CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
A disabled child is not special in any way. They are mentally inferior, though they deserve to be treated as a human being they do not deserve the term 'special'. Someone who scores a 1500 on their SAT's is 'special'.
I agree. It's all very confusing. I went to the store and the lady said, "Here, get this one. It's on special!" and I was like, "Uh..., No! Duh!" and rolled my eyes. ;)
I agree, though I do not think they should be called 'retarded'. Whatever it's meaning may be the word retarded is now derogatory and describing other people with a word like that is inappropriate whether or not it's accurate.
All medical terms used to describe retarded people gradually assumed a derogatory sense. From centuries ago to 'idiot' and 'imbecile' which were used as medical terms only a 120 years ago, the word retarded is no longer appropriate to describe them seeing the way it is now used.
I cannot agree to using the word special. The word already has a meaning and 'special' makes the condition seem less worse than it actually is.
They should think of a new word just as they did when the came up with the word retarded decades ago. A agree with calling it a 'developmental delay' as well.
JUST because a person is disabled does not mean they are stuped many people who have disablites have gone on to do great things for example Albert Instine had adhd but look what he accomplished
but if we call them special then it will make the disabled children feel better! every childer likes to be "special" and if we can make them feel less consious maybe we should? maybe we could give a boost to their self-confidence?
Why make the child who does not deserve it feel special? They are not special. If you wish to refer to any child as 'special' then call a prodigy 'special'; they deserve it.
"Why make the child who does not deserve it feel special?"
It shouldn't matter whether or not they deserve it. We are talking about 'personal feelings,' which if you didn't know, refer to how a person 'feels.' If a disabled or mentally retarded child 'feels' better when called "special," then why should it really be a concern?
"They are not special."
Your point of view. You are not disabled or mentally retarded, so you don't know any different.
"If you wish to refer to any child as 'special' then call a prodigy 'special'; they deserve it."
There is a difference, but it shouldn't make an impact.
The word 'special' doesn't need to be defined to 'one' particular meaning. If the word 'special' when directed at a prodigy refers to their accomplishments, then that is acceptable. If the word 'special' when directed at a mentally or physically handicapped person is used as a substitute in order to enlighten the person's condition, then that is acceptable. Remember: to a prodigy it may be a good description, but to a handicapped person it may be a good substitute.
It shouldn't matter whether or not they deserve it. We are talking about 'personal feelings,' which if you didn't know, refer to how a person 'feels.'
Emotions are overrated.
If a disabled or mentally retarded child 'feels' better when called "special," then why should it really be a concern?
Why not reserve another term? Special is not the right word - special means something which is superior to others. They are inferior. If they were not told what the term meant, could we not get away with calling them a Mongoloid?
Your point of view.
A linguistic and anthropological point of view - as well as a medical one. They are inferior, either mentally or physically. If they have a physical disability, there is still room for them to become geniuses or prodigies. If they have a mental disability, it is possible for them to be a savant - call those children special: the ones who actually are.
If it makes them fell better, why say no?
If it makes them feel better, why say yes? Find a less 'special' of a word to use for them. Call them 'unique'!
"Special is not the right word - special means something which is superior to others."
Again you have weaved yourself around my previous arguments. The term "special" can be used for multiple purposes, therefore, it need not carry the same meaning in each case. On one hand it can be used as a way of showing superiority; on the other hand it can be used as a positive and enlightening substitute for a description.
"They are inferior. If they were not told what the term meant, could we not get away with calling them a Mongoloid?"
Your point of view, and it is a rather sickening point of view I might add.
You need to untangle these twisted thoughts of yours and start to see the point of my argument; the term "special" when used to describe disabled children does not refer to any form of superiority, but rather as an effective substitute to words such as "retarded" and "demented."
There is a difference between referring to a disabled child as "special" and referring to a disabled child in whatever way we please. We would not refer to a disabled child as a Mongoloid because it does nothing to support the cause of which it is placed. We are not openly describing what they are, but are showing how the child's condition can remain positive. The whole purpose of the term "special" is to make a child feel better; it is rather inhumane to object to this form of happiness.
