Children can be a good spy
Debate Rounds (3)
Good Morning to one and all present here. Today the topic before the house is that 'Children can be a good Spy' & I am here to propose the motion.
First of all who are spies?
A spy is someone who secretly gathers information from any person, organisation, state or a country.
Now, speaking about children, we all know how flexible and fit they are, physically & mentally, so why can't they be good spies? Of course they can!
now I know what the opposition would try to say is that "children are sensitive & there mind can be moulded in any way adults can." And here the opposition is wrong.
Speaking about children's malleable minds, actually this point supports the proposition. Why? Because once the host moulds a child's mind into something, he/she'll do it by heart. Haven't you seen small children complaining to their host about anything bad done by a person in front of that child? Well most probably you have seen this. Why do they complain? Because they are taught that these things are bad and you should not do this & also u should not let that happen. And just by teaching this they follow it. & that's why once they have became a spy they cannot be attracted toward any other organisations or be a double agent. I would explain this statement further by an example. Most of you must have watched movies like spy kids and agent cody banks.
And these movies shows that children can be even better spies than adults.
There is one more problem with adults. And what is that?
Love it is! We see that adults fall in love very easily, but children prefer to spend time with there sex. They don't even thing about girls.
And now i would like to rest my case by saying that 'Yes! Children can be great spies.'
First I define the term "child" as any person who has not reached puberty.
I accept my opponent's definition of a spy with the added statement that the spy is operating incognito in a hazardous environment.
My opponent has made a statement regarding the physical and mental fitness of children. While it is true that some children are physically fit for their age, it is not true that a child is physically fit for the demanding trials of any form of combat.
This would present a great problem during insertion, extraction, or if anything were to go wrong.
Secondly, my opponent has made a remark regarding the malleability of a child's mind. The ease with which a child's thinking can be altered is a huge drawback to undercover work. Just by pretending to side with the enemy they may lose their resolve and slowly morph their thinking toward that of their foe.
For his third argument my opponent named several children's movies in which the main characters were children performing spy operations. I would like my opponent to note that Hollywood is a worse source than Wikipedia and has no place in a respectable debate.
There are many reasons a child cannot make an effective operator:
1.) Children have an insufficient attention span to effectively gather intelligence in the field. The average attention span of an eight year-old is 9 minutes. After that time they begin to lose focus; such a trait is not only crippling to any operator but it can also be deadly.
2.) Children lack the physical strength necessary to effectively operate in a hostile environment. Children physically cannot be strong enough to overpower an adult. It's that simple. Prowess in hand to hand combat will not save you when the enemy can pick you up and carry you off.
3.) Children lack the prestige to get anywhere near a point of interest. You won't find a single mobster, militant, or government who will let a child anywhere near their operation. There is no way they would consider hiring the child as a bottom-dog thug, let alone hiring them to anywhere of importance or value. What good is a spy who can't make an insertion?
This closes the first round. I look forward to my opponent's arguments in the next round.
Aditya1999 forfeited this round.
If my opponent wishes to concede the debate I encourage him to simply say so to speed along the process.
Aditya1999 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years 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: Con negated the resolution to an extent that required addressing from Pro. In absence of this, Con wins.
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.