The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Losing
46 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

To be announced.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,175 times Debate No: 4081
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (23)

 

gahbage

Pro

Gonna take an idea from some other people and do this, because I'm bored and don't know what to debate about.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example.

Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on.

In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal.

So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
Danielle

Con

Thanks for the debate.

I took all 3 topics from IDEA (International Debate Education Association)

http://www.idebate.org...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOPICS

1. Children: To Have or Not To Have

Should you never have children?

2. Abortion: Parental Consent

Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?

3. Catholic Church: Contraception

Should the Roman Catholic Church change its current policy of forbidding the use of contraception?
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I choose topic 1, Should you never have children?

100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
100
Danielle

Con

Resolution: People should never have children.

Pro: Gahbage

Con: theLwerd

... Your move.
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

I wonder if I'm doomed to lose...XD

Ok so I'll be PRO, meaning that you should never have children. I urge voters to vote based on who had the better argument, not if you agree with me or not. (I'm playing devil's advocate anyway.)

One reason: Overpopulation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, the population of Earth has exceeded 6,671,226,000. That's 6.671226 billion. It also says that about 1/8 of the Earth is suitable to live on. That's 1/8 of 510,072,000 km^2, the Earth's surface area. Which makes 63,759,000 square kilometers. This converts into 38,255,400 square miles of inhabitable land. Now, if you were to divide that by the total population, you'd get 0.005734 miles, or 30.27552 SQUARE FEET, of land per person. To fit these evenly on the surface, nobody would have a yard, a porch, steps, etc.; only this space. And on the other side of your wall would be someone else's room.

Now I don't know about you, but living in a 30 x 30 room for your entire life would suck some large...genitalia. You'd have to fit a bathroom/plumbing, a shower, kitchen appliances, a bed/bedspace/couch/whatever, and any other supplies you may7 need to survive. Only those on the outermost rooms would receive sunlight unless you had a window on your roof, or no roof at all. You almost would most likely not receive much outside oxygen. There would be little to no room for things such as stores and services, and you would have to walk through a terribly long maze of rooms to get there. I won't go into other obvious domestic problems because I am on a time crunch here and picked a bad time to debate. XD

You may ask, "Why aren't we living like this now, then?" Well, it's really simple. While we have minuscule countries such as Andorra, San Marino and Vatican City, China has over 1 billion residents. We are not equally spaced/proportioned around the world, so we aren't using this obviously inhabitable system of living. And we all know the obvious problem: overpopulation.

There are four ways to solve this problem. The first way is mass genocide, so you can just throw away that option now. The second, to live underground. I don't think that's gonna happen. The third is to live on the Moon, Mars, etc. However, we are probably decades, if not hundreds or even thousands, of years away from establishing a habitable environment on another planet, and designing a major transport shuttle.

The final, quickest (aside from mass murdering) and most efficient way of solving this problem before it becomes unsolvable is to not have children. This will drastically decrease the population. Therefore, my resolution is this: If you are above the age of 10, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. If you are under 10, do not have children until you are 20.

The end.
Danielle

Con

Reproduction is essential to human life; without offspring, our species would die off. Many people even feel that having children is a fundamental right. Although there has been some controversy regarding issues such as in vitro fertilization, for example, the topic of this debate is very clear: it states that people should never have children. This applies to all people, including some of the best parents out there. The word 'never' is also really final, and implies that my opponent's suggestion of not having children for the next 10 years does not coinside with the agreed upon resolution. But before I get into arguing my opponent's case, first I would like to discuss my reasoning as to why people should be allowed to have children.

First, why do people WANT to have children? Afterall, it is a very painful, expensive, challenging and stressful experience. However parenting can also be very rewarding; some people find joy and fulfilment through their children and devote their entire lives to taking good care of them. People enjoy feeling needed, and when you have a child, you become the center of their universe - they are little people that you need to love, care for, look after and teach. Some people simply want children to carry on their legacy and/or family name, or simply because they deem it 'taking the next step' after marriage as society suggests is the "right" thing to do.

