The Instigator
rshortman
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
toiletlipz
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Nuclear family essential to America

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  
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: 1/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,275 times Debate No: 2162
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (13)

 

rshortman

Pro

The responsibility of creating and maintaing a strong social fabric in American society rests entirely on the shoulders of the nuclear family. (A man a woman and children) This is not to suggest that grandparents, extended family and single mothers/fathers don't also make exceptional guardians because they often can and they do. My argument is that society and government should be doing all it can to promote and empower the nuclear family because the strength of the family is the root of all societal and economical issues in America.
toiletlipz

Con

I'm in disagreeance.

First I need to pick apart your thesis which you have stated as being,

"society and government should be doing all it can to promote and empower the nuclear family because the strength of the family is the root of all societal and economical issues in America."

Four words in this statement raise a pretty heavy red flag for me..."doing all it can."

In the same sentence in which you said these four words you included the words "government" and "society".

Now to the nitty gritty. First on society.

On your profile page you have listed a number of things that you are against and for. You are against:
Flag Burning, Gay Marriage, Minimum Wage, Late Term Abortion, National Retail Sails Tax, National Health Care, and Vegetarianism and PETA.

Essentially, these things exist or potentially exist as a product of SOCIETY. So, assuming you are AGAINST all such things you must ask yourself if society can healthily encourage the nuclear family, or if society will only corrupt the nuclear family (through endorsment).

Society only rallies around the flag in times of crisis. Will it nobly accept the challenge of endorsing the nuclear family? Or will society become divided at this very idea over what the appropriate definition of "family" is?

On the case for government. I personally do not feel it is the government's right to encourage any one family living situation over the next. Who are they to tell us how we can and/or should run a "healthy" lifestyle. Please also take note and the lifestyles that many politicians themselves lead, and how "healthy" their family values are: Example...

Mike Huckabee: Son lynced dog at scout camp in 1998.
Larry Craig (father with children): Solicited gay sex from an undercover officer.
Donald Fleishman (GOP county chair for Green Bay)- Busted for courting(most appropriate word i could think of) a sixteen year old (a child) runaway.
-Rolling Stone, Dec. 27, 2007

Not exactley the most appropriate people to encourage the "appropriate" enviroment in which to raise children or what strong family values are.

You said "the strength of the family is the root of all societal and economical issues in America."

First, I make this simple statement, the strength of the family alone will not save society. Perhaps it will induce society to your moral principles...but it will not save the homeless, the poor, the sick, or dying who society has also forgotten about.

The second issue with this statement is it was never asked what is best for the CHILD. The nuclear family may be good for AMERICA, but not always good for the CHILD. Nuclear families can be just as toxic of an enviroment as single parent families or gay families.

Would you sacrafice the well being of a child for the well-being of America? I already know the answer to that...NO. If a child could be better brought up in a single-parent home than a nuclear family than I don't care what effect it has on the country as long as the child is well cared for.
Debate Round No. 1
rshortman

Pro

First of all, thank you for debating me on this topic.

I think you misunderstood what my position on this matter really is so I will clarify it for you.

You had some trouble with the words "Doing all it can" and I can understand how that would be confusing and contradictory in the context of all of the health and secular programs I'm against that you mentioned earlier. It should be noted that by "Doing all it can" what I really meant was the government should give back the power and the responsibility of parenting to the parents that it has long since been revoked. So ironically enough "Doing all it can" really means "Doing a whole lot less". Although, there are just a few government regulations in place that should remain there because lack of some form of regulation results in anarchy.

"the strength of the family alone will not save society. Perhaps it will induce society to your moral principles...but it will not save the homeless, the poor, the sick, or dying who society has also forgotten about. "

I have to disagree with you on this one. Absolutely everything pertaining to society and even government is fundamentally based on the family. It's a political philosophy that has it's roots in history so bear with me on this one:

Just before the depression, Americans were finished settling in states and territories. By that point, they had already spread out across the states and formed small communities working in agriculture, transportation (railroads) and mining. In order to survive, families needed to stay together and work together, tending to their farms and such. With lots of work that needed to be done, small children were often cared for by extended relatives (i.e. grandparents) so the elderly lived in the home rather than being put into a nursing home. Other extended relatives were often needed to help shoulder the responsibility of large family plots so things like child rearing and education were not left exclusively to the nuclear family (strength in numbers).

