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

We should place a birth tax on Blacks.

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: 2/15/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 99945
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




This is a debate whether we should have a birth tax on blacks.

First round is Acceptance
Being debating in round 2 and 3


Ought we have a birth tax on all other ethnicities as well? Ooh, and maybe species too. Perhaps we should even tax the stars for fusing together! If not, I'll just stick to your general, yet equally absurd, proposition.
Debate Round No. 1


I wanna thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I hope we can have a civilized debate.

The General Idea?
The general idea is that we should have a birth tax on blacks. I propose $50-125 per baby. Twins,Triplets etc. will be 125 for everything.

Less Crime.
African Americans make nearly one million to 2.3 million incarcerated in prison. Now if both Hispanics and African Americans are both incarcerated the same rate as whites the prison and jail population will decline about 50%. Now how do we solve this problem?. The solution a birth tax. This birth tax will help reduce the amount of crime. With this birth tax there will be less baby's. Less baby's means less crime. This birth tax can help African Americans even up the same rate as whites in prison. So that means Prison population,and jail population will decline about 25%.

Less Carbon Footprints.
With this birth tax there will be less carbon foot prints. The average carbon footprint of a average American is 20 metric tons. Compared to the world average of 4 metric tons. Now how can we reduce this number and save the environment?. Well my friend it is a birth tax. With this birth tax we can reduce the amount of Carbon Footprints thus helping to save the environment.

Reduce Global Warming.
We can reduce global warming by reducing waste. How is this relevant well with this birth tax it helps reducing waste. It also reduces carbon emission by having less people use waste such as throwing things,recycling we can entirely stop the carbon emission and reduce Global Warming. Now the second part is conversing water. Cities consume a lot of energy purifying waters,and distributing waters. Saving water reduces carbon emission. Now the average human needs 2 liters of water. I did the math and a average human needs 720 liters of water a year. With this birth tax we can reduce the amount of water they need. Thus reducing global warming.

In conclusion this is why we should place a birth tax on Blacks.

Sources and Cites:


Having surveyed your three points, I believe your real vexation is with an apparent American overpopulation constraining societal resources which you seek to solve by unjustly discriminating against one sect of that population. I would like to know why other social groups are exempt from your tax; for example, the disabled and the unemployed feature as significant exponents in all three of your categories, causing inimical effect in purely monetary terms, yet the charge only applies to African Americans and Hispanics. These two groups make up 88 million people; why should the 85.7 million be taxed due to the marginal number of 'blacks' in prison? Shouldn't we treat all these sects of society with the respect they deserve as fellow human beings?

Less Crime.
Contrary to your first argument, you assume that crime occurs by virtue of race. I look forward to your demonstration of a 'criminal gene' showing that a person's racial genetics necessitates the criminality of their actions. Couldn't it be that the 'black' prison population is constituted by the conditions of American society? Firstly, there remains an undeniable racist undertone throughout America (most obvious in the numerous police shootings of African-Americans) meaning that blacks are more likely to be jailed. And, moreover, this racist undertone typically situates many blacks into austere environments (namely poverty) where they are denied the privileges of other races meaning, with limited options, they are coerced into crime. Being put under poor societal conditions induces crime; taxing birth will not reduce it. Only by counteracting these conditions may we seek to reduce the crime rate. As Foucault would say, we are 'the effects of power' (Discipline and Punishment), and the power relations of America are causing black incarceration. Not their births.

The Environment
Conflating your second and third points, you seem concerned about the effect of how consuming resources effects the environment and reduces societal resources. This is highly contradictory. A strong working populous, having a large birth rate, stimulates the economy thereby increasing general wealth; humans generate energy through their work as well as consuming it. Taking a slippery slope argument, your reasoning would justify the Holocaust by virtue that it helps the environment because there are less people. Whilst I agree that current human consumption of natural resources is unsustainable, the solution is not in limiting the population by introducing a birth tax. The solution is devising new ways to create environmentally friendly ways of sustaining ourselves, investing in renewable energy that we can 'waste' without harming the environment, not returning to a smaller population. The more humans we have, the more ideas will be devised helping us to oppose global warming. If we had a smaller population, less money, less human resources, it would take longer to devise these solutions.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent ask why I exempted other social groups. The disabled don't need the birth tax because odds are they won't reproduce. The unemployed most likely won't reproduce. Thus a birth tax is not needed amonsgt them.

My opponent says that I assume Blacks will do crime based on race. Than my opponent says I demostrate the "Criminal Gene". There is no criminal gene. The reason why I say the birth tax will have less crime is that if a black baby is born depending on there state of character,and parents. These factors contribute to the child commiting crime. Over 72% of black kids are raised in a single parent household. Now how is this information relevent? The reason why is that more kids commit crime living in a single mother with no father than a kid living with two married parents. A 1987 survey on youths in custody shows that 70% did not grew up in a two parent household. Another survey in 1994 on Wisconsions Juvenile found that only 13% lived in a single parent household. There is a correlation with single parent households doing crime than a two parent households. Unlucky for us it's the black race that has 72% of black kids in a single parent household.

