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

The mentally handicapped people don't promote to society, so they should be eliminated.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
fernandito_chiquito has forfeited round #2.
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: 1/18/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 99109
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Not to long ago my opponent had this vile resolution on offer. I commented on how disgusting the notion is, and how perverse someone would have to be to buy into such a notion.

Mr. Fernandito agreed to debate the topic with me ( I know, I don't know what they were thinking either) and asked to keep in initital intro he started the last debate with him. Who am I to deny the man tickets to his own funeral. So below is the intro that Pro set out with when last debating the resolution. And don't worry, I am not going to let him get away with peddling this crap.

Pro intro:

"I haven't participated in any debates recently, and the last 3 that I created, I was unable to attend to in the required time due to personal reasons. For this topic, please keep in mind that this is not against the physically handicapped, but mainly the severely mentally handicapped. I will save my reasoning for the next round, as this is just an agreement between me and the contender of this argument that he or she accepts my debate request. The rules to this debate are pretty simple:

-No trolling

-Cite any sources used to prove your point at the bottom below your argument (including images), and state specifically where this source is being used in the argument. If you do not prove any points with specific evidence, I will not view you as a worthy opponent and I will forfeit the round.

-Do not stray from the main topic, so if you start ranting about how some random subject relates to this that is a completely different matter, I will forfeit the round.

-Do not accept this debate if your just going to state a very brief argument, I see many do this on this site, and I don't want to be debating with someone who wont take the time to make a long durable argument.

Other than that, there's nothing else to explain. I wish the best of luck to my opponent in this debate, and I hope that this is an interesting topic that many will choose to observe, and eventually vote for."



I accept your challenge David. May the best of luck go to the contender of this argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Since we don't yet know the Pro advocacy, we will have to wait to hear the actual Con/Negative case, but we can frame the debate as to be clear on each side’s burdens and introduce some “pedestrian” definitions for some of the core terms of the resolution.

The topic is a policy resolution with heavy value undertones. It will be the burden of Pro to present a policy, or “plan” to solve the “problem” the resolution addresses.

To win any policy debate, pro needs to win five arguments or “stock issues.” Those are: Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance.

Pro needs to show us that the “problem” of not eliminating mentally disabled folks causes harms, and that those problems are highly significant.

They also need to win the argument about who or what is at fault; why the problem persists and what policy or institution we should hold responsible and look to/change in order to solve said problem.

Most importantly, pro needs to show us how the plan they offer solves the problems pro says exist because mentally disabled folks are not currently being eliminated under the status quo. They need to “solve” the problem; hence solvency.

Pro also has limitations on how they solve that problem. The Pro plan needs to be topical. It has to reflect the statement made in the resolution.

If Pro plan does not advocate “eliminating” mentally disabled folks, then Pro loses. If pro’s plan does not solve the problem, they lose. If Pro can’t show significant harms in the status quo (by continuing to not eliminate mentally disabled folks) they lose. If Pro can’t identify the source of the problem (inherency) they lose. Likewise, a failure to carry any of these issues by Pro means Con wins the debate.

As stated, this topic is a policy resolution, but has heavy value undertones, as such, Con/Negative must offer a kritik
of the philosophy the resolution suggests; that mentally disabled folks continuing to live is harmful.

This notion is absurd, it is perverse, and it cannot be tolerated, even as a joke. Mentally disabled people are in fact people. They are human beings worthy of basic dignity. Moreover, even if the cost of caring for some folks with disabilities is onerous, it is worth it. Especially when the Pro alternative is euthanizing people. Even the suggestion raises questions about the basic morals of the person that suggested it. Consider that Hitler’s morals allowed for this very thing.

Most know someone with a mental disability or a family impacted by one, and that euthanizing those folks would be a terrible and immoral thing to do in any case. For the record Steven Hawking has a cognitive deficiency, but his disability would be a poor measure of his actual value or intelligence. For that matter a parent raising a child with Down’s syndrome or severe forms of autism value the life of their child, and that value matters. That value in and of itself is highly significant.

For Pro to even start this notion, they would need to convince us that merely “not contributing to society” is reason enough to eliminate folks, and would also need to show us why we should stop there. I’ve known folks that play video games at their most productive peaks. No job, no future types. They are just lazy, not disabled; but they still don’t contribute to society. They are not a drain on society by any reasonable measure mind you, but they still don’t contribute. Should these lazy folks be eliminated too? Pro’s resolutions suggests they should.

Pro presumes that a person’s value is no greater than their value to society. Pro also presumes to know what society values, and how to measure one person’s worth to society against another. This is a foolish notion, and it is vile. The parent of a child with Down’s is going to contest Pro’s metrics. Does Pro even have those metrics codified? How does pro measure the value of a child with Down’s and ultimately calculate their usefulness or lack there of?

This whole notion is perverse, in addition to being utterly specious. Pro doesn’t have the tools to measure the worth of each person to society. And why does Pro think the best solution is simply to euthanize the disabled. Is it just expedience, or does pro have a “moral” reason for this too..?

After simply considering these questions, the topic is obviously morally repugnant, and not even well thought out. Even though Con/Negative will answer everything that Pro says, Pro has already lost the debate, by offering a morally and logically indefensible policy.

Definitions (courtesy of Google search):

Mentally Handicapped: (of a person) having very limited intellectual functions.

G6;ment(ə)lē G2;handēG6;kapt/


Eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something).



example: "a policy that would eliminate [inflation] or [mentally disabled people]"

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
So did you want to rehash this or not..?
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
I just have to ask, if you read my resolutional analysis why on earth would you want to take this position again? Everything I said is true and will apply again, and it's pretty much structurally impossible for you to overcome what I laid out in the last RA.

Like I said, it's your funeral. But I just can't imagine scheduling my own funeral and showing up for it. Whatever, some people juggle geese.
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
You will get your chronometer sanitized. It's your funeral.
Posted by fernandito_chiquito 2 years ago
well, looks like you took care of this debate pretty well on your own. Pretty good statistics and argument, and unfortunately I could not respond in time, primarily because my laptop had crashed and refused to respond for along time, and second of all because I had been working on a rough draft that I couldn't attend to a lot. You were a pretty worthy opponent, and I apologize for not being able to ever respond.

However I have a proposition.

Yesterday I purchased a brand new laptop to replace my previous one, and I will have more time to attend to online affairs now. If you would like to give this debate one more go, then I will gladly participate, that is if you are willing. We met under very different circumstances before, and I wasn't in prime condition. So, would you like to debate once again on this topic? If you agree, then you may use your 2nd round argument once again. You bypassed my expectations, and I would very much like to test them with my skill set.

(im probably gonna get destroyed)
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
FF for Fernandito. LOL

Whelp, if you can afford some big boy britches next time you get your allowance maybe we can try again.
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
You got about a day left. And to think you were so upset with the other guy for forfeiting. Different when the shoe is on the other foot and it's crystal clear you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

Another win for the righteous! Hosanna!!
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
Post your case. Here's some helpful info about policy resolutions. The wikipedia will familiarize you with stock issues and has some great sources linked as well.
Posted by fernandito_chiquito 2 years ago
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago

I honestly wouldn't believe anyone would volunteer this idea if I was not looking at it right now.

You've already lost, and I cannot reinforce enough how good that is. This is so f*ing repugnant that I have to wonder if you are some sort of neo-nazi. I can think of no other modern civilization that though this idea was good or moral.

This notion is so immoral that I would normally think it immoral to have a debate about, because it requires giving a moment of credence to the notion. The only reason I took the topic was to repudiate you and this horrible idea. It certainly cannot go uncontested.
This debate has 6 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.