The Instigator
deb
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Clockwork
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

the government should not decide how many children a woman can have.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 3/19/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,492 times Debate No: 7473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

deb

Pro

It seems today women have been encouraged to have vast amounts of children and the taxpayers or the government will take care of them. Maybe with reality shows like John and Kate plus eight,18 and counting, and now Table for 12, young women might be thinking they too will have a show, a book deal, or maybe Oprah will step in and finance there life. Look at this latest women with 6 children at home and her doctor inseminates her with 8 more. What where they thinking, 14 kids who's going to support them? Her parents , the government!!!! Even with all this I still think its a personal choice, we still live in a free society and government control over this issue is not an option.
Clockwork

Con

Sorry that I'm in a rush, I'll make my arguments brief and to the point.

Considering that the government cannot physically control the reproductive cycles of a woman, and also considering the dialogue of my opponent in her opening statement, I shall assume that my opponent wishes there to be no government action in relation to the number of children that a woman gives birth to.

Note that because no government is mentioned in the resolution, it is assumed that my opponent is debating this on a matter of principle and will use government as a general concept to defend her position. My opponent must thus accept that there is no instance where the government should hold any power over "excessive" children.

Now, the government's entire purpose is to protect its citizens and to ensure their welfare. If the welfare is being threatened, it is the government's duty to ensure that the welfare is protected, and they ensure the welfare by creating laws.

Assume a country threatened by overpopulation. Food supplies are down, water reserves are depleted, and there are barely enough resources to support the current population, not to mention any additional incoming members of the community. Any excessive addition to the population would not only worsen the livelihood of the child, but would also deplete the welfare of everyone else in the community.

I therefore move that a government threatened by overpopulation take a course of action similar to China, by removing government funding for any children born that exceed the number that the government sees to be a threat to the general welfare.

Note that no immoral action is being taken by a Negative stance, as because there is no life being removed, no murder is taking place. Also note that freedom only extends to the point where welfare can be managed. We cannot exercise our "freedom" to murder someone because it depletes the good of that individual. Therefore, the Affirmative holds the burden of proving that the limiting of the population cannot serve the welfare of society under any and all circumstances.

Negated. Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
deb

Pro

You took your sweet time in responding, which is ok we all have lives. However our timelines didn't match up so i started the debate with someone else. Not sure where we go from here, but what i do know is that i wont be debating two people simultaneously, like i posted int he comments.
Clockwork

Con

My opponent forfeits the debate. If she didn't want to debate the topic, she shouldn't have posted it. If she wanted an expedient debate, then she shouldn't have set the round time for 72 hours. Nevertheless, my opponent refuses to debate under the parameters that she set forth.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
deb

Pro

Opponents tardiness caused me to create another debate with someone else about the EXACT same topic. Vote pro.
Clockwork

Con

I'd like to point out to my opponent that voters will be debating

Believe it or not, I am no mind reader. When I accepted a debate that said that I would have 72 hours to respond, I took it in knowing that I would be able to respond in that time frame, with myself being busy for the first 48 or so. If my opponent would have made any comment of wanting a response withing 20 minutes of acceptance, I would have not accepted. If my opponent would have set the time limit for posting an argument to anything shorter than what I thought I would be able to respond to, I would not have accepted.

However, because none of these were listed, I accepted the normal expectations for a debate within the parameters that my opponent herself set, that being:

-I would negate the resolution that the government should not decide the number of children that a woman can have.

-I would have three rounds of argumentation to negate the aforementioned resolution.

-I would post those three arguments within 72 hours of my opponent posting her preceding arguments.

If anyone feels that I have failed to meet any of these expectations, go ahead and vote Pro. However, seeing as I have not forfeited any of these three rounds, its self-evident that I have. Also note that all of the "problems" that my opponent holds against me could have been prevented with a click of the mouse while creating this debate or a sentence or two in her opening argument.

Instead of doing any of these things, and instead of even making a single attempt to defend her position, she chooses to complain that her schedule and mine "didn't match up", which is of no fault to me, as I had no idea of her desire for a 30-minute debate or her personal life.

Seeing that all of her supposed problems were in fact created by her, and seeing as there really is no logical reason why my opponent's excuses hold any water whatsoever, you must vote con by obligation, which is a shame, really, as this would have been a very interesting topic to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
If Pro wanted quick response, she should have specified a shorter response time in the challenge. Con has no responsibility to post shorter than the time allowed in the challenge. Pro did not rebut Con's arguments at all, so loses.
Posted by zippo 7 years ago
zippo
Dont worry, she'll be getting the victory in this round. i can assure you of it. Go be tardy somewhere else.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
The government doesn't necessarily limit the number of children a woman can have, but the limit of how many she can keep. Its not for everyone though, they might tell a woman with 8 kids who live in an apartment with a low income job to put some of them up for adoption for the best interests of the children. If you can support them though, they shouldn't have a problem.
Posted by zippo 7 years ago
zippo
too late its already been started again with someone else. So just wait for the time to expire or something, i doubt the person who created this debates wants to take on 2 people at the same time. Seems unfair
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Sorry about my tardiness, i don't have much time, and I will post my argument tomorrow.
Posted by zippo 7 years ago
zippo
Is someone going to debate? this topic seems interesting but why isn't it going anywhere...
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Sorry, I had to snag this one. I need a touch-up on my fascist vs. freedom policies before my next Parli tournament. Not to mention this one looks like it could be like a lot of fun.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I think I'll take this just to have fun, but I'm gonna think a bit more.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Why do people these days want to debate fascists?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by pewpewpew 7 years ago
pewpewpew
debClockworkTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
debClockworkTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 7 years ago
TheCategorical
debClockworkTied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
debClockworkTied
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 trendem 7 years ago
trendem
debClockworkTied
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 ilovgoogle 7 years ago
ilovgoogle
debClockworkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
debClockworkTied
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 Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
debClockworkTied
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 Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
debClockworkTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05