Instigator / Pro
0
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Topic
#4813

In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be legally allowed

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
5
debates
20.0%
won
Description

Only logicalman2023 may accept.

Definition
Child marriage - a marriage between an adult and a child or a marriage between a child and a child, and marriage where all participants are happy.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Topic
In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be legally allowed

Introduction
Child marriages are a sensitive topic for many people. However, there is a growing number of debates rising as to what is the right thing to do when one child has sex with the other child or with an adult, what is the right thing to do when child has sexual urges. In this debate, we will talk about problems that children face, and what can be done to solve them.

Definition
Child marriage - a marriage between an adult and a child or a marriage between a child and a child, and marriage where all participants are happy.

Arguments
1. Children have sexual urges
Sexual urges dont start at age 18. In fact, they sometimes start as young as 7 or 8.
Some children masturbate as young as 4.
In USA, 30% of children had sex before age 16. 50% of children watched porn before age 13. Children have sexual urges.

2. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges
Children struggle to control their sexual urges. There is simply no way from preventing children from acting on their urges. Children have urges. Children need a safe outlet for their urges. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges.

3. Marriage is the best way to control urges
Having multiple sexual partners is harmful. However, children will act on their urges. Marrying to a person and committing to that person is the best for those children who have problems with urges.
If children dont marry, then they will have more sexual partners.
If children do marry, then they will have less sexual partners. They will bond with one partner.
Marriage will allow them to have stable relationship before they reach adulthood.
It will help them avoid making risky choices later on in life due to loneliness or restlessness.
In marriage, they would have sex with just one person, which is the safest type of sex. Even if marriage ends in divorce, it still limited the amount of sexual partners while it lasted. Child marriages usually last for many years or for a lifetime. Child marriage makes a person commit to just one person while marriage lasts.
Marriage is the best way to control urges.

4. If there is no child marriage, there is harm
Legalization would help protect children from exploitation by ensuring they have legal protection under the law, and that relationships are regulated by the law. Without marriage, children will still have sexual urges and will still act on them. They will do so with much more partners. They will change lots of partners and increase risk of STI and STD. Having lots of partners throughout life increases depression and suicide rates. Marriage would make it so that child has only one partner and is committed to one partner, and not separated from the partner by others. Stigma causes harm to children. If there is stigma, stigma causes harm to everyone in adult-child relationships. If child marriages are banned, then there is stigma on adult-child relationships. Legalizing child marriage would help to reduce the number of people who resort to sex work in order to earn money. People who resort to sex work are often those with failed relationships early in life. Child marriage helps protect relationships. If there is no child marriage, there is harm.

5. Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons
Torture is a very serious problem in prison. Prisons are, in most cases, forms of torture. Prisoners are often treated poorly, abused and violated.
Not arresting adult who has sex with a child means that adult will have sex with a child and adult wont be tortured in prison.
Arresting adult who has sex with a child means that adult will have sex with a child and adult will be tortured in prison.
Having sex with  child and being tortured is more harmful than having sex with a child and not being tortured.
Arresting adult who has sex with a child is more harmful than not arresting an adult who has sex with a child.
Decreasing prison population would improve lives. It would also improve economy, with less people in prison there is more available workforce for buisnesses. Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons.

6. Allowing child marriage increases child's happiness
Removing stigma would help children who are in sexual relationships. It would allow them to marry the person that makes them happy. Children in foster care would also have opportunity to marry and be saved from foster care. Child marriages save children from poverty. They make it possible for children from poor families to marry and live in a wealthier, better family. This helps those children, as well as their families who no longer have to provide for the child by themselves. Allowing child marriage increases child's happiness.

7. Society should listen to child's voice
Most of children who are in relationship with an adult dont want for that adult to go to prison. Sending that adult to prison would destroy child's happiness. It is better to let them marry. Society cannot decide what child does with own body. Child's body belongs to the child, not to society. Children have autonomy. By law of autonomy, you cannot use someone else's body without consent.  Allowing young people to make decisions about own bodies without fear of judgement creates safe environment. In such environment, everyone feels that their decisions are respected no matter what kind of a relationship they  are involved in. This promotes overall sense of autonomy among all population. Giving children ability to choose allows them to decide about their relationship which they are involved in, as opposed to adults making those decisions instead of them. Society should listen to child's voice.

8. Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child
If child has a parter, if child is in love with that partner and if that partner makes child happy, to separate them would cause trauma for the child. They should be allowed to love each other and give each other happiness. Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child.

9. Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad
In countries where child marriages are legal and where marriage is valued, there is much less STI, STD, and much less suicides.
In Afghanistan, child marriages are common. Marriage is encouraged and divorce is discouraged. Afghanistan has less suicides, less divorce, less STI, and less STD than USA. If arranged child marriages have all those benefits, then it logically follows that valuing marriages and child marriages is good. Of course, I argue for child marriages that are not arranged by adults only, but also where child desires to be in that marriage. Such marriages would provide even more benefits for children. Child marriage also increases care between people, as it strengthens ties between families. Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad.

10. Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better
Woman will give birth to most children if she starts giving birth as early as possible. The longer she waits, the less children she can give birth to. Allowing child marriages makes it possible to raise more children. Allowing child marriages lowers the cost of raising children, as children no longer have to be provided by the parents until 18.
Child marriages lower birth rates if society regulates them to lower birth rates. Society can educate children and teach them about safe sex in marriage, and about how to prevent getting pregnant. Banning child marriages increases birth rates more than allowing child marriages and regulating them to lower birth rates. When child marriages are banned, children still have sex and get pregnant more. They are not guided and regulated by society if child marriages are banned. Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better.

11. Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children
There is a significant amount of people who are sexually attracted to children. If society condemns child marriages, and calls those people monsters, then those people feel bad from their teenage years when they realize that they are attracted to children. Allowing child marriages would help them satisfy their urges in a way that is safer.
About 15% of minor attracted persons are children and teenagers who feel pressure because of society's judgment. Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children.

12. Allowing child marriages allows society to better regulate adult-child relationships
Most of adult-child relationships are never discovered. Both adults and children in such relationships have no one to guide them or to set rules of behavior. Adult has no guide on how to better treat a child. Child has no guide which could explain to a child how adult-child relationships are supposed to work. Allowing adult-child relationships changes that. Allowing adult-child relationships by allowing marriage would mean that both adult and a child would get more advice from others, and child would be better protected. It would be possible to regulate those relationships, and make them better for children and secure that children are happy in them.
This topic does not deal with abusers. Abusers should still be punished. 
However, if an adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force a child to anything, and if child is happy and wants to be with that adult, judging such a relationship would be harmful for that child and for that adult.
Punishing such an adult by torturing him in prison is wrong. Prisons are always torture, as lack of desired options is always a torture.
Allowing child marriages allows society to better regulate adult-child relationships.

13. Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent
In great majority of adult-child relationships, adult never used force or threat against a child, and never caused pain to a child. In great majority of cases, adult didnt have real sex with a child, but only did gentle sexual activities. Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent.

14. Children can consent to be happy
Relationship with an adult in most cases causes happiness to a child. If the adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force the child to anything, then the child will like that adult. Children know what happiness is. Children can consent to be happy.

15. Child marriage increases relationship stability
Allowing children to marry gives them more control over their lives. If two young people have known each other since childhood and decide they want to get married before reaching adulthood, then this would give them more stability in their relationship than if they were not allowed to marry until 18. This would also lead to better financial security. Marriages provide more wealth than if person lived alone, while they cut down on expenses. Child marriage increases relationship stability.

16. Child marriage improves education for children
Child will have much better education if married, since then both the partner and parents can provide for the education. That is more resources than having parents alone. This especially helps single parents. Allowing child marriages also removes stigma from sexual education, allowing children to be better educated about their rights in a relationship, and about how to protect themselves from diseases. They dont learn that when child marriages are banned, and banning child marriages doesnt stop adult-child relationships. Child marriage improves education for children.

17. Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children
There is a common misunderstanding that banning child marriages prevents early pregnancy. It does not.
Allowing child marriages allows society to better educate children, and lower or increase birth rates if necessary.
Without child marriages, children still get pregnant. However, it is more difficult to regulate and educate children about safe sex if child marriages are banned. It is also more difficult for pregnant teens to maintain their relationship if they are judged and not allowed to marry.
Pregnant teens often have their reputation ruined by pregnancy. Sometimes they end up as single mothers. Sometimes the father of the child leaves the pregnant teen due to society's judgment. Sometimes a teen is forced to have an abortion due to stigma, and due to the lack of marriage that is needed to have economical stability and support to raise a child. Allowing child marriages would prevent this. Being allowed to marry, and father being made responsible for his child would help pregnant teens and unborn children. Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children.

18. Children are held accountable for their actions
We cannot say that children arent accountable for their actions. If a child commits a crime, child goes to prison. If child behaves bad, child gets punished. In the same way child is held accountable for bad behavior, the decisions that child makes are also to be considered important. We cannot say that child is only accountable when doing something bad, but not accountable when consenting to marriage. The decision of a child to enter marriage should be respected. Children are held accountable for their actions.

19. Child marriages are the tradition of our ancestors
By legalizing child marriage, we can preserve cultural heritages that have been passed down from generation-to-generation since ancient times.
Our ancestors married sometimes very young, at age 12 or 11. The age of consent 1000 years ago was usually 12, but it was not enforced and people married even younger.
Indigenous cultures around the world rely heavily upon early marriages between partners so that family lines remain intact. It also serves as strengthening of ties between clans through intermarriage agreements made prior birth. This becomes difficult without legal recognition. Allowing these practices legally ensures continuity within societies. It gives people freedom to express themselves culturally regardless of external pressures placed upon them by society.

20. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice
If a child is treated badly by her own family, allowing child marriages would allow that child to leave family and marry for someone who will treat her better. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice.

21. Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison
There is no doubt that there are innocent people in prison. Some people didnt commit the crime, but the witnesses lied about them and put them in prison. If someone is put in prison for having a relationship with a child, but is in fact innocent and didnt do that, he would still be beaten and abused in prison. Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison.

22. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children
There are plenty of benefits of sexual activities and orgasms. The benefits include living longer, being less likely to get ill, having better mood and improved reasoning. There is no reason to believe that only adults receieve benefits from sexual activities. Children receieve same benefits. Sexual activities make children happy when they are desired by children themselves. There are plenty of examples of children engaging in sexual activities with other children. Child marriages make children happy and serve for their benefit. Banning child marriages wont make relationships with children go away. Banning child marriages will just cause more broken relationships and more sex outside of marriage. Sexual activities are safest in marriage. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children.

23. It is wrong to say that if children dont fully understand something, it should not be done
It is wrong to say: "Children shouldnt be vaccinated. Children cannot fully understand vaccinations. Children should not be born. Children cannot fully understand life.".
If children dont fully understand child marriages, that does not mean that child marriages are wrong. Children can desire to be married. Children have partial understanding of child marriages. Partial understanding is enough to have a desire. Most adults dont have complete understanding of each other, as they cant read each others thoughts. Allowing child marriages is beneficial for children. Child marriages make children happy and provide health benefits. It is wrong to say that if children dont fully understand something, it should not be done.

24. Judgment harms children
Society's judgment harms children who are in relationship with adults, teenagers or other children. They would not be able to figure out why society hates their relationship. This would make them feel shame, and be uncomfortable to even mention their relationship due to fear of upsetting others. The judgment would make them feel like they are approving of something bad and participating in something bad. The judgment would make them blame themselves. It would make them more scared, confused, depressed and suicidal. Judgment harms children.

25. Judgment causes general harm
People often justify their evil actions by saying that they are still better than others. For example, a person might justify polluting the environment by thinking that it is not bad because he is still better than map which he judges. Judgment causes harm by harming children who are futute scientists. It harms innovation. Judgment causes general harm.

26. Child marriages help prevent violence over children
Banning child marriages wont make violence go away. Banning child marriages will make violence harder to detect. Allowing child marriages makes the relationship known. If the relationship is known, it is easier to regulate it and prevent violence.Violence and dropping out of school is common in poor communities, just as child marriages are common in poor communities.
Banning child marriage will not make violence go away, as violent people dont stop being violent if they are not married to a person they commit violence against. Child marriages make the relationship known and easier to regulate, making it easier to prevent violence. In USA, there is plenty of violence over children, plenty of depression, plenty of suicides. Child marriages are banned in USA. Child marriages help prevent violence over children.

27. Child marriages give the child more autonomy
Child's body belongs to the child. It does not belong to anyone else. Therefore, only child can make decisions regarding own body. Child marriages allow a child to make a choice, and make it so that the child is better informed. Child marriages allow a child to marry for who child wants, who child likes, who is kind to child and who makes child happy, and who doesnt force a child. Children are not a property, and banning children from marrying who they want would decrease child's autonomy. Banning children from making important decisions decreases their knowledge about important things, and harms them once they are adults. Child marriage teaches a child to be more responsible by educating a child and giving child more knowledge in decision-making. Child marriages give the child more autonomy.

28. It is not possible to prevent children from having sex
We see that it is not possible to prevent children from knowing about sex, with all the movies containing sex, and with child's curiosity to discover themselves, and with regular community talk which informs children, and with people who seek to inform children to build a relationship with them. You cant teach children not to have an urge. Entire history shows that controlling sexual urges is impossible to implement. It is also harmful and causes mental pain and discomfort, along with losing health benefits of sex, along with those who cant control their urges be judged by everyone and therefore, harmed. No country was able to stop children from acting on their urges, or adults from being with children.

29. Future consent tells us what is right
Preventing children from learning would be bad for them. Banning child marriages prevents children from learning. They will be less informed if they are not allowed to be in relationships. It was shown that child marriage benefits children by reducing depression and suicides, by reducing sex outside of marriage, by making children happier and healthier, by protecting children in relationships, by removing stigma which hurts children. It also helps better guide adults on how to treat children, as opposed to increasing prison population and torture. It was also pointed out that most relationships are never discovered and great majority of children dont want for their partner to go to prison. They keep same opinion even when they grow up. Their opinion should be respected.
Children do not need to fully understand child marriages. Society can understand child marriages, and decide that children should be allowed to marry because of the benefits it gives. Children in child marriages are not on their own, as society and parents are there to advise them and protect them if something goes wrong in marriage.
Banning child marriages leaves children on their own, as there is no one to guide them as the relationships are secret when child marriages are banned.
Child marriage is a child's choice. When child grows into adult, she doesnt want for her partner to go to prison. Since adults are well informed, it follows that child marriage is well informed decision of a person who approves of her child marriage after becoming adult.
This is what is known as "future consent". When child grows up, she agrees that her marriage as a child wasnt a bad thing.

30. Power doesnt matter in a loving relationship
In every relationship, one person is more "powerful". In parenting, parents are more powerful than children. However, in loving and consensual relationships, power doesnt matter as there is no force at play. Adult and child have attachment to each other. They love each other and make each other happy. They do that which both have the desire for. Child marriage helps create stronger attachment and increases happiness.

31. Child marriages prevent children from being in bad company
Most of the children and teenagers who enter into bad company do so because they dont have guidance and because they desire sex.
Child marriage satisfies child's sexual urges and gives guidance to children, making it less likely for the child to join bad company.

32. Child marriages ensure that children have same rights as adults
Children have the right to love and to form relationships. It would be cruel to deny children of that until adulthood, as certain percentage of children never reach adulthood. Child marriages are in child's interest. Future consent demonstrates that. Child desires love and creates attachments. To destroy child's love and child's attachment would be very cruel and inhumane, and would reduce children to mere property without a voice.

33. Banning child marriages increases the number of child sexual abuse
Due to lack of marriage and lack of legality, some map resort to having sexual activities with lots of children. There were even cases of one map being with  over 100 children. Without the ability to marry and without legal protection, map person has less reasons to stay with just one child. There is no education to guide map in behavior. There is no legal law that he must follow. The longer map stays with one child, the more likely map is to get caught. Due to having to hide the relationship, map is more likely to end a relationship and seek other children when map suspects that the current relationship will be discovered if he continues. When child marriages are banned, map would impose himself more on a child, due to no education and no legal guide for behavior. Map is also more likely to use threats against a child, in an attempt to hide the relationship. Map is also more likely to hurt a child when child marriages are banned. This is due to less reasons to treat child well. If he is nice, he might go to prison. If he is not nice, he might go to prison. No matter what he does, he might go to prison. If child marriages were legal and regulated, map would be able to satisfy his urges legally and at the same time follow the rules not to hurt a child. He would be punished if he hurts a child, but tolerated if he doesnt. This gives him a reason not to hurt a child, as he would be much safer and in much better position if he doesnt. Most map are kind non-violent people. However, there are those who are violent. Banning child marriages makes them much more violent and harder to control.

34. Banning child marriages increases the number of forced abortions
If child is in a relationship with an adult, and if child gets pregnant and relationship is discovered, child will be convinced to have an abortion. Even if child doesnt want to abort, the pressure of adults will break her. The decision to have an abortion will be, by all standards, an adult's decision imposed on a child.

35. If child marriages are banned, child is treated differently
When the police gets involved, child is scared and confused. The police will persuade a child that what happened to her was wrong. Parents will continue the persuasion. Child will even visit psychologists who will add to persuasion. In short, entire society will try to convince her that the adult who was so kind to her was in fact a monster. This confuses the child who cannot find a reasonable explanation for adult's reaction, and is forced to accept adult's explanation that was imposed on her so many times. She simply isnt allowed to disagree, or she will be faced with more convincing, more emotional attacks and more visits to psychologists. Adults, who are in greater number and better at reasoning than she is, will simply outmatch her. That is the true power imbalance.

