Instigator / Pro
8
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic

Some women should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1776
rating
404
debates
67.45%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Sacrifice/ing (sac) vs Spend/ing (sp)

To fully understand my Kritik on this topic, we must analyse the difference between sac and sp. To be clear, overlap absolutely does exist, if this were a Venn Diagram, I would say energy is partly able to be in the middle section but time cannot be sac'd and if it could, should not be sac'd.

Parents sp and sac their money and owned items on children (Cn) and should do so (not saying spoil them, you get the point). This is because they could spend that same money on things otherwise and because also, money doesn't 'leak' out involuntarily or waste away if one doesn't utilise it. Thus, it is genuine sac. In contrast, we do not even own time firstly nor choose how fast it leaks/sneaks away from us and with energy the best we are able to do is to spend it because no matter what we lose energy if we do nothing with it (even if it's stored as fat, it's not actual 'energy' but the catalyst that can make energy happen, namely 'glucose', that's stored in the fat globules).

What Pro means to tell you is a truism but because the word 'sacrifice' is chosen, the abusive and unlosable truism is suddenly on very shaky ground. 

==

'Some women should' then why not all?

The fact that the resolution explicitly states that 'some women should' shows that it knows full well how wrong it would be to say all women should. In fact, I wish to push this point further; the women that would continuously feel it to be a sacrifice would come to make up the most toxic mothers. Of course it's colloquially referred to as a 'sacrifice' because people don't tend to consciously realise the selfish elements of raising your own child or the fulfilment one gets out of it. Do you say that you are sacrificing your time and effort when doing something you truly want to be doing? Exactly.

==

Time cannot be owned, thus it cannot be sacrificed, only opportunities can via opportunity cost

Unlike energy that physiologically is temporarily arguably 'rented' by one, time is in no shape or form owned. One cannot sac time because not only do they not own any time themselves but their life's pace of time is completely out of their control. Every second you spent reading this went by whether you read it or not, whether you happened to do something you 'should' or 'should not' during that time, you never spent the time. The turn of phrase 'don't waste my time' is completely devoid in terms of physics and reality, the time was not wasted instead the opportunity cost was determined to be suboptimal.

==

Pro's mother didn't sacrifice time on Pro last night, she was with me and Pro turned out just fine.

I would like to extend my point; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxnaPa8ohmM
Round 2
Pro
Thanks, RM. 
Let's set the record straight. 

Definitions
  • Well-being: 1. the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.
  • Woman: 1. an adult female human being.
  • Time: 2. a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or noon.
  • Energy: the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.
  • Sacrifice: to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.
  • Their: belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.
  • Some: at least a small amount or number of people or things.

  • First I will address this. 
Pro's mother didn't sacrifice time on Pro last night, she was with me and Pro turned out just fine.
  • This statement is neither amusing nor appropriate for this debate. I find it offensive and demeaning, and dont believe personal statements like this are civil or in good faith/conduct. 
  • For the sake of being charitable, I will take it as a claim, and ask CON to present any evidence of it, or concede the point altogether. 




I gave CON round 1 to make his case first, and for me to progress with my arguments and refutations in the next round. Lets's see what we have here. 

CON argues,
'Some women should' then why not all?
  • But this statement is not relevant to the resolution of the debate.

CON argues, 
Do you say that you are sacrificing your time and effort when doing something you truly want to be doing? Exactly.
  • Sure, but sacrifice is sacrifice regardless of whether one enjoys the duty or not. A vetran who fought in World War II made a sacrifice regardless of whether he enjoys or loves combat and being in the military. Also, not everyone enjoys all aspects of raising a child. I doubt any do. It's hard work, but it's necessary. 

Further, 
Unlike energy that physiologically is temporarily arguably 'rented' by one, time is in no shape or form owned. One cannot sac time because not only do they not own any time themselves but their life's pace of time is completely out of their control. Every second you spent reading this went by whether you read it or not, whether you happened to do something you 'should' or 'should not' during that time, you never spent the time. The turn of phrase 'don't waste my time' is completely devoid in terms of physics and reality, the time was not wasted instead the opportunity cost was determined to be suboptimal.
I really like the spirt of CON's philosophical Kritik and prepares we can debate this idea one day, but unfortunately it's not a relevant attack of the resolution. I will briefly explain why the argument doesn't work. 

