Child Limit Law

1) World Starvation My opponent comes back in his last speech and basically states that it's not just the United States that is looking at this problem (due to over-population). But let me argue a couple things in context. First, we're only talking about the United States here. Like my opponent has set up in his first PRO speech, he states it's the United States who ought to have this law, which automatically puts the focus of the debate on the United States specifically. But second, I never really focused my analysis over just the United States. The arguments on ratios (which my opponent has not addressed) still carries on throughout the entire world. In fact, unless there was some extreme growth in one country rather than the United States, not only does it not matter to this debate, but it also is just a very extraneous variable. To the point of renewable resources, my opponent states that we're eventually going to run out anyways. First, he doesn't back up this claim with any kind of warrent whatsoever, but more importantly, the idea of renewable resources is just that: they're renewable. They are plenty bountiful because they are constantly coming back to use again and again, with minimal environmental impact if used responsibly. 2) Child Limit Laws are Unethical My opponent responds by saying that it's unethical to allow our grandchildren to carry the burden of our current mistakes. You can reject this response for multiple reasons. First: What burdens? My opponent doesn't really clearly define what these burdens are. Are they environmental damages? Over-population? Finances? I don't know what to argue so it's pretty unclear what to say here. Second: Our current generation is carrying burdens already. I'm a high-school student, and one of the burdens I carry is the need to go to college, and the racism on the more southren side of my family. Burdens have always passed through generations, that's unavoidable. Third: Future generations will know how to better handle whatever situation they must burden because now they have the potential to. For example, advancing technology, improving techniques, etc. --------- Un-refuted arguments. I'm going to quickly list and summarize points here. Basically, my entire initial case is ignored in the last speech, so we'll start with that. 1) Child Limit Laws lead to higher abortion rates When a parent has more than the child limit law allows, they're going to have to abort the child because it's the only feasible option. Scan the debate in order to find attacks/defenses and how this carries through. 2) Child Limit Laws effectively solve nothing. I'm arguing here that people will find workarounds should they really want to have more than the limit law allows, including leaving the country. So the laws, on a global scale, don't solve for anything. 3) Child Limit Laws will collapse the American economy. This point hasn't been addressed at ALL during the debate. If a mother really wants to have a child, she'll have to supply for that child in ways that don't look suspicious. If a mother goes to a grocery store buying for 6, how bad would that look? So she finds other means to supply for her child, which is going around the American economy to do so. 4) Nothing is wrong with America's child population today. I argue here that, according to the United States census of 2000, we're already under a reasonable birth rate right now, and that the extremes balance problems out. Sure, having a child limit law wouldn't hurt us, but not only is it unnecessary but it wouldn't be solving for anything. 5) Mathematics to Overpopulation I argue here that there is a ratio of rich to poor in the world, and that ratio stays constant despite the increase in population. It's supply and demand. As the DEMAND (bigger population) rises, the SUPPLY (those who create the items for the demand) rises in exact proportion. This is what American Capitalism is founded on, and carries out with more population. ----------------------------- Reasons to vote CON First, look towards the 5 arguments that have been dropped. Those are your first 5 reasons to vote CON, right off the bat. Second, vote because Child Limit Laws are inherently immoral and unjust. Like I've defended completely throughout the round, you're taking away opportunities from mothers, families, and potential rising stars in the world. Not only that, you're infringing on people's will, and that's incredibly immoral. This argument is the biggest one the CON has to propose. Finally, vote because the PRO no longer has any offense, and the CON has done his job. I respect my opponent and his steadyfastness. However, over the course of the debate, the just of his offense has been reduced because on balance, the CON side is much more weighed than the PRO side. As the CON, I believe that, in the end, I've effectively shown that these laws are unjust, and therefor let it be resolved that "Child Limit Laws ought NOT to be in the United States. " --------------- I thank my opponent for an incredible debate. I fully intend on re-using this topic in the future, because it was a great topic and a great debate. Thank you to the readers who have also followed this debate.