Instigator / Pro
11
1469
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Children the age of 12 years should not be harassed for their age on the internet by hypocrites (13 year olds) who had also been harassed for their age, and vowed to destroy those fucking gatekeepers the previous year.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
1

With 2 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
13
1635
rating
355
debates
65.63%
won
Description
~ 361 / 5,000

Do not include the following for your arguments/objections:
Laws to "protect kids"
The government
War
Anything referring anybody older than 13
This is not about maturity, this is about the injustices we deal with online. Do not include anything related to maturity
People the age of 13 are not mature, based on the way they act towards people younger than them.

Round 1
Pro
I think kids shouldn't be told to get off the internet. It hurts their feelings when they think that everyone doesn't accept them as a human.
Con
Harassment, hypocrisy, treachery... 

Law. Greater good.

1. What is the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule?
Congress enacted the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in 1998. COPPA required the Federal Trade Commission to issue and enforce regulations concerning children’s online privacy. The Commission’s original COPPA Rule became effective on April 21, 2000. The Commission published an amended Rule on January 17, 2013. The amended Rule took effect on July 1, 2013.

The primary goal of COPPA is to place parents in control over what information is collected from their young children online. The Rule was designed to protect children under age 13, while accounting for the dynamic nature of the Internet. The Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services (including mobile apps and IoT devices, such as smart toys) directed to children under 13 that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children, or on whose behalf such information is collected or maintained (such as when personal information is collected by an ad network to serve targeted advertising). The Rule also applies to operators of general audience websites or online services with actual knowledge that they are collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13, and to websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are
collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service directed to children. Operators covered by the Rule must:
  1. Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from children;
  2. Provide direct notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, before collecting personal information online from children;
  3. Give parents the choice of consenting to the operator’s collection and internal use of a child’s information, but prohibiting the operator from disclosing that information to third parties (unless disclosure is integral to the site or service, in which case, this must be made clear to parents);
  4. Provide parents access to their child's personal information to review and/or have the information deleted;
  5. Give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online collection of a child's personal information;
  6. Maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of information they collect from children, including by taking reasonable steps to release such information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security;
  7. Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use; and
  8. Not condition a child’s participation in an online activity on the child providing more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in that activity. 
2. Who is covered by COPPA?
The Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services (including mobile apps and IoT devices) directed to children under 13 that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children. It also applies to operators of general audience websites or online services with actual knowledge that they are collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13. The Rule also applies to websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service directed to children.


I ask you, reader, we have an individual who is said to be legally incapable of sharing their information online without their parents' explicit consent.

The very least the 13-year-old gatekeeper hypocrites could do is to upkeep the tradition and safeguard this shrine we call the world wide web. We must pressure the 12 year olds to cry to their parents so that they are saved from the greater pain of writing something they deeply regret and their parents as well as the website that enabled it aren't in legal issues over what the 12-year-old typed.
Round 2
Pro
Well COPPA seems to not be a good law. It is called Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Clearly, they aren't concerned with privacy. They tell parents to check what kids do online, and encourage punishment for disobedience.
Also, didn't you read the discription? Read it again.
The very least the 13-year-old gatekeeper hypocrites could do is to upkeep the tradition and safeguard this shrine we call the world wide web. We must pressure the 12 year olds to cry to their parents so that they are saved from the greater pain of writing something they deeply regret and their parents as well as the website that enabled it aren't in legal issues over what the 12-year-old typed.
Cyberbullying is one of the main causes of suicide among young people https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/cyber-bullying/. Also, your views are very outdated.Because of the internet, kids aren't snowflakes like you think they are. Perhaps you were, but the most that would happen when they get insulted is get mad. Nobody cries to their mommy or daddy anymore.
The way you said "safeguard this shrine we call the world wide web." almost sounds as if you're a white person excluding black people from a special place. Kids aren't stupid to write something they "deeply regret". They know very well what they're writing and the consequences. Whatever you think they would cringe at when they're older, is wrong. I've been told countless times that I would cringe at defending the kids. I know this is not true. 


Con
Appeal to voters to allow me to play dirty

If you read the description of the debate and in fact the debate itself, it's intended to be a truism that the Contender cannot possibly win unless they are to encourage a psychopathic mindset.

I am going to use loopholes and stretch the truth intentionally to win this debate and I knowingly introduced the law in Round 1, understanding what the description said, I will explain that in a moment.

Please consider how unwinnable this bad-faith debate was intended to be by Pro when you analyse my tactics here.

==

COPPA and the debate's description.

If you would notice something about Pro's rebuttal to it, it can only be against the description if he believes it protects children. Furthermore, it does not ever explicitly say it's to 'protect kids' which he puts in quotation marks. Thus, I very strategically have forced him to admit something about the basis of the law in order to be able to dismiss it via the description. Either the law intends to protect children/kids or it doesn't.

Pro would have you believe that it doesn't protect the privacy of children because it forces parents to be held directly responsible for the data and anything typed/produced by a <13-year-old online. It does protect children from themselves and from the harsh world that the Internet is. I notice that 'maturity' is a no-go zone via the description, so I will not delve too much into it, however I can delve into consent and what it means.

Rather than go to the typical thing with consent and age that is sex, which 13-year-olds are just as wrong to do anything with, I will explore something psychiatrists analyse to determine if the minor is truly consenting to the treatment they are giving (which isn't 'impossible' to assess for a professional psychiatrist, it is just generally difficult for an average citizen hence why it is a taboo for society to even suggest the average citizen can obtain consent from someone of such a low age):

Snyder and Barnett (2006) assert that for informed consent to be valid, four criteria must be met:
  • Consent must be given voluntarily.
  • The client must be competent (legally as well as cognitively/emotionally) to give consent.
  • We must actively ensure the client’s understanding of what she or he is agreeing to.
  • The information shared and all that is agreed to must be documented.
The first three of these criteria are of special significance when seeking to obtain informed consent in the treatment of minors.

I would like to explore point 2: The client must be competent (legally as well as cognitively/emotionally) to give consent.

What this means is that basically if someone has severe Down's Syndrome or any severe cognitively and/or emotionally debilitating condition where it truly is too difficult to know if they consent or not, you must approach very cautiously and not assume they want any invasive therapy whatsoever until they first improve said condition over time and can display consent (or if their situation is so dire, such as attempted suicide that they need it).

What COPPA does is actually try to find the lowest age that everyone who is an adult pretty much has agreed is an age below which a huge proportion of minors can't properly assess situations online, grasp context or the gravity of what they're typing and the data they are giving away (and what that can mean depending who gets hold of it). I can only have broken the rule of the description and will rescind mentioning this law, if Pro concedes it violates the description because the law protects children/kids.

I actually would say the age should be 15, not 13. You easily will type stuff or enter data online you and your parents come to severely regret, until around 15. That's arbitrary though and what I want you to understand is this debate's resolution forces me to back something that obviously is harsh; harassment.

==

The lesser evil

Pro never defines the term harassment and how severe I have to back it. Nonetheless, Pro asserts in his second Round that it can drive people to suicide. These 'gatekeepers' are said to have just come out of the period of being kept out of any online freedom. Obviously, by default they aren't being super empathetic and certainly not sympathetic if they're harassing but the harsh truth is that these people shouldn't be on the Internet.

In other words, if a 12-year-old is in an environment online where they are able to be harassed, the parents are doing their job wrong. Therefore, the only hope is they get upset and admit to their parents what they did and how bad an experience it was, seeking some form of comfort and reassurance from the parents. Another thing to consider is that the Internet has quite a few nasty pieces of work indeed but the capacity of a 13-year-old to be deeply damaging and cruel is going to be far less sophisticated than an older person, which the 12-year-old should be warded away from the Internet before ever interacting with.

I am not denying teens can be very sociopathic, I am saying an older teen or certainly older adult is far more capable of constructing a brutally harsh series of abuse or predatory scheme than a 13-year-old is. That should just be a known fact. This is actually linked to why 12 is the maximum age where it's considered the maximum age as well. Until 12 (maximum so 13 is the semi-guarantee) the brain itself is not even considered fully capable of planning in and of itself as a proper executive function with levels to the plan:

Planning skills begin to develop in infancy as we learn to focus on objects and make intentional body movements like grabbing and pointing. As we grow into our early learning years up to age 12, planning skills allow us to understand more complex instructions and follow steps to meet goals. By the time we reach adolescence, we can begin to independently plan out the steps to larger projects, including working with others to meet goals. As adults, we’re able to develop and maintain multiple different plans to meet many different objectives at one time.

If we then try to consider the dark side of the ability to plan (alluded to in the previous paragraphs prior to the quote), we realise something. A 13-year old's 'worst' is probably a lot less deeply destructive than an older teen or adult's. While of course we develop higher understanding of others' emotions with age, we also have far more sophisticated ability to come up with the right words, insults and response-eliciting scheme to bring out the negative outcome for someone else that we want.

If the 12-year-olds come across a 13-year-olds calling them an 'idiot loser' that's not nice but it's not as bad as what a sadistic adult could offer them, which would be much more personalised or worse be the opposite (predatory, inviting). This should be almost self-evidently true, since the 13yearolds are the least experienced age group out of the lot who can freely type on the Internet, at life itself and at dealing with people.

