The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
The Contender
Naruto_Usumaki
Con (against)

Children 5 years or older should be allowed to consent to sexual activity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Naruto_Usumaki has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,094 times Debate No: 98003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

Since the person who accepted my earlier debate on this was a troll who is notorious for accepting debates and not debating seriously by re-creating new accounts all of the time, I am redoing this debate with a requirement to have a rank as good or better than mine. If you wish to debate me and are a lower rank, please comment and I may or may not choose you as my opponent.

Note: any argument that is based off of "society says so" or anything that doesn't actually provide logical reasons why children can't consent will be dismissed.

Structure of debate:
Round 1: Opening statement/Main Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Conclusion/state why you believe you won

I believe that in instances where a child 5 years or older agrees to do something sexual with an adult or other child, it should be legal. The reason why I chose 5 years is because 90% of the brain is developed by age 5[1]. To claim they are unable to consent by the time they have 90% of the brain developed seems difficult to believe.

Just as rape is illegal though, rape of children would be illegal too. So if force is used against the child, then it would be illegal.

However, if a child agrees to it, I find difficulty with finding what right of the child is violated. If both agree to the sexual activity, just how is any right violated? I believe that specifically for this aspect, the burden of proof lies with con to show how rights are violated when a child participates in sexual activity, so I can't comment more on this.

It seems as though majority of people have an impulsive belief that it's wrong for children to engage in sexual activity, but where does that belief come from when a vast majority of the brain is already developed by age 5? I suppose one could argue that the child has less experience, but how else are they supposed to get experience with sexual activity but be involved in it? Someone who waits until they are 16 to have sex is just as inexperienced as a 5 year old who hasn't had sex yet, but for some reason it's viewed as okay to most people for a 16 year old to have sex.

Another argument might be that the child doesn't have enough knowledge of the potential negative effects of sex. The only negative things about sex is unexpected pregnancy, and STD's. The former is not a concern for children because a young girl can't get pregnant, and a young boy can't make a person pregnant, so that concern is not really a valid concern at all. As for STD's, the child could be taught at or before 5 about how sexual activity could lead to a "permanent sickness"(this is a term that children would understand) and that should be sufficient for them to make a decision about it. They could also be taught about protected sex. If it's necessary, I would be okay with making unprotected sex between children and an adult to be illegal, but protected sex is not. That way that concern is addressed. Or else, in order for them to have unprotected sex, it requires consent from the parents.

In addition, I believe that since children can be tried as adults for murder, then they should be able to consent too. For example, a brother and a sister were tried as adults at ages 12 and 13 [2]. If they can be held responsible as an adult for such actions, then they should also be treated as adults for sex. Otherwise, this is inconsistent. If children are supposedly too young to understand consequences of actions, then they shouldn't ever be tried as adults, yet they often are.

Finally, I believe that anything that does no harm to anyone else should be legal. If the child suffers from no psychologically negative effects from the sex, has no interest in going to court, has no interest in getting the person in trouble, then there is no valid reason why it should be illegal.
Naruto_Usumaki

Con

Your claim is "Children 5 years or older should be allowed to consent to sexual activity" Then you You said " rape of children would be illegal too. So if force is used against the child, then it would be illegal" So I will not Confuse you Advocating Child Rape. You then went onto say "I believe that specifically for this aspect, the burden of proof lies with con to show how rights are violated when a child participates in sexual activity" in which I will do My Best to assure proof of Child Rights violations in Sexual Activity. You go to say how a child of 5 is no less Experienced at sex then a teenager of 16, Then your point you say that since children are Physically Unable to bear a child, It wouldn't matter about Pregnancy.

Your point leads to the fact that you would be willing to make Unprotected sex Illegal due to the Fact that STDs do Exist and then you would teach about these Diseases to the children, and your Final point is since Children would be able to have sex, They also would be able to be tried as Adults if they are capable of Understanding the Severity of the crime they Committed, As well as Saying no Psychological Damage Comes from a child having Sex.

I only pointed out your Debate round simply to show I did fully Understand and read what you said.

