Instigator / Pro
2
1486
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Children the age of 12 should not be treated as inferior, even if they are less mature, by the government and online, compared to teenagers at the age of 13, who are just as immature.

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
Two months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
7
1525
rating
17
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 886 / 5,000

Children the age of 12 years, while may be less mature than adults, still shouldn't forbidden from rights that are given to teenagers the age of 13, who are just as immature. I don't see the difference between those ages, other than the 13 year old being labeled as 'teenagers' whereas the 12 year old is either labeled as 'kid' or 'preteen'.They shouldn't be treated as inferiors compared to teenagers the age of 13. (I am only talking about 13, excluding teenagers above the age of 13. Older teenagers are not a loophole, nice try though) On the internet, people say kids aren't allowed on the internet because it has 'mature content'. But, as mentioned above, 13 year olds are just as immature compared to 12 year olds. Don't only focus on the description nor only on the title. Both statements are applied, so I am including all of my statements, from the title AND the description.

Round 1
Pro
Definitions
Inferior: Worthy of discrimination against
kids: People the age of 12
Mature: Solemn, unimpulsive, serious, not competitive
Mature content: Sexual or violent content, NSFW
I don't deny that kids are immature. However, that is no reason to ignore that this applies to teenagers the age of 13 as well. I see no difference between someone 12 years and 364 days old compared to somebody 13 years and 0 days old. Sure, they might be labeled as kids, while the latter teenagers, but in reality, they are both the same.


Con
FRAMEWORK:
  • As it is not explicitly stated who has the BoP, it falls solely on PRO. 
  • The resolution can be interpreted as such: "12-year-olds and 13-year-olds should be treated equally".
  • PRO has failed to support the resolution and fulfilling his BoP. I await an actual argument from his side rather than his personal feelings.
  • PRO's definition of inferior seems awfully suspicious, nearly hand-crafted. I will accept it anyways. Regardless, such use of rhetoric by PRO should be frowned upon.

ARGUMENT
PRO has accepted that children are immature and has not denied that maturity should be the standard for regulations. As a direct result of the accepted definition of inferior, being less mature would indeed be a sound basis for being discriminated against. If that already agreed-upon measure of "inferiority" is still not accepted, consider an expert article concerning psychological health:
“I am convinced we don’t live in a generation of bad kids. We live in a generation of kids who know too much too soon.” [psychologytoday]
The expert explains to us why children today get a dangerously intense and rapid flow of new impulses, ideas, and experiences, and why that is dangerous for our development. We cannot ignore that any regulation slowing down this experience curve to acceptable speeds should be applauded, even if they might not be 100% fair. This means that even if 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds were equally immature the 13-year mark regulation would still be beneficial and needed. Thus, real-world science disproves the resolution, we DO need age-based regulations on content. 

PRO's entire argument is based upon the premise that fairness is based upon a numerical calculation. A twelve-year-old should be allowed to view X% of the internet. This is clearly not a viable option. For one, it's impossible to know exactly how old any particular internet user is without spying on them in real life. Another huge problem is that of fairness: which sites do you allow for which age groups? Instead of easily categorizing any content on the internet as mature/immature PRO wants a team of government officials to study the entire internet in order to precisely rank the age needed for visiting any particular site. To me, and any sane person, this strategy seems like a giant useless waste of time and money. The only viable strategy is to set a specific age limit on the internet and make a simple rule about what "mature content" is.

PRO attacks the 13-year mark, calling it "the same" as 12-year-olds. Likewise, in the description, he states that the two age groups should not be treated differently. However, despite his constant war on age being a factor in maturity, he admits that he thinks 12-year-olds are indeed inferior to people above the age of 13. By making all of these contradictory statements, PRO has exposed his own hypocrisy. He admits that age is a factor, but rejects the specific age of 13 years old as the official standard. In other words, PRO thinks that the law set up by the state is inferior to his own opinions regarding the topic.



CONCLUSION:
PRO knows by himself that age is a factor in maturity. He simply doesn't like the established laws and wishes to get them removed -- which would damage any person in the long run when you consider what science has to say on the matter. Making the internet more available to kids would only hinder their mental development. PRO wants children to swap their long-term psychological health for an urgent burst of dopamine by consuming "sexual and violent content". This is not freedom, this is not fair, this is being irresponsible and failing to protect the most vulnerable in our society. 


I am sorry to burst your bubble, but all the facts are stacked against you, PRO. Science, the government, common sense -- all roar in unison that your view is wrong.


