The Instigator
ResilientKeii
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
TorontoGavin
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points

In the U.S Juveniles ought to be treated as adults in the Crim justice system

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,062 times Debate No: 14437
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

ResilientKeii

Con

Well this basically is my case that I am going to use for 2 more tournaments. I wrote it about an hour ago. Just wanna test it out. I want this somewhat in Ld format please.
I know the aff goes first but we can deal with it. Lets just pretend im aff and hes neg.
So round 1
I read case
He asks questions
Round 2
He reads case attacks
I ask questions
Round 3
I attack and defend
He attacks and defends

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system

I offer the following definitions from Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Dictionary.com

Juveniles- a young person; youth. From Dictionary.com

Felony- a crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or imprisonment for more than one year. From Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Ought- used to express obligation From Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Treat- to consider or regard in a specified way, and deal with accordingly. From Dictionary.com

Criminal Justice System- In 1969, the President's Commission of Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice defined the criminal justice system as the means for society to "enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community."[2]

Justice- the administration of law. the quality of being just, impartial, or fair From Merriam-Webster Dictionary

My value for this round will be justice. Justice should be the sole value of this round due to the fact that juveniles and adults must be treated equally when charged, and the administration of law does not change. At any point if this does not happen, we are not serving justice.

My value criterion for this round will be social welfare. We must look to the well being of the United States while abiding by our rules. If we say adults and juveniles are treated as the same for felonies we must abide by it or we aren't serving justice.

I offer the following observations

Observation1 –If the negative side of this debate can prove one time when juveniles will not be treated as adults then the negative wins this debate.

Observation 2- According to Cornell Law, The main goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation rather than punishment. This benefits juveniles as a whole and thus should be known to both sides of the debate.

Contention 1- By following this resolution we contradict the resolution as a whole. By treating juveniles as adults, inherently they must serve the same punishment. But if that ever does not happen then we aren't abiding by the resolution. Rules must be followed. According to an international treaty, juvenile death penalty is not prohibited and thus meaning they cannot be sentenced to death. 35 states in the U.S, for example Texas still have the death penalty. 35 states that aren't treating juveniles and adults equally in one case. This is complete contradictory against justice. The system is not being fair by allowing this. Not only that, by our moral standards, this would not be morally acceptable to the United States. A child of the age of 12 being sentenced to death for committing a violent felon. The United States would be looked down upon by other countries and its own citizens. Thus by affirming this resolution, you are not serving justice due to the fact that you are not treating them equally nor abiding by the rule.

Contention 2: There is a reason why juveniles and adults are not treated the same.

Sub Point A: Juveniles have not matured as much as adults. Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a neuroscientist with the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, said until around a decade ago many scientists had "pretty much assumed that the human brain stopped developing in early childhood," but recent research has found that many regions of the brain continue to develop for a long time afterwards. Prof. Blakemore said brain scans show the prefrontal cortex continues to change shape as people reach their 30s and up to their late 40s. She said the region begins to change in early childhood and then is reorganized in late adolescence but continues to change after that. As you can see, a human's brain hasn't fully matured until mid-adulthood, thus we cant always hold juveniles accountable for their actions. Now this doesn't necessarily mean we should change the age of adulthood because of the brain. That would be absurd. But, when looking whether to punish a juvenile, we must look at their maturity. At certain ages, a child's moral standards increase. They can be held accountable for some actions. For example- a 10 year old being held accountable for stealing from a store. At that age he knew it wasn't right to steal from their. Children like 9 year old Cameron Kocher 20 years ago, should not be put in prison for firing a rifle and hitting his 7 year old neighbor. Accidents do happen.

Sub Point B: Juvenile detention Centers are more beneficial. The main goal of them is to rehabilitate and basically benefit our youth. These kids of age 10-18 can be in these detention centers focus on bettering their lives. According to ABC News Missouri is setting a new standard for juvenile delinquents. Helping them become more motivated and have a positive attitude. Ideas such as that can help our youth. Not throwing them in prison where they are more exposed to violence. That will harm our youth. Punishing them severely to the point where they can be killed is immoral and unnecessary. Prison is to deter crime but juvenile detention homes are to deter crimes for our youth. They must be helped or our society will not be benefited.

