America should reduce the Age Of Consent (of sexual acts) to 16 and above.
Debate Rounds (3)
The Age of Consent is a very ambiguous area of law, depending on the state and scenario.
In some states, the Age Of Consent is 18 and above; any age below can be considered rape. However, that is very flawed as the average male teen loses his virginity at 16.9 and the average female at 17.4.
(Sources: Kinsey Institute; California State University)
Reducing the Age of Consent to 16 lets teens enjoy sex when they prefer to (around age 17) while preventing any clueless kids from being taken advantage of.
(PS: This is my very first Debate here. Hope to have a lot of fun!)
Making this situation worse is what is currently going in the realms of hysteria-backed madness across college campuses. Young men between the ages of 18 and 23 are finding themselves at risk of expulsion or arrest or slander or defame if they have sex with any female student for any reason at any time without at least two forms of evidence that it was consensual on her part (not his) throughout the entire session.
So then the question becomes how lowering the age effects issues of consent, issues of rape (what counts as rape), issues of conduct in regards to professionals and older adults , issues regarding any resulting children, and so forth. And considering how poorly similar discussions are going with much older people (with the President himself being a complete disappoint in his handling of the situation)... yeah no.
Besides which it sets a very poor precedent - because children as young as nine are having frequent intercourse. The world's youngest father conceived his child at the age of nine with a 14 year old. The youngest mother gave birth at age 6. You can't just say - "well kids will be kids" and adjust consent to that level. Not least because the law isn't there to keep children from touching each other - it's to keep perverted adults from touching the kids. And what of law enforcement? Sometimes the only way to put a child molester/rapist away is by catching him out on something "minor" like statutory rape. I mean... yeah.
Most states have laws that allow an 18 year old to be with a 17 year old, and generally speaking most people don't call the cops on their kid's older partner. That said even in the cases where some poor kid gets caught in the cross-hairs don't make a case for changing the law of consent to 16. Teenagers are capricious little idiots who aren't mature enough to handle safe sex or the consequences of unprotected sex. At least if they're 18 they're legal adults with the options available to them of a legal adult. At 16... yeah no.
JSJUNG forfeited this round.
JSJUNG forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yassine 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct: FF. Con's win. - Arguments: Con successively refuted Pro's case & his arguments went undisputed, as he showed that: 1. the age of consent is less related to virginity than it is to legal responsibility, 2. the age of consent is set to protect children from adults, not from themselves, 3. if sex was the arbitrary for the age of the consent, as Pro asserted, then this would lead to lowering it to absurd limits. Overall, Con's win.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.