This house would open a kindergarten in geriatric hospitals
Debate Rounds (3)
I am a firm believer that these two groups can affect each other in a positive way.
Thanks for Pro to make this debate
1. Geriatric: an old person
2. Hospital: a place where sick or injured people are given care or treatment and where children are often born
3. kindergarten: a school or class for very young children
1. Why are they in hospitals then? If there is a kindergarten in the hospital, and elders teaching, why are they in the hospital? They might have a certain disease that makes them in the hospital. If they have a bad problem, we should not let them go near young children who might get their disease too. Also there are many other places where elders are, and also you can ask the teachers like in the ages of 25-40, they have a lot of experience also, not just elders.
2. No Help Also children tend to not listen because they are young and it is boring. They tend to act to experience it themselves because they can forget it.
We should not have them in the hospitals because the elders are in the hospital for a reason and also it is no help for the children.
Moreover, most of the eldery is sent to a geriatric hospital because they are too old to do physiological activities like going to a toliet, making food and eating with a spoon. So, there aren't many elderly who has diseases in geriatric hospital.
My second argument,
Not only the children gains benefits from this policy. The elderly are physically aged human, but they are like 99celsius water who are waiting to boil. They are willing to do outdoor activities but in reality they are stuck in an uncomfortably narrow elderly hospital, with no sunlight illuminating in. Inside the suffocating hospital, the energetic little children are bright little bright suns, that will shine the elderly. In this case, children makes the elderly energetic and makes them happy. By looking at the little children's pure little faces, the elderly can flashback their memories.
1. Pro said that they might get diseases. It is the same thing, if we put a 10 year old child with 100 people with MERS. Right now Pro is saying that they won't get a disease. Also there are some diseases so it will get pasted on.
2. This is plain nonsense. Of course they might be happy and energetic, but then they might no remember their memories.
Also you did not rebut
Why I should win
1. I rebut his points, saying that children can get diseases
2. Made good arguments
3. Pro did not write a rebuttal
Vote for Con!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up a good argument that the two would mutually benefit each other by the children having someone to hear stories and wisdom from while the elderly have energetic children in their lives which does wonders for those whose life is ending. Con brought up the argument that kids would not listen so it wouldn't benefit them. Con also argued that there might be disease spread. The point left unrebutted is that the elderly would be benefited and their happiness would improve due to the children. Pro gives a good rebuttal to the points that the elderly aren't in the hospitals because they are sick, but rather because they can no longer take care of themselves.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.