Instigator / Pro
10
1486
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Children are not inferior

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
20
1501
rating
8
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds!
Con
Well that was all very interesting. 

==

The following are some applicable definitions which can be referred to for the duration of this debate. 

Children =  

1 an individual of whom is under the age of 18. 

Inferior =

1: of little or less importance, value, or merit 

2a: of low or lower degree or rank

In order for me to win this debate, I must prove that the statement "children are not inferior" is false. My opponent must accomplish the opposite to be victorious. 

==

Arguments

I.I: Inferior rights

We have established that children are individuals of whom are under the age of 18. People under the age of 18 drink, smoke and vote. Thus, children are inferior to adults, in terms of rights.


I.II: Inferior ability to swim

Children cannot swim as fast as dolphins. Thus, children's ability to swim are inferior to dolphins.


I.III: Inferior ability to run 

Children cannot run as fast a leopard. Thus, children's ability to run are inferior to leopards.  


I.IV: Inferior legal culpability

If a child and adult committed the same crime, the criminal justice system would judge them differently. The court judges children differently because of their mental ability inferior mental ability. It is viewed by the courts that children cannot make clear decisions and that they should be given a chance for for redemption. Thus, children are, in the eyes of the law, are inferior in their ability to make clear judgments. 

==

II.I: Rebuttal

12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds!
If my opponent was correct, they will have simply proven that children aren't inferior to children. Nevertheless, this statement not only has a nonapliciable conclusion, but is also incorrect. 

If you read the debateart.com code of conduct, you will find that 12 year olds are not allowed on this website to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage. . It can be concluded that 12 year olds have inferior rights to 13 year olds, in terms of their ability to access this website legitimately . 

==

Conclusion

All claims of been rebutted. I have provided a case which fulfils my BoP. Back to you, subaccount. 

Round 2
Pro
I was referring to children and teenagers. They have equal rights. Humans are inferior to dolphins and leopards in terms of swimming and running. That does not only apply to children. They are actually treated better in court, they would think children don't know better. So that is +1 points for children.
            II.I: Rebuttal

12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds!
If my opponent was correct, they will have simply proven that children aren't inferior to children. Nevertheless, this statement not only has a nonapliciable conclusion, but is also incorrect. 

If you read the debateart.com code of conduct, you will find that 12 year olds are not allowed on this website to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage. . It can be concluded that 12 year olds have inferior rights to 13 year olds, in terms of their ability to access this website legitimately . 

Their "inferior" rights to the internet is merely the decision of people treating children as inferiors, and they think that children don't deserve social media. In the mid 20th century, black people were excluded from white people. This is just history repeating itself through another form.
        I was not referring to their rights currently, I am referring to reality.
        If you truly believe children are inferior, tell me, is Baby Jesus inferior?
Con
Well that was all very interesting. 

==

LIteral concession

Humans are inferior to dolphins and leopards in terms of swimming and running.
==

Dropped arguments

I.I: Inferior rights

I.II: Inferior ability to swim

I.III: Inferior ability to run 

I.IV: Inferior legal culpability

==

Rebuttals

I was referring to children and teenagers. They have equal rights. 
I.I: Well no they don't. The debateart.com code of conduct clearly states that all users must be a minimum of 13 years of age when creating an account, or older to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage. The implications of this is that 12 year olds have inferior rights to 13 year olds. 

Their "inferior" rights to the internet is merely the decision of people treating children as inferiors, and they think that children don't deserve social media. In the mid 20th century, black people were excluded from white people. This is just history repeating itself through another form.
There are two things to unpack.

I.II.a In the mid 20th century, black people were inferior, in the eyes of white people. You never specified from whos perspective the individual had to be viewed as inferior. Though I am against racism, it is true that there was a period of time when black people were inferior in the eyes of white people. 

I.II.b The comparison between 12 year olds and black people is faulty. Black people were viewed as inferior simply because of their skin colour. The reason 12 year olds are excluded from certain media platforms is because they are, in most cases, irresponsible and should not be exposed to content on social media. To say that little children are being "discriminated' because they cannot use social media is like saying little children are discriminated because they are not allowed to smoke and drive. It is simply a matter of responsibitily. 

