The mentally handicapped people don't promote to society, so they should be eliminated.

Since we don't yet know the Pro advocacy, we will have to wait to hear the actual Con/Negative case, but we can frame the debate as to be clear on each side’s burdens and introduce some “pedestrian” definitions for some of the core terms of the resolution. The topic is a policy resolution with heavy value undertones. It will be the burden of Pro to present a policy, or “plan” to solve the “problem” the resolution addresses. To win any policy debate, pro needs to win five arguments or “stock issues.” Those are: Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. Pro needs to show us that the “problem” of not eliminating mentally disabled folks causes harms, and that those problems are highly significant. They also need to win the argument about who or what is at fault; why the problem persists and what policy or institution we should hold responsible and look to/change in order to solve said problem. Most importantly, pro needs to show us how the plan they offer solves the problems pro says exist because mentally disabled folks are not currently being eliminated under the status quo. They need to “solve” the problem; hence solvency. Pro also has limitations on how they solve that problem. The Pro plan needs to be topical. It has to reflect the statement made in the resolution. If Pro plan does not advocate “eliminating” mentally disabled folks, then Pro loses. If pro’s plan does not solve the problem, they lose. If Pro can’t show significant harms in the status quo (by continuing to not eliminate mentally disabled folks) they lose. If Pro can’t identify the source of the problem (inherency) they lose. Likewise, a failure to carry any of these issues by Pro means Con wins the debate. As stated, this topic is a policy resolution, but has heavy value undertones, as such, Con/Negative must offer a kritik of the philosophy the resolution suggests; that mentally disabled folks continuing to live is harmful. This notion is absurd, it is perverse, and it cannot be tolerated, even as a joke. Mentally disabled people are in fact people. They are human beings worthy of basic dignity. Moreover, even if the cost of caring for some folks with disabilities is onerous, it is worth it. Especially when the Pro alternative is euthanizing people. Even the suggestion raises questions about the basic morals of the person that suggested it. Consider that Hitler’s morals allowed for this very thing. Most know someone with a mental disability or a family impacted by one, and that euthanizing those folks would be a terrible and immoral thing to do in any case. For the record Steven Hawking has a cognitive deficiency, but his disability would be a poor measure of his actual value or intelligence. For that matter a parent raising a child with Down’s syndrome or severe forms of autism value the life of their child, and that value matters. That value in and of itself is highly significant. For Pro to even start this notion, they would need to convince us that merely “not contributing to society” is reason enough to eliminate folks, and would also need to show us why we should stop there. I’ve known folks that play video games at their most productive peaks. No job, no future types. They are just lazy, not disabled; but they still don’t contribute to society. They are not a drain on society by any reasonable measure mind you, but they still don’t contribute. Should these lazy folks be eliminated too? Pro’s resolutions suggests they should. Pro presumes that a person’s value is no greater than their value to society. Pro also presumes to know what society values, and how to measure one person’s worth to society against another. This is a foolish notion, and it is vile. The parent of a child with Down’s is going to contest Pro’s metrics. Does Pro even have those metrics codified? How does pro measure the value of a child with Down’s and ultimately calculate their usefulness or lack there of? This whole notion is perverse, in addition to being utterly specious. Pro doesn’t have the tools to measure the worth of each person to society. And why does Pro think the best solution is simply to euthanize the disabled. Is it just expedience, or does pro have a “moral” reason for this too..? After simply considering these questions, the topic is obviously morally repugnant, and not even well thought out. Even though Con/Negative will answer everything that Pro says, Pro has already lost the debate, by offering a morally and logically indefensible policy. Definitions (courtesy of Google search): Mentally Handicapped: (of a person) having very limited intellectual functions. G6;ment(ə)lē G2;handēG6;kapt/ offensive Eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something). əG2;liməG6;nāt/ verb example: "a policy that would eliminate [inflation] or [mentally disabled people]"