The Instigator
ricksterpr0
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whiteflame
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should people with unfavorable traits be allowed to breed?

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...
whiteflame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 780 times Debate No: 64640
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

ricksterpr0

Con

This debate pertains to whether or not people with certain unfavorable traits should be allowed to reproduce.


Now, let me elaborate.

The traits I will be arguing for are low IQ, genetic diseases or mutations, signifigantly above average testosterone, and any other negative personallities or charcteristics that will be spread to their children either genetically or socially.

I believe that by limiting the spread of these horrible traits by means of infertilization of men and women possesing them, we can eliminate these inferior traits without any violence. We can return to our true form of natural selection humanity deserves.


I am arguing purely on the point of efficiency and biological sucess. You will be allowed to argue morally, but it can only be used in support of efficiency.



Pro will be arguing for the current system of reproductive rights (In the United States) and why this is better.


The Rules:


No semantics or trolling


I look forward to a good debate.


whiteflame

Pro

Thanks to ricksterpr0 for offering up this interesting topic for debate. As someone who very much appreciates the science of genetics and their inheritance, as well as the importance of those genes with regards to the survival and progression of the human species, I find this debate is well worth having and I recognize the importance of having it. As such, I will be taking this quite seriously, so I, too, look forward to a riveting debate.

Now, ricksterpr0 has not stated whether I am to use this round for acceptance or to simply launch into my opening arguments, and as such I choose to mirror his first round, focusing on providing a brief preview to my case for the motion. I will also take this opportunity to ask for clarification of my opponent's case in order to make this debate as fair and educational as possible.

The scientific half of my case will focus on the importance of genetic diversity in society, and specifically delineate between what is viewed as "unfavorable" in society and what is "unfavorable" with regards to biological outcomes for the species as a whole. For the moral half, I will abstain from discussing the importance of reproductive rights to individual autonomy and societal equality (as this is not an issue of efficiency), but I will present the harms of forced infertilization of a subset of the population based on "inferior" traits, the plausible abuses of the system and their effects, and the likely popular responses this policy is likely to receive.

Now, for some points of clarification:

1) None of the traits you've listed are clearly spelled out. Several of these require clear thresholds you haven't set. I'm also confused as to how some of these are measured, most specifically IQ, "genetic...mutations," and "negative personallities or charcteristics." I'm also assuming you mean all genetic diseases and not just some specific subset. I hope you can also explain which traits are spread by social means and how we measure their likelihood of spread.

2) I need to know what your model is in its totality. I assume that FIAT is involved, in that we're assuming that any legal impediments to such a policy that currently exist will be disregarded for the sake of discussing the policy change itself, but I'm still going to need more specifics. What are the "means of infertilization" being used here? How will the cost of implementation be paid out? How would the medical and social information required to make this a reality be acquired by that government? How would the U.S. government enforce its usage?

Please, be specific. Any lack of specificity in your case gives me ample room for interpretation, and you really don't want me to be assuming what happens in your case.

With that, I leave it to ricksterpr0 to further establish his case and present his opening arguments in full.
Debate Round No. 1
ricksterpr0

Con

ricksterpr0 forfeited this round.
whiteflame

Pro

Sadly, it appears my opponent hasn't appeared online over the last 5 days, which may be due to other pressing concerns. I've given him as much time as I am able to get back on and post his opening arguments, and I hope he'll be able to do so in the next 72 hours.
Debate Round No. 2
ricksterpr0

Con

ricksterpr0 forfeited this round.
whiteflame

Pro

Well, at this point there's not much of a debate to be had, so I'll just move things along. My invitation to have this debate later remains open.
Debate Round No. 3
ricksterpr0

Con

ricksterpr0 forfeited this round.
whiteflame

Pro

Closing this out.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mharman 7 months ago
Mharman
@cheyennebodie: EPIC ROAST!
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I'd really like to present them. If ricksterpr0 comes back too late, I'd be happy to have this debate repeated.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Aw man, I hope Con comes back - I'd really enjoy seeing further arguments from Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
...Always glad to see you contribute something relevant to the debate instead of showcasing your own personal biases.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The first group I would sterilize is liberals.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Alright, I'm alright turning this into a 3 round debate, but I'd like a sign of life. ricksterpr0, let me know you're still up for this. I'll wait.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
ricksterpr0whiteflameTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited multiple rounds which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had excellent spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. This is somewhat difficult for me to award, because technically Pro only gave an overview of his case. The fact remains though that Con failed to present any challenges whatsoever. I am left assuming that Pro maintained his BOP due to the fact that he was left standing unchallenged. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources throughout this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
ricksterpr0whiteflameTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ricksterpr0whiteflameTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture