The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

A 12 year old have rights to join a debate!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 831 times Debate No: 67254
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




I'm 12 and everyone says, "What you doing here. You too young" My birthday is this December 20th I'm very near to be 13! So wrong title. A 13 year old have a right to voice out his opinions in a debate!!! Hihihi. Con would stands for no. I'm tired of hearing You're too young and sh*t. And people often think that we can do nothing and underestimate us. I'm fighting for our rights. Kids rights FTW! (I have a mature mind ;) )


I take the Con: Your voice and opinion don't matter here. In fact, they don't really matter anywhere; in the status quo, you are nothing but an employee-in-training, a robot in submission to higher powers than you or me or any one individual for that matter. The world does not respect the rights of children, and so that is my arg: In the status quo, we see that already Con wins. You haven't even touched on why this is wrong; allow me to give three reasons why this is the right approach. First, children are on balance stupider, less mature, and less apt at public matters; we see this quite clearly in your awful grammar and argumentative structure. Next, if we give rights to children, and recognize their complete autonomy as if they were adults, there would be no mandatory education, thus, no educated workforce, which is increasingly necessary in today's society. Finally, there is no reason why you, like all adults nowadays who were once children, cannot wait your turn, by which I mean, wait until you turn 18 to be recognized as a full citizen. This is not racism or blatant discrimination of any sort; there is reason behind it, and after a while, you'll grow out of your unfortunate social standing.
I could go on, and I will when I receive opposition; for now, however, I await your inevitably juvenile response.
Debate Round No. 1


You are nothing but an arrogant individual. Seeing at your response and the way you belittle me. I'm not one of the spoiled American kids you're thinking of.

In fact, your response was very far from what I expected. I was to point out why people would rather hold us back in an argument than to let us learn. As what you've said we are still developing, then why wouldn't want us to do so. Also, I was asking and fighting for children's rights to debate on the INTERNET! Get that? Who would come up with such idea that children would want to take decision against the clich" and fithy society filled with imbecile, rampant, and arrogant people. And let's not take this too personal, I won't forbear.

Once again, I'm not one of the spoied American kids and I was talking about the INTERNET, get it?


Your last post honestly just confused me more. I'm not exactly sure where your stance is, or whether or not it's stable -- it seems like you really don't have one stable stasis point from which to develop your argumentation, because now you're talking about spoiled Americans, which is completely new and non-responsive. Also, I can assure you, there are many spoiled children all around the world, especially those who feel empowered by having access to the internet. Also, you say that my response wasn't right because I was talking about the world at large while you're just talking about the Internet; I argue there's no difference, because the same values people hold dear in democracy and politics and society in general spill over to such sites as this -- especially this one, actually, because people on a debate site probably value logic and reason more than those on Youtube. My point was that it's much harder for 12 (or 13) year olds to have developed these vital argumentative skills so early in life -- no personal insult to you on account of anything other than that, though one day I'm sure you'll be miles ahead of others intellectually (you already have a head start; it's clear you're smart for your age), for now, it's not irrational for others to question just how apt you would be debating/discussing with the "big boys", so to speak.
Extend through all my previous arguments; none were responded to.
Debate Round No. 2


I have admitted lost to this debate. One time soon, I'll come back with better debating skills. Perhaps, I'm still in a cocoon striving to fly high amongst the winds. Just this once will I admit lost and won't stop me from having more debates. Congratulations to my opponent.


This was an interesting debate, and a very interesting topic... Personally I see the points you are making but also the ones I brought up on my side. I didn't mean to have such pointed comments in my first post -- reading it back now I see it was a bit too harsh and ad hominem, I didn't intend to disparage you as an individual (I don't know you) but to make my point in my rhetoric. Anyway, good debate! you made some good points, and I"m sure as you practice more you'll soon be smarter than most of the adults on here :)
Debate Round No. 3


Mattyyy forfeited this round.


good debate
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by emporer1 2 years ago
Hello mattyyy. I am a 14 year old. I wish to be a politician as an adult and run for office on all 3 levels of government. I am currently a member of student council at my high school and served as the mayor of my city for a day ( through a program with my cities mayor ). I have met several leaders and am well aquainted with the mayor and city council here. I am a Canadian and here in canada we have a prime minister instead of a president. I have spoken with the prime minister via email and meet our speaker of the house of Commons face to face. I have been in local media several times. The point of telling you all that is to tell you that I'm only 2 years oldER than you and have done this much. Don't let some moron with a keyboard put you down or make you feel like your opinion aren't valid. Just do what you are pasionate about and don't bother with the ramblings of adults. In a couple of years you could outsmart many of them :)
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
*perhaps the attacks would have been LESS pointed.
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
I think it important to understand that this is a... debate website. Con's arguments came off as pointed, but it is impossible not to come off that way when you are debating that another individual doesn't have rights. Whether one agrees with the proposition or not, they must debate their appointed side, and by posting this as a debate in which someone MUST take the Con side, then of course there will be attacks. Had this been on the forums... perhaps the attacks would have been just as pointed.

I too was about to accept the resolution, and though I personally agree with the pro side, I would have done everything in my power to convince the opposition of MY side, despite my personal beliefs. When the resolution is to deny a certain groups rights... then it is understandable -whether you agree with the comments or not- why there were ad hominem attacks in Con'w argument.
Posted by Mattyyy 2 years ago
Hi @lilmisslawyer. That is the way I like it to be understood. Thank you for you have came. :) Thanks to all who have understood me. I would also like to thank everyone's approach.
Posted by Reeseroni 2 years ago
Haha this kid is qt.

But not a good debater
Posted by lilmisslawyer 2 years ago
I've read the debate and I am appalled by the way you are treat a 12 almost 13 year old. He's not asking for rights that adults have, for example the right to vote, he is asking to be accepted on a website where even the more wiser and mature participate in debates that are not in our maturity level. This debate not only shows us how low you think of kids but it also shows your true character and how low you think kids are. He is asking to be accepted ONLINE where everyone is suppose to be accepted. Mattyyy if you ever need someone to have an intellectual debate with to increase your skills I am always here. We are suppose to help the youth grow not belittle them and cause problems. There are kids who have killed themselves over the things you have said Con watch what you say and how you say it.
Posted by ElCoyote 2 years ago
This debate is interesting, i'm curious to see how it plays out
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
Alright, so here's some advice from what I've seen thus far:

Though redorc19's response contained a pointed ad hominem attack, you shouldn't have deflected it with another ad hominem. You must attack your opponent's argument, not your opponent, unless something about their character would make them unreliable in a given debate. In fact, his attack on you is even slightly justified as the resolution is essentially Anti-Child, and you would fit into that category.

Secondly, you deflected the criticisms over to "spoiled American kids" which is the wrong course of action for many reasons, the first of which being that you ought to be defending them as part of your resolution. The second and most obvious reason, however, is that you are attacking a completely separate group of individuals now: Americans, whom I guarantee you are on this site, and will be judging you. In fact, I, and American, though prone to be neutral may find it harder to look favorably upon you now.

Third, you must continue to present new evidence, which you have not done. You stated the same opinion a different way, but in order to convince someone you are going to need more than just your word.

I'll think of a few more things... and this is not to say his argument was perfect either, but your response was the wrong way to go about continuing the debate.
Posted by Mattyyy 2 years ago
In a postive way, there is nothing to be afraid of facing me. I just wanted to learn and that's all. I don't vene care if I win or lose this argument or not.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Haha @Conservative101

So true!

But, if I were to debate this it would be off of how younger age normally lead to a decrease of the site quality. I would be taking the Devil's Advocate by the way
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Pro forfeited, I won't grant argument points; however, i feel an ad hominem of that nature should not be rewarded, so even though pro forfeited, the devotion of a post to putting down someone who has agreed to enter a debate is more deplorable.
Vote Placed by Reeseroni 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Why does this matter...