Impact: By not treating them as what they aren't they are benefited as a whole
TorontoGavin

Pro

Thanks to ResilientKeii for posting this interesting resolution. For those of you reading this debate who have not viewed the commentary, the resolution must be read with a "NOT" in it:

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought NOT to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system


Definitions

RK has defined "juvenile" to mean "young person" or "youth". but left the actual ages ambiguous. Since the proposition is status quo, I will use the status quo age of 18 for adulthood. But "youth" or "young person" do not denote an infant. A toddler is not a "youth". The lower end of the limit must also be defined, and as my friend has left it undefined I will say that a "youth" or "juvenile" is a human being older than 14 years but less than 18 years of age.

Merriam Webster online defines a felony as "a serious crime (such as murder or rape)." While true that in the US felonies are punished by >1 year in jail, many crimes may be either felonies or misdemeanors: the seriousness determines whether it is a felony. My friend's technical definition is correct but avoids the crux of the issue: felonies are serious crimes.

Finally, he did not set the scope of the "treatment". Since we are talking about felonies and sentences, I will restrict my arguments to convicted felons and therefore we will be discussing differences in sentencing and punishment of youth and adults.

I have no doubt that when we have concluded not only will RK have failed to establish the efficacy of the present distinction, but also that I will have established the counter-proposition: youths of ages 15-17 who are convicted of felonies should be sentenced as adults in the US Criminal Justice System.

Rebuttal

RK 'observes' that "If [he] can prove one time when juveniles will not be treated as adults then [he] wins this debate." The resolution specifically refers to the Criminal Justice System ("CJS"). Therefore, the question is whether adopting the resolution would make the CJS better or worse. My friend as 'observed' a standard of perfection that is unreasonable: we are looking for a better system, not a perfect one.

Similarly, he 'observes' that rehabilitation is a main goal of the existing youth system and asserts the conclusion that it is 'better' for juveniles.That confuses goals with results: there is no evidence that the focus of the youth system achieves superior rehabilitation to the adult system. It also implies a false binary: the adult criminal justice system also includes rehabilitation as an objective; the question is not if, but how much.

He has also mistakenly shifted the focus of the debate onto the welfare of criminals. It may be better for youths accused of serious crimes to get a slap on the wrist; it may be better for murderers to have a get out of jail free card. The CJS is intended to "enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community." Its purpose is the protection of 300 million law-abiding Americans, not the coddling of convicted felons.

My friend's first contention is a red herring. He admits that there "juvenile death penalty is not prohibited" under international treaty but suggests that many states would look down on the US for executing youths. He ignores the fact that several states already execute youths:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
He also fails again to demonstrate that this would reflect a real change: most developed countries (including closest neighbours and largest trading partners Canad and Mexico) already look down on states having capital punishment. the proposer can only frighten us that they will look down a little more.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

More importantly, their views are irrelevant to the protection of Americans from serious crimes, and this, not maintaining rosy diplomatic relations with Sweden, is the purpose of the CJS.

If the death penalty is abhorrent, then all states may abolish it, but this debate is not about the merits of capital punishment. Where a State believes 18-year olds who commit murder should be hanged, then 17 year-olds who commit murder should also be hanged.

His second contention attempts to raise our emotions by conjuring the 10-year-old boy who gets caught stealing, but shoplifting is not a felony offence and therefore not captured by the resolution! Similarly, criminal conviction requires mens rea, the guilty mind, and the accidental discharge of a gun should not be a crime regardless of whether the shooter is a youth - ask Dick Cheney!
http://en.wikipedia.org...
All the examples raised in sub-point A are irrelevant to the resolution as defined.

He cites medical evidence that "the mind continues to change shape as people reach their 30s and up to their late 40s." But surely he is not suggesting that thirty-year olds be treated as insufficiently developed for criminal responsibility! Again, this is a false dichotomy. The question from the cognitive perspective is whether they are sufficiently developed to have criminal intent and responsibility, not "fully" developed by some magic standard.

Sub-point B is little more than a tautology. He states, without any supporting evidence, that because the goal of youth detention centres is rehabilitation, they are in fact better at achieving it, once again mistakenly conflating goals and outcomes, and mistakenly focusing on the convicted felon instead of the safety of law-abiding Americans.

