Most Children are parasites

I accept Pro's definitions. I'll take your word for it that you got those of dictionary.com, but I think that the definitions of useful and proper would be helpful to my argument, so I will give those definitions. Useful(1): Being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect http://dictionary.reference.com... Proper(1): Adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable http://dictionary.reference.com... Now on to my counters/actual arguments. Counter Point 1: "Children clearly demonstrate the the meaning of parasite. They live with thier parents....." Yes, they (assuming you mean children) do, but they are useful to their parents. It is common practice for children that are above the age of five to do chores for their parents. That qualifies as "being of service". Even if the child is under or is age five, doing something as simple as putting a toy away could pass as "being of service". I'm sure most parents have said "Bobby, when you're done playing with that toy, please put it back." That would be advantageous because it would give the parent more space, and the parent wouldn't have to worry about stepping on it and hurting their foot, or just being plain annoyed. I'll add more to this next round if I need to. Counter Point 2: ".....they go to school at no cost to them....." True, but most parents still get something out of it. Besides basic education (which is important, don't get me wrong), school provides discipline. Whether it be home school, private, or public school, discipline is still taught. With a more disciplined child than before schools, a parent doesn't have to worry about a child's bad behavior as much. Besides, public schools don't cost anything, and so most children go to a public school. If a child didn't get an education, imagine the trouble they would cause. They wouldn't be useful when looking for a job, because of virtually no qualifications, so their parents would have to wait on them. They also wouldn't be able to follow basic commands. Counter Point 3: "they eat for free" Yes, but you can't expect a child to get their own money. An adolescent could get money from a job, but a child is prohibited from working by law. Food and drink are needed to sustain human life, and so if a child was not fed they would never get an education, get a job, etc. The children are still "of service" at this point, see counter points one and two. Counter Point 4: "they get free transportation, as well as any number of other benefits, without giving anything tangible in return. In short, they live on the hospitality of others." Transportation is needed to get from place to place, which ties into education, food, etc. Which also ties into service, as you can see from the other counter points. The "anything tangible in return" part doesn't really matter for two reasons. 1. I refuted this point 2. The matter of tangibility is irrelevant, as "giving any useful or proper return" does not have to be tangible ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My Argument: I'll just give some sources that show that (Source One) parents like their kids, and (Source Two) that most of the public wants children. As you can see, Source Two mentions the word "ideal" a fair amount of times. Ideal(1): A conception of something in its perfection http://dictionary.reference.com... As you can see, that means that since none of the public (in this specific area) voted for zero kids, that the public (in that area) believes that having kids is perfect. Source One: http://www.parents.com... Source Two: http://www.ynetnews.com... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: You may see that I have not proved that all children are not parasites, but I only have to prove the majority. Actually, I don't really have the burden of proof since I'm Con. All the better reason to vote Con. I have successfully refuted all of Pro's points, and have made some arguments of my own.