The participant with the most points wins.
Voting stays open until 1 more vote is cast.
Match format
Same-sex adoption has lots of problems. The child doesn’t get to decide. It presents itself as normal, unlike foster care and orphanages. No one has the right to violate another’s right.
Let’s keep it simple.
Pro
#1
Since every child is born with a mother and a father, every child has a natural right to a mother and a father. There is no such thing as a right to have a child. There is only a right to have a mother and father.
Same-sex couples who adopt young children violate their natural rights. The right to adopt cannot overrule the child’s natural rights.
At least foster care and orphanages present themselves as not being the norm.
Con
#2
We look at the legal structure. Whether you want to say "rights" , what is allowed by law or "stipulations", what is mandated by law, minors require guardianship.
It is not up to the minor for the decision of guardianship . The minor is not left to make judgment on anything really ultimately. It's not up to the minor to decide or dictate whom the guardianship goes to .
No authority at all. The minor makes judgment to say this guardian or parent is too strict, too mean, lacks indulgence, not nice enough, too boring, not fun enough is heavily preposterous to make determination.
First off no minor has right to anything to supercede parental/guardianship representation. Not withstanding certain legal declarations which would be irrelevant on top of that.
Outside or away from those declarations, at large , no minor has any right to supercede legally an adult.
So in light of that, it is the adult, the authorities, authoritative representatives that have the right, duty and onus to judge and decide for the welfare of minors to include guardianship.
Pro
#3
Let’s take a look at Con’s terrible arguments:
We look at the legal structure. Whether you want to say "rights" , what is allowed by law or "stipulations", what is mandated by law, minors require guardianship.
Con is attempting to limit “rights” to merely what is legal because Con knows this is the only possible way to win this part of the debate. There are more rights than just what the law says. There are natural rights above the legal law.
[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - Declaration of Independence (emphasis added)
Con says:
It is not up to the minor for the decision of guardianship . The minor is not left to make judgment on anything really ultimately. It's not up to the minor to decide or dictate whom the guardianship goes to .
Con has completely ignored what this debate is even about. This debate is not about whether minors should decide their guardians. It’s about the exact opposite. It’s about if guardians should decide their kids.
More what Con says:
First off no minor has right to anything to supercede parental/guardianship representation. Not withstanding certain legal declarations which would be irrelevant on top of that.
Outside or away from those declarations, at large , no minor has any right to supercede legally an adult.
I’d hate to say it, but this really does sound like agism. It’s very clear that someone’s rights end where another’s begins. There is no such thing as a right to a child. I have shown that a child has a natural right to a mother and father, but Con has not been able to disprove this.
Con
#4
"It's about if guardians should decide their kids."
Yes. Why? , because rights of minors do not supersede adults.
I rest my case.
I can rest it right there because it's just that simple, closed and shut.
But I won't be cold.
If it hasn't been understood enough from what I said, the only point in having rights is to exercise them in the form of choice. Is that choice left to the adults or minors?
If the opposing side agrees it is left to the adults, not only does the opposing side concede but you can't violate a right that you are entitled and responsible for making the choices pertinent to it.
So two Fathers who are adults are making the choice to parent and or two mothers who are adults are making the choice to parent. How can their choice violate when they are granted legally and rationally to assume a parental role?
They can't. See, you violate my right to vote because I have a say so and given action
to exercise and you without justification deter that. Again, to exercise.
I can sign a contract for myself due to my right, entitlement to exercise. I can sign a healthcare contract . I can sign off on a medical procedure for myself due to my entitlement and you can deter that , again, unwarranted which violates my right to it.
An adult can interfere or deter what a minor would also have right to without violation due to the adult being the superior entitled role of deciding, governing, exercising all affairs of that minor including PARENTAL affairs.
From an adoption agency , orphanage, foster care, the entitled role is in the hands of the adults to exercise thereby non violation occurs.
From what the opposite side is in essence is arguing, if a minor refuses what is in the best interest and the adult that knows better supplies what is best for child welfare, you'll say the minor's rights are being violated by not allowing refusal. The minor's rights are not violated by the adults going against the minor's wishes here. The best welfare of the child is in the hands of the adults. It is their onus to meet alone and thus cannot violate a job that does not belong to minors but to adults.
A child has rights. A child has a right or is allowed to have parents/guardians. That's it.
"I have shown that a child has a natural right to a mother and father, but Con has not been able to disprove this"
The opposing side is communicating I have ignored the topic. That's backwards. It is the opposing side that has FORGOTTEN the topic. When you make a topic that appears nuanced, you may slip on where is the crux.
The topic is : "Is same-sex adoption a violation of the child's rights?
So as you can see folks, the opposing side has to show that a child's rights is violated from same sex adoption. Not show the child has a natural right to a mother and father. I don't have to disprove what's not the topic.
The topic is not : Does a child have a natural right to a mother and father?
The topic broadly states "rights". What or which rights? There are no rights being violated in this case because I have explained that when it comes to rights (broadly speaking) as the topic stated, you cannot violate what you are entitled to exercise over another or superseding that other.
Also , just because you have a right to a specific thing, doesn't mean something else can't substitute or be an alternative to be exercised and that right not still be intact. No violation has occurred even in that instance.
Pro
#5
Anyone agrees that an unjust guardian violates the child’s rights. If a child has a natural right to a mother and a father, then taking away this natural right is a violation of it. You keep saying minors’ rights don’t supersede adults’ rights. This is false. You seem to not understand the concept of the rights of one person’s ending where another’s begins.