36. This society doesnt care about child's well being
Plenty of people spank children, even tho it was proven that spanking harms children. Plenty of people give children junk food, knowing it is bad for child's health, teeth and brain, and that it causes obesity. Plenty of people lie to children and therefore, teach children to use lies. Plenty of people break the speed limit, knowing that it increases the chances of children being hurt and dying in traffic. Plenty of people support circumcision, knowing that it harms children. Plenty of people dont bother to try to fix foster care system, knowing that plenty of child abuse happens in foster care. Children abuse children there. Plenty of people smoke, knowing it increases the chances of birth defects and makes children more likely to smoke. People upload porn to internet making it easily available, knowing that children might see it. Its not the map who needs to change. This society is wrong about child marriages. This society is blind. Its this corrupt society which harms children while claiming that map harm children. These are double standards that society should abandon. You cannot judge others for that which you yourself do.

37. Being married to adult carries benefits for the child
Child being married to adult will learn a lot from that adult, much more than she would have learned from having other child as partner. Adults are much more morally advanced than children and have greater knowledge. Child cannot teach a child as much as adult can teach a child. Adult is also more likely to behave well and maintain a stable marriage, where relationships between child and child are much more likely to break.

38. Banning child marriages leads to age discrimination
Adult child relationships are the crime in which crime is only a crime due to age of an adult. For example, two 12 year olds being in sexual relationship is condemned, but not a crime. But a sexual relationship between 12 year old and 18 year old is a crime. Therefore, person is assumed to have caused harm only because of his age, not because of the activity he does.

39. Banning child marriages harms child-child sexual relationships
Our society condemns children for having sex with other children and for masturbating. This causes children to feel shame and guilt, which increases depression. If child marriages were allowed, relationships between child and child would also be better tolerated and children would be less depressed and less shamed for having sexual activities or masturbating. This would help them grow into free persons without judgment or fear.

40. Child marriages support LGBT rights
Trans children are being judged by our society, simply because our society believes that children shouldnt have a choice. The idea of individual's autonomy would be supported by legalization of child marriages. Child marriages support the idea of giving child a choice, which supports trans rights as trans children would be given a choice to make decisions about their bodies. Many people want to tell trans children that they are not trans, that boys cant dress as girls and much more. The idea that child shouldnt have a choice is a cruel idea, since some children never become adults. To deny them of choice during childhood means to deny them of choice for their entire life.

41. Banning child marriages harms economy and society
People who end up in prison stop being productive. Doctors who end up in prison are no longer able to provide medical services. This makes everything more expensive, increasing poverty among adults and children.

Conclusion
In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be allowed. My case stands on strong ground, supported by lots of strong reasons. The harm of banning child marriage greatly outweights any benefits it might have.

Sources for information used in this debate:
"The Trauma Myth" - scientific book about adult-child relationships

Con
#2
Well let me start off I have a problem with your definition. In the definition of child marriage you implied that "where all participants are happy." The definition is actually: "formal marriage between a child under the age of 18 and an adult or another child". You may think that it will result in all participants being happy, but it isn't part of the definition. 

I would also like to clarify that child marriage is legal in 5 states. In those states a parent must consent and a judge must look over the case thoroughly and sign off it as well. I am fine with this law. The way you are suggesting it works is not just to legalize child marriage, but to legalize sexual relationships between minors and adults. This is where I seek issue with your opinion. 

Now on to debunking your arguement. 

1. "Children need a safe outlet for their urges" 

Yes, I 100% agree with this. But they already exist. Masturbation is one outlet, and sexual relationships. (between two minors). While it is technically illegal for two minors to have sex it is rarely enforced. 

2. "Marriage is the best way to control urges"
This is just false. The age at which people have the most sex is "between the ages of 18 and 29". Marriage is legal at that age, and yet that age group has more sex than any other. 
3. "Marriage will allow them to have stable relationship before they reach adulthood."
Marriage doesn't make a relationship more stable, especially when the wedded pair are minors and don't fully understand what they want. Minors are still learning and they can have a stable relationship without legally committing to it. Mind you a divorce takes 6 months or longer, and there are financial repercussions a child can't understand.

4. "Legalization would help protect children from exploitation by ensuring they have legal protection under the law" 
This isn't true. Being married doesn't give you any extra protection under the law. 

You also stated that "having lots of partners throughout life increases depression and suicide rates."
While the suicide rate fact is true, the depression statistic was made up. But even with the suicide rate difference it is miniscule. 
"Engaging in sex with multiple partners was not associated with an increased risk for anxiety or depression at 21, 26, or 32 years, once adjustment was made for any prior disorder. " - NIH

"People who resort to sex work are often those with failed relationships early in life. "
I found know evidence to support this, so it seems you just made it up. 

"Without marriage, children will still have sexual urges and will still act on them. They will do so with much more partners. They will change lots of partners and increase risk of STI and STD." 
I already sort of explained this, but making marriage legal doesn't mean minors HAVE to marry someone. And they can stick to one sexual partner without marriage as well, rendering the legalization of it unnecessary.

5. "Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons" 
This arguement is ridiculous. First of all child marriage, isn't a criminal offense, it just isn't legally possible to do in most states. So what you are actually referring to is sex between a minor and an adult. Now your arguement is ridiculous, obviously decriminalizing something decreases prison populations, that isn't an arguement to make something legal. If we made murder legal, prison rates would be lowered, but obviously that is illogical. 

Now I do agree that prisons are harmful. But the answer isn't to decriminalize everything, it is to 1. Improve our prison system, 2. Improve our communities to prevent people from becoming criminals. 

6. " Society should listen to child's voice" 
"Most of children who are in relationship with an adult dont want for that adult to go to prison. " 
I found no evidence to support this, so this is another fact you made up. 


7. "Child's body belongs to the child, not to society. Children have autonomy."
Children are not considered capable of providing informed consent in these situations due to their age and vulnerability. Relationships between adults and children can lead to serious harm, both physically and psychologically, and can result in long-lasting trauma for the child involved. This is the same reason children are sentenced lighter in the justice system, and why there are different labor laws when it comes to minors. 
This arguement also argues for child labor, harsher criminal sentencing for minors, and less parental responsibilities. Which I hope I don't have to explain why those are unethical. 
Furthermore, by legalizing your concept of child marriage, we are making it significantly easier for vulnerable and immature children to be abused and manipulated. 
Respecting a child's autonomy also means protecting them from harm and guiding them toward healthy decisions. Allowing children to be involved in age-inappropriate relationships can expose them to situations that can negatively impact their emotional well-being and development.

7. " Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child"
This may be true in some cases, but the risk of manipulation and abuse significantly outweighs the few potentially happy partners. 

8. " Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad"
The country you point to is Afghanistan, which is a terrible example of a country to use as a role model. Afghanistan is a third world country, so it really shouldn't be a role model. And arguement actually works against you when you look at the statistics further. 80 percent of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are made by women because they are abused and treated poorly. This shows child marriage can lead to abuse. As for STDs the statistics may not be accurate as not everyone in Afghanistan is informed enough to recognize symptoms and get tested. 

"10. Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better" 

" Allowing child marriages lowers the cost of raising children, as children no longer have to be provided by the parents until 18." 
This just doesn't make sense I don't even know what you are trying to say. 

You also managed to contradict yourself within the same paragraph. 
"Woman will give birth to most children if she starts giving birth as early as possible. The longer she waits, the less children she can give birth to. Allowing child marriages makes it possible to raise more children."
"Banning child marriages increases birth rates more than allowing child marriages and regulating them to lower birth rates."

11. "There is a significant amount of people who are sexually attracted to children. If society condemns child marriages, and calls those people monsters, then those people feel bad from their teenage years when they realize that they are attracted to children. Allowing child marriages would help them satisfy their urges in a way that is safer.
About 15% of minor attracted persons are children and teenagers who feel pressure because of society's judgment. Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children."
Lets apply this to another harmful urge. Some people have the urge to murder, or rape. Obviously, society condemns people who act on these because they are unethical and quite frankly evil. 
No one will condemn someone who has these urges, and instead of acting on them, seeks professional help. Pedophilia is strongly associated with mental illness. 

12. "Allowing adult-child relationships by allowing marriage would mean that both adult and a child would get more advice from others, and child would be better protected. It would be possible to regulate those relationships, and make them better for children and secure that children are happy in them." 

The reason most children don't speak about relationships they had with an adult, is because they were manipulated and threatened in order not to. And allowing a child and an adult to have sexual relations legally doesn't regulate it in any way. It does the opposite.

"This topic does not deal with abusers. Abusers should still be punished. "
So you condemn abusers, yet you encourage a system that makes abuse significantly easier? 

14. "Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent"
I couldn't find a source anywhere that confirmed this. It seems you just made it up. If you are considering all types or relationships, like friends, coworkers, child-parent, I am sure it is true. But violence and abuse is very common is adult-child romantic relationships.

15. "Allowing children to marry gives them more control over their lives. If two young people have known each other since childhood and decide they want to get married before reaching adulthood, then this would give them more stability in their relationship than if they were not allowed to marry until 18. This would also lead to better financial security. Marriages provide more wealth than if person lived alone, while they cut down on expenses. Child marriage increases relationship stability." 

Two people don't have to be married to live together, and how does marriage provide more wealth? In today's society in order to get a stable job, one should ATLEAST graduate high school. By the time you graduate highschool you are already 18 and can get legally married. 


16. "Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children"
Even if this was the case, this is such a weak and irrelevant arguement. There are tutors, online courses, or one could just ask a teacher. 

17. Children are held accountable for their actions
You kind of just made an arguement against yourself. Children are sentenced more lightly for any crime they commit, and their crimes are hidden from their record when they turn 18. Children are also not financially responsible for themselves. 

18. Child marriages are the tradition of our ancestors
To call child marriage a "tradition" is pushing it. A tradition typically holds some sort of cultural significance. But regardless of whether is a "tradition" or not, this arguement is also extremely stupid. Our ancestors also used to enslave people, should we now legalize slavery? 

19. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice
A child already has this option. If they are being abused they can reach out to child protective services. 

20. "There is no doubt that there are innocent people in prison. Some people didnt commit the crime, but the witnesses lied about them and put them in prison. If someone is put in prison for having a relationship with a child, but is in fact innocent and didnt do that, he would still be beaten and abused in prison. Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison."
I made a similar statement earlier, but I will restate it. People are falsely imprisoned and sometimes even killed for a murder they didn't commit. This doesn't mean we need to legalize murder, it means we have to improve our court system. 

21. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children
 I already touched on this, but again there are other, more appropriate, forms of sexual expression. Masturbation and sex with another person of the same maturity level.  

" Banning child marriages wont make relationships with children go away. Banning child marriages will just cause more broken relationships and more sex outside of marriage. Sexual activities are safest in marriage. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children." 
Sure it won't make them "go away", but it lowers the rate of them and punishes those took advantage of the child. And again as I stated before, legalizing marriage doesn't make people less likely to have many sexual partners, hence why people in college have the most sexual partners even though can legally get married.

22.  It is wrong to say that if children dont fully understand something, it should not be done
Child vaccinations are administered to protect children from preventable diseases and improve public health. They are based on scientific evidence and recommendations from medical experts. While it is true that children may not fully grasp the complexities of vaccinations, the decision to vaccinate them is made by responsible adults who consider the overall benefits for society and the child's well-being. On the other hand, child marriages involve minors being married off without the ability to fully comprehend the implications and consequences. Child marriages can lead to physical and emotional harm, limit educational opportunities, and perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality. Comparing vaccinations, which have clear benefits backed by scientific research, to child marriages is not a valid comparison.

23. Judgment harms children
Children aren't judged in these situations because they are the VICTIM. The way to solve this isn't to legalize child-adult relationships, it is to destigmatize speaking up when you are a victim. 

24. "Judgment causes general harm People often justify their evil actions by saying that they are still better than others. For example, a person might justify polluting the environment by thinking that it is not bad because he is still better than map which he judges. Judgment causes harm by harming children who are futute scientists. It harms innovation. Judgment causes general harm."

This might be the stupidest arguement I have ever heard for anything ever. There will always be worse evils that people can compare themselves to, legalizing them doesn't solve anything.

25. Child marriages help prevent violence over children

Banning child marriages won't make violence go away, but it will discourage and reduce potential violence: While it is true that banning child marriages alone may not eradicate all forms of violence, it sends a strong message that child exploitation and abuse will not be tolerated. By raising the minimum age of marriage, society is taking a step towards protecting vulnerable children from forced marriages, early pregnancies, and various forms of abuse that they might endure in such relationships.
Banning child marriages makes violence harder to detect: It is essential to acknowledge that violence within child marriages is often hidden and goes unreported due to fear, social stigma, and a lack of awareness. Banning child marriages can actually empower victims to speak out, seek help, and report incidents of violence, as they won't be trapped in an illegal and harmful relationship.
Allowing child marriages makes the relationship known and easier to regulate: While the intention behind regulation might seem well-intentioned, it is crucial to recognize that child marriages themselves are inherently harmful to the well-being and development of young individuals. Instead of trying to regulate harmful relationships, we should focus on providing support systems and education to prevent such marriages from happening in the first place.
Violence and dropping out of school are common in poor communities, just like child marriages: It is true that violence and dropout rates may be more prevalent in disadvantaged communities. However, child marriages exacerbate these issues by perpetuating a cycle of poverty and limited opportunities for young girls, especially. Instead of viewing child marriages as a solution to violence, we should address the root causes of poverty and invest in social programs that promote education and gender equality.
Child marriages are banned in the USA, yet violence over children persists: While child marriages are indeed banned in the USA, the presence of violence and other social issues doesn't prove that banning child marriages is ineffective. Many factors contribute to societal problems, and addressing violence requires a comprehensive approach, including education, social support, mental health services, and stronger child protection laws.

26. " Child marriages give the child more autonomy" 
I already debunked this point

27.  It is not possible to prevent children from having sex
This is why it isn't enforced often when it is two minors, as no one is really a victim. Minors can and do have sex, but it should be with someone on the same level of maturity of them to prevent abuse and them being taken advantage of.

28. Future consent tells us what is right
Child marriage does not benefit children:Studies have consistently shown that child marriages have numerous negative consequences for young brides and grooms. It can lead to physical and emotional health problems, increased risk of domestic violence, early pregnancies, and limited opportunities for personal growth and development. These factors can contribute to higher rates of depression and suicides, rather than reducing them.
Child marriage is not a "child's choice":Children lack the maturity, life experience, and understanding required to make such life-altering decisions. Early marriage can often be the result of cultural, societal, or familial pressures, which is not a genuine choice made freely by the child.
"This is what is known as "future consent". When child grows up, she agrees that her marriage as a child wasnt a bad thing."
Maybe there are a few cases where a child grows up and doesn't regret anything that happened, but the potential harm significantly outweighs the potential good. You are quite literally arguing for rape. You are saying consent isn't needed because they might like it, but what if they don't? "future consent" is not a real thing and you are currently trying to justify rape. 

29. Power doesn't matter in a loving relationship
A power dynamic in ANY relationship can prompt the risk of abuse, including a parent-child relationship. But there are some important distinctions between a parent child relationship and a adult-child marriage. 

1. While both relationships involve interactions between a child and an adult, their dynamics, roles, and potential consequences are vastly distinct. A parent-child relationship is different than a sexual and romantic relationship, and it is less important to be equal in power. A marriage is based on joint decision making and collaboration. 
2. The importance and benefits of a parent-child relationship outweigh the potential risk for abuse, the same is not true for adult-child marriages. 

30. "Child marriages prevent children from being in bad company" 
It seems that a lot of your arguments revolve around issues that could potentially be solved by child marriage. (like lack of education or torture in prison for example) But the majority of these can be solved without risking the potential harms of legalizing child marriage. In this case, instead of resorting to child marriages as a solution to the issue of bad company and sexual desires, we can focus on comprehensive and evidence-based approaches. Providing children with proper education, mentorship, and access to counseling services can address the root causes of engaging in risky behaviors.

32. Child marriages ensure that children have same rights as adults
I have already explained in the autonomy section why this isn't a valid arguement

33. " Banning child marriages increases the number of child sexual abuse" 
You stated that "There is no legal law that he must follow.". There is a law that a "MAP" must follow. Don't engage in sexual activity with minors! That is the law. If someone is struggling with these urges they can reach out for professional help. Again if we use any other example, you will see how ridiculous you arguement is. Replace MAP with rapist or murderer and see how stupid your arguement sounds. 

34. " Banning child marriages increases the number of forced abortions"
Typically, it is actually the OPPOSITE. Parents often force the kid to keep the child. Regardless, I agree that parents shouldn't force an abortion on a minor. (or force them to keep the baby) But legalizing child marriages doesn't solve this problem, the parents (or partner) can still convince the pregnant girl to make a decision she doesn't want to. Your solution isn't actually a solution at all. 

35. If child marriages are banned, child is treated differently
Police involvement and fear: While it is true that police involvement can be intimidating for anyone, including children, it is essential to remember that law enforcement's primary objective is to protect and ensure the safety of individuals, especially minors. The police are trained to handle such cases with sensitivity and care.
Persuasion and confusion: The assertion that police, parents, and psychologists would collectively try to persuade a child that what happened to her was wrong is a broad generalization. In reality, their primary concern would be to help the child understand and process the situation, providing necessary support and resources.
Confusing the child: While dealing with sensitive issues, professionals involved, such as psychologists, are trained to assist children in understanding their emotions and experiences. Their goal is not to confuse the child but to help them cope with their feelings in a safe and supportive environment.
And let me also clarify, the ADULT is in the wrong. Because, even if the child grows up and doesn't regret it, the adult can't know this to be the case. The adult also needs to recognize that they are in a position of power, and might--even if unintentionally--be causing the child to do something they don't want to. The adult needs to recognize this and control their urges. 

36.  This society doesnt care about child's well being
You were completely right at the beginning of this paragraph, but then got lost. YES, we as a society do not care enough about children's well beings. But we have been making strides to improve it. For example, physical abuse--like spanking--is now often illegal and can be reported to CPS. This is also why sex between a minor and adult is illegal, TO PROTECT THE CHILD. 

Let me also clarify that this entire arguement is a fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there are other unethical actions being promoted like porn or physical abuse doesn't mean that a adult-child relationship is right. That is like saying beating someone up is okay because other people go out and murder. 

37. Being married to adult carries benefits for the child
This arguement is also ridiculous. It is 100% fine that not every relationship lasts. You shouldn't just necessarily be with the first person you start dating. Secondly, while I agree children should be educated about healthy relationships, there are other ways to do it besides adult-child relationships. They could be taught about in there sex-ed, or english classes. And we as a society can promote information about healthy relationships, without causing the harm that comes along with legalizing adult-child relationships. 

38. 
 "For example, two 12 year olds being in sexual relationship is condemned, but not a crime. But a sexual relationship between 12 year old and 18 year old is a crime. Therefore, person is assumed to have caused harm only because of his age, not because of the activity he does."

THIS IS 100% FALSE. two 12 years old being in a sexual relationship is ILLEGAL, but a judge will look at the context of the situation and most likely not charge anyone. The context behind an action is always important in the sentencing. If a 12 year and old and an 18 year old commit the exact same crime, the 18 year old is an adult and will therefore be sentenced more harshly. Again this is due to maturity levels and life experience, when someone is 18 they should have enough of a understanding of the world to not act impulsively and to take the feelings of others into account. 

 39. "Our society condemns children for having sex with other children and for masturbating. This causes children to feel shame and guilt, which increases depression. If child marriages were allowed, relationships between child and child would also be better tolerated and children would be less depressed and less shamed for having sexual activities or masturbating. This would help them grow into free persons without judgment or fear." 

This is not true at all, most schools teach about sex and safe sex practices. It is not at all condemned. Neither is masturbating. 

40. Child marriages support LGBT rights
There is no law preventing a child from wearing what they want (besides public nudity). When it comes to sex changing surgery, a child should wait until they are 18. The same with getting a tattoo or plastic surgery, someone should be 18 before they are ready judge the pros and cons of these body alterations. 

41. Banning child marriages harms economy and society
People who end up in prison stop being productive. Doctors who end up in prison are no longer able to provide medical services. This makes everything more expensive, increasing poverty among adults and children.

I previously wrote that one of your arguments was the stupidest I have ever heard. I now retract that comment because this is the stupidest arguement I have ever heard. Should we also legalize drug dealing, murder, why not decriminalize everything? The solution again is not to decriminalize it, but to provide resources to prevent people from doing the crime in the first place. 

Overall, you presented some of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard, some were slightly more logical, but the majority were completely idiotic.
Most of your arguments revolved around using adult-child relationships to solve problems. But all of the problems you mentioned can be solved without the harmful repercussions of legalizing adult-child relationships.  You also had multiple arguments that used the fallacy of relative privation, such as when you went on your rant about porn and junk food. You also stated many seemingly made up facts that have no data backing them, mainly supporting the idea that most minors are happy about sexual relationships they had or have had with adults.  Moreover, you also has hypocrisy within your arguement, even in the same paragraph. 
You also stated somethings that were flat out wrong like how you said it isn't illegal for two 12 years to engage in sexual intercourse. You have a warped world-view and a fundamental misunderstanding of relationships, manipulation, and consent. 
Round 2
Pro
#3
In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be legally allowed.

Rebuttals
Well let me start off I have a problem with your definition. In the definition of child marriage you implied that "where all participants are happy." The definition is actually: "formal marriage between a child under the age of 18 and an adult or another child". You may think that it will result in all participants being happy, but it isn't part of the definition.
By accepting the debate, you agreed upon the definition as given in description.

I would also like to clarify that child marriage is legal in 5 states. In those states a parent must consent and a judge must look over the case thoroughly and sign off it as well. I am fine with this law. The way you are suggesting it works is not just to legalize child marriage, but to legalize sexual relationships between minors and adults. This is where I seek issue with your opinion.
No. I dont seek to legalize sexual relationships outside marriage.

Yes, I 100% agree with this. But they already exist. Masturbation is one outlet, and sexual relationships. (between two minors). While it is technically illegal for two minors to have sex it is rarely enforced.
Masturbation is not a sufficient outlet. My opponent conceded that 30% of children in USA have sex before 16.

2. "Marriage is the best way to control urges"
This is just false. The age at which people have the most sex is "between the ages of 18 and 29". Marriage is legal at that age, and yet that age group has more sex than any other.
My opponent says that if marriage and sex between ages of 18 and 29 was illegal, there would be less sex among those age groups. That is not true. They would still have sex, just it would be outside of marriage and more people would be in prison. Further, my opponent intentionally misrepresents my point. My point was that marriage prevents sex outside of marriage and sex with multiple partners. My opponent made a claim about people having sex, but not about whether it was in marriage, outside of marriage or with multiple partners. My argument was not that marriage prevents sex.

Marriage doesn't make a relationship more stable, especially when the wedded pair are minors and don't fully understand what they want. Minors are still learning and they can have a stable relationship without legally committing to it. Mind you a divorce takes 6 months or longer, and there are financial repercussions a child can't understand
My opponent ignores the value of marriage. However, I already pointed out that countries such as Afghanistan who value marriage, have less divorce rates than USA. Marriage makes a stable relationship. Stable relationship will only be stable if guided by the community and operated under supervision of a community. In order for that to happen, relationship must be legal in the first place. I already pointed out many ways in which, when relationships are illegal, many problems arise.

This isn't true. Being married doesn't give you any extra protection under the law.
It does. It protects your interests in a relationship, makes the relationship known, makes a partner less likely to abuse you than if relationship was unknown, as explained before.

You also stated that "having lots of partners throughout life increases depression and suicide rates."
While the suicide rate fact is true
My opponent conceded the suicide rate.

, the depression statistic was made up. But even with the suicide rate difference it is miniscule.
Actually, Afghanistan has 2 times less suicides than USA.

"Engaging in sex with multiple partners was not associated with an increased risk for anxiety or depression at 21, 26, or 32 years, once adjustment was made for any prior disorder. " - NIH
My opponent brings up only years 21, 26 and 32. It looks like cherry picking data from a specific study, as opposed to actual studies that deal with the topic.

I already sort of explained this, but making marriage legal doesn't mean minors HAVE to marry someone. And they can stick to one sexual partner without marriage as well, rendering the legalization of it unnecessary
The topic is about marriage and the benefits of marriage. Saying "people dont have to marry" does not refute that marriage has benefits and therefore should be allowed.
My opponent also confuses what someone can do with what someone will do.
It was already explained why allowing marriage is beneficial.

This arguement is ridiculous. First of all child marriage, isn't a criminal offense, it just isn't legally possible to do in most states. So what you are actually referring to is sex between a minor and an adult. Now your arguement is ridiculous, obviously decriminalizing something decreases prison populations, that isn't an arguement to make something legal. If we made murder legal, prison rates would be lowered, but obviously that is illogical.
My opponent says that child marriages arent legally possible. What is not legally possible is banned. The topic is about making marriages allowed. The topic is not about sex outside of marriage, but sex inside the marriage. Marriage includes legal sexual relationships inside that marriage.

Now, my opponent says that my argument applies to murders. It does not. Banning murders doesnt harm victims of murders, where banning child marriages harms children through stigma, broken relationships, being more likely to experience violence and being more likely to be condemned.

Now I do agree that prisons are harmful. But the answer isn't to decriminalize everything, it is to 1. Improve our prison system, 2. Improve our communities to prevent people from becoming criminals
My opponent conceded that prisons are harmful. So until we improve prisons and community, we should legalize child marriages to prevent harm done by prisons.

"Most of children who are in relationship with an adult dont want for that adult to go to prison. " 
I found no evidence to support this, so this is another fact you made up.
I gave the source, the book called "The Trauma Myth".

Children are not considered capable of providing informed consent in these situations due to their age and vulnerability.
Future consent refutes this.

Relationships between adults and children can lead to serious harm, both physically and psychologically, and can result in long-lasting trauma for the child involved.
In the same way, banning child marriages results in serious harm, as explained. Also, my opponent is using argument from possibility. Parents can kill their children. It doesnt make all parenting wrong.
If an adult is kind and friendly, and doesnt force a child to anything, there will be no harm. Allowing child marriages encourages adults to be friendly, kind and non-forceful. Banning child marriages encourages violence.

This is the same reason children are sentenced lighter in the justice system, and why there are different labor laws when it comes to minors.
My opponent says that children cant make informed consent, and then proceeds to say that children are sentenced. Why are children sentenced for something they didnt consent to?


This arguement also argues for child labor, harsher criminal sentencing for minors, and less parental responsibilities. Which I hope I don't have to explain why those are unethical.
No. Actually, you will find that future consent and a non-decrease in autonomy all speak against child labor, harsher criminal sentencing, and less parental responsibilities. However, child marriage being legal is in the best interest of a child.

Furthermore, by legalizing your concept of child marriage, we are making it significantly easier for vulnerable and immature children to be abused and manipulated.
It was already explained that banning child marriage makes it easier for children to be abused and manipulated.

Respecting a child's autonomy also means protecting them from harm and guiding them toward healthy decisions. Allowing children to be involved in age-inappropriate relationships can expose them to situations that can negatively impact their emotional well-being and development.
Banning children from relationships and marriage causes children to be hurt more.

80 percent of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are made by women because they are abused and treated poorly. This shows child marriage can lead to abuse. As for STDs the statistics may not be accurate as not everyone in Afghanistan is informed enough to recognize symptoms and get tested.
Actually, Afghanistan has two times lower suicide rate among women than USA. So in USA, where marriage is not valued, suicide among women is more common.

You also managed to contradict yourself within the same paragraph. 
"Woman will give birth to most children if she starts giving birth as early as possible. The longer she waits, the less children she can give birth to. Allowing child marriages makes it possible to raise more children."
"Banning child marriages increases birth rates more than allowing child marriages and regulating them to lower birth rates."
Thats not a contradiction. Child marriages can be regulated to increase or decrease birth rates. It is done through education.

Lets apply this to another harmful urge. Some people have the urge to murder, or rape. Obviously, society condemns people who act on these because they are unethical and quite frankly evil.
No one will condemn someone who has these urges, and instead of acting on them, seeks professional help. Pedophilia is strongly associated with mental illness.
Homosexuality was also associated strongly with mental illness in the past.
Child marriage has nothing to do with murder or rape. Those two violate future consent, where child marriage doesnt.

The reason most children don't speak about relationships they had with an adult, is because they were manipulated and threatened in order not to. And allowing a child and an adult to have sexual relations legally doesn't regulate it in any way. It does the opposite
My opponent conceded that most of the relationships are never discovered, therefore impossible to regulate or stop if banned.
I already provided reasons why legalizing child marriages helps regulate those relationships.

So you condemn abusers, yet you encourage a system that makes abuse significantly easier? 
No. I condemn abusers and support a system that prevents abuse by not punishing non-abusive relationships.

"Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent"
I couldn't find a source anywhere that confirmed this. It seems you just made it up. If you are considering all types or relationships, like friends, coworkers, child-parent, I am sure it is true. But violence and abuse is very common is adult-child romantic relationships.
I already stated the source, The Trauma Myth.

Two people don't have to be married to live together, and how does marriage provide more wealth?
In case of child-child marriage, living together with parents of one child.
Marriage is needed for a better relationship.
Marriage provides more wealth, as the child lacking wealth would be provided by one of two families or both.
In case of child marrying an adult, then she is provided for by her parents and by her husband, increasing wealth.

Even if this was the case, this is such a weak and irrelevant arguement. There are tutors, online courses, or one could just ask a teacher.
This is not a refutation to anything.

Children are sentenced more lightly for any crime they commit
So they are held accountable. Being sentenced for crime is what being accountable means.

A child already has this option. If they are being abused they can reach out to child protective services
It is better to marry someone you love than to live in a foster care.

Masturbation and sex with another person of the same maturity level
In marriage, of course. Also, not possible to prevent adult-child sexual relationships, as most are never discovered.

Sure it won't make them "go away", but it lowers the rate of them and punishes those took advantage of the child.
It doesnt lower the rate. It makes it more likely for the child to be abused.

And again as I stated before, legalizing marriage doesn't make people less likely to have many sexual partners, hence why people in college have the most sexual partners even though can legally get married.
This doesnt negate that allowing marriage makes them more likely to get married, and getting married makes them more likely not to have sex outside of marriage.
You are taking an example of those who arent in marriage, from a country that doesnt value marriages. If marriage was illegal for them, it would be the same for them in terms of sex. They would still have sex with multiple partners.
Child marriage can be regulated in a different way than regular marriage.
This debate is not about all adult-child sexual relationships. Its about child marriage and benefits of allowing child marriage. That is not the same as allowing sexual relationships outside marriage, nor do sexual relationships outside marriage need to be allowed. For children, they  should only be allowed inside marriage, where it is the safest to practice them.

Child vaccinations are administered to protect children from preventable diseases and improve public health.
Child marriage is done to protect children from abuse and harm.

Children aren't judged in these situations because they are the VICTIM. The way to solve this isn't to legalize child-adult relationships, it is to destigmatize speaking up when you are a victim
They are judged. I already explained that society's judgmemt towards relationship they enjoy being in makes them feel bad.

Banning child marriages won't make violence go away, but it will discourage and reduce potential violence: While it is true that banning child marriages alone may not eradicate all forms of violence, it sends a strong message that child exploitation and abuse will not be tolerated. By raising the minimum age of marriage, society is taking a step towards protecting vulnerable children from forced marriages, early pregnancies, and various forms of abuse that they might endure in such relationships
Banning child marriages makes violence harder to detect: It is essential to acknowledge that violence within child marriages is often hidden and goes unreported due to fear, social stigma, and a lack of awareness. Banning child marriages can actually empower victims to speak out, seek help, and report incidents of violence, as they won't be trapped in an illegal and harmful relationship.
Allowing child marriages makes the relationship known and easier to regulate: While the intention behind regulation might seem well-intentioned, it is crucial to recognize that child marriages themselves are inherently harmful to the well-being and development of young individuals. Instead of trying to regulate harmful relationships, we should focus on providing support systems and education to prevent such marriages from happening in the first place.
Violence and dropping out of school are common in poor communities, just like child marriages: It is true that violence and dropout rates may be more prevalent in disadvantaged communities. However, child marriages exacerbate these issues by perpetuating a cycle of poverty and limited opportunities for young girls, especially. Instead of viewing child marriages as a solution to violence, we should address the root causes of poverty and invest in social programs that promote education and gender equality.
Child marriages are banned in the USA, yet violence over children persists: While child marriages are indeed banned in the USA, the presence of violence and other social issues doesn't prove that banning child marriages is ineffective. Many factors contribute to societal problems, and addressing violence requires a comprehensive approach, including education, social support, mental health services, and stronger child protection laws
I already explained that most adult-child sexual relationships cannot be prevented. They are never discovered.
I already explained why child marriages reduce violence. It is because offender has more to lose and less to gain if he chooses violence.
I already explained why child marriages reduce number of sexually abused children. They legally limit map to be married to one child, as opposed to abusing dozens or hundred children.
I already explained that marriage and education are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe there are a few cases where a child grows up and doesn't regret anything that happened, but the potential harm significantly outweighs the potential good. You are quite literally arguing for rape. You are saying consent isn't needed because they might like it, but what if they don't? "future consent" is not a real thing and you are currently trying to justify rape.
In the book "The Trauma Myth", it shows that around 90% of children dont want for their adult partner to go to prison. They keep same opinion when they grow up. That is future consent. It shows that arresting the partner is in most cases not in child's interest, not a child's desire.

The importance and benefits of a parent-child relationship outweigh the potential risk for abuse, the same is not true for adult-child marriages.
Actually, we have seen that banning child marriages makes it more likely to increase number of abused children, to increase abuse, to increase violence, to increase prison population, to harm map youth, to destroy child's happiness, to create stigma and judgment, to increase suicide rates by increasing number of partners, to destroy bond between child and adult, and to violate child's desires.

There is a law that a "MAP" must follow. Don't engage in sexual activity with minors! That is the law. If someone is struggling with these urges they can reach out for professional help.
This is another argument from possibility. No society was able to prevent children from having sex with adults. So no, it cannot happen.

Police involvement and fear: While it is true that police involvement can be intimidating for anyone, including children, it is essential to remember that law enforcement's primary objective is to protect and ensure the safety of individuals, especially minors. The police are trained to handle such cases with sensitivity and care.
Persuasion and confusion: The assertion that police, parents, and psychologists would collectively try to persuade a child that what happened to her was wrong is a broad generalization. In reality, their primary concern would be to help the child understand and process the situation, providing necessary support and resources.
Confusing the child: While dealing with sensitive issues, professionals involved, such as psychologists, are trained to assist children in understanding their emotions and experiences. Their goal is not to confuse the child but to help them cope with their feelings in a safe and supportive environment.
And let me also clarify, the ADULT is in the wrong. Because, even if the child grows up and doesn't regret it, the adult can't know this to be the case. The adult also needs to recognize that they are in a position of power, and might--even if unintentionally--be causing the child to do something they don't want to. The adult needs to recognize this and control their urges
This is not a refutation to anything I said. It is well known that parents and police often persuade children. So do psychologists. Listing their other jobs doesnt negate that. But then again, AI is not known for making good arguments.
Also, if the adult is kind and friendly to the child, and doesnt do anything that child doesnt consent to, and respects what child says and respects child's emotions, that adult is not forcing a child to anything. That is literally the opposite of forcing a  child.

