Some women should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- 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.
- 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.
'Some women should' then why not all?
- But this statement is not relevant to the resolution of the debate.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- "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/)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Common Toxic TraitsSigns 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.
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.
- 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.
I believe that Pro could have won this debate if he'd had more than one round to argue it. His points defending the terms used in the resolution against Con's Kritik initially made sense, and I think his arguments on energy largely hold up well even after Con's rebuttals.
That being said, he set up the debate to include both the terms "time" and "energy," and Pro had to win both. Much as I think there are reasons why Con's analysis of what time is and our capacity to individually sacrifice it, I don't see enough of a response from Pro to justify its use in the resolution as is. Defining the terms up front would definitely have helped, as would finding a better justification for his particular use of the term, which Con is correct is colloquial. There's a case to be made for why the colloquial definition is the best one for this debate given the context of the resolution, and while Pro starts that argument, I don't think it's possible to win it without addressing the issues that Con brings up in his final round, which was also his first opportunity to address Pro's view of the definitions.
All of that leads me to vote for Con.
Leaving conduct tied in spite of the forfeiture due to the insult at the end of R1, as much as I admit I enjoyed the humor.
Con basically sealed this focusing on how time is spent no matter what we do with it.
Pro's counter example of a veteran, while showing generalized sacrifice failed to expand how that was indeed a sacrifice of time itself. The student attending their classes example, again did not address time specifically but merely showed how 'theirs' can apply to abstract non-commodities.
Without solving the issue of time being lost no matter how we utilize it, pro moved on to the core appeals of malnourished children; which I admit I see the need for in this debate to reach minimal BoP (showing some net harm), but in addition to the time factor, con had already brought up that many women enjoy raising children making things not clear sacrifices. This leaves a lot of cons case begging the question of why not leave motherhood to the women who enjoy it?
...
For extra insight, this is a two part resolution...
1. Time, which con won
2. Energy, which I would say is more of tied. Sacrificing glucose for some greater good seems worthwhile and not a big deal (it would be expanded, but IMO con would have done better to concede this to focus just on time).
Pro needed to uphold both parts to win, thus victory goes to con.
You have a rather large barrier to victory with the doubts on if time can actually be sacrificed.
As for mixed enjoyment and non-enjoyment... That resembles an investment instead of a sacrifice.
"con had already brought up that many women enjoy raising children making things not clear sacrifices. This leaves a lot of cons case begging the question of why not leave motherhood to the women who enjoy it?"
...
Rangar, this mentions "many women" but I already countered this specific statement, by saying some women enjoy parenting, but you would hardly find anyone who enjoy every aspect of it.
"Also, not everyone enjoys all aspects of raising a child. I doubt any do. It's hard work, but it's necessary." (thats obviouly in my round)
That means by all reason, I have jutified the resolution, and won. The resolution states that some women should sacrifice their time and energy, not all.
I really think it's possible you may be off here.
You're welcome. And very good point about distractions.
I'd concede the 'energy' point sooner if Novice had posted a round 1, I set it up so that there was ample distraction down the energy line to make Novice not realise how deadly the 'time' angle was, which is exactly what happened. Thanks for voting.
For time you could have gained some ground with increased focus on opportunity cost. I don't think you would have won per cee, but you could have made it a lot closer.
I also suggest pre-loading definitions into the description, that way they are pre-agreed (some people will try to change them, but that's usually an obviously bastardly move).
Aiming to get a vote up in time.
3 days remain on this debate, if you cared to vote. ty if you do.
Do you care to vote on this debate? You commented implying interest.
Very good.
I am playing devil's advocate.
"Some women should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
Sounds a lot to me like,
"Some men should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
If a guy is unwilling to sacrifice for his kids, he's a deadbeat. If a woman is unwilling to sacrifice for her kids, it's viewed as female empowerment.
Kritik is an objection to assumptions made in the prior arg. By def, the instigator’s thesis and opening arg are not kritik.
Watch and learn the art of the K.
Then you have to justify antinatalism. There is currently no incentive or drive for many women to simply just have no children, not mentioning that most women do have children.
Lemme out K Novice
this dude takes kritiking to a new level.
What happens if the women don't have children?
Why women and not parents? Why women and not mothers?
Please accept the debate, if you wish