The Instigator
Mak-zie
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Oldfrith
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should obese children be taken away from their parents?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mak-zie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,371 times Debate No: 20627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Mak-zie

Con

This is my first debate, so I apologize if I do anything wrong. Anyway, the government should not have the right to take children away from their parents if they are obese. There are several reasons for this. For my first reason I will go with the constitution. We have the freedom of how much to eat, and the government should not tell us how much/how little to eat. They can encourage us to eat healthier, but it should not be a forced thing, much like voting is.
Which brings me to my second reason, which is health reasons/disorders. Just because a child is on a diet and trying to lose weight does not mean they can. Because of a health-related reason, they just might not be able to lose weight, or maybe just have a higher metabolism. Thank you.
Oldfrith

Pro

Due to the 1,000 character limit, I will rebut my opponents contentions, and elaborate in the next round

Obese: Excessively overweight

Children: any person who has been born of a natural birth.

Taken away from: Any form of separation from the child’s biological parents, by any person or group, or by the child’s own decision

So, I now move on to my contentions:

1) Leads to the collapse of the education system

2) It leads to the collapse of the job market

3)What if the obese child wishes to see the world for himself, and get married? And, moreover, what if two obese children wish to marry?

And for all these reasons, I urge for a Affirmative vote on your ballot.

Debate Round No. 1
Mak-zie

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate. Secondly, dispute some of their arguments:

3)What if the obese child wishes to see the world for himself, and get married? And, moreover, what if two obese children wish to marry?-Obesity does not stop any person from getting married, and hasn't society always said that it shouldn't matter what a person's appearance is? However, it could prevent them from seeing the world.

1) Leads to the collapse of the education system
2) It leads to the collapse of the job market-Obesity does make these tasks considerably more difficult, but in most cases not altogether impossible.

Being a democracy, it seems more like a dictatorship, simply splitting up families for no reason. All it is doing is tearing the country apart and taking away our rights. Instead, the government could offer treatments like obesity surgery for people who cannot afford it.
Besides, don't you think overfeeding children seems more loving than starving them?
Oldfrith

Pro

1)Leads to the collapse of the education system
Under the definitions, if a child goes away from their parents, even for school, that is a "taken away from" moment there. So obviously, obese children should be taken away from their parents, otherwise the country would collapse due to lack of education. Or parents could stay with their children throughout the school day, but that relates to my second contention, which is:

2) It leads to the collapse of the job market
Honestly, if parents of obese children were forced to stay with their child throughout the school day, can you imagine what emotional trauma that would cause the child, and the finances of the parent, seeing as how they can't work? It is illogical to keep children with their parents throughout their entire lives, which leads to my second contention:

Rebuttal:
1) nowhere in the constitution does it state this
2) Does not relate to the resolution
Debate Round No. 2
Mak-zie

Con

My opponent:
1. The constitution does not deal directly with obesity, but the amendments guarantee people the right to a fair trial, so they can explain their children's situation to the court. However, the eight-year who was taken away from his mother did not get one, which violates the constitution.
2. There are ways to avoid the collapse of the education system. The child can easily be homeschooled via private tutor, without the parent having to supervise them.

Conclusion:
1. Pro-choice. You have choices, and the government should not force you into submission.
2. We should not live in a place that idolizes starvation.
3. For many children, health problems cause their obesity.
4. Many parents can't afford the healthier foods, so the better solution is to help parents out and give them better options.
5. Finally, taking children away from parents only brings seperation anxiety on children and they rely on food for comfort.
6. Less food cosumed ruins our ecomony and destroys jobs.
Oldfrith

Pro

My opponent dropped my contentions. I would like for the voters to note that she did not respond directly to anything I said, and she did not use the definition of "Taken away from" that she conceded to.

Therefore, please vote PRO
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
Seriously?? 1,000 characters? I'm getting 2,000 in this comment box alone.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Mak-zieOldfrithTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly semantic argument by Pro. It's clear what "taken away" means in the context of the debate. The real argument is when parents refuse to trat a life threatening medical condition.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Mak-zieOldfrithTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I had to read Pros argument a few times to figure out what the heck he was talking about. He argues that a child going away to school counts as being "taken away from" as stated in the resolution. This is purely a semantical argument and not what was intended. Even as a semantical argument it still made no sense. Cons arguments we relevant to the debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Mak-zieOldfrithTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Considering that this was Con's first debate, I thought that she did exceptionally well for her first time. Pro didn't have to complain about the character restrictions, conduct goes to Con. Pro's arguments lacked structure; neither side used any sources.