Argument:
Youths 15-17 convicted of felonies should be sentenced as adults for compelling reasons:

Separation: Incarceration is the only certain way to prevent those convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder from harming others. The protection of law-abiding Americans is paramount.

Mature Enough for Criminal Intent: 16 year olds can drive cars, deadly hunks of metal roaring down highways at 60 mph. They can have and consent to sexual relations. While they're admittedly not 100% mature, they will not be 100% mature until they are 40! They are mature enough to recognize the most serious criminal acts are wrongful, and not commit them. 16 year olds understand rape and murder.

Denunciation: The focus on youth's immaturity promotes irresponsibility. The most serious crimes need to be denounced by serious punishment: incarceration for a year or more.

Prevention: Gangs actually recruit youth into lives of crime because they know they are note exposed to the same sentencing. According to the National Crime Prevention Council, schools are the #1 choice to recruit. If we really want to reduce youth criminality, we must reduce this inappropriate social incentive to commit crimes prior to age 18.
http://www.ncpc.org...

Cost: The maintenance of a separate system is much more expensive, and ultimately the CJS needs to reduce costs and focus on punishing the most serious crimes - felonies - no matter who commits them.

The system is broken: In spite of the protections that exist in theory, the US still imprisons more youth than any other nation. The Youth facilities my friend promotes are just as dangerous as the prisons he vilifies.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Questions

Do you think it is more important to focus on the accused felon than on protecting law-abiding Americans?

Do you think 15 and 16 year olds don't understand the seriousness of crimes like rape and murder?

Do you think we should wait until brain maturity at 35 or 40 before using prisons?

What about people who never each full maturity - should they never be held responsible?

Do you admit youth detention centres are training grounds for young gangsters?
Debate Round No. 1
ResilientKeii

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Even with all the confusion. Hopefully we both become more knowledgeable about the topic.
I will first answer his questions, defend my case, attack his,
"Do you think it is more important to focus on the accused felon than on protecting law-abiding Americans?" No. But we still must focus on the accused felon if they are under the age of adulthood.

"Do you think 15 and 16 year olds don't understand the seriousness of crimes like rape and murder?" It would be absurd and illogical to say that all 15 and 16 year olds understand the seriousness of crimes. To an extent some do. They should be punished.

"Do you think we should wait until brain maturity at 35 or 40 before using prisons?" No. We don't do that now. But I am stating that even in adulthood maturity hasnt been funny reached. Also, to say every 16-18 yr old has the brain of an adult wouldn't make sense. Right after their 16th birthday, do they really become an adult? At 12:00 should they be considered an adult?

"What about people who never each full maturity - should they never be held responsible?" Moral standards do increase. They should be held accountable for crimes at an extent. I give the examples in my case. Refer back to them

"Do you admit youth detention centres are training grounds for young gangsters?" Yes, but so are prisons. Prisons vs youth detention. Mexican Mafia vs. 3rd rate crack dealer.

Now to the attacks made on my case.

"RK 'observes' that "If [he] can prove one time when juveniles will not be treated as adults then [he] wins this debate." The resolution specifically refers to the Criminal Justice System ("CJS"). Therefore, the question is whether adopting the resolution would make the CJS better or worse. My friend as 'observed' a standard of perfection that is unreasonable: we are looking for a better system, not a perfect one."

The resolution speaks about charging juveniles with violent felonies as adults. I am saying that if I can prove one time where we won't, or treat them equally with the same punishment, which I have, then I win this debate.

"My friend's first contention is a red herring. He admits that there "juvenile death penalty is not prohibited" under international treaty but suggests that many states would look down on the US for executing youths. He ignores the fact that several states already execute youths:"

My opponent gives a legitimate source for his attack but my opponent does not realize that they executed these juveniles before 2005. We may have done it before, but now we don't because it is immoral to the supreme court's eyes. After 2005 they cannot. After 2005, we simply cannot serve justice as a whole.