THIS IS 100% FALSE. two 12 years old being in a sexual relationship is ILLEGAL, but a judge will look at the context of the situation and most likely not charge anyone
If a 12 year old murders someone, she would be charged. However, she wont be charged if she has sex with another 12 year old. But if she is 18 and has sex with a 12 year old, she will be charged. Therefore, we see that person's age in one crime is much more relevant to sentencing than in the other crime. In fact, in the case of sex, it literally goes from "not a big deal" to "very horrible" just because of the age of a person doing the action, not the action itself.

This is not true at all, most schools teach about sex and safe sex practices. It is not at all condemned. Neither is masturbating
My opponent first said that judge will be involved. Then he says it is not condemned. This is what we call blatant lying in a debate.

There is no law preventing a child from wearing what they want
There is parents.

I previously wrote that one of your arguments was the stupidest I have ever heard. I now retract that comment because this is the stupidest arguement I have ever heard. Should we also legalize drug dealing, murder, why not decriminalize everything? The solution again is not to decriminalize it, but to provide resources to prevent people from doing the crime in the first place
I already explained the difference between murder and child marriage. Also, the comparison to drug dealing is wrong due to no benefits in decriminalizing drug dealing.
It was already explained that adult-child relationships in most cases cannot be prevented.

Conclusion
Most of my arguments remain unchallenged. I explained how banning child marriages makes it impossible to regulate adult-child relationships. Most of the adult-child relationships are never discovered. It is impossible to prevent them.
I proved that banning child marriages increases sexual abuse, and results in more children being abused in a worse way.
I proved that banning child marriages harms children, map and map youth through stigma and violence.
We know that stigma causes harm. We see it in LGBT.
I proved that banning child marriages makes it more likely to imprison innocent people.
I proved that children dont want for their adult partner to go to prison or be hurt.
I proved that being friendly and kind to children, and listening to what they have to say, and listening to their interests about sexual activities is the opposite of forcing them to sexual activities. To say otherwise would make it impossible to do anything with a child without it being labeled as forcing. Every child would be forced to everything in life, and force would become an irrelevant term.
I proved that children have interest in sexual activities. It gives children pleasure.
My arguments were not challenged in any serious way. My opponent based his case on fantasies and misrepresentation, where I based mine on reality.
This is proved in case of Afghanistan, where, despite being a poor country and despite having child marriages, suicide rates among women are lower in Afghanistan than in USA. It proves that valuing marriage, valuing child marriage and discouraging divorce is the proper way.
My opponent based his case on adult-child relationships being harmful. I have proved that most relationships are non-violent. However, my opponent's case is irrelevant to the topic. The topic deals with benefits of legalizing child marriage itself in cases where children have sexual urges and act on them. That is what this is about. My opponent cannot build his case around preventing sexual activities, since topic assumes that sexual activities already happened and debates if marriage is beneficial in those cases where children have sexual urges and act on them. The only case that my opponent has built is that marriage is irrelevant. I proved that thats not true, by explaining the benefits of marriage.
Con
#4


1. By accepting the debate, you agreed upon the definition as given in description.

Your description doesn't make sense. Imposing a law that requires the parties to both be "happy" is impossible to enforce. It is too subjective and would be impossible to argue in court. 

2. No. I don't seek to legalize sexual relationships outside marriage.

I never said outside of marriage, legalizing sexual relationships between an adult and a child within marriage is still legalizing sexual relationships between an adult and a child, just only under certain circumstances. And you didn't specify this in your initial arguement. 

3. Masturbation is not a sufficient outlet. My opponent conceded that 30% of children in USA have sex before 16.

You must have just ignored what I wrote. I wrote, "Masturbation is one outlet, and sexual relationships. (between two minors). " I mentioned sexual relationships, but noted that it should be between two people of the same maturity level to prevent abuse. 

4.My opponent says that if marriage and sex between ages of 18 and 29 was illegal, there would be less sex among those age groups. That is not true. They would still have sex, just it would be outside of marriage and more people would be in prison. Further, my opponent intentionally misrepresents my point. My point was that marriage prevents sex outside of marriage and sex with multiple partners. My opponent made a claim about people having sex, but not about whether it was in marriage, outside of marriage or with multiple partners. My argument was not that marriage prevents sex.

That is not at all what I said. You arguement is that if we legalize child marriage there will be benefits. One of the benefits you argued for was that children will have less sexual partners. I argued that making marriage legal doesn't reduce the amount of sexual partners someone has. I never argued that is marriage was illegal that there would be less sex, just that making marriage legal doesn't reduce sex. "My opponent made a claim about people having sex, but not about whether it was in marriage, outside of marriage or with multiple partners." Obviously there is an extremely strong correlation between the age group that has the most sex and the age group that has the most sexual partners, so the statistic still applies. Only 20% of people ages 18-29 are married. (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/). So obviously the fact that they have the most sex, and are married at low rates, means that age group has the most sexual partners. 

5. My opponent ignores the value of marriage. However, I already pointed out that countries such as Afghanistan who value marriage, have less divorce rates than USA. Marriage makes a stable relationship. Stable relationship will only be stable if guided by the community and operated under supervision of a community. In order for that to happen, relationship must be legal in the first place. I already pointed out many ways in which, when relationships are illegal, many problems arise.

Afghanistan, as I noted previously, is a horrible role model. They oppress women significantly, which is a large reason why they have lower divorce rates. It is not societally acceptable to get a divorce as a women there, even if you are being mistreated. 

6. It does. It protects your interests in a relationship, makes the relationship known, makes a partner less likely to abuse you than if relationship was unknown, as explained before.

How does it protect your interests in a relationship? And a relationship can be known without the two being married. Again you arguing to legalize child marriage, you aren't arguing about marriage culture. Legalizing marriage doesn't force anyone to get married, so legalizing it won't automatically make all these relationships known. And you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why most of these relationships are unknown. They are unknown because the victims are manipulated and threatened into being secretive. 

7. My opponent brings up only years 21, 26 and 32. It looks like cherry picking data from a specific study, as opposed to actual studies that deal with the topic.

This was my fault for misrepresenting the data I was trying to present. The study does, however, still disprove your point. There was no correlation between depression and sexual partners, there was however, at certain ages, a correlation between sexual partners and drug dependency. Either way, I shouldn't have even quoted a statistic because it isn't my job, the burden off proof is on you as it is your claim, and you didn't provide any data. 

8. The topic is about marriage and the benefits of marriage. Saying "people dont have to marry" does not refute that marriage has benefits and therefore should be allowed.

Again the debate is on whether it should be legalized not whether the culture of marriage should be promoted. I provided statistics that showed legalizing marriage doesn't lead to less sexual partners. Which again, I DIDN'T HAVE TO DO, as the burden of proof is on you and you didn't supply any statistics or studies. 

9. My opponent says that child marriages arent legally possible. What is not legally possible is banned. The topic is about making marriages allowed. The topic is not about sex outside of marriage, but sex inside the marriage. Marriage includes legal sexual relationships inside that marriage.

Okay, you are misrepresenting my arguement. Your initial statement was "Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons" because child marriage isn't possible, it isn't a criminal offense. You can't be charged with child marriage, that isn't a crime, therefore it can't increase prison populations as it is not illegal. What is illegal is sex between a minor and an adult as that is considered rape. 

"Now, my opponent says that my argument applies to murders. It does not. Banning murders doesnt harm victims of murders, where banning child marriages harms children through stigma, broken relationships, being more likely to experience violence and being more likely to be condemned."

Your arguement wasn't that banning child marriage harms children, it was that banning child marriage increases prison rates. I used murder as example as to why something increasing incarceration rates isn't a reason to legalize it. You seem to be misunderstanding your own arguement that I was debunking. 

10. My opponent conceded that prisons are harmful. So until we improve prisons and community, we should legalize child marriages to prevent harm done by prisons.

Again, that isn't how things should work. Should we legalize all crime until prisons are fixed? Obviously not.  The prison system is its own separate topic, and legalizing various forms of crime isn't the way to fix it. 

11. I gave the source, the book called "The Trauma Myth".

The book you are siting is fighting against you. Here is a quote from the author of the book: 
 “Unfortunately, when people heard ‘not traumatic when it happens,’ they translated my words to mean, ‘It doesn’t harm victims later on.’ Even worse, some assumed I was blaming victims for their abuse.”

The book you are referring to explained that the children involved don't experience trauma when it is happening, but experience the trauma when they grow older and understand the abuse they were put in. 
"Commonly, the abuse had been confusing for the child but not traumatic in the usual sense of the word. Only when the child grew old enough to understand exactly what had happened — sometimes many years later — did the fear, shock and horror begin. And only at that point did the experience become traumatic and begin its well-known destructive process."


It seems very obvious your arguement is completely baseless when your main piece of evidence is a book arguing against your position. 

I am actually glad I researched this book because her findings actually seem to deconstruct most of your arguement. 

12. Future consent refutes this.

I mentioned this in my arguement. Future consent is not real consent. As I pointed out I can't have unconsensual sex with someone and then assume they will like it. You can't give "future consent". 

13. My opponent says that children cant make informed consent, and then proceeds to say that children are sentenced. Why are children sentenced for something they didnt consent to?

I don't even know what you are trying to argue here, but I was refuting your point. You were saying that our judicial system is hypocritical if they don't allow children to consent, but then they punish children equally when they commit crimes. I argued that you were wrong, because you are. Children are not punished equally in court. They receive lighter punishments as they don't have the life experience to understand the ramifications of their actions. This is the second time you seem have to misunderstood the arguement that YOU presented. 

14. No. Actually, you will find that future consent and a non-decrease in autonomy all speak against child labor, harsher criminal sentencing, and less parental responsibilities. However, child marriage being legal is in the best interest of a child.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word autonomy. 
The definition is "the right or condition of self-government" 
If a child has the right to self-govern themselves, they wouldn't need parents, and wouldn't be treated differently under the law. You are essentially arguing that a child has the right to consent to sex, but can't consent to doing formal labor. If a child had full autonomy like you said, they would be able to consent to everything and would be recognized the same as an adult legally. 

15. It was already explained that banning child marriage makes it easier for children to be abused and manipulated.
"Explained". You stated it, that doesn't make it true. As shown in actually the book YOU referenced, adult-child relationships often led to abuse.

16. Banning children from relationships and marriage causes children to be hurt more.
You keep saying this but you haven't proven it. And it is your claim so you have the burden of proof. Saying something doesn't make it true. The evidence shows that most people in these types of relationships experienced trauma and often a lack of education. 

17. Actually, Afghanistan has two times lower suicide rate among women than USA. So in USA, where marriage is not valued, suicide among women is more common. 
Again 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are women, that makes it pretty obvious women in Afghanistan are mistreated. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44370711

18. Thats not a contradiction. Child marriages can be regulated to increase or decrease birth rates. It is done through education. 
You are correct, it was not a contradiction, you just worded it weirdly and I misunderstood. However, with that being said, you provided no proof on this claim. There is no evidence that suggests legalizing child marriage will lower birth rates. 

19. Homosexuality was also associated strongly with mental illness in the past.
Child marriage has nothing to do with murder or rape. Those two violate future consent, where child marriage doesnt.
The past association of homosexuality with mental illness was based on misconceptions and prejudice, and has been thoroughly discredited by modern scientific research and understanding of human sexuality. The same modern science that deems homosexuality as normal deems pedophilia as a mental illness. While it is true that something being the common belief at the time doesn't make it true, evidence shows that pedophilia is related to mental illness. 
Also, the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that there is no inherent victim in a homosexual relationship. 

20. My opponent conceded that most of the relationships are never discovered, therefore impossible to regulate or stop if banned.
I already provided reasons why legalizing child marriages helps regulate those relationships.

Legalizing child marriage doesn't suddenly make these abusive relationships come to light. The reason they are kept secret is do to manipulation and threats. The book, that again YOU referenced, explains that one of the main reasons victims of adult-child relationships don't speak out is because they feel it is their vault they were abused. 
And you can't regulate a relationship that is inherently unethical. A child cannot provide proper consent. 

21. I already stated the source, The Trauma Myth.
I would like a specific quote or study. Without context the statement you made can mean many different things. It doesn't specify what type of relationship, and judging by the fact that the book you referenced is actually diving into the trauma caused by adult-child relationships it seems very probable to me you misunderstood this element of the book as well, 

22. In case of child-child marriage, living together with parents of one child.
Marriage is needed for a better relationship.
Marriage provides more wealth, as the child lacking wealth would be provided by one of two families or both.
In case of child marrying an adult, then she is provided for by her parents and by her husband, increasing wealth.

Okay, wealth isn't just created out of thin air. What are you saying is that one family takes on the financial burden of having an extra kid while the other family cuts costs by not having to take care of said kid. That is not more wealth, it is more wealth for one family and less for the other. You also said that "Marriages provide more wealth than if person lived alone". So the person getting the wealth would be the adult as they are the one living alone. But that contradicts what you now said because the adult is losing wealth by taking on the financial burden of the child. And the idea of regulating custody in this matter seems impossibly hard. You also stated that "Marriage is needed for a better relationship." Needed is an extreme exaggeration, two people can have a perfectly healthy and happy relationship without being married. 

23. This is not a refutation to anything.
Yes it is, my point is there is no reason to use child marriage as a solution to problems that can be fixed more easily or don't even exist to begin with. Not to mention after doing further research, your point about child marriage leading to further educate couldn't be further from the truth. 
"In the preferred specification of the model, each additional year of early marriagereduces the probability of literacy among women who married early by5.7 percentage points, the probability of having at least some secondary schoolingby 5.6 points, and the probability of secondary school completion by 3.5 points" 

24. So they are held accountable. Being sentenced for crime is what being accountable means.
Yes, they are held accountable, but is important to note the context in how they are held accountable. Minors sentencing is often based on rehabilitation instead of punishment. The criminal justice system is structured around the idea that children are less knowledgeable and need time to learn how to make good decisions. 

25. It is better to marry someone you love than to live in a foster care.
For starters, you can't just magically find someone you love and who wants to marry you. Child marriage is not a viable option to solve parental abuse.

Also I stated this before with the prison system arguement you made, the solution is to improve the foster care system so that the child is treated just as good there, not to legalize child marriage. 

26. In marriage, of course. Also, not possible to prevent adult-child sexual relationships, as most are never discovered.
Preventing is different from reducing. I agree that it is probably impossible to prevent ALL adult-child relationships, but by criminalizing it and encouraging victims to speak out, we can significantly reduce it. 

27. It doesnt lower the rate.it more likely for the child to be abused
Deterrence is effective method. We should devote more resources to uncovering these abusive relationships, and punish the perpetrators more severely. 
And you keep saying it more likely for the child to be abused, but you have provided no evidence to support this. 

28. This doesnt negate that allowing marriage makes them more likely to get married, and getting married makes them more likely not to have sex outside of marriage.
You are taking an example of those who arent in marriage, from a country that doesnt value marriages. If marriage was illegal for them, it would be the same for them in terms of sex. They would still have sex with multiple partners.
Child marriage can be regulated in a different way than regular marriage.
This debate is not about all adult-child sexual relationships. Its about child marriage and benefits of allowing child marriage. That is not the same as allowing sexual relationships outside marriage, nor do sexual relationships outside marriage need to be allowed. For children, they  should only be allowed inside marriage, where it is the safest to practice them.

My point was that there is no evidence that legalizing marriage reduces the amount sexual partners the average person has. And the burden of proof is on you, this was your claim. 

29. Child marriage is done to protect children from abuse and harm.

But phycologists and experts from many other fields think that child marriage causes trauma and harm. Again, I am so glad you referenced that book, because it is actually great evidence for my arguments. So even if the intention is to reduce abuse, the experts say otherwise. When it comes to vaccines, the experts agree that it protects the child from harm. 

30. They are judged. I already explained that society's judgmemt towards relationship they enjoy being in makes them feel bad.
The book you referenced actually says the shame one experiences from these relationships is because they blame themselves for not fighting against it. "By not fighting back or calling for help, they blame themselves for effectively colluding with their abuser." 
And again explaining something isn't proving it. The burden of proof is on you. You have to provide evidence to support your claims. 

31. They legally limit map to be married to one child, as opposed to abusing dozens or hundred children.
So you argue that we shouldn't make child marriage illegal, because people will have sexual relations with children either way. But now you contradict yourself and say that making something illegal works, and that by legally limiting a "MAP" they will stick to one partner. You have now either conceded my point in 27. or you concede this arguement. 

32. In the book "The Trauma Myth", it shows that around 90% of children dont want for their adult partner to go to prison. They keep same opinion when they grow up. That is future consent. It shows that arresting the partner is in most cases not in child's interest, not a child's desire.

This is laughable. Again unless you can point to a specific quote, you are just making shit up. And either way even if that statistic is true, you are grossly misrepresenting the context of this book as I have explained previously. 

33. Actually, we have seen that banning child marriages makes it more likely to increase number of abused children, to increase abuse, to increase violence, to increase prison population, to harm map youth, to destroy child's happiness, to create stigma and judgment, to increase suicide rates by increasing number of partners, to destroy bond between child and adult, and to violate child's desires.

You are just claiming things without evidence. You can't just say "we have seen" and provide no sources.
You didn't prove that banning child marriage "makes it more likely to increase number of abused children"
You didn't prove that banning child marriage "increase(s) prison population" *in fact I debunked this earlier in my arguement
You didn't prove that banning child marriage "harm(s) map youth" or "destroy(s) child's happiness"
You didn't prove that banning child marriage "increas(es) number of partners" 
You didn't prove that more sexual partners leads to "increase(d) suicide rates"
You didn't prove that banning child marriage "violate(s) child's desires"

You did CLAIM all of these things, but left it at. You gave some half-ass explanations on why these things could hypothetically be true, but you provided no evidence to support it. 