Now go forth and tell me why the law should be changed.
Round 2
Pro
As it is not explicitly stated who has the BoP, it falls solely on PRO. 
What does BoP mean?

The expert explains to us why children today get a dangerously intense and rapid flow of new impulses, ideas, and experiences, and why that is dangerous for our development. We cannot ignore that any regulation slowing down this experience curve to acceptable speeds should be applauded, even if they might not be 100% fair. This means that even if 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds were equally immature the 13-year mark regulation would still be beneficial and needed. Thus, real-world science disproves the resolution, we DO need age-based regulations on content. 
This question isn't related to this debate, but what's so bad about learning more things earlier?

However, despite his constant war on age being a factor in maturity, he admits that he thinks 12-year-olds are indeed inferior to people above the age of 13. 
I think you were too enthusiastic about taking away my credibility. Admit? Indeed inferior? I never said that. This debate does not at all concern anybody above the age of 13. Didn't you read the description as well?

Making the internet more available to kids would only hinder their mental development.
How does knowing more mean slower mental growth?

Now go forth and tell me why the law should be changed.
The main point of this debate is that 13 year olds who the law allows to be on social media, shouldn't be gatekeeping and harassing 12 year olds for their slightly younger age. Didn't you read that 13 year olds are only labeled differently from 12 year olds? Just because someone is labeled as 'teenager' doesn't mean they are more mature than someone the age of 12.
Con
"I think you were too enthusiastic about taking away my credibility."
If PRO really thinks that children are never inferior to older people, then why did he disallow older teenagers and young men to be discussed? Because PRO knows that he cannot take that fight. He knows that as people age beyond the age of 13 they become more mature. But why doesn't he see the same difference between a 12 and a 13 YO?



"This debate does not at all concern anybody above the age of 13."
Excactly, this is the hypocrisy I was talking about. You want age not to be a factor in discrimination, treatment or regulation. But you yourself put an arbitrary limit on the age groups discussed. For example, what if I asked whether or not an 18-year-old could treat a 12-year-old as inferior? This question you would simply dismiss as "irrelevant" to the debate. Why exactly? According to the expert article, complete maturity is not achieved before 25 years old. By your logic, an 18-year-old is "just as immature" as a child, because neither of them is completely mature. Surely, if age is a factor in maturity, then a 12-year-old is statistically less mature than any 13-year old. The crux of your argument is that children of different age are equal, but you yourself recognise that bringing up older children would tear your argument to pieces. Scientifically speaking, there IS a major difference between a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old. Of course, variation exists. But that doesn't mean we should lower the limit. For example, some 12-year-old Albert Einstein could surely drive a car, but should we allow 12-year-olds to drive? Of course not. The law must set limits that assume people are worse than they actually are. It is illegal to murder, even though most people would not do it anyway. Similarly, it would be a bad decision to let children get access to mature content. This is true regardless of how "mature" your hypothetical 12-year-old boy was. Because despite any effort or hypothetical scenario, age still makes people more mature.



"How does knowing more mean slower mental growth?"
I didn't say that it slowed it down, I said it hinders mental growth. The already sited expert article explains why rapid mental growth is dangerous: "Students today are consuming information they aren’t completely ready to handle. The adult part of their brain is still forming and isn’t ready to apply all that society throws at it. Their mind takes it in and files it, but their will and emotions are not prepared to act on it in a healthy way. They can become paralyzed by all the content they consume." 



"13-year-olds shouldn't be gatekeeping and harassing 12-year-olds for their slightly younger age.
Agreed, but still...

OBJECTION: The title states that the government and media shouldn't treat a 12yo as inferior to a 13yo.

No government is gatekeeping and harassing children. This is true across all ages. The law about wearing a seatbelt is not an infringement on human dignity, and neither is an internet regulation "harassing" children. It is a protective measure that society as a whole agrees on. Tell me, would you let a 12-year-old watch "Sexual or violent content", when you know it will damages their psychological health and hinder their growth as individual humans? Would your parents?

OBJECTION: Being "inferior" does not justify harassing any person.  (((Inferior: Worthy of discrimination against)))



ARGUMENT

P1: In society, protecting people is what justifies laws 
P2: Regulations against children on the internet protects them
C: Regulations against children are justified



P1: Self-evident. The only reason murder is illegal is that it hurts people, and outlawing murder protects people.

