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

You don't have to take care of an elderly or sick family member if they abused you as a child.

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: 12/1/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 589 times Debate No: 41516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Scenario: As a child Tommy had no mother for one reason or another and his father was an alcoholic who beat Tommy whenever he was drunk for no reason. As an adult he has moved out and finally moving on. Then one day Tommy's father calls him and says he is dying/very sick/homeless and needs help. Dose Tommy have to help him?

My Argument: No Tommy dose not. There are other family members who have no problem with the man they can take him or send him to a nursing home or something. Tommy moved away with plans to never see the bastard again, and he should keep those plans.


I accept this rather ongoing topic..

But to refute your argument before hand....

It is moral duty to help Tommies father. Even though he got abused but it must have been for a reason. Not only Tommies father have other relatives then why did he call Tommy first? Well Tommies father loves him like any other father and his father gave brith to him and thats what counts..
Debate Round No. 1


The reason he was abused was his father drank to much. Tommy did nothing. Sure there might have been a time or two where he was being a kid and messed up and deserved a time out or maybe a spank, but there is NEVER a reason to beat your child.
Maybe Tommy's father dose love him when he is not drunk. Maybe if he doesn't have other family members Tommy and can out the old man in a nursing home. But the old man wouldn't deserve any of that. And what if Tommy has kids now? Would yo feel it's safe to have an alcoholic child beater around your children? I wouldn't. In fact that's why I never met my grandpa. My mother new is wasn't safe to have such a man around children.


To go forth on my arguments...

Contention 1: Even if you have been abused, Tommies father gave him life which is much more important than anything.

Well first off, Life is rare. You can't give life randomly. Tommies father gave Tommy already an important thing which is life. Even is Toomies father beat him up because he was drunk is not his fault. Parent have love for they children. Seriously, parents care. And so on, Tommies father called Tommy for help first which means that Tommy is something to him. You even admited that Tommy's father does love him when he is not drunk. So that means that Tommy's father does love Tommy and not only that Tommy should already know that Tommy's father is drunk and can't stop but its not his fault. Tommy would have already gotten used to that. But Tommy now could stop his father's addiction if he could just help and help Tommy's father our to stop this addiction and become a good man. Later on Tommy's father would thank him and be sorry for hitting him in the past.

Contention 2: People can change.
Tommy could help his father and change him into a not alcoholic guy. He could help his father and grate him well and later on, Tommy's father could change and help Tommy's children. As the site say that people could change and that is what Tommy should do..

These are the reasons why you should got for me thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


You can't give life randomly? Um excuse me but my mother was trying not to have babies when she had me.

And I said maybe Tommy's father loved him. We don't know for sure, I know my grandfather didn't love my mother but that is a personal story I'm not my mother would want me to share.

And who's fault was it then that Tommy was beaten? And what if there was another kind of abuse as well? What if the disgusting pig molested and raped Tommy? That dose happen you know. Someone who dose that to children shouldn't be allowed around them AT ALL.

And as for people changing, well they can but Tommy can't make him change, and if his father hasn't changed already then who knows what he will do if Tommy tried to change him.

In the end it is Tommy's choice. If Tommy doesn't want to ever see this man again then he has the right to shut the door in is face.


To end this debate i would like to destroy my opponents arguments..

My opponents first argument is saying that Maybe Tommy's father loved him. Well first off he agrees that Tommy's father ives him so my point is still standing also He also gives example of his personal life but as my argument still stands, people can change and Tommy can bring his father to change.

Also, My opponent also said that What if the disgusting pig molested and raped Tommy? That dose happen you know. Someone who dose that to children shouldn't be allowed around them AT ALL.

Well first off this this i agree shouldn't be allowed by still my argument goes against that still saying that if Tommy can bring and change him and teach him like a father then, he can change. I said that people can change. So that point is still standing.

My opponent also said that Tomm'y can't make him change but as i gave you many sites on how it can here is an example.

These sites say that people can change their past.

To finalize, my argument that people can change is still standing and my opponent's argument fail to stand. This is why you should vote for me thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
I know if it's my dad I'd never help him more than tell him where to stick it.
Posted by CarbonBlue 3 years ago
tommys father gave birth to him?! I think what you mean is he aided in the process of giving him life X)
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
There's no law about this, so you would win, right?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: No obvious Conduct violations, S/G equal, Con was the only side to use sources. I felt that the crux of this debate came down to what was owed from the abused to the abuser, and I rather felt that Proposition had the superior argument on that one. Proposition made a much more concerted - and in my opinion successful - effort to attack points issued by Opposition, particularly on the ideas of the giving of life necessitating love, although Opposition did make a good case for the potential for help to bring about change. All in all, a decent debate.