless if the attention is negative or not.Which is why I can't stand Chris Crocker and Perez Hilton.Their opinions are meaningless.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
I couldn't agree more, Brian. I think the doctor who allowed it is most to blame though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.