Instigator / Pro
4
1481
rating
11
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#866
Fetuses as a replacement for the USD
Status
Finished
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
Barney
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Art
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 12,000
- Required rating
- 1501
Contender / Con
7
1775
rating
37
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 181
/
5,000
Specifically, fetuses aborted prior to 5 months. These fetuses currently have no value, as evidenced by the debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/654
I propose we change that.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Introduction
Before we start this debate we should get this out of the
way: I am now a socialist abortion activist. I believe this proposal is the
best way to eliminate income inequality while keeping the capitalist scum temporarily
inundated.
1. Economy
As we all know there is currently a large disparity in
wealth, babies can be reproduced infinitely with the less wealthy creating more
on average. This is especially true of the black community, no proposal would help
them climb out of poverty faster than this one!
2. Eugenics/Dysgenics
Margaret Sanger, a woman I greatly admire, once said: “Birth
control must lead ultimately to a much cleaner race.” In order to create the idealist
utopia I’ve always dreamed of we must purge society of ethnic and cultural differences. People of differing races would be incentivized (i.e., their
babies would fetch more hefty a sum). This would eventually result in a glorious socialist ethnostate.
It’s a well-known fact that Mexicans and blacks have a much
higher crime-rate in general than the white population. Instead of providing blacks
welfare and incentivizing divorce, we could instead make their fetuses worth more than the white babies. They would then be happier and produce
less vandals.
Justification
3. Lowered Crime Rate
4. Reduced levels of institutional corruption
By the public truly owning their means of reproduction the
power would be taken away from overbearing nepotist governments.
Practicality
5. Feasibility
All around the world many women do not think twice about
kill children – depending upon their race and political affiliation, of course.
I imagine it would be easy to convince them of this as an economic solution,
after all, why be wasteful?
6. Morality
Babies do not have sentience nor intelligence prior to 5
months, and thus no moral value as shown by my debate in the description. It
would be much more moral to trade the arms and legs then let them go to waste.
Conclusion
This is both a practical and moral method of obtaining
superiority over our neighboring nations who have not thought to implement such
an economic scheme.
Con
#2
Introduction:
This is a weird one. My opponent has used the comment
section to cast
doubt that this debate is intended to be a joke, so I can’t argue this
using troll debate logic. That said, at least to anyone educated and possessing a dark sense of humor, I will still
try to be entertaining.
Stability:
The current USD has a good
lifespan, ranging from the $10 at 4.5 years to the $100 at 15.0 years for
bills. Further it is easy to transport and store.
US Fetuses (henceforth USF) outside a couple very controlled
(not to mention cost prohibitive) environments, have a lifespan of hours at
best, smell bad, and cannot be transported with any degree of ease.
Additionally, the USD is arguably the world’s most stable
currency. It is used internationally as a standard for trade, even being called
the Global Currency by many. In contrast, the USF has hyperinflation (poor people printing their
own money at home) listed as a boon, meaning it would lead to economic
collapse in short order.
Counterfeits:
The USD is hard to counterfeit, often massively expensive to
do so, and typically easy
to identify.
Bolstering the stability issue, USF are surprisingly easy to
counterfeit. The equipment and expertise required to spot a counterfeit are
outside the means of nearly everyone, thus people from other countries would
try to bring in any random fetus as if it is a genuine USF. Smuggling
operations would create an awful mess in our airports, particularly if any of
the counterfeits get dropped/spilled.
Crime:
In addition to the counterfeit problem, there is the
likelihood of theft from fetuses that were intended to become children. Right now,
muggings are generally non-fatal; this would change when pregnant women are
targeted for what is inside their person.
Further criminals
are stupid, so they would probably be attacking women who have been
pregnant five months or longer thinking they hit the mother lode (pun intended)
and thus get a lot of USF, when in fact they just have normal worthless dead
babies (this also counters the race idea proposed by pro, as minority women
would be targeted more for a higher payout). This feeds back into the
counterfeiting problem, as five-month old fetus tissue is not obviously
distinct from earlier ones (admittedly less of a problem at nine-months).
