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.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 15 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
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
- 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.
“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]
As it is not explicitly stated who has the BoP, it falls solely on PRO.
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.
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.
Making the internet more available to kids would only hinder their mental development.
Now go forth and tell me why the law should be changed.
PRO has failed to understand the complexity of the subject at hand. Psychology, law, society, parents, experts, all speak against PRO's resolution.
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.
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.
Scientifically speaking, there IS a major difference between a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old.
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.
"13-year-olds shouldn't be gatekeeping and harassing 12-year-olds for their slightly younger age.Agreed, but still...
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
OBJECTION: Being "inferior" does not justify harassing any person. (((Inferior: Worthy of discrimination against)))
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]
- 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
- All people younger than 20 are still maturing psychologytoday]
- Younger people have had less time to mature
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.”
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].
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]
Reddit is mostly circlejerksthey are ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes to people younger than themthe comments will always be "GET OFF REDDIT YOU DUMB FUCK YOU DONT DESERVE IT YOU FAGGOT STUPID NIGGER"etc
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.
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.
At the very least, society considers the life of a child more important to shield from war than the life of a human.
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.
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.
12-year-olds do not treat younger people as "equal" either, so this argument is nonsensical.
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.
New information would simply confuse them, and hinder their process of maturing or at least reducing it to a lower quality.
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].
Kids watching dangerous content are worthy of special protection, just as child soldiers are banned
"Do you think mature people are ageist and unfairly apply stereotypes"This has NO relevance whatsoever -- we discuss the facts, not opinions.
friendship is about breaking stereotypes and learning about how another person REALLY is.
- 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.
The core of the debate going by the descriptions, is Pro is arguing that 12 year olds should not have less rights than 13 year olds, as he equivocates the ages to be the same level of maturity.
Pro has a point about 12 year olds deserving 'respect, but this is not the same as equal rights.
As Con remarks during the debate, generalization is 'necessary to regulate developing humans.
Con additionally noted that trauma can occur, depending on what developing humans are exposed to.
Pro made a decent point regarding 11 year olds and 12 year olds being treated similarly, that 'could have expounded upon with examples such as 17 year olds being able to enter the military with waivers, but as he did not and Cons earlier argument of generalization standing. Point was not impactful in debate.
People often make these types of arguments, mocking the absurdity of a single day's worth of development in blocking an individuals ability by 'law to various activities. But it's a strong point in Con's argument, the necessity of generalization, that it's too bad wasn't expanded upon.
Personally, I place the arguments in Con's favor, due to his points of development, generalization, possible harm.
I'd say Pro's largest weak points were that he was scattered over a large number of points, but did not make great headway in 'digging into them, as well as some of his arguments diverting from the debates description of 'rights/government actions, and into the personal realm.
Pro sources were of institutional nature, Cons source an opinion source.
Spelling and grammar, equal enough.
Personally I thought Con was a bit abrasive and overbearing in this debate, but perhaps I think that due to what I assume his opponents age is. In any case, it wasn't behavior rude enough to ding Con on points.
Personal opinion of mine, age matters as a attribute, it's one of 'many sure.
But matters in generalizations, and as an attribute that signifies 'much in humans.
Development, experience.
Personal opinion of mine, I 'think Pro viewed debate as 13 year olds should not be rude to 12 year olds 'purely because of their age. Which is a fair point, but his description implies an argument against the 'system, and how society has thresholds, ceremony, as people develop in age.
Argument: Pro wasted R1 by avoiding any argument worth analysis, choosing, instead, to waste the round with definitions [dubious as one is] which could have been offered in Description, thus allowing Con a heads-up in the scope and conduct of the debate - a tactical Pro error. Further, the "dubious" definition of "inferior," which, I'll agree with Con's argument, seemed contrived to advantage the debate for Pro, was distracting, at best. Further pro asserts that "maturity" is a vague standard considering children of two adjacent ages, the selection of which is alleged to be arbitrary, but makes no effort to define an alternative split of age/maturity as a legal standard. Con successfully rebuts the point that a standard, nevertheless, is a necessity. Pro's definition of "inferior" finally resulted in the dubious nature of his unique definition in Con's R3 by the rebuttal that children are not to be combatants, not because they are "inferior," but because the are "valuable." Excellent rebuttal. Further, Pro's argument "Merely knowing more than they need to will not ruin their lives" is successfully rebutted [by adequately sourcing in support of the Con rebuttal] that there is an appropriate sequence of learning. Points to Con
Sourcing: Pro's disdain for sources [they are barely used, and typically are not credible] comes to fruition in R3 when Pro cites, as a source, a banned, former member, Wagyu [also banned by a different moniker], but then fails to cite the specific reference. Therefore, the source is completely unverifiable. Total fail, because this reference [not really cited for verification by readers] is Pro's sole "source." Con, by contrast, has valid, verifiable sourcing in every round. Points to Con
Legibility: Both participants had legible content throughout. Tie.
