I too would like to commend my opponent whatukno on a very concise presentation that has stretched my limits to the edge...
“Knock Out” Rebuttal…Rather Than “Knocked Up
The fact of the matter is this: The purpose of this debate is not about Couple A vs. Couple B in a static universe, where there is nothing else
surrounding them but empty space. If this were the case, then we would have to consider the fact that, yes, Couple A can probably reproduce
themselves more quickly and eventually take up more space than Couple B Inc. as a result.
But this is not a static universe of empty space and four people. My source for this? All I need to do is get up and go to work. I find hundreds of
people there. They all have their own concerns. They all have their own ‘hundreds of personal social interactions’ and this can be followed to
There are billions of people on this planet. They are all with their own concerns and they all must rationalize and collaborate those concerns
with everyone else’s
The fact that a majority of the people are physically healthy and can reproduce at will is an indication that we are supposed to do so. But so can
the rest of the animal kingdom. And, physically speaking, they are supposed to reproduce.
But here is one of the reasons why we classify ourselves differently than the rest of the animal kingdom…we care about what everyone else and thing
does to an extent that we find it relevant to determine the status of everyone else and thing. We are socially conscious. The neighbor is of
interest because of close proximity. The City Mayor is of interest because of that pothole in the middle of main street that provides an added strain
on our tires as we run over it, day in and day out; causing at least an unnecessary financial burden and at worst an askew direction of our motion
leading to potential accidents.
My point with the above is this:
We interact with each other on a day to day basis in an effort to insure the comfort level of each and every one of us first and
As the above is a truth in our reality, it must follow that it is an inherent consideration of the debate topic. My opponent, whatukno, suggested
that there would be a greater amount of analyzable data should the debate topic instead be, “Is the marriage of Mickey and Mallory Knocks superior
to the marriage of Bonny and Clyde?” I find that interesting to say the least.
The only information we have regarding two specific
couples is that which was supplied by third party sources. It would be the telephone
game…where someone begins by saying three sentences into the ear of another person and having that repeat twenty times. The three sentences spoken
out loud by the twenty-first person is going to be, most likely, different than the original three sentences. We would in fact have less
Besides, the marriage between Mickey and Mallory was superior by virtue of its’ fictitious nature…
Seriously, though, the topic we have available to us has a vast amount more verifiable
data to draw from. And as we have established that
the topic is not about two couples in a static environment of empty space…
Originally posted by whatukno in answer to Socratic Question number 2
Parents often seek out other parents in order to fill the void left in the social calendar.
….since the “void” is an obvious reference to the parents having previous social inclinations outside of the ’nine month period of
gestation’, we can draw from personal experience and various social philosophies, ideals, values and all the other types of social gossip and
rumination to determine whether or not a married couple who can conceive and birth a child are ‘superior’ to a married couple who cannot possibly
mimic such an action.
While low-birth-weight babies born into advantaged families tend to do relatively well, most underweight babies are born into disadvantaged
It should be noted that we are all different. We do not all have the same genetic predisposition. Environmental factors and a huge genetic variance
will keep our differences, albeit in different forms, a fact for many upon many generations, if not until the end of our species. But we do have very
similar instincts. We all get hungry. We all get thirsty. We all get tired. And yes, we feel the need to procreate…or at least go through the
But the excerpt above illustrates a scenario where an underdeveloped newborn can have a better chance at survival, physically at first and then
socially, financially, etc, through the subsequent years, if born to a family with more money. Note that this source is an Australian one, but the
generality is such that it is essentially universal for all first world societies.
Alongside this trend are increasing rates of psychological and psychosocial problems, which again are observed more frequently in children “living
in low-income, step/blended and sole parent families.”1
More frequently in low income families. We have many social services that are designed to help in these areas, when individuals are unable to help
themselves and their families. The article goes on to highlight the discrepancy of mental/overall health in higher class families then in lower class
families. Where is the superiority in reproducing genes that enter the world with a disadvantage to begin with? And I want to emphasize that I am in
no means unsympathetic or insensitive to various physical afflictions that unfortunately occur in this world. Indeed, we are all of this world and
each and every one of us belong here.
But where do we stop when applying distinctions of superiority to a physical being based on variations within the physical being?
The autistic individual may not have functioned like everybody else in society by holding a successful job and frequently socializing, but said
individual did have an impact on how our medical and psychological professions were able to interpret physical and personality traits in order to
better diagnose and improve the quality of life for people everywhere. In this instance, I would argue that the life of the commonly held inferior
was in fact superior to the life of ‘just another cog in the commercial machine’.
I would like to appeal to the reader that the above example is in no means meant to belittle anyone for anything. Rather, it is an attempt to
illustrate that there are many physical differences amongst our society. I argue that all of our differences are what make us able to understand and
apply our collective knowledge better than static distinctions.
A child bearing couple is not superior to a childless couple. There is no way I can stress that enough.
I would like to answer my opponents questions at this time.
Q1 Would you buy a car knowing full well that there was some defect in it when you could buy the same make and model for the same price with no
No. I Would buy the vehicle without the defects. But it is a just a vehicle that cannot make any decisions for itself.
It is only financially reasonable. I want to travel from point A to point B in the most comfort and least amount of money allotted by my
Q3 In nature what happens when a species cannot for some reason procreate?
It either evolves or dies out. Evolution has been noted in some region specific amphibious species.
Q4 What happens to a species if procreation is not brought into check by nature?
They over consume the available resource(s) and diminish in their numbers. Extinction is a possibility but not always the case.
Q5 What qualities can one infer from the original question posed in this debate about the parents in question?
I infer qualities of caring. These are people who have an abundance of love for life and people and they desire to pass that on to someone else whom
they readily identify with as their child and with whom they want to instill their own qualities to be shared with the world.
I fear that question number five(Q5) could be a debate in its’ own right. For one, the debate topic at hand does not stipulate that either
distinction of couple is inherently without the distinction of ‘parent’. So I must assume that both distinctions of couple are included in the
term you presented, “parents,” being an unspecified plural, and have answered accordingly.
I now hand the floor back to my esteemed opponent, whatukno.