"A linguistic and anthropological point of view - as well as a medical one. They are inferior, either mentally or physically. If they have a physical disability, there is still room for them to become geniuses or prodigies. If they have a mental disability, it is possible for them to be a savant - call those children special: the ones who actually are."
Of course, there are possibilities for the condition of the child to change, depending on the severity and type of condition, but you need to discover a new point of view, the one I have tried to present throughout this entire debate. Special needs not be defined as mere "superiority," but rather an enlightening substitute.
An added mention would go towards the fact that whether or not the condition is a mental one, it can create severe psychological harm; losing faith in one's self. Rather than take a "linguistic" or "anthropological" term and turn the child into a walking disease, it would better serve the child's self-esteem if we were to enlighten the mood by using a positive term in reference to the child; "special."
"If it makes them feel better, why say yes?"
A pointless response. Consider the child's emotions, even if you consider them overrated. If the child is influenced more positively when referred to as "special," then there is little reason to argue against it. If it doesn't matter to them, why should it matter to us?
"Find a less 'special' of a word to use for them. Call them 'unique'!"
Again, unnecessary. Unique would be an appropriate word to be used, but alas, that doesn't support your case. Let's call them "unique" and "special," more so where it is most appropriate.
Not as robotic. I'm an INTJ on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator - perhaps the equivalency of roboticism.
Unnecessary.
How is it unnecessary? Is it not the most logical choice? Some day the term 'special' is going to be derogatory.
Your point of view, and it is a rather sickening point of view I might add.
I'm an egoist, too. Thus my opinion is all that matters.
but rather as an effective substitute to words such as "retarded" and "demented."
They are retarded. They are demented. They are disabled. Don't use euphemisms; speak the truth!
We would not refer to a disabled child as a Mongoloid because it does nothing to support the cause of which it is placed.
And just what cause is that?
We are not openly describing what they are, but are showing how the child's condition can remain positive.
How is a disability positive? Unless, of course, they are an idiot-savant.
The whole purpose of the term "special" is to make a child feel better; it is rather inhumane to object to this form of happiness.
The thing about this debate is that I am most likely the most cold and stoic person on this site. I feign emotion to prove my point, but I rarely feel any. By the standards you set for 'humane' and 'inhumane,' I am inhumane.
If you wish to make them feel better than use a proper term. Use the word 'unusual', 'unique', etc.
there are possibilities for the condition of the child to change, depending on the severity and type of condition
And until that condition changes, they'll still be referred by you as 'special' and by me as 'idiot', 'disabled', etc.
Special needs not be defined as mere "superiority," but rather an enlightening substitute.
How is it enlightening to refer to somebody as something which they are not? Yes, I realize the point you are trying to make; but it simply isn't true. Even if you call them 'special' it still has the same context as calling them 'idiot'.
and turn the child into a walking disease
They could be a 'walking disease'.
it would better serve the child's self-esteem if we were to enlighten the mood by using a positive term in reference to the child; "special."
In a few years the term 'special' will be just as derogatory as 'idiot' or 'Mongoloid'. When that happens it shan't even be able to be used to refer to prodigies.
If it doesn't matter to them, why should it matter to us?
The term "special" suits well enough. It is unnecessary to substitute a word that is effective when used for the intended purpose; to enlighten the emotive wellbeing of a disabled child.
"Is it not the most logical choice?"
Perhaps in future, but as of now the term "special" seems to be the most logical choice. It would, perhaps, be logical to replace the term should a high majority of disabled children deny its use, but since no such act has yet occurred, there is no liable reason to suggest that change should be made.
"They are retarded. They are demented. They are disabled. Don't use euphemisms; speak the truth!"
The truth hurts. Do you want disabled children to suffer greater pain? Speaking the truth to defenseless children will only dampen their spirits further; will possibly destroy whatever light their future may have had.
"And just what cause is that?"
The cause is simple; boosting the child's self-esteem.
"How is a disability positive?"