  I was not referring to their rights currently, I am referring to reality.
This point was not clarified in the resolution. The title of this debate is simply, children are not inferior. You never specified in what field they are not inferior. In order for me to win, I must show that there is a field in which children are inferior


If you truly believe children are inferior, tell me, is Baby Jesus inferior?
There are certainly people who believe Baby Jesus is worthy for respect, but using this argument against a pastafarianist isn't going to work. Even if, for the sake of the argument, baby jesus is real, baby jesus, is not children, he is a single child. The presence of one non-inferior being does not mean that entire species is of their status. 



Round 3
Pro
There are two things to unpack.

I.II.a In the mid 20th century, black people were inferior, in the eyes of white people. You never specified from whos perspective the individual had to be viewed as inferior. Though I am against racism, it is true that there was a period of time when black people were inferior in the eyes of white people. 
And children are viewed as inferior in the eyes of teenagers!

I.II.b The comparison between 12 year olds and black people is faulty. Black people were viewed as inferior simply because of their skin colour. The reason 12 year olds are excluded from certain media platforms is because they are, in most cases, irresponsible and should not be exposed to content on social media. To say that little children are being "discriminated' because they cannot use social media is like saying little children are discriminated because they are not allowed to smoke and drive. It is simply a matter of responsibitily. 

Again, the assumption that 12 year olds are irresponsible is only made up by people who view them as inferior.


If you truly believe children are inferior, tell me, is Baby Jesus inferior?
There are certainly people who believe Baby Jesus is worthy for respect, but using this argument against a pastafarianist isn't going to work. Even if, for the sake of the argument, baby jesus is real, baby jesus, is not children, he is a single child. The presence of one non-inferior being does not mean that entire species is of their status. 
I think they are listening to this debate right now, I wonder what God feels about you insulting his children?
Con
Well that was all very interesting.

==

Dropped arguments

I.I: Inferior rights

I.II: Inferior ability to swim

I.III: Inferior ability to run 

I.IV: Inferior legal culpability

==

Rebuttals

There are two things to unpack.

I.II.a In the mid 20th century, black people were inferior, in the eyes of white people. You never specified from whos perspective the individual had to be viewed as inferior. Though I am against racism, it is true that there was a period of time when black people were inferior in the eyes of white people. 
And children are viewed as inferior in the eyes of teenagers!
That may be so, but this debate does not concern who's eye's the inferiorness comes from. In the eyes of teenagers, children are inferior

I.II.b The comparison between 12 year olds and black people is faulty. Black people were viewed as inferior simply because of their skin colour. The reason 12 year olds are excluded from certain media platforms is because they are, in most cases, irresponsible and should not be exposed to content on social media. To say that little children are being "discriminated' because they cannot use social media is like saying little children are discriminated because they are not allowed to smoke and drive. It is simply a matter of responsibitily. 

Again, the assumption that 12 year olds are irresponsible is only made up by people who view them as inferior.
It is not an assumption, it is a generalization of what we know. It is not "made up", it is based on facts. Anyone under the age of 16 cannot apply for a driver's licenses, not because the government are ageists, but because that is the age of which, on balance, teens become mature. 

There is a very big difference between not allowing a black man, who has the same abilities as a white man to drive, and a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle. 

There are certainly people who believe Baby Jesus is worthy for respect, but using this argument against a pastafarianist isn't going to work. Even if, for the sake of the argument, baby jesus is real, baby jesus, is not children, he is a single child. The presence of one non-inferior being does not mean that entire species is of their status. 
I think they are listening to this debate right now, I wonder what God feels about you insulting his children?
Again, for the sake of the argument, I will believe that baby jesus is real. Even if he is superior, that does not mean that all children are superior. 

Nevertheless, you have not given me any reasons for me to believe in baby jesus in the first place. 
Round 4
Pro

There are two things to unpack.

I.II.a In the mid 20th century, black people were inferior, in the eyes of white people. You never specified from whos perspective the individual had to be viewed as inferior. Though I am against racism, it is true that there was a period of time when black people were inferior in the eyes of white people. 
And children are viewed as inferior in the eyes of teenagers!
That may be so, but this debate does not concern who's eye's the inferiorness comes from. In the eyes of teenagers, children are inferior
In fact, as the creator of this debate, it does indeed concern who's eyes the inferiorness comes from, and that would be from the teenagers perspective.

