The Instigator
kels1123
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
89 Points

I think that Debate.org should have a minimum age requirement to join.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/7/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,520 times Debate No: 1509
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (38)

 

kels1123

Pro

I think their should be a minimum age requirement to join debate.org. While I believe some of the minors on here are good at debating, I think some of the content is inappropriate. Now I do not think it has to be 18, but I do believe that 10 or 11 is far too young for such subjets as abortion and things of a sexual nature that I have seen on here. If there is not going to be a minimum age requirement I believe certain topics should be blocked if a debater is under the required age. Although I believe it is a parent's job to monitor their child's activities online, I do believe the site should have some responsibility in making access to these topics for an age appropriate audience.
Logical-Master

Con

Good evening. First, I would like to make it clear that I really have no personal preference concerning this topic. I choose to debate here out of sheer enjoyment of the sport. I thank my opponent for allowing any member to participate. With the above formalities out of the way, let us proceed.

There are several problems with my opponent's argument. He suggest that debate.org implement an "Age feature", but I will illustrate the problems with this.

First, a minimum age requirement is hardly effective when it concerns online sites. After all, what is to stop a child at the age of 10 or 11 from simply claiming that he/she is 18? I'd submit that children are curious and creating an age limit requirement would only make them more curious.

Second, the only way to truly implement a minimum age requirement is to create a way of proving one's age. IMDB.com has recently required that its members "prove" their age by giving their credit card information. Granted that this means isn't perfect, it keeps most of the "kids" and the "trolls"
out. However, a primary difference between this site and IMDB.com is that IMDB.com is a professional website. In other words, it is unlikely that hackers and scammers will be successful in their attempts at stealing other people's credit card numbers. But this website? It is young and unprofessional and most certainly doesn't have the same means of protection.

Third, even if this website were to outlaw 10 and 11 year olds, what would become of the individuals aged 12-17? I question my opponent as to whether or not he is aware that society accepts individuals of that age group as being adolescent. I would also question him as to whether or not he can empirically prove that most 12-17 year olds will not be badly influenced by any negative content on this website whereas most 10-11 year olds will?

I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
kels1123

Pro

First off , I am a female not a male :) AS for people lying , yes some will lie , however it will at least stop a few. Secondly as I said another solution is a special part of the site restricting certain people from certain debates. I belong to another forum that has a sex or lack of sex board (army wives) This board requires you to be 18 and have a certain number of posts before you can have access and a special password is then required. I think the only other solution would be to ban any posts with any sexual subject. I have encountered two debates in the last week with a sexual content that are inappropriate for minors. To allow 10 and 11 year old children on this site is wrong. Though the site couldn't stop those who lie, they could at least stop those who are honest.Like I said , I am not 100% sure of a solution , I just find it to be inappropriate to allow children on a site with adult content.
Logical-Master

Con

Now, I will respond to my opponents final reply in this debate. Then, I will inform the audience as to why the Negative side wins today's debate.

First, my opponent concedes to my first contention; my opponent agrees that some will lie about their age. She then states that it will at least stop a FEW. Keyword: FEW! Thus, she concedes that her method is flaccid and ineffective for the most part. Basically, she concedes to my case with that line alone.

Second, my opponent creates a new topic of debate by stating that admin on this website should ban any post with a sexual subject. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as red herring. We are NOT debating whether or not there are any solutions that would resolve the apparent sexuality on this website. Rather, this debate concerns whether or not having a minimal age limit would successfully douse sexuality problem which my opponent insinuates in her opening round. Therefore, I would advise that you ignore my opponent's suggestion as being part of this debate.

Third, the method which she had listed is unsuccessful for the same reason
merely implementing an age feature is. Although forcing individual users to make numerous posts before they are able to post on "suggestive" boards, age function implementation is still the root of getting into these "suggestive" boards, and my opponent has already conceded to her age function implementation as being flaccid and ineffective. Of course, this argument also suffers from red herring since the part about the "number of board posts" is not mentioned in the resolution.

Fourth, my opponent drops my third contention from my first round where I request that she prove that most children ages 10-11 cannot afford to be influenced by the content of this website whereas most children 12-17 can.
Thus, she concedes to not being able to authoritatively claim that 10-11 year olds cannot afford to be influenced by the content of this website whereas 12-17 year olds can.

Closing statements: My opponent conceded that her method was ineffectual by stating that only a few people would be "saved" by affirming the resolution. She lists conditions that she believed would reduce the sexuality problem while veering away from the affirmative side of the resolution. Finally, she dropped my second and third contentions listed in the opening round. For these reasons, the Negative side wins today's debate.

I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the honor of debating with her and I apologize for referring to her as a male earlier. Thanks and good night.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gowolves777 9 years ago
gowolves777
I vote con off of the third contention in the 1st round. It was unrefuted and he extended.
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
A minimum age requirement would not be effective. As to the hackers issue, I don't think either debate.org or IMDB has much to fear from hackers. Unless they were just in search of raw email addresses, it would be pointless. Credit card numbers and bank information are a far better prospect.
Posted by Guardian27 9 years ago
Guardian27
I have to go with Con on this one. I recently had a debate with a youngster that felt that women had life easier than men. I hope that after our debate, he looks at things in a different light. I think it's good for teens to come out here and express their ideas and also learn about how the other side feels. If anything, Debate.org has the potential to be a place of learning and a way to strenthen their own arguments.
Posted by Debater2008 9 years ago
Debater2008
I don't think the content is inappropriate. Also, they will read it if they want to. You have to remember that everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I WAS an LD debater in highschool for a some time. My true passion is Mock Trial.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Hey logical master are you a policy debater? Or LD?
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I voted for you kels, altough I am not afraid of the kids!

also I see we disagree on issues less than ANYONE else I have seen

that means you must be pretty smart!

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by bcaldwell100 9 years ago
bcaldwell100
face crush for the con. Everything that was weak or off topic on the pro case was well exloited. Logic master is clearly a debater. LD maybe?
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Actually in my first round in my argument , I do say that the site if not able to prevent underage could have a way to banm these minors from certain subjects. "If there is not going to be a minimum age requirement I believe certain topics should be blocked if a debater is under the required age."
So it actually is not a new argument , and I would have even put it in the title but I couldn't fit the words.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
oops , I thought I had done 3 rounds lol ... oh well guess its done :)Thanks for the debate :)
38 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 11 months ago
KingDebater
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 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 Littleweasle 8 years ago
Littleweasle
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
kels1123Logical-MasterTied
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