The disability itself is not positive. However, the purpose of using the term "special" is to enlighten the disability; to show that life is still bright, in a matter of speaking.
"If you wish to make them feel better than use a proper term. Use the word 'unusual', 'unique', etc."
"Unusual?" Making use of the term "unusual" would only increase the depressive feelings such as isolation and irony that the child may be already experiencing. This would go against the cause of which it is placed (boosting self-esteem). "Unique" would be an appropriate term, but it does nothing to show why "special" still cannot be used. After all, why not use both?
"And until that condition changes, they'll still be referred by you as 'special' and by me as 'idiot', 'disabled', etc."
You would call a physically/mentally disabled child an idiot? Straight to their face? A little too heartless perhaps?
"How is it enlightening to refer to somebody as something which they are not? Yes, I realize the point you are trying to make; but it simply isn't true. Even if you call them 'special' it still has the same context as calling them 'idiot'."
Okay, first of all, the term "special" is used with primarily good intentions; I am focused on showing how using the term, with good intentions, will benefit the child's self-esteem and will enlighten the condition. The term "idiot" is straightforward; it is only used with the intent of harm. To call a disabled child an idiot would be to make fun at the expense of their condition; to call a disabled child "special" would act as a positive supplement. This is due to the fact that the word "special" is commonly used to describe something in a positive and unique way, which you have demonstrated, and that from this we can derive the fact that the word "special" is used as a positive description. From there, we add to this the fact that it brings light to the darkening condition, hence, the term "special" gathers its meaning when used to describe disabled children.
"They could be a 'walking disease'."
Regardless, calling them in any way as to make them feel so would grant no benefit to ourselves nor to them.
"If it doesn't matter to them, then why use it?"
By my previous statement, the one you responded to with that sentence, I referred to the fact that while some do in fact consider the term "special" inappropriate when used to describe disabled children, such as yourself, the disabled children themselves do not seem concerned as to how the term could be otherwise interpreted. Therefore, the opinion clearly does not matter to them; why should it matter to us?
There is the truth and there is overextending the truth. When the child shows improvement and better understanding for their condition, let it be known to them that they are "different." However, there is no reason to suggest that the truth must be used on a daily basis if it means degrading the child further. If they, emotionally, are not feeling severe pain, why should we inflict it? Sometimes the truth isn't worth telling.
"They most likely realize that they are disabled - how would accepting that fact cause greater pain?"
Okay, to demonstrate my point, here is an example:
Suppose I walked up to a mentally disabled child every day and said "Hey idiot!" Would you agree that this sets a positive example for myself or the child? If I refer to the child as a "friend," and later used "you're a special little guy/girl," would it not be more heartwarming? Perhaps it does not make sense to you. Perhaps it would burn your cold, heartless body (as you described yourself).
"They are unique - every single person is unique. It wouldn't be a lie."
True.
They are also special - every single person is special in some way or another. It would be no less of a lie.
"To call the 'special' is laughable. Isn't that also a way of 'making fun' of them?"
Dependable. The word is very commonly used in positive spirits towards children, however, there are instances where people may quietly use it in ways that may offend the disabled child should he understand the intent. You're not going to look angry and call the child "special." If they see happiness in your face as you use the word, they will understand better that you are a friend and are a person who in fact does care. I don't see what is so laughable about disabled children in the first place.
"A positive word for a most-likely negative condition."
I have never denied this. This is to make a positive out of the negative.
There is the truth and there is overextending the truth.
The truth is not subjective. I am a firm believer in not 'beating over the bush'.
When the child shows improvement
If possible...
better understanding for their condition
If possible...
let it be known to them that they are "different.
"Different"? Different !
I'm sure it'll be quite obvious to them that they are different !
However, there is no reason to suggest that the truth must be used on a daily basis if it means degrading the child further.
Then why not just call them by their name and be done with it?
Sometimes the truth isn't worth telling.
To you. I, as an INTJ, do not see the logic in lying to people. Ever see the film Liar Liar? He can't lie for 24 hours, and it leads him to a hell of a lot of trouble. I, on the contrary, would never have that problem. If a debate is bad, I tell them. If a dress is ugly, I tell them.
