Instigator / Con
5
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Topic
#1010

Age of Consent Policies

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
5
0

After 5 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Athias
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Description

Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rejoinders
Round Four: (Double) Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments

Stipulations:

1. Consent: to express approval or agreement in the absence of duress. (Since I'm arguing against the age of consent, the legal definition will not be the standard. My opponent can submit it, but he or she will have to substantiate its integrity.)

2. Age of Consent: the age at which one is legally competent to give consent especially to marriage or to sexual intercourse (Legal Definition.)

3. This debate will not be confined to pedophilia. Nevertheless, pedophilia can be mentioned and explored.

Resolution: Are age of consent policies logically consistent or not? Are they moral or not?

-->
@Alec

If we were to extend your rationale to its logical conclusion (i.e. beings who aren't conceived have rights) then children would be able to levy post facto legal disputes against their parents for bad skin, or bad hair, or poor vision, genetic defects, etc. in order to express their claims or "rights."

"Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them."

And to whom is this fine owed? Who else has a claim to the parents' good health other than whom you allege--i.e. the unborn child? How would the unborn child collect it? How much do we take? Aren't you just pressing your own alleged claims and/or rights and funneling them through the assumption of the unborn child's proxy?

"Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers."

This depends on the context. If one's sexual habits are casual, then yes, there's a risk in contracting STI's. However, if my partner and I have no STI's and remain in an exclusive sexual relationship, then regardless of how many times we have sex, the "danger" is incidentally the same. Now, if we're characterizing pregnancy as a danger, then contraception is quite the effective remedy. And again, from personal experience, even trying "other forms," coitus is the best way to enjoy one's partner.

-->
@Alec

"If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic."

"Future" children don't have rights. They've yet to be born; they've yet to have being. They have no more so say in their own creation than everyone else. Which rights can they exercise before they're conceived?

"Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had."

I know. That doesn't change, however, that one has the responsibility to be an agent in one's self-preservation. Hence, one "demands" that screening be conducted before engaging in coitus.

"Personal responsibility isn't always achieved..."

Personal responsibility isn't something achieved. It's innate; it's cultivated through one's experiences.

"...since some couples don't care about spreading STIs."

Which couples are those? And if they don't care about spreading STI's, then they warrant the consequences of their actions.

"Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents?"

They aren't kids; they are neither conceived nor born. We are speaking to prospect, not fact. For better or worse, children are the beneficiaries of their parents' positive and negative aspects. Since they aren't self-sufficient, and the zygote/embryo/fetus requires its mother's labor to gestate, it doesn't get to get to dictate its mother's participation--even her curing any STI's--because they zygote/embryo/fetus doesn't gestate itself. It doesn't provide the genetic material in its own conception. The womb belongs to its mother; the ovum and sperm belong to its mother and father, respectively. What claim does the zygote/embryo/fetus have?

I'm not at all advocating for spreading STI's, or infecting unborn children with them, but it is a terrible yet inevitable consequence of progenation.

Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro concedes

-->
@Athias

Am I making sense?

-->
@Athias

"The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity."

If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic.

"Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women."

Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had. Personal responsibility isn't always achieved since some couples don't care about spreading STIs. Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents? It's better if STIs were treated before marriage and starting a family. Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them.

Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers. It's like resorting to cannibalism when there are other forms of meat available for human consumption. If the other forms are available, why select what's objectively dangerous for human beings?

-->
@Alec

"Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex."

The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity. Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women. I agree that contraception ought to be used effectively to prevent STI's and unplanned pregnancies, though abortion would still be an option. Furthermore, while there are other ways to enjoy one's partner, in my experience at least, coitus is the best way. The state really has no prerogative other one it imposes itself to interfere in the sex lives of others particularly and especially in the absence of duress.

-->
@Athias

Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex.

-->
@TheAtheist

The format of our debate was delineated in the description:

Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rejoinders
Round Four: (Double) Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments

Not to mention, if there was something with which you were unsure, you could've waited for a response. After all, three days are allowed between our submissions. You're relatively new, so I'll chalk it up to that.

-->
@Athias

Just to confirm before I post my argument. Should I include rebuttals or not?

-->
@zedvictor4

You've submitted a rather sophistic argument. I never once referred to "the" age of consent. Take a look at the subject title, "Age of Consent Policies." Plural. And I presumed that the concept of "age of consent" was recognizable without explicit definition, but if you need it defined, I don't mind providing you a definition.

EDIT: I've added the definitions. Is it more definitive now?

-->
@Athias

Still too woolly.

You argue against "the" age of consent and refer to "the" standard, but not the standard. The use of the word "legal" only adds to the ambiguity of the proposition.

You're still not making clear what you actually want to debate. As such an opponent could only initiate a discussion rather than a definitive argument.

Just commenting out into the blue: If people aren't careful, the age of consent could be raised to 25

-->
@blamonkey
@Athias

A debate between the two of you would be very entertaining! You’re both probably the best debaters that I’ve seen.

-->
@Michael_Hastings

My position is one against age of consent policies. Given the resolution, my position naturally supposes that age of consent policies are both logically inconsistent and immoral. Further elaboration will be submitted during the debate.

-->
@Athias

Could you elaborate on your position?

Will consider it. Working on a case now. Hopefully, I am not busy so it doesn't go to waste.

This is simply a repost of my previous challenge, "Age of Consent." This time, there's no rating requirement. Perhaps now, a challenger will emerge.