34. This is another argument from possibility. No society was able to prevent children from having sex with adults. So no, it cannot happen.
You have, for the third time, misunderstood your OWN arguement. You stated that:
"There is no legal law that he must follow."
My arguement was simply that yes, there is a law the "MAP" has to follow, which is to not engage is sexual relationships with a minor. You misrepresented my arguement in a way I don't even understand. 

35.  It is well known that parents and police often persuade children. So do psychologists. Listing their other jobs doesnt negate that.

Again you can't just say things and assert them as truth. "It is well known" Well known by who? where is your source? 

36. If a 12 year old murders someone, she would be charged. However, she wont be charged if she has sex with another 12 year old. But if she is 18 and has sex with a 12 year old, she will be charged. Therefore, we see that person's age in one crime is much more relevant to sentencing than in the other crime. In fact, in the case of sex, it literally goes from "not a big deal" to "very horrible" just because of the age of a person doing the action, not the action itself.

Being charged is different than committing a crime. You said in your initial arguement that " two 12 year olds being in sexual relationship is condemned, but not a crime." Two 12 year olds having sex is a crime, but they will not be charged. You have, for the fourth time, misunderstood your own arguement. 
And let us take this murder example into account. A 12 year old who murders someone potentially could get out of prison as soon as 18 (6 years in jail). If an 18 year old murders someone, they will get 30 years or more, and possibly even the death sentence depending on the context. 

Your arguement that "Therefore, we see that person's age in one crime is much more relevant to sentencing than in the other crime." is just factually wrong. Age is always an important factors in any criminal case. 

37. My opponent first said that judge will be involved. Then he says it is not condemned. This is what we call blatant lying in a debate.

I never said a judge would be involved. I said that technically two children having sex is a crime. If there is no signs of abuse or violence a judge would most likely through that case out if they somehow were presented that. And you ignored my arguement, safe sex is taught all across the U.S.. Many schools start handing out condoms as early as middle school. Sex education begins in the 5th grade. Sex among teens is normalized, with the exception of some religious groups. 

38. You are correct I misunderstood your statement. But to argue against your point, legalizing child marriage doesn't encourage trans youth to express themselves. Trans people are told not to wear stuff regardless of their age. And legalizing child marriage doesn't change the fact that a parent still has control over what a child wears. 

39. I already explained the difference between murder and child marriage. Also, the comparison to drug dealing is wrong due to no benefits in decriminalizing drug dealing.
It was already explained that adult-child relationships in most cases cannot be prevented.
"It was already explained that adult-child relationships in most cases cannot be prevented."
Drug dealing and murder cannot be prevented either, but criminalizing it reduces the rates in which those crimes are committed.

"I already explained the difference between murder and child marriage." 
In this context there is no difference. You can't argue that something should be decriminalized because it reduces incarceration rates. Decriminalizing anything reduces incarceration rates. 

"Also, the comparison to drug dealing is wrong due to no benefits in decriminalizing drug dealing."
The arguement you made was that child marriage should be legalized to reduce prison population. You didn't argue that child marriage should be legalized because it provided benefits to society. In this context, there is no difference between drug dealing and sex with a minor. 

Conclusion:
"Most of my arguments remain unchallenged. I explained how banning child marriages makes it impossible to regulate adult-child relationships. Most of the adult-child relationships are never discovered. It is impossible to prevent them."

Most of your arguement remains unproven, so there is nothing to challenge. 

I am going to simplify the rest of your conclusion. You claimed you proved all of these things, but as I stated earlier you didn't prove any of them. 

You made claims, and then threw together some loose possible explanations for why those claims could be true. That isn't proving something. To prove something you need clear empirical data or research. 

Let me also mention all the claims I made you didn't mention or grossly misunderstood: 
"Mind you a divorce takes 6 months or longer, and there are financial repercussions a child can't understand." 
""People who resort to sex work are often those with failed relationships early in life. "
I found know evidence to support this, so it seems you just made it up. "
"First of all child marriage, isn't a criminal offense, it just isn't legally possible to do in most states."
"Children are not considered capable of providing informed consent in these situations due to their age and vulnerability."
"This may be true in some cases, but the risk of manipulation and abuse significantly outweighs the few potentially happy partners. "
"Children are sentenced more lightly for any crime they commit, and their crimes are hidden from their record when they turn 18. "
"People are falsely imprisoned and sometimes even killed for a murder they didn't commit. This doesn't mean we need to legalize murder, it means we have to improve our court system. "
"there are other, more appropriate, forms of sexual expression. Masturbation and sex with another person of the same maturity level."
"Sure it won't make them "go away", but it lowers the rate of them and punishes those took advantage of the child."
"There will always be worse evils that people can compare themselves to, legalizing them doesn't solve anything."
" You are quite literally arguing for rape. You are saying consent isn't needed because they might like it, but what if they don't? "future consent" is not a real thing and you are currently trying to justify rape. "
"1. While both relationships involve interactions between a child and an adult, their dynamics, roles, and potential consequences are vastly distinct. A parent-child relationship is different than a sexual and romantic relationship, and it is less important to be equal in power. A marriage is based on joint decision making and collaboration. 
2. The importance and benefits of a parent-child relationship outweigh the potential risk for abuse, the same is not true for adult-child marriages. "
"It seems that a lot of your arguments revolve around issues that could potentially be solved by child marriage. (like lack of education or torture in prison for example) But the majority of these can be solved without risking the potential harms of legalizing child marriage. "
"Typically, it is actually the OPPOSITE. Parents often force the kid to keep the child. Regardless, I agree that parents shouldn't force an abortion on a minor. (or force them to keep the baby) But legalizing child marriages doesn't solve this problem, the parents (or partner) can still convince the pregnant girl to make a decision she doesn't want to. Your solution isn't actually a solution at all. "
"Let me also clarify that this entire arguement is a fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there are other unethical actions being promoted like porn or physical abuse doesn't mean that a adult-child relationship is right. That is like saying beating someone up is okay because other people go out and murder. "
(I am going to for now consider you are conceding all of these points as you didn't properly address them)


There is actually more statements you didn't properly address, but I am running out of characters. So far you have proven nothing of significance, and your main source of evidence is actually a book than contradicts the majority of your arguments. You misrepresented my arguments on numerous occasions and achieved nothing of significance this round. 


Round 3
Pro
#5
In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be legally allowed

Arguments
33. Banning child marriages increases the number of child sexual abuse
The proof for child marriages reducing sexual abuse is Afghanistan and USA. In USA, 30% of children have sex before age 16. In Afghanistan, only 4% of children are married before age 15. In USA, child marriages are banned and condemned. In Afghanistan, they are seen as normal. We see that allowing child marriages does not harm children, not in terms of scale and not in terms of abuse, as Afghanistan has less suicides, less divorce and less STD than USA. STD is confirmed even by random testing, and all sources agree that STD is lower in Afghanistan. Let us be reminded that Afghanistan is a poor country, and that USA is among world's most developed nations. The fact that Afghanistan has child marriages and outmatches US proves that there is value in child marriage.

42. Survival of the fittest proves the power of child marriages and the value it has for society
Child marriage helped societies to survive. Societies before ours lived in a very difficult conditions. They needed to be at their best in order to survive. Those societies valued marriage and child marriage, and practiced it. If child marriage was bad for society, then societies who didnt practice it would be dominant. The opposite happened. Societies that practiced child marriage were dominant. Child marriage improved their birth rates, their economy and their ability to defend themselves.

Rebuttals
Your description doesn't make sense. Imposing a law that requires the parties to both be "happy" is impossible to enforce. It is too subjective and would be impossible to argue in court.
There would be standards to ensure child is happy. Those standards would include:
1. Child's consent given multiple times over a period of time, as well as regular checks if everything is okay
2. Approval of community
3. Evaluation of an adult partner
4. Making the adult partner go through education to learn how to treat a child
5. Educating child about her rights in marriage, and the protection she has. She can at any time report if relationship becomes abusive.

still legalizing sexual relationships between an adult and a child, just only under certain circumstances. And you didn't specify this in your initial arguement
The topic is about child marriages. Of course we are debating child marriages and what happens in them. And I did specify multiple times that sex outside of marriage is harmful.

I mentioned sexual relationships, but noted that it should be between two people of the same maturity level to prevent abuse
This was already refuted many times. Maturity level is never the same. You cannot stop adults from having sex with children. Child-child sexual relationships are condemned too.

That is not at all what I said. You arguement is that if we legalize child marriage there will be benefits. One of the benefits you argued for was that children will have less sexual partners. I argued that making marriage legal doesn't reduce the amount of sexual partners someone has. I never argued that is marriage was illegal that there would be less sex, just that making marriage legal doesn't reduce sex
If your argument is not that banning child marriages reduces sex with children, then you have already lost the debate on this point alone.
Since you conceded that banning child marriages doesnt reduce sex with children, your only case left is that allowing child marriages doesnt reduce sex either. I have proved that map in marriage has less reasons to go after other children.
However, your example is not accurate. In your example, it is legal to have sex outside of marriage, and marriage is not valued, but is legal.
In your example, it would be even worse if marriages were banned. So allowing marriages still reduces sex outside of marriage.
My side argued from the start that sex outside of marriage is harmful. My case was built around marriage.
Your case was built around an absurd claim that banning marriages doesnt increase sex outside of marriage.
I have already supported my side by providing examples of what happens when child marriages are legal and when marriages are valued, and why allowing child marriages reduces sex outside of marriage and reduces number of sexual partners. Even arresting child's partner only makes a child to seek another partner, therefore increasing number of partners.

Afghanistan, as I noted previously, is a horrible role model. They oppress women significantly
Woman in USA is more likely to commit suicide.

Legalizing marriage doesn't force anyone to get married, so legalizing it won't automatically make all these relationships known.
The more relationships are known, the less children are abused. Also, legalizing marriages as a means of safety for both map and children gives map incentive to be in marriage. He would be able to legally be with a child without any risk of prison as long as he follows the rules. It would also give him incentive to follow rules, protecting child's interest.

there was however, at certain ages, a correlation between sexual partners and drug dependency
Does it need more proof? Suicides, drug dependency... what more do you want to accept that sex outside of marriage is harmful. In fact, in modern countries, there is lots of suicides and lots of sex outside of marriage.

because child marriage isn't possible, it isn't a criminal offense
What is illegal is sex between a minor and an adult
Child marriage includes sexual activities. Banning child marriage bans sexual activities, therefore increases prison population.

Your arguement wasn't that banning child marriage harms children, it was that banning child marriage increases prison rates.
My argument was that banning child marriages harms children and that it increases prison rates. Same logic cannot be applied to murder, so you are using out of context fallacy.

The book you are siting is fighting against you. Here is a quote from the author of the book: 
 “Unfortunately, when people heard ‘not traumatic when it happens,’ they translated my words to mean, ‘It doesn’t harm victims later on.’ Even worse, some assumed I was blaming victims for their abuse.”
The book you are referring to explained that the children involved don't experience trauma when it is happening, but experience the trauma when they grow older and understand the abuse they were put in. 
"Commonly, the abuse had been confusing for the child but not traumatic in the usual sense of the word. Only when the child grew old enough to understand exactly what had happened — sometimes many years later — did the fear, shock and horror begin. And only at that point did the experience become traumatic and begin its well-known destructive process."
Thats author's opinion. Author was attacked for being map supporter, so had to change tone. The world is not as nice as you think. You arent map. You didnt get death threats. It doesnt change the statistics presented in the book.

I mentioned this in my arguement. Future consent is not real consent. As I pointed out I can't have unconsensual sex with someone and then assume they will like it. You can't give "future consent".
Future consent can be given. Future consent is based on statistics. As explained, 90% of children dont want for their adult partner to go to prison. They keep same opinion after they grow up. Therefore, they dont approve of arrests and prosecutions.
Their consent comes after they are adults. That consent is important, as it is important to consider what future adult wants and base decisions towards a child on that.

they don't allow children to consent, but then they punish children equally
I never said that they punish children equally as adults. I  said that they punish children, which proves accountability.

If a child has the right to self-govern themselves, they wouldn't need parents, and wouldn't be treated differently under the law.
Child does govern themselves. You should only do to a child that which is in the interest of that child, either current interest either interest of future adult.

Again 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are women
Again, woman is twice as likely to commit suicide in USA. So in USA, women are twice more abused.

The evidence shows that most people in these types of relationships experienced trauma and often a lack of education
No. The evidence showed that Afghanistan has less suicides among women than USA.
Trauma is caused by society's judgment. Effects of stigma were explained already.

The past association of homosexuality with mental illness was based on misconceptions and prejudice, and has been thoroughly discredited by modern scientific research and understanding of human sexuality
Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by modern scientific research. Every scientific research was modern in its own time.
So you either concede that scientific research can make mistakes, either assume the appeal to authority by blindly trusting it.

Okay, wealth isn't just created out of thin air. What are you saying is that one family takes on the financial burden of having an extra kid while the other family cuts costs by not having to take care of said kid. That is not more wealth, it is more wealth for one family and less for the other.
Some families are too rich to notice. So by percentage, it would be more wealth for the poor family.
Also, in case of adult-child marriage, rich adult can provide for the child and help her parents. Its called sharing.

But that contradicts what you now said because the adult is losing wealth by taking on the financial burden of the child.
The child is gaining the wealth of both parents and husband. So it is more wealth than if child was outside marriage. Also, I wouldnt call helping your loved one as "losing wealth".
Also, two people living in one house pay same bills, where living separately the bills increase.

A child cannot provide proper consent.
Future consent solves that. Also, adult being kind and friendly, and not forcing a child to anything, and future adult agreeing with the decision, that is the opposite of force.

"In the preferred specification of the model, each additional year of early marriagereduces the probability of literacy among women who married early by5.7 percentage points, the probability of having at least some secondary schoolingby 5.6 points, and the probability of secondary school completion by 3.5 points"
This has nothing to do with child marriage. This is caused by poverty in poor countries. In a regulated child marriage, child would still have to go to school.

Minors sentencing is often based on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
The minor is punished. Rehabilitation and punishment arent mutually exclusive. To claim that being locked up is not a punishment is nonsense. But at least you admitted that children are held accountable for something they didnt consent to do.

For starters, you can't just magically find someone you love and who wants to marry you. Child marriage is not a viable option to solve parental abuse.
Actually, child marriage in ancient times saved children from being orphans. People ignore all the benefits child marriages provided throughout history. Even Romeo and Juliet is based on child marriage that wasnt allowed to happen. Juliet was 14.
Today, child would be able to be saved from foster care if map were allowed to adopt. Maybe you cant always find someone you love, but sometimes you can. That sometimes should not be prevented.

the solution is to improve the foster care system
It cannot be as good as having a family. Never. Children will always abuse each other.

by criminalizing it and encouraging victims to speak out, we can significantly reduce it.
No, you cannot reduce it by criminalizing it. The victims, as explained before, dont want to speak out. They like the adult and dont want him harmed.

Deterrence is effective method
So far it failed. The number of abuse cases keeps growing. Map always assume they wont be caught.

the shame one experiences from these relationships is because they blame themselves for not fighting against it
That blame only comes once they grow up and learn that society strongly judges such relationships. Its the society that puts pressure on those children and makes them think that what they agreed to was horrible. Also, they hear rape stories on media, and believe that they are bad for approving that which society condemns.

So you argue that we shouldn't make child marriage illegal, because people will have sexual relations with children either way. But now you contradict yourself and say that making something illegal works, and that by legally limiting a "MAP" they will stick to one partner.
This is not a contradiction. If they are allowed to have one partner, they can satisfy urges legally in a way that doesnt harm them. If they are not allowed any partner, they cannot satisfy urges legally at all. And urges would still be there. Having urges that are unfullfilled is an equivalent of pain.

Being charged is different than committing a crime.
You ignored my point about the sex being "no big deal" and "very horrible" depending on the age of a person.
12 and 12 = no big deal, no punishment
18 and 12 = very horrible, decades in prison
So the same action is viewed differently if done at different age. Hence, age discrimination.

I never said a judge would be involved. I said that technically two children having sex is a crime. 
So you assume its a crime, but that its not condemned. That makes no sense.

safe sex is taught all across the U.S.. Many schools start handing out condoms as early as middle school. Sex education begins in the 5th grade. Sex among teens is normalized, with the exception of some religious groups.
The only safe sex is in marriage, I have to add. Besides, this seems like you misrepresenting facts in an attempt to disprove my argument about banning child marriage being harmful for child-child relationships. Parents would still condemn if their 9 year old had sex with a 12 year old.

Drug dealing and murder cannot be prevented either, but criminalizing it reduces the rates in which those crimes are committed.
Banning child marriage doesnt reduce the rates of sex among children. Adults are more likely to have sex with multiple children when child marriages are illegal. I point out  again Afghanistan and USA, and I point out reasons which went undisputed.

In this context, there is no difference between drug dealing and sex with a minor. 
The context includes all reasons, not just the ones you cherry pick. Banning drug dealing works. Banning child marriages causes more harm than good.

Conclusion
My opponent has no case to work with. His arguments of consent, harm, increase in abuse, comparison to rape, murder and drug dealing, accountability, stigma, all were refuted.
Its obvious at this point that child marriages should be allowed when children have sexual urges and act on them.
Con
#6
1. The proof for child marriages reducing sexual abuse is Afghanistan and USA. In USA, 30% of children have sex before age 16. In Afghanistan, only 4% of children are married before age 15
These statistics aren't proof of anything. You didn't prove that U.S. children have more sex. And sex doesn't equal abuse. 

2. In USA, child marriages are banned and condemned. In Afghanistan, they are seen as normal. We see that allowing child marriages does not harm children, not in terms of scale and not in terms of abuse, as Afghanistan has less suicides, less divorce and less STD than USA. STD is confirmed even by random testing, and all sources agree that STD is lower in Afghanistan. Let us be reminded that Afghanistan is a poor country, and that USA is among world's most developed nations. The fact that Afghanistan has child marriages and outmatches US proves that there is value in child marriage.

