Endis
13-09-2007, 00:21
The Issue
A controversial newspaper investigation reveals that as many as 30% of all children are employed in a dangerous environment.
The Debate
1. Beth Li, an orphanage foster parent, says, "Child labor should be outlawed! Too many times I have received children who only know manual labor. We have to give these children an education and a chance at a real future. Think of the children!" Pip Rifkin, a bum on the street, agrees, "Forget about what's best for the children. They're stealing my work! The only way to get an entry job in this market is to either be younger than 12 and willing to work for nothing, or to knock off a kid and be there to fill the opening, and still be willing to work for nothing."
[Accept]
2. Unemployed parent Sue-Ann Gutenberg begs that you keep child labor legal. "You can't outlaw child labor; we need the extra money that my 13 children earn. Since both my spouse and I were laid off, the only way to get enough money to feed both of us is to have all of our kids employed. In fact, with the downswing in the economy we're expecting another kid to close the gap."
[Accept]
3. Fat cat factory owner Larry Mistletoe steps over the bum in the street and explains, "You don't understand. You shouldn't make child labor illegal, you should subsidize it. By employing these kids I'm giving them valuable life lessons. I didn't go to school and see where I am now? I'm giving them work experience, making them highly employable for the 15 years of their expected lives."
[Accept]
What's up with this? Debate options 2 & 3 are both depraved. In a controversial issue like this one, there really needs to be a 'middle' option, or at least one that shows the issue's positive side. The third one makes a half-hearted attempt at this but utterly fails. I suspect that the effects of the second 2 issues are quite similar, too. This issue clearly has a moralist bias.
A controversial newspaper investigation reveals that as many as 30% of all children are employed in a dangerous environment.
The Debate
1. Beth Li, an orphanage foster parent, says, "Child labor should be outlawed! Too many times I have received children who only know manual labor. We have to give these children an education and a chance at a real future. Think of the children!" Pip Rifkin, a bum on the street, agrees, "Forget about what's best for the children. They're stealing my work! The only way to get an entry job in this market is to either be younger than 12 and willing to work for nothing, or to knock off a kid and be there to fill the opening, and still be willing to work for nothing."
[Accept]
2. Unemployed parent Sue-Ann Gutenberg begs that you keep child labor legal. "You can't outlaw child labor; we need the extra money that my 13 children earn. Since both my spouse and I were laid off, the only way to get enough money to feed both of us is to have all of our kids employed. In fact, with the downswing in the economy we're expecting another kid to close the gap."
[Accept]
3. Fat cat factory owner Larry Mistletoe steps over the bum in the street and explains, "You don't understand. You shouldn't make child labor illegal, you should subsidize it. By employing these kids I'm giving them valuable life lessons. I didn't go to school and see where I am now? I'm giving them work experience, making them highly employable for the 15 years of their expected lives."
[Accept]
What's up with this? Debate options 2 & 3 are both depraved. In a controversial issue like this one, there really needs to be a 'middle' option, or at least one that shows the issue's positive side. The third one makes a half-hearted attempt at this but utterly fails. I suspect that the effects of the second 2 issues are quite similar, too. This issue clearly has a moralist bias.