The Instigator
Moonwater
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
BEASTxKNIGHTx12
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Parents should have the right to implant GPS trackers in their 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 1 vote the winner is...
Moonwater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,905 times Debate No: 54572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Moonwater

Con

As children nowadays grow more and more lawless and unruly, the thought of implanting GPS trackers in children has seemingly grown more and more viable. However, I am strongly against this idea.

Many things could potentially go wrong with a GPS tracker. For starters, the GPS tracker would only be able to locate your child through satellites. The radiation produced by such communication could, and will, harm one's child. This would not be making them safer at all. Perhaps your child would be safer from muggings or kidnappings or thefts, but I would highly hope that you have enough money to pay for the child's medical bills when the doctor tells you that your child is suffering from radiation poisoning or something of that lot.

In addition to this, GPS trackers are a violation of human rights. Your child would grow with this GPS tracker inside them, their flesh and bone morphing in order to accommodate it. This could potentially cripple your child, especially if you wish to implant the tracker when the child is an infant.

Furthermore, does the child have no right to privacy? Are they not allowed to go anywhere without their parents knowing? Lying to one's parent is not ideal, but let's face it, everyone has at one point or another. Does the child not have a right to go wherever he or she pleases without his or her parents getting on their case? The child would have no freedom, knowing that their parents would always be able to locate them.

Moreover, what if the child's parent is abusive? The abusive parent would be able to locate their child at all times during every day, giving the child no opportunity to escape.

These are all reasons why parents should have the right to implant GPS trackers in their children
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Pro

I accidentally accepted this challenge and I agree with con why put a tracker in your own. Because if they were on there honeymoon and wanted to be alone with there wife/husband and the parents just stalked them. Thats called creepy
Debate Round No. 1
Moonwater

Con

Is there any way for you to forfeit this entire debate?
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Pro

I don't know
Debate Round No. 2
Moonwater

Con

Very well then. Let's just end this, shall we?
BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Pro

Yes we shall with you winning because you are the one who is right
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Lt.Harris 3 years ago
Lt.Harris
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You actually think that the radiation would hurt them...HAHAHAHA...wow...I'm crying right now.
Posted by weallfree 3 years ago
weallfree
I truly expect who coming for pro!
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Interesting topic
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
MoonwaterBEASTxKNIGHTx12Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: There was nothing wrong with Con's conduct, but I think Pro's conduct should be rewarded. It was an honorable concession, and he didn't just wait out the clock and auto-forfeit all the rounds. So cheers. But obviously, arguments to Con for Pro's concession. I will note, though, that there's a missing "NOT" in the last sentence of Con's, just as a heads up. As always, happy to clarify this RFD!