The Instigator
apriskemom
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
debaterstud18
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

People should not intentionally have children if they know full-time daycare will be required.

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: 3/28/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,055 times Debate No: 3413
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

apriskemom

Pro

What is the point of having children if you don't intend to raise them yourself? People should not have kids until they can afford them. And by "afford" I mean the financial ability to raise them in person. If you want to sponsor a child (i.e. pay for his food, necessities, schooling, etc.), you can sign up with any number of charities. If you want to raise a child, you must be present to do so.
debaterstud18

Con

Ok so like right we don't the ability to tell people to do this. Also what if they don't know it will be required or unintentionally have kids what do we do then. In so far aw we make this kind of rule or maintain this idea then we drive the day cares out of busniess and then leave ourselves open to problems for the cases I disucss above. Also the benefits of a full time day care are infinite to the kids because they learn many necessary social skills which will help them in life so day cares actually are benefitially. So again it comes back to one thing the question of why. To be honest there is no reason to stand for this because 1.) its wrong and 2.) even if the advcocacy was right its unenforcable and by standing for this your standing against the mothers free choice to use a day care and the day cares right to make money thus going against our constitution.
Debate Round No. 1
apriskemom

Pro

This isn't an argument in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. I just said people SHOULD not have children if they know those children will spend 70% of their waking hours in the care of strangers. It is a strong suggestion. I am not trying to advocate any law. Please use round 2 to address the topic. I'll save all my arguments for the final round.
debaterstud18

Con

Ok so I put responses to your main arguement. I argue that we should be able to have day care if we want. Also I discuss the benefits to the kids from going to day care, and at the point where you show no negative effects of going to the day care you don't prove a reason to affirm. Also you don't explain a single reason why who are you to determine the "point" of having a child if you have them at day care. Your advocacy just doesn't make sense and its not actually grounded in any way. Also it leads us to have day cares because if more people felt like you they would go out of business and then what if people needed them. Also you don't define your brightlines for full time day care vs. part time day care. Furthermore you don't explain what you mean by intentionally have a kid. Also since you don't prove harms, and provide no justification for your PERSONAL opinion we vote neg.
Debate Round No. 2
apriskemom

Pro

For one, I do not think you really comprehend the arguement and its ideas. Your grammar and spelling is so confusing, I'm not sure what are your opposing points. I never said that there should not be any day care facilities. I am all for a free marketplace. However, my point is that if people intentionally choose to get pregnant and have the responsibility of a child, then it is the parent who should and needs to be at home to raise that child. It is the PARENT who really loves and has INTEREST IN THE CHILD...that is where the child begins to learn their value and identity. A person who is an employee only cares, (and in some cases doesn't), if there's a smelly diaper and that the child has food. A child does not care about the parents career...it has NO relevance to their reality...they just want mom. You asked who I was...I am a mom. A mom who at the age of 23, almost 16 years ago, put my child in "day care" because that's "where you put a child at 6 weeks of age", only to arrive there unexpectedly one day to see the "caregiver" hold up a 15 month old to eye level and after screaming into his tearful face drop him to the ground. My daughter was never in day care again. I have since raised 3 girls who are social standouts in the fact that they are value driven, fun, happy children who have the undeniable peace and knowledge that they matter because of the love we have demonstrated in our care of raising them. Social standouts because they have respect for authority and others, are not cutters or drug addicts, do not hide things from their parents, and would rather build the best self they can instead of trying to find their identity with a boy. I do not believe that any one person is perfect, but it is in the best interest of a child to have a parent who makes the sacrifices necessary to set their child up for success thus ensuring their own. By the way, my first child was born out of wed-lock and was 2 when her father and I finally married...we are together 17 years today.
debaterstud18

Con

Ok so basically looking at your entire argument, because you did it this way its correct. Also look at some logic right, there is no negative impacts to the kids and they do only learn social skills when they are introduced to others at a day care. You also believe that all day care employees are negligent and could care less which is simply not true. Also full time day care required could be temporary so your claim that if the mother may need it for a month then she shouldn't have kids? That just doesn't make sense. So for the previous reasons I gave and the fact that this is illogical vote eng.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Figure with taxes around 50% when state, fed, reeal estate, & sales tax are added in, one person is working for the family, and the other is really working to pay the government. If the 2nd income earner doesn't make as much as the bread winner (and must pay daycare on top of it), it isn't even enough to pay the government's cut of the bread winner's salary. Maybe inflation is not the problem.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 9 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I agree with what apriskemom is saying to a degree. I agree that our society is placing an undue strain on our children by having them, only to neglect their well-beings. Well said.

I would also unhesitatingly point out that inflation has made it so that the average low and middle-class household cannot afford not to have a double income. But sometimes as a result, the second income barely pays for the daycare itself. And so its circular, in that, why go to work if you are basically not making a profit, since your pay check equals the same amount as the daycare itself? Why not just stay at home with your children since it would be in their best interest if you aren't going to make a significant enough profit to even be worthwhile.

This, I believe, is the toll we take in the wake of the sexual revolution and the feminist movements. They have made it so that the job market is so saturated, that most jobs cant afford to pay an employee what they are actually worth. At the same time, and also as a direct result, no one can afford to live without a second income. Its a catch-22.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
apriskemomdebaterstud18Tied
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 Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
apriskemomdebaterstud18Tied
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 HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
apriskemomdebaterstud18Tied
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 qwarkinator 9 years ago
qwarkinator
apriskemomdebaterstud18Tied
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 debaterstud18 9 years ago
debaterstud18
apriskemomdebaterstud18Tied
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