  • Voters first consider that "their" does not even have to indicate ownership, rather association with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. Observe this statement: "Students should go to their classes"
  • The students don't own the class yet we associate the class to/with them in the given premise.  
  • CON argues that one cannot sacrifice time, because "Time cannot be owned, thus it cannot be sacrificed, only opportunities can via opportunity cost." 
  • This is an issue with how CON views the resolution, which is ultimately the flaw in his argument. 
  • "Their" simply means "belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified." (by definition). Whether you can or can't claim absolute ownership to time is a philosophical debacle, sure, but we associate aspects of time to individuals by illustrating their ability to make a myriad of choices or decisions of their own will, creating an opportunity cost. 
  • Because I am obviously referring to how people evaluate time with respect to individuals, what PRO said isn't really relevant to the resolution, but I commend his writing because it's good for any philosophical debate in whether time can be owned. 

C1. 
  • Any action of raising a child demands the sacrifice of time and energy. To argue against the resolution is to state that mothers dont have to raise children. This would have demonstrable effects on society, and the lives of our most vulnerable. 

C2. 
Some women should sacrifice time and energy to care for their children. Many women are single mothers and are oftentimes the only ones that can do so.
  • Many children are vulnerable and can't function on their own. Many women are single mothers and cannot afford to call a babysitter, yet cannot neglect the child. They have to give up their time and devote energy to the child unless it will be severely affected.
  • If these women DO NOT sacrifice time and energy for the child, we would have many malnourished, and poorly raised children. 
  • Because children are so vulnerable they need to be fed and cared for. They are the future generations of our society and need to be raised. But let's say you didnt care about the fact that they are the next generation, they are still individual human beings, and parents cant neglect them because the consequences are too great. That leads me to my next contention. 

C3. 
Consequences of child neglect. 
Let's examine the costs of child neglect the child, their mental and emotional health, proclivities, and society. 
  • "Childhood maltreatment can be linked to later physical, psychological, and behavioral consequences as well as costs to society as a whole. These consequences may be independent of each other, but they also may be interrelated. For example, abuse or neglect may stunt physical development of the child’s brain and lead to psychological problems, such as low self-esteem, which could later lead to high-risk behaviors, such as substance use." (www.childwelfare.gov)
  • Several studies have documented the correlation between child maltreatment and future juvenile delinquency and criminal activities (Herrenkohl, Jung, Lee, & Kim, 2017). 
  • Research clearly shows that young children who experience long periods of severe neglect or deprivation have more severe cognitive impairments, language deficits, academic problems, withdrawn behavior, and problems interacting with peers when compared to child victims of physical maltreatment. This suggests that severe neglect may do more damage to the brain architecture than physical abuse (https://www.americanbar.org/)

The last point honestly shocked me the most. Neglect of children to degrees can do more damage to them than physical abuse. I think thats terrible, and worthy to consider. In order to uphold the resolution, I must provide good reasons why a woman should sacrifice time and energy for the sake of her child's well-being and that I have done. But hey, if you don't agree that even at least some women should sacrifice time and energy for the sake of their childs well being, you tell me. 

Please vote PRO!

Sources








Con
Forfeitures harm both arguments and conduct.

A forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below).

Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).

Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).

I have seen, before, a debate where a debater forfeited Round 1 and 3 but not Round 2 and people were entitled to vote 'FF' reasoning against them. Consider that in this debate over 40% of the 2 Rounds has been forfeited by Pro.

==

Pro decided to provide definitions suddenly, which I dispute some of.

Time isn't a 'point in time' because that is a self-refuting definition. Time is as follows:

the thing that is measured as seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc.

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

I also dispute the definition of 'energy' which has been cherrypicked by Pro to fit the colloquial usage which then implies an individual can sacrifice it as opposed to exchange it rather than store the catalyse for it (glucose in forms that include fat). 

Energy is as follows:
energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potentialkineticthermal, electrical, chemicalnuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another.
In its most common definition, energy is the ability to do work. In other words, everything that can do work has energy. In the case of energy, doing work is also known as causing or making change. Energy is either transformed or transferred every time work is being done. This means that since it changes forms every time it’s used, the amount of energy in the universe will forever remain the same. 

'Energy' is a physics term, the most accurate explanations and definitions are likely to come out of physics websites and expert opinion, not simply a dictionary. That said, even dictionaries support this.
the power from something such as electricity or oil that can do work, such as providing light and heat

It is important we do not just define it as Pro did because that implies that energy is an ability as opposed to a transferrable resource (which is always the same amount in the universe at all times but merely transfers the form that its in).

I accept Pro's definitions of 'woman', 'sacrifice', 'their' and 'some'.

This leaves 'wellbeing' as a definition I don't inherently dispute but also one I am not sure is worded precisely.

