The Instigator
Pro (for)
42 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The house would exterminate the mentally handicapped

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/10/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,338 times Debate No: 61507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)




Semi Troll debate/ Semi Seriousness

First round is acceptance


I accept the challenge. I also ask that, since this is a troll debate, we not be penalised for using logical fallacies.
Debate Round No. 1


This is a troll/serious debate

Mentally Handicapped - for the purpose of this debate shall be defined as lacking the capability to function by ones self in everyday society. Needing the assistance of someone else to take care of you or aid you, because you lack the capability of taking care of yourself. This is set in the form of a disorder, and one that impairs functions (not referring to the elderly)

C1) Costs

Let's start by reviewing some statistics

"Public spending for disability programs in the United States totaled $519.2 billion in fiscal year 2006 (see Figure 1) (Braddock, 2010). This constituted 11 percent of total federal, state, and local spending in the U.S. that year. Thirty percent of disability spending ($157.3 billion) was allocated for longR08;term care; 27 percent for income maintenance (29 percent when longR08;term care–related income maintenance support is included); 26 percent ($133.4 billion) for health care; and 15 percent ($77.8 billion) for special education. The $8.2 billion for longR08;term careR08;related income maintenance includes federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Waiverparticipants with disabilities ($4.5 billion) and SSI State Supplement payments for communityR08;based services ($3.6 billion). The Medicaid HCBS Waiver program, authorized under Title XIX of the Social Opportunities for Community Development Finance in the Disability Market 7Security Act, allows participating states to develop residential alternatives for individuals with I/DD who would otherwise require care in a nursing facility, state mental hospital, or state institution." [1]

Area chart linked to data in table format.

Special education alone costed us nearly 78 billion dollars in 2006, with a rising factor in costs in the following years. It is such a stretch on spending that 11 percent of all public social spending is comprised of sickness and disability alone [2]. There are now more people on disability drawing checks than unemployment[2].

A) Why

The next question we have to ask is why. We are dishing out nearly 520 billion dollars in disability yearly (This is just in the 2006 fiscal year), with almost 80 billion dollars of that alone going towards special ed programs [1]. 520 billion dollars is a great deal of money. To put this in perspective this is nearly the same exact cost (slightly more) than unemployment costs us [3]. If we where to exterminate all disabled/ mentally handicapped people. We could easily pay for most of the cost in unemployment alone. Just killing of the potatoes by themselves we are cutting funding to special ed programs and the special ed olympics and we could save nearly 100 billion dollars yearly.

C2) Utilitarianism

For those who do not know the basic concept behind util, it is basically a type of ethical doctrine or belief that states that conduct/morals should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons[4]. Basically whatever is best for a society is often the best course of action to take in any given situation. Situations such as if you murder 1 person to save 100 would it be considered moral often arise.

Break down this to an extreme and you have the same scenario. If you could murder one person to save all of humanity, would it be morally justified? Almost any logical person would answer yes, even if that person in question does not want to die. His death is saving the lives of countless others and promoting the greatest happiness overall. By his death, you save thousands of other lives where as he would die anyway if you did not kill him.

Now let's apply that to the situation at hand. We are spending billions and billions of dollars on people that cannot function in society, cannot take care of themselves, and are overall just costing us money to try and fix something that cannot be fixed. We are taking care of them when their overall purpose in life is just to be a potato and die. They cannot function, they cannot think logically, and they will never be able to take care of themselves. In that same situation is it not considered just to kill them off to promote the happiness of millions of people? By taking them out of the equation, the billions and billions of dollars we are throwing at them can be used to help people find jobs, build a better economy, help fund better jobs, and even put back into the economy to make it grow. Overall in the same situation it is a viable choice. By taking out the people that cannot contribute to society, we are benefiting the happiness of those that can actually contribute and make the society grow.

C3) Organ Farms

Lack of organs for people that need them? No need to worry anymore. We can literally make a potato farm with the people we slay. Gather them in hordes, kill them off, and harvest their organs for research and people that can actually use them. Again this is a net gain for humanity. You are (a) Saving billions of dollars in the amount we spend yearly by killing off people that are incapable of taking care of themselves (b) After killing them off and saving money, you are using their organs to help the sickly, needy, and those that actually have contributed to society or those that will continue to contribute to society.

Think of it this way. If you have worked your entire life and helped our society prosper, you are a net gain and have did your part to help society function. The well being of that society and the overall happiness would stem from keeping you alive, and helping return your sacrifice. Where as potatoes never contribute. They are just born, soak up money, get hand fed, and die. They are born sapping money from us without ever contributing anything in general.

Slaying them will not only help us gain money, but also help those that have actually contributed to our society as a whole


By slaying off the mentally ill we can save billions of dollars and re invest it into the economy to help it thrive. We can from a util perspective acknowledge that it benefits the rest of society. We will even have organs to help the needy and people that have contributed thus far. Overall potatoes do nothing and do not help contribute anything to society. They sap our money, our time, and our resources. In every situation it is best to slay them and remove them from the equation, and then take the money that would otherwise be spent helping them and use it to help our economy grow and prosper.



apb4y forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Sadly this debate ends in a concession

Con has forfeited his only round of arguments, as per the rules of formal no debate no arguments can be made in the last round.

I have nothing to offer rebuttals on this round sadly, so I will extend my arguments and move on with this


Sorry bro, I got sidetracked. Besides, once you put a pie-chart in your debate, you've pretty much nailed it.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
betting over 9,000 on mikal winning
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
This is so much better than Wylted's debate. No offense Wylted.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Pro makes a good case.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
Then start with liberals.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Which house are you talking about?
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
Please clarify the degree of said mental handicap which would warrant extermination. Would a person with Claustrophobia be exterminated, as in a sense it is a mental illness?
What would happen if somehow some "experts" convinced the Government that people who hold to a certain ideology or religious belief are mentally handicapped?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by SamStevens 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and Pro featured good evidence, such as the pie chart and other graphs.
Vote Placed by ben671176 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pie Chart and FF
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pie chart.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: No contest, and concession due to pie chart.
Vote Placed by Cermank 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession, and I can see why, too. It's clear PRO was winning.