The Instigator
IfYouCantTakeTheHeat
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
vmpire321
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Should we take an Obese kid away from his mother?

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 6 votes the winner is...
vmpire321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,637 times Debate No: 19735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

IfYouCantTakeTheHeat

Con

So a child was taken away from his mother because the child was too obese . This is wrong. CPS (Child Protective Services) is taking a kid away from his mother just because he is too obese? Are you kidding me? What kind of people take away a child because of his obesity? There are children being beaten and rape and CPS is wasting their time on this child and there taking him away for a stupid reason. Don't waste your time on a child who is overweight and go rescue beaten and abused children instead of worrying about a overweight child.
vmpire321

Pro

I believe the situations that CON is trying to communicate can be seen here
http://www.cnn.com...
http://cpsracket.blogspot.com...
http://abcnews.go.com...

==ARGUMENTS==

I believe that this debate is specific to this situation, whereas the Department of Children and Family Services of Cuyahoga County in Ohio determined that a 3rd grader should be taken away from his mother.

1) This child ways more than 200 pounds at just the age of 8. Furthermore, the state gave the mother a full year to get back on track on what she's feeding her child. They even gave her pediatric input on what and how to feed her child appropriately. However, the mom neglected this advice and continue to feed her child in negative ways.

2) This mom was informed by the doctors that life-threatening situations were imminent if she didn't change her child's lifestyle. She failed her child when she allowed him to continue on the path to downfall. Can you say for sure that this mom cared deeply for her child's life?

3) “In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems,” according to Dr. David Ludwig and Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

==REBUTTALS==
I will now refute CON's arguments.

Con says "So a child was taken away from his mother because the child was too obese . This is wrong. CPS (Child Protective Services) is taking a kid away from his mother just because he is too obese? Are you kidding me? What kind of people take away a child because of his obesity?"
1) I've explained clearly why it was justifiable for authorities to remove that child in my above arguments.

Con says "There are children being beaten and rape and CPS is wasting their time on this child and there taking him away for a stupid reason. Don't waste your time on a child who is overweight and go rescue beaten and abused children instead of worrying about a overweight child."
1) Without the intervention of the government, this child could have died due to life-threatening issues that his mother completely neglected.
2) It isn't as simple as what CON is trying to portray. "Go rescue beaten and abused children"? The US government is already trying their best on helping those issues, as not all beaten and abused children are being harmed in broad daylight in front of the public. And furthermore, just because there is something that is of a higher degree, it doesn't mean that we should neglect less "important" things. There exists a balance between things.

===
:D! I await your response, and vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
IfYouCantTakeTheHeat

Con

Before I start I would like to say that you have excellent points.

But now it is my turn.

Rebuttal's:
Pro said: "This mom was informed by the doctors that life-threatening situations were imminent if she didn't change her child's lifestyle. She failed her child when she allowed him to continue on the path to downfall. Can you say for sure that this mom cared deeply for her child's life?"
A.) How do you know she didn't try to put him on a diet? It says on http://abcnews.go.com... that "The boy lost a few pounds" Well it does cost a lot of money to go on a diet. Healthy food cost a lot more than junk food. The economy is pretty bad these days. The mother probably couldn't afford the money to put his son on a diet.
B.) Pro said "Can you say for sure that this mom cared deeply for her child's life"
No I can't say for sure, your right. But if this mother didn't care deeply, then why would she say “It’s a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying.” It seems that the mother is trying hard and caring deeply for her child's life to me.
C.)Pro also said:
"The US government is already trying their best on helping those issues, as not all beaten and abused children are being harmed in broad daylight in front of the public." Yes, you are right. Not all kids are being beaten in broad daylight. But I don't think that they are trying their best. If the U.S. government is trying their best, they would be going to schools and asking children if they are being bullied by " mommy or daddy". They are not trying hard enough because they need kids to tell adults what happens when they go into school and they see a bruise anywhere on their bodies. Also they need to bring a kids out of class and ask them questions about abuse and see how they answer. They aren't trying hard enough and they need to push harder to make this world a better place.

Those are my rebuttal's and hope to get a response soon.


vmpire321

Pro

==REBUTTALS==
CON says that 'healthy' food is a lot more expensive the junk food, and the mother probably couldn't afford it.