It is not an assumption, it is a generalization of what we know. It is not "made up", it is based on facts. Anyone under the age of 16 cannot apply for a driver's licenses, not because the government are ageists, but because that is the age of which, on balance, teens become mature. 

There is a very big difference between not allowing a black man, who has the same abilities as a white man to drive, and a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle. 
Ok so kids can't drive. So what? Knowing how to drive is based on height. However, the responsibility to use social media is not based on practice, it is merely based on knowledge I'm sure most parents will teach their kids. Somebody with 100 IQ would know not to interact with pedophiles. Unless you're implying that children have IQ under 100, your point is invalid. However, if you are implying that children have IQ under 100, I can easily prove otherwise, take a look at this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/teen/meet-the-11-year-old-who-is-smarter-than-albert-einstein-and-stephen-hawking/articleshow/70086958.cms

 Anyone under the age of 16 cannot apply for a driver's licenses
You do realize that 15 year olds are not children, right? This statement applies to teenagers as well, and therefore, your point is invalid. Also, 25 is the age when people fully develop their minds.

generalization
See? Even you admit it, they are all stereotypes, just because a few children are like that, doesn't mean all are.

Again, for the sake of the argument, I will believe that baby jesus is real. Even if he is superior, that does not mean that all children are superior. 

Nevertheless, you have not given me any reasons for me to believe in baby jesus in the first place. 
Children also have superior rights, as when they die, they automatically go to Heaven, whereas you adults have to be judged for your actions. I highly doubt insulting the children of God is a good behavior. 

a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle. 
That is all because of their height. Of course, you're gonna use height against my statements, but, they are perfectly capable of driving vehicles. There are many children that ride dirt bikes. A lot of small children drive electrical toy cars. Yes, it's a 1:4 scale of a car that they can actually drive. Kids also ride bikes, and that is not any different that driving cars, other than the fact that cars are larger.

because the government are ageists
See, even you admit it!


Con
Well that was all very interesting. 

==

Dropped arguments 

I.I: Inferior rights

I.II: Inferior ability to swim

I.III: Inferior ability to run 

I.IV: Inferior legal culpability

==

Rebuttals

That may be so, but this debate does not concern who's eye's the inferiorness comes from. In the eyes of teenagers, children are inferior
In fact, as the creator of this debate, it does indeed concern who's eyes the inferiorness comes from, and that would be from the teenagers perspective.
Well, it's a little too late for that. It is in bad faith of the debate for you to shift the definitions and interpretations half way through the debate. You cannot just say "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out". Perhaps you should have made your resolution something like "On balance, children under the age of 13 are not morally inferior to their adult couterparts". 

There is a very big difference between not allowing a black man, who has the same abilities as a white man to drive, and a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle. 
Ok so kids can't drive. So what? Knowing how to drive is based on height.
So a 6 year old with extraordinary bone growth who happens to be 6 foot tall should be allowed to drive, regardless of their mental maturity. This is absurd. 

However, the responsibility to use social media is not based on practice, it is merely based on knowledge I'm sure most parents will teach their kids. Somebody with 100 IQ would know not to interact with pedophiles. Unless you're implying that children have IQ under 100, your point is invalid. However, if you are implying that children have IQ under 100, I can easily prove otherwise, take a look at this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/teen/meet-the-11-year-old-who-is-smarter-than-albert-einstein-and-stephen-hawking/articleshow/70086958.cms
This is like playing tennis with no net, non ball, no court and players. You've made an argument for me and then shot it down. You may as well debate yourself at this point. IQ has nothing to do with ones ability to be mature. People can have high IQ without being mature. In fact, studies show that smarter kids have immature brains. There is a clear difference between maturity and IQ. 

You do realize that 15 year olds are not children, right? 
Anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Though 13-18 can be catagorised as adolecent, the legal term for child is sanyone under the age of 18.

generalization
See? Even you admit it, they are all stereotypes, just because a few children are like that, doesn't mean all are.
A terrible misrepresentation. Let's see what I actually said. 