Suppose I walked up to a mentally disabled child every day and said "Hey idiot!"
You wouldn't do that. I doubt I would, either. There is no need for it - nor is there need for calling them 'special'. Call them by their name!
Would you agree that this sets a positive example for myself or the child?
What could a positive/negative example affect? They may not even comprehend that it is more obscene than 'special' - or that it is obscene at all.
If I refer to the child as a "friend," and later used "you're a special little guy/girl," would it not be more heartwarming?
What a happy ending! The teenaged-debater and the idiot live happily ever after in their politically-correct world.
Do they realize that there is a problem with "You're an idiotic little guy/girl"?
Perhaps it does not make sense to you.
Oh, I comprehend emotions - but I've spend my lifetime suppressing them. I can even make them come out at will, if you'll believe that! I can watch the funniest movie and not so much as crack a smile, or I can laugh at the most asinine of jokes. I can be terrified by a mild film, or be bored by the scariest movie ever made. I can control my emotions. Thus, I can see your point of view.
It would be no less of a lie.
But it would be exclusionary.
If they see happiness in your face as you use the word
What if they see happiness in my face when I say 'You stupid little idiot'? Will that negatively influence them?
they will understand better that you are a friend and are a person who in fact does care.
Or, they can think that I care when really I don't.
I don't see what is so laughable about disabled children in the first place.
It's not that the disability is laughable, it's the politically correct attitude that goes hand-in-hand.
"The truth is not subjective. I am a firm believer in not 'beating over the bush'."
Not subjective? The truth is what opens doors to reality, and in many cases this door is held open for far too long. To emphasize this: say I told a child bound to a wheelchair that he was a cripple once. This is telling him the truth. However, suppose I then told him he was a cripple twenty times in a mocking manner. This is overextending the truth.
"If possible..."
If the child is in a condition where nothing matters; that they are so completely and mentally shut-down that they are unable to comprehend the simplest of words, there is no reason to subjectively "put them down" or try to make the child "feel better." Let it be known to a child who will progress on in life that he/she is 'special.'
"I'm sure it'll be quite obvious to them that they are different !"
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps not enough.
If the child can learn to understand at a better capacity than he/she could have when they first became mentally/physically handicapped (as well as the case of at birth), then tell them the truth. Be honest. Let them know their condition and how that differentiates them from other children. Then, you work to continue to make light of the dark situation, in order to maintain a better life; a life that the child deserves.
"Then why not just call them by their name and be done with it?"
Of course. There is no reason to exclude the use of their name. This does not give reason to exclude the use of the term 'special'.
"To you. I, as an INTJ, do not see the logic in lying to people. Ever see the film Liar Liar? He can't lie for 24 hours, and it leads him to a hell of a lot of trouble. I, on the contrary, would never have that problem. If a debate is bad, I tell them. If a dress is ugly, I tell them."
Some people don't lie on anything larger than a rare basis. Some don't lie at all. That is fair.
At the same time, some people choose to lie for the sake of happiness. Happiness for themselves and for others. Besides, if you called a child 'special,' it wouldn't be a lie. And as you have mentioned, many mentally disabled children have comprehension issues; if they did, would they really be bothered with the possibility of the term 'special' being a lie?
"You wouldn't do that. I doubt I would, either. There is no need for it - nor is there need for calling them 'special'. Call them by their name!"
The term "idiot" does not benefit any situation. The term "special" benefits many situations. No-one needs to be called by any term, but if one term serves better than another, where is the problem?
"What could a positive/negative example affect? They may not even comprehend that it is more obscene than 'special' - or that it is obscene at all."
Calling a child an "idiot" makes them feel bad, and makes me look bad. It can't get much simpler than that!
If the child feels emotionally happy based n the use of the word, then there is no argument against whether or not it is a bad word to use.
"What a happy ending! The teenaged-debater and the idiot live happily ever after in their politically-correct world."
Sarcasm? Your first emotive response. I'm speechless. Nah, I like rebuttal too much.
