The Instigator
dasamster
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
XimenBao
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Choose the topic in Round One...

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,973 times Debate No: 10392
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

dasamster

Pro

I don't know which one is best to debate. Your pick. Post your choice.

1) Resolved: Young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime.

2) Resolved: Children should be ‘bused' to schools outside of their neighborhood to ensure diversity within schools.

3) Resolved: Sex offender registries should be more well-known and advertised in the United States.
XimenBao

Con

I choose to negate the first resolution.

I await pro's affirmation that young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime.
Debate Round No. 1
dasamster

Pro

The negative chose to negate the first resolution, which states that young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. I would like to thank the negative for choosing to take part in this debate of choice and look forward to a challenging debate.

I affirm the resolution, again, that young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. My first contention is that there have been and currently are many curfew in place right now, as a precaution to reduce crime. Because of the rise in rates of juvenile crime from the 1980s through the mid-1990s, many of the nation's jurisdictions imposed youth curfews. A 2000 survey of 490 cities by the National League of Cities found that 69% had nighttime curfews and 14% had daytime curfews. For an example, in Washington DC, The Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995 (DC Code 2-1541 et. seq.) states that persons under the age of 17 cannot remain in or on a street, park or other outdoor public place, in a vehicle or on the premises of any establishment within the District of Columbia during curfew hours, unless they are involved in certain exempted activities. Another example, in San Jose, California, Minors who are 16 or 17 years old cannot be in a public place within the city without adult supervision between the hours of 11:30pm and 5:00am. Why are these set in place? They are set in place so that teens will stay out of trouble. In cities, like New York and Los Angeles, there is gang violence at night because there are less people on the streets. Not to mention, it is safer for both the juveniles and law enforcement. If law enforcement responds to any call during curfew hours, there is a high chance that there will be less people there, in effect, being safer.

My second contention is that it educates juveniles, both directly and indirectly. It indirectly teaches the juveniles to stay inside and not go out because juveniles go to school have have schoolwork to do, rather than running out on the street, causing havoc in public. It directly educates juveniles because the juveniles learn that violent and non-violent crimes han hapopen at night, and also it will educate them that there are alternatives to "chilling with their friends'. Gang activity stops after curfew hours begin, and if you address inappropriate behavior, you will minimize the opportunity for it to escalate into violence. In other words, if you catch youths early it is more likely they can become valuable members of society.

I would again like to thank the affirmative for starting this case issue, and I look forward to continuing in this debate.

Sources
(1) http://www.libraryindex.com... (2) http://mpdc.dc.gov...
(3) http://www.sjpd.org...
(4) http://usmayors.org...
XimenBao

Con

I thank Pro for his argument and look forward to his response in the final round.

Pro affirms the resolution by making two contentions, first that curfews are already used and second that curfews educate.

Contention 1:
This contention is irrevelant. Whether curfews are already used as a precaution against crime says nothing about whether curfews SHOULD be in place as a precaution against crime.

The argument that curfews actually do reduce crime is not explicitly made, nor even strongly implied. In fact, if we look at the first source Pro used [1], we find that the evidence for curfew effectiveness is merely a survey of politicians about their perceptions of curfew effectiveness (the same survey as in his fourth source). Pro's source says actual studies done on the matter show there is "no support for the proposition that stricter curfew enforcement reduces youth crime or risk of violent fatality…. Curfew enforcement generally has no discernible effect on youth crime." I point out again that this is from Pro's own source and invite the reader to examine the link.

However, this is not the only source that suggests curfews don't work. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, "Research on the effects of curfew laws is examined that shows curfew laws are not effective in reducing overall rates of juvenile crime.[2]"

In fact, research has shown the opposite. Curfews waste so much police time rounding up otherwise innocent teenagers that they miss real criminals committing real crimes [3].

Contention 2:

This contention is also largely irrelevant to the resolution. Unless pro can link learning that there are alternatives to spending time with friends or learning that crime happens at night to lower levels of crime, it doesn't relate to the resolution which is concerned with implementing a curfew "as a way to reduce crime."

To whatever extent this contention is relevant, it is unsupported. Pro has not provided any sources for this contention. He has not provided any evidence that youths' perceptions of curfew and the lessons they draw from it are the perceptions and lessons he assumes they learn. I can assert that it teaches them a distrust of oppressive authority and therefore increases the chance for anti-social criminal behavior, and it carries the same weight as pro's assertion.

