CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
6
What? No! I read the link, yes!
Debate Score:30
Arguments:22
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What? No! (15)
 
 I read the link, yes! (7)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40163) pic



Are some deaf people bigots against hearing people?

deaf people want deaf babies

Here read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/

and this:

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/

and this:

http://tinyurl.com/2s3ptw

and this:

http://tinyurl.com/652dju

Is this just human nature?

Not bigotry or ignorance, just plain human nature.

What? No!

Side Score: 24
VS.

I read the link, yes!

Side Score: 6
5 points

You know, some of your debates would be halfway decent if they weren't framed in such lame, bombastic language.

Nevertheless, the case itself is pretty interesting, and I was coincidentially - just about 20 minutes ago - considering (as I have a deaf cat) why a deaf person feels compelled to speak (she meows all the time...very loudly [cause she can't hear it]). But anyway, that's another conversation.

What bothers me about this case is mainly contained in this statement:

"'Being deaf is not about being disabled, or medically incomplete - it's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud, not of the medical aspect of deafness, but of the language we use and the community we live in.'"

It seems they've taken the idea that they're handicapped too much to heart. I feel for them and how it must be to live in a world that everyone else feels is inherently devoid of total experience. Along with the treatment they likely received as children, they probably feel alienated from the rest of us. Yes, deaf people are a minority in society. But this is not a minority in the same sense as a cultural or racial minority. It seems like they don't want to feel the same alienation from their children as they do from others. They want a kid who shares their same reality and perspective similar to people wanting their children to grow up with their religious beliefs.

But this isn't ideological, this is physical. Quadriplegics are a minority in society too, and we wouldn't tolerate a mother cutting off her child's limbs because she wanted a quadriplegic child. Brutal analogy, perhaps, but it illustrates my contention. Being deaf is a handicap. It seems it would take a pretty warped mind to want to pass on a detriment to strengthen your numbers.

Side: What? No!

OK, first off, up vote. Good analysis.

The blind are cut off from things. The deaf are cut off from people. A quadriplegic is cut off from things. Deafness is a unique condition. I can't think of another condition where you are cut off from people.

I'm quoting you again because I think it bears repeating:

"Along with the treatment they likely received as children, they probably feel alienated from the rest of us. Yes, deaf people are a minority in society. But this is not a minority in the same sense as a cultural or racial minority. It seems like they don't want to feel the same alienation from their children as they do from others. They want a kid who shares their same reality and perspective similar to people wanting their children to grow up with their religious beliefs."

Now, if a straight person said he wanted a kid who shares their same reality and perspective, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then that person would be classified a bigot. And it's really a shame because the only thing that matters is the rights associated with marriage, not the word marriage. If the gay community took their rights and left the word, then there would be peace.

This debate was carefully framed in order to make the point in the previous paragraph.

Side: What? No!
2 points

Damnit Joe!

How many of your debates do I have to make this point on?

Or do you do it on purpose to get me all riled up?

The title should be "are some deaf people bigots against hearing people."

In this case, these people are just being absolute idiots. Making a child deaf on purpose should be just as illegal as, what sparsley said, making an unborn child parapalegic.

And that paragraph about being deaf not a disability, that it's some sort of "communications minority," is a state of denial I cannot even begin to comprehend.

Joe you have a good point somewhere, about some of them perhaps just being used to getting what they want if they call enough names, or pout enough or whatever. These people are being completely childish, and should be treated as such. I vote the parents be beaten with a belt, and grounded for a month. If that doesn't work, I would take away their driving priviledges.

Maybe the problem is deaf people aren't made to feel like outcasts enough. Maybe we should get rid of all the closed captions and hand people at speaches, until there are no longer parents who want to purposefully disable their unborn children...

Side: What? No!

I didn't do this debate to piss you off. But I will modify the title as you have suggested. thanks.

Side: What? No!

It's just human nature to be with their kind and if you are offended by my stance and want to call me a bigot, read this first.

http://tinyurl.com/6p8nsh

Side: What? No!

Maybe some of the people described in the article are just used to getting everything they ask for after calling people a few names. Maybe they think it is their right and that they are entitled to it.

Side: I read the link, yes!
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

Forcing a baby to be born deaf is bad for the baby.

Gay marriage is bad for no one.

That's the difference.

Side: What? No!
1 point

Are you saying that it's bad for fish who live in caves to be born blind? If the thing being ommited (eyes for the fish, hearing for the child) is not essential for survival, no harm, no foul. What if they wanted their child to be born bold? I know..... that's how they are born but what I mean is, for the rest of their life? No big, right?

Would it not be considered incensitive to not allow these people to have their deaf child? All they want is for people to accept the fact that they just want to not feel alienated from their child.

And one more thing. If we ever start doing genetic engineering, what if a parent wanted a blue eyed child? Is a blue eyed child OK but a deaf child is not?

I'm not saying I know the answers.... I'm just saying.... You know? ;)

Side: I read the link, yes!
1 point

There have been multiple protests at Gallaudet University, over the hiring of a university president that could hear. Per Wikipedia:

"Student strikes at Gallaudet University starting March 6, 1988 revolutionized the perception and education of Deaf culture. Deaf students were outraged at the selection of another hearing president, Elisabeth Zinser, after a long line of university presidents who were not deaf. Alumni, faculty, staff, and students demanded that the next president of the university be deaf. After a week of protest and activism, Zinser resigned and was replaced by I. King Jordan. This movement became known as Deaf President Now (DPN)."

Side: I read the link, yes!

This is just another case where reverse discrimination is accepted and no one flinches. Discrimination is wrong in every form, not just when the majority commits it.

Side: I read the link, yes!
3 points

Damn it Joe, just because they want to be with their own kind doesn't make them bigots!

One down vote for such an asinine statement.

Side: What? No!