You should change the title of this debate to, "You choose the topic if I approve of it".
I can make the topic, "Raping adult virgin women and then slicing their throat with a knife that is so hot it's glowing should be legal as a way to prove your masculinity" and then you would be stuck with defending the Pro side. If you switch the side, I can make a slight tweak to the original statement,
"Raping adult virgin women and then slicing their throat with a knife that is so hot it's glowing should NOT be legal as a way to prove your masculinity" and then you are stuck.
I don't think you want to do that. You need vetting before you do debates like this.
->Some trans people start transition at 3 years old. They wear clothes, hair and make up that suit their identity. They do activities which in the past would have been considered inappropriate, such as born boys acting in a feminine way.
But surely there is a difference between a 3 year old with XY chromosomes wearing long hair and make up and that same 3 year old chopping off their dick.
If an XY chromosome person wants to wear long hair, dresses, and makeup, I don't like it, but no politician I know of wants to ban that. The issue is if that 3 year old should be allowed to get their dick chopped off. It's a hard no from me.
The following quote you cited was: "Very few people who have gender-affirming surgery regret their decision. Research tracking the outcomes following gender affirmation surgeries shows that among people who opt for gender-affirming surgery, only 1% regret having the procedure.""
2 questions about this quote:
1. Is this a lifetime statistic or a statistic of what % regret the surugry after X years?
2. Is this a statistic that doesn't consider age or a statistic that only considers those that got gender surguies when they were at least 18, 21, or similar?
I think you are going to be hard pressed to find someone that wants to ban adults from getting gender surgeries. It's like finding someone that wants to ban wearing shorts in the wintertime. Most people would be scared of it, but they respect the liberty of those to wear shorts in the wintertime if they want too.
I can make the topic, "Raping adult women should be legal" and you would have the pro position, which I would assume you would not want to defend as if it's a 50/50 position.
You and the debator should agree on a common topic before you debate. I don't think you would want to defend legalizing rape, murder, or cannibalism (unless you want a really hard Devils Advocate challange).
Out of Israel/Palestine, only one of these places:
1. Has abortion laws like California
2. Has hate speech laws like the EU; the other place has hate speech laws like conservative Africa
3. Has UHC
4. Gay pride parades
5. Drag queen story hour for kids.
And that country is the one most backed by conservatives.
Israel is a left wing country; so in a world that made sense, the pro life advocates would back anti abortion Palestine and the pro choice advocates would back pro choice Israel.
If you believe Russia is to blame, either have the debate title be, "Russia is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the con side), XOR have the debate title be, "Ukraine/NATO is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the pro side).
If you believe Ukraine/NATO is to blame, either have the debate title be, "Russia is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the pro side), XOR have the debate title be, "Ukraine/NATO is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the con side).
Nobody who you would debate against currently knows your position on Russia vs Ukraine.
->But 30% of children under 16 have sex even with current strict laws. Its a pointless standard which you are trying to have.
I CTRL+F d the cites you sent to see where you found the 30% figure. I found the following:
"Less than 30% of sexual crimes are reported to authorities."
"About 30% of all sexual abuse victims are assaulted by family members."
Neither one of these claims is the same as saying, "30% of children under 16 had sex". I tried Chat GPT ing "What percentage of kids under 16 have had sex?" and Chat GPT wasn't useful. I also looked it up the old fashioned way; I didn't find anything useful.
->A simple google search would have given you the answer. I dont see why you hate doing research. Are you trying to get educated or just trying to argue?
I just don't know what terms to look up. I've been dealing with headaches like every day (it's not your fault, but I don't know why) so maybe that's why. But I'll check out the links.
->You can google and find information. I already gave you the numbers. You gave me assumptions as a response.
Or YOU can. You are the one making claims. It's going to be harder for me to look something up than you because you can go to the history on your device and pull up the links that back your position (I don't have those links in my history).
->Originally, you claimed that children shouldnt have sex because they cant consent and it doesn't benefit them. Then you claimed its okay for 16 year old and 13 year old to have sex. So until you make up your mind on which standard you want to use and make it consistent, there is nothing for us to discuss here.
The standard I want to use is only those who are mature enough (regardless of age) should be allowed to consent to sex. The test for this should be developed in a way that the majority of 16-year-olds and older pass and the majority of 15-year-olds and younger fail, although if there is an exception for either age group, so be it. Therapists should be the ones making the test because they understand human psychology the best.
->Girls tend to be with older partners.
A 13 year old girl may be with a 14,15, or even 16 year old guy. But almost never a 30 year old dude.
If pedophilia was common, legalizing pedophilia would be way more accepted than it is today. If you ask 100 adults if they think it should be legal for adults to have sex with children, probably 96 or more of them will say no. Out of the remaining 4, most aren't pedophiles, but they believe kids can consent.
->Tobacco is a different issue. Children can mostly be stopped from smoking tobacco.
Kids can get drugs illegally. It was very common at my HS.
->However, when it comes to sex, no country has lowered sex rate by making it illegal.
I do not believe that is true; everything banned is going to be less common than if that same thing was legal, all else being equal. Otherwise, there would be no point in the law.
->They have increased prison population
I don't believe in imprisonment for crimes. Murder and rape should carry the death penalty, weed use shouldn't be prosecuted, crimes like DUI and theft should be punished with community service and lashings.
->and caused many problems such as adultery
You think adultery is a problem but pedophilia isn't? That's fine; but I'm courious as how you came to that conclusion. I think adultery should be banned along with sex with the mentally underdeveloped.
->The birth rates are declining world wide. When child marriages were legal, in the past, birth rates used to be 6 per woman.
I think there are omitted variables present, like the following:
1. Society is becoming less religious and less religious people tend to have less kids because religion tells people to procreate.