Since Rape in General is a Horrible thing and Since you did not Advocate Child Rape, I will move on to the next Paragraph in your Debate Round, Which is "I believe that specifically for this aspect, the burden of proof lies with con to show how rights are violated when a child participates in sexual activity". I will now state my Reasoning for against the claim, Now as Children grow up, They tend to Feel deeply about things However they do feel a Regret about various things like Friends, To not taking School seriously, To not going out to a party and even to a Study conducted that showed one third of Women later regret losing their virginity while Underage (Although Studies Very from Person to Place so Statistics could be Higher or Lower) Which is an example of How children often Regret things they do. I believe Safety rights of Children also come into play, A grown adult would put Tremendous Weight on a child or Strain on a Childs Vaginal and or Anal Canal, Which is Another reason why it Violates Children rights.

You said Children are no Less Experienced at sex than a 16 Year old is, However that is false since Teens Learned about Sexual Education from their parents or School by the time they enter 7th Grade, Reason why teens learn it at that age is because Hormonal changes start occurring so, Children wonder what exactly is happening. There is no reason for Children to Learn about Sexual Education/Sexual Diseases at an Early age Considering children of any age are often Immature so they are likely to be Disgusted by the talk of Sex or Laughing at it while not taking it Seriously. Since you said, You are willing to have Unprotected Sex set as illegal, I find no reason to Say my reasoning for that point.

And finally To your claim that Children would be able to be tried as a adults because they would be able to have Sex. If Children were tried as Adults for every single bad thing they do, The jails would be full of Children and as well, Jail is no place for a Learning Environment for children. Laws are set in place for those who fully can decide for their own and as well, Understand the Consequences for crimes. Children however are unaware how everything's works, Ranging from the concept of Money, To How Business's are Built, and as well as other things.

Reason why Children are not allowed with Sexual Activity is because they are still developing Both Physically and Mentally, They Make mistakes as well are still learning. Childhood is meant for them to Discover world and create a Character of their own that will be used in Society. They have no desire for Sex because Hormones are not set in.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

Oh, I just noticed that I didn't provide the links to the sources in my previous round. I'll do that now:

ROUND 1 SOURCES:
[1] http://sites.ed.gov...
[2] I couldn't find the exact source I used for this, but other sources showing that kids that young are tried as adults include these two: http://www.usatoday.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Ok, now to move onto rebuttals, I'll number each of my arguments that correspond to each paragraph, starting with the paragraph that begins with "Since Rape in General is a Horrible thing..."

1} While regret is something that could likely occur, this isn't a violation of the child's rights. You would need to explain what right is being violated, since I don't see any right that is, based on what society agrees upon for what rights we have. If regret was all that was needed to prove a violation of rights occurred, we would be jailing many more people for supposed rapes just because the person regretted consenting to the sex, even though they did in fact consent to begin with. It's inevitable that we will feel regret at some point in our lives, but what one person feels regret for, another person may not feel regret for at all. So why should an activity be illegal for all kids just because some of them will feel regret afterwards? Many of them won't feel regret and will be happy they engaged in such activity at such a young age in order to gain experience.

I agree that there would likely be a lot of strain on the child's anal or vaginal body parts, but this is still not a violation of a right since there is consent to this happening. The child would be consenting to this strain. Also, this strain would most likely only happen between adult and child, I don't think it would happen between two children nearly as much. However, children aren't technically allowed to consent to sex between themselves either.

2) Knowledge and experience are two different things. What my opponent talks about here is knowledge, not experience. Knowledge is, nonetheless, very important. However, children could be taught at a younger age about sex in order to solve this problem that my opponent pointed out. It's not like we can't solve this problem by teaching them about it at or before age 5. My opponent did argue that there is no reason to teach kids at a young age about sex, but there would be if they were allowed to consent to sexual actions. Plus, children DO in fact engage in sexual behavior, if nothing else, out of curiosity, so there is in fact already reason to teach them about sex, std's, etc. We are doing a disservice to children by not informing them of the risks of engaging in sexual behavior, such as touching or sucking on genitals of other children. As shown here, children do in fact engage in sexual activity: [1] I can also confirm this is true because as a kid, I did some sexual exploration too, even as young as 4 as I remember.
So, I now ask my opponent, why do we keep children ignorant of the fact that when they explore sexual organs, they may contract a disease from that? Is it really moral to keep children ignorant of this when they themselves are doing activities with other children that can cause the spread of such diseases? Unless we kept our children away from other kids, it's pretty much inevitable that they will do the "I'll show you 'mine' if you show me 'yours'" proposition and kids go even further than that already.