"He also fails again to demonstrate that this would reflect a "real change": most developed countries (including closest neighbours and largest trading partners Canad and Mexico) already look down on states having capital punishment. the proposer can only frighten us that they will look down a little more.
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

This is for the real change statement. Real change? Imagine 3 million 16 year olds being executed. What society would actually accept that as of now? Why do you really think that we ruled it being immoral? Moving on.

"His second contention attempts to raise our emotions by conjuring the 10-year-old boy who gets caught stealing, but shoplifting is not a felony offence and therefore not captured by the resolution! Similarly, criminal conviction requires mens rea, the guilty mind, and the accidental"

Oh sorry, but I gave a 9 year old cameron kocher killing some1 with a rifle. Not shop lifting. Therfore all arguments addressed are irrelavent. You must extent my CONTENTION 2 Sub Point A throughout the round.
http://articles.cnn.com...

"He cites medical evidence that "the mind continues to change shape as people reach their 30s and up to their late 40s." But surely he is not suggesting that thirty-year olds be treated as insufficiently developed for criminal responsibility! Again, this is a false dichotomy. The question from the cognitive perspective is whether they are sufficiently developed to have criminal intent and responsibility, not "fully" developed by some magic standard."

Because 30 year olds know whether or not to kill. By that age, unless of retardation, he must be put in jail. Juveniles are under 30. What evidence do you have that 70 million juveniles should be held accountable for there felonies?

"Sub-point B is little more than a tautology. He states, without any supporting evidence, that because the goal of youth detention centres is rehabilitation, they are in fact better at achieving it, once again mistakenly conflating goals and outcomes, and mistakenly focusing on the convicted felon instead of the safety of law-abiding Americans."

The outcome of juvenile is more beneficial than the outcome of prison.

"Separation: Incarceration is the only certain way to prevent those convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder from harming others. The protection of law-abiding Americans is paramount."

Harmning others? That term is used very loosely.

Flaws with Harming others
1.They can harm others in prison.
2.These juveniles can be easily influenced by other gangsters or previous felons
3.We will prevent it all? Since when?
4.What evidence do you have with that.

"Mature Enough for Criminal Intent: 16 year olds can drive cars, deadly hunks of metal roaring down highways at 60 mph. They can have and consent to sexual relations. While they're admittedly not 100% mature, they will not be 100% mature until they are 40! They are mature enough to recognize the most serious criminal acts are wrongful, and not commit them. 16 year olds understand rape and murder."

What evidence do you have that they are mature? Or at least all 16 year olds. Well if they are matue to recognize serious crimes, why cant they drink? Why cant they get government jobs? Because they are not adults? Then why treat them like that in the criminal justice system?

"Denunciation: The focus on youth's immaturity promotes irresponsibility. The most serious crimes need to be denounced by serious punishment: incarceration for a year or more."

Cross apply my equality argument which basically states that you aren't treating them like adults. They are still kids when being charged if you do this for "a year or more". You aren't treating these "adults" as "adults"

"Prevention: Gangs actually recruit youth into lives of crime because they know they are note exposed to the same sentencing. According to the National Crime Prevention Council, schools are the #1 choice to recruit. If we really want to reduce youth criminality, we must reduce this inappropriate social incentive to commit crimes prior to age 18."

What is juvenile filled with? Gangs? What is prison filled with? Gang NATIONS!. What makes you think they will be actually more beneficial. On top of that, they will be exposed to more gang like activities, which promotes more gang like crimes. In the end by sending them to prison you are actually WORSENING the United States. There are roughly 2 million people currently housed in prisons in the United States today. A good majority of those individuals belong or have belonged to a gang, whether it was on the street or while confined. In the
following pages I am going to discuss prison gangs. The subject is a broad one and I will not attempt to cover all the material available. I will instead provide a brief overview of the major prison gangs that operate in the U.S. prison system.
http://www.associatedcontent.com...

Cost argument-With more crime we spend more. Youth facility-we still work on rehabilitation.
TorontoGavin

Pro

I'll first review my questions and the take my opponent's questions; again, for those not reading the comments, please note that RK ran out of space and included them there. While I will answer them to maintain the quality of the debate, readers should note that failure to respect time and space limitations.

In response to my first question, RK admitted that protecting law abiding Americans is more important than coddling young felons, which may well rest our case.