Whatever the reason, people have the right to have children. As a species we've been doing it for millions of years. To suddenly take away that right would turn the framework of humanity topsy turvy. For one thing, people ENJOY having children. Consider the testimonies from mothes who have never felt anything so amazing as their child moving around inside of them, or seeing their baby for the first time upon giving birth. These feelings are not exclusive to already existing parents, but should be a rite of passage for future mothers and fathers who wish to give the gift of life. Some people believe that the entire purpose for human existence is to perpetuate the species or experience parenthood (give life). If these are people's religious and spiritual views, who is Pro to disregard their beliefs?

Further, I would like to discuss the reality that regardless of whether or not people have children, people WILL get pregnant. Proof lies within the fact that there are so many unwanted or unexpected pregnancies today, even with awareness regarding birth control and planned parenting. Abstinence is not a favorable way of life for most of humanity, and because "accidents happen," it is logical to conclude that women will continue to get pregnant. However if people should never have children, what does Pro suggest we do with the unborn fetuses? Clearly the only option is abortion; however, this solution is not feasible given the moral implications.

Millions of people in this world vehemently disagree with abortion. Not only that, but mandating abortion would be a complete violation of human rights. It would also infringe upon people's right to practice their religion freely. Because Christian doctrine deems abortion to be immoral, forcing one to undergo such a procedure would be completely unconstitutional and therefore unlawful for practicing theists in America alone.

Next I'd like to respond to my opponent's sole contention regarding why people should never have children. He mentions overpopulation as the main factor, but I disagree that this is reason enough to conclude such a finite solution. For one thing, if everyone on planet earth stopped having children starting today, within a little over a century the whole globe would be void of all humanity. That doesn't sound too promising. Another thing to keep in mind is that there are alternatives or other solutions other than wiping out entire generations of human existence (and who knows what kind of psychological and/or other impacts that would have on our species).

Currently billions of dollars are being spent on medical research that seek to sustain life. We're developing medicines, vaccinations, looking to prevent sickness, etc. If overpopulation is such a problem, why not scrap some of these policies (not to mention it'll save us some money) that enables an individual to live a longer life? In 1900 the average lifespan was 40 years. A hundred years later, that number increased by over 30 years. Thus older people are now draining our resources and contributing to pollution output all while contributing very little to society. Now I'm not suggesting that we wipe out all of the elderly; however, this idea does seem more logical than preventing more people from being born... ever. This is just one solution of many that is more favorable than my opponent's suggestion.

My opponent's suggestion is not logical in the least. Let's take the example of an organization like the United Nations. Its mission is to sustain peace; however, if wars were fought and people died, that would only improve the problem of overpopulation, right? So why not just disassemble the UN and let some ballsy nations duke it out? The countries that get wiped out can be built up so the remainder of the population can expand. This is nothing more than Social Darwinism in today's modern day world.

... But enough of that. The fact of the matter is that less drastic measures can be taken to improve current world conditions. For instance, more countries can follow in China's footsteps in the sense that we can attempt to limit the number of children people have with incentives (money). A possible solution to the population problem is to impose a hefty tax for those who choose to have more than 2 children per family. Granted this solution may lead to abortion and/or unwanted children; however, it would at least be somewhat effective in the sense that people would be more cautious regarding safe sex. It is also a more fair alternative to what my opponent has suggested: forbid reproduction all-together.

"Since only women can give birth, and since they must give birth to two at least offspring in order to replace the previous generation, limiting the average number of child births per woman to less than 2 will result in a definite decrease in population. This may be achieved by producing free birth control devices and procedures world wide, making them easily available, and encouraging their use through media, cultural and religious pressure, and even government regulation" [1].

Other solutions to the problem include investing in alternatives to resources such as solar energy, or spending more money on scientific research that can possibly come up with ways to combat the problems facing the world today via overpopulation. For instance new measures need to be taken in terms of getting rid of pollution, not to mention expansion on the concepts of reusing, reducing and recycling.

