The Instigator
Tin_Hat
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
reasonablereason
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Should the mentally handicapped be allowed to live?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 68104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Tin_Hat

Con

Mentally handicapped people do not do anything positive for us, they do not pass on good genes for future generations, they do not innovate and are not capable of deep, meaningful thought, (or at least cannot express it and change anything) in every situation they would be a burden and have their lives lived for them by others.
reasonablereason

Pro

They should be allowed to live, because it is God's will.
Debate Round No. 1
Tin_Hat

Con

Religion shouldn't have anything to do with this... we're looking strictly from a panoramic view
reasonablereason

Pro

God's will has everything to do with it, because it is true.
Debate Round No. 2
Tin_Hat

Con

Dude, you're retarded. -_-
reasonablereason

Pro

Your irrationality strikes me as odd... Perhaps you ought to use some reason.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Longline 2 years ago
Longline
It's does not mater if we include religion or not, the down point is they have blood inside of them, I belive and they can see hear feel, and have all the properties of that of a normals or any human being. Killing them should not be justify as they are mentally disable, that will be a crime and consider murder. No Where will this action be ok or justifiable.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
Tin_HatreasonablereasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro get's conduct because Con insulted Pro. S&G and sources are tied because the former was equal and the latter were not used by either. Arguments are tied because both sides' assertions are unwarranted. Furthermore, Con unjustifiably rejects Pro's appeal to divine authority. There is no reason why religion should not be brought into the debate, even if there is no need for it to be.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
Tin_HatreasonablereasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Pro because Con called Pro "retarded." S&G is tied, neither was bad. Arguments go Con, because "God's will" is a very poor argument. Sources are tied because neither used any. I can't believe I'm voting for Con, but looking at the debate objectively and ignoring my personal opinion, Con outdid Pro.
Vote Placed by darthebearnc 2 years ago
darthebearnc
Tin_HatreasonablereasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Pro because of Con's offensive claim in Round 3. Arguments are tied because neither successfully rebutted the argument of the other or provided actual evidence for their own.