CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
27
Should be required That is rediculous
Debate Score:42
Arguments:64
Total Votes:48
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Should be required (15)
 
 That is rediculous (19)

Debate Creator

Slavedevice(1216) pic



License to Parent

We agree people should pass some sort of test to do most things that protect society like drive, practice medicine, charge for skills, etc etc.  why in Hell do we have no screening process what so ever to be a parent.  The tech is there to control birth, technology that we choose to ignore and allow degenerate s to have kids

Should be required

Side Score: 15
VS.

That is rediculous

Side Score: 27

We were at one time licensed to have children, the license of Constitutional separation was called marriage. As a man and woman are licensed, and witnessed before the public in consideration of contributing to the Society of a Nation to which the couple lives.

The question is the Right to contribute to a Nations population without registration. This is also the underlying issue which incriminates the general public into criminal act by creating public witnessing of Same Gender Unions. The adage any publicity is good publicity was being tested and found false by Constitution. A crime of fraud is organized and directed upon the public by unconstitutional legislation of law.

Side: Should be required
1 point

Yes. I support this. Children poorly raised suffer greatly. I'm not fit to be a mother, so I chose toi be sterilized. Anyone with neurological diseases should be sterilized.

Side: Should be required
1 point

NKJV,

Children poorly raised suffer greatly. I'm not fit to be a mother, so I chose toi be sterilized. Anyone with neurological diseases should be sterilized.

Smart.

KIND.

Neurological diseases are brutal, without exception.

The mom of my best friend growing up had Huntington's Chorea. She suffered even more than her family, who suffered while watching her suffering. Both my friend and his brother got the gene. My friend killed himself a few years ago, and his brother is locked up for trying to kill himself multiple times.

I got a vasectomy because cancer runs strong in my family (3 grandparents had cancer, and both my parents died early of cancer.) It just did not seem kind to pass that on to countless generations.

Side: Should be required
NKJV(513) Disputed
0 points

As someone who was born with three mental illnesses, I support the forced sterilization of anyone with a neurological disease. I will not change my mind, so check your privilige, little child.

Side: That is rediculous
1 point

We might as well throw in a license to "live". So why is it that everything would require a license to do but no license to be born/to live?

You see, the problem with too much control and too many rules is that you basically strip life down to nothing which isn't life anymore. I'd rather live with the inconveniences of too much liberty than the inconveniences of too little.

Side: Should be required

I’m not talking about a difficult test. You should have to show you can get a job and you are not an attic,etc. just basic skills.

Side: Should be required

We should have it and I think someone should have to be 28 years old before they have children. Maybe even 30.

Side: Should be required
xMathFanx(1742) Clarified
1 point

@ghostheadX

We should have it and I think someone should have to be 28 years old before they have children. Maybe even 30.

Although in one sense I understand your rational here, how would such a policy be enforced? That is, if a person had a child when they were 22, would the child be put up for adoption? Please expand on your position in this respect

Side: Should be required
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

Rationally the child would be put in a foster home. A 24 year old should gain some wisdom before having kids. Not enough life experience. I purposely am not gonna have kids until I am 30 and honestly that's a good age. Most people my age nowadays are not much different from being kids.

A lot of people today that are my age act like teenagers, myself included to some degree. I'm 22, almost 23. I know most of my peers are not ready to have kids yet. Some of them might get away with it.

I tell that to any girlfriend I get when I first meet them.

Side: Should be required
BurritoLunch(1755) Clarified
0 points

Although in one sense I understand your rational here

It's "rationale", you arrogant, illiterate fucking moron.

Side: Should be required
-2 points
cruzaders(341) Clarified
1 point

Just an answer to the description of the debate: I believe we dont need to have a license for parenting because

(1) having children is inherent to our condition of human beings (2) moral "skills" cant really be taught , while driving a car, being a doctor etc are learned

Side: Should be required
1 point

Agreed.

We should just make people personally accountable for paying the expense of raising their own kids.

No welfare.

No SNAP.

No CHIP.

No Section 8 housing.

Etc..

Just 6 month lifetime maximum (per PARENT not per child) emergency assistance.

Side: Should be required
4 points

there are so many different ways of parenting. It is ridiculous to tell people how to take care of their kids. People have different values, and making people get a license will only make people teach their kids the same values. It will make this country a heck of a lot more boring, and there is no need for it.

Side: That is rediculous
John_C_1812(279) Disputed
1 point

A license is not a test, it is a registration only. A test of some form of basic skill is not unheard of as reasonable for many events which effect the general welfare of a nation. The need is a lower cost in data collection and assessment of population.

I am not confrontable with the idea but it has been going on for some time.

Side: Should be required
1 point

SC,

t is ridiculous to tell people how to take care of their kids. People have different values, and making people get a license will only make people teach their kids the same values.

Yep.

The likelihood is that there will be no actual test of preparedness for objectively measurable parenting requirements, but rather a push for whatever set of values prevails at the time in government social services agencies.

The need is for people to become parents only when they are ready and have made an informed commitment to two decades of hard work and sacrifice. People generally make better decisions when they know and understand potential risks and consequences, and that there is no easy out.

I think a better way than licenses is to ensure people are actually prepared to parent, and to ensure they actually do the work of raising their kids, is to make sure they know in advance what is actually involved in parenting.

We need explicit sex education in biology classes. The ridiculously oversimplified and moralized BS taught in "sex education" courses is nearly useless for providing kids with the understanding they need to make informed decisions about sex, pregnancy, and parenthood. Most sex ed programs leave out the biological basis of the long term health costs of pregnancy, for example. Though it is hard to believe, there is widespread misunderstanding about the mechanics of getting pregnant, how long sperm can live in the female body, etc..