Afghanistan does not "outmatch" the U.S.. As I have explained, they have a culture of mistreating women, which is why 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are done by women. Afghanistan had less divorce because they culture deems divorce taboo, not because child marriages are legal. (correlation is not causation).

"In Afghanistan, a post-conflict setting with a developing health infrastructure, there are no published data regarding antenatal or pediatric seroprevalence of HIV, hepatitis B, or syphilis." 

And this is the last time I am going to go out and disprove a statistic you didn't send a source to. You can't just make these claims and then expect me to go out and do all the heavy lifting trying to figure out where you read it. 
 3. Child marriage helped societies to survive. Societies before ours lived in a very difficult conditions. They needed to be at their best in order to survive. Those societies valued marriage and child marriage, and practiced it. If child marriage was bad for society, then societies who didnt practice it would be dominant. The opposite happened. Societies that practiced child marriage were dominant. Child marriage improved their birth rates, their economy and their ability to defend themselves.

I can refute this. But I am not even going to because I am tired of doing extra work for you as I stated before. You provided no source to prove this information. 
the claims you made: 
Child marriage helped societies to survive.
Societies that practiced child marriage were dominant.
Child marriage improved their birth rates, their economy and their ability to defend themselves.
None of these were proven, as you didn't provide and source or statistic, so I am going to ignore all of them. 

4. There would be standards to ensure child is happy. Those standards would include:
1. Child's consent given multiple times over a period of time, as well as regular checks if everything is okay
2. Approval of community
3. Evaluation of an adult partner
4. Making the adult partner go through education to learn how to treat a child
5. Educating child about her rights in marriage, and the protection she has. She can at any time report if relationship becomes abusive.

Okay well now you are switching up the definition. You stated that child marriage must make "all participants happy". You didn't say that it would have to be regulated to try and ensure happiness. I will let you try and switch your definition now because your arguement is so hopeless, but let me also mention that you stated, "By accepting the debate, you agreed upon the definition as given in description." 

Educating child about her rights in marriage, and the protection she has. She can at any time report if relationship becomes abusive.
Again because the child is vulnerable they can easily be manipulated into not talking about possible abuse. 

5. This was already refuted many times. Maturity level is never the same. You cannot stop adults from having sex with children. Child-child sexual relationships are condemned too.
This was not refuted. Maturity levels may never be exactly the same, but it is much more difficult for a 14 year old to abuse another 14 year old because of the power dynamic in the relationship. 
And again you cannot stop adults from having sex with children, but you can reduce the rates via deterrence. I feel like I have to repeat everything 5 times to get it into your thick skull. 

6. If your argument is not that banning child marriages reduces sex with children, then you have already lost the debate on this point alone.
Since you conceded that banning child marriages doesnt reduce sex with children, your only case left is that allowing child marriages doesnt reduce sex either. I have proved that map in marriage has less reasons to go after other children.
I never "conceded" that banning child marriage doesn't reduce sex with children. I said it won't completely eliminate sex with children. Also here you go again with the "prove" statements. "I have proved that map in marriage has less reasons to go after other children."
No you didn't prove anything. You made a claim and gave a hypothetical explanation on why it may true. Without and data or studies to back it up, it isn't proved. 

7. Your case was built around an absurd claim that banning marriages doesnt increase sex outside of marriage.
Yes, but specifically ADULT-CHILD sex. Not sex between two minors. 

"why allowing child marriages reduces sex outside of marriage and reduces number of sexual partners. Even arresting child's partner only makes a child to seek another partner, therefore increasing number of partners."

Again this is a CLAIM. It is the third round and you still have provided any evidence for the majority of your claims. You have provided nothing that shows, "allowing child marriages reduces sex outside of marriage and reduces number of sexual partners". You have shown nothing that proves, "Even arresting child's partner only makes a child to seek another partner, therefore increasing number of partners."

8. Woman in USA is more likely to commit suicide. 
But my point wasn't that the U.S. doesn't have a problem with suicide. I was saying that 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are women, because the culture there mistreats women horribly. I think your role model for the U.S. shouldn't be a country that is constantly abusing women. 

Let me show you show examples of stories about child marriage in Afghanistan from a research study. 

": From Khair Khana: Five years ago, when she was 14 years old, her parents married heroff. She lives with her husband who beats her. She lost two babies from lack of propermedical care. She recently gave birth to a third child." 

"From Khair Khana: She was 12 when she was married to a 40-year-old man. She haslived with him for 16 years. She has 4 children and she is pregnant. Her husband can’twork because of “weakness” and she can’t work because of her pregnancy. So she sendsher daughters into the streets to beg."

": From Qalai Bakhtyar: She was 15 when her parents married her off, very much againsther will. She now has 6 children and a psychological problem. She hates the noise herchildren make, and she often beats them. She doesn’t want to have any more children." 


Afghanistan also makes married women get worse education: 
"Nevertheless, in theschools we surveyed, some students were hiding the fact that they were married becausethey didn’t want to be sent to the Vocational High School," 

"Prisoners interviewed by mm’s legal staff in the past six months said that whenthey married they knew nothing about marital relations or what to expect from theirhusband and his family. Misunderstandings partly arising from such ignorance resultedin their husbands and their families abusing and beating them. In these cases thewomen tried to escape from their husbands, or in a few cases, to kill them." 

"Typical case study from mm’s legal program: When Z was 10 years old her parents soldher in marriage (for 60,000 Afs.) to a 50-year-old man who was deaf and dumb. She wasraped on her wedding night. During the next years she ran back to her father’s housesome 7 or 8 times, but each time her father beat her and held her in chains until herhusband came to get her again." 

"Of all 32 inmates in Kabul Women’s Prison from September to December 2003, 60% weremarried when they were under the age of sixteen. The data strongly suggest aconnection between child marriage, family abuse and violence, and subsequent use oflaw against such women." 

There is numerous more examples of the problems of child marriage in Afghanistan. Go the study I mentioned or look at the other plethora of studies that show child marriage in Afghanistan is extremely problematic. 

9. The more relationships are known, the less children are abused. Also, legalizing marriages as a means of safety for both map and children gives map incentive to be in marriage. He would be able to legally be with a child without any risk of prison as long as he follows the rules. It would also give him incentive to follow rules, protecting child's interest. 

As seen in Afghanistan, as you so like to look to, legalizing child marriage does not prevent abuse. And again you continue to make claims and then act like you are proving them. 
Give me some statistics that show "The more relationships are known, the less children are abused." 
And give me some statistics that show that legalizing child marriage will uncover abusive relationships. Pedophilia is mainly about sexual urges, most people who are engaging in these acts with children probably don't want to go through the lengthy process of getting married just to have sex. And what happens when the child grows up? If the person is a "MAP" like you state they would lose attraction. 

10. 
Does it need more proof? Suicides, drug dependency... what more do you want to accept that sex outside of marriage is harmful. In fact, in modern countries, there is lots of suicides and lots of sex outside of marriage. 
Well, you are misinterpreting the data. Having sex with many partners is harmful, not necessarily sex outside of marriage. And people in marriage have sex outside of marriage often. 

"Research from the past two decades shows that between 20 and 25 percent of married men cheat and between 10 and 15 percent of married women cheat" 

11. Child marriage includes sexual activities. Banning child marriage bans sexual activities, therefore increases prison population.
Okay so your arguement is that banning sexual activities with a minor increases prison population. Not banning child marriage. Child marriage doesn't necessarily need to involve a sexual relationship. For example, child marriage is legal in California, but sexual relationships with a minor are still illegal. And again "increased prison population" isn't a valid arguement to decriminalize something. 

12. My argument was that banning child marriages harms children and that it increases prison rates. Same logic cannot be applied to murder, so you are using out of context fallacy.
You arguement was that "Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons" you have now decided to throw in the "banning child marriages harms children" because you know your other arguement was weak. These are two independent arguments and should be seen as such. I have already addressed the banning child marriage causing harm, which you haven't proved, and the evidence I have shown seems to point against. 

13. Thats author's opinion. Author was attacked for being map supporter, so had to change tone. The world is not as nice as you think. You arent map. You didnt get death threats. It doesnt change the statistics presented in the book.

That is an EXTREME misrepresentation of the book. In the book her evidence-based opinion was that trauma comes later in the relationship. She didn't "change the tone", the book was already out. People just misunderstood the book, and after the media looked into it they relegalized people like YOU are misrepresenting her findings. And it does, because you ignored the context of the book, just like the people accusing her of being a "friend of the pedophiles" did. You can't cherry pick her findings that children didn't feel abused in the relationship and then ignore her findings that they felt the trauma when they got older. 
"It doesnt change the statistics presented in the book." 
And you still didn't even present the quotes from the book, probably because you ignored context and exaggerated, so the quotes themselves make your arguement fall apart. 

14. Future consent can be given. Future consent is based on statistics. As explained, 90% of children dont want for their adult partner to go to prison. They keep same opinion after they grow up. Therefore, they dont approve of arrests and prosecutions.
Their consent comes after they are adults. That consent is important, as it is important to consider what future adult wants and base decisions towards a child on that.

"As explained, 90% of children dont want for their adult partner to go to prison." 
Where did you find this? You stated this before, but again no quote. I am going to say that is false until you show a quote. And even if it is true, the same book where you claim you found that statistic, says that children feel trauma later in life, when they are older, they wish they didn't consent and instead had fought back or spoken up. You cannot cherry-pick her findings. 
"They keep same opinion after they grow up. Therefore, they dont approve of arrests and prosecutions." 
The book you cited seems to argue the contrary. 
"Their consent comes after they are adults. That consent is important, as it is important to consider what future adult wants and base decisions towards a child on that." 
What if they become an adult and they don't consent then? Does the adult go to jail? Let's just agree with this 90% statistic for a moment and ignore context, that means 10% of these relationships would still be rape even with your made up "future consent" bullshit. 

12. I never said that they punish children equally as adults. I  said that they punish children, which proves accountability. 
Okay so you concede that it isn't hypocritical, the defendants age matters whether they are the victim or the perpetrator, therefore there is no hypocrisy. 

13. Child does govern themselves. You should only do to a child that which is in the interest of that child, either current interest either interest of future adult.
If we are regulating it they aren't governing themselves. 

14. Again, woman is twice as likely to commit suicide in USA. So in USA, women are twice more abused.
This is a lack of fundamental understanding of the statistics. That conclusion is complete bullshit. In the U.S. the majority of suicides are men, meaning that overall men's mental health is worse when it comes to suicide. In Afghanistan, 80% are women, which shows women's mental health in Afghanistan is significantly worse than men's. 

15. No. The evidence showed that Afghanistan has less suicides among women than USA.
Trauma is caused by society's judgment. Effects of stigma were explained already. 

I will again link to the study I quoted and some other studies that prove this to be false. 


And here are some other studies that show how laughable your Afghanistan example is. 



People who have looked at and collected data in Afghanistan argue that child marriage is an extremely harmful part of their society. 


16. 
Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by modern scientific research. Every scientific research was modern in its own time.
So you either concede that scientific research can make mistakes, either assume the appeal to authority by blindly trusting it.


"So you either concede that scientific research can make mistakes

I do agree with this, but this wasn't my point. The same level of understanding of the brain right now that deems homosexuality normal, deems pedophilia a result of mental illness. 
So even though it is true that this could be wrong, we should make our decisions on the available data and research

"either assume the appeal to authority by blindly trusting it."
There is nothing wrong with using modern science to base our decisions. This doesn't mean we put a halt on scientific research, just that we can use what is available to base our decisions for laws and medical practices. 

"Some families are too rich to notice. So by percentage, it would be more wealth for the poor family.
Also, in case of adult-child marriage, rich adult can provide for the child and help her parents. Its called sharing."

But that is extremely specific. And it isn't making more wealth like you stated, it just redistributing it. What if two poor families are in this situation? Then one has to take on the extra child and they go broke. 

"Future consent solves that."

You still haven't debunked my arguement that future consent doesn't make sense and is just something used to justify rape. When it comes to someone else's body, you can't just do something and hope they will like it in the future, that violates their rights. That is like giving someone a tattoo and maybe they will like it, but maybe they won't, hence why you don't give a tattoo without explicit consent. 

"This has nothing to do with child marriage. This is caused by poverty in poor countries. In a regulated child marriage, child would still have to go to school." 
How can it have nothing to do with child marriage. "In the preferred specification of the model, each additional year of early marriagereduces the probability of literacy among women who married early by5.7 percentage points, the probability of having at least some secondary schoolingby 5.6 points, and the probability of secondary school completion by 3.5 points"  

Women who marry early have demonstrated to have less academic proficiency. Nothing forces these children out of school, but they have a family to take care of, so they get spread too thin. 

17. "The minor is punished. Rehabilitation and punishment arent mutually exclusive. To claim that being locked up is not a punishment is nonsense. But at least you admitted that children are held accountable for something they didnt consent to do."
Sure one can be rehabilitant and punished, but sentencing for people under 18 typically focuses on therapy and probation, not jail time. \

"held accountable for something they didnt consent to do."
What are they held accountable for? What didn't they consent to? What does that even mean?

18. Actually, child marriage in ancient times saved children from being orphans. People ignore all the benefits child marriages provided throughout history. Even Romeo and Juliet is based on child marriage that wasnt allowed to happen. Juliet was 14.

So your only piece of evidence is a fictional story written by a poet? And didn't Romeo and Juliet end tragically? ". Actually, child marriage in ancient times saved children from being orphans. People ignore all the benefits child marriages provided throughout history."

PLEASE PROVIDE SOME DAMN SOURCES. you just pull shit out of your ass. 

19. 
"It cannot be as good as having a family. Never. Children will always abuse each other."
But if we improve the system then we can make it more likely for a child in foster care to find a home. 
And you didn't provide any proof for this claim, "Children will always abuse each other." 

20. No, you cannot reduce it by criminalizing it. The victims, as explained before, dont want to speak out. They like the adult and dont want him harmed.
I Literally provided a source showing that deterrence reduces crime. You chose to ignore it so I will link it again.

21. So far it failed. The number of abuse cases keeps growing. Map always assume they wont be caught. 

The number of abuse cases keeps growing. Again, no statistics, or research, you just spew claims with no proof. 

22. That blame only comes once they grow up and learn that society strongly judges such relationships. Its the society that puts pressure on those children and makes them think that what they agreed to was horrible. Also, they hear rape stories on media, and believe that they are bad for approving that which society condemns.

The book YOU sourced disagrees with this. So either you try and discredit the book now, which makes you seem stupid and makes it so you concede your arguments about violence in a adult-child relationship, or you concede that the trauma onsets later in life. Lose lose for you. 

23. This is not a contradiction. If they are allowed to have one partner, they can satisfy urges legally in a way that doesnt harm them. If they are not allowed any partner, they cannot satisfy urges legally at all. And urges would still be there. Having urges that are unfullfilled is an equivalent of pain. 

But nothing is stopping them from having multiple partners? What happens when their partner grows old and they are no longer attracted to them? 
Also, not every urge has to be satisfied. An important part of being a responsible adult is not acting impulsively or based on urges alone. If people have these urges they can reach out for professional help. 

24. You ignored my point about the sex being "no big deal" and "very horrible" depending on the age of a person.
12 and 12 = no big deal, no punishment
18 and 12 = very horrible, decades in prison
So the same action is viewed differently if done at different age. Hence, age discrimination.

Your initial arguement is that sex is the ONLY situation where it is different for the age. And you also claimed that sex between two 12 year olds is not a crime: "For example, two 12 year olds being in sexual relationship is condemned, but not a crime. But a sexual relationship between 12 year old and 18 year old is a crime. Therefore, person is assumed to have caused harm only because of his age, not because of the activity he does."

The reason two people of the same age having sex is no big deal legally is because there isn't an abuse of power. Let's say two people are equally drunk and have sex. No one will be charged for rape even though it is technically illegal to have sex with someone who isn't sober. But if a person is sober and the other person is drunk, than the sober person is charged with rape because of the power dynamic. You have no common sense. 

25. So you assume its a crime, but that its not condemned. That makes no sense.
Yes it does. 
Condemned - express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.
Crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
Jaywalking is a crime, but it isn't condemned. Again you lack common sense and make me walk you through this like a toddler. 

26.  The only safe sex is in marriage, I have to add. Besides, this seems like you misrepresenting facts in an attempt to disprove my argument about banning child marriage being harmful for child-child relationships. Parents would still condemn if their 9 year old had sex with a 12 year old.

Safe sex - sexual activity in which people take precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.
You don't know what safe sex is clearly. 

Parents would still condemn if their 9 year old had sex with a 12 year old. 
You don't have sources that prove this, you are just assuming this is true. But even assuming that is true, it is different. Teens having sex is normalized 12-17. But 9 is EXTREMELY young to have sex. Obviously this is condemned as that child has nowhere near enough life experience to make that decision. 

27. Adults are more likely to have sex with multiple children when child marriages are illegal. I

This remains unproved and is still only speculation. 

28. I point out  again Afghanistan and USA, and I point out reasons which went undisputed.

I refer back to my studies sited in 15. 

29. The context includes all reasons, not just the ones you cherry pick. Banning drug dealing works. Banning child marriages causes more harm than good.

But this is not what you were arguing. You argued that one reason we should decriminalize child marriages is to reduce prison population. Reducing prison population isn't a good reason to legalize something. 

Conclusion:
"My opponent has no case to work with. His arguments of consent, harm, increase in abuse, comparison to rape, murder and drug dealing, accountability, stigma, all were refuted.
Its obvious at this point that child marriages should be allowed when children have sexual urges and act on them."


