should deaf people have a cocolia implant
Debate Rounds (5)
my reasons as to why they should be implanted:
-they will have less safety concerns, they will be able to hear cars coming, fire alarms, if someone ever broke into their home, a they will hear ambulances and so forth...
-they will be able to fit in more with in the hearing community
-will get a better education they wont have to go to a deaf school were most of the schools do not teach well, when some of the school only have teachers who most likely will not be fluent (though there are some schools who have teachers that are fluent but not every school does)
-they will be able to hear music
-they will not be discriminated against
-and lastly they will be able to climb higher on the working scale to allow them to be more successful.
Before starting, I believe it is necessary to define the terms of the resolution. So I will.
Should: Used to express obligation or duty 
Deaf People: people with a severe auditory impairment 
Cocolia: A festival held in the summer in Dorado, Puerto Rico 
Implant: Something implanted, especially a surgically implanted tissue or device 
I would now like to refute and clash with each of my opponent's arguments.
"they will have less safety concerns, they will be able to hear cars coming, fire alarms, if someone ever broke into their home, a they will hear ambulances and so forth...", "they will be able to fit in more with in the hearing community", "will get a better education they wont have to go to a deaf school were most of the schools do not teach well, when some of the school only have teachers who most likely will not be fluent (though there are some schools who have teachers that are fluent but not every school does)","they will not be discriminated against","and lastly they will be able to climb higher on the working scale to allow them to be more successful."
I really don't see how implanting a festival in somebody's head, whether they are deaf or not, would ever do any of these.
"they will be able to hear music"
Of course! There is a lot of music at the festival. But they could hear the music if the festival was not implanted in their heads as well, so I don't see why implantation is necessary.
Now, on to my contentions:
1. It is impossible to implant a festival into somebody. How on Earth are you supposed to do that? The festival is bigger than one person, and people come and go from it regularly when it is in effect. Based on this alone CON should win, because you can't be obliged to do that which is impossible.
2. Implanting a festival in a deaf person will not help them.
Even if it were possible, implanting a festival in a deaf person would not help them at all. Based on , festival implantation is not a cure or treatment for deafness. If I am wrong, I challenge PRO to find a reliable source which says otherwise.
3. Implanting a festival in someone would deprive others of the festival. If the festival was inside somebody, people would not be able to attend it. PRO seems to be all for depriving the innocent Puerto Rican children of their am!
Now, he resolution clearly states that all deaf people should have cochlear implants. I beg to differ! I believe that deaf people should be allowed to use hearing aids. Using a hearing aid will offer the person with the exact same advantages PRO has offered for cochlear implantations, and then some. I'm going to go for an essay style as opposed to a contention style debate from now on, as my opponent seems to be doing as well.
The problem with Cochlear implantations is that they are very restrictive.  A hearing aid is removable and adjustable, a cochlear implant is not. In addition, a Cochlear implantation stops the user from doing activities such as:
- scuba diving
- interacting with powerful magnets
- playing high-intensity sports (eg football or rugby)
- going near radar and radio sources (lots of painful static ensues)
-going near neon lights (more painful static)
Cochlear implants also offer the following disadvantages:
-Risk of infection and vertigo
-High price compared to hearing aids
-Less control, no removability
-One must wear a body processor which tends to get in the way
-Sudden hearing loss due to program error or loss of signal
-Low battery life
-If (and when) device fails due to battery or other reason, it takes a while until surgery is available to fix the implant, laving the user deaf for a period of time
My proposition is that deaf people should wear hearing aids. Hearing aid offer more advantages over cochlear implants:
-Less safety concerns, as my opponent stated, because they can hear
-More control, removability
-More access and flexibility for repairs, along with the fact that you can have a backup handy
-Distinguishing low frequencies is easier
-No change in user's body
-Longer battery life, with added advantage of low battery indicator
-Easier maintenance along with smaller size
The human ear seems to be capable of filtering out many unwanted sounds, but a hearing aid is unable to do this. A cochlear implant is very different from a hearing aid. Hearing aids amplify sounds so they may be detected by damaged ears. Cochlear implants bypass damaged portions of the ear and directly stimulate the auditory nerve. Signals generated by the implant are sent by way of the auditory nerve to the brain, which recognizes the signals as sound.
Now this is not entirely true of what my opponent said "(you can't with a implant do scuba diving, playing high-intensity sports (eg football or rugby); that and they are bulky and is none removable"
-The implant has two parts to it one internally and one that is on the outside of the head so if you don't want to listen to sound you remove the head piece.
-also all the cochlear implants are adjustable.
-Many of you who are fans of football particularly a man named Kenny walker he was a deaf man who played for the Denver broncos and I am pretty sure that is high intensity
With your whole argument about cochlear implants having a removable outer piece, that doesn't change a thing. Its the pressure that is applied around the head in sports such as scuba diving and football which do the damage to the internal mechanisms, a fact which was shown in my sources. Kenny Walker, who was indeed deaf, did not have a cochlear implant, and so he was fine to play football.
New hearing aids now filter out background noise and simulate the functions of a real ear (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). This cancels out PRO's
I would like to point out that although PRO has the burden of proof in this debate, he has not yet offered a single point that I have not refuted to support the resolution.
I stand waiting for the next round.
bigtree forfeited this round.
stir_the_blood forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bigtree 6 years 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:||0||7|
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.