Con says I need to prove this makes it a violation. Well, if it violates the child’s natural right, then it is a violation. It is that simple. Modern man needs to realize what rights even are.
Con
#6
" If a child has a natural right to a mother and a father, then taking away this natural right is a violation of it. "
As stated which wasn't refuted, not providing a male and female parent pair to rear a child is not necessarily taking away a right. A child has a right to speak freely even when told to do things that doesn't require his or her voice. The child still has a right even though a male and female guardian pair is not present. Nor is it a violation for the child to do what he or her is told because they a voice to speak against it.
"You keep saying minors’ rights don’t supersede adults’ rights. This is false. You seem to not understand the concept of the rights of one person’s ending where another’s begins."
If rights didn't supersede, then parental rights cannot have any authority. The parental rights must outweigh the rights of minors because again, the right of the minor to exercise refusal on something by autonomy will not be able to be rejected if it didn't supersede.
You say it's false but you haven't demonstrated that a minor has authority over the parent. That's the only weight and leverage the right of a minor would have to say an adult violated right in guardianship.
You violate my rights when I have them to exercise and you decide my exercising of them. A parent has authority to decide so it can't be violation. That's the only way it can't be is if the agent is not entitled to represent, authorize, approve, consent for and be the authorities over that which would be superseded or surpassed to get any approval from .
If you require my approval, then violation circumstances are possible. Minors CAN'T CONSENT legally here.
"Con says I need to prove this makes it a violation. Well, if it violates the child’s natural right, then it is a violation. It is that simple. Modern man needs to realize what rights even are."
Just circulating and no demonstrating.
How can I violate your right to something I am authorized to decide for you?
This is what you have resolve instead of:
Just circulating and no demonstrating.
Just circulating and no demonstrating.
Just circulating and no demonstrating.
Pro
#7
“If rights didn't supersede, then parental rights cannot have any authority. The parental rights must outweigh the rights of minors because again, the right of the minor to exercise refusal on something by autonomy will not be able to be rejected if it didn't supersede.”
Con seems to be confused about natural rights. No one can take away natural rights.
The preamble to the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that rights are inalienable: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."
It’s basic biology to know that a child has a right to a mother and father. Whether you believe this is the way God set things up or you believe it was just nature, same-sex adoption will be a violation of what a child deserves. Nature wasn’t made for two men or two women to raise a child.
Now from Wikipedia:
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
Look at how it says “they cannot be repealed by human laws.” But it also says, “one can forfeit their enjoyment through one’s actions, such as violating someone else’s rights.”
This shows my point. Human laws cannot overule nature laws. You can lose your nature rights by violating another’s. Since same-sex adoption is a violation of the natural law, the right to adopt is lost.
Same-sex adoption makes the child get something very different from simply a mother and father. The child will miss out on either a mother or a father. To make things even worse, this pairing will be treated as normal, or possibly even superior.
Con
#8
"Con seems to be confused about natural rights. No one can take away natural rights."
Totally 100 percent false. A person can take away and eliminate all my rights by simply killing me. Besides , this is not the debate topic.
"It’s basic biology to know that a child has a right to a mother and father. Whether you believe this is the way God set things up or you believe it was just nature, same-sex adoption will be a violation of what a child deserves. Nature wasn’t made for two men or two women to raise a child."
It doesn't matter . It doesn't matter what the rights are or where they came. Again, reminding the opposite side, where is the violation?
You cannot violate a right you are entitled to deciding over affairs in regards to it.
The opposite side cannot debunk this and therefore has evaded and ran from that burden in the topic. Thus and so electing to not respond to many of my counterpoints and objections.
"Look at how it says “they cannot be repealed by human laws.” "
The death penalty, a human law of punishment certainly eliminates rights, let alone cancels or repeals them .
Just stay away from reading any outside articles. Won't help you.
"This shows my point. Human laws cannot overule nature laws. You can lose your nature rights by violating another’s. Since same-sex adoption is a violation of the natural law, the right to adopt is lost."
Showing nothing in meeting the burden in the topic.
I say again : The death penalty, a human law of punishment certainly eliminates rights, let alone cancels or repeals them.
Also you have yet to show a violation in this case.
Debate is over.
"Same-sex adoption makes the child get something very different from simply a mother and father. The child will miss out on either a mother or a father. To make things even worse, this pairing will be treated as normal, or possibly even superior."
That's cool. We just can't see how an adult, can violate a right that allows that adult to make the decision in exercising that right or not.
If the adult(s) decide same sex parenting or not, it is up to the adults to decide so therefore no violation is possible. Also the so called right of specifically having mother and father and not just parental guardianship is still intact because the adults again can decide within their entitlement to elect male and female parents.
"Ultimately, nature beats man made laws."
Where's the one that beats the death penalty?
I rest my case.
Too late
consider voting
>Reported Vote: melcharaz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: Con
>Reason for Decision: Sufficient citing of debate contents.
>Reason for Mod Action:
melcharaz's reason is evident in their viewing that Con gave more argument and justification of their definition of Rights than Pro did.
Though I wouldn't say myself that Pro gave 'no reasoning or definition of Rights, it was a bit indirect and assuming that others would know what they meant.
. . . Still, Con was a bit the same, though less so.
Point is I think that melcharaz has a vital aspect of the debate that they considered, weighed and voted on.
Though I don't think the definition of Rights was 'undisputed by Pro, as Pro appealed and made arguments towards Natural Rights being above Law Rights.
Bad and poor bang up job by these folks.
The debate is so bad it’s hidden when I’m not logged in.
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner |
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner |
