That the state should pay people to sterilise themselves

cowboy0108

I am going to begin by giving my primary point of argument and then I will stop until r2. 

It will help with poverty. 

The poorest memebers of society often have the most children.  I am not going to go into why, but they do.  This means that there are more children born into poor families than wealthy or even well off families.  This will cause a spiral into a constant increase in the number of people living in poverty because many people who are born into poverty, remain in poverty.  If we, the nation, pay the people to sterilize themselves, the number of poor people will decrease.  Of course, many people may bring up that this would be expensive.  However, the constant welfare payments are also expensive, even more expensive than paying people a one time amount of money to have themselves sterilized, which I would say many people would do. 

noprisu

I thank Pro for accepting this debate.

I will be discussing the harms of sterilization being mandatory and handled by the government and why they outweigh the Argument set forth by Pro. A counterplan will also be presenting a counterplan

Because Pro did not define the terms, I will define this resolution as a funded program of sterilization of men and women under a specific line of poverty, all funded by the government.

C1: Misuse of Laws

While the argument from Pro in theory helps with poverty, the actual enforcement of this would be atrocious. If the law was mandatory, then the abuse can start even before the law in enacted. What’s is to stop a prejudiced, influential politician from requiring the sterilization of the race in which he/she despises? What’s to stop oppression of an ethnic group or ideological group? If you think this is just a wild concept or outlandish assertion, I ask you look at the laws in place in Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania that outright ban atheists from holding office. This is outright discrimination and it won’t stop with these laws: they will expand to other forms of legislation.

CP1: I will now present a counterplan: Education for voluntary sterilization.

PP1: Through proper, free education in schools and seminars offered to the public, we can properly show the cost and level of responsibility of raising a child. Through the seminars, we can subsidize sterilization with wavers given out upon completion of the seminar. This can help future generations realize the staggering cost of children and hopefully solve the problem of overpopulation.

PP2: We can institute this plan over the course of two years, targeting the cities with the lowest poverty line first. It will be a minor subject in schools in this area, and a team of experts appointed by the Secretary of Education will design the curriculum. The classes will be held twice a month, and the course will take three months to complete. The waiver will be given at the end of the class for those who wish to get sterilized by offering it at a reduced cost. This will be funded out of welfare as a program.

This plan will solve the problem put forth by Pro while not totally funding sterilization through an easily abused system.

cowboy0108

Neither the debate topic or I EVER said to make it madatory.  I simply said pay the poor people if the WANT to.  Never did I mention recquiring it.  I do not even know where you got that.  You did, however, concede that my plan would reduce poverty, and all of your counter arguments are invalid seeing that they are not relevant to the debate.  

Your plan involves teaching about sterilization in HIGH SCHOOL.  Parents will definitely not like that.  Your wording of your plan, though I do not know if this is what you meant, it is just how it read, said that high schoolers can be sterilized after signing a waiver.  It is far too soon for them to make that decision. 

Also, poor people would not be able to afford sterilization even if the government cut costs like your plan suggests.  Paying the poor to sterilize themselves gives them an economic incentive for them to do so in addition to slowing down the poverty cycle. 

Paying the people to sterilize themselves will reduce poverty and population pressures in the long term in addition to cutting long term welfare expenses and giving the poor people an economic boost.  My plan is definitely superior to yours and will have a quicker, more pronounced, and positive effect than yours would.  

noprisu

I thank Pro for the response

Neither the debate topic or I EVER said to make it madatory. I simply said pay the poor people if the WANT to. Never did I mention recquiring it. I do not even know where you got that.

In your argument, you did not define the resolution or how it would be enforced.so I defined it for the arguments sake. You never mentioned if it was voluntary or not, so I assumed that it would be. My mistake, but as Pro, you should define the terms in the resolution as to ensure a clear and fair debate IN THE FIRST ROUND. You attempted to change what I defined to try and invalidate all my arguments, and that is misconduct on your part. I do not know if the mistake was from ignorance or not, but nevertheless it was still misconduct. I even said in my opening statement that because you did not define the terms, it fell on me to do so. If you did not like the terms, you should have defined them yourself. I partially blame the topic poster for making the resolution very open and subject to scrutiny.

You did, however, concede that my plan would reduce poverty, and all of your counter arguments are invalid seeing that they are not relevant to the debate.

I said that the plan would work IN THEORY, not in actuality. There is a big difference. I also never said you had a plan, but your argument of poverty was sound. The counterplan addressed the problem to an extent.

Your plan involves teaching about sterilization in HIGH SCHOOL. Parents will definitely not like that. Your wording of your plan, though I do not know if this is what you meant, it is just how it read, said that high schoolers can be sterilized after signing a waiver. It is far too soon for them to make that decision.

What’s so wrong about teaching an option for ones reproductive choice? We are taught about sexuality, reproduction, and birth control in high school, so what is the harm in adding sterilization? Also, when did the school curriculum bend to the ideas and ideologies of the parents? If they wanted a curriculum based on teaching what they wanted, than they should take up homeschooling, or present a objective reason why this subject is more harmful than helpful to be taught in schools.

To address your second point, the plan will only teach in schools, but the waivers that subsidize the sterilization process will only be given out at the seminar, not in the high schools.

Also, poor people would not be able to afford sterilization even if the government cut costs like your plan suggests.

How do you know that that will not be able to afford the sterilization? The plan was to make them affordable: not just subsidize it to a fixed amount and hope that they had enough money to pay for the rest.

Paying the poor to sterilize themselves gives them an economic incentive for them to do so in addition to slowing down the poverty cycle.

While I agree with the fact that less kids to those under the poverty line does equate to less economic strain on the family and that less welfare is required, this can all be achieved through my plan, without just giving out money.

Paying the people to sterilize themselves will reduce poverty and population pressures in the long term in addition to cutting long term welfare expenses and giving the poor people an economic boost.

Just handing out money won't work: what is to stop them from just using the money for their own needs instead of using it to sterilize themselves, and then ask for more welfare? What is also to say any will get sterilized if they don’t know the benefits or are ignorant of the plan itself? This is why the plan I present trumps any handout-plan you have tried to present in this debate, because it entails telling the targeted audience why they should if they are in this situation,

My plan is definitely superior to yours and will have a quicker, more pronounced, and positive effect than yours would.

I beg to differ.

Being quick won't have merit if your “plan” does not work.

The only effect it will have is draining more money that could be used to properly educate people about the advantages and disadvantages of sterilization, and helping them make the right decision at a cost they can afford.

I have sufficiently answered all of Pro’s rebuttals and have demonstrated how my plan is better suited to solve the problem of poverty that Pro addressed in the first round. Pro has failed to explain any plan besides “give them money”, which I explained is fundamentally flawed.

Vote Con.