So alright so I think I'll stop here for now (I'm quickly running out of characters). To conclude R1, I'd like to point out that thus far in the debate I have established why people want to have children, why it is their right to have children, why indicating that people should never have children would be wrong, and I've included some other more fair solutions to the problem of overpopulation. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal -- this should be an interesting debate.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Source:
[1] http://www.associatedcontent.com...
Debate Round No. 3
gahbage

Pro

My opponent lists off many alternatives to never having children to settle the problem of overpopulation. However, there are also many more things that are terribly wrong with the world. The environment is being destroyed, more and more countries are building nukes, heated war is raging in Iraq, and more. We have already messed up our own planet beyond repair, at least in a comprehendable time frame.

Think of all the damage we have already done and is being done as I type: oil spills. The release and spread of diseases. Extinction of other species. Habitat destruction. If you live in an urban area, take a look outside and see what you can find. We have totally screwed up the natural order and messed with the environment. A solution to completely heal the world (eventually) is to never have children.

Once everyone never has children, we will become extinct within 100 years. Then, gradually, Earth will start to repair itself. It may take millions of years, but it will happen. Also, eventually something else will happen: We may re-evolve again. That is, current primates may eventually evolve into humans, just like they have already done. So effectively, by never having children, we will go extinct, then re-populate after the Earth repairs itself.

This si why we should never have children.
Danielle

Con

Pro mentions:

- Environmental Damage
- Nuclear Weapons
- War in Iraq
- Disease
- Species Extinction
- Habitat Destruction

as further problems plaguing the world today in addition to over-population. I agree, but let's take a different approach to these issues. First, environmental damage, and the extinction of various species + habitat destruction cannot solely be blamed on human beings. Global warming (enviornmental concern) is still a controversial subject which has yet to be proven 100% true. Habitats are destroyed every single day from other animals, or from natural disasters such as hurricanes, volcanoes or tornados - things in nature for which humans have no control. Different species have gone extinct since the beginning of time (Social Darwinism). Consider animals like the dinosaurs, wooley mammoths or sabertooth tigers, all of which were extinct before humans had anything to do with it.

In terms of disease, all kinds of diseases exist in the world, some human related, and some not. The biggest plague to ever affect us - The Bubonic Plague - was spread to humans through animals (rats, fleas, etc.) therefore even without human contribution, there would still be plenty of disease on this earth. And finally in terms of nuclear weapons/war, according to my opponent's logic, I don't really see how their presence on Earth is a bad thing. If the right thing to do is eliminate all of humanity, then wouldn't the existence of nuclear weapons and war only facilitate that plan? Therefore these two things should not be considered 'bad' in this debate, because their effects only produce 'good' results (in terms of my opponent's argument).

So to solidify his plan, Pro concludes his argument stating that primates may evolve into human beings once again, and "we will go extinct, then re-populate after the Earth repairs itself." Hmm... well first, there is again a lot of controversy over whether or not humans did in fact evolve from primates, so that's an assumption that if untrue would throw off the whole idea. Second, even if humans did evolve from primates, there is no way to know for sure that they would evolve again. And lastly, my opponent's suggestion of us re-populating once we may have evolved completely goes against the agreed upon resolution, which states we should NEVER have children. That means that even if we wipe ourselves out, heal the earth, come back in billions of years as a species with a clean slate, etc, we should still NOT (never) have children.

Your move :)
Debate Round No. 4
gahbage

Pro

My opponent, once again, states more alternatives to the many problems that man has caused. I'll quickly address some of them and then to my contention.

Habitat destruction may be natural in many cases, but there is also man-made destruction. As you read this, people are cutting down the Amazon Rainforest.

Many diseases have been passed on by animals; however, some were from errors or carelessness. HIV/AIDS, for example, was released after a lab accident, and from there it grew rapidly.

Now as for the issue of whether or not we evolved from primates, it makes no difference. We evolved from something, right? So we can do it again. Because of succession, the Earth will eventually return to normal, and history will repeat itself.

Now to address this: "That means that even if we wipe ourselves out, heal the earth, come back in billions of years as a species with a clean slate, etc, we should still NOT (never) have children."