However...
1) Food programs exist for a reason - they are there to get food to those in need, and often have healthy food.
2) This is a lot of 'junk' food that this child must be eating, and the money spent on this could be spent on something else more useful and beneficial.

CON literally quotes his mom....
1) The state provided tips and warned her about her son's condition. If she was too poor, she could have gone to food programs.
2) You sourced his mom, as 'reasoning' behind why she cared. This is like asking a murderer, "Did you kill him", and then trusting the murderer's word.

CON says "Not all kids are being beaten in broad daylight. But I don't think that they are trying their best. If the U.S. government is trying their best, they would be going to schools and asking children if they are being bullied by " mommy or daddy". They are not trying hard enough because they need kids to tell adults what happens when they go into school and they see a bruise anywhere on their bodies. Also they need to bring a kids out of class and ask them questions about abuse and see how they answer. They aren't trying hard enough and they need to push harder to make this world a better place."
1) Students have been taught to tell teachers if anything is bothering them. This includes domestic violence, bullying, abuse, etc.
2) Society as a whole can notice that things are wrong with certain students. Anyone can see if there are awkward bruises.
3) Anyone can call Child's Aid Society, in which they can report violence and beatings..
4) CON also says that we should "bring a kids out of class and ask them questions about abuse and see how they answer." Teachers can already do this where they see fit. And furthermore, CON doesn't realize the potential costs of such a large-scale operation. Taking every single student into a private area, asking them questions, and them determining what the result is, simply is too much. You might as well search every house for illegal immigrants.
5) CON also fails to recognize home-schooled students and privately schooled students. Now we also have to go to the homes of every home-schooled child, along with every private school?
6) I don't seem to see why this is even close to relevant to the current topic. The CPS were alerted of a problem, and they went ahead and fixed it. Now you're saying that the CPS should have ignored that problem, and concentrated everything on searching for abuse? That makes no logical sense...

==DROPPED ARGUMENTS==

1) CON never mentioned that the state gave the mother a full year to get back on the right track, yet she failed to comply. Pediatric input was also included, but no action was apparently taken.

============
I await your response. :)
Debate Round No. 2
IfYouCantTakeTheHeat

Con

Rebuttals:

When PRO said: "The CPS were alerted of a problem, and they went ahead and fixed it. Now you're saying that the CPS should have ignored that problem, and concentrated everything on searching for abuse? That makes no logical sense..."
A.) I have never once said they should ignore the problem of obesity.What I am trying to say is that they should focusing more on abused children instead of being focused on a children who are overweight.
B.) I already know that the child was taken away. The debate is whether or not CPS should have taken the child away.


Also, PRO posted a link that I find very helpful in this situation. The link is called: http://www.cnn.com...

I would like to quote a few opinions. "Is child obesity a form of child neglect? Of course
not. That's ridiculous."
"Was this an instance of child abuse? Apparently not. Was it an urgent situation that required this local government entity to immediately intervene and take the drastic step of separating a family? It doesn't seem so."
The people who run these social service agencies always claim that they're acting in the best interests of the child. Yet, in this case, that could be a tough sell. In the absence of actual abuse, taking a child away from his mother and placing him in foster care is not in anyone's best interests -- not the child, not the mother and not the rest of society which will have to deal with the emotional fallout for years to come.
After quoting those opinions from the editor from CNN, it shows that taking the child away wasn't necessary.
This shows that taking the child from his mother was not necessary.

Thank You! :)
vmpire321

Pro

==Rebuttals==

Con says "I have never once said they should ignore the problem of obesity.What I am trying to say is that they should focusing more on abused children instead of being focused on a children who are overweight."
1) The CPS came across this on a lucky chance. They weren't "looking" for obese children to take away, but rather someone reported the child to them.
2) I've already stated before, the CPS cannot devote everything to "abused children".

Con says "I already know that the child was taken away. The debate is whether or not CPS should have taken the child away."
1) That doesn't make much sense in this debate. (o.0?) I stated that the way you were presenting things suggested that we shouldn't concetrate on obese children. So I said that ignoring the problem isn't correct....

CON says: ""Is child obesity a form of child neglect? Of course
not. That's ridiculous."
"Was this an instance of child abuse? Apparently not. Was it an urgent situation that required this local government entity to immediately intervene and take the drastic step of separating a family? It doesn't seem so."
The people who run these social service agencies always claim that they're acting in the best interests of the child. Yet, in this case, that could be a tough sell. In the absence of actual abuse, taking a child away from his mother and placing him in foster care is not in anyone's best interests -- not the child, not the mother and not the rest of society which will have to deal with the emotional fallout for years to come. After quoting those opinions from the editor from CNN, it shows that taking the child away wasn't necessary.
This shows that taking the child from his mother was not necessary."