P2: Experts confirm that children need to be protected against a dangerously fast learning curve [kidshealth], and also against potential internet harm [United Nations]

C: Logical conclusion



Conclusion:
PRO has failed to understand the complexity of the subject at hand. Psychology, law, society, parents, experts, all speak against PRO's resolution.
Round 3
Pro
If PRO really thinks that children are never inferior to older people, then why did he disallow older teenagers and young men to be discussed? Because PRO knows that he cannot take that fight.
Well, last time Wagyu did just that. He said a child was under 18. Then he went on to say things about drivers licenses and things between adults. However, I was referring to the age of 12 and 13. Consequently, the debate was no longer "12 year olds should not be treated as inferior compared to 13 year olds."That is why I made it only 13 and nobody older.

By your logic, an 18-year-old is "just as immature" as a child, because neither of them is completely mature.
That is not true, as I have never claimed that. Like I said, this debate does not concern anybody above the age of 13 and any references to people above the age of 13 shall not be used against me.

Surely, if age is a factor in maturity, then a 12-year-old is statistically less mature than any 13-year old.
First off, look at my definition of mature. Does that sound like a good thing? I did say that 12 year olds are less mature, but didn't I also say 13 year olds are just as immature?

Scientifically speaking, there IS a major difference between a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old. 
Really? Both are adolescents, both hit puberty, both go to middle school. I see no difference. You may argue, of course, that some 12 year olds haven't hit puberty yet. But like you said, "Of course, variation exists."

I didn't say that it slowed it down, I said it hinders mental growth. The already sited expert article explains why rapid mental growth is dangerous: "Students today are consuming information they aren’t completely ready to handle. The adult part of their brain is still forming and isn’t ready to apply all that society throws at it.
Information is information. There's nothing wrong about learning 1+1=2, right? What's so different about other information?

"13-year-olds shouldn't be gatekeeping and harassing 12-year-olds for their slightly younger age.
Agreed, but still...

Do you know, now that I think about it...




The 13 year olds are less mature! Here is a statement:
"Because they are ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes to people younger than them without knowing of their capabilities and intellectualism. There are many smart 12-year-olds out there and people overlook them simply because their age doesn't yet end with “teen”. How hypocritical; 10–12 are within the same decade span as 13–19."
Reddit is just like this, but fortunately, Quora's community is a bit more cordial. Reddit is mostly circlejerks. They exclude all who don't atleast 80% relate to them. On Reddit when you see a kid post, the comments will always be "GET OFF REDDIT YOU DUMB FUCK YOU DONT DESERVE IT YOU FAGGOT STUPID NIGGER" With Quora, they would just warn you about the dangers of the internet, but they wouldn't mind your presence. Here is a post with people who speak the truth about teenagers: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-teenagers-on-Reddit-believe-that-children-under-13-are-inferior
Sure, there are some replies that contradict the truth, but those are either low quality or they get negative feedback from the people who actually have the decency to not be ageist.
Do you think mature people are ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes against people younger than them without knowing of their capabilities and intellectualism and they overlook them simply because their age doesn't yet end with “teen"?

Tell me, would you let a 12-year-old watch "Sexual or violent content", when you know it will damages their psychological health and hinder their growth as individual humans
Knowledge is power. Of course I would! Merely knowing more than they need to will not ruin their lives!

OBJECTION: Being "inferior" does not justify harassing any person.  (((Inferior: Worthy of discrimination against)))

Well for this debate, we will resort to that definition. White people saw black people as inferior and therefore, worthy of discrimination against.
Con
Inferior: worthy of discriminating against

Worthyof sufficient worth for

In other words, if someone is inferior by CON's definition, it means that they are WORTH being discriminated against (restrictions). PRO simply assumes that the reason society discriminates against children is that they see children as "having less value". I disagree. Isn't the reason why children are not allowed in wars that they are VALUEABLE? Human Rights Watch has this view.

The ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor prohibits the forced or compulsory recruitment of children under the age of 18 for use in armed conflict. [ibid]
PRO might claim that child-soldiers are "less effective" as a soldier. This is not the case, though. According to the same site, 
  • Children are uniquely vulnerable to military recruitment because of their emotional and physical immaturity.
  • They are easily manipulated and can be drawn into violence that they are too young to resist or understand.
  • Lightweight automatic weapons are simple to operate, often easily accessible, and can be used by children as easily as adults
In other words, an army of children is actually SUPERIOR to an army of adults in many civil war situations. They follow their cruel orders and are too immature to resist, think for themselves or dessert. Why is a child army condemned? Because society VALUES children higher. Value: to consider or rate highly. At the very least, society considers the life of a child more important to shield from war than the life of a human. What if a child WANTED to be a part of the army? Would it be immoral/ageism to put restrictions in place to defend them against what is dangerous? Of course not. Children are inferior -- worthy of being discriminated against. But this is not because they are considered less valuable, but because they are considered more valuable. (human value: the importance of protecting, helping, caring for).