Usefulness:
The USD is easily used. Anyone reading this has either used
it, or a like-currency. If you feel like a soda, you slide coins or bills into
a vending machine, and it at once dispenses your drink. Total time between
craving to sated thirst is under a minute.
Being able to get food at all for a USF, assumes a best-case
scenario. However, for the USF what happens when we want a soda from a vending
machine? How many weeks do we have to wait for the genetic testing to confirm genuine USF? By the time you get your fractional USF back, is it still viable?
Round 2
Pro
#3
In my short 30 seconds of analyzing your primary objections,
I have realized one of the more important ones is: How will we store them? They
decay faster than money, what is your solution?
Well truthfully, I don’t have one. The fast decay of the
babies’ corpses is actually beneficial given my position.
As a simple example - people will ultimately innovate and
find some ways to carry and preserve these babies. I have thought up 3 cool
names for these carriers/bags. Below are some options.
The Fetus Fanny
The Baby Bag
The Not-Yet-Human-Holder
I respect you, and I respect your opinion. So please tell me
which of these is your absolute favorite.
Counter-Argument
Funnily enough, I never mentioned the fetuses being made
exclusively in the United States.
My opponent mentions the convenience of the USD, and I partially
agree. I believe my option is better in overall usefulness, there is nothing
more personal than handing someone your babies’ corpse. This will increase the
overall value of the new currency while maintaining it’s supply. This will also
improve exclusivity and commitment to our country and their leap into a brave
new world.
Due to the nature, monetary fetus reproduction in other
countries would be disallowed due to international law. Some people regard this
as an “immoral” economic solution, so it isn’t likely this will be banned in
any other modern society. Leaving us in a similar spot to the current USD system,
produced in the US with limited counterfeiters and a stable standard.
Being able to get food at all for a USF, assumes a best-case scenario. However, for the USF what happens when we want a soda from a vending machine? How many weeks do we have to wait for the genetic testing to confirm genuine USF? By the time you get your fractional USF back, is it still viable?
Have you thought about selling in bulk?
Crime
My opponent thinks that my point about crime was meant to
stand on its own, when in-fact it ties directly into the Eugenics point. This
is a long term solution, and in order to dispute my point of reduction in
crime, you must also directly address Eugenics.
Con
#4
First, I shall defend my
opening points. Then as requested, directly address pro’s case.
Stability (continued):
Pro concedes a lack of any solution for the fast decay
problem. That storing them longer than mere hours is cost prohibitive, denies his
end goal of everyone being poor (AKA a “glorious
socialist ethnostate”). The ultra-rich
would retain their position even more easily under this system, as they could
afford the expensive storage means, so the end result you’d have private banks
for them looking like something out of Daybreakers.
Note: This debate is about replacing the USD, not instituting
a new type of gold standard. Thus, we really cannot discuss bills and coins
tied to frozen fetuses in the bank.
“The Fetus Fanny“The Baby Bag“The Not-Yet-Human-Holder”
To answer pro’s name question: “The Baby Bag” confuses an aborted fetus with a human baby. “The Not Yet Human Holder” confuses an
aborted fetus with a human baby to be born in the future. So “The Fetus Fanny” is the least horrible
choice. Call it what you will, but fanny packs of any kind returning would be a depraved outcome.
Counterfeits (continued):
My opponent has clarified a typo in his argument, “so it isn’t likely this will be banned in any other modern
society” was meant to be: “it's
likely this will be banned in any other modern society.”
Other countries not switching to the USF I have already
taken to be a given, otherwise no one would have reason to smuggle fetuses into
the US.
An additional point is to combat counterfeit USF smuggling,
our ports of entry would have to abort and discard any fetuses from pregnant
women (at least under five months) entering this country. This would make the
lines through customs far worse, thus harming anyone who travels.
Crime (continued):
The USD does not result in the targeted murder of pregnant
women. Pro cites those murders as a boon for the USF. Different outcomes, which
are not compatible. Extend point.
Usefulness (continued):
Extend.