My opponent than says that poverty is a reason why blacks are in jail. No people living in poor households have the basic nessecitys of life. In this Survey on poor households conducted by the United States Depratment of Residential Energy Consumption they found that 99% of those households have refriagtors,television,stove or a oven. 81% has a Microwave. 75% have airconditioning. 67% have a second T.V. 64% have a clothes washer. And 38% have a personal computer. Now if there living in poverty why would they commit crime if they have basic nesscitys? I believe they are morally inferior. If I was living in poverty I would not rob,rape,and kill. And I must ask my opponent would you? Any person of any income level who robs,rapes,and murders are morally inferior.

Now how are these two points benefits the birth tax? This shows the reason that the birth tax is needed. This tax will reduce the crime and morally strengthen these kids to not do crime.

My opponent talks how a strong working populous with a large birth rate stimulates the economy,therefore generating wealth,and how humans generate energy through their work as well as consuming. Now I must say water is limited. So I must say how is more humans gonna help us save water and reduce carbon emmision? I explained that the average human needs 720 liters of water. Now if we had less of a human populatiion we will have more resources avaible to us and we use less resurces. With less resources we have more time to genrate ideas than we do with more humans using more energy to make resources that will cause carbon emmision and thus increasing global warming. With less humans going to jail and more useful morally superior humans to make ideas we can help reduce or stop global warming.

Sources and Cites:



Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on your accumulation of such partisan sources. The National Review which in its description openly admits to being a 'conservative commentary', The Atlantic and News One, who take statistics and turn them into bygone, racist ideologies.

With the 'Criminal Gene', I was humouring you. But, fortunately, it has coerced you into your current position. 72% of black kids are raised in a single parent household, you cite. They have everything that is necessary yet still they commit crime!!! Because, 'I believe they are morally inferior'.

I believe that your racism is nonsense, hogwash of the highest degree... Suggesting that they are morally inferior, carries the suggestion that there are so by nature; hence you would need to prove a 'Criminal Gene', or more simply, some biological proof that the black population inferior. Else, the only other alternative is that they have become morally inferior by experience, by nurture. Considering the former is completely unfounded, I will focus on the latter.

It is true, in America anyway, that the black population is situated in lower societal conditions than the white population. I wonder why this could be. I really do. It's almost as if for over 350 years the white population subjugated the black population treating them as subhuman, limiting their communal resources and education in attempts to constitute an obsequious group of people that they could use for financial gain and who were by birth trained to deem themselves as impure and less valuable. Oh wait, this did happen! And, what is the result of being labelled and restricted for your entire life, from being repressed?

Nietzsche would claim a slave class, constituted by the dissymmetry of power they have with the master class, would become increasingly frustrated repressing and internalising their oppression. Not being able to change the system, being pent up inside it, they become angry. And, Jung expanding on this, would state that this results in an inexorable release of frustration in a violent way. People viewing a class as less, repressing them, taking away their privileges, makes that class either obey and feel less, thus permitting lesser behaviours, or rebel and attack, permitting 'base' behaviours. In the early Civil Rights movement, accommodationism was championed where the black population sought to gain more rights by working in the system. This failed; whites just continued to oppress them unimpeded.

Social racism, its effects still in play even after 53 years of legal not ideological equality, constitutes their poor behaviour: it tells them and determines them in such a way that many are coerced into disillusionment with the system and the desire to strike out. And in doing so, gang affiliations, sex, drugs, and so forth arise out of a way of gaining meaning in rejection of a system which denies meaning. Imprisoned, they don't reform; Foucault makes this clear. They become worse; they become habitually criminal in an abject environment and therefore scapegoats for which the dominant media and conservatives attitudes can blame social issues on. 'It was just those animal blacks', the media lies, 'they have to be controlled' and to do this, we must also control you. Your perspective is warped by the media.

Poverty is but a cog in the ideological machine that is white oppression. When education, equal value, and all the privileges of our social system are in some way denied to you by virtue of your race, why be a law-abiding citizen? Why stay with a single partner? Surely, polygamy is more appealing to the desires if unbound by societal law and convention being excluded from it--being deprived its benefits. Look, if you deem them as 'morally inferior', ask yourself what causes them to be so? The answer you'll find is that it is societal infrastructure positioning groups of people in such a way that they are more likely to become what that society values.

Those we deem beautiful, become successful. Those we think are weird, are sent to psychological asylums. Those who we think are abject creatures, based on a bygone racism reinforced by generations of oppression, will be sent to prison. This doesn't mean we ought to tax them; fiscal eugenics won't help. It means we ought to change the significations surrounding social groups and allow them access to the things they need in order to thrive and escape the frustrations of race oppression. What you propose is that we reduce the size of a population of society based on a racist social attitude and positioning exerted on them. This is unjust and absurd. They are not responsible; society is by positioning them in such a way that they act as they do through their own autonomy and nature. They react to the conditions society puts them under. We ought to put a tax on people who reinforce these conditions perpetuating the problem--namely you...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
Right, so (you're assuming a lot about me), I've been studying the prison system and reading daily the literature around it for around 4 months. I think that makes me sort of a scholar, maybe?