Let me give definitive proof that 12-year-olds are less mature:
  1. All people younger than 20 are still maturing psychologytoday]
  2. Younger people have had less time to mature
Yes, some people might be more mature than their fellow 12-year-olds. But EVERY SINGLE CHILD is more mature when they reach the age of 13 than when they were at the age of 12 (assuming normal life). Thus, every single 13-year-old is DEFINATELY more mature than he was in the past. This means that to claim that "13-year-olds are just as immature compared to 12-year-olds" is complete nonsense. The best PRO can manage to claim is that a specific 12-year-old is equally mature as a specific 13-year-old. This of course undermines his entire argument. He is really claiming that maturity should not be a factor in deciding who can do what, like watching mature content.

In PRO's world children can be sent to war, drive cars and lead countries. That or he is really only cherry-picking a single forum that should implement his idea.



"White people saw black people as inferior and therefore, worthy of discrimination against."
That is called racism (which by the way you failed to explain why is wrong). Racism is not comparable to "ageism". Racism is about one distinct people group discriminating against other groups. Ageism on the other hand is about internal differences between individuals inside the same people group. For example, we do not let children take part in war. Is that an example of evil like racism? No of course not.



"Do you think mature people are ageist"
12-year-olds do not treat younger people as "equal" either, so this argument is nonsensical.


"Both are adolescents, both hit puberty, both go to middle school. I see no difference."
Exactly: society wants to make sure that as few as possible are exposed to "sexual and violent content" before they hit puberty. The reason why 12-year-olds are discriminated against is that one MUST generalize. You cannot study each individual to "check" if they hit puberty at the age of 12. If we lower the bar for watching "sexual and violent content", then we must continue this loop. I find it strange that PRO believes that the name "teen" shouldn't influence their status, but he still thinks that the school people attend somehow makes 12 and 13-year-olds equal.

Why shouldn't 12-year-olds treat 11-year-olds as mature? Why shouldn't 11-year-olds treat 10-year olds as mature? Children at the age of 3 are also adolescents, hit puberty eventually and go to some public education system. Why shouldn't small children in kindergarten be exposed to "violent and sexual content" or be sent to war? Because AGE MATTERS and generalisations are necessary.




"Merely knowing more than they need to will not ruin their lives"
There is a particular order in which children must learn. They are not supposed to learn calculous before they learn algebra. New information would simply confuse them, and hinder their process of maturing or at least reducing it to a lower quality. Learning too fast, or not learning things in the right order, seriously hinders mental development.

Although there are exceptions, this generation is advanced intellectually, but behind emotionally. They are missing many of the marks of maturity they should possess. 
Sociologist Tony Campolo said, “I am convinced we don’t live in a generation of bad kids. We live in a generation of kids who know too much too soon.
I would appreciate it if PRO addressed this issue. Growing up too fast is indeed unhealthy.



"There's nothing wrong about learning 1+1=2, right? What's so different about other information?"
Information and visual media are not the same. Yes, visual media "uses" information, but the emotional impressions are NOT factual neither helpful. This is especially true for  "mature content" created to appeal to addiction and/or lust. These things are dangerous, not physically, but emotionally. 
Inappropriate content includes information or images that upset your child, material that’s directed at adults, inaccurate information or information that might lead or tempt your child into unlawful or dangerous behaviour. One in ten children aged 8 -11 who go online said they had seen something nasty or worrying online [internetmatters].
Again, this kind of content is indeed harmful. I want to quote another article:
Prolonged exposure to violence increases agreement with the idea that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems. It also promotes acceptance — in children — of the "mean world" syndrome: a belief that the world is a dark and sinister place. [ifstudies]
PRO has no way of explaining away the basic fact that mature content IS dangerous, especially to kids. Kids watching dangerous content are worthy of special protection, just as child soldiers are banned. Children ARE inferior, they need protection, and "its unfair" is not a valid objection.




"Do you think mature people are ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes"
This has NO relevance whatsoever -- we discuss the facts, not opinions.

