The Instigator
Willy_Marzoqi
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
fmahaztra
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Child labour be banned or not?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 56084
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Willy_Marzoqi

Pro

They have the right to get themselves educated Children should go to the school, instead of workshops or other areas and this is their age of playing. By sending small children to the working place literally kills the future of a society. So in most of the cases we are killing our future. They can earn more money when the will be educated than when they are going to the workshops in their childhood.
fmahaztra

Con

(Although you did not directly define the definition of child labor, by your arguments I can infer that we agree with the same definition.)

The labor of children, while agreeably immoral and, of the employment of said children, undoubtedly reprehensible, I would contend that it is a necessary evil. Yes indeed, I do agree that this is their time for play and not laborious, repetitive, and physically-taxing tasks. I would also agree that labor, be it adult or of the juvenile nature, should never hinder education. I don't agree, however, with your other points, and this is how I shall divide the house.

You would argue that "by sending small children to the working place literally kills [sic] the future of a society", but I would argue otherwise. It may be just a matter of semantics, but child labor doesn't just extend to the age group that you would define as small children. This is just a minor point, but I would emphasize that with age, wage and food should be scaled proportionally, which somewhat justifies the entire enterprise of child labor in itself. It also, as a matter of fact, does not undermine any future that a society may have had these children been educated instead of enslaved. Why is this? Well, for one, no future can be directly defined or predicted without careful analysis of a given society, and even then the propensity of our people for chaotic and irrational nature can easily debase these analyses. Thus, technically, a world where child labor is rampant and another where it's presence is infinitesimal can't really be differentiated, nor can their futures be predicted.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and say that we can predict these outcomes accurately. Even then, your argument is still without foundation or fact. It wouldn't kill a future of a society, it would merely change it. I think what you're trying to illustrate is that it would kill a future where children grow up to be enterprising, upwardly-mobile businessmen as a result of their immaculate education, but that is not only irrelevant but hypocritical. Whether their adult jobs are as writers, tycoons, receptionists, McDonalds employees, the very nature of their occupations require labor at one end or the other. It is an inescapable truth within the society at large; labor is unavoidable. And, unfortunately, these aforementioned well-educated children who become businessmen, generally speaking, would employ children with cheap wages instead of adults with exorbitant ones. Thus returning to my argument of child labor as a necessary evil, at least a necessary evil in your ontological realm in where children are well-educated and get payed more.

Take it from my perspective this time, as a devil's advocate. Imagine a theoretical utopia, in where children who are 1) well-educated 2) well-fed 3) not enslaved grow up to have lucrative or at least mediocre jobs. This is a utopia in where no jobs require manual labor as a negative externality (imagine that human labor has been replaced by robots or by subordinate aliens or something, it doesn't matter). This, I would assume, is the utopia that you envisage. Now, let's visit my own (admittedly dystopian) utopia. A world where there are educated children and there are enslaved ones as well. A world in where classes are hugely disparate; in where famine, disease, and war are the scourges of the world. In this world, children grow up to be bosses (or at least humanely-treated servants of these bosses). These big bosses rely on child labor to create profit, as this is a world in where inflation is skyrocketing and prices along with it. Adult workers were laid off years ago, when the economic crisis began. Using child labor, though, at least the upper class can live. The lower class, the proletariat, are composed of slave children and displaced adults. Some can still live relatively in comfort, though subsistence is how they do so. The rest are being continually supported by various humanitarian organizations, usually funded by billionaires and the like. This is a somewhat stable utopia, a world where we have done our best to preserve both ethics and the continuity of our species. Here's the best part: this is the world that we live in. Or at least, the one we are about to enter.

I realize this may seem like a grand digression of the topic, but let me conclude. What I'm saying is, child labor is necessary to 1) preserve the stability of our (as in of countries) interdependent economies 2) provide bright opportunities for the enterprising, educated children 3) to increase profit (with low wage, low physical maintenance, and high endurance), thus improving the economy of a given country, thus allowing for opportunities for new startup companies and the like (which can theoretically be started by child laborers which are now enterprising businessmen, having learned their trade by force), and to 4) essentially provide a better future for future generations. I hope this encapsulates my argument well, and that all points are conveyed and not lost in translation.

I apologize for my callousness in ignoring the ethics of this situation, as I merely mirrored your lack of ethics-related arguments. I also apologize for any condescendence that might be derived from my rhetoric; I didn't mean it. I only mean for us to have a civilized, rational debate. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Willy_Marzoqi

Pro

Willy_Marzoqi forfeited this round.
fmahaztra

Con

fmahaztra forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Willy_Marzoqi

Pro

Willy_Marzoqi forfeited this round.
fmahaztra

Con

fmahaztra forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by scrub.SJAM 2 years ago
scrub.SJAM
who gives a fuk about the kids? they are fuking trash and scrubs that love my D in the V and in thier anus!!!
Posted by Masterchief755 2 years ago
Masterchief755
Why not child labour is cheap and easy
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
hum ..... .
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
The contender is interesting..... .
Posted by Mr_Soundboard 2 years ago
Mr_Soundboard
I'd love to argue this, because child labour is actually a major means of financial support to some of the poorest families on the planet. The children have to work, there are no two ways about it, no choice in fact because parents can not afford to send their children to school in the first place and in many cases, the children work AND go to school, otherwise there would be no food on the table.

Having said all that, I do wish all child labour was banned but that is in an ideal word, sadly we can only dream about that for now.

The conflict in my own views is why I'm not accepting this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.