Children are not inferior
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds!
II.I: Rebuttal12 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 .
Humans are inferior to dolphins and leopards in terms of swimming and running.
I was referring to children and teenagers. They have equal rights.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Anyone under the age of 16 cannot apply for a driver's licenses
generalization
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.
a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle.
because the government are ageists
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.
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
You do realize that 15 year olds are not children, right?
generalizationSee? Even you admit it, they are all stereotypes, just because a few children are like that, doesn't mean all are.
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".
(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.
This psychology can make me lose credibility.
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.
Argument: Pro was disadvantaged during the entire debate by: 1. Creating a too open-ended resolution; in effect, a blank statement of an assumed value judgment, and, 2. A total lack of any definitions of terms. As initiator, it is prudent to offer a measurable resolution, by which both opponents have the means to argue and demonstrate their relative burdens of proof. No such measurable elements are offered. It is also prudent for the initiator to define the key words of the Resolution such that each opponent has that grounding to argue Pro and Con, knowing such words have meaning in order to focus the debate. Lacking both essentials for a substantive debate, Pro effectively tied their own hands, while allowing, and never rebutting, points of argument by Con, such as the repetitive 4 points of rights, which pro totally ignored as necessary to rebut in order to present a valid case. It was left to Con to offer definitions, all of which Pro accepted without rebuttal. As a result, Pro offered very little in argument to prove the Resolution. points to Con.
Sources: Pro's solitary source is the story of one child, whose intellect is superior to most children, and adults. As such, this "proof" is anecdotal, and not descriptive of most children, which the Resolution assumes is the measure of its validity. Con's sources fully support Con's BoP, in particular, in R4, Con's source argues that highly intelligent children, such as Pro's one source describes, have inferior maturity compared to most children. This source thoroughly defends Con's BoP. points to Con.
Legibility: Both opponents' language is fully understood. Tie
Conduct: This could lean to Con due to Pro's lack of content in Description as noted above, but, such lack is merely counter-productive to the initiator's attempted BoP, but is not a necessary feature required by DArt policy, therefore, a tie.
RFD in Comments
Pro left this very open to interpretation, for which con trolls him by contracting animal kingdom vs young humans.
Con has two points of non-comedic merit: "Inferior rights" and "Inferior legal culpability" If it should be so in either case, does not change that it is so.
Pro tries a religious appeal of one noteworthy child, to which con aptly replies: "The presence of one non-inferior being does not mean that entire species is of their status. "
Pro's case was riddled with half-concessions, such as people only finishing developing their brains at 25 (implying that younger than that are mentally inferior, to which children are much younger).
Ultimately pro questions if children should be treated as inferior, but does not seek to prove that they are really equal or better by any standard other than the one argued by assertion that they are human too so possess the same intrinsic value.
Conduct: Leans pro
Had pro engaged more with the debate instead of dropping so many points and still declaring victory, I would probably be awarding this to him due to con's obvious trolling.
Legibility: Leans con
Organization to follow arguments is important.
There is no firm policy requiring the Description to contain such needs as definitions, but, I find the lack to be a major set-back to the initiator, whether
Pro or Con. To leave definitions to your opponent to offer is just sloppy, in my opinion. An initiator should always self-protect with as much description as necessary to set-up the debate and not offer the opposition the territory to claim for themselves.
I forgot to add this at the end of the RFD, but if you have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
Argumentation
Really easy ballot. Con establishes a definition and shared BOP and this isn't challenged. Con then creates four reasons that children are inferior. Pro negates these somewhat well and his answers are dropped by Con for a lot of them, but he doesn't go for these so they don't matter. BOP shared means that I see all the ways they are superior, all the ways they are inferior, and I see which number is higher, and it's 4-0, so easy Con vote. To address the last speech of Pro, this was a huge shift in the debate that I felt was easily answered by Con by talking about how you are shifting and you haven't discussed cyberbullying once.
Conduct
I give Pro conduct for one major reason, and this is a comment made in round two by Con where they say "black people were inferior". Con does damage control for the statement saying that it's the perception of white people at the time, and the resolution doesn't define the perception we are starting from. I feel this is a problematic statement because you're saying that previous racism is a justification to treat other people in a lesser way, and it's just a bad position to be on.
Notes
Pro
I know it's a joke debate, but you can handle it better. At the beginning, establish some impossible framing and BOP and list reasons it's better. For example, "Con must prove that every adult is better than every child in every way to prove the resolution false". You can then list grammatical reasons, logical reasons, and fairness reasons that this is the best way to approach the debate. On top of this, don't put all your eggs in one basket like you did, keep your other answers on the board so you have a shot at winning if your hail mary fails.
Con
This is a joke debate, as can be seen from Pro's lack of a description and first Pro round, lean into this. I don't know if you've seen the meme that says "If video games make children violent, why are they still so easy to beat the s!@# out of?" Use arguments like that because Pro isn't going to take you seriously anyways. Also, another way to handle the joke debates is to kritik it because they're never structured in a way to withstand it, for example, "Pro, as the author of the res, not having a description is bad for debate because X,Y, and Z, so vote Con to only endorse debates with descriptions." Despite all this, you did really well with your arguments and handled your strategy really well, so you don't need to change your strat if you don't want to, just wanted to add tools to the toolbelt.
Sorry to ping you for month old comment, but I was looking at these as I was going to judge the round. Do you think that they need to be defined in the description, or could they be defined in the first speech and become a piece of the debate.
You said better conduct but never showed it on the vote
I smell a forfiet.
YOUTH RIGHTS!
Chill ur pill
Are you going to reply?
How do u enjoy doing these kind of debates which have little to no relevance to life.
Yeah I guess
Wagyu did, I was referring to you as the low hanging fruit, hence, "no offence"
After this debate, I'm gonna start another that is the same, but this time it will be 12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds.
So who did you say tried for the low hanging fruit?
Because Wagyu accepted the debate, and was the one I was talking too. You happened to be the source of "conversation".
Why are you directing it towards Wagyu, if you're talking about me?
"Baby Jesus"
This debate now has my attention.
You really tried for the low-hanging fruit here..... no offense Subaccount
Your turn again.
Chill man I’m taking my time
It's your turn.
Are you gonna argue?
The kritik has been kritiked.
To what? To dogs? To cargo ships? To mousetraps?
When I propose debate, I typically define every key word in the resolution, just so there is no debate on the matter of definitions. The debate can concentrate on the whole of the resolution and not turn into a dictionary debate. That accomplishes nothing. Just a suggestion as it seems you have a lot of pushback on that score. It's your debate; define your terms. Also define "children."
Possibly they're waiting for you to refine your proposal, to avoid any risk of bullying you (as it honestly sounds like you used to suffer on Reddit).
Also, please check your PMs.
Thanks for the kritik!
Why is nobody accepting it yet?
If you hope to win this debate, toss a definition of inferior into the description. Otherwise someone will argue they are on average inferior in height, or even inferior in rank as proven by them not being allowed on Reddit, Facebook, and even this website.
wdym?
Who hurt you?
Viewed as inferior by the 13+ circlejerk (AKA Reddit).
Okay, to what degree? Like in the ability to string together coherent posts? Or acquire followers?
Inferior to teenagers and young adults in terms of using social media
Inferior: Stupid, weak, told to "get off Reddit kid."
Inferior to what? A nuke? An ant?
define inferior