The Instigator
omelet
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
chicagovigilante
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The policy PRO advocates is superior to the status quo.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
omelet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,006 times Debate No: 10000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (5)

 

omelet

Pro

I don't think any definitions are needed. My opponent is free to provide some if (s)he feels it necessary.

===
THE POLICY
===
Here is what the policy entails. I will not add more of these after this first round.
P1. A new government organization is created, henceforth called "Org."
P2. Welfare benefits for having children while poor are taken away. Other assistance specifically targeted at helping poor people be parents is also cut.
P3. All parents are allowed to give custody of their children to Org.
P4. Org approaches poor parents with the proposition of giving their children to Org, and tries to convince them that it is a good idea.
P5. Org hires and trains a workforce to raise its children.
P6. Org builds headquarters in areas that are ripe for development.
P7. Org raises children in bulk with its professional workforce at HQ.
P8. If/when the cost of living in the area gets relatively high due to development, Org begins building a new HQ in another area that's not yet as developed but could be in the future.
P9. When the new HQ is ready, the operation moves to the new HQ and the old HQ is sold off at a profit.
P10. Org raises its children in a way that maximizes their mean success in life in ways that are responsible on a societal level (based on expert opinions on raising children and socialization, but adapting techniques to work with the nonstandard family unit).

===
THE BENEFITS
===
These are the reasons the policy is better than the status quo. I reserve the right to add more of these in the second round as I see fit. I will defend or explain any of these my opponent takes issue with.
B1. Poor people are no longer given a large incentive to have children.
B2. Children of the poor are no longer so much less likely to become successful individuals due to bad parenting or parents who don't have the means to parent well.
B3. People who don't want their children are given an easy out. These children will be more likely to become successful due to not having parents apathetic or resentful of them.
B4. More success, in B2 and B3, equates to not only more prosperity for the economy as a whole, but also more tax dollars for the government. Considering how little it costs for the government to raise children in bulk, and how much money a successful individual ends up making, the increased tax revenue due to the program will more than pay for the program itself.
B5. Less forms of aid for the poor means a leaner budget.
B6. Less people who are poor, from P10, also leads to less people we have to aid with still-existing aid programs.
B7. From P6, extra development occurs that brings with it even more economic growth to society.
B8. From P9, the government gets even more profit.
B9. The existing poor who give their children to Org will no longer be so burdened when it comes to their time and money, allowing them to do other things with those resources (pursue escaping poverty, even).
B10. Extra incentive to escape poverty is created, due to the desire people have to raise children and the inability to do that without being at least somewhat successful.
B11. New jobs as child-raisers are directly created.

===
THE DRAWBACKS?
===
I ask that if my opponent has drawbacks to list about my policy, (s)he label them as D#, in much the same way I have labeled benefits as B# and the aspects of the policy as P#.

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate, and I thank all of you for reading and judging. Hopefully it is engaging.
chicagovigilante

Con

Hi, thanks for the opportunity for this debate. I hope we have an enlightening discussion!

First, let me say that I recognize the problem which your policy addresses. Childhood poverty is a good predictor of future adult poverty, crime, and drug abuse. It clearly must be reduced in some way. While the status quo is not acceptable in its own right, it is superior to your proposed policy. I am an advocate of using government to solve societal problems, but I believe that there are serious problems with your approach. I'll use this response to state drawbacks as well as ask questions to clarify your position on this policy.

Here are some questions/drawbacks I notice (label D# as requested):

D1. The process for creation of Org is unclear. A government project of this scope would require approval by both houses of Congress (potentially including 60 votes to end debate in the Senate) and the President. The federal budget would have to be amended to account for the initial cost of Org (even if it begins to make money down the road). Keep in mind that this policy is sure to cause controversy, calling into question the cohesiveness and support of the government bodies involved when it comes to execution of this policy. The funding source for Org is unclear.

D2./D3./D4. These three policy points are extremely coercive and violate the rights of the parents to raise their own children. By creating a situation in which parents are less able to pay to raise their own children and more able to give children to Org, this policy reduces the ability of parents to raise their own children. The "easy out" you refer to is a manufactured solution to a problem created in part by reducing welfare benefits.

D5. Once again, the source of funding for this policy is unclear. Where will Org get money to pay the salaries of hundreds of thousands of caretakers? If there isn't enough funding for competent caretakers, the resulting situation would be just as bad as a neglecting family would be. Raising children "in bulk" seems to indicate that individuals will receive less personal time with caretakers, which is a problem that already plagues public schools with high student/teacher ratios and overcrowded orphanages.