 Anyone under the age of 16 cannot apply for a driver's licenses, not because the government are ageists, but because that is the age of which, on balance, teens become mature. 

Also, stop dropping my points. 
Round 5
Pro
That may be so, but this debate does not concern who's eye's the inferiorness comes from. In the eyes of teenagers, children are inferior
In fact, as the creator of this debate, it does indeed concern who's eyes the inferiorness comes from, and that would be from the teenagers perspective.
Well, it's a little too late for that. It is in bad faith of the debate for you to shift the definitions and interpretations half way through the debate. You cannot just say "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out". Perhaps you should have made your resolution something like "On balance, children under the age of 13 are not morally inferior to their adult couterparts". 
The way you said "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out" makes it sound like you killed my statements and now I am making a fool of myself trying to repair it. This psychology can make me lose credibility. However, now that I pointed that out, it's apparent that you never pointed out that I never said a different definition. You volunteered with the assumption that I was talking about adolescents were not inferior to other animals and middle aged adults. However, I was implying that 12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds and shouldn't be harassed for their age on the internet. If you refuse to resort to my definition, I am afraid I have won by default. I will create another debate after this one and I will state more clearly what I am debating. If you accept the next debate, I will post it in the comments, then we continue fighting. If you decline, however, even if you think you won, you would only win the argument in your head. You would not win the argument I created.
Con
Well that was all very interesting. 

==

Dropped arguments (like 4 times) 

I.I: Inferior rights

I.II: Inferior ability to swim

I.III: Inferior ability to run 

I.IV: Inferior legal culpability

==

Rebuttals 


(My opponent) In fact, as the creator of this debate, it does indeed concern who's eyes the inferiorness comes from, and that would be from the teenagers perspective.
Well, it's a little too late for that. It is in bad faith of the debate for you to shift the definitions and interpretations half way through the debate. You cannot just say "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out". Perhaps you should have made your resolution something like "On balance, children under the age of 13 are not morally inferior to their adult couterparts". 
The way you said "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out" makes it sound like you killed my statements and now I am making a fool of myself trying to repair it.
Well no. I am simply pointing out the flaw in your resolution. You created a resolution, and then quite literally went "no, you can't argue from the perspective". This would be like me instigating a debate and rebutting my opponent's point by saying "well that's not how I see it". 

Nevertheless, the core of your rebuttal is still wrong. Even we ignore the perspective of the teenager, the fact remains that children are inferior to adults in terms of rights and physical capabilities. 

This psychology can make me lose credibility.
Your inability to reply to my argument 4 rounds in a row will make you loose credibility. 

You volunteered with the assumption that I was talking about adolescents were not inferior to other animals and middle aged adults.
Well yes? That's the point of debating isn't it? You create a resolution. I attack it. I attacked it by pointing out the fact that children are inferior in terms of both physical capabilities to certain animals and also that they have inferior rights. 

Recall resolution: Children are not inferior

However, I was implying that 12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds and shouldn't be harassed for their age on the internet.
Woah woah, calm down, no one's condoning cyberbullying here. I whole heartedly believe that no one should be subject to harassment, whether it be over the internet or in person. However, the debate is not "should be bully children", it is "are children inferior". Just because something is inferior in a certain aspect, does not mean that it should be subject to harassment. I, for example, believe that a dog is inferior to an adult human being. However, this isn't to say that I wouldn't have a problem with me neighbour torturing their dog. This also applies to human beings. I believe that a toddler has inferior mathematical abilities to a professor, however, this doesn't mean the toddler should be attacked. I recommend that for your next debate,  you should make the resolution "Children should not be subject to assault because of their age".  


If you refuse to resort to my definition, I am afraid I have won by default.
You provided no definitions. 

I will create another debate after this one and I will state more clearly what I am debating. If you accept the next debate, I will post it in the comments, then we continue fighting. If you decline, however, even if you think you won, you would only win the argument in your head. You would not win the argument I created.
Look, bullying isn't cool. I agree with you. If you are to create a debate which clearly highlights your belief, I won't be accepting it. I can only argue that children are inferior. 

==

Conclusion

I have demonstrated that children are inferior to adults in terms of rights, inferior to dolphins in terms of swimming abilities and inferior to leopards in their ability to run. Easy vote.