Over time, with the depression seeing its end and with the socio-economical shock of World War I, the manufacturing industry skyrocketed because of the sudden surge of demand for things like metal, textiles, construction and engineering. And of course, where there is supply and demand, there are jobs. Families wittled down to their mere nuclear core started moving into the cities to work. This is what's known as 'Family Disassociation' where grandparents and extended family no longer live with the nuclear family. It doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you think about it this is what started the modern tradition of moving out of the house when you turn 18 to go to college and get a job. A quick view of world history would tell you that this trend was exclusive to modern American cities and was essentially breaking thousands of years of tradition, weakening the family's structure at it's very core.

But now, with the divorce rates, families have been further weakened down to 1 parent (gay marraige and other secular progressive movements weaken the family unit in other ways) Now single parents are being expected to shoulder all the responsibility of raising, rearing and educating children. Instead of recruiting family members for support, we turn to the government: Child Day Care, Social Workers, Teachers, Counselors, Coaches and Psychiatrists to look after every aspect of our child's development. This is where families no longer have control over what their children are being taught. Brainwashed children grow up to become brainwashed adults. Another country did something similar: The Soviet Union during communist rule.

But how does this affect the disparity between the wealthy and the poor you ask? With the socialist environment of modern day liberal America, the disparity would appear to equalize but we know from history's lessons that such a society only serves to widen the gap between the powerless and the powerful. As for your original statement:

"the strength of the family alone will not save society. Perhaps it will induce society to your moral principles...but it will not save the homeless, the poor, the sick, or dying who society has also forgotten about. "

Russia is now an empty shell of its former self. Skillful workers with doctorates can't get work, they have no political leverage, the KGB has rised to the surface and taken over, victimizing everyone and everything in their path and people wait in line for hours for a loaf of bread. This is what happens to a country that let's it government have power over family. There will always be poor among us but I think it pales in comparison to what we're headed to.
toiletlipz

Con

toiletlipz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
rshortman

Pro

rshortman forfeited this round.
toiletlipz

Con

toiletlipz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
rshortman

Pro

rshortman forfeited this round.
toiletlipz

Con

toiletlipz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by rshortman 9 years ago
rshortman
Kleptin

I do agree and I would hope that the nuclear family would include older generations and extended relatives in the family unit. This, I'm afraid, is not something that can be legislated by government in any way. This, just like all other family decisions, is best left to the families themselves.

Our culture cannot be changed overnight but the government can make way for opportunity by repealing destructive measures it has already taken to seperate the family unit. This is as simple as releasing the strangehold that current lawmakers and law enforcers have on the family and encouraging and educating young mothers to turn to family for support.

In a strange way, technology has played a paradoxical role in both seperating and uniting the family unit in recent history. When cities became industrialized, families moved away from grandparents to live and work in the city. Now that the internet has made work from home possible, families are now spreading out across the country into smaller communities to lead healthier, more family oriented lives. This frees up a lot of time to focus on the family and care for the elderly. It's a ripple effect that will not doubt change the entire country's infrastructure.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
The problem I have with Pro's argument is about extended families.

I find her argument very compelling, but she seems to glance over the grandparents as mere history. Getting put into a nursing home or being left alone is a very painful thing.

The nuclear family is not good enough for America. It should be more. The elderly should be cared for by their children. The thought of anyone's mother and father sitting in a nursing home after he/she has his/her own family is very distressing.

I understand that this can only be a culturally enforced thing and would never make it as a legally enforced thing, but do you agree, Pro, and do you possibly have a proposal as to how we can abolish social security and nursing homes?
Posted by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
How funny of you, deciding my views and opinions based on my handle. Isn't that sweet.
Time magazine named Vladimer Putin as Person of the Year because he has systematically put Russia back on the map, economically and socially.
Oh and never judge a book by it's cover. I think you did that when you commented me on my name. Really, how thoughtful of you.
Posted by rshortman 9 years ago
rshortman
Ennui, that's because you didn't read my argument.

MarxistKid, I don't know that Russia will ever recover, I hope it does for the sake of the millions that live there.

The country's governmental infrastructure is weak enough to the point where I just don't see any authorative regulation over the KGB/Mafia. Acute view? Sure, but with a handle like MarxistKid, I can only speculate that you're a commi sympathizer. I'd argue there's nothing more obtuse than having the distinction of being one of the few left who doesn't understand that communism (marxism) just doesn't work.
Posted by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
Rshortman, you speak like Russia is an evil empire that will never recover no matter what. You have a very acute view on the world that is not your own, I think.
Posted by Ennui2778 9 years ago
Ennui2778
What KGB? That argument makes no sense.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by iq_two 9 years ago
iq_two
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dxpilot 9 years ago
dxpilot
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by vanibu 9 years ago
vanibu
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rshortman 9 years ago
rshortman
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
rshortmantoiletlipzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03