1) Even CON admit that this was the opinion of a writer. Not all writers are correct or have full knowledge of the situation.
2) “In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems,” according to Dr. David Ludwig and Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health.
3) This was an instance of parental neglect, as the mother apparenently ignored the government's pleas to take care of her child.
4) Life-threatening situations call for action and the intervention of the government. So yes, this was an urgent situation.
5) Taking the child away was in the best interest for that child. Without this course of action, he probably would have died. 200 pounds at 8 years old?
6) Average 8 year olds weigh around 60 pounds. The only ages where you see people breaking the 200lb mark are 17 and up, and even then it's a small percentage. http://www.chartsgraphsdiagrams.com...
7) The mother's best interest? She completely neglected her child's health. It's best and wise to seperate them.
8) The rest of society's best interest? If this child has any friends, that don't bully him for his weight, then it's probable that they might have to deal with some emotions. But this is the third grade. I don't even remember the names of my friends back in third grade. Time passes on....
9) Just because he's been removed, it doesn't mean they're taking him across the nation. Perhaps this child might even be able to keep in contact with some of his friends.

==DROPPED ARGUMENTS==
1) Con, once again, didn't mention the fact that it the state gave his mother a full year and advice to take care of her child.
2) Food programs exist. The mother didn't have any obvious reason to why she didn't get her child some 'healthy' food.

==Summary==
1. I've told you about this third grader weighed 200 pounds, yet the average weight for his age is around 60lbs.
2. The State gave his mother a full year and pediatric input on how to take care of his child. No obvious improvement was made.
3. The mother knew that life-threatening situations were imminent, if her childs lifestyle continued. Nothing changed, which suggests that she neglected her third-grader.
4. A lawyer and researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health agree that in severe instances of childhood obsesity, taking a child away is justifiable, due to health risks that the parents' failure to adress these problems.
5. Food programs exist to help out and they are often loaded up with healthy foods. There is no obvious problem to why the mother couldn't feed her child something correct.

6. I've also completely negated all of CON's points and shown you that in this specific case, it was correct to remove this child.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Hmm.@MaxZero ...

I googled it, and I looked at the news reports about obese children getting taken by the CPS >.<
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Nice job vmpire ^_^
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Conduct and S&G is the same on both sides. Pro gets arguments because he made several excellent points showing how CPS took the child away for the benefit of the child. He also showed how the government came across this case because someone reported it too them; not because they were looking for obese children. Sources is also tied, since both sides provided equally reliable sources.
Posted by MaxZero 5 years ago
MaxZero
This whole debate appears to be, contrary to the title, about only one situation and not the hypothetical situations implied by con.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
>.< lol
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Lol this debate is going to be so funny!
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
nvm, i already found it.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
It'd be nice if you could post some links... So we could find out more information about this situation.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
IfYouCantTakeTheHeatvmpire321Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I detest pro's personal position, but he had better arguments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
IfYouCantTakeTheHeatvmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con gets sources, but con still had erguments tha weren't fully defeated. Also both had the BOP, but con didn't fully fill it, but he did better than con in that perspective.
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
IfYouCantTakeTheHeatvmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: I personally feel the state should be doing OTHER things to help the boy, but simply removing him from his family can do serious psychological harm. Not to mention he probably already has a very fragile self-esteem due to his weight, and being told his mother didn't care about him and that he's too fat surely can't be helping.
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 5 years ago
Boogerdoctor
IfYouCantTakeTheHeatvmpire321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments and used better sources. I feel like con was majorly on defense the whole time and really couldn't provide any refutation to pro's argument.
Vote Placed by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
IfYouCantTakeTheHeatvmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Con: Had excelent grammer and spelling. Awesome arguments. Pro: Good sources, Also Awesome arguments.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
IfYouCantTakeTheHeatvmpire321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was outstanding from the start. The information was accurate, conclusions sound and patience and tolerance excellent. Con seemed to be trying to make the point that the Government has no interest in the welfare of Children, but failed to establish that position so I am not sure.