The Instigator
TheOriginalBob
Pro (for)
The Contender
NDECD1441
Con (against)

This House believes that parents should be able to kill their children during a time of famine

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
NDECD1441 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2017 Category: People
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 280 times Debate No: 103009
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

TheOriginalBob

Pro

When South Sudan was rocked by extreme famine, I as the Proposing side would much rather end the suffering of young children prematurely than to extend it, and I believe that my side proves this most effectively under the following points:

I'll firstly be speaking about how we ought to do this due to circumstance. I'll then be dealing with rebuttal in my second round and be telling you how due to this circumstance you should therefore be able to be taken out of it. I'll also then be dealing with summation and rebuttal in my third speech.

But firstly let's deal with a couple of points of context:

What is currently happening in status quo?
We are facing a great deal of societal division between the working-class and the lower class. This is because the wealthy/middle-class have the ability to sustain themselves, whilst the poor don't have the capacity to be able to do this. The poor get poorer.

Secondly, we see that people's consumption of goods is different according to their background: The wealthy flaunt their riches with expensive cars and houses, whilst the poor just barely manage to scrape enough money for rent or even for food.

Now that my context is over, I will be moving on to my first argument, on circumstance.

People are put into this world arbitrarily. You do not get a choice whether or not you are placed in this world. It is therefore logical to say that people are placed into circumstances arbitrarily. You do not choose whether you're born into a rich family, middle-class family or a poor family. Therefore, it follows that you ought to be able to get taken out of a bad circumstance. Why? Because you have been placed in that circumstance by force, and if you're placed into a circumstance that you have no say in, you ought to be able to be taken out of it.
So in conclusion, due to the nature of circumstance, and the fact that you're put into a circumstance arbitrarily, you ought to be able to take yourself out of that circumstance.

I now pass the debate over to the Opposition to address their rebuttal and arguments.
NDECD1441

Con

So the motion is THBT parents should be able to kill their children during a time of famine and as opposition, I oppose to this motion. Before anything else, I would like to begin with my rebuttals.

Pro's point mentioned that when you are forced into a bad circumstance, you should get out of it. However it just so happens that there are millions of people "forced" into unfortunate circumstances such as being born an african-american in times of racism being a common type of discrimination. Do these millions of people have to die? Steve Jobs was raised in a foster home. If he had been killed, do you think Apple would ever have been created? No. Mark Zuckerberg is colour blind. Without him, would you even have that facebook account on you? No. If you put it to a different perspective, the only point you are making is people are too weak to deal with their problems even though that's not true. In advance, if you are about to say that kids are not strong enough, then you have no proof. To see whether or not the kids are strong enough, why not just wait and see whether they die from or survive the famine?

Now moving on to my points.

Everyone has rights. The right to eat, drink, sleep and move. The most important right however, is the right to live. It is a doorway to all other rights because what can you do when you are dead? The reason why it is so important is because it acts as a platform for all rights. Without platforms, rights are useless. For example, what use is the right to eat when there is no food? . When you die, the platform crumbles and you and your lifeless body will have no more rights to exercise. When we link it to this debate, you get the picture of parents taking away this right to life from their children. This act of killing to what benefit? Why turn that small chance to nothing by killing? It is just pointless.

In conclusion, I have told you about the right to life and it's relation to the famine and survival. Again as opp, I oppose to this motion and thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
TheOriginalBob

Pro

Thank you to the Opposition for accepting the debate. I shall now move forth onto my rebuttal:

Opp mentioned the fact that when you're put into a bad circumstance, you shouldn't be forced to be put out of it because other people also are put into bad circumstances. We see that this is logically and ethically flawed for two reasons:
Firstly, you cannot compare the immense suffrage of starving Sudanese people to the fact that Mark Zuckerberg couldn't see some colours.

Secondly: Racism is bad in America, I understand, but people still have the agency to be able to protest that racism and point out the bigot/s for his/her actions. This isn't the case for people struck by famine and I will link you back to the context I gave, where I told you that people's consumption of goods is based off of their background. This means that the middle-class families and higher are able to afford the plane ticket to get out of the country if a situation like this arises. They, like people in America, have the agency to do so. Poorer people struck by famine however don't have the ability to afford that plane ticket out of their circumstance, and so have to suffer further.