“Have you thought about selling in bulk?”
This is about the matter of being able to secure food at convenience the way the USD allows. Selling a whole fetus to a vending machine for its
value in soda, implies we would then barter the extra soda for other things we
want (as it takes months to produce each USF). People being forced to barter
goods for other goods, just brings us back to the trade system which gave rise
to the dollar.
I confirmed with entrepreneur Eric Cartman, whom after much ball breaking revealed the peak price of
fetuses range between $80 to $110 per
pound. Given that the average fetus (assuming optimal harvest time) is only 4oz, this gives us an
exchange rate (before hyperinflation hits) of a mere $20 to $27.50 per USF.
---
Direct Rebuttals:
1. Economy
While the less wealthy would be the only ones making USF,
their inability to store them so as to retain any value, would make the
proposed system increase the wealth disparity it is supposed
to solve.
2. Eugenics/Dysgenics and 3. Lowered Crime Rate
I do not see the positive value in racism, but will happily
challenge any real evidence pro may offer in support of genocide.
4. Reduced levels of institutional corruption
Such schemes have tried and failed in places like Zimbabwe
and Venezuela. It led to increased institutional corruption (such as taking
away farms from farmers, the literal means of feeding the people away from the
people), and outright war.
5. Feasibility
Assuming women would go through so many months effort for so
little payout, leads to the problem of some starting but not going through with
the harvest. An increased birth rate goes contrary to pro’s genocide points (I do
not need to endorse said points to catch contradictions). ... It’s about like certain pro-life politicians who use policies to actively
try to get more underage girls pregnant (they consider the increased abortions to
be a worthwhile trade-off toward their real goals... it’s weird and scary).
6. Morality
Things without value going to waste is not wasted value. Plus right now
the stem-cells have some small value, a value which goes away once they rot inside
peoples Fetus Fanny’s.
Round 3
Pro
#5
NOTICE – My opponent has confused eugenics with genocide. This
is obviously untrue as I don’t wish to kill people, I only wish to kill their
babies. He must address why massacring inferior babies would not result in the eventual reduction of crime.
Defense
“Such schemes have tried and failed in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. It led to increased institutional corruption”
I believe what they tried in Zimbabwe and Venezuala was a different, less sophisticated, form of socialism. Not this form of Socialism I am advocating for
(fetuses as a state-valued currency).
“While the less wealthy would be the only ones making USF, their inability to store them so as to retain any value, would make the proposed system increase the wealth disparity it is supposed to solve.”
I imagine the less privileged among us could rent storage
tanks or some form of nitrogen cooling with the newfound currency being much
more valuable than the USD.
“Assuming women would go through so many months effort for so little payout, leads to the problem of some starting but not going through with the harvest.”
This is allegoric to our current system, some people (the
homeless, and disenfranchised) are alienated from the economy. Under my
proposal, every woman and every family would have a chance to play the game.
“Things without value going to waste is not wasted value. Plus right now the stem-cells have some small value, …”
We are in a debate about using fetuses as a currency, so in
this context it is wasted value.
Rebuttal
“The ultra-rich would retain their position even more easily under this system, as they could afford the expensive storage means”
I believe the public sector would provide public storage. This
would result in a consolidation of power, and yes, socialism.
“An additional point is to combat counterfeit USF smuggling, our ports of entry would have to abort and discard any fetuses from pregnant women (at least under five months) entering this country.”
As I stated in the first round, I am advocating for an
ETHNOSTATE. This means immigration would be a non-issue as strict enforcements
would be in place against any such thing.
“The USD does not result in the targeted murder of pregnant women.”
That’s a blatant lie, a simple Google search of ‘pregnant
woman robbed’ disproves this.
“This is about the matter of being able to secure food at convenience the way the USD allows. Selling a whole fetus to a vending machine for its value in soda, implies we would then barter the extra soda for other things we want (as it takes months to produce each USF).”
Buying in bulk solves this issue, perhaps we could redesign
vending machines to sell in large packages. The technicalities will be refined
over time.