Furthermore, it seems like PRO ignores the stereotypes deployed by him, such as: 

Reddit is mostly circlejerks
they are ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes to people younger than them
the comments will always be "GET OFF REDDIT YOU DUMB FUCK YOU DONT DESERVE IT YOU FAGGOT STUPID NIGGER"
etc
PRO has shown far more stereotypes than he is willing to admit. If PRO really believes that Reddit-users are all "ageists", then he is himself applying a stereotype. I cannot stress this more: stereotypes are useful -- that is why both 13-year-olds and the UN and PRO and I use them. There is NO NEED to analyze every person you come across. Friendship is actually dependent on stereotypes: friendship is about breaking stereotypes and learning about how another person REALLY is. I can see no reason why a world without stereotypes is even remotely possible, and I, therefore, see NO reason to accuse PRO of being hypocritical. He simply doesn't understand his own stereotypes, just as I don't understand mine. The important part, however, is that to complain about the stereotypes of others is nonsensical. Therefore, PRO's argument fails to solve any problem, simply because the problem is unsolvable. On the other hand, discrimination can be solved, for example by ending slavery and promoting equal human rights. But children do not share the same status of "minority" that other groups do. This is only logical, as I have clearly proved in my arguments.




CONCLUSION
Studies have shown that PRO's resolution is false. Society, experts, parents, the law -- all disagree with PRO. 

Children ARE inferior in that they are worthy of special protection, even if it is against their will. PRO's attempt at calling it "discrimination" has no bearing in reality.

Back to you, PRO.
Round 4
Pro
In other words, if someone is inferior by CON's definition, it means that they are WORTH being discriminated against (restrictions). PRO simply assumes that the reason society discriminates against children is that they see children as "having less value". I disagree. Isn't the reason why children are not allowed in wars that they are VALUEABLE? Human Rights Watch has this view.

Sure, mature people think the lives of children are more valuable, for they have lived less and it would be unfair for them to die. However, 13 year olds  are as good as children themselves. The 13 year olds are immature and they have this superiority complex against 12 year olds. They are being hypocritical, as they themselves were 12 year olds the previous year.

In other words, an army of children is actually SUPERIOR to an army of adults in many civil war situations. They follow their cruel orders and are too immature to resist, think for themselves or dessert.
Too immature to question authority? You seem to think children are submissive. They are bold and confident. You might say they are innocent, but if they are, they don't care about their reputation, and therefore they, unlike adults, don't care about breaking rules.

Are there soldiers the age of 13? No. Why not? They haven't lived as long, and it would be unfair to die early. As this applies to both 12 and 13 year olds, this is considered irrelevant to the debate.

At the very least, society considers the life of a child more important to shield from war than the life of a human.
Sir, did you just call children not humans? That makes it seem like you view them as aliens while the teenagers and adults are humans.

Yes, some people might be more mature than their fellow 12-year-olds. But EVERY SINGLE CHILD is more mature when they reach the age of 13 than when they were at the age of 12 (assuming normal life). Thus, every single 13-year-old is DEFINATELY more mature than he was in the past. This means that to claim that "13-year-olds are just as immature compared to 12-year-olds" is complete nonsense.
Well how come 12 year olds and 11 year olds are treated the same? According to you, 12 year olds are surely more mature than 11 year olds, right? Why don't they have more priviledges? If every year someone becomes more mature than the previous, then why don't they lower it to 10 or raise it to 16? Then atleast by the time they are 16, they might be mature enough to not harass younger people.

In PRO's world children can be sent to war, drive cars and lead countries. That or he is really only cherry-picking a single forum that should implement his idea.
That is not what I said. I merely claimed that children the age of 12 shouldn't be treated differently from 13 year olds.

12-year-olds do not treat younger people as "equal" either, so this argument is nonsensical.
Sure, they might treat younger people differently, but their reasons aren't pathetic like age. Naturally, younger people can be annoying. 12 year olds, who have matured a little bit, can view them as annoying and selfish. However, 13 year olds don't even consider other factors. If you're under 13, you're a fucking idiot.


Exactly: society wants to make sure that as few as possible are exposed to "sexual and violent content" before they hit puberty. The reason why 12-year-olds are discriminated against is that one MUST generalize.
Before they hit puberty. Don't you know that 12 year olds hit puberty already? You also said people have to assume the worst of others. What if a 21 year old has no arms? They can't drive because it is unsafe. In your world, we must assume that all 21 year olds have no arms, or else a few of them might die of car crashes.

