Legal ages for restricted activities(such as alcohol, weed, etc.) should be based on biological or physical age
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- You can drive cars
- You can drink fine wine
- You can enter strip clubs
- You can do all kinds of drugs
- Liking people your own age(with no 100-year slumber, physically and legally 12) would be considered a pedophile
- There is not an intelligence test or biological capability test before the consumption of any wine. even fine wine.
- There is no intelligence test to go to a strip bar
- There is no intelligence test to get married
- There is no intelligence test, financial test, morality test, or health test to have children
- There is no intelligence test to buy cigarettes
- Thre is no intelligence test to be able to vote
Thre is no intelligence test to be able to vote
Researchers have studied how to induce hibernation in humans.[31][32] The ability to hibernate would be useful for a number of reasons, such as saving the lives of seriously ill or injured people by temporarily putting them in a state of hibernation until treatment can be given. For space travel, human hibernation is also under consideration for e.g. missions to Mars. [33]
The law provides an age as a general socially acceptable boundary where a significant portion of the population should have the appropriate faculties.The law is not designed to deal with exceptions or unique cases such as the "centenarian minor" as described by my opponent.
To implement such a parameter would require a testing method for each "restricted activity" and then approval identification for each activity. This is not the purpose of the government.
The reason the government didn't stall IQ tests to bars, tobacco shops, strip clubs, etc. is that they can't afford it.
As Con correctly pointed out, the basic premise presented in round 1, though imaginative, was based on a flawed and somewhat tenuous hypothesis. Round two therefore came across as a somewhat detached and separate narrative, and so limiting the debate to two rounds meant that Pro was never able to create a cohesive whole. All that Con needed to do was provide ongoing simple but pertinent responses and evidence. Pro's semantics card just came across as clutching at straws, so too did making too much of an issue over Con's spelling oversight. Grammatically though, Con's presentation was overall, more accomplished.
I wish this was a three round debate.
I agree with pro's definition of should. As much as con's closing gave light to an implied case that pro should have made the resolution about the developmental level of the mind itself as that was really where his case seemed to be.
A couple obvious things which were missing: The snap example from Spider-Man. Emancipation of minors. And the greater problem that would stem from minors freezing themselves to get on social security! ... On a similar note, con did very well in identifying the regulatory testing to drive cars (I just heard that one state is suspending that... WTF is wrong with us?).
In short con showed a lack of benefit to this hypothetical, such as hibernation not wholly stopping development, and a massive cost in the testing. He also of course used legal issues, which was a nice appeal to the status quo, even if of disputable relevance.
S&G:
A single minor mistake will never be enough for this point. As much as I do appreciate the sight of someone else fighting for whatever categories they can get.
Note:
If it were allowed, I would give pro 1 point (credit for effort and entertainment), and con 3 (still the clear victor).
Well yes. I turn pressure into positive energy. To me, finishing an argument on time is more important than finishing my homework.
It was pretty well argued indeed. I really liked your argument in the Instigate a Con debate. Your closing bit was a real effective hammer. You are really getting good.
Let's see what you have for the Rap debate. Keep up the good work.
So glad that DArt is actually a fair arena. Back in DDO, I am either smashing trolls or I am forfeiting to greatest debaters, that wouldn't make me really grow. Here on DArt, I could debate against everybody and I could improve because my levels are similar to the top 100-50 users, and that I could improve.
Your arguments are improving rapidly!
I am probably losing 3 points every 7 points.
Is con going to actually make an argument or merely stick to rebuttals.
If you want to just leave it where it is I agree to void the last round if you want to
Oh, so you are going with that method.
Do you want to clear anything up before your last round?