Most Children are parasites

Now the debate's gotten challenging. I'll be responding in the same way as the previous rounds, save a few opening comments. I did agree to Pro's statement about the emotional card. I'm laughing at the "look at my profile" part right now. Although it might not have been meant as a joke. COUNTER ONE: "Actually, the child doesn't give the person any "good feeling", the person gives it to themselves. The feeling is the reaction of chemicals in the persons brain, not from any of the child's actions. .. .. .. .. .. ." Actually, the child gives the feeling to the person. The child is existant because of the parent's will, and so the child being there affirms the parent's belief that they did a good deed. This triggers the chemical reaction above. COUNTER TWO: ". .. .. .. .. .. and if they don't give birth to the child they are still depriving it of life, as it would still exist as an egg/sperm pin the parents' body. You also have to give evidence of a "good feeling" in people when they do something nice. " The child does not exist until the egg cell and the sperm cell join together (conception). Then the cells develop into a baby. The sperm is just a cell that acts on instinct. From what I've gathered over the years on DDO (yes, years), the burden of proof is generally on Pro, since Pro has to prove the resolution. Con generally has to debunk, refute, counter, or rebut Pro's arguments. COUNTER THREE: "What happened before must be considered because it is directly responsible for making the child put the toy away. They do it all the time in trials, it's what differentiates "murder in the first degree" and "murder in the second degree", it also is what makes self-defence a viable defence. This leads me to the next argument, I may have used a different scenario, but the principle is the same. " It may be directly responsible for making the child put the toy away, but putting the toy away is still a useful service for my primary reasons. "This may be closely related, but it doesn't work because you didn't make the mess, your friends did. " What does it matter? The point is, the mess was made, it becomes or is the child's fault, and the child must clean it up. COUNTER FOUR: "I used you because I see you as a pretty normal kid, therefore representative of the whole. And I'm not an adolescent, I'm eighteen, just look at my profile. " The voters don't know how I act. If they voted based on this information, then the information would be inaccurate. Besides, my opponent's perception of normal may be different from others. COUNTER FIVE: "First, it is not "learned skills" that matter, it is discipline. Second, all the proof I have is anecdotal(definition: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence. from dictionary. com), none of the children I know have the least bit of discipline(and I know quite a few). " So you're saying it's discipline that matters. Schools teach discipline, as you can see in my round one argument. I think anecdotal evidence is unreliable, because now the voters just have to take your word for what you say is true. I could vouch for you, but then they would have to take my word for it.