The "politically-correct world" isn't a problem. Why? Because the child is a child - the politically correct world isn't a world that the child has been introduced to, nor may even know it in future depending on the mental condition (as physical conditions wouldn't be as much of a deterrence).
"What if they see happiness in my face when I say 'You stupid little idiot'? Will that negatively influence them?"
Yes if they understood. Yes if they witnessed the negative reactions towards you by others.
"Or, they can think that I care when really I don't."
If they are happy, then it shouldn't really matter.
"It's not that the disability is laughable, it's the politically correct attitude that goes hand-in-hand."
It's all about the child-benefit. If that category is filled then I sense no problem at hand.
Just because they are incapable of doing and thinking things that others who are not disabled does not mean they are any different from any other person on the world. We are all of equal worth whether we are disabled or capable, black or white, religious or not.
I disagree that disabled children should be called 'special', because it's not true and it gives them a false sense of hope. When the 'special' child goes to school, his classmates and teachers won't think he's special, they just make him feel like crap.
The word 'special' is used by parents to explain to their children that they're different, but, as I said, the special child will be subject to teasing, rudeness and violence once they take a step into the real world, without Mommy holding his hand.
So basically, I think the world 'special' is a bad word to use when referring to disable people because it gives them a false sense of hope and can and will lead to depression later on in life.
Maybe this debate needs to split into mental and physical disabilities. I say this because there are some mental 'disabilities' out there, like Asperger's Syndrome and other types of Autism that actually make people more intelligent than normal people (Trust me I know, I've got it myself). Think of the Rainman, for example (Yes, he actually does exist). Now, in this case, they CAN be called 'special', but it still differenitates them from normal people. Besides, for people with conditions such as Asperger's Syndrome, the word 'special' is too simple a word for them to understand. Sorry, there's just not enough syllables to make that word have any real meaning...
Those children that are now called "special" were once "trainable retarded children". I guess, they kinda are special - they're retarded, of course, but trainable as well. Still, call them what they are (retarded, stupid, etc.) rather than what you want them to be. They're stupid, they shouldn't know the difference. Besides, calling them "special" takes away the glory of an actually special child being called "special".
using the term 'special' will help not hurt their feelings, and they are special in their own way - being disabled isn't a crime. You shouldn't call them handicapped - if you were disabled, you'd probably prefer to be called 'special' than 'disabled'.
It isn't openly offensive, it acts as a much better word than disabled or retarded, and most of all, it actually can boost the child's self-esteem when used in everyday life, not in a way to make them sound strange, but as a way of making them feel accepted.
Most of all, I think that unless you're disabled yourself, you can't really look at it from their point of view, so it is wrong to judge how they feel towards certain terms used to describe them unless you know for a fact that they themselves do not appreciate being called so.
It isn't a case of superiority; it is a case of they are not as mentally or physically equipped as the rest of us, and therefore, we need to do what we can to support these people, rather than label and treat them as though they were outcasts. To do so would be highly immoral and extremely selfish.
They are disabled or mentally retarded, but we don't need to make a big deal about it, after all, they are human.
I think the term is more for the parents, it probably makes them feel better about the hell their life has become caring for this person who will continue crapping their pants and needing someone to change them long after hair has begun growing on their ass - freakin nightmare.
Since a retard couldn't care less unless about being called a retard unless someone tells them they are supposed to care, I assume it's for the parents. Anyway, call them retarded if you like, I usually do.
Like, it doesn't cost me anything to call them "special" though and if it makes someone feel better what the hell do I care? I would call them speicial I suppose in the presence of the retard's parents if they preferred. If it's some holier than now douchebag though with no relation to the retard just trying to be a pain in my ass, I'd likely call both of them retarded.
In calling them special, it's not like they tricked me, I know a retard when I see one... some are on this site ;)
Like, I'm not going to see a retarded person, call them special, then like forget suddenly they're retarded and, I don't know toss them a football that ends up hitting them in the head or something.
So call them special if you want, call them retarded, who cares?