Finally, what you're saying is that if we had the technology to do so, we'd bring suicide victims back from the dead. They wanted their suffering to end. Why then keep them in the EXACT same circumstance? And also, who are you, as the state, to make choices on MY behalf? People make choices for reasons, and what THEY believe will make them feel better, so then why prolong their suffering. I'm not saying kids aren't strong enough, but they certainly shouldn't be kept in this horrific circumstance.

I will now move onto my second argument about taking people out of circumstance.

Yes, we do agree that the right to life is the basis upon which all rights are given. Without the right to life, you wouldn't be able to have the freedom of dignity, or association, or freedom of speech, etc. However, we see that due to the nature of the circumstance some people are put into, these people in particular are having their right to dignity harmed. They feel as though they don't have the power to help themselves. As you may know, the right to dignity is one of the most fundamental human rights as it gives you the ability to feel as though you are equal to other people. Why does the infringement of this right mean we ought to be able to take one's life? Because when you're actively being put down, and you, as I said earlier, don't have the agency to stop this suffering from happening, you should be able to take yourself out of that situation.

In conclusion, we see that it is better to be able to take away the right to life rather than prolong the infringement on their basic human rights that gives them dignity, and to end their suffering prematurely. I challenge the Opposition to tell us why we would rather have them suffer.

I hand the debate over to the Opposition.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOriginalBob 4 months ago
TheOriginalBob
NDECD1441 That's fantastic! Every Saturday is decent practice, but maybe you could take it further. I used to train 6 hours a week (2 hours on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday) but due to school stuff I've had to cut it to 4 hours a week XD
Posted by NDECD1441 5 months ago
NDECD1441
TheOriginalBob, Im part of my school debate team and I take debate lessons every saturday. I started last year. :)
Posted by TheOriginalBob 5 months ago
TheOriginalBob
@NDECD1441

Don't worry about it man, I also couldn't access the system, so if you posted I wouldn't be able to log on anyway.

I am actually part of my junior debating team for my province, so I just love debating in general! And you?

And @missmedic, I would say that it may be permissible, because once you've taken away their life, they basically have no fundamental rights left, but it all depends on whether you as a parent can handle the intense gut-wrenching disgust of eating your own child.
Posted by TheOriginalBob 5 months ago
TheOriginalBob
@NDECD1441

Don't worry about it man, I also couldn't access the system, so if you posted I wouldn't be able to log on anyway.

I am actually part of my junior debating team for my province, so I just love debating in general! And you?

And @missmedic, I would say that it may be permissible, because once you've taken away their life, they basically have no fundamental rights left, but it all depends on whether you as a parent can handle the intense gut-wrenching disgust of eating your own child.
Posted by TheOriginalBob 5 months ago
TheOriginalBob
@NDECD1441

Don't worry about it man, I also couldn't access the system, so if you posted I wouldn't be able to log on anyway.

I am actually part of my junior debating team for my province, so I just love debating in general! And you?

And @missmedic, I would say that it may be permissible, because once you've taken away their life, they basically have no fundamental rights left, but it all depends on whether you as a parent can handle the intense gut-wrenching disgust of eating your own child.
Posted by NDECD1441 6 months ago
NDECD1441
Its a term that debaters use to begin the motion. The house is the most powerful side of the debate. Government is supposed to support the debate and opposition is to negate the debate. The house is the one who generates the idea. We are the advisors. (If we all agree on this, including the opposition, the debate wont be a debate at all)
Posted by C_e_e 6 months ago
C_e_e
Here I find another debate beginning with the phrase "This house believes." Well, I don't care what your house believes; tell me what you believe. :P
Posted by NDECD1441 6 months ago
NDECD1441
Sorry I wasnt able to complete this debate. Something was wrong with the website and I couldnt acess it.
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
missmedic
If killing your children is permissible, then is eating them ok, after all it is a famine?
Posted by NDECD1441 7 months ago
NDECD1441
To be honest, you are a very good and formidable opponent. Have you debated before?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.