==

I am forced to rebuke Pro in a Round that Pro cannot reply to, this is due to Pro deciding to have the entire contentions and constructive in the final Round of debating.

C1. 
  • Any action of raising a child demands the sacrifice of time and energy. To argue against the resolution is to state that mothers dont have to raise children. This would have demonstrable effects on society, and the lives of our most vulnerable. 
No it doesn't, this contention basically treats my Round 1 as if it didn't exist. Instead of Pro abusively debating a truism, I made it clear that Pro is actually debating for something that is incapable of being true. Time is not owned by anybody, you can only sacrifice opportunity cost.

Opportunity costs represent the potential benefits an individual, investor, or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another. Because opportunity costs are, by definition, unseen, they can be easily overlooked. Understanding the potential missed opportunities when a business or individual chooses one investment over another allows for better decision-making.

You can use 'time' to benefit the children but you are only sacrificing what you could be doing instead, the time is moving/trickling/eroding at the same pace in the same way, no matter how you decide to utilise opportunities in a given frame of time.

Furthermore, energy that one spends to the benefit of children being considered 'sacrificed' is to imply that the energy had a usage other than the children that it could be better spent on, which is being sacrificed. Again, it is the alternative opportunity which is sacrificed, the energy is merely transferred and the time is ticking away at the same pace regardless.

C2 and C3 are both negated by the same ideas as I have negated C1 with.

==

Now, let me defend against Pro's rebuttals to my R1 points.

Firstly, I take back/concede the joke about Pro's mother, it depends on one's sense of humour how to take it. I was assuming after the forfeiture that this would be a free win and felt like a flex to entertain the audience on what would otherwise be a stale read as I was winning no matter what I wrote overall.

Secondly, the relevance of the 'some women' rather than all is linked to the resolution because it is an inherent concession by Pro that clearly not all women should be sacrificing time and energy on children. I then expanded on it, saying that women who will feel it's a sacrifice are the most likely women to make bad mothers. I stand by this statement.

Common Toxic Traits
Signs you might have a toxic parent include:
  • They’re self-centered. They don’t think about your needs or feelings.
  • They’re emotional loose cannons. They overreact, or create drama.
  • They overshare. They share improper info with you, like details about their intimate lives. They use you as their main source of emotional support.
  • They seek control. They might use guilt and money to get you to do what they want.
  • They’re harshly critical. Nothing you do is ever good enough. They don’t respect your good traits or achievements.
  • They lack boundaries. They might show up unasked at your home, or attack your life choices.

The most likely type of personality and parent to be this way would very likely feel the child is a burden that they continually sacrifice time and energy on (even though you genuinelly cannot semantically sacrifice time at all). I would argue that the C3 child neglect point of Pro actually backfires because of this. If anything, the most likely women to neglect their children are the ones who feel the times and energy-exertions where they were benefitting their child's wellbeing were sacrifices, as opposed to a joy or thing they wanted to be doing.

To be clear, “toxic parent” isn’t a medical term or a clearly defined concept. When people discuss toxic parents they are typically describing parents who consistently behave in ways that cause guilt, fear, or obligation in their children. Their actions aren’t isolated events, but patterns of behavior that negatively shape their child’s life.

The thing is, parents are human beings. And that means that they may make mistakes, yell too much, or do potentially damaging things to their kids — even unintentionally. But their impulse is to do better and make things right.

A toxic parent, however, is more concerned with their own needs than whether what they’re doing is harmful or damaging. They likely won’t apologize or even admit that what they are doing is wrong. And the abuse or neglect tends to be ongoing or progressive.

Pro says the following:

  • Voters first consider that "their" does not even have to indicate ownership, rather association with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. Observe this statement: "Students should go to their classes"
The class of the student is part of their timetable. It is an item on their schedule. They have it as an attribute of their daily routine. Thus, it is not at all an example that evades ownership it's just abstract.

  • The students don't own the class yet we associate the class to/with them in the given premise.  
They are the ones that the timetable they must follow is attached/belonging to and they possess it.

I am challenging Pro's definition of time anyway, which explains why Pro was not able to understand my argument and to be clear Pro didn't provide any definitions in the debate's description, so it follows that I am entitled to challenge it as it wasn't agreed upon prior to my acceptance of the debate.

Time, as Pro has defined it, is a niche definition to a specific context that benefits Pro's side of the debate. Time is not something you own, it is something that is there for absolutely everything in reality and without any discretion to be sacrificed. Only opportunities that are given up during a period of time can be sacrificed and this is actually what Pro is arguing for.