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.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Argument - round 1. Pro produces an opinion. "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.", then con responds with an opinion, "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.", and neither has proven either wrong about anything, nor caught either out with anything unfactual.
rd 2 - In round 2 Pro responds to Cons COPPA source and presents his own opinion on the material and neither debunks the source nor gives it credit. "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."... Pro then responds to Cons opinion and neither successfully refutes his opinion nor declares Cons opinion a hard conclusive fact. "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."
Also, didn't you read the discription? Read it again.".
Con responds by making an appeal to play dirty which is a rather strange appeal, and for the first time he goes in to great detail, however his case is broken down piece by piece by Pro who responds to absolutely everything from "Either the law intends to protect children/kids or it doesn't.", to "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." and then Con goes and forfeits and does not rebute pros arguments, does not provide his own argument and does not catch his opponent out as having made any errors nor anything else.
In fact, he forfeits two rounds and does not provide his opponent the opportunity to catch Con out on any errors or wrong facts as no argument was presented and this must look negatively on Con, not Pro. Benefit of doubt should go to the player which "did not forfeit".
round 5 - Had Pro written a round 5 summary then I feel he could have sealed it, but lost an opportunity and allowed Con to have the last word. "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.".. However this is just Cons own opinion, and does not really matter if I agree with it or not. The fact is Pro responded to absolutely everything thrown at him and neither was proven wrong and any difference in arguments is a matter of opinion and borderline. What is not borderline was the forfeitures, and those should be punished with conduct, whilst the argument should remain at tie, given nothing factual nor conclusive has been established from this debate - Tie
Sources - Both produced sources and neither objected nor accused the other of misattribution - Tie
S&G I see nothing which stands out - Tie
Conduct - Two forfeitures - Pro
Conduct... I really deplore that level of profanity in a title, so leaving it tied in spite of con's repeated forfeitures. And yes, that title does continuously detract from the debate as I read it.
R1:
Pro asserts that it is a human rights violation.
Con makes a case that the 13 year old hypocrites are doing valuable service against lawbreakers.
R2:
Pro says 12 year olds will kill themselves if online, but they aren't snowflakes for this... This is a pretty clear non-sequitur.
Pro accuses con of being a racist oppressing black people (or at least directly akin to one... very tempted to move conduct to cons favor for this).
Con makes an appeal to the debate being a truism, and gives an analysis that 13 year olds are driving the lawbreakers away from the internet thereby protecting them from online predators.
R3:
Pro insists the 12 year olds are so immature that they start fights if they don't get their way... Which kinda directly feeds into pro's points about the 13 year olds accidently doing them a favor.
Pro claims that only people who use the internet at age 12 survive to become 13 year olds... WTF did I just read?
Pro repeats insults, adds some more, talks about teenagers (no specified certain age) hunting and killing 12 year olds online...
And forfeitures and extensions from there.
Arguments...
I don't think con did exceptionally, however I did not feel pro bet their BoP to affirm the resolution; which is a common danger when you write something you believe is so true that there can be no doubt. The lawbreaking was certainly non-contested, and while the description would like maturity to be off the table, the threats of 12 year olds killing themselves for not getting their way, was really something which hurt rather than supported pro's case. The 13 year olds sound like a terrible solution, but it's not like there was even a single piece of referenced evidence against them (the one piece of evidence pro offered, suggested con is thematically right that they should be kept off the net until 15, as the bullying decreases around then with growing maturity).
Per the voting policy, arguments must be weighted except in cases of disqualification; to which this was not.
You misunderstood his vote, why don't you read it again?
Next time I'll post 'you suck' instead of a forfeit. That means they have to consider arguments.
Repeated forfeiture waives the need to consider arguments, and allows a conduct penalty without any argument consideration. If arguments are awarded, they must still be weighted.
It's the next level of forfeiture up ("full forfeitures") which allows any point assignments against them.
"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).". https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I see no misunderstanding of the voting policy. According to the voting policy one forfeiture warrants an automatic conduct loss and a justification presented for arguments.
However two forfeitures (40% of a five round argument) can be considered an automatic argument loss.
I see no misunderstanding?
"And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
There is nothing short of an issue of competence of moderator when you think this should be the case.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Mild misunderstanding of the forfeiture policy. While the repeated forfeitures mean arguments don't need to be considered to grade conduct, they may not be awarded solely for the conduct lapse. If con had done a full forfeiture (only one set of arguments, forfeited every round thereafter), then arguments against him for it would be warranted.
---
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
Nevets
Added: 1 day ago
#1
Reason:
Argument - Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant). - Pro
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Sources - Both produce sources and neither object - tie
S & G - Neither stands out as being under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - tie
Conduct - "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.". The use of the eff word in the title was not a good start. If only Con had not forfeited 40% of the debate it was a certain victory. - Con
Ok I will remove my vote for you from your debate as I have no wish to votebomb your opponent.
Interesting comparing this vote with the one on my debate - the dramatic irony is thus such a hypocritical thing to let breathe.
FYI, you are still allowed to weigh arguments and vote on them if you so choose.
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule
I don't think DART should care what age you are on DART to be here. I'd rather have a well behaved 12 year old than a 13 year old that acts like an asshole. I have a dream that people are judged not by the number of their age, but by the content of their character.