My opponent has not provided sufficient counter-evidence to my
fetus as a replacement for the USD plan. He has avoided the question about
eugenics deliberately implying he wishes everyone viewing's family tree to
end in retardation.
Conclusion
Con
#6
As should be clear by now, my opponent has only base
assertions, without evidence, or even consistent logic. When directly asked for
evidence to support his claims, he refused to provide any. He has even asked
the audience to Google part of his case for him.
Genocide:
Pro has insisted he has not advocated for genocide, but solely eugenics. For anyone functionally illiterate, genocide is defined as: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” Thus, systematically preventing births of “Mexicans and blacks” whom he views as “inferior,” to make them “produce less vandals,” and backed by a bounty on pregnant women (see R1: “Crime”), is unquestionably an attempt at genocide. Denying this, would be like saying Japan loves dolphins.
Genocide:
Pro has insisted he has not advocated for genocide, but solely eugenics. For anyone functionally illiterate, genocide is defined as: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” Thus, systematically preventing births of “Mexicans and blacks” whom he views as “inferior,” to make them “produce less vandals,” and backed by a bounty on pregnant women (see R1: “Crime”), is unquestionably an attempt at genocide. Denying this, would be like saying Japan loves dolphins.
“He must address why massacring inferior babies would not result in the eventual reduction of crime.”
First, pro has switched his case to the death of babies,
instead of ceased development of fetuses.
Second, his request is a lazy attempt at moving the goalpost, as no evidence suggests it would reduce crime. The burden of proof to show benefit remains with pro.
Third, even were he to do so, I have already logically shown why his initiatives would actually raise the birth rate (see R2: “Feasibility”).
Second, his request is a lazy attempt at moving the goalpost, as no evidence suggests it would reduce crime. The burden of proof to show benefit remains with pro.
Third, even were he to do so, I have already logically shown why his initiatives would actually raise the birth rate (see R2: “Feasibility”).
Round 4
Pro
#7
Response to Fallacious Misallegations
I do not mean to offend you, but Merriam Webster is not a reputable source. According to the UN general assembly, the legal definition of genocide under international law is:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
This would be a proper source to debunk my claims of eugenics not being equivocable to genocide. I really wish you would put more effort into debunking my claims on such an incredibly serious topic.
So, under the UN definition my claim would constitute genocide but under yours it does not. As I am not advocating for their destruction, only their forceful assimilation. I am also quite hurt that you would make the accusation I am putting a "bounty" on the babies heads, I am no monster. These increased valuements only serve to assist the black and Mexican population in their bid to climb out of poverty, as in an socialist state police force is incredibly strict and would deter crime.
The Google claim was not intended as a source (ovbiously), it was merely intended to show how blatantly untrue his claim about the USD not resulting in the targeted murder of pregnant women
Moving the Goalpost
I have done no such thing, one of my opening premises was that this would reduce overall crime rate. My position has been consistent in this regard. I use baby and fetus interchangeably, perhaps this is a mistake in vernacular but it hardly matters.
Conclusion
My opponent has refused to acknowledge the simple facts I have presented. He confuses eugenics with genocide, confuses my position on eugenics with genocide, and cites an non-reputable source to back up his unfortunate claim.
P.S., Kindly ignore my refutation of my own argument and conclusion. I just felt like his was insufficient enough to be dribbled out of the mouth of a mutated Potatohead doll.
Con
#8
Genocide (continued):
My opponent officially has one single piece of evidence, but
it directly supports my claims while refuting his own (see pro’s R4: parts C
and D). Focusing on part D in particular, that “imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group,” precisely matches my interpretation of his argument (that I
predict it would backfire, does not change the intent with which it is done).
Whereas part C is basically my definition slightly elongated.
Were I incorrect, the issue I repeatedly raised
of him having not offered any evidence of benefit stands uncontested. In
essence, he has not even tried to meet his Burden of Proof.
USD vs. USF
To review key argument points...
The USD has stability, resistance to counterfeiting,
and the ability to buy food on demand.
