The Instigator
Mremann87
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
InternetDuelist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Since children are necessarily property, is it moral and ethical to monetize children?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Mremann87
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 417 times Debate No: 76063
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Mremann87

Pro

The element of children being qualified as property should not be challenged, for property is the appropriation and control of matter for personal use.

As Pro to this position, firstly, I posit that children are a form of provisional property, to the extent that they assume agency of their person they own themselves, that to the extent that guardians must assume emergent agency they possess ownership, but to no extent does a naturally unvested interest have any claim or standing whatsoever.

Next, the child is the inalienable principal in the claim over his person. Yet, because the Guardian is a vested stakeholder, the value thereof is transferable granted no undue loss is incurred by the child.
InternetDuelist

Con

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen to this fine debate. I represent the outlook that monetizing children is not moral and ethical in a society where children happen to be conditionally legal property of their guardians. Let us first define moral and ethical before proceeding to analyze this debate.

According to Oxford dictionaries[1] for something to be moral, it must be concerned with or derived from the code of behavior that is considered right in society. Additionally, for something to be ethical[2], it must be relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. Consequently, by proving that monetizing children goes against the code of behavior that is considered right by society, I prove this resolution wrong both on the moral and ethical line of thinking as they are intertwined. Even if I only proved it to not be moral or not be ethical without proving the other, I still would win this debate as the resolution says 'moral and ethical' not 'moral or ethical'.

I would first like to address Pro's arguments. Pro states that children are a form of provisional property. The term 'provisional'[3] refers to the child only being property of their guardian based on a set of criteria that can be later changed. The criteria involved in determining the provision of the right to be the guardian of a child[4] involve attention paid to the child's safety and attitudes the guardians have towards this. In a system where children can be sold and bought, the enforcement of child welfare on wealthy guardians becomes much more difficult as the government would then have to pay neglectful parents in order to have them cared for by the state. This would result in there being an an
incentive to be a neglectful or abusive parent.

Another argument Pro uses is that children are the principal in the choice of who owns them, this is an outright lie.

Sources
[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mremann87

Pro

Firstly, thanks for meaningfully partaking in this debate. And thanks added for the shared appreciation of the foundation of argumentation, grammar before logic.

Unfortunately however, I do not agree with the grammar Con has forwarded, and thus it is of course the case of the logic that follows.
To keep this as concise as possible, I'll cut to parsing the offending phrase of the definitions posited.
In order to fully and properly integrate "that is considered right by society", each part must be understood as it ties into the facts of reality, the actual existents to which are referred. Namely the terms "right" and "society" as used here.

"Right" in its moral and social use, as morality refers to the social arena of human interaction, not behavior as pertaining to solitary life, is behavior which is beneficial to all agents involved without undue loss or disadvantage to any agent of the given activity or activities in and of itself.

"Society" is a group of people who freely associate for the general benefit of all, in whatever respect(s) that are mutually and universally beneficial as indicated by each individual's consent.

Now that the grammar is laid, it's time for inquiry.

Considered "right" by whom? Society? Society is a group of individuals. Therefore this must refer to perfect consensus of all individuals in said society. Therefore, because in theory what's "right" in today's US society is decided by democratic processes and it's compulsory tax system irrespective of individual consent or dissent, there can be no societal consensus established.

Further, considered "right" by which "society"?
How does each "society" originate morality/ethics differently? By what mechanism?

The answer i propose here is that morality/ethics is determined by individuals consentually choosing social life on mutual terms and conditions. To the degree that people coalesce in number, there can be said a "society".

I'm out of characters. Thanks
InternetDuelist

Con

InternetDuelist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mremann87

Pro

Mremann87 forfeited this round.
InternetDuelist

Con

InternetDuelist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mremann87

Pro

Mremann87 forfeited this round.
InternetDuelist

Con

InternetDuelist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Mremann87

Pro

Hello all,

Unfortunately, my debate partner has went MIA. I have rebutted and believably refuted his choice of grammar, which seems it may have been his one and only angle of challenge to the proposition of this debate. Given that my debate partner has become unresponsive to my refutations, logic dictates that he has yielded to my argument and therefore, I should prevail in the sad, premature death of this debate.

I could have went on proposing my conceptual framework surrounding this moral concern of mine, but it would not be most beneficial nor efficacious without an active partner in scrutinizing and analyzing my logical coherency.
I'd hope that my stats don't suffer for this most unfortunate mishap. With growing experience, I'll practice more and more due diligence in establishing grammar beforehand and more suitably matching my debate partners here at DDO.

THANKS to all who are watching and reading, as well as my debate partner, and please vote for me.
InternetDuelist

Con

InternetDuelist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mremann87 1 year ago
Mremann87
That is the most saddening thing I've read someone say in a while.

In that case I suppose "morality" is not debatable, right?

I must presuppose that you're a theist...
Posted by Karnathan 1 year ago
Karnathan
Technically speaking, it is both moral and immoral to monetize children due to the fact that morality is based off of human character and is usually based off of emotion instead of logic. However, many people would disapprove of this argument and would not agree to your opinion. The belief that a child is his own and of his own property is the reason of our independence (speaking from the U.S.A.). In some places, it might be moral for a child to be sold for profit. However, the fact remains that morality is based off of an opinion instead of a logical conclusion. Since this argument is not a factual debate, instead opinionated, the thought of children being monetized will be thought of as immoral in many minds of parents and children themselves.

But hey, that's just my opinion on the matter.
Posted by Mremann87 1 year ago
Mremann87
I truly wish that your conception of property started here were true. Unfortunately, it is not.
I don't hold true title of ownership to my belongings in the US. They'd like to lend lip service to that notion at every turn they get though. The State claims and treats me as if they hold higher title even to my being, my effort and my effects. I pay taxes/rents to the State in spite of my consent or dissent. Unfortunately, i was born here, and most because of my dissent would suggest I leave. Another indication that the STATE owns this entire plot and all which rests upon it.
Posted by sillydebater 1 year ago
sillydebater
I agree with your definition of property. However, in many societies today, people do not have sole dominion over children, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual.

Specifically, children are seen as a responsibility, but not a property, of a parent or guardian. The state can take that responsibility away from a parent if it can be proven that the parent is causing serious harm or neglect to a child. If a child were property, then the state could not remove the child from the parent or guardian, just as it could not take your TV away from you for throwing a hammer at it.
Posted by Mremann87 1 year ago
Mremann87
Full Liberal Property Theory
that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.
-William Blackstone

What's your Property Theory?

Are you saying that children fall under no one's jurisdiction and control?
I doubt it.

Are they private, collective or common property you say?
Posted by sillydebater 1 year ago
sillydebater
"The element of children being qualified as property should not be challenged"

That kills any chance of me debating this topic. My first contention is that children are not property. More generally, people are not property.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
Mremann87InternetDuelistTied
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: FFed to much to build a case against what Pro brought to the table. As such, Pro had the sole convincing argumentation. Conduct for FFs.