2. Society is becoming wealthier and wealthier people (although they can afford more kids) tend to have less of them (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/) due to focusing on career.
3. The UN was telling the whole world that the world was overpopulated, so that led to places that pay the most attention to tend to have less kids.
4. (To a small extent) homosexual marriages and transgenders marrying other people are more common. These unions often don't reproduce.
I don't think age of consent laws changing by a few years have much to do with it.
->Today, women are taught to wait until older. What they dont know is that the longer they wait, the less are the odds of giving birth.
Or their bodies are more mature, so they can handle more babies. Lets say 2 people start weight lifting; a 12th grader (Person A) and a 6th grader (Person B). If they both stop at 21, Person B will probably become stronger, but person A is way more likely to lift until they are 21 than person B is. If Person A stops at 21 and Person B at 16; Person B was lifting longer, but Person A will probably be the strongest.
->The issue is that 90% of offenders are never caught and 90% of those relationships remain unknown
I think eventually, pretty much all relationships with an adult and a minor get discovered.
->If it was legal, there would be more education about it.
You can educate kids about sex the same way you educate kids about alcohol; let them know it's dangerous and that they shouldn't do it until they are mentally competent enough to do it.
->All causations are correlations.
True, but not all correlations are causations. It's easy to find a correlation; it's harder to prove it's a causation.
->Child marriages do tend to increase birth rates, which is beneficial for society.
How? In the long run, more workers. In the short run, more education expense. It's easier just to increase the immigration population (because adult immigrants don't need 13 years of public school).
->Banning sex with children does not benefit children, because children cannot be stopped from having sex and judgment from ban just harms them.
Does banning tobacco for children benefit them? After all, children cannot be stopped from smoking tobacco and judgment from ban just harms them.
->Usually, it is better to regulate something than to ban it.
How would you regulate sex with kids in a way that does not result in a ban?
-> (A bunch of countries with lower age of consent laws) all are safer countries to live in than USA.
Correlation vs causation. If there are 2 countries (Country A with an age of consent at 16 and Country B with an age of consent at 18) and Country A is safe, it's possible that there are omitted variables. However, if Country A had an age of consent at 16, they raised it to 18, and then their crime rate skyrocketed, and if the same exact thing happened in several other countries, then it's safe to say that raising the age of consent did increase the crime rate.
Just like if I make the claim, "Men with vasectomies tend to have higher testosterone levels", it doesn't mean that vasectomies increase testosterone levels. It could mean guys who already have high testosterone are more likely to want to raw dog, and people who want to raw dog are more willing to get a vasectomy and endure one day of pain so they can do that.
If Japan raised the age of consent to 16; their goal wasn't to reduce the crime rate; their goal was to ban what they see as rape (which if a 21-year-old has sex with a 14 year old when the age of consent is 13, it's not a crime, but if the age of consent is 16, then it is a crime).
If something is legal, it doesn't matter if that something is murder, if you murder when it's legal, it's not a crime. Murder should be a crime, but if it's not a crime to murder, committing murder won't increase the crime rate.
Currently, having sex with someone below the age of 16 is a crime. Now, should it be? That is the question.
->The smartest person in the world knows better than them, so it would be wrong to let them decide instead of the smartest person.
Let's say that 100= The average level of intelligence in a field a 16 year old has.
Lets say a Lawyer has a 450 in Law and a 100 in Engineering. Lets say an Engineer has a 300 in Engineering and a 100 in Law.
From these 2 metrics, the Lawyer is smarter. But would I trust a Lawyer with building a bridge? No. I would rather trust the engineer with that task.
There are different types of intelligence. Lawyer intelligence should matter for legal work, engineer intelligence should matter for engineering, etc.
Lets say you have a legal case coming and you have 2 options for lawyers: 1 Lawyer with a 450 in terms of legal intelligence, or 10 lawyers with a 440 each in terms of legal intelligence. Who would you rather have? I would rather have the 10 lawyers with 440.
So the smartest psychologist should absolutely be helping make the test, but they shouldn't be the only ones making the test. It's a team effort.
->30% of children in USA who are younger than 16 had sex.
Well, under my system, if someone who happens to be having consensual sex is more mentally developed than the average 16 year old, so be it. That would happen sometimes.
-> Its not possible to stop certain things. 50% of 13 year olds in USA watch porn.
I've heard that watching porn is very different from having sex; different chemicals are released in your brain when you have sex than when you watch porn and masturbate. I think a requirement to be able to watch porn is there needs to be an algebra problem you need to be able to solve like, 3x+20=29, solve for x (and there needs to be a way for the system to not let you in if you answer "X=3" if you used AI to solve the problem). This hopefully leads to there being a requirement that shows that if you are mentally competent enough, then you can watch porn. Pretty much no 10-year-old knows what that is; a 13-year-old can solve it though. Hopefully, this leads to a mental capacity standard being imposed before porn is done.
->Since the smartest person would be most capable of determining ability to consent, it follows that smartest person gets to decide. Now you guys just have to fight over who is the smartest and how is intelligence measured.
It would be the people in power that decide who is smart enough to give consent and who isn't. The smartest person in the world may be a doctor at a really prestigious hospital (who has no political power). They shouldn't be making the call for who can consent to sex, but they definitely should be included in terms of the group of people that can consent to sex.
Just like I think if you aren't a murderer, rapist, or similar, you shouldn't be executed because you should have the right to not get killed. Does that mean you get to be president? No?!
But there should be a test that is used to determine how smart someone is and therefore if they are mentally competent enough to have sex and that test needs to be made. I just couldn't make the intelligence test as POTUS; I would have to delegate it to a psychologist and if congress and I approve of the test, it becomes the standard.
->The smartest person can dictate who can consent and who cant. Do you agree with this?
It depends on if the world's smartest person has political power. I would assume whoever is POTUS has above average intelligence, but he's probably not the smartest person in the world because there are 8 billion people on this planet.
But if the POTUS is too strict for who is mentally competent enough to consent to sex, it leads to him being voted out by people who want him to be more lenient; if he's too lenient, he gets viewed as a groomer by society.
->Well, thats what it is. Thats why its called an urge. Because it hurts when you dont do it. And sexual urges are some of the strongest urges. The nature wants you to reproduce, so it gives you pain to motivate you.
For a 10-year-old tobacco addict, his urge to do tobacco is almost certainly stronger than his urge to do sex. It's probably not a good idea to let an average 10 year old indulge in addictive pleasures.
-> If you can determine intelligence, there is the smartest person who can then dictate everything.
Whoever the smartest person in the world is can consent to sex; easily. And the smartest person in the world is an adult.
-> Well, children can have sexual urges, and sexual urges are a form of pain.
I wouldn't consider an urge to be necessarily a pain. Like, lets say I have the urge to do pushups (which I often do). Does this mean I'm in pain if I have the urge to do pushups and can't? I would consider that being fidgety; but not in pain. But some urges are pain (like if I have to go to the bathroom and can't).
I would say the urge to have sex is more like pushups than going to the bathroom. I'm just using my masturbation experience as a reference.
->Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
Best Korea IS in fact advocating that position. It's an unpopular position, but even if you disagree with a belief and 99% of the world agrees with you, you have to treat your debate position and your opponents as if they are 50/50 positions.
I don't know what you expected when you wanted to debate sex with minors. Maybe an easy win?
If Best.Korea ends up making all the arguments and the debate is done when I'm on this site, I will have no reservations with voting for Best Korea.
But my Wifi on this site is sparky, so I might not be able to vote.
I don't vote for people that don't make arguments unless their opponent also made no arguments (which Korea certainly did).
-> I would say that taking a standard of survival of society and personal survival is more worthy than an arbitrary standard.
I could agree with that, even though I haven't thought it through. However, it's not like everybody needs to be having sex in order for people and society to survive.
->As long as the standard is arbitrary, its no different or better than any other standard.
So would you then get rid of arbitrary time requirements to compete in special Track and Field events? If the answer is yes, you have 4 options for track and field events. They are:
1. Don't have them (bad idea)
2. Let anyone join them (even if it takes you 15 minutes to run a 1600 m).
3. Have an alternate requirement not based on time (if it's top X racers, then the racers can all agree to not try as hard in the event because even though their average odds of winning are all the same, they can keep that probability while putting less pain on themselves and maybe the fastest person in the meet runs a 1600 m in 5 minutes rather than an expected 4:20-4:30). Racers should be doing their best.
4. Something I haven't thought of that you might have.
->Taking the standard of reducing pain is also a standard that is more than arbitrary.
I can see that, but it's not like any children are in pain from being virgins. I would also imagine (especially for underdeveloped minds) that sex is really addicting for them, leading to worse declines in the long term. That's why there are age restrictions on alcohol consumption (I think you should have to move out, have it for medical use, IOR have parental consent to be allowed to use any drug). IOR=Inclusive OR.
->If we say that children cant consent, then that just means other people get to dictate children's lives. Parents often take the role of commanding children's lives.
I mean, there are times when it can be abused, but if parents didn't tell kids what to do and what not to do, you would have a lot more drug-addicted kids (and I think sex is like a drug). Sometimes you don't have to touch an oven when it's on to know it hurts. Parents can prevent the pain of kids by telling them, "Don't touch the oven, you will burn".
->Further, if lack of consent makes action wrong, then it makes wrong even those actions that are beneficial. So if children cant consent, then all actions done to children are wrong. If you say that if action is beneficial, then it doesnt require consent, then people can force adults to do things which benefit those adults, even if adults dont want it.
Certain adults (like really dumb ones) are forced to live with their parents, where their parents take care of them for the benefit of the mentally ill adult. People usually move out when they are ready. Some move out at 18; some 21; some older.
->Pregnancy is beneficial for society, but it doesn't follow that someone can force others to get pregnant.
There is a distinction between beneficial for society vs beneficial for the individual. Forcing someone to become pregnant isn't good for the individual because they shouldn't be raped. But lets say a rape victim gets pregnant, gives birth (willingly) and sets the kid up for adoption. That's not even good for society because that kid is on average going to be more of a burden on society than what they will produce relative to the general population. Now, if a rape victim wants to give birth, she should be allowed to do so. But raping women is bad for the individual woman AND society.
It's possible to be good for the individual and bad for society and vice versa, but raping women (and having sex with the mentally underdeveloped) is bad for both the individuals involved and society. The mentally underdeveloped is now a sex addict. Like in Forrest Gump, Jenny had sex with her dad enough times when a child, and it really fucked up her adult life because she turned into a sex addict.
->Further, if intelligence is a standard for making consent valid, then the smartest person on Earth can just say: "I am smarter than everyone else. Only my consent is valid.", and you would not be able to object because intelligence would be a standard for consent.
Claiming you are smart doesn't make you smart. A 5 year old can say they are the smartest person to ever live, but if they can't do my calculus HW, they aren't smart; they are cocky and naive.
There are a lot of arbitrary points in our society (an example is in order to qualify according to https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.534b68e446c46aaacbf4e384ccacd0d1?rik=DOvESxdbM1%2br9w&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdecaturtrackandfield.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f5%2f9%2f2%2f8%2f59286795%2ftrack-standards-2017_orig.png&ehk=YIdpCD3Ag6myTBvrGUfzxbwY2Ok8lsXFJHykffjTCn0%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0, you have to be able to run 100 m in 11.9 seconds or faster). Why not 12 seconds? Or 11.8?