He has suggested it is both 'absurd and illogical' to imagine that 16 year olds can understand the seriousness of crimes like rape and murder. Not only does this fail to respond to the stated comparison (that we do agree they can drive deadly cars,which requires analogous maturity), it is contrary to common sense. While there may be 16 year olds that don't understand that rape is a crime, it is not their age but some other lack of capacity at work. This resolution is not about punishing the insane or incapable.

He has failed to understand the point of my third and fourth questions: he acknowledges that there is no magic moment at which the subject becomes mature, but cannot explain why the current line - 18 years of age - is somehow 'right'. If he genuinely believes in his psychological evidence about brain maturity, he should be prepared to wait until 35 or 40 before incarcerating people - only those "fully" mature. If we can and *should* punish adult 20 and 25 year olds rapists who are not yet fully mature but mature enough for responsibility, then we should punish 17 year old rapists in the identical position - mature enough to understand, though not perfectly mature.

Opposition's answers to questions:

"Q1. How is getting but rapped [sic] in prison more beneficial then rehabilitation?"

The question is offensive, but permits a response I will have to repeat several times in this round. The question poses a "false dichotomy" or "false binary". RK has told us that the existing Juvenile system has a greater focus on rehabilitation. He then falsely takes the comparison of more/less and renders it into an absolute duality of all/nothing. Adults in our system currently receive rehabilitation; so do youths. Rape exists in adult prisons and in juvenile detention centres. Rape is bad and rehabilitation is good, but RK has failed to establish that the juvenile system has EITHER less rape OR more rehabilitation.

"Q2.How is the mexican mafia more beneficial then 12 year old gang members?"

I cannot make sense of this question. Neither are beneficial, therefore one is not more beneficial than the other.

"Q3.If we do worry about the costs, but we promote more crime, how to we actually save money?"

If it were true that this approach would promote crime, then we could weight the costs and benefits. It is up to the instigator to establish that the proposed approach reduces crime, or that mine would increase it; you cannot take that as assumed. That is a classical fallacy called "begging the question". Also, of course, there is a finite sum of money to be spent in the CJS and it should be spent on punishing felonies, the most serious crimes, and not providing expensive day care for teen gangsters.

4.What statistics do you show that 70 million Americans have the same moral standards as an adult.

All adult Americans do NOT share the same moral framework. This was not argued, nor is it relevant.

Reply


RK: "The resolution speaks about charging juveniles with violent felonies as adults. I am saying that if I can prove one time where we won't, or treat them equally with the same punishment, which I have, then I win this debate."

Not at all. The resolution speaks to the effectiveness of the CJS. The CJS is currently imperfect. The resolution is what we should do: we should do that which will result in a better CJS. Neither of us needs to establish a perfect CJS. This again is a false dichotomy - it's a continuum of better/worse, not a binary of perfect/fail.

RK: " my opponent does not realize that they executed these juveniles before 2005. We may have done it before, but now we don't because it is immoral to the supreme court's eyes. After 2005 they cannot."

We are not arguing what the Supreme Court has said, we are arguing what should be done. In my view, all capital punishment should be abolished, but that's not the subject of this debate.

In respect to my fulsome response to his Argument 2 sub A, Rk says:
"Oh sorry, but I gave a 9 year old cameron kocher killing some1 with a rifle. Not shop lifting. Therefore all arguments addressed are irrelavent"

Again, this is a false dichotomy - even if the 9 year old with a rifle was not addressed, that does not mean ALL the arguments are invalid. Of course, the 9 year old with a rifle was addressed in three ways:
1) by pointing out that the resolution is related to youths 15-17, not children aged 9, and is irrelevant;
2) by pointing out that criminal conviction for felony would require mens rea, the guilty mind, and that accidental shooting would never qualify, regardless of age; and
3) by making a joke about Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot a man and was not charged.

My response was complete and stands as-is.

RK: "The outcome of juvenile is more beneficial than the outcome of prison."

Again, this begs the question. RK needs to establish that a juvenile centre is better than jail, not just state it.

Opposition Case

Separation: The argument that only keeping rapists and murderers in jail ensures they will not harm innocent citizens is manifestly true. While true that crimes are committed in prisons, these are committed against other criminals; the CJS exists to protect law abiding Americans and punish criminals, not the other way around. Separation will not prevent all crime - that is yet another false dichotomy.

