Instigator / Pro
0
1494
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#4049
a 12 year old is capable of replacing the battery and screenm in a phone so therefore jobs should be given to capable kids
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
:0 ..................
Round 1
Pro
#1
alright, A 12 year old is an age where you are capable and in need of money. I myself know a 12 year old who can replace a screen in a phone and also the battery. this is proof enough to me that some 12 year olds are more capable of working than some adults who work full time jobs. getting paid as a 12 year old is the only way they can afford video games and toys for themselves. this in itself is not fair and a 12 year old should be able to prove that they are capable enough to work and then get paid.
Con
#2
1. The Topic
a 12 year old is capable of replacing the battery and screenm in a phone so therefore jobs should be given to capable kids
The first thing one shall do upon entering a debate is to figure out whatever the hell the topic is saying. Let's just ignore non-existing entities such as "screenm", because the term "so" is within the topic, the topic is a statement, one in which the section before "so" is the condition of the section afterwards.
The Pro position is for the topic being a correct statement. Therefore,
- Pro not only has to prove that "a 12 year old is capable of replacing the battery and screen in a phone"
- Pro also needs to prove that "Jobs should be given to capable kids"
- Pro also needs to prove that the second part of the topic is sufficient evidence supplied to justify the truthfulness of the first part of the topic.
2. Child Labor
Notice how Pro's topic said not "Jobs should be open for application for capable children" but "Jobs should be given to capable children", well it sure sounds like we are giving jobs out.
3: presented as a gift : bestowed without compensation
"Blowjobs" and similar ideas are barred from being "jobs" due to the lack of need of elaboration if not so. Children should not be given blowjobs and that is harassment.
Now, define "Capable".
3: having attributes (such as physical or mental power) required for performance or accomplishment
Links are in blue, if you think my defintions are way too nitpicky, go in and seek a better one.
For certain jobs, sure, almost every non-disabled child with average intelligence is capable of doing, for example, farm workers, typewriters, mall cashiers, assembly line workers, packagers and fast-food cooks. These jobs do not require any skill where hundreds of hours of effort are needed in order to make oneself sufficient for the trade, for example, a woodworker. But, again, there are some savvy kids out there learning trades in Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, such as woodland surveying and first aid or something. In their course, what they are doing is for the sake of furthering their own collection of practical knowledge, rather than money. Even if they earn a badge, it is similar to a certificate for passing a course more so than salary. They don't either earn the same badge every month and have the entire economy revolving around having those badges to trade for stuff, unlike money.
A job is different, where one does work that stay constant in nature(for example, if I am hired a woodland surveyer, all I am going to do is survey the woodlands, no matter which woodland I am in), even if external conditions inevitably change the apperance of the work. One is not expected to learn in jobs even if they do. Actual jobs value more what you can do to society(or even worse, your greedy employer) than self-improvement, the opposite to the role of schools.
The point here is that "giving" jobs to capable kids(which is almost all of them for certain jobs) is child labor and is not a substitute of schooling. Do we have live examples of child labor? Well, mostly dead. In the 1800s, young girls operate cotton mill machines and due to the harsh conditions, they got lung problems. In the 1900s, girls are tasked to paint radium onto watch hands, and because Radium is radioactive, they got diseases as well. What is a reason for employing children rather than adults other than they are capable, considering children are overall of less strength, knowledge, etc? Because children are cheaper workers. While opening the application window towards capable young people, sometimes, as an internship experience that one could write on the College Application, is beneficial; "giving jobs to children" would explicitly mean that they want children to work there, which you know, is exploitative. Unless seeing your kid exploited by greedy factory owners and the capitalism is the kind of childhood that is desirable to you, these jobs should not be taken and frankly should not be given with the exact intent.
3. Age
1: a young personkids in high school
The definition for "kid" is not specified how old and how young. A 1-month old infant and a 2-year-old toddler, they are young, and they should not be given jobs.
A 10-year old is probably young, so is possibly a 20-year old(to the US law enforcement, when it comes to alcohol boozing). In this case, giving "kids" jobs, aside from the implications on child labor, is ridiculous with the lack of restrictions we have here, due to that 10-year olds would therefore be working with older individuals that are subjectively considered young, such as 18 or even 25 year olds as equals, and because a 17-year-old is smarter and more experienced in life in general than a 10-year-old person, efficiency in young people differs by a lot even in the "kids" category. In this category, premature kids are therefore to work with other kids that are already in puberty and maybe even at a late stage(For example, 10yro vs. 17yro). Let me just state one implication: The younger kids may see porn exchanged at the "workplace" for a job "for kids" rather than "open to 10-14 year old boys".
Such vague terms should appear not in job flyers, and they should stay in local proposals where real-life experiences of young people are intended to be stimulated.
4. Rebuttals
I myself know a 12 year old who can replace a screen in a phone and also the battery.
