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

The life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,304 times Debate No: 37005
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)





Today I will be arguing that the life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child. I am the pro side.

The con side will be arguing that a child as more intrinsic worth than that of an adult.

First I would like to thank my audience and opponent and request that this debate only be taken by a articulate person that wishes to have a logical debate. Please have a pleasant debate.

Secondly; a few rules:
1) All arguments should be logically presented.
2) Any statements should be supported with a source (except for general knowledge statements)
3) Points must be clearly numbered.
4) The lack of refuting a point in the next post will concede an agreement on that point.
5) Ad hominem is considered a foul.

Thirdly; debate structure:
First Round -Define and set up argument
Second Round - Construct first points
Third Round- Rebuttals for opponents first points and construct final points.
Fourth Round - Rebuttals for opponents final points and conclusions.
To begin my argument I would like to make a few definitions:

Adult : A person above the age of 18

Child : A person below the age of 18

Intrinsic : "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing"

Worth: " the value of something measured by its qualities or by the esteem in which it is held"

In this argument the question will boil down to, if it came to a logical choice, who should continue living, an adult or a child.

Now to outline my argument:

Firstly I will show that the resources invested in an adult to allow them to survive to adulthood gives them intrinsic worth.

Then I will show how an adult, how is more cognitively aware adult understands the worth of their own life and because of that understanding have more intrinsic worth.

Finally I will discuss how the larger amounts of social connections of an adult makes gives them more worth in a community.

I await a response. Good luck and good debating.


I agree with the definitions.

The opponent sets up a rule: The life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child. Any case in which an adult has less intrinsic worth than a child would invalidate the rule. With this in mind, the burden of proof is solely on the opponent.

Here is my general framework for my responses to the arguments put forward:

1. In some cases, adults cannot "invest resources" as efficiently as children.
2. In some cases, adults are not as "cognitively aware" as children.
3. In some cases, adults have fewer social connections than children--and in some cases, they cannot make social connections (by standard definition) at all.

My goal will be to break the rule set up by the opponent. That, in itself, would lead to a victory in this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Zanderax forfeited this round.


Err, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


Zanderax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Zanderax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas, you will lose this debate to the Pro if you keep up that attitude. Why would you want to give him ammunition to use in his argument? Makes me wonder if you are not only the Con, but also the Pro under different nicknames.

As to your example of fine aged wine. If a man saves several new wine bottles so that they will eventually age over time and therefore be "tastier", then that man who saved them had recognized the "intrinsic worth" they had at the time he saved them, which is why he saved them. In other words, the man recognized the "intrinsic worth" that the bottles hold at the present because the man is forward looking and knows that "intrinsic worth" does not come into being at a point in time on some future date, but instead "intrinsic worth" simply exists based on the fact that the present day wine holds potential at becoming more than what it is. So to that man, the new wine is just as valuable to him.

Now, the problem with my argument is that its based on the subjective reasoning of mankind. What may hold "intrinsic value" to one man, may not hold any "intrinsic value" to another man. So the question is this, ....What gives anyone the authority and right to determine another person's "intrinsic worth". Who decides that? Those in power at a particular time in history? Perhaps for example the White plantation owners during the early part of North American history who had black slaves because the gov't during that time only recognized blacks as being "half" a person? Or perhaps the Nazi empire which determined that jews have less "intrinsic worth". Therefore subjectively man can be wrong, but God is never wrong. Whatever God decides is not subjective, but is instead the objective truth. So only God has the authority to determine the "intrinsic worth" of any human being.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist, I don't think it's necessarily a problem with Pro's argument. A fine wine becomes tastier and, in turn, grows in "worth" (fiscally, but also as a reflection of social outlook.)

Your gold example pertains to an object that remains the same over time. However, indubitably, a human changes physically and cognitively throughout development. And furthermore, if the man is making a profit off of the gold, we can see how social attitudes can shape the "worth" of an object that doesn't even change!
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 5 years ago
There is a problem with the Pro's argument. Logically speaking, children eventually grow up to become adults, so therefore all children have the same intrinsic worth as adults. Just as a man buys gold at a low price, knowing that eventually that gold will increase in value. Even though he bought that gold at a low price ,he knows that the gold has intrinsic worth equal to its later gains in price, which is why he bought it in the first place.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 5 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious reasons.