The Instigator
zxcvzxcvzxcv
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepticalone
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Parents must take classes and pass tests before being allowed to have children.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Skepticalone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,696 times Debate No: 43027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

One of the main problems with society today is that parents have no idea what they are doing and destroy the kids with horrible parenting.

Children ARE the next generation of adults and thus good parenting is the most important thing in the world!
Skepticalone

Con

Thank you for this debate, Pro. I look forward to an interesting exchange.

Pro states, "Parents must take classes and pass tests before being allowed to have children." I would like to point out if individuals are currently parents they cannot be tested BEFORE they are allowed to have children. I will argue against what I feel is Pro’s intended resolution of:

Persons intent on becoming parents should take classes and pass tests about parenting before being allowed to have children.


I agree children are the future, and we should do everything possible to make them into responsible productive members of society. However, I disagree with the thought of testing individuals with parenting test before allowing for offspring for 3 reasons

1. By whose cultural standard do we determine the right answers?
2. It is a severe violation of basic human rights.
3. This gives extreme power to a corrupt government over a very intimate part of our lives.

By whose cultural standard do we determine the right answers?There are huge cultural differences in our melting pot of America. It is difficult to imagine how one would determine what questions should be on the test, and even what answers would be right. Cultures show affection in very different ways:

“One area in which cultures often differ is in the ways parents display affection toward their children. West African, Arabic and Asia-Pacific communities often stop such practices as kissing or fondling a child once she becomes a toddler. However, some cultures consider physical attention such as bathing, skin care or braiding a child’s hair to be appropriate physical ways to express affection.” [1]

Cultures handle punishment in different ways:

“Physical punishment is another area in which parents of different cultures act differently. Most parents view spanking as a last-resort strategy, but felt it was acceptable, according to the CDC. Black parents were more willing to spank a child in a public place because they felt the need to immediately respond to misbehavior. White and American Indian parents were less comfortable with spanking in public. Some black, Latino and white parents think it's acceptable to use a belt or strap for spanking for serious misbehavior, while Asian-American and American Indian parents felt that they should only use their hands.” [1]

Who decides what makes a good parent? I certainly would not want my child raised according to someone else’s culture, and I can’t imagine anyone else would either.

It is a severe violation of the most basic of human rights. What could be more basic than the right to pass on our genes …to carry on our family lines? By implementing a parenting test we would be denying individuals the ability to send their young into a future world as a personal representative. Why? …because someone, who may or may not have been qualified to make the determination, felt they were unfit. The Supreme Court has extended the fundamental rights provided for in the Bill of Rights:

In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of sexual privacy rights when it struck down a Massachusetts law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples. The decision in this case extended constitutional protection to all procreative sexual intercourse, not just sex between married partners. [2]

Denying citizens procreation for any reason is denying them basic fundamental rights provided for by the Highest court in the land.

Is it wise to give extreme power to a corrupt government over a very intimate part of our lives? No! It is no secret our own government has a component of corruption. It is ill advised to allow it to have power over our future existence. If the government becomes more powerful than the people, it no longer needs to represents citizens. Implementing this type of test with procreation hanging in the balance gives government huge power. J.R Martin states,” neither party represents the interests of the American people since both are controlled by foreign and domestic corporations and special interest groups that provide the majority of their funding [...] [B]oth parties practice dishonest, divisive politics aimed at dividing and manipulating public opinion instead of seeking to build an honest national consensus on important issues confronting our nation.” [3] Government has shown it is not always acting in the best interest of the governed. Handing this power to those who do not faithfully represent us is misguided.

I look forward to my opponent’s arguments and rebuttal.

[1] http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...

[2]http://www.justia.com...

Debate Round No. 1
zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

1. By whose cultural standard do we determine the right answers?
2. It is a severe violation of basic human rights.
3. This gives extreme power to a corrupt government over a very intimate part of our lives.

1) Each culture? I suppose.

2) Says who? What about all the abused and parentless children? What about their basic human rights?

