The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

It can be okay to kill a child

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
bond_jamesbond101 has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,106 times Debate No: 104992
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)




We hunt boar, we hunt deer, so why not hunt children? Imagine it like this; a few dozen children get released into the wild and a gang of rifle wielding men track down and shoot the little buggers.

This has a number of benefits.
[1] Reduce child misbehaviour, as we'd be using ill-behaved children.
[2] Reduce the need for food stamps, as the carcass of the dead child would be donated to homeless shelters.
[3] Inecrease revenue for various nature reserves that wish to hold such sporting events.
[4] Decrease over population by culling the over abundant children of today.

There are many instances where killing children is okay.
One such instance would be, if that child is a serial rapist. The only way to deal with this dangerous rapist, would be to strangle him to death.

I'd also like to point out that some children are mentally retarded or fat, in these case it's beneficial for three reasons.

[1] Ensure they can't spread their dysfunctional genes.
[2] Put them out of their misery.
[3] Save tax payer money.

You need to understand that I don't hate mentally retarded children, I only hate fat children and Jewish children.

You are not allowed to accept this debate if you are:

[1] Fat. because you're biasly fat.
[2] Mharman. because everybody hates Mharman.
[3] A terrorist.

If nothing else, can we all agree that fat children are DISTGUSTING?

We need to start fighting child obesity, it all starts by fighting obese children.

Applications will be held in the comments section.

[1] Why would you be the best candidate for this debate?
[2] How much do you weigh?
[3] Do you sympathize with Jews?
[4] If you accidentally ran over a Jew, Would you,
[A] Speed off.
[B] Reverse the car to make sure it's dead.
[C] Seek compensation from it's family for the damage to your car.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 years ago
Bryan Mullins, please do us the favour and leave this website. Even Masterful's debates are not enough to compete with your lunacy.
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
No, sperm is the seed of life....dipshit
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 years ago
This is fvcked up
And believe me, all the Christians are dead.
Pro is troll
Con should win
Because children are the seeds that we grew out of in life.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 2 years ago
He's against abortion but pro killing children.
And a troll.
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
Ahh I'm with you now. I didn't realise D was even an option. Threw me off.
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 years ago
My reasoning for selecting D? I will elaborate. When hitting a person, one's priority should be the condition of the victim. If the latter is severely damaged, the scenario may as well result in a judicial case against the offender, a decision which I find understandable. In fact, no family is going to pay for the damage on the means of transportation of the aforementioned anyway, when their own family member is seriously hurt, not to mention that they will correctly be the ones demanding to having the medical fee paid. Therefore, the option C is irrational. As for A and B, these are actions my morality will not allow, since I have nothing against Jews.
Hence, claiming that I myself am a Jew and excluding me from the debate applications is not based on the slightest bit of factual evidence and is refuted by the principles of Ockham's razor [1].

Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
@ KostasT

I am impressed with your application. Your answer to question 1 was most notable.

I am curious however, as to your reasoning for selecting D. Despite hitting the Jew, you approach his family demanding compensation for the damage your car has sustained.
The greedy you exhibit here is very.....Jew like. I therefore have reason to believe you're a Jew attempting to infiltrate my debate.

How do you respond?
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 years ago
(The W76; in my [2] point was supposed to be a symbol that got messed up for some reason)
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 years ago
Also, is abortion included when saying "it can be okay to kill a child"?
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 years ago
[1] I am not able to claim that I am the best candidate for this debate, as I then would deem myself omniscient. Despite that, I believe that I should debate this topic because I partially disagree and have arguments to back my thesis.
[2] W76;60kg, though this is a subjective means to tell whether one is "fat" or not. Body growth, physical condition and other factors should be included in order to reach a proper conclusion.
[3] I have an acquaintance who can be considered a Jew, but it is far more accurate to say that he is Russian.
[4] D. Act normally, as I would do if I had hit any other person, despite them being a Jew. Jews have done nothing against me, so I have no reason to look down on them or hold a grudge against them. Even though, knowing you, I'm pretty sure you are going to select an opponent with the answer "B".
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.