To summarize, to whatever extent contention one is not irrelevant, it is countered by Pro's own sources and turned by the weight of scientific evidence.
To whatever extent contention two is not irrelevant, it is unsupported and unevidenced.

Conclusion:
To affirm the resolution, readers must answer yes to the question, do curfews reduce crime? This is not a question that can be decided through argumentation, but through looking at the balance of research that has been done on the topic. The research shows that not only do curfews not reduce crime, but they result in increased crime. Thus, the resolution is negated.

Sources in comments
Debate Round No. 2
dasamster

Pro

The negative, in his/her speech stated that after reading my contentions and reasoning, my first conetention was completely irrelevant. However, it is completely relevant. This topic would be so much more of a challenge to debate if there were no curfews in effect right now. How? It is less challenging now because there are many curfews put into place from sources I have provided. To support my argument, I have obtained at least one additional source to add-on to my argument. The City of West Palm Beach Florida just observed the one year anniversary of a 10 PM curfew for those under 17 years of age. They say its enforcement has been very successful. Police there say arrests of juveniles are down 36 percent and nighttime arrests dropped 86 percent. They also say the total number of crimes during curfew hours are down 12 percent.

The negative also states that my contention regarding the effects for teens is irrelevant. It isn't. It's common knowledge (among teenagers) that if you can't go outside, you stay inside and do something. A huge majority of the teenagers in the country attend school. Chances are, they have assignments due and projects to do for school. Knowing they have things to do, why not do them? There is a 50% chance that they will do the work.. they either ill or they won't.

The negative also states that curfews waste so much police time rounding up otherwise innocent teenagers that they miss real criminals committing real crimes. What do you mean by "real" crimes? Violation of a statewide law of a curfew is a crime, hence why the police can take action. Just because someone isn't being killed at the same time a teen runs out of the house doesn't mean that violation of curfew isn't a crime. It is a felony. Negative states that it teaches juveniles a distrust of oppressive authority and therefore increases the chance for anti-social criminal behavior; Neg asserted this. I do disagree with it. I agree with the part that it teaches juveniles a distrust of oppressive authority, however, the outcome can and will be different. They will stay in, knowing that they can get arrested for going against a law put into place.

I would like to once again state the affirmative reasons of why young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. My first contention is that there have been and currently are many curfew in place right now, as a precaution to reduce crime. My second contention is that it educates juveniles, both directly and indirectly. I urge the users of this website to please vote affirmative.

"Lets keep our streets and neighborhoods safe!"

(1) http://apublicdefender.com...
XimenBao

Con

Meaning no disrespect to Pro, this will be a very short round.

The resolution is that "Young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime."

Therefore in order to vote pro, the reader must belief that curfews will reduce crime, or in an exteremly generous interpretation, have a neutral effect.

This is a question best decided by empirical observation, as many curfews have been tried already and many studies have been done on the subject. This argument was made in the previous round and has not been addressed by Pro, therefore please accept it as the standard by which to judge this round.

I have posted a link to the U.S. Department of Justice where they review all research on the topic and determine that curfews do not reduce crime. I have posted a link to the JusticePolicy center where their review of the research determines that curfews actually increase crime, having a negative rather than neutral effect. Pro's first link in Round 2 notes that the research shows curfews do not reduce crime and points to a survey of the opinions of politicans as the only evidence in favor of curfews.

In addition to this opinion poll, Pro's only other source he uses in support of curfews' crime-fighting effectiveness is the link given in the round 3 argument. It is a broken link to a blog.

This is not a matter of argumentation and opinion, but a matter of referencing established facts.

Those facts support a vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
RFD's are always appreciated.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Thanks.

I would link to point out that the working link was provided after the debate had finished.
Posted by dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
Here is the "broken" link... dont knwo whythe entire url didnt go..

http://apublicdefender.com...
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
AUGGGH, the typos.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Sometimes I really wish there was a cross-ex component to these debates.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
How interesting. You're running the same debate twice. I shall endeavour to choose different arguments than the terminally ill satanic ninja in your other debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by debatingturtle 7 years ago
debatingturtle
dasamsterXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Apologician 7 years ago
Apologician
dasamsterXimenBaoTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
dasamsterXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
dasamsterXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
dasamsterXimenBaoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05