New information would simply confuse them, and hinder their process of maturing or at least reducing it to a lower quality.
If a preschooler learns 1+1=2, that new information would simply confuse them unless they learn what math is, right? If they learn + means add and - means take away, wouldn't that simply confuse them unless they learn english? Wouldn't english be confusing for them until they learn how to think? Wouldn't they have to think to learn to think? How would they learn to think if they can't think? You might say "Well they just memorize that 1+1=2" Well why don't we just memorize sexual content?

Inappropriate content includes information or images that upset your child, material that’s directed at adults, inaccurate information or information that might lead or tempt your child into unlawful or dangerous behaviour. One in ten children aged 8 -11 who go online said they had seen something nasty or worrying online [internetmatters].
Well? Those kids aren't dead, they aren't depressed and they didn't commit suicide over a bit of information, so what's the fuss about?

Kids watching dangerous content are worthy of special protection, just as child soldiers are banned
Kids watching dangerous content need special protection? Why protect someone from something they already dealt with? That's like saying "Oh no! This man won a race where he could have died! This race only happens once every millenium, so we need to protect him more! Or else he may do it again!" See? That race only happened once in his lifetime. If someone watches 'dangerous' content, there is no need to protect them, because they already saw it all and protecting them more won't make them unsee it.

"Do you think mature people are ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes"
This has NO relevance whatsoever -- we discuss the facts, not opinions.
I should've made my meaning clearer: Don't mature people have the decency to not be ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes? This is very relevant, because this is related to both maturity(mature) AND discrimination(ageist;unfairly apply stereotypes), both of which are the main subjects of this debate.

friendship is about breaking stereotypes and learning about how another person REALLY is.
That's exactly why stereotypes are bad, they create conflicts between people who judge a book by it's cover. Without stereotypes, people are more open to meet new people and the world will be a much better place without stereotypes!


Con
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Due to some unfortunate circumstances under which PRO asked me to wait 2 weeks for his holiday to finish, I might have resigned a round by accident. But so has PRO.



SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS


PRO did not address the resolution
He instead went all over the place. Using arguments from Reddit usage to popular idioms taken out of context, PRO never bothered to read any expert articles or even address the real-world issue of making laws. He talks from personal experience, which means he is limited by being a single person. His arguments rely on emotion, not evidence.

Refutations of PRO's non-sequiturs
  • PRO's title is logically contradictory when stating "less mature /// equally as immature". His argument that some younger people are more mature is not backed by evidence. Even if it was true that a small minority of 12-year-olds were more mature than the average 13-year-old, that still doesn't entitle them to be treated differently from their age group. If anything would be unfair, it would be to measure the individual maturity of people before allowing them to do things. This would lead to discrimination against natural-born-immature people as well as unfairly benefit natural-born mature people. PRO's argument is also refuted by experts.
  • PRO stating "knowledge is power" to justify 12-year-olds watching violent and sexual content is a mall placed use of an idiom, not a statement backed by evidence.
  • PRO says that 13-year-olds shouldn't harras 12-year-olds on Reddit. This has nothing to do with the government or restrictions. This argument is not applicable.
  • PRO says that stereotypes of 12-year-olds being immature harms society simply because it's a stereotype. He fails to show us why stereotypes can't be valid from the perspective of the government and society as a whole. Stereotypes also were not proven by PRO to be a negative thing.
Value
Children and teenagers both are treated as MORE valuable by being discriminated against. Had they been nonimportant the government wouldn't care about protecting them against what they perceive as dangerous. This is called PROTECTION, not oppression. In other words, the rules set in place on the internet contribute positively to society.

Maturity
PRO claims that children of different ages (12 and 13) are somehow equally mature and worthy of being treated the same with the same treatment and protection. This is clearly a fallacy. I have provided both expert studies and logical proof showing why 13 years old are more mature and thus in less need of protection from mature content.

Danger
Psychological studies by experts as well as parents themselves agree that experiencing the world too fast is objectively dangerous. This shows the clear need of waiting until the opportune time. A simple example is how you don't explain the concept of sex to a five-year-old, but you very well could do that to a 16-year-old. Age matters heavily in deciding when to allow children to access new information. For mature content on the internet, the experts guiding the government and corporations chose the 13-year-mark.


CONCLUSION
PRO has failed to properly address the resolution he instigated. I have addressed the resolution and clearly disproved it beyond doubt.
The government, the parental organizations and the experts in psychology agree with me.

Pro, thank you for the debate.

VOTE CON!