==
Round 3
Pro
Dropped points:  Also, your views are very outdated.Because of the internet, kids aren't snowflakes like you think they are. Perhaps you were, but the most that would happen when they get insulted is get mad. Nobody cries to their mommy or daddy anymore.
Dropped points: The way you said "safeguard this shrine we call the world wide web." almost sounds as if you're a white person excluding black people from a special place. Kids aren't stupid to write something they "deeply regret". They know very well what they're writing and the consequences. Whatever you think they would cringe at when they're older, is wrong. I've been told countless times that I would cringe at defending the kids. I know this is not true. 

==
Either the law intends to protect children/kids or it doesn't.
Well guess what? It doesn't. Either the kids don't listen and they become eristic and starts fights, thus making them less innocent, or they listen and miss out on everything. If they do listen, they would develop a FOMO, and they would just use the internet anyways. They will also find they didn't die because they used the internet before 13. They are actually very happy.

What this means is that basically if someone has severe Down's Syndrome or any severe cognitively and/or emotionally debilitating condition where it truly is too difficult to know if they consent or not, you must approach very cautiously and not assume they want any invasive therapy whatsoever until they first improve said condition over time and can display consent (or if their situation is so dire, such as attempted suicide that they need it).
It seems like you think that kids are stupid. You see children as equivalent as a grown adult with Down syndrome. You also think kids are simple minded. I'd like to see you watch them play Among Us.
What COPPA does is actually try to find the lowest age that everyone who is an adult pretty much has agreed is an age below which a huge proportion of minors can't properly assess situations online, grasp context or the gravity of what they're typing and the data they are giving away 
It is natural for teenagers and older to be prejudiced against younger people. This has nothing to do with the internet. However, the reason they chose specifically 13 to use the internet, is because as mentioned above, they are prejudiced against younger people. 13 has teen but 12 doesn't. Therefore, they find that of the most significant. They are ageist and aren't mature enough to understand that age is just a number. I'm not talking about pedophiles.

Pro never defines the term harassment and how severe I have to back it.
I don't have to define every word. Words I never defined: The, Children, Age, Of, etc.
Harrassment is pretty self explanatory and I don't understand how you need further elaborations to understand.

but the harsh truth is that these people shouldn't be on the Internet.
Exactly, those people who harass kids shouldn't be on the internet! They're 'mature' enough to think that kids shouldn't use the internet, but not mature enough to not harass every kid who uses the internet! Look at u/milesprower1992. One of his posts (deleted) https://www.reddit.com/r/AgeistGatekeeping/comments/lunxd3/im_12_years_old_and_people_are_discriminating/
Imagine bullying.

In other words, if a 12-year-old is in an environment online where they are able to be harassed, the parents are doing their job wrong. Therefore, the only hope is they get upset and admit to their parents what they did and how bad an experience it was, seeking some form of comfort and reassurance from the parents. Another thing to consider is that the Internet has quite a few nasty pieces of work indeed but the capacity of a 13-year-old to be deeply damaging and cruel is going to be far less sophisticated than an older person, which the 12-year-old should be warded away from the Internet before ever interacting with.
For some reason, you are continuing your belief that kids are snowflakes who can't take criticism. You are continuing as if I never said anything against it. Remember, I said
"Also, your views are very outdated.Because of the internet, kids aren't snowflakes like you think they are. Perhaps you were, but the most that would happen when they get insulted is get mad. Nobody cries to their mommy or daddy anymore."

I am not denying teens can be very sociopathic, I am saying an older teen or certainly older adult is far more capable of constructing a brutally harsh series of abuse or predatory scheme than a 13-year-old is. That should just be a known fact. This is actually linked to why 12 is the maximum age where it's considered the maximum age as well. Until 12 (maximum so 13 is the semi-guarantee) the brain itself is not even considered fully capable of planning in and of itself as a proper executive function with levels to the plan:
Do you know that kids today are sly and cunning? Came as a surprise to you, didn't it? You have always assumed they are simple minded robots, ignorant and stupid.

This should be almost self-evidently true, since the 13yearolds are the least experienced age group out of the lot who can freely type on the Internet, at life itself and at dealing with people.
The thing is, the 12 year olds do use the internet. Do you think every single one of them died or ruined their lives? If they commit suicide, blame it on the teenagers. "Yeah well if they didn't use the internet they wouldn't have commited suicide" Well, if they committed suicide, it's not because they used the internet. It is because of the teenagers.
Con
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
Extend
Con
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
Present your argument.
Con
Pro established no basis for what should vs should not be done. Therefore, you cannot conclusively declare the resolution as proven true.

On the other hand, I established positives with 13 year olds creating deterrance for 12 year olds illegally using the Internet without their parents' permission (which is illegal for the parents, not the 12 year old but you get the idea, in fact it's illegal for the website itself in technicality but this debate isn't about law it's about the basis for the law).

We need a society where those that are deemed by the society to not be of age to use the Internet are dissuaded from doing so. That has been my case througout.