3) Perhaps, perhaps not. Thus the people should have the control, NOT the government. I completely agree that the government itself should never be given this power. This test system can be done without giving any more power to the government.
Skepticalone

Con

Pro’s rebuttal consisted of:

1. By whose cultural standard do we determine the right answers? Each culture? I suppose.

2. It is a severe violation of basic human rights.
Says Who? What about all the abused and parentless children? What about their basic human rights?
3. This gives extreme power to a corrupt government over a very intimate part of our lives.
Perhaps, Perhaps not. Thus the people should have the control, NOT the government. I completely agree that the government itself should never be given this power. This test system can be done without giving any more power to the government.

For arguments sake, I have provided the definition for discriminatory:
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:[4]


1. This would mean there would be different questions and/or different answers for each cultural group. Not a solid solution and discriminatory based on race.

2. The United States Supreme court says the idea of restricting procreation is wrong. "What about the abused and parentless children?" I would suggest violating one group's rights to help another group is a poor course of action.
3. We agree the government should not have this power granted to them, but who could enforce procreation restrictions? Would we grant enforcement ability to a private entity? If someone fails the test and has children anyway, what could be done? Overall, the government is the only entity with the resources to enforce this resolution. I am against this course of action.

My opponent introduced no more arguments so I intend to follow suit. My arguments are solid, and Pro has done little or nothing in the way of serious and reasonable arguments to dispute them. I look forward to the final round!

[4]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Debate Round No. 2
zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

You have provided no valid rebuttals to my points. Want to try again?
Skepticalone

Con

“You have provided no valid rebuttals to my points. Want to try again?"


Pro has made no points. He made a statement of opinion of what is wrong with society,” One of the main problems with society today is that parents have no idea what they are doing and destroy the kids with horrible parenting”, but he did not show how this statement was true. Pro has also failed to show how this statement leads to,” Persons intent on becoming parents should take classes and pass tests about parenting before being allowed to have children.” Pro has the burden of proof and has left his case without support.


Conclusion


Children are the future, and we should do everything we can to provide a bright future for them. Limiting future parents with test and dire consequences is not the way. Parents mature as their kids grow. Parents of infants are infants themselves in the parenting world. Infant and parent alike have so much potential at the moment of birth, and neither should have to take a test to get to that point.


Thank you for this debate, Pro. Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Cermank 3 years ago
Cermank
zxcvzxcvzxcvSkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Self evident. Pro did not engage with the argument at all, and completely ignored cons arguments in the last round, which was a severe violation of the code of conduct in any debate.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
zxcvzxcvzxcvSkepticaloneTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide an adequate argument for the resolution they proposed. The debate goes to Con for this. Con receives the source point as well. Con received the conduct point because Pro made a statement saying "Want to try again?" Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
zxcvzxcvzxcvSkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments backed up by sources, which pro didn't adequately respond to.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
zxcvzxcvzxcvSkepticaloneTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was straightforward - pro had BOP but didn't meet it. One sentence is nowhere near the depth of analysis required to make a valid, complete and logical argument given a complex issue like this one. Pro had decent rebuttal points, but this was irrelevant because pro had the burden to put substance into the debate, not con. Con summarised this well at the end. Con's case had a few flaws. Cultural standards is a tough case to run when all your other points are US-centric, for example, or that all of point 2 was essentially an appeal to authority where I would have expected a bit more analysis on why we have human rights. But in this debate these shortcomings proved insufficient, as con's material almost wholly stood to the end. Tip: asking questions or saying "try again" is rarely a counter-argument.
Vote Placed by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
zxcvzxcvzxcvSkepticaloneTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has stated absolutely no argument, points, sources, or opinions. He has been rude and put very little thought into his grammar an speech.
Vote Placed by bored 3 years ago
bored
zxcvzxcvzxcvSkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Pro really tried--but Con still made a thorough, convincing argument. I agree with all three points and applaud Con for presenting solid reasons for something which I hadn't really thought about but just 'felt' was wrong--a pretty poor explanation. Now I have support for my opinion.