3) While I would agree that children should not be tried as adults, the fact of the matter is they are. When I pointed out that children are being tried as adults, I was mostly trying to point out an inconsistency here. Our society sees children as old enough to be held responsible for criminal actions, yet doesn't see them as responsible for sexual actions. I wasn't trying to argue FOR trying kids as adults, I was merely pointing out an inconsistency to argue for my position.

ROUND 2 SOURCE:
[1] https://depts.washington.edu...
Naruto_Usumaki

Con

1. Children are Unable to fully understand the Decision they are making, Children as well do not have Sexual desires so odds are really high of them unable to really Consent to something they do not desire. As you previously stated Earlier Pregnancy issues do not exist since they are Unable to procreate, That leads to my next point. There is no need to Have Sexual Activity Among someone so young because

A. The Childs Sexual Desires do not exist although they may feel like they want to explore things, They Do not Have a Sexual Desire to Have Sex with another person nor do they Fullfill their Desires (Aka Have a Orgasm that reliefs Sexual Urges).

B. Since Sexual Fulfillment isn't a thing for a Child (Due to the fact that they are Incapable of having Sexual Urges), and Since Procreation isn't a thing (Due to the fact they are Unable to Procreate). The Only person who would gain sexual Fulfillment from it would be an Adult.

Your point is comparing Children to Adults "why do we keep children ignorant of the fact that when they explore sexual organs, they may contract a disease from that?" Children aren't like adults, They do not Have sex so much that Diseases Exist. The Only way for a Child to Receive those types of Diseases would be for an Adult to Transfer the Disease, Which is another reason why I do not accept the idea of Children of 5years or older should be allowed to Consent to Sexual Activity.

Children aren't Exactly tried as an Adult, Someone I know Broke Another kids jaw. However since He was "A Minor" at the time. He had to go to Safe school, Instead of spending 5 years in prison. Children cant legally be Sentenced to Death in The United States, While Adults can.
Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

As I agreed on, this round is to be used as a conclusion and reasons why I believe I won. I won't present new arguments here and neither should my opponent.

To conclude, I believe children 5 years or older should be able to consent to sexual activity because their brain is 90% developed by that age. Then I stated that a child should have a right to agree to it. I addressed concerns early in my argument about the possibility of STD's but that can be prevented if we allowed for children to be taught about sex and STD's at a young age, or even if it was made illegal for children to consent to have unprotected sex with adults. I argued that whatever doesn't do harm to other people, should be legal, and sex between two consenting people does not harm to anyone else.

I believe I won this debate because I used facts and logic, while my opponent only relied on logic and assumptions and provided no evidence of facts through sources. Their argument in the first round I already rebutted sufficiently in the second round I think and pointed out why that logic doesn't work. Then in the second round my opponent made the assumption without evidence that children can't fully understand the decisions they are making. While this may be a commonly held belief, I ask people to look at this objectively and determine that since my opponent didn't offer support for this claim, it is a weak argument. Then my opponent's argument that children do not experience sexual desires was already proven to be false by the source in my second round. And lastly, my opponent, argued that sex with an adult is the only way for a child to get an STD but I ask the voters to truly think about that for a moment, and think about what other ways STD's are transferred(such as through blood contact).

Thus, my opponent's arguments were weak in round 2, and I already pointed out the problems in round 1 with my rebuttals in round 2.

I implore voters to vote on this debate as objectively as possible. Do not let your own opinions affect your voting, especially since nearly everyone has an immediate reaction to child sex as something disgusting. Put that aside and judge this debate objectively, and I will accept it. Since vote comments are turned on, if you don't provide sufficient RFD, I will report the vote. Hopefully that also encourages you to look at this objectively.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Midnight_Wind 1 year ago
Midnight_Wind
At five kids still agree with the last thing you say
ex1: Adult: "Yes or no"
Kid: "No"

ex2: Adult: "No or yes"
Kid: "yes"
Posted by Archaholic 1 year ago
Archaholic
What the hell...?