I do not know how you claim to this conclusion. The burden of proof is one you, you made a bunch of claims that may be somewhat compelling if they were true, but you didn't provide any sources for the majority of the claims you made. The entirety of you arguement remains unproved, and therefore so far I am winning as you have not overcome the burden of proof. 

Also you claimed all my arguments were refuted, here are some you didn't refute: 

"Afghanistan, as I noted previously, is a horrible role model. They oppress women significantly, which is a large reason why they have lower divorce rates. It is not societally acceptable to get a divorce as a women there, even if you are being mistreated. " 
"How does it protect your interests in a relationship? And a relationship can be known without the two being married. Again you arguing to legalize child marriage, you aren't arguing about marriage culture. Legalizing marriage doesn't force anyone to get married, so legalizing it won't automatically make all these relationships known. And you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why most of these relationships are unknown. They are unknown because the victims are manipulated and threatened into being secretive. " 
'This is not true at all, most schools teach about sex and safe sex practices. It is not at all condemned. Neither is masturbating. "
"Again the debate is on whether it should be legalized not whether the culture of marriage should be promoted. I provided statistics that showed legalizing marriage doesn't lead to less sexual partners. Which again, I DIDN'T HAVE TO DO, as the burden of proof is on you and you didn't supply any statistics or studies. " 

I also find it funny how delusional you are. When confronted that your main source of information was a book that disproves your entire arguement, you now changed your mind and says the public shamed the author into changing their opinion. Which doesn't make sense because the contents of the book remain unchanged, so her conclusions that she found in the book stay the same. And those conclusions debunk your entire "future consent" myth which is one of the main foundations of your arguement. 

Overall, you have proved very very little, and what you have proved has amounted to nothing significant. Your main source of info debunks the foundations of your arguement. So far, this seems to be an outstanding victory for me. 






Round 4
Pro
#7
In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be legally allowed

Arguments
43. Having unsatisfied sexual urges is like feeling pain
If map are allowed to have one partner, they can satisfy urges legally in a way that doesnt harm them. If they are not allowed any partner, they cannot satisfy urges legally at all. And urges would still be there. Having urges that are unfullfilled is an equivalent of pain, since sexual urges are very strong and people are ready to risk their life and freedom to satisfy them.

Rebuttals
I dont feel offended my my opponent's insults. My opponent seems to be throwing a bunch of insults at me. In debating, this is discouraged. There is no point in attacking the person.

These statistics aren't proof of anything. You didn't prove that U.S. children have more sex. And sex doesn't equal abuse
I have proven that allowing child marrigage does not lead to some large scale abuse. Sex outside of marriage is abuse. It increases suicides. It increases STD.

Afghanistan does not "outmatch" the U.S.. As I have explained, they have a culture of mistreating women, which is why 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are done by women. Afghanistan had less divorce because they culture deems divorce taboo, not because child marriages are legal. (correlation is not causation).
Afghanistan proves that child marriages arent bad. It was already stated before that US has more suicide rate among women than Afghanistan does. Afghanistan proves that we need to place value on marriage. Placing higher value on marriage lowers divorce rates.

Again because the child is vulnerable they can easily be manipulated into not talking about possible abuse. 
Child is more vunerable without marriage. In child marriage, the relationship is known. Child is encouraged to report any problem. Child marriage would be under community's observation.

This was not refuted. Maturity levels may never be exactly the same, but it is much more difficult for a 14 year old to abuse another 14 year old because of the power dynamic in the relationship.
Most of child abuse is caused by children. A 14 year old can easily abuse a 10 year old if in relationship with her. A 14 year old can easily abuse another 14 year old if he is much stronger than her. Even among adults, man can easily abuse a woman due to being stronger.
Children are more likely to get abused by other children than by adults. Adults have more control. They can be better educated by society. They also have more moral maturity.


And again you cannot stop adults from having sex with children, but you can reduce the rates via deterrence. I feel like I have to repeat everything 5 times to get it into your thick skull.
It was already explained why deterrence doesnt work. People dont think they will get caught. They believe no one will find out. If they abuse a baby, baby cant tell anyone as long as they dont leave a mark.

I never "conceded" that banning child marriage doesn't reduce sex with children.
I said it won't completely eliminate sex with children.
Also here you go again with the "prove" statements. "I have proved that map in marriage has less reasons to go after other children."
No you didn't prove anything. You made a claim and gave a hypothetical explanation on why it may true. Without and data or studies to back it up, it isn't proved. 
I have already given reasons why ban on child marriage doesnt prevent adults from having sex with children. Adults have stronger sexual urges. Adults believe they wont get caught. Adults feel pain from not offending.
I have also explained why ban on child marriage doesnt at all reduce adults from going after children. I claimed that it motivates adults to go after children even more. I gave reasons for that. My opponent never refuted those reasons.

Yes, but specifically ADULT-CHILD sex. Not sex between two minors.
Does my opponent concede that child-child marriages should be legal?
That is quite enough for me to win the debate. The debate deals with adult-child or child-child. My opponent was defending child-child a lot, despite that child-child marriages being legal is my position, and his position is opposite.

But my point wasn't that the U.S. doesn't have a problem with suicide. I was saying that 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are women
My opponent is making no sense.
Suicide rates show the percentage of women committing suicides. My opponent claims  that a country, USA, who has twice as much suicide rates among women than Afghanistan, doesnt have problem with suicides. Then he goes to  claim that Afghanistan, country that has much less suicide rate among women, actually has greater problem with suicides than USA.
My opponent doesnt care that USA has more suicide rate among women. He does not even challenge that claim. Not to blame him. He cannot challenge it.

Let me show you show examples of stories about child marriage in Afghanistan from a research study
We are not going to read your cherry-picked stories. I could say that all marriages are bad. I could show countless number of stories of adults abusing adults in marriage. I still wouldnt prove that all marriages are bad.
Also, you are showing an example of forced marriages. I am arguing for consensual marriages. I am arguing for marriages in which child is happy. You think those two are the same.

Okay well now you are switching up the definition. You stated that child marriage must make "all participants happy". You didn't say that it would have to be regulated to try and ensure happiness.
You asked how they could be regulated to make child happy. I gave clear way of regulating it to make child happy. Then you complain about me not mentioning that argument in description. I am not even supposed to mention arguments in description.
In definition, it was said that marriages in which children are happy are to be allowed.
It was obvious from that definition that marriages would have to be regulated for the purpose of creating a marriage in which child was happy.
If that was not obvious to you, that is your fault.
I have no obligation to guide you step by step before the debate starts.

As seen in Afghanistan, as you so like to look to, legalizing child marriage does not prevent abuse. And again you continue to make claims and then act like you are proving them. 
Afghanistan is a poor country. Afghanistan was at war for 20 years. Violence and poverty are common there. Afghanistan does not have much education.
My opponent's argument is nonsense. My opponent confuses "reduces abuse" with "eliminates all abuse". I never claimed that child marriage will eliminate all abuse. I said it would reduce abuse.
Legalizing child marriage in Afghanistan did reduce abuse. It reduced suicide rates. It reduced poverty. It increased birth rates.

Pedophilia is mainly about sexual urges, most people who are engaging in these acts with children probably don't want to go through the lengthy process of getting married just to have sex.
This is a nonsense assumption. My opponent claims that people would rather risk prison than get married. The topic is about children who have already acted on their sexual urges. They would be given the option to marry.

And what happens when the child grows up? If the person is a "MAP" like you state they would lose attraction.
It is unlikely that map would lose attraction. Not all map are attracted to children alone. There is also emotional attachment at play. It is not easy to leave someone you loved for so long.
Even if they divorce, marriage was still a good thing. It made the relationship last longer than it would without marriage. It made the relationship known. It made child happy while it lasted.

Having sex with many partners is harmful, not necessarily sex outside of marriage.
This is a blatant lie. Having sex outside of marriage usually means having more sexual partners. Lack of marriage makes relationships less stable. Not valuing marriage also contributes.

And people in marriage have sex outside of marriage often. 
"Research from the past two decades shows that between 20 and 25 percent of married men cheat and between 10 and 15 percent of married women cheat"
25% is a very low number compared to lack of marriage. It comes from countries where marriage is not valued. It comes from places where sex outside of marriage is legal. I have already given reasons why sex with a child outside of marriage should be condemned and illegal.
If someone has sex with a child, marriage should be given as the option.
If child doesnt want to marry him, then he should go to prison. If child wants to marry him, they should be married if everything is fine. It is child's decision.

Okay so your arguement is that banning sexual activities with a minor increases prison population. Not banning child marriage.
Banning child marriage bans sexual activities in child marriage.
Legalizing child marriage allows sexual activities in child marriage.
I have already explained that child marriage includes sexual activities in that marriage. The topic specifically mentions acting on sexual urges.

You arguement was that "Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons" you have now decided to throw in the "banning child marriages harms children" because you know your other arguement was weak. These are two independent arguments and should be seen as such.
This is another quoting out of context fallacy. The arguments are not independent of each other or standing alone. They are united arguments that outweight your case together. The fact that you are not addressing the argument of difference between child marriage and murder shows that you have no case.

That is an EXTREME misrepresentation of the book. In the book her evidence-based opinion was that trauma comes later in the relationship. She didn't "change the tone", the book was already out. People just misunderstood the book, and after the media looked into it they relegalized people like YOU are misrepresenting her findings. And it does, because you ignored the context of the book, just like the people accusing her of being a "friend of the pedophiles" did. You can't cherry pick her findings that children didn't feel abused in the relationship and then ignore her findings that they felt the trauma when they got older.
"It doesnt change the statistics presented in the book."
And you still didn't even present the quotes from the book, probably because you ignored context and exaggerated, so the quotes themselves make your arguement fall apart.
This is just ranting. I dont need to agree with author's conclusion to agree with statistics she provided. She knew that people would hate her before publishing the book. I already answered the Trauma argument.

What if they become an adult and they don't consent then? Does the adult go to jail? Let's just agree with this 90% statistic for a moment and ignore context, that means 10% of these relationships would still be rape even with your made up "future consent" bullshit.
Child's consent is very important.
If child didnt consent at all, then adult should go to prison even before child becomes an adult.
If child consented, but changed mind once she became adult, then her partner should go to prison with lower sentence.
That would help deal with abusers while protecting and encouraging friendly relationships.
We should not consider abuse and consensual relationship to be equal.
90% of adult-child relationships are not violent. Around 90% of children dont want for their partner to go to prison.
Abusive relationships, which make 10%, would still be strongly punished by prison and discouraged.

If we are regulating it they aren't governing themselves.
They are governing themselves, as it is their consent that matters.

 In the U.S. the majority of suicides are men, meaning that overall men's mental health is worse when it comes to suicide. In Afghanistan, 80% are women, which shows women's mental health in Afghanistan is significantly worse than men's.
Women's mental health in USA is worse than women's mental health in Afghanistan when it comes to suicides. In USA, woman is more likely to commit suicide than in Afghanistan. If women commit suicide in Afghanistan at rate of 3, and if women commit suicide in USA at rate of 7, then woman is more likey to commit suicide in USA. My opponent conceded this by not providing any rebuttal.

People who have looked at and collected data in Afghanistan argue that child marriage is an extremely harmful part of their society.
This is an appeal to authority. My opponent didnt provide data in this debate. We are supposed to trust some people mentioned by Con. In that case, I will also mention that there are people who looked at  and collected data and who argue that child marriages are beneficial.
I am not going to open my opponent's links and no one else should too. If my opponent had meaningful data, he would have provided it in the debate. Instead, he resorted to appeal to authority and hearsay.

Women who marry early have demonstrated to have less academic proficiency. Nothing forces these children out of school, but they have a family to take care of, so they get spread too thin.
Thanks for conceding that child marriages create more families. Also, you ignored the argument of poverty causing school drop out. You can have kids and go to college. You cannot go to college if you are poor.

But if we improve the system then we can make it more likely for a child in foster care to find a home. 
So why dont you improve foster care system?
So far, the foster care system harms children not just by abusing them, but also by making them much more likely to become criminals. Children who spend a long time in foster care are much more likely to become criminals than children who are married. Child marriage is better for the child than foster care is.

But nothing is stopping them from having multiple partners?
The lack of motive and punishment stops them. They can satisfy urges legally.

What happens when their partner grows old and they are no longer attracted to them?
Maybe they will divorce. Maybe they will stay together. Maybe they will be just friends. Still better than banning marriage.

Also, not every urge has to be satisfied. An important part of being a responsible adult is not acting impulsively or based on urges alone. If people have these urges they can reach out for professional help.
This is another argument from possibility. My opponent cannot make difference between "can happen" and "will happen". He does not know that those two are often mutually exclusive. His entire case rests on that.

The reason two people of the same age having sex is no big deal legally is because there isn't an abuse of power.
I already explained that children often abuse children. My opponent's case is based on a fantasy. There is no equality between people of same age. One of them is often much stronger and much smarter.

Let's say two people are equally drunk and have sex. No one will be charged for rape even though it is technically illegal to have sex with someone who isn't sober.
So if a drunk man ties down a drunk woman and forcefully rapes her while she screams in pain, thats not abuse and no one should be charged? 
By same logic, map can get drunk and have sex with a child, and then no one would get charged for rape because map wouldnt have power to consent to sex.
Well, I do like watching people beat themselves up with their own arguments.

But if a person is sober and the other person is drunk, than the sober person is charged with rape because of the power dynamic.
My opponent ignored that people of same age arent equally powerful. He also forgot that two drunk people are rarely equal in strength or in drunkness.
He also forgot that map can be drunk. My opponent forgets a lot.

Jaywalking is a crime, but it isn't condemned.
It literally is condemned. Parents condemn their children due to jaywalking, and warn them not to do it. Hell, my parents warned me not to have sex when I was 8. My opponent doesnt understand reality.

Obviously this is condemned as that child has nowhere near enough life experience to make that decision
Thanks for conceding that child-child sexual relationships are condemned. It took you a long time. The entire past rounds you were arguing that its not condemned. I guess I am starting to get through to you.

Safe sex - sexual activity in which people take precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.
You don't know what safe sex is clearly.
My opponent doesnt understand that being safe doesnt mean just protecting yourself against STD. In fact, having multiple sexual partners is harmful for mental health even if it doesnt result in STD. My opponent also forgot that valuing marriage helps prevent STD. This proves that sex in marriage is the safest.

Conclusion
My opponent got a little bit aggressive and used insults. I dont think he should lose conduct point. It didnt go far. He still presented arguments, and not just insults.

My arguments remain unchallenged. I have proved that if child marriages are banned, child-child relationships will be condemned, there will be more stigma, more violence towards children, more abuse, more reasons for map to go after multiple children, increase of prison population, increase of violence towards map, more harm for innocent people in prison, more sex outside of marriage, harming of map youth, more trauma for children, lower ability to control birth rates, increased amount of sex with children, increase in use of threat towards children, more pain from unsatisfied urges, less rights for children, less protection for children, great majority of children will not agree with the decision of police to arrest their partners, child's happiness and attachment will be destroyed if child is separated from adult, childs choice will be disregarded, child will be convinced and forced to believe that relationship was harmful, child will have more sexual partners, and great majority of relationships will be unknown, undiscovered and unregulated. Banning child marriages does not prevent child sexual abuse, but increases it. Banning child marriages causes age discrimination based on the age of offender. The consent laws regarding drunk people can be applied to map and a child, as map can be drunk. Banning child marriages wont negate the fact that children have sexual urges and desire sex. Banning child marriages wont negate that children are held accountable for their actions.
Allowing child marriages would help trans rights, it would help encourage better relationships, it would give child a voice and more autonomy, and it would protect map youth. There would be less judgment. Economy would be better with less people in prison. Societies who had child marriages in the past thrived. Children in foster care would be saved from the life of crime if they were married instead of being in foster care. There would be less poverty. Poor children would improve their wealth by marrying to someone richer, which would give them more opportunities in the youth. It would lower suicide rates and divorce rates. It would encourage a child to stay with one person, and map to stay with one child. It gives child happiness, and respects child's interest and child's future interest. Sexual activities are healthy for the child. Allowing child marriages improves education, as children are educated about their rights in the relationship and the protection they have and the rules that adult must follow to stay safe. Adult has much less reasons to hurt a child or to be with multiple children if child marriages are legal. Valuing marriages improves every society. Valuing child marriage prevents children from being in bad company. Power doesnt matter in a loving relationship. There is imbalance of power in every relationship. However, in a loving relationship, power is not used to hurt but to protect.
Child marriages protect pregnant teens and reduce judgment towards them.
All these reasons combined together and all the others I mentioned throughout debate prove that the benefits of legalizing child marriages greatly outweight the harm and that child marriages should be allowed as described by the topic.

This topic is about happy marriages. It is about encouraging friendly and gentle consensual relationships. My opponent tried to say that encouraging consensual relationships will be bad. I have proven that it is good for everyone.

Child's choice is important. If child likes the adult, if child wants to be with the adult, if the adult is nice and friendly to the child and doesnt force a child to anything, that adult should not be arrested. Their relationship should not be destroyed. Such relationships should be encouraged and respected.
Con
#8
You have quite literally misrepresented nearly EVERY one of my points. I am going to quickly rebuttal all of your arguements, and then explain why children under 18 can't consent. 

43. Having unsatisfied sexual urges is like feeling pain

This is why "MAP" should see a therapist. Being attracted to minors isn't bad, but acting on that attraction is. If someone has the sexual urge to rape someone, or murder someone, obviously they shouldn't act on it because it causes harm. They should reach out to a medical professional. Your arguement for child marriage shouldn't be that humans are uncontrollable sex maniacs who can't control their impulses, because most people can and do control their sexual urges. You are perpetuating the notion that sexual urges cannot be controlled, which is dangerous. 

