Parents should have the right to implant GPS trackers in their children
Debate Rounds (3)
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
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
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!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.