D6./D8./D9. When changing the location of HQ from a developed area to a poorer area, you move children into a more dangerous environment.

D7. Raising children in bulk does not give them a safe and stable family unit. Children who identify with supportive families are less likely to be involved with gangs because they already have a grounded sense of home. A bulk child-raising headquarters is impersonal and intimidating. Hired employees cannot simulate the love a parent has for a child.

D10. Define success here - does it mean money? Stability? Happiness? Individuals vary in their talents and desires; what maximizes "success" in one might minimize "success" in another. Children have to be treated as individuals, especially during the period in which they are developing identities for themselves.

Those are just a few problems and questions I have. But overall, I don't think that a parent's love can be replaced by a bureaucracy. There is a place for both in a child's life, but the goal should not be to remove parents from their children's development because of income. The goal should be making raising a child on a low income possible.
Debate Round No. 1
omelet

Pro

I thank my opponent for his thoughtful response. With that, I will begin by addressing the drawbacks he presents in round 1.

===
REBUTTAL: The Drawbacks
===
Re: D1 - My opponent brings up that the process for creating Org is unclear. This is quite true. However, this topic is about whether the policy itself is superior to the status quo - not whether the policy is likely to replace the status quo or whether there exists a suitable method for changing the status quo to enact this policy. Simply put, the resolution means that, if enacted, the policy I am advocating creates a better outcome for society than the status quo does - not that enacting it is easy or likely. If my opponent finds it fit to disagree further on this point, I will attempt to address his worries sufficiently in my final round without bringing in new arguments.

Re: D2-4 - My opponent takes issue here with provisions P2-4 of my policy, where I take away government-given benefits that help poor people raise children, and allow and coerces poor parents to give their children to Org. These provisions are very important, and it is not begrudgingly that I defend them.

Consider a free market. Some people are wealthy enough to raise a child without too much struggle, others are not. However, one of the problems with a free market is that it allows people to fall into such deep suffering that they cannot escape and even often die without some sort of charity. The form of charity we happen to provide them with in this case is taxpayer dollars. A necessary cost, perhaps, but why spend more than we have to, and why allow the sad cycle of poor people creating more poor people to continue. As it is, we're subsidizing poverty, allowing it to beget more and more of itself and become a bigger and bigger burden on productive society. That's not wise behavior. My opponent claims that I'm taking away some fundamental right that everyone has to raise children without financial worry, but the truth is that that's a privilege that these same people don't get in a free market, and it's a privilege that's harmful to society to give people. It's harmful to society economically, it's harmful to the human race genetically, and it's harmful to these same poor people because it's nigh impossible to escape poverty when you're spending your time and money raising children.

Re: D5 - My opponent suggests that there need be some source of funding for the caretakers, and I assume also for the initial investment needed to pay for building HQ. One source would be the money we save by not helping poor people raise their own children. This money is already assumed to be enough to raise the children.

My opponent also takes issue with raising children "in bulk," claiming that it would not provide the children with enough personal time with caretakers. One of the good things about raising children in bulk is that other children can act as supplements for caretaker time. However, it's true that there would have to be enough caretakers per child to adequately raise them. One caretaker per 10-15 children would likely be enough for effective raising of children.

The role of caretaker would pay a low amount. However, it would also require no prior experience, and training would be given. Perhaps, you think, there would be not enough demand in the job market for such a position that's low-paying. However, by taking away from the poor the luxury of automatically getting paid to raise their own children, a poor group of people would all of a sudden be quite interested in the prospect of getting paid to be "parents."

Re: D6,8,9 - My opponent takes issue with moving the Org to poorer areas one current areas get rich enough because poorer areas are more dangerous. However, if we recall that Org is primarily taking kids out of poor areas, it seems obvious that my opponent just gave me a new benefit that fully counteracts this point. Combined with the profit gained from this exercise, moving HQ is overall beneficial.

Re: D7 - Raising children in bulk in an institution does not leave them without a sense of belonging, or an ungrounded sense of home, as my opponent suggests. Unlike apathetic parents or an orphanage, Org would be quite involved in the children's lives. Org would be quite interested in molding the children into something useful, with pushing children to follow their passions. And like I point out in P10, good socialization techniques would be used in raising the children, most likely meaning they would feel like Org was where they belonged.