1. I have proven that allowing child marrigage does not lead to some large scale abuse. Sex outside of marriage is abuse. It increases suicides. It increases STD.
abuse - treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.
Sex outside marriage is not abuse, and sex outside marriage doesn't increase suicide rates or STDs. What does increase those is having sex with multiple partners. But a person who isn't married can have a monogamous relationship, and a person who is married can have a polymerous relationship. So obviously sheer logic means your point is automatically true, and you haven't shown any statistics that show that legalizing marriage decreases the average number of sexual partners. 

2. Afghanistan proves that child marriages arent bad. It was already stated before that US has more suicide rate among women than Afghanistan does. Afghanistan proves that we need to place value on marriage. Placing higher value on marriage lowers divorce rates.

You completely ignored my plethora of statistics that showed the harm of child marriage in Afghanistan. The children are subject to frequent abuse and rarely ever have a choice in their marriage. Afghanistan has a significant problem with abusing children and women, we should not look to them for guidance. As you did not refute my statistics, and the ones you provided were much weaker than mine, I win this arguement. 

3. Child is more vunerable without marriage. In child marriage, the relationship is known. Child is encouraged to report any problem. Child marriage would be under community's observation.
A relationship "being known" doesn't prevent abuse. And making child marriage legal won't necessarily make all of these relationships known. You have provided no proof for either of these claims, so I win this arguement. 

4. Most of child abuse is caused by children. A 14 year old can easily abuse a 10 year old if in relationship with her. A 14 year old can easily abuse another 14 year old if he is much stronger than her. Even among adults, man can easily abuse a woman due to being stronger.
Children are more likely to get abused by other children than by adults. Adults have more control. They can be better educated by society. They also have more moral maturity.
"Most of child abuse is caused by children."  
You have no source proving this. 
"A 14 year old can easily abuse a 10 year old if in relationship with her. A 14 year old can easily abuse another 14 year old if he is much stronger than her. Even among adults, man can easily abuse a woman due to being stronger."
YES, this is true. Which is why if a 14 year old has sex with a 10 year, there is a very real possibility they could be charged with rape. A man that uses his strength to have sex with women could also very well be charged with rape. Using power to manipulate people into doing things they don't want to or don't fully understand is unethical and often illegal. 

5. It was already explained why deterrence doesnt work. People dont think they will get caught. They believe no one will find out. If they abuse a baby, baby cant tell anyone as long as they dont leave a mark.

Again you say "explained". You made a claim it doesn't work and gave a possible reason. I, on the contrary, made a claim and showed statistics that backed up my claim. I win this arguement. 

6. I have already given reasons why ban on child marriage doesnt prevent adults from having sex with children. Adults have stronger sexual urges. Adults believe they wont get caught. Adults feel pain from not offending.
I have also explained why ban on child marriage doesnt at all reduce adults from going after children. I claimed that it motivates adults to go after children even more. I gave reasons for that. My opponent never refuted those reasons.

Well, for starters, it doesn't reduce the rates as I proved. And to reduce the rates further we can push for heavier sentencing for child predators, and we can develop task forces than specialize in child predators. 

"I claimed that it motivates adults to go after children even more. I gave reasons for that. My opponent never refuted those reasons."
Your reasons, were merely just claims, I don't have to refute something when you didn't even prove it in the first place. Without research showing atleast elements of it are true, there is no reason for me to think it is true. I win this arguement as well. 

7. Does my opponent concede that child-child marriages should be legal?
That is quite enough for me to win the debate. The debate deals with adult-child or child-child. My opponent was defending child-child a lot, despite that child-child marriages being legal is my position, and his position is opposite.
As I stated at the beginning, child-child marriage CAN be okay. If the process is followed where a legal guardian consents for each minor, and a judge reviews the case and deems them ready to be married. \
"despite that child-child marriages being legal is my position, and his position is opposite."
This was PART of your position, the part I disagree with is the adult-child relationships. I made this clear in the first round near the beginning. Your definition of child marriage include adult-child relationships. 

My opponent is making no sense.
Suicide rates show the percentage of women committing suicides. My opponent claims  that a country, USA, who has twice as much suicide rates among women than Afghanistan, doesnt have problem with suicides. Then he goes to  claim that Afghanistan, country that has much less suicide rate among women, actually has greater problem with suicides than USA.
My opponent doesnt care that USA has more suicide rate among women. He does not even challenge that claim. Not to blame him. He cannot challenge it.

My point is that significantly more women in Afghanistan resort to suicide, that shows that women's mental health in is worse than men's mental health. This is the opposite in the United States where the majority of suicides are men. This shows that the U.S. doesn't do enough about men's mental health and that Afghanistan doesn't do enough about women's mental health. Afghanistan is one of the ONLY places in the world where the suicide rate is higher among women than men. 

We are not going to read your cherry-picked stories. I could say that all marriages are bad. I could show countless number of stories of adults abusing adults in marriage. I still wouldnt prove that all marriages are bad.
Also, you are showing an example of forced marriages. I am arguing for consensual marriages. I am arguing for marriages in which child is happy. You think those two are the same.
These aren't "cherry picked stories". They are from a research study that I linked. And they weren't near all of the stories told in that study, but I didn't even pick the most damning ones. I just picked the ones at the top. And all child marriages between a adult-child is basically forced because a child CANNOT CONSENT. 

You asked how they could be regulated to make child happy. I gave clear way of regulating it to make child happy. Then you complain about me not mentioning that argument in description. I am not even supposed to mention arguments in description.
In definition, it was said that marriages in which children are happy are to be allowed.
It was obvious from that definition that marriages would have to be regulated for the purpose of creating a marriage in which child was happy.
If that was not obvious to you, that is your fault.
I have no obligation to guide you step by step before the debate starts.
You have no logic. You stated that children have to be happy for the relationship to be legal. I said that happiness is very subjective and that would be impossible to regulate. You never stated what definition of the word happy or gave context to it. If it is your proposed law you do have to explain what you mean, you can't just leave me to interpret it, because there are many possible interpretations. 

Afghanistan is a poor country. Afghanistan was at war for 20 years. Violence and poverty are common there. Afghanistan does not have much education.
My opponent's argument is nonsense. My opponent confuses "reduces abuse" with "eliminates all abuse". I never claimed that child marriage will eliminate all abuse. I said it would reduce abuse.
Legalizing child marriage in Afghanistan did reduce abuse. It reduced suicide rates. It reduced poverty. It increased birth rates.

I never claimed it "eliminates all abuse", I said it doesn't prevent it. In context you can clearly understand that I was saying it doesn't reduce it. 
"Legalizing child marriage in Afghanistan did reduce abuse. It reduced suicide rates. It reduced poverty. It increased birth rates."
This remains unproven, you have presented no statistics that prove this. You have shown that Afghanistan has lower suicide rates, but correlation is not causation.
I have presented some statistics that disprove your point, but regardless it doesn't matter how convincing my statistics and studies were, as you never even proved these claims in the slightest. The burden of proof still remains on yo. I win this arguement. 

This is a nonsense assumption. My opponent claims that people would rather risk prison than get married. The topic is about children who have already acted on their sexual urges. They would be given the option to marry.

But you are now assuming that someone wants to marry these adults. 
Now let me also state you are now contradicting yourself: "My opponent claims that people would rather risk prison than get married." 
So now deterrence works? Adults now care about getting caught and being sent to prison? You now concede one of the points either that deterrence works, or marriage doesn't reduce the chances of an adult engaging in sexual acts with a minor outside of marriage. 

"It is unlikely that map would lose attraction. Not all map are attracted to children alone. There is also emotional attachment at play. It is not easy to leave someone you loved for so long.
Even if they divorce, marriage was still a good thing. It made the relationship last longer than it would without marriage. It made the relationship known. It made child happy while it lasted.
If they are not only attracted to children than your "sexual urges" arguement goes completely out the window. There are other REASONABLE sexual outlets for someone isn't only attracted to minors, like someone THEIR OWN AGE. You either concede your sexual urges arguement or you concede this one. 
"Even if they divorce, marriage was still a good thing. It made the relationship last longer than it would without marriage. It made the relationship known. It made child happy while it lasted."
These are all claims with no proof. I win this arguement. 

This is a blatant lie. Having sex outside of marriage usually means having more sexual partners. Lack of marriage makes relationships less stable. Not valuing marriage also contributes.
You have not given any proof that " Having sex outside of marriage usually means having more sexual partners." or that "Lack of marriage makes relationships less stable.". These remain as mere unproved claims and therefore I win this arguement. 

25% is a very low number compared to lack of marriage. It comes from countries where marriage is not valued. It comes from places where sex outside of marriage is legal. I have already given reasons why sex with a child outside of marriage should be condemned and illegal.
If someone has sex with a child, marriage should be given as the option.
If child doesnt want to marry him, then he should go to prison. If child wants to marry him, they should be married if everything is fine. It is child's decision.

25% is a very low number compared to lack of marriage." lack of marriage is around 30-35%, not a very big difference. 

"It comes from countries where marriage is not valued. It comes from places where sex outside of marriage is legal."
Again this is not a debate on marriage culture, but on the laws itself.  
"It comes from places where sex outside of marriage is legal."
Again you contradict yourself, so now deterrence works again? Make up your mind

This is another quoting out of context fallacy. The arguments are not independent of each other or standing alone. They are united arguments that outweight your case together. The fact that you are not addressing the argument of difference between child marriage and murder shows that you have no case.

But they are not united arguments. And nothing was taken out of context that is just made up. If something is decriminalized, it should be because of the ethics around the action, not because it reduced prison population. 

This is just ranting. I dont need to agree with author's conclusion to agree with statistics she provided. She knew that people would hate her before publishing the book. I already answered the Trauma argument.

A paragraph ago you accused me of the out of context fallacy, but now you openly use it. You can't cherry-pick her findings and then disagree with the rest, you either take her findings as a WHOLE or use none of it. Not to mention you STILL haven't quoted these "statistics" your points remain unproved, I win this arguement. 

Child's consent is very important.
If child didnt consent at all, then adult should go to prison even before child becomes an adult.
If child consented, but changed mind once she became adult, then her partner should go to prison with lower sentence.
That would help deal with abusers while protecting and encouraging friendly relationships.

There are many problems with this. This fights against many of your own arguments, if all it takes if for someone to say they haven't consented later on then they can just say that and get the other person thrown in jail. And the other problem with this is that a child CAN'T consent, which I will touch on again later. 

"They are governing themselves, as it is their consent that matters." 

Again if we impose strong regulations, it isn't autonomy. You say that a child should have autonomy when it comes to sex, but they can't consent to formal labor. 

Women's mental health in USA is worse than women's mental health in Afghanistan when it comes to suicides. In USA, woman is more likely to commit suicide than in Afghanistan. If women commit suicide in Afghanistan at rate of 3, and if women commit suicide in USA at rate of 7, then woman is more likey to commit suicide in USA. My opponent conceded this by not providing any rebuttal.

You continue to misunderstand my arguement. Comparative to men's mental health, women's mental health is worse in Afghanistan. That is the point, I am not comparing the Afghanistan suicide rate to the United States suicide rate.

This is an appeal to authority. My opponent didnt provide data in this debate. We are supposed to trust some people mentioned by Con. In that case, I will also mention that there are people who looked at  and collected data and who argue that child marriages are beneficial.
I am not going to open my opponent's links and no one else should too. If my opponent had meaningful data, he would have provided it in the debate. Instead, he resorted to appeal to authority and hearsay. 
Okay I will pull up some highlights from those studies: 
"There was a significant negative relationship between child marriage and history of rapid repeat childbirth, delivery by skilled personnel, and institutional delivery. In both adjusted and unadjusted models, women married at age ≤14 were more likely to experience terminated or unintended pregnancy (AOR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.31-2.75 and AOR = 2.20. 95% CI: 1.24-3.91, respectively), inadequate ANC (AOR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.01-2.90), unmet need for family planning (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.05-1.98), fistula (AOR = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.22-4.57); " 

" The majority of them were born to mothers residing in rural areas (75.67%) with no education (51.68%) from poor households (39.39%). As compared to the births to women married at ages ≥ 18, there was a significantly higher likelihood of neonatal mortality among births to women married at ages < 18 (crude OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.52–3.49 & adjusted OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.25–3.01) and higher infant mortality among the births to the women married at ages ≤ 14y (crude OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.06–3.53)." 

Women married young are more likely to have "terminated or unintended pregnancy", "unmet need for family planning", "no education". and a "higher infant mortality" . 

Thanks for conceding that child marriages create more families. Also, you ignored the argument of poverty causing school drop out. You can have kids and go to college. You cannot go to college if you are poor.
Again, married children are more likely to be uneducated, I presented multiple statistics that demonstrates this.
And more families isn't a good thing if the families are unhealthy. 

So why dont you improve foster care system?
So far, the foster care system harms children not just by abusing them, but also by making them much more likely to become criminals. Children who spend a long time in foster care are much more likely to become criminals than children who are married. Child marriage is better for the child than foster care is.
We should! Again I stated this same issue with your prison arguement. The solution to abuse in prison isn't to decriminalize things, it is to improve the prison system. 

"Children who spend a long time in foster care are much more likely to become criminals than children who are married."
Again no source, this remains unproved. 

The lack of motive and punishment stops them. They can satisfy urges legally.

AGAIN you contradict yourself. Now deterrence works? 

Maybe they will divorce. Maybe they will stay together. Maybe they will be just friends. Still better than banning marriage.
So you concede that it doesn't really stop "MAP" from having sex with many children because they can just divorce and get remarried when the child grows older.

"This is another argument from possibility. My opponent cannot make difference between "can happen" and "will happen". He does not know that those two are often mutually exclusive. His entire case rests on that." 

My entire case rests on that? Your entire case is built un claims without evidence, this entire debate you have been saying stuff "will" happen. And you are taking my words out of context. I used can to demonstrate that it is an option for the "MAP" not that necessarily "will". I am saying that a "MAP" can reach out for help instead of acting on their sexual urges, you ignored this arguement and therefore concede it. 

I already explained that children often abuse children. My opponent's case is based on a fantasy. There is no equality between people of same age. One of them is often much stronger and much smarter.

You provided no evidence that children often abuse children. It is still merely a claim. And again, power levels are important, if it can be proven that a child manipulated another child into sex using their power in one form or the other, they could very well be charged with rape. I win this arguement. 

So if a drunk man ties down a drunk woman and forcefully rapes her while she screams in pain, thats not abuse and no one should be charged? 
By same logic, map can get drunk and have sex with a child, and then no one would get charged for rape because map wouldnt have power to consent to sex.
Well, I do like watching people beat themselves up with their own arguments.
That is abuse because the man is now using his physical strength to overpower and abuse the women.
Being drunk and being a child are different, the adult still has the power in that relationship. Again rape is about power dynamics. You misrepresented and misunderstood my entire arguement.

My opponent ignored that people of same age arent equally powerful. He also forgot that two drunk people are rarely equal in strength or in drunkness.
He also forgot that map can be drunk. My opponent forgets a lot.

Already addressed. 

"It literally is condemned. Parents condemn their children due to jaywalking, and warn them not to do it. Hell, my parents warned me not to have sex when I was 8. My opponent doesnt understand reality." 
I think you are using the word condemn too lightly. Condemn has a strong connation. And again, just because your parents told you not to jaywalk doesn't mean all parents do. Jaywalking is not "condemned" by most people. 78% of Americans have admitted to jaywalking according to surveys by YouGov. Not having sex at 8 is and should be condemned. Having sex at 8 is actually extremely dangerous, especially for girls. A pregnancy at age 8 can be deadly for the baby and the mother. However, as I stated before sex among teens shouldn't be and isn't condemned.
" In Planned Parenthood’s most recent poll on sex education, 93 percent of parents supported having sex education taught in middle school, and 96 percent of parents supported having sex education taught in high school. "  

Thanks for conceding that child-child sexual relationships are condemned. It took you a long time. The entire past rounds you were arguing that its not condemned. I guess I am starting to get through to you.
It depends on what you consider a child. I think that below of the age of 12, sexual relationships should be and are condemned, but a child is anyone "below the legal age of majority." So anyone under 18 is a child. And I don't think all child-child relationships are condemned, only some. You seem to never listen to anything I say. 

My opponent doesnt understand that being safe doesnt mean just protecting yourself against STD. In fact, having multiple sexual partners is harmful for mental health even if it doesnt result in STD. My opponent also forgot that valuing marriage helps prevent STD. This proves that sex in marriage is the safest.
You are taking what I said out of context. You said "The only safe sex is in marriage". I wasn't referring to having multiple sexual partners, I was saying that one can engage in safe sex without being married. 
"My opponent also forgot that valuing marriage helps prevent STD."
No source presented. 

Children cannot consent because do not have the life experience necessary to make these decisions. This makes them very susceptible to manipulation and abuse. The majority of your "arguments" are all based in assumption and have no data backing them. I have presented significantly more research and statistics than you, which is quite humorous given that the burden of proof has remained on you this entire time. The ONLY things you have actually proven throughout the 4 rounds of this debate are that:
1. suicide rates are higher in Afghanistan than the United States
2. Having many sexual partners can lead to worse mental health
I concede these two points, but you haven't been able to tie them back to the issues at hand. You claim that suicide rates are lower in Afghanistan because child marriage is legal, but you haven't proved that. 
You claim that legalizing marriage reduces sexual partners, but you also haven't proven that. 
So overall, you have still proved nothing of significance, and we are nearing the end of this debate. As the burden of proof lies on you in this debate, you are currently losing, as you have failed to prove anything of much importance. I rest my case. 

Round 5
Pro
#9
Thank you for the debate. You were fun.
Con
#10
Well, thank you for the debate, even though I passionately disagree with your side of the arguement, I guess it us to voters to decide who fought better.