With few exceptions, I don't like age being the arbitrary point because young people aren't a monolith; some 15 year olds are more mentally compitent than some 18 year olds. But other things (like intelligence) you need an arbitrary point in there to have a standard.
->Also, since decision making comes with reasoning about higher intelligence, it would follow that if someone is smarter than a 20 year old, he gets to dictate 20 year old's life.
I disagree. I think if you fall below a certain level of intelligence, it wouldn't be random people that are smarter than you making decisions for you, but your parents would be making decisions for you (if you are very stupid). I am smarter than someone who is retarted; that doesn't mean I get to make decisions for them. The hypothetical retard's parents would make decisions for that retard, because the parents are assumed to love him more than I would as a stranger.
->If action with lack of consent is okay if there is some benefit to the person, then you can force adults to do anything as long as it benefits them in some way. You can force adults to eat vegetables even if they dont want to.
I would say it shouldn't be based on age in terms of if they should be allowed to not do something beneficial, but intelligence I think should matter. If it's a 30 year old adult that is just very stupid (like the following person:
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5c6e43bf6de276197e371bb81e4a3ccd32cdb0da/c=225-0-941-538&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2015/04/27/NWGroup/KING/635657645193734670-laura-gholston2.jpg), then I don't think they are mentally competent enough to make a lot of their own decisions.
->The main problem with "intelligence/mental maturity" argument is that if we followed it, age of consent would be 30 or more.
I disagree because you can require a certain level of intelligence the vast majority of 20-year-olds have that the vast majority of 13-year-olds do not. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and age (excluding dementia).
Emojis aren't arguments. If you think there will be a forfeit, state like a very basic pro religion argument like, "religion lets people go to heaven and get eternal joy".
No matter how common your position is, you have to defend it if you debate about it.
Pretty much every American believes the earth is spherical, but if you start a debate where you take the con position of, "The earth is flat" and a flat earther comes along, you can't laugh them off; you have to defend your position as if both your position and theirs are 50/50 positions.
->
A. 1. Children can consent Or 2. Children can't consent
B. 1. Lack of consent means that activity is wrong Or 2. Lack of consent doesn't mean that activity is wrong
C. 1. Every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong Or 2. It is false that every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong
A: It depends. I think some children can consent and others can't. You need to be able to prove you can consent for sex I think using a test something like https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14JWZh43OcZ-5MdeOhrEa_fPe3AP6-24_w6IvqN9R7bs/edit#gid=0 (although it is incomplete, but I think the questions should be something like this). Many things (like whether or not a child wants to watch TV) they can do with parental consent.
B: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
C: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
If you want to do a debate with people on veganism, can you make it in English please? Most Darters don't know Portuguese or whatever language that is I think. Although I agree with you on veganism (and Biden shouldn't be in office; he sniffs too many kids).
I think the ideal body count of every man and woman who isn't married is 0. Don't have sex unless your married. I don't think this should be law, but it's a recommendation.
Addiction is powerful, but if you want porn banned, that would mean you would have not only broken your addiction to it, but you want to force that on others. If a smoker wants tobacco banned, I don’t care how addicted they are, they are a hypocrite until they practice what they preach or change their speech because there are other people addicted to tobacco that don’t want it banned that would be effected against their will by a hypocrite smoker wanting tobacco banned.
Now if you wanted porn banned just for those that never watched it so they don’t become addicted, that’s different if you’re addicted to porn. But how are you going to sort out who is addicted vs who isn’t.
My position on porn is it should be legal for everyone. I watched porn when I was a minor and if porn was banned when I was a minor, I wouldn’t have liked it. Most guys are like that too; they start watching porn when they are young.
Heritage is a biased source; use more reliable sources.
Crime:
https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/ states the undocumented are less likely to commit victim producing crimes.
Welfare:
I support an open border policy and the undocumented should get kicked off of government aid programs like welfare and food stamps. If you want to come here, be productive.
I want as many people as we can get here because according to my calculations, it would be wonders for the stock market. Quadrupling the US population would roughly quadruple the US stock market, making my stock $130,000 more valuable.
I’m pro life, but if you want abortion banned, how would you punish it? People would get abortions illegally if they were illegal, so you would need a punishment for abortion. Pro lifers say, “Go after the abortionist”, but if this happens, no abortionist would want to do abortions, meaning females are going to have to do their own abortions, so whatever penalty you would give to the abortionist you would also have to give to a female that gets an abortion.
You guys are arguing about abortion when you should be arguing based on the debate title if Mall has always been pro life.
@BestKorea
If you can find one quote from Mall where he says something pro choice, then you have won this debate.
If you want to do an abortion debate with each other, label it, "Abortion should be illegal in X cases" (define X), Mall can be Pro; Korea can be Con.
You should change the title of this debate to, "You choose the topic if I approve of it".
I can make the topic, "Raping adult virgin women and then slicing their throat with a knife that is so hot it's glowing should be legal as a way to prove your masculinity" and then you would be stuck with defending the Pro side. If you switch the side, I can make a slight tweak to the original statement,
"Raping adult virgin women and then slicing their throat with a knife that is so hot it's glowing should NOT be legal as a way to prove your masculinity" and then you are stuck.
I don't think you want to do that. You need vetting before you do debates like this.
->Some trans people start transition at 3 years old. They wear clothes, hair and make up that suit their identity. They do activities which in the past would have been considered inappropriate, such as born boys acting in a feminine way.
But surely there is a difference between a 3 year old with XY chromosomes wearing long hair and make up and that same 3 year old chopping off their dick.
If an XY chromosome person wants to wear long hair, dresses, and makeup, I don't like it, but no politician I know of wants to ban that. The issue is if that 3 year old should be allowed to get their dick chopped off. It's a hard no from me.
So then why is your minimum age 10 years old? Why not 7? Why not 5?
Reversable hormones/puberty blockers are different than getting your dick cut off.
The following quote you cited was: "Very few people who have gender-affirming surgery regret their decision. Research tracking the outcomes following gender affirmation surgeries shows that among people who opt for gender-affirming surgery, only 1% regret having the procedure.""
2 questions about this quote:
1. Is this a lifetime statistic or a statistic of what % regret the surugry after X years?
2. Is this a statistic that doesn't consider age or a statistic that only considers those that got gender surguies when they were at least 18, 21, or similar?
Driving a car is reversible. You can stop driving pretty much at will. Once you get your tits chopped off, there is no going back.
Don't you think it takes more maturity to be able to get a gender surgery than to be able to drive a car?
Do you think it's OK for a typical 10 year old to drive a car?
Why didn't you change the debate title yet?
I think you are going to be hard pressed to find someone that wants to ban adults from getting gender surgeries. It's like finding someone that wants to ban wearing shorts in the wintertime. Most people would be scared of it, but they respect the liberty of those to wear shorts in the wintertime if they want too.
Have the debate title be, "Anyone at least the age of X should be allowed to get a gender surgery". X is any number you want.
It's best to not do debates like this.
I can make the topic, "Raping adult women should be legal" and you would have the pro position, which I would assume you would not want to defend as if it's a 50/50 position.
You and the debator should agree on a common topic before you debate. I don't think you would want to defend legalizing rape, murder, or cannibalism (unless you want a really hard Devils Advocate challange).
Lets say someone's position was that the minimum age to get a gender surgery if you want one is 26.
Do they want gender surgeries legal for adults in most cases or not?
If the age was 26, pretty much anyone that would have gotten their dick cut off at 18 will still do that at 26, so it's only a delay.
I think it's the normie position in the US that gender surgeries for adults should be legal in most cases.
I don't think I'm going to vote now; Sas from people kinda urkes me.
Out of Israel/Palestine, only one of these places:
1. Has abortion laws like California
2. Has hate speech laws like the EU; the other place has hate speech laws like conservative Africa
3. Has UHC
4. Gay pride parades
5. Drag queen story hour for kids.
And that country is the one most backed by conservatives.
Israel is a left wing country; so in a world that made sense, the pro life advocates would back anti abortion Palestine and the pro choice advocates would back pro choice Israel.
Dude; if you are going to tell people not to forfeit, you better not forfeit yourself.
But usually, people would waive a round if they wanted the last word and have the rules be that their opponent waives the last round.
Nobody knows your position on this.
If you believe Russia is to blame, either have the debate title be, "Russia is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the con side), XOR have the debate title be, "Ukraine/NATO is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the pro side).
If you believe Ukraine/NATO is to blame, either have the debate title be, "Russia is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the pro side), XOR have the debate title be, "Ukraine/NATO is to blame for the Ukraine war" (and you pick the con side).
Nobody who you would debate against currently knows your position on Russia vs Ukraine.
->But 30% of children under 16 have sex even with current strict laws. Its a pointless standard which you are trying to have.
I CTRL+F d the cites you sent to see where you found the 30% figure. I found the following:
"Less than 30% of sexual crimes are reported to authorities."
"About 30% of all sexual abuse victims are assaulted by family members."
Neither one of these claims is the same as saying, "30% of children under 16 had sex". I tried Chat GPT ing "What percentage of kids under 16 have had sex?" and Chat GPT wasn't useful. I also looked it up the old fashioned way; I didn't find anything useful.
->A simple google search would have given you the answer. I dont see why you hate doing research. Are you trying to get educated or just trying to argue?
I just don't know what terms to look up. I've been dealing with headaches like every day (it's not your fault, but I don't know why) so maybe that's why. But I'll check out the links.
->You can google and find information. I already gave you the numbers. You gave me assumptions as a response.
Or YOU can. You are the one making claims. It's going to be harder for me to look something up than you because you can go to the history on your device and pull up the links that back your position (I don't have those links in my history).
->Originally, you claimed that children shouldnt have sex because they cant consent and it doesn't benefit them. Then you claimed its okay for 16 year old and 13 year old to have sex. So until you make up your mind on which standard you want to use and make it consistent, there is nothing for us to discuss here.
The standard I want to use is only those who are mature enough (regardless of age) should be allowed to consent to sex. The test for this should be developed in a way that the majority of 16-year-olds and older pass and the majority of 15-year-olds and younger fail, although if there is an exception for either age group, so be it. Therapists should be the ones making the test because they understand human psychology the best.
->The point is that most of the time, offender is not caught.
This claim you need to back up with evidence.
Interesting how you dropped all my other points.
->Girls tend to be with older partners.
A 13 year old girl may be with a 14,15, or even 16 year old guy. But almost never a 30 year old dude.
If pedophilia was common, legalizing pedophilia would be way more accepted than it is today. If you ask 100 adults if they think it should be legal for adults to have sex with children, probably 96 or more of them will say no. Out of the remaining 4, most aren't pedophiles, but they believe kids can consent.
Pedophilia is very rare.
->30% of children had sex before 16.
That 30% didn't have sex with a 30 year old; they had sex with other teenagers.
->Tobacco is a different issue. Children can mostly be stopped from smoking tobacco.
Kids can get drugs illegally. It was very common at my HS.
->However, when it comes to sex, no country has lowered sex rate by making it illegal.
I do not believe that is true; everything banned is going to be less common than if that same thing was legal, all else being equal. Otherwise, there would be no point in the law.
->They have increased prison population
I don't believe in imprisonment for crimes. Murder and rape should carry the death penalty, weed use shouldn't be prosecuted, crimes like DUI and theft should be punished with community service and lashings.
->and caused many problems such as adultery
You think adultery is a problem but pedophilia isn't? That's fine; but I'm courious as how you came to that conclusion. I think adultery should be banned along with sex with the mentally underdeveloped.
->The birth rates are declining world wide. When child marriages were legal, in the past, birth rates used to be 6 per woman.
I think there are omitted variables present, like the following:
1. Society is becoming less religious and less religious people tend to have less kids because religion tells people to procreate.
2. Society is becoming wealthier and wealthier people (although they can afford more kids) tend to have less of them (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/) due to focusing on career.
3. The UN was telling the whole world that the world was overpopulated, so that led to places that pay the most attention to tend to have less kids.
4. (To a small extent) homosexual marriages and transgenders marrying other people are more common. These unions often don't reproduce.
I don't think age of consent laws changing by a few years have much to do with it.
->Today, women are taught to wait until older. What they dont know is that the longer they wait, the less are the odds of giving birth.
Or their bodies are more mature, so they can handle more babies. Lets say 2 people start weight lifting; a 12th grader (Person A) and a 6th grader (Person B). If they both stop at 21, Person B will probably become stronger, but person A is way more likely to lift until they are 21 than person B is. If Person A stops at 21 and Person B at 16; Person B was lifting longer, but Person A will probably be the strongest.
->The issue is that 90% of offenders are never caught and 90% of those relationships remain unknown
I think eventually, pretty much all relationships with an adult and a minor get discovered.
->If it was legal, there would be more education about it.
You can educate kids about sex the same way you educate kids about alcohol; let them know it's dangerous and that they shouldn't do it until they are mentally competent enough to do it.
->All causations are correlations.
True, but not all correlations are causations. It's easy to find a correlation; it's harder to prove it's a causation.
->Child marriages do tend to increase birth rates, which is beneficial for society.
How? In the long run, more workers. In the short run, more education expense. It's easier just to increase the immigration population (because adult immigrants don't need 13 years of public school).
->Banning sex with children does not benefit children, because children cannot be stopped from having sex and judgment from ban just harms them.
Does banning tobacco for children benefit them? After all, children cannot be stopped from smoking tobacco and judgment from ban just harms them.
->Usually, it is better to regulate something than to ban it.
How would you regulate sex with kids in a way that does not result in a ban?
-> (A bunch of countries with lower age of consent laws) all are safer countries to live in than USA.
Correlation vs causation. If there are 2 countries (Country A with an age of consent at 16 and Country B with an age of consent at 18) and Country A is safe, it's possible that there are omitted variables. However, if Country A had an age of consent at 16, they raised it to 18, and then their crime rate skyrocketed, and if the same exact thing happened in several other countries, then it's safe to say that raising the age of consent did increase the crime rate.
Just like if I make the claim, "Men with vasectomies tend to have higher testosterone levels", it doesn't mean that vasectomies increase testosterone levels. It could mean guys who already have high testosterone are more likely to want to raw dog, and people who want to raw dog are more willing to get a vasectomy and endure one day of pain so they can do that.
If Japan raised the age of consent to 16; their goal wasn't to reduce the crime rate; their goal was to ban what they see as rape (which if a 21-year-old has sex with a 14 year old when the age of consent is 13, it's not a crime, but if the age of consent is 16, then it is a crime).
If something is legal, it doesn't matter if that something is murder, if you murder when it's legal, it's not a crime. Murder should be a crime, but if it's not a crime to murder, committing murder won't increase the crime rate.
Currently, having sex with someone below the age of 16 is a crime. Now, should it be? That is the question.
->The smartest person in the world knows better than them, so it would be wrong to let them decide instead of the smartest person.
Let's say that 100= The average level of intelligence in a field a 16 year old has.
Lets say a Lawyer has a 450 in Law and a 100 in Engineering. Lets say an Engineer has a 300 in Engineering and a 100 in Law.
From these 2 metrics, the Lawyer is smarter. But would I trust a Lawyer with building a bridge? No. I would rather trust the engineer with that task.
There are different types of intelligence. Lawyer intelligence should matter for legal work, engineer intelligence should matter for engineering, etc.
Lets say you have a legal case coming and you have 2 options for lawyers: 1 Lawyer with a 450 in terms of legal intelligence, or 10 lawyers with a 440 each in terms of legal intelligence. Who would you rather have? I would rather have the 10 lawyers with 440.
So the smartest psychologist should absolutely be helping make the test, but they shouldn't be the only ones making the test. It's a team effort.
->30% of children in USA who are younger than 16 had sex.
Well, under my system, if someone who happens to be having consensual sex is more mentally developed than the average 16 year old, so be it. That would happen sometimes.
-> Its not possible to stop certain things. 50% of 13 year olds in USA watch porn.
I've heard that watching porn is very different from having sex; different chemicals are released in your brain when you have sex than when you watch porn and masturbate. I think a requirement to be able to watch porn is there needs to be an algebra problem you need to be able to solve like, 3x+20=29, solve for x (and there needs to be a way for the system to not let you in if you answer "X=3" if you used AI to solve the problem). This hopefully leads to there being a requirement that shows that if you are mentally competent enough, then you can watch porn. Pretty much no 10-year-old knows what that is; a 13-year-old can solve it though. Hopefully, this leads to a mental capacity standard being imposed before porn is done.
->Since the smartest person would be most capable of determining ability to consent, it follows that smartest person gets to decide. Now you guys just have to fight over who is the smartest and how is intelligence measured.
It would be the people in power that decide who is smart enough to give consent and who isn't. The smartest person in the world may be a doctor at a really prestigious hospital (who has no political power). They shouldn't be making the call for who can consent to sex, but they definitely should be included in terms of the group of people that can consent to sex.
Just like I think if you aren't a murderer, rapist, or similar, you shouldn't be executed because you should have the right to not get killed. Does that mean you get to be president? No?!
But there should be a test that is used to determine how smart someone is and therefore if they are mentally competent enough to have sex and that test needs to be made. I just couldn't make the intelligence test as POTUS; I would have to delegate it to a psychologist and if congress and I approve of the test, it becomes the standard.
Pete Buttigeig: A Masculine left wing gay guy.
The people that tell gays to be more masculine often love Chirstain Walker.
Look these people up if you don't know who they are on YouTube.
->The smartest person can dictate who can consent and who cant. Do you agree with this?
It depends on if the world's smartest person has political power. I would assume whoever is POTUS has above average intelligence, but he's probably not the smartest person in the world because there are 8 billion people on this planet.
But if the POTUS is too strict for who is mentally competent enough to consent to sex, it leads to him being voted out by people who want him to be more lenient; if he's too lenient, he gets viewed as a groomer by society.
->Well, thats what it is. Thats why its called an urge. Because it hurts when you dont do it. And sexual urges are some of the strongest urges. The nature wants you to reproduce, so it gives you pain to motivate you.
For a 10-year-old tobacco addict, his urge to do tobacco is almost certainly stronger than his urge to do sex. It's probably not a good idea to let an average 10 year old indulge in addictive pleasures.
-> If you can determine intelligence, there is the smartest person who can then dictate everything.
Whoever the smartest person in the world is can consent to sex; easily. And the smartest person in the world is an adult.
-> Well, children can have sexual urges, and sexual urges are a form of pain.
I wouldn't consider an urge to be necessarily a pain. Like, lets say I have the urge to do pushups (which I often do). Does this mean I'm in pain if I have the urge to do pushups and can't? I would consider that being fidgety; but not in pain. But some urges are pain (like if I have to go to the bathroom and can't).
I would say the urge to have sex is more like pushups than going to the bathroom. I'm just using my masturbation experience as a reference.
Men should be allowed to vote against abortion legalization because of the first amendment to the US constitution.
You would have to repeal the first amendment (or significantly modify the first amendment) in order to achieve this.
Lets just say I love free speech!
->Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
Best Korea IS in fact advocating that position. It's an unpopular position, but even if you disagree with a belief and 99% of the world agrees with you, you have to treat your debate position and your opponents as if they are 50/50 positions.
I don't know what you expected when you wanted to debate sex with minors. Maybe an easy win?
If Best.Korea ends up making all the arguments and the debate is done when I'm on this site, I will have no reservations with voting for Best Korea.
But my Wifi on this site is sparky, so I might not be able to vote.
I don't vote for people that don't make arguments unless their opponent also made no arguments (which Korea certainly did).
-> I would say that taking a standard of survival of society and personal survival is more worthy than an arbitrary standard.
I could agree with that, even though I haven't thought it through. However, it's not like everybody needs to be having sex in order for people and society to survive.
->As long as the standard is arbitrary, its no different or better than any other standard.
So would you then get rid of arbitrary time requirements to compete in special Track and Field events? If the answer is yes, you have 4 options for track and field events. They are:
1. Don't have them (bad idea)
2. Let anyone join them (even if it takes you 15 minutes to run a 1600 m).
3. Have an alternate requirement not based on time (if it's top X racers, then the racers can all agree to not try as hard in the event because even though their average odds of winning are all the same, they can keep that probability while putting less pain on themselves and maybe the fastest person in the meet runs a 1600 m in 5 minutes rather than an expected 4:20-4:30). Racers should be doing their best.
4. Something I haven't thought of that you might have.
->Taking the standard of reducing pain is also a standard that is more than arbitrary.
I can see that, but it's not like any children are in pain from being virgins. I would also imagine (especially for underdeveloped minds) that sex is really addicting for them, leading to worse declines in the long term. That's why there are age restrictions on alcohol consumption (I think you should have to move out, have it for medical use, IOR have parental consent to be allowed to use any drug). IOR=Inclusive OR.
->If we say that children cant consent, then that just means other people get to dictate children's lives. Parents often take the role of commanding children's lives.
I mean, there are times when it can be abused, but if parents didn't tell kids what to do and what not to do, you would have a lot more drug-addicted kids (and I think sex is like a drug). Sometimes you don't have to touch an oven when it's on to know it hurts. Parents can prevent the pain of kids by telling them, "Don't touch the oven, you will burn".
->Further, if lack of consent makes action wrong, then it makes wrong even those actions that are beneficial. So if children cant consent, then all actions done to children are wrong. If you say that if action is beneficial, then it doesnt require consent, then people can force adults to do things which benefit those adults, even if adults dont want it.
Certain adults (like really dumb ones) are forced to live with their parents, where their parents take care of them for the benefit of the mentally ill adult. People usually move out when they are ready. Some move out at 18; some 21; some older.
->Pregnancy is beneficial for society, but it doesn't follow that someone can force others to get pregnant.
There is a distinction between beneficial for society vs beneficial for the individual. Forcing someone to become pregnant isn't good for the individual because they shouldn't be raped. But lets say a rape victim gets pregnant, gives birth (willingly) and sets the kid up for adoption. That's not even good for society because that kid is on average going to be more of a burden on society than what they will produce relative to the general population. Now, if a rape victim wants to give birth, she should be allowed to do so. But raping women is bad for the individual woman AND society.
It's possible to be good for the individual and bad for society and vice versa, but raping women (and having sex with the mentally underdeveloped) is bad for both the individuals involved and society. The mentally underdeveloped is now a sex addict. Like in Forrest Gump, Jenny had sex with her dad enough times when a child, and it really fucked up her adult life because she turned into a sex addict.
->Further, if intelligence is a standard for making consent valid, then the smartest person on Earth can just say: "I am smarter than everyone else. Only my consent is valid.", and you would not be able to object because intelligence would be a standard for consent.
Claiming you are smart doesn't make you smart. A 5 year old can say they are the smartest person to ever live, but if they can't do my calculus HW, they aren't smart; they are cocky and naive.
-> But that would be entirely arbitrary point.
There are a lot of arbitrary points in our society (an example is in order to qualify according to https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.534b68e446c46aaacbf4e384ccacd0d1?rik=DOvESxdbM1%2br9w&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdecaturtrackandfield.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f5%2f9%2f2%2f8%2f59286795%2ftrack-standards-2017_orig.png&ehk=YIdpCD3Ag6myTBvrGUfzxbwY2Ok8lsXFJHykffjTCn0%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0, you have to be able to run 100 m in 11.9 seconds or faster). Why not 12 seconds? Or 11.8?
With few exceptions, I don't like age being the arbitrary point because young people aren't a monolith; some 15 year olds are more mentally compitent than some 18 year olds. But other things (like intelligence) you need an arbitrary point in there to have a standard.
->Also, since decision making comes with reasoning about higher intelligence, it would follow that if someone is smarter than a 20 year old, he gets to dictate 20 year old's life.
I disagree. I think if you fall below a certain level of intelligence, it wouldn't be random people that are smarter than you making decisions for you, but your parents would be making decisions for you (if you are very stupid). I am smarter than someone who is retarted; that doesn't mean I get to make decisions for them. The hypothetical retard's parents would make decisions for that retard, because the parents are assumed to love him more than I would as a stranger.
->If action with lack of consent is okay if there is some benefit to the person, then you can force adults to do anything as long as it benefits them in some way. You can force adults to eat vegetables even if they dont want to.
I would say it shouldn't be based on age in terms of if they should be allowed to not do something beneficial, but intelligence I think should matter. If it's a 30 year old adult that is just very stupid (like the following person:
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5c6e43bf6de276197e371bb81e4a3ccd32cdb0da/c=225-0-941-538&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2015/04/27/NWGroup/KING/635657645193734670-laura-gholston2.jpg), then I don't think they are mentally competent enough to make a lot of their own decisions.
->The main problem with "intelligence/mental maturity" argument is that if we followed it, age of consent would be 30 or more.
I disagree because you can require a certain level of intelligence the vast majority of 20-year-olds have that the vast majority of 13-year-olds do not. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and age (excluding dementia).
Emojis aren't arguments. If you think there will be a forfeit, state like a very basic pro religion argument like, "religion lets people go to heaven and get eternal joy".
If you respond, I might get it. My Wifi isn't the best and my wifi gets turned off (but just for this site). Today seems to be the exception.
No matter how common your position is, you have to defend it if you debate about it.
Pretty much every American believes the earth is spherical, but if you start a debate where you take the con position of, "The earth is flat" and a flat earther comes along, you can't laugh them off; you have to defend your position as if both your position and theirs are 50/50 positions.
->
A. 1. Children can consent Or 2. Children can't consent
B. 1. Lack of consent means that activity is wrong Or 2. Lack of consent doesn't mean that activity is wrong
C. 1. Every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong Or 2. It is false that every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong
A: It depends. I think some children can consent and others can't. You need to be able to prove you can consent for sex I think using a test something like https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14JWZh43OcZ-5MdeOhrEa_fPe3AP6-24_w6IvqN9R7bs/edit#gid=0 (although it is incomplete, but I think the questions should be something like this). Many things (like whether or not a child wants to watch TV) they can do with parental consent.
B: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
C: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1L0qndW91Y6Nnq_peOvlK6e0SOAlkZ5wtiL2-3m4g9s0/edit.
I figured you guys might want to see this.
If you want to do a debate with people on veganism, can you make it in English please? Most Darters don't know Portuguese or whatever language that is I think. Although I agree with you on veganism (and Biden shouldn't be in office; he sniffs too many kids).
I'm too biased. But I agree with you on this issue.
I think the ideal body count of every man and woman who isn't married is 0. Don't have sex unless your married. I don't think this should be law, but it's a recommendation.
Addiction is powerful, but if you want porn banned, that would mean you would have not only broken your addiction to it, but you want to force that on others. If a smoker wants tobacco banned, I don’t care how addicted they are, they are a hypocrite until they practice what they preach or change their speech because there are other people addicted to tobacco that don’t want it banned that would be effected against their will by a hypocrite smoker wanting tobacco banned.
Now if you wanted porn banned just for those that never watched it so they don’t become addicted, that’s different if you’re addicted to porn. But how are you going to sort out who is addicted vs who isn’t.
My position on porn is it should be legal for everyone. I watched porn when I was a minor and if porn was banned when I was a minor, I wouldn’t have liked it. Most guys are like that too; they start watching porn when they are young.
Make the debate unrated and I'm more likely to accept.
If you watched porn within the last month, you’re a hypocrite.
Wrong and illegal are different. I think premarital sex without a vasectomy is wrong. I don’t believe it should be illegal though.
If you defend homicide, it’s like defending rape; you’ve lost if that’s what you state.
Heritage is a biased source; use more reliable sources.
Crime:
https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/ states the undocumented are less likely to commit victim producing crimes.
Welfare:
I support an open border policy and the undocumented should get kicked off of government aid programs like welfare and food stamps. If you want to come here, be productive.
I want as many people as we can get here because according to my calculations, it would be wonders for the stock market. Quadrupling the US population would roughly quadruple the US stock market, making my stock $130,000 more valuable.
I’m pro life, but if you want abortion banned, how would you punish it? People would get abortions illegally if they were illegal, so you would need a punishment for abortion. Pro lifers say, “Go after the abortionist”, but if this happens, no abortionist would want to do abortions, meaning females are going to have to do their own abortions, so whatever penalty you would give to the abortionist you would also have to give to a female that gets an abortion.
This is funny af.