We could re-evolve into a slightly (but still) different species, so we will not be considered humans. So we can have children.

Remember, vote on the debate, not the issue.
Danielle

Con

1. Habitat Destruction -- My opponent points out that human beings are out chopping down the Amazon Rainforest as we type/read. This is true; however, human beings are also out there planting flowers, smiling, feeding the homeless, having orgasms, giving birth, etc, all of which are good things. Plus, just because humans are cutting down the rainforest or other natural habitation does not solve or change the fact that habitats would be destroyed with or without humanity's contribution.

2. Diseases -- Yes, some diseases are a result of man-made errors. However a lot of CURES for diseases are also a result of man's contribution, including solutions or remedies for things that happen in nature and are not our fault. Further, again even without mankind, disease would still exist, so we must look at which weighs more: the good or the bad? Certainly people/animals without disease far outnumber those WITH disease, so all-in-all I'd say that our existence is pretty A-OK. Plus, before technology a lot of the world's man-made problems (regarding disease, habitat, etc.) did not exist. Thus we can simply choose to go back to a much simpler way of life... think Native Americans... instead of choosing to wipe out humanity entirely.

3. Primates -- Pro writes, "Now as for the issue of whether or not we evolved from primates, it makes no difference." Obviously it makes a difference if his plan is to re-evolve. He assumes that "we evolved from something, right?" but this is not necessarily the case; ask any theist where we came from, and surely they will not tell you that we have evolved from monkeys or a defective bacterium. Further, Pro assumes that we can "do it again" meaning evolve; however, he has no 100% proof that we have evolved in the first place. And even if he did, he cannot say for certain that we would evolve again like I pointed out in R4.

Finally, Pro states, "We could re-evolve into a slightly (but still) different species, so we will not be considered humans. So we can have children." Okay well if Pro had proven that humans evolved in the first place, or proved that we would evolve into a "slightly different" species the next time around (haha where is he getting this logic?), then maybe this would be acceptable evidence for his claim. However Pro hasn't done any of these things, nor has he provided any facts detailing how or why we would even be ABLE to reproduce - assuming we were a different species - or if we'd have the know-how to reproduce, OR if we'd have the desire to reproduce.

Also, by Pro's logic, if we were only a slightly different species, who's to say that the earth won't wind up even more messed up the next time around than it is today? If it's equally as bad or worse than how Pro claims it is, "we" should STILL never reproduce.

Alright so thanks for this debate, gahbage, it's been fun :)
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
"...having orgasms..."

lol

Good argument. However I'd like to point out...

"...or if we'd have the know-how to reproduce..."

One of the necessary components of being a living organisms is the ability to somehow reproduce. And I'm sure we'd want to, since orgasms are good. =P
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
True, kudos to us.

And yeah, I'm taking shots at LR4N6. I don't know if he noticed my avatar yet though. I'm assuming he'll call me when he does XD
Posted by faye_seventeen17 8 years ago
faye_seventeen17
DANG! your ideas are both brilliant.

i just dont like your avatar (the pro one)
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
And LOL at your avatar, gahbage!
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
I agree lol... but it's a nice change from the abortion topic or any other trite resolution. Kudos to us for creativity :P
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
This debate is crazy.. :X
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Damn that sucks. How did it get deleted? Because if you refresh the page or hit to back button and reload the page, the words you typed should still be there.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Damn. I just typed a whole rebuttal (actually within 5 minutes of you posting yours lol) but it got deleted last night. Grr. So I'll get around to writing a new argument probably tomorrow sometime. I'm doing like 8 friggin debates right now. Crazy.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
In that last sentence I mean "is", not "si"
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I could be a motivational speaker. =P
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
gahbageDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
gahbageDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
gahbageDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
gahbageDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
gahbageDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbageDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
gahbageDanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by DorothyDorothy 8 years ago
DorothyDorothy
gahbageDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by HungryAssassin 8 years ago
HungryAssassin
gahbageDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by GleefulJoker 8 years ago
GleefulJoker
gahbageDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30