Communicating as simply as I can, my argument was that local conventions and belief systems, systems of tolerance and social associations, are made over long periods of time. A racial hierarchy has existed in America for hundreds of years and did not just disappear when Johnson granted civil rights in 1964. Today, we see it manifest in the disymmetry of how the black population on average live with less privileges than the white population still subtly deemed a lesser race. Under these conditions, it is more likely for them to be arrested and jailed. They aren't just born more likely to commit crime and then justly arrested.

Perhaps I didn't explain everything so clearly and elaborately with sources (etc.) but that is because I have a vested interest in finding out other people's opinions to advance my own thought in considering them. I don't really care if I don't change somebody else's mind, only my own.
Posted by madness 1 year ago
Sorry for my countless grammatical errors, but I really don't want to proof read. I'd rather just get this out the way. I will dwell on the situation for a short while, taking breaks to do other stuff, then cast my vote.
Posted by madness 1 year ago
Doesn't matter if you think you're a scholar, you're not. A scholar is defined as a "specialist."

Let's communicate like normal people do, on this normal website.
Posted by madness 1 year ago
Pros final argument:
"My opponent asks why I exempted other social groups. The disabled don't need the birth tax because odds are they won't reproduce. The unemployed most likely won't reproduce. Thus a birth tax is not needed amongst them."

I accept this, as a disabled person is significantly less likely to reproduce.
Same rule applies to unemployed, a they're unable to finance a family.

Pro then proceeds to give valid statistics on how black children are raised by single parents, and no father figure leads to crime leads to crime.

The black family structure is not influenced by whites, thus suggesting, society has no influence on black crime.

To sum this up:

The whole debate was weak, but Pro did provide evidence that black people are going to prison at an alarming rate.
Con attributed black crime to white people. I found that point to be flawed.

In order for Con to blame black crime on whites and society, he would have to say that society is run by white people. This is not true. Obama.
I therefore conclude that Con, blaming black crime on whites, is racist, as it suggests all whites are out to get blacks.

Con also finishes by suggesting we should put a tax on pro for causing problems. I would regard this as an attack on pro, thus I will be giving away a point for conduct.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
I apologise for my grammatically correct yet nonetheless 'phatic' (unnecessary) language but I am a scholar and it's the type of language used in the academic literature I read daily?! Of course I'm going to use it. The example you highlighted wasn't a sentence; it was a clause used to give additional information.

My justification was that there are more members of the black community in jail currently because of societal discrimination which still does exist. There is a social subversion (devaluation) of them today, particularly in America, which you can research and find evidence for yourself. I probably did assume a basic awareness of current social issues. I recommend the Netflix film '13TH' if you have access to it as a good place to start seeing where I am coming from, even if you disagree.
Posted by madness 1 year ago
I'm going to file a non bias vote. I will also some reason here in the comments, as I don't get enough character room in the vote section.

I will ignore Cons acceptance sentence. Sarcasm has it's place, but not here.

Pros first argument:
I would like to have seen from Pro, a statistic about, how many blacks make up the prison populations, compared to how many blacks are in America. I basically want to see if there is any reason for this attack on blacks. What I gathered from the 1st point pro made, was there are a lot of blacks in prison. Fine. Point accepted.

I reject Pros second point on carbon foot print. This would only work if we taxed everyone, as blacks are technically a minority. Therefore the impact would be minimal.

I reject Pros third point, as it's similar to his second, which I rejected.

Cons first argument:
Cons essentially states that its not black peoples fault they're in prison, but rather, it's the result of the current system.
I reject this, because black people are not at a societal disadvantage compared to whites or anyone else. Con failed to provide evidence for his claim.
Con also failed to provide a valid counter argument to the fact, that prisons house a majority of black in mates.

To add:
I found it to be full of fatty words, that I had to chew on for a while, until I understood that his argument was going to be a mouthful of unnecessary bloated words. For example Con says,

"causing inimical effect in purely monetary terms"

Couldn't he just have said,
"causing harmful effects in terms of money."

That's what it translates to and it's just a bad sentence. What ever happened to being reader friendly?
"Mum! Get the dictionary this guys thinks he's a damn scholar!"

I will further this is my next post.
Posted by SavageWalrus 1 year ago
We should tax persons who ares't the dumber and is no smartest
Posted by TimWagnes 1 year ago
We should place a tax on your brain, oh wait, you don have one!!!
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
I strongly agree with TheUnexaminedLife. We should tax stars for fusing together!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The Eugenics like argument of Pro has a hurdle that cannot be easily overcome. Had this been a nature vs nurture argument it would have been an enjoyable read. Even pro's claims are difficult to swallow. They might have worked in a less racist argument like giving everyone a birth tax, but not as is.