Re: D10 - My opponent rightly points out that I have failed to define "success." I largely refer to economic success here, specifically economic success that helps society rather than leeches off of it (think providing a useful service as opposed to ripping someone off - both are economically successful, but only one is responsible "on a societal level" as I qualified in P10).
Economic success for children who were largely otherwise doomed to be poor means they will also likely end up happier than they would have been.
My opponent claims that children have to be treated as individuals. I can't say if he's right, but if experts on child development and socialization agree with him, then they would do just that per my qualifications in P10 ("based on expert opinions on raising children and socialization, but adapting techniques to work with the nonstandard family unit"). If the experts disagree, and think that children can effectively be raised without being treated as individuals, then they would perhaps go against my opponent's advice, though I think we can trust experts in the fields more than we can trust my opponent's assertion about what's necessary for raising children effectively.

==
My opponent says parents' love can't be replaced by bureaucracy, but both are part of raising children in either case. Making raising children on low income is bad for society - it should not be the goal.
chicagovigilante

Con

chicagovigilante forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
omelet

Pro

Regrettably, my opponent forfeited the previous round.

Allow me to compare the policy to the status quo on several factors.

A. ECONOMICS
The policy is economically superior to the status quo, as it increases GDP, alleviates a tax burden we currently bear (not only by cutting some forms of aid, but also by reducing the number of people who need our aid), and pushes forward economic development. Also, poor aspiring parents can apply for the low-paying caretaker job, reducing unemployment and maximizing the use from that particular resource (especially after the training).

B. THE HUMAN RACE
We all hopefully know about natural selection. However, we've thrown an artificial wrench in its gears by removing the incentive of poor people to avoid having children they can't afford to raise well. We've artificially swelled the amount of poor people having kids, and it's a sad fact that the aid we provide does not adequately provide these children with the tools they need to survive. Under the status quo, we are practically subsidizing poverty, allowing people who can't normally afford it to fulfill their many-child-bearing dreams, and thus give society more people who will likely depend on tax-funded charity. My policy also gives people back their natural incentive to succeed, since they know they'll have to if they want to have and raise children.

C. HAPPINESS OF THOSE INVOLVED
People who are successful are often much happier. By transforming children from future-poor to future-successful, my policy also increases happiness.

D. DANGER
My opponent brought up in R1 that moving HQ from a developed area to a less-developed and poorer area could mean putting kids in more danger than they were. That may be true, but since kids will primarily come from poor areas to begin with, kids will be no less safe than they would with the status quo. Thus, as far as danger to kids is concerned, my policy is superior.

E. PARENTING ABILITY
My opponent claimed that Org would be worse at parenting than the status quo. Keep in mind that the kids we're talking about are being taken from poor households, or from parents who simply don't want their children. These don't tend to be the best parents to begin with. Now consider that my policy calls for experts in the fields of parenting and socialization to decide how best to raise the children. With the goal of creating successful adults in mind, and with expert opinion on how to create successful adults, it seems that my policy would most likely be better than the status quo here. If "loving parents" is necessary for this, then that's something Org would provide.

I have shown that the policy I advocate is superior to the status quo. The resolution is affirmed.

Note that any new arguments my opponent makes next round are abusive. He should have not forfeited last round and used new arguments at that point (I haven't made any new arguments this round - I've merely recapped). My opponent would be justified in restating or rephrasing arguments he has already made, though.
chicagovigilante

Con

chicagovigilante forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Default to Pro due to multiple forfeits.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Where were people saying that?
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
"There is indeed some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary."

What's the evidence?

I assumed it was beemor because of the comment you've left on omelet's profile...
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Nah, he most certainly isn't. There is indeed some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. beem0r has returned though. He is just in another castle.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Is omelet really beem0r? I saw some people calling him that.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
"You're a noob. Why ruin what other members have been getting excited over for months?"

What the hell? Who cares what the debate number is? Who's been getting excited over it? And why don't they have a life?
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
I wanted to steal debate 10,000 and make it "I am a jerk for making this debate."
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
"0 Characters Remaining". . . whew!
Perhaps I should have stuck with 7 or 8 thousand characters.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
@LM: True. Looking forward to how this turns out!
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
At least CV seems to have a decent idea of how to debate, judging by his debate challenge pending right now.

If either of you forfeit this, expect rather disappointed DDO members.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
omeletchicagovigilanteTied
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 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
omeletchicagovigilanteTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
omeletchicagovigilanteTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
omeletchicagovigilanteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
omeletchicagovigilanteTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70