5 years!! I didn't even fully grow my balls at this age, so how is it possible to consent to sex?
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
By the way, for the person who said that the child doesn't have their brain fully developed, neither do I as a 21 year old. The brain isn't 100% fully developed until around age 26. Do you think no one under 26 should be allowed to have sex then?
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Geez, I leave this alone for like 18 hours because I had to work, and I have so many comments, mostly from TruthLoveAndGod.

First of all, I am not worried about any investigations into me. I've not admitted to doing a single illegal thing on here, and plus who said I would actually do this to children? You assume too much from me just because I believe children should be allowed to consent. Just because I say that, doesn't mean I want to have sex with a child or do anything to children.

Oh, and sorry Bribri10114, I didn't see your comment before I accepted to debate someone else. I thought Naruto_Usumaki was the first one to ask to be challenged. My bad, but if they don' accept, I'll challenge you.
Posted by XxFoxlordxX 1 year ago
XxFoxlordxX
trutloveandgod,
as anon1984 said, you aren't behaving very much like a christian should. Using threats and what I would call spamming of anecdotal and hypothetical examples that have nothing to do with this debate is pointless. Very much like shouting racist, calling someone an advocate of pedophilia and one themselves, is not the way to win an argument. Presenting real facts and POSSIBLE situations does.
Posted by Malichai13 1 year ago
Malichai13
Wtf? What's with people's minds these day!?
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
@anon thank you

lovetruthandGod my first comments on here were debunking op, so not sure how I got lumped into a group of agreeing with the idea. Second of all, threatening people that disagree with you is wildly inappropriate and has no place anywhere. Thirdly even if I was a pedophile, which im not (hard to be one when you are a kid too) it wouldn't be my choice. I do not choose what turns me on and if you actually did the research you would see that people who have the mental disorder are almost always depressed. They hate the fact that it turns them on, so maybe you should start trying to figure out ways of helping them instead of doing whatever it is you think you are doing.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
@anon thank you

lovetruthandGod my first comments on here were debunking op, so not sure how I got lumped into a group of agreeing with the idea. Second of all, threatening people that disagree with you is wildly inappropriate and has no place anywhere. Thirdly even if I was a pedophile, which im not (hard to be one when you are a kid too) it wouldn't be my choice. I do not choose what turns me on and if you actually did the research you would see that people who have the mental disorder are almost always depressed. They hate the fact that it turns them on, so maybe you should start trying to figure out ways of helping them instead of doing whatever it is you think you are doing.
Posted by Anon1984 1 year ago
Anon1984
I would take the debate but rank isn't high enough.
Posted by Anon1984 1 year ago
Anon1984
TruthLoveandGod

Judging by your screen name I'm assuming youre a Christian. Was your behavior here very Christ like? I think not, Jesus was nice and calm and tried to bring the most socially unacceptable and morally deplorable people back to the truth. Perhaps you should, if you are truly a Christian, follow the example of Christ. After all Christ-ian, -ian being a suffix that implies having the same properties as Christ. Is this topic distasteful? Without a doubt. But the instigator is just putting to the question a belief we all have but have never probably taken the time to dissect why it is actually wrong. It's easy to question things that are ambiguous and subjective and left open to interpretation. But it can be vastly different to try to make a case for something you've just taken for granted your whole life and never actually took the time to reason through why you hold that belief. And I think it is a good intellectual exercise to do just that. Otherwise you may end up with all sorts of mental malware that has been instilled in you that you take for granted without ever actually understanding why or occasionally believing something to be true or right or moral that is in fact the opposite. I happen to think it is wrong for a 5 year old to have sex for both scientific and emotional reasons and I believe I can make a logically valid intellectual case against his arguments. So perhaps you should grow up and realize that being offended is the nature of being an adult. And if his claim is so outrageous, which I too think it is, then put on your big boy pants and your thinking cap and make a case.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.