The debate "Poor children should be adopted by wealthy families for a year" was started by
April 9, 2014, 8:03 pm.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
JohnnieWalker posted 1 argument, tkershaw3 posted 1 argument, echofrommadiun posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Michelle_M posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
JohnnieWalker, tkershaw3, echofrommadiun, l2lll, ferida1237 and 2 visitors agree.
Michelle_M, Vivinary, Untamed, rionagh99, AnkGanu, Marvelgirl2002, soullesschicken, TransPanTeen and 2 visitors disagree.
Living wealthy for a year would cause them to realize what they are missing, which would be more painfully obvious when they went back for a year - the constant back and forth would cause feelings of resentment either for being poor or towards the wealthy people for not helping all the time. Better to have wealthy donate to charitable causes which could improve at risk or needy childrens' quality of life instead.
Maybe, the wealthy families should adopt the poor children not only for a year but also for the rest of their lives. Adopt that I mean is adopting by just giving them chances to study well or get better lives which will make them happy . The money that they have will be very useful for the children and they won’t lose their wealth by adopting poor children.
I'm not sure whether to disagree or not. What is the purpose of this? What good would it do?
After that, they go back to their original families and after that they go back to a second wealthy family and after 18 years, you have lived with 9 wealthy families for a year and 9 years with your family.