The USF has the return of fanny packs, rapid economic
collapse due to hyperinflation, the targeted murder of pregnant women (pro’s
counter to this was pleading for people to Google and interpret a defense), and
even longer lines through airport
security!
Additionally (as my subtle K was unaddressed), I
have proven fetuses have value under the USD (disproving the assumption stated
in the description). It is a low value of $110.00 per pound at peak peak demand, but under the USF non-peak demand is assured, resulting in
a maximum value of $10.25 per pound if selling it to cannibals. (Repeated sources from earlier)
Closing Remarks
(skippable):
I have debated this using logic, evidence, and comedy. I
have further refused to use any pro-life arguments due to the nature of this
debate, and the nature of the debate which preceded it.
I am a firm believer in debating from political viewpoints
to which you are opposed. It is a terrific way to better our own arguments,
while simultaneously building bridges of understanding (as opposed to viewing
our neighbors as varelse). However, this
type of straw-person mockery just makes your own side look bad.
Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro offers a small number of actual benefits for his plan.
Specifically, the ability to create money will lift poorer organizations of poverty.
Pros argument that it will allow for eugenics by encouraging some races not to breed appears flatly absurd - and given that it doesn’t sound like a good thing at all, counts against him.
Pros argument from the grounds of crime rate are also absurd - pro doesn’t give a clear reason why this is true in his plan, so will be dismissed .
Pros arguments for practicality with morality and feasibility appear to be an argument against wastefulness, which sure, I guess could be a net positive, but isn’t.
The main argument that con presents is relating to the economics of this: basically inflation from being able to print money, and the inability to store and maintain fetuses. Worse, con introduces the possibility that it would induce theft of fetuses that were intended to be children.
These seem damning practical issues.
In terms of storage alone, pro doesn’t have an answer for the cost prohibitive nature, on this. Or how the poor people who he claims will benefit most will be able to store fetuses. Pro flits between arguing the rich will have nitrogen storage or the public sector will provide storage.
There was also no real explanation of why the stability of the USF would be sufficient in light of cons objections.
As pro offers no real objective benefit, only a nebulous appeal to waste, and the poor being able to make more money; con doesn’t do much here to overturn the benefits - as quite frankly pro argues no tangible or measurable benefit; only hypothetical assertions that it will benefit - no quantifiable description of how much.
Con overturns this in two ways: one by showing that there is no practical ability to store the currency rendering it useless - and antithetical to the idea of the poor making more money.
pros appeal to eugenics, and racial purity further undermine his own point as these are inherently undesirable by default.
As the tangible and practical issues clearly land in favour of con, and there appear to be no clear benefits of pros benefits: arguments to con.
I hope you enjoyed the rest of the debate. And of course, please vote.
I did provide the reason, directly prior to the link. "These fetuses currently have no value. ..." Admittedly, I meant moral value specifically because I didn't want to debate the morality of abortion.
Perhaps if you find it so easy to confuse his arguments with this supremacism the connection isn't entirely arbitrary. I never once mentioned it during the debate aside from using it to assist in framing, this is a conclusion you've drawn entirely on your own with no indication from myself.
If not trying to straw-person certain arguments to which you lost the previous debate, then please inform us of your real intent and opinion of said arguments?
If I was straw-manning an opposing viewpoint it may have been more logical for me to have not chosen such a title. Something innocuous, if that was my goal, would have been a better choice.
PHEW
--- DO NOT TAKE THIS COMMENT INTO CONSIDERATION IN ANY VOTES ---
Obviously this was not a serious debate, my real views are directly contrary to this.
goat
You’re a genius
Lol
only about your mental status. lol
Do you have any more specific concerns?
Oh dear.
Typo in my counter-argument, I meant to say "it's likely this will be banned in any other modern society."
But is it how YOU choose to view it?
Sure, if that's how you choose to view it.
Haha, that's a funny joke, right?
I made several typos, under the Feasibility section I meant to write "babies," not "children."
Take all the time you need.
I will post my argument later tonight or tomorrow, depending upon my schedule. I hope this doesn't inconvenience you.