There should also be financial education in public schools about things like mortgages, 401k plans, and the expenses of parenting. NOTHING is more expensive in time and resources than raising a child.

Moreover, people need to know the government will not take over their responsibilities for providing for the kid. That needs to be a reality ensconced in law. All those welfare programs (SNAP, CHIP, Section 8, etc. need to have a LIFETIME maximum (associated to the PARENT, not the child) of 6 months emergency assistance.

If parenting becomes a personal responsibility, NOT a societal one, and people go into it aware of what they are committing to, we will end up with fewer unprepared and irresponsible screw-ups raising their kids badly.

Informed personal accountability will be more effective than government meddling and bailouts.

Side: That is rediculous

It's a very risky concept, which borders too much on dystopian control of people's personal lives.

What would the screening process be? If you earn under a certain amount, you can't have kids? In that case, wouldn't it mean we're attempting to cull the working class?

And what would happen to the children if a couple had a baby without getting a license? Would they be put up for adoption? Both America and the UK already have ridiculously high rates of children who have been left orphans.

It's something I wouldn't be surprised to read about in a Margaret Atwood novel.

Side: That is rediculous
John_C_1812(279) Disputed
1 point

It already has been taking place for Centuries..... So far the concept was a man and woman.

Side: Should be required
NicolasCage(506) Disputed
1 point

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, would you mind clarifying?

Side: That is rediculous
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

Marriage has always been voluntary license to have children. The United State set by Republic adopted it from religion and separated from religious context, by the formation pf basic laws regarding witness, account, and sexual acts that long came into play publicly. Consummation. There is only one justifiable reason a person at liberty can be asked to make a claim against another in regarding to sex. It creates a Citizen of a Nation, Country, and State.

Side: Should be required
Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I’m inclined to agree with you. But what if there was a not a test for positive traits, but rather a flag for egregious negative traits such as popping out child after child in a drug den or appealing conditions amounting to abuse? I know we have thiese flags now, and it triggers a child services investigation, but I’m asking about going further. What if we force sterilized the mom who literally has multiple children taken at birth and put into the system because of her prostitution fueled drug habit? What if we force sterilized the mother who is about to pop out a 5th when the first four suffer from the toxic fumes of their own piss and shit that has saturated the floor of the one room and bare mattress they all share? Would force sterilization in these cases be immoral or fruitless?

Side: Should be required
1 point

Well, we don't have a "license to parent" policy--however, there is child-protective services in place (and such) in an effort to deal with issues that tend to arise. That is, there is understanding in society that parents are obligated to meet certain basic standards or else they lose the privilege of raising their child(ren).

There are many flaws with the current model, I am just "putting on the table" that the general Philosophical concept you are promoting already is sort of in societies conscious

Side: That is rediculous
marcusmoon(586) Disputed
1 point

MathFan,

Well, we don't have a "license to parent" policy--however, there is child-protective services in place (and such) in an effort to deal with issues that tend to arise. That is, there is understanding in society that parents are obligated to meet certain basic standards or else they lose the privilege of raising their child(ren).

I worked for a year as a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigator in Texas. I investigated and enforced laws having to do with abuse, neglect, and neglectful supervision.

NONE of these laws have anything to do with raising kids to become responsible adults capable of healthy participation in society. They are only about the physical safety of the child. In reality, parents only lose custody (temporarily or permanently) in much less than 5% of the cases.

My year of working for CPS taught me some basic things.

1-Pretty much everybody loves their kids.

2-Reproducing is not sufficient to make people capable of being self-sufficient, or participating productively in society.

3-Loving your kids is not sufficient to make you a good parent.

4-Keeping your kids safe and fed is not sufficient to raising people capable of participating productively in society.

5-It is impossible to fix somebody else's family.

6-More than 90% of CPS activities are a complete waste of taxpayer money. It is just closing the barn door after the horses have run out.

Side: Should be required
xMathFanx(1742) Disputed
1 point

@marcusmoon

NONE of these laws have anything to do with raising kids to become responsible adults capable of healthy participation in society.

I never made an argument/statement that these laws (and such) function in this way. In fact, I have argued elsewhere about this at great length (concerning the abysmal failure of the Adult population generation after generation toward the Young--as a whole, that is). My statement was in reference to minimum standards of health (and such)--That is, you must feed your kids, you can't severely physically abuse your children, ect. ect.

Side: That is rediculous
Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

What if we force sterilized the mom who literally has multiple children taken at birth and put into the system because of her prostitution fueled drug habit?

What if we force sterilized the mother who is about to pop out a 5th when the first 4 suffer from the toxic fumes of their own piss and shit that has saturated the floor of the one room and bare mattress they all share? Would force sterilization in these cases be immoral or fruitless? Would you be opposed?

Side: Should be required

Because there would be no legitimate way to enforce that law at this point in time. Let's say that someone doesn't have a "license to parent", and the woman gets pregnant. If they don't get approved for a license, what's the government going to do about it? Forcibly kill the unborn child? That sort of operating is significant of borderline government tyranny.

Side: That is rediculous
1 point

The tech is no problem- mandatory implant if you are of age and don’t pass test

Yes I know — I’m Fascist....it makes much better world

I would put shockers in students’ desk to zap them when they misbehave

Side: Should be required
xMathFanx(1742) Clarified
1 point

@SlaveDevice

mandatory implant if you are of age and don’t pass test

What "test"? This appears to be a staple of the idea/policy you are promoting, as the those who do not pass the test are filtered out

Side: Should be required
1 point

Then we should make everyone have a license to live. According to that logic, we should say then that not everyone deserves to live and should have to pass a test to see who deserves life and who doesn't. Now we are getting into pre-crime, pre-destination, and the whole purpose of life becomes a mute point.

Side: That is rediculous