frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Breaking News: Texas adoption agencies could soon discriminate against Jews, Muslims, and gays. Bad?

Debate Information




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    Ah, let’s just go back to the 50’s I guess 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Private adoption agencies should be free to discriminate against anyone they want. Similarly, parents should be free to choose what kind of child they want to adopt.
    Public adoption agencies should not be a thing.

    Some countries, including a few Nordic ones, do not let the parents have any say in who they want to adopt. If you have queued for adoption, the government will give you a random child. If that child, say, is black, and you do not want a black child - then you have to queue again and wait for another 4-5 years, hoping that the next time they will offer you a child more to your taste. This obviously is unreasonable.

    Just like, when I choose who to marry, I do it myself, instead of letting the government decide - same should be the case with abortions. And in this regard, the Texas proposal is right.
    Zombieguy1987
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 Right? Is this fascism, or something else?
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Agreed, but public ones should not, fair enough?
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    This is one of those situations I hate.

    On one side, it's wrong to be discriminatory

    But on the other, it's a private business and it's their right to do what their doing
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited February 2019
    @YeshuaBought

    I do not think the public ones should exist in the first place. There is no way to resolve this matter in the public sector. If the government does not allow discrimination, then the adopting parents' rights will be violated. If it does allow it, then the orphans' rights will be violated.

    In the private sector, on the other hand, some companies will, and others will not, discriminate, hence both the parents and the orphans will always have a choice in the matter.

    @Zombieguy1987

    I do not think private market discrimination is bad per se. For example, I recently got a credit card that was offered only to international foreign students in the US - by focusing on a particular group of people, the company has the ability to make the product as close to what that group desires as possible. Similarly, say, a cloth brand that is only sold to African-Americans does not have to worry about what the clothes will look like on people with a different skin color, hence reducing the number of unsatisfied customers who bought the product that was not intended for them.

    Where it gets bad, in my opinion, is when the culture of the society itself introduces discrimination on the market. When, for example, everyone believes that African-American people are inherently lazy, the market as a whole can react to that by virtually all employers offering African-American people lower salaries. Normally, on a free market customers vote with their wallets, making such practices not sustainable - but if the customers themselves do not see anything wrong with this discrimination, then it may persist.

    This, however, is hardly the reason for the governmental intrusion; that would make things even worse, leading to legal aberrations such as "racial quotas" and "affirmative action". There is no easy solution to this. Taking the government out of the equation and letting people sort these things out themselves is the path I would take, but it takes time: societal evolution is a slow and gradual process. Attempts to forcefully accelerate this process so far have mostly failed, with rare exceptions such as the Japanese society.
    Zombieguy1987ZeusAres42
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 I see where you're coming from. I happen to be libertarian at least on the issue of religion and sexual matters, BUT I don't think my tax dollars should fund agencies that discriminate or impose a religious test. I see money as free speech, and reserve my and YOUR right to say what we want with our money. I also think public agencies do not have the right to impose a religious test, as religious liberty is a human right. Is that a fair compramise?
    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch