The Instigator
jpvn14
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

A Curfew for City Kids Under 18

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 37,142 times Debate No: 18605
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

jpvn14

Pro

I believe that there should be a curfew for the city kids that are under 18. Con will fight that there should NOT be a curfew.

Round 1 is for acceptance only. Thanks.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I thank jpvn14 for creating this debate, and I hope that it's a good one.

I do not believe that there should be a curfew for the city kids that are under 18.
Debate Round No. 1
jpvn14

Pro


I would like to thank AlwaysMoreThanYou for accepting my debate.



Why there should be a curfew



  1. Protection from danger.

  2. There are many dangers that occur past midnight. Muggings, robberies, drunkards, and many more dangerous and possibly harmful things are more likely to happen at night.




  1. Protecting Others.

    1. Lots of high school kids and even middle school kids commit many murders and robberies, especially past midnight. We all know that we can’t stop them from murdering, but we can try to stop them from doing it in the complete darkness and when there are no witnesses around.

    2. Many teens also form gangs, which usually meet in the early morning hours. These gangs are obviously up to no good, and some gangs take pride in their killings.





  1. Why should they be on the streets past midnight anyways?

    1. There is absolutely no need, besides medically, that a person 18 and under should be on the city streets, or out of their homes. I understand that they should be able to have fun, and enjoy their teen years, but there are way too much alcohol, drugs, and other substances that are offered at parties. I also understand that there are “friendly” parties that don’t have drugs or any of that stuff there, but they could have it before 12:00!




There defiantly should be restrictions for children 18 and under.


AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

My opponent stated several good reasons why there should be a curfew, however I must disagree with them. (I'm not positive what time this proposed curfew is for, but I think it's 12:00 from the references to "12:00" and "midnight". Correct me if I'm wrong.)
1. Protection from Danger
It is true that it can be dangerous outside at night. However, I don't think that the solution for that is a curfew. Instead, I think that it would be better to trust that parents will make responsible decisions about allowing their children out late. In order to survive as adults, children should be able to recognize that it might not be very safe for them to be out wandering city streets in the dead of night, and if they can't recognize that as children they may not recognize it as adults. All the dangers mentioned could also be a hazard to an adult; there are some adults who could be mugged or harassed by a drunkard. In fact, a study in 2009 showed that a young adult (20-24 years of age) was slightly more likely to be a crime victim than someone under the age of nineteen. Although a curfew might protect some children, others have been robbed in broad daylight. I think the problem here is that there are muggings ands robberies period, not that children are around when they happen.
2. Protecting Others
I've never heard of a middle school kid committing murder, although I wouldn't be surprised if high school and middle school kids have been discovered stealing. However, the problem is that children are killing and robbing people, regardless of when they're doing it. Children who are willing to kill people (which is against the law) are not likely to concern themselves with a curfew, as they have already proven themselves perfectly willing to break the law. I am also concerned about my opponent's statement that such acts are commmitted "in the complete darkness and when there are no witnesses around". If it's in the complete darkness with no witnesses around, I fail to see how a curfew will help. If the authorities cannot prevent murder by these delinquents, I don't think it's likely that they'll be able to enforce the curfew on them. After all, it should be of higher priority to prevent people being killed than to bust someone for being out when they're not supposed to be. Likewise, if there are gangs hanging about taking pride in murdering people, I doubt that they are going to be scared to step foot out past curfew. If they can currently exist with their gang behavior unchecked, I highly doubt that a curfew can be powerfully enforced upon them.
3. No Reason for it
My opponent acknowledged that there might be a need for someone under 18 to be out of their home, already that's a potential reason against such a curfew. Similarly, one might need to run a quick errand, or just wish visit a friend. Just because something isn't essential doesn't mean that it should be banned. That's like saying "There is absolutely no need for someone to play video games, so we should make them all illegal.". Of course, my opponent has already a counterargument for that, saying that they should basically take care of business before the curfew. Somtimes children might like to celebrate a little bit longer than the curfew might allow, or they might want to do something else after curfew that is completely harmless. I will deal with the claims of alcohol, drugs, and other substances at parties in the same way as the murders; there should be more of an effort to stop these violations of the law rather than placing a curfew. Someone who is illegally drinking alcohol or illegally using drugs just isn't likely to worry overmuch about breaking curfew. I also think that if these parties can exist unchecked, it would be surprising if the curfew could even be enforced. It sounds like are a lot of problems more pressing that aren't being given enough attention, so I highly doubt that a curfew would be enforceable to the degree necessary to be effective.


I am somewhat nonplussed by my opponent's slight changing of the restrictions "for children 18 and under". In the United States, an 18 year old is legally an adult, and I am not sure if it would be very fair to place a curfew on adults too (that has the making of a police state). Correct me if that was intentional, but I am going to disregard that as unintentional, as it would be a severe attack on one's rights to put a curfew on an adult.

In conclusion, I don't think that the described curfew would be of any practical use. If the targeted group contains members who are already murdering people, robbing people, and abusing substances (all illegally), it appears that the enforcement of the law is already weak. A curfew would likely take an even lower priority as far as enforcement is concerned, and would have even less of an effect. If you've already got murder and a few robberies under your belt, breaking curfew probably doesn't even show up on the radar. Likewise, if you're a cop and you have a murder and a few robberies reported, you're not going to first chase down that kid who's breaking curfew. All in all, I don't think that there should be a curfew for children because it won't be effective.

Sources:
Debate Round No. 2
jpvn14

Pro

Protection from Danger

I understand what my opponent is saying, you have to realize that lots of kid’s parents are deceased/mentally ill/ troubling childhood/ divorce or something along those lines that would prevent the parent from fully giving their child proper instruction. Also, if a parent is an ex-con, than they won’t tell their kid not to stay on the street and not to smoke dope, they would most likely be a bad influence on the child. The protection is more specified towards girls. I understand that boys have their gangs and that they can be killed/hurt as well, but girls are in a lot more danger than guys. According to study in 2010, teen guys actually commit to most rapes in America. So if you don’t allow the teens on the streets, than girls will be much safer (especially because the curfew will be preventing them from being outside). I think it’s pretty logical that children and teens with a curfew would be a lot safer, than those who don’t have one.

Protecting Others

Believe it or not, I have seen 3 or 4 middle school kids guilty of murder in Virginia over the past years. This shows that the murdering is only getting worse, and that even 10 year old kids are killing their peers/parents/even friends. High schoolers are definitely a big cause of deaths. I completely understand that a murderer/drug user/alcoholic teenager wouldn’t go by the laws of curfew, but if a police catches them, at least they could be punished. I think the cause of a curfew would cause some gangs to break apart. Obviously not all gangs, but I think some would be scared enough to break up.

No Reason for It

As I said before, there might be such a need as for a teen to be outside their house, but it shouldn’t be any reason except for medical. And if a police catches them, the person could just say that they are trying to go to a doctor or CVS or something, and I’m sure the police officer would take them to the place of intention. If a teen or a child is not at their home by 12:00, it is not acceptable. Medical is the ONLY reason I think it should be allowed

Conclusion

Although Con gives many good reasons why there should not be an allowance, I think the Pros are a lot more than the Cons.

AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I apologize for the delay in my response and the brevity with which I write, but I find myself pressed for time. Be assured that I will more fully expound on my arguments in the next round.
Again, my opponent makes good points in favor of a curfew, but I still disagree with it. (My apologies if my format seems a little unsightly. I wasted a lot of time trying to make it look nice last time, but it ended up ruined anyway, so I'm not trying as hard this time.)
Protection from Danger
Of course there might be situations in which a parent might not give a child proper instruction. However, if the child is an ex-con or someone else who wouldn't even bother to tell their child to stay off the streets at night, that child is already going to have lots of problems when they grow up by not having common knowledge that most people do. Additionally, many teenagers are in their "rebellious stage", and will care for neither their parents nor the curfew. A law as minor as a curfew will not seem important to many teens, as it has historically been a rule enacted by parents. It is likely that the law will not be heeded. Also, like I said before, statistically young adults suffer a little more crime than those younger. It makes more sense, in my opinion, to teach rather than to force. If the children do not understand the rationality behind the curfew, they are likely to either break the law or spend a lot of time out past the curfew once they are of age. That will result in undesirable results, as 18 is not a magical age which makes one much better suited for being outside past a certain time. It is my belief that children should be informed of the risks of going outside at night, and if they choose to anyway then they should suffer the logical consequences, and if they survive they are unlikely to try it again.
Protecting Others
If middle school kids are guilty of killing people, then why would any child listen to a curfew? If the age of killing has decreased so far, I doubt that even a newborn would pay attention to a law as minor as a curfew. Those who would probably heed the law are probably those who wouldn't have done anything harmful anyway, and who probably were smart enough to stay in at that time regardless. Although my opponent certainly acknowledged that a criminal is not likely to go by the laws, another point of mine was not acknowledged. Specifically, more effort should be going into preventing people from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol than some curfew law. I think that it is more important to catch them while they're murdering someone than when they're out breaking curfew. I'm not sure what kind of punishments my opponent would propose for violating a curfew, but I doubt any of them would have the desired effect.
No Reason for It
I am sure that anyone reading this has noticed a glaring issue with the situation put forth by my opponent. Namely, anyone can lie about their intention if there is no evidence directly to the contrary. I have no doubt that a murdering, drug-using, alcohol-quaffing rapist is unlikely to have any moral qualms about lying, and it would be all too easy to make a claim that one has a legitimate reason. Overall, I think that it would not be easy to develop a system for determining who actually belongs outside at a time and who doesn't. It is the opinion of my opponent that "If a teen or a child is not at their home by 12:00, it is not acceptable.". I do not agree, and do not see why my opponent holds this bizarre opinion. Perhaps a child might not be responsible enough, but I have known people in the past who were more responsible as teenagers than some people are as adults. I have also known people in the past who, as teenagers, worked jobs at night while still studying at school, as their families had need of the extra money. By those experiences, I feel that I have shown a valid reason for not agreeing with that opinion.
All in all, I think that such a proposed curfew would be a waste of time/resources to create. If some kid really wants to be out roaming the city at 12:00 and their parents think that it's all right, they'll probably manage to do it no matter how many useless obstacles are thrown in their path. Kids have been sneaking out of their homes at night for hundreds of years, and it's not likely to change just because there's a curfew against it. For these reasons, I don't think the proposed curfew would have any effect.
Debate Round No. 3
jpvn14

Pro


Protection from Danger


I like your points con, and I know teens go through that rebellious stage (I’m one), but if a cop sees them passed their curfew time, a cop can tell them that they shouldn’t be out on the streets at night, and that might solve some of the problems. If the kids are belligerent and won’t listen to the police officer, than they can give them some community service for breaking the law. As I said, there are too many dangers that happen beyond midnight for teens and kids to be a part of. I understand that this is a free country, but watching or being in a mugging is not good for a child, and can potentially hurt them. On the other hand, if a parent is truly not able to give proper advice and discernment for their child, they either need counseling or child confiscation. There is no parent in their right mind that allows their kids to be roaming around the streets in the early morning hour. If so, it’s ridiculous and prevention needs to happen.


Protecting Others


Con makes a good point, as he says, “If middle school kids are guilty of killing people, then why would any child listen to a curfew?” Well, as I have said in my previous argument, and this one, if punishment is enforced upon them, I have no doubt that they would stop. Also, this does not even apply to a middle school murderer, as they are either in a detention center or in jail. If they have not been caught, than having a police officer out at night to keep a look out would be a great addition. My opponent stated, “Specifically, more effort should be going into preventing people from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol than some curfew law.” I agree that we should take actions into those illegal things, but that’s a whole different debate! I’m talking about protection from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol. If there is a curfew, they are protected from the drugs and other various crimes during night-time hours.


No Reason for it


My opponent responded to my 2nd round debate on this topic by replying, “Perhaps a child might not be responsible enough, but I have known people in the past who were more responsible as teenagers than some people are as adults. I have also known people in the past who, as teenagers, worked jobs at night while still studying at school, as their families had need of the extra money.” Yes, but that does not state why a kid should be out on the streets. A child working an extra job, and taking school classes should not be out on the streets past midnight; they should be studying or sleeping. As for the responsibility part of my opponent’s argument…it does not apply to the debate at all. It’s true that many teens are more mature than adults, but at least adults can drink alcohol legally. If a teen drinks alcohol it’s illegal, therefore they should not be on the street.


I do believe in parenting. I believe that a parent should raise their kid however they want to raise them. But when the parents past and/or stupidity kids in the way of their child’s safety, that’s when it crosses the line.


AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

AlwaysMoreThanYou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jpvn14

Pro

Since Con forfeited the round, I strongly urge a Pro vote.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I apologize for forfeiting Round 4, which I was loathe to do but had to because of a family emergency.
I will take Round 5 to make a quick summary of my points, as I am not sure exactly what it is for.
Protection From Danger
I believe that it is ultimately up to the child to make the right decision regarding wandering around at night. I'm sure we can all agree that roaming a city at night isn't a very wise decision, but children should learn or be told that it is unwise. Of course it's not safe for children to be involved in muggings; children shouldn't be involved in crime at all if it can be avoided. However, I believe in freedom. Most children at a young age should not be wandering around at night, and if they are older they should have the right to be out at night if they want to. Sure, it's probably a stupid idea, sure it might be a risk, but if they want to they should be allowed to. Almost anything can be dangerous, but people should still be allowed to choose what they want to do, within the law. Of course some decisions are obviously better than others, but having the right to choose rather than being dictated what you must do is the difference between Freedom and Totalitarianism. Also, if the police can't stop all the crime going on at night, I again doubt their ability to catch children breaking curfew.
Protecting Others
I fully agree with my opponent that if a murderer is wandering around uncaught, a police officer out at night keeping a look out would be a very prudent supplement. However, Pro confuses me by saying that the example he himself provided earlier in the debate (middle school murderer)is not relevant. I fully support punishing people who commit crimes, but as my opponent said "if punishment is enforced upon them, I have no doubt that they would stop.". Punishing people for their crimes should cause less crime, and people should be punished for crimes rather than being out too late. Just because some people can't handle being out late responsibly doesn't mean that every person below the age of eighteen should suffer for it. Also, crimes can occur other times than the night. I believe that rather than waste money and effort enforcing a curfew with little benefit, we should better spend resources to counter the infractions that inspired the curfew in the first place. By eliminating those crimes, the curfew will be even more useless than it is now. Surely if those far worse crimes cannot be stopped, the curfew will have little ability to be enforced.
No Reason for it
My example referred to people who worked a night shift, getting little sleep while still taking classes in order to help their family. Some of those people had to be out at night to work a night shift (I apologize for my ambiguity). Of course it might not have been good for them to be out at night, but they had to be for the sake of their family and themselves. My opponent also says "If a teen drinks alcohol it's illegal, therefore they should not be on the street.". That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the only conclusion I can draw from that is that my opponent's thought processes operate on a level so above mine that a connection I cannot even draw is a mere inference for them. The comparison my opponent drew to alcohol drinking is relevant, but many people have questioned the logic of such arbitrary regulations. As a certain one said, "So when you turn 21, you automatically become wise, clever, and responsible enough to drink alcohol." (He was being sarcastic, I have to spell this out because sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate through text). Basically, we should not create new laws following an old and somewhat dated model used in the past.
In short, I believe in Freedom. I believe that people should have the Freedom to do as they choose, within reason. While they are children, children are under their parent's jurisdiction, but within that and the law they should have Freedom. Hedging them in to certain arbitrarily decided times with illogically set ages is not likely to prove beneficial in the slightest. Vote Con (or Pro if you feel like it, I believe in Freedom so I won't force you).
I would like to add that I wish my opponent luck, and believe that this was a most enjoyable debate. I thank Pro for making my first debate on this site such an interesting one.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
jpvn14AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by tjordan 3 years ago
tjordan
jpvn14AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really backed up what they were saying, but con had better arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
jpvn14AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that this country should stop taking responsibilities of disciplining children away from parents. Con made some very convincing arguments as well