EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That the state should pay people to sterilise themselves

14 points
0 points
cowboy0108cowboy0108 (PRO)

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. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-18 03:22:48
| Speak Round
noprisunoprisu (CON)

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.

Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-19 07:54:53
| Speak Round
cowboy0108cowboy0108 (PRO)

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.  

Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-20 03:34:52
| Speak Round
noprisunoprisu (CON)

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.

Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-21 00:25:04
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
This should be interesting.
Posted 2013-11-14 10:45:17
I could work with this one.
Posted 2013-11-14 03:47:37
The topic is hidden until it starts.
Posted 2013-11-12 07:03:53
What does this mean, "secret topic?"
Posted 2013-11-11 12:45:47
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2013-11-21 01:49:08
HeinekenJudge: Heineken
Win awarded to: cowboy0108
My vote for Cowboy0108 is based almost exclusively on CON's flagrant concession.
The burden established is that the state should pay people to sterilize themselves.
CON opened his round by establishing definitions which did not suit the burden. The definition of "forced sterilization" is not inferred by the resolution on any level, especially since a literal reading of the topic actually dictates that people sterilize "themselves", rather than the government.
I agree with PRO that CON unfairly shifted the burden of proof and I find his tactic reflecting poor conduct.
I will treat this debate as a forfeiture by the CON, for failing to address PRO's argument and instead establishing a concession, that "free-will" sterilization ought to be provided.
Arguing that "Free-will" sterilization ought to be provided is directly conceding the burden of proof.

Being the first person to create definitions does not mean that those definitions are mutually conceded. It is a straw man of epic proportions to claim: "I have defined the terms and PRO is now obligated to accept them."

PRO walked a dangerous line in his opening round with the statement:"The poorest memebers of society often have the most children. I am not going to go into why, but they do."

As a voter, I am quite interested in knowing WHY PRO assumes that poverty and excessive reproduction are directly proportional. Such a premise is central to the topic.
There was technically no reason for me to assume that sterilization is for poor people only.

Overall, I felt this debate was a bit lazy.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2013-11-23 08:21:41
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cowboy0108
2013-11-22 00:22:23
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cowboy0108
Pro ran a tight but simplistic anti-poverty line in r1. Con's only counter-argument was their slippery slope argument of requiring sterilisation. This line was inherently weak because it never actually explained why it would happen, only asserted that is would because some influential politician might come along later and change things. This is in no way tied to pro's model - the same politician might have achieved the same if payments for voluntary sterilisation were not required. Although pro could have explained this a bit better, I felt that this point was a clear pro win.

This leaves the counter-model as the other key point of the debate. Con had to demonstrate the superiority of education to monetary incentive. There are several good arguments con might have run, such as perverse incentives that poor people might have to get money. However, pro failed to present any substantive reasons, rather premising this point on the first one - if pro's model fails, you could still do this. That's true, but the whole debate is about whether pro's model fails or not. To premise a key substantive argument on that assumption seems like it was a strategic mistake. Therefore, I felt con failed to establish their counter-model.

Some of the beginnings of the better rationales did creep into con's final round, which was good, but at this point it was too little, too late. If con's material from their second to last rebuttal had been better structured by being at the start, con would have won hands down, no question.

For pro - don't waste time focusing on a counter-model. Even if they had conceeded all of your arguments (which they hadn't, but your parry worked), you should always try to put as much of my attention as possible on to your model. The more I'm thinking about your model in the debate, the more I'll like it after the debate. Your case was really responsive and didn't feel like it was going anywhere on its own. Had the debate been longer it could have stagnated and since it was such a simple idea, it could have been shot down from many more angles that it was.

I think it would have helped your case immensely if you had at least analysed your case in a bit more depth. You should never refuse to go into something in a debate - either ignore it, or explain it. Even if those explanations are really crazy, because honestly, nobody is going to bother to rebut the more minor explanations, but it looks really bad if you refuse to go into something. It makes me as a judge think you're hiding some aspect of your case that's a bit damaging to you. Overpopulation leading to poverty is so simple to analyse. Honestly, if you had just said something like "if there are too many people and only a certain amount of land to grow crops, there won't be enough food to go around, causing famine", I would have liked your argument a lot more. Then you could extend that not just to food but to medicine, or even simply money. It's just that the causal links weren't all that solid in your case, and an opponent running a straight neg strategy could have torn that to pieces in a jiffy.

There was much to like about your case: it was clear, well-structured and well written. The analysis was basic but sufficient. But I'm sure it wasn't your best performance.

For con, pro does not have to explicitly define the resolution. You can't run an argument based upon your own interpretation of the resolution even if pro fails to interpret certain aspects of it. A much better approach, which would probably have won you the debate, is simply to point out the fact that pro's model is full of really big holes that pro needs to explain. It's easier for you to point out these holes than it is for pro to explain them, and just as pro is forced into the defensive, you can go on the attack. Not putting definitions is not bad conduct, it's simply a really bad strategy if your opponent knows how to exploit it. A few tight definitions where the topic is ambiguous can help prevent attacks that require you to explain things about your own case later.

I thought the counter-model strategy was strange and I'd be interested to know why you picked it. In general for shorter debates, you should avoid counter models and just run a straight neg, because that keeps the onus on pro. Counter-models work if you run a longer case because by deliberately stealing the burden, you gain the initiative. They can also really catch out unprepared teams. You should never run a counter-model premised on rebuttal material. If you do that then a smart aff team can just safely ignore your counter-model, focus on their model (destroying your rebuttal) and you're left with split material, which usually leads to a loss. Not a smart tactic.

You have all the right arguments, and clear logical analysis skills. You just went for completely the wrong strategy in this debate.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2013-11-23 00:39:21
CermankJudge: Cermank
Win awarded to: cowboy0108
2013-11-27 00:16:03
draftermanJudge: drafterman
Win awarded to: cowboy0108
Con's rebuttals stemmed from 1) a misunderstanding of Pro's arguments; and 2) an alternative. It did not seem that Con addressed the actual argument presented by Pro. Not much more to say.
0 comments on this judgement
2013-12-03 07:24:38
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cowboy0108
Cowboy takes the win here by addressing the resolution. Redefining the resolution and presenting a counter proposal did not persuade me that Cowboys defence was flawed so I can't give Con any credit.
For the record I feel like had this debate gone on an extra round, con may have attacked the premise that people below the poverty line would be lining up to get their baby making privilages taken away. There are plenty of free birth control programs out there already and the response doesn't really indicate the desire is there to take advantage of them. Granted, being paid would help a little, although thinking it would make much of an impact may be a bit optimistic.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 3 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 3 days