Conduct; Since both participants forfeited a single round, Tie.
This debate required some assessment of the resolution, which con engaged in and pro dropped. This leaves the interpretation as "12-year-olds and 13-year-olds should be treated equally"
Pro went all over the place unsure how to phrase his reasons for belief. Had he buckled down on any one point and supported it, he might have taken the day; as is, his points were assertive but mostly unsupported. He did well with showing that the laws are arbitrary, but not in that they were actually wrong.
Con really dragged it out, attacking pro on angles pro had not actually advocated. But within there, eventually he formed a couple clear lines which did win the day. A syllogism of the need to protect children, and of course pointing out that each person is more developed on their 13th birthday than they were on their 12th.
One point I really did like from con was that we value children more, thus in civilized countries do not allow child soldiers. This was a fun way to both challenge pro's preconceptions that 12 year olds are worth less, but also refute the resolution that 12 and 13 ought to be equal.
Conduct (tied):
Technically both forfeited, but con did so while trying to honor pro's request, whereas pro did so as part of a due diligence failure. However, con repeatedly engaged in some obvious strawperson arguments (these go a bit far when talking about what world someone wants, when they did not say anything to imply such), and focused on 18 year olds vs 12 year olds, when the description clearly specified the focus was to be limited to 12 vs 13.
Sources (con):
Pro used quora, one that he had to put a disclaimer because it also countered his case (also it's just an opinions board, an extra non-expert opinion isn't any better than your own opinion, even if articulated well). Whereas con had a few. My favorite was the human rights watch was well used in a fun argument about child soldiers. The psychologytoday one could have been utilized much better, as it was near the end when repeated and expanded.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:5, points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
Another vote where I'm not certain why it was reported. All standards are met. Maybe the sources point could have been beefed up more, but I can't justifiably nitpick anything in particular.
Thank you for voting
The vote against your argument placed by Ragnar has been submitted for review. For obvious reasons I cannot review it. When another moderator is less busy, they'll probably get around to it.
You dropped a lot of points.
I forgot the email
Ahh... Reset the password for said email account then.
The password reset option only sends it if I have access to the email account.
There should be a password reset option. Plus Benjamin seems to be the type that would allow a doover (copy/paste the original rounds into a new debate, and pick up like nothing happened, and then delete the original iteration of the debate ... if going that route, I would suggest a rule of him getting the conduct point automatically).
Not necessarily - Benjamin forfeited a round - so you'd be equal.
But then I would lose this debate
You could just make a new debate
I forgot the password for that account. Shall I state my argument here?
Voters, DO NOT count my round 4 arguments a forfeit, because I was only following PRO's own pleading.
PRO personally asked me to wait until the last moment before posting my argument.
Round 4 argument:
--PRO has not supported his resolution with any expert sources, he has just given his personal opinion and made emotional assertions.
--I on the other hand have shown the resolution to be false and backed my position with expert evidence and concise logical syllogism's.
A BoP is what we call a burden of proof - whenever somebody makes a claim which is disputable, they have a "burden" to provide evidence of the claim.
That is not the debate. I am claiming that children the age of 12 should not be viewed as inferior to 13 year olds.
Very well. You claim that age is not a factor in mental maturity. Let's see how you fare against a slightly older opponent.
I do not believe that kids should be mistreated for their age either. What is the issue.
I do not believe that kids should be mistreated for their age either. What is the issue.
That's not what I meant, I was just saying that on the internet kids shouldn't be mistreated for their age. I never said anything about child abuse.
I don't think you get the fact that I do not condone abusing children. I simply saw an opportunity to exploit your poor resolution. I'm not to sure why you have created this debate, as it there is hardly any controversy that 12 year old's should not be abused. I also recommend you change your current resolution to "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" as adding "who are just as mature" is sneaking in a premise which could be debated.
I don't think there should be an age restriction as to who can join DART. If your smart and 12, I'd rather have you on here than a 13 year old troll.
You could tag him in a post, or message him directly.
Maybe User_2006 vs CaptainSceptic could give you some ideas.
Can you message Wagyu and tell him to be the enemy?
Good luck with the revised debate setup!