Pro has brought no actual evidence, not even a video or an image, despite using an instance as an argument rather than a realistic example for illustration. Furthermore, even if that case was in fact real, that exact 12-year-old should not be immediately dedicated to years of working on a phone assembly line missing out school, let alone a job given to every capable kid.
This instance, even if it is real, does not prove the latter part of the topic. If it does, please illustrate how so.
this is proof enough to me that some 12 year olds are more capable of working than some adults who work full time jobs.
The incapable adults are more prone to be unemployed, which is not an argument for why kids should go to work and jobs "for kids" without specification should continue to exist in society.
getting paid as a 12 year old is the only way they can afford video games and toys for themselves.
Wrong, you can let the parents buy it. Not to point out, getting an actual occupation given to kids is probably one of the worst ways for kids to earn money. Let me suggest alternatives: How about give your children a bit of money every time they get an A* on their test, or how about give your children some money on important dates such as Christmas?
this in itself is not fair and a 12 year old should be able to prove that they are capable enough to work and then get paid.
Yes, and working at a job "given to kids" sounds unfair to 12-year-old kids.
I rest my case.
- Conclusions here:
- Giving jobs to kids is child labor, and child labor is exploitative.
- Jobs "for kids", without further specifications, can cause amounts of trouble due to different age groups with huge development differences having different work rates and different ways of living as well.
- There are other ways for kids to get money than to work at a job that exploits them rather than to make them learn(because that is what jobs are).
- Vote CON.
Round 2
Pro
#3
alright parents cant buy it because most of them are too strict and 12 year old is ab;le and child labor should be able to get a permit to be overwritten and required to have good grades. you just saying that i cant prove it and i cant, but think back to a 12 year old kid or younger, and think "wow that kid has talent." kids are able to get a job if they have good grades and need money because the parents are strict. the 12 year old i saw fixed an iphone 5 by replacing the battery and a screen. that is a fact so nobody can make it so because i dont want to wait 4 years to be legally alowed to get a job, and my bro should be able to get one.
Con
#4
Rebuttals
alright parents cant buy it because most of them are too strict
That is neither the kid's fault nor something permanently fixed. "Most of them" suggests that there exists parents who can purchase commodities for children. This is not enough to dismiss the point about other methods for commodities that appeal to kids to be acquired, such as non-jobs and alternative buyers.
and 12 year old is ab;le and child labor should be able to get a permit to be overwritten and required to have good grades.
Ignore the spelling error here, this was never expanded outside a mere claim for either rounds, if it is even comprehensible. This run-on sentence truncates the clarity rather than enhances it, especially with incompatible subjects in respect to utilized verbs. "child labor" is a mode or method, it cannot "get a permit to be overwritten" and "required to have good grades".
you just saying that i cant prove it and i cant
Yes, that is why the CON position exists, and this is a concession essentially.
but think back to a 12 year old kid or younger, and think "wow that kid has talent."
Talent should not translate to profitability in all cases. For example, if I can solve a Rubic's cube in under 30 seconds at 12(true story), that does not mean I should skip class to be a full-time speedcuber. If I can help make the table and bed for my family at home, that does not translate into a full life of being a butler. If I can drive a car at 16 after learning after-class, that does not translate into a full-time job at the taxi company or the bus company. If I know my way around the town, that does not mean I should be a tour guide. If I know how to make beef burgers, that does not mean I should end up at McDonalds or Burger King.
Having a skill does not directly lead to a profitable job. Sure, you can apply for one, however, time is limited. For 12-year-olds, with their less-than-adult stature and strength, is more fit to study in schools than applying for actual jobs, especially jobs "given to kids".
the 12 year old i saw fixed an iphone 5 by replacing the battery and a screen.
Putting him on an iPhone assembly line at age 12 would be silly and out-of-norm for children nowadays, assuming such person exists. No video proof nor even pictures or blogposts external of this webpage that can serve as evidence for this case was brought up, so I have to be skeptical.
Conclusions
- Pro made no remarks on how jobs descripted as "given to kids" tend to exploit children. The claim "Jobs should be given to capable kids" was never proven.
- Pro made no remarks on how jobs descripted as "given to kids" is way too implicit in terms of age to be safe for any kids.
- Pro gave no actual evidence on that a 12 year old is capable of doing anything.
- Just because one person possess the skill does not mean child labor should be reintroduced into society as skill does not intrinsically and immediately translate into career.
- The proposition was never proven. Vote CON.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
This is little more than a foregone conclusion.
Pro lists the core benefit that 12 year olds would like money, and leverages that some are capable.
Con kritiks that by definition they’d be given these jobs without choice or compensation, making it just slavery. He then invites pro to give any other definitions, which pro drops…
Bump.
honestly yeah i agree with you because 69 imposter heats up your computer
If you live in a country where technology is involved a lot and production requires simple movements, I would say sure.
It doesnt make much difference if kid plays video games at home, or if kid plays with buttons in a factory.
Then there are other simple jobs that dont require much knowledge.
Child labor might seem immoral, but what is currently being done to most kids is more immoral.