Sufficiently mature: Cars are dangerous - deadly. We permit 16 year olds to drive them. Therefore, it is clear for this purpose that we think these youths are mature enough to understand the deadly consequences of their actions. Similarly, 16 year olds understand the deadly consequences of murder and the vile consequences of rape. RK again raises a false dichotomy of "mature" and "not mature"when it is a continuum of "more/less" maturity.18 year olds are not 100% mature, but are considered mature enough to be held responsible. The same reasoning exactly applies to 16 year olds. The false dichotomy would require RK to admit that 30year olds are not 100% mature and should receive special treatment like youths. That is nonsensical because the dichotomy is false, and RK has failed to respond to the proposition.

Denunciation: RK tries to draw a spurious comparison between the "equality" of treating adults as adults vs adults as children or children as adults or children as children. The equality that he needs to focus on, however, is this one:
Serious Crime = Serious punishment
Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes, like rape and murder, are convicted felons and our society must denounce this antisocial activity through imprisonment. We already do, only in a much more expensive institution and for a much shorter period of time, so they can be quickly back on the streets with their gang training and confidence that they can commit more crimes without going to "real" jail. That must stop.

Prevention: The fact is that my opponent has admitted that juvie is a training ground for young gangsters. There are two key differences between their training there and adult training in prison:
1) In juvie they learn that they will NEVER be fully punished for their crimes before age 18. They learn they are invulnerable.
2) In juvie they learn quickly and are back on the street. In real jail they can practice their skills on other felons and leave good Americans safe.

And that is why I am proud to oppose this motion.








Debate Round No. 2
ResilientKeii

Con

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
TorontoGavin

Pro

TorontoGavin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TorontoGavin 6 years ago
TorontoGavin
Hahaha this is a joke!
First, the proposer gave up and resigned his last round, which is a sure loss.
Second, the proposer has the burden of proof so if tied I should win. There is no tie.
Third, whoever voted for Resilientkeii was a troll, you can side with who you want on the issue (as Americans usually do, regardless of evidence) but it is a joke to suggest that his arguments had better grammar and references.
Posted by TorontoGavin 6 years ago
TorontoGavin
Sorry: I understand my job is "done" - not "one" - and the instigator gets the last word.
Posted by TorontoGavin 6 years ago
TorontoGavin
Thanks for the debate. In my understanding my job is one - you get to post your last rebuttal and that's it. Please confirm!
Posted by ResilientKeii 6 years ago
ResilientKeii
Please forgive. I ran out of words.
I'll ask my questions here.
1. How is getting but rapped in prison more beneficial then rehabilitation?
2.How is the mexican mafia more beneficial then 12 year old gang members?
3.If we do worry about the costs, but we promote more crime, how to we actually save money?
4.What statistics do you show that 70 million americans have the same moral standards as an adult.
Posted by TorontoGavin 6 years ago
TorontoGavin
Alright, you haven't been back in time to update, so here's my plan:

Since there are only three rounds, I will ask my questions AND make my first arguments in round 1. Hopefully you will be able to sort things out, or at least we can figure out how to squeeze everything into the remaining two rounds, it shouldn't be hard.
Posted by TorontoGavin 6 years ago
TorontoGavin
Ok, thanks for that. I will not post my round 1 questions until the debate format has been changed to include 5 rounds per your below message; then I'll know we're both ready and both understand and agree on the same format!

I have 1 day 20 hours from now, but no worries: I am accustomed to impromptu format and have never prepared researched debate in my life and I don't intend to start now. What you will get is pretty much what I would say out loud except with a text limit instead of a time limit. Good luck!

G
Posted by ResilientKeii 6 years ago
ResilientKeii
Yea, that's what I kinda meant. Ill explain in this comment and edit
Round 1
I gave my case
Now you ask questions

Round 2
I answer your questions
You give ur case and attack mine

Round 3
I ask questions
You answer questions

Round 4
I attack and defend
You attack and defend

Round 5
I attack and defend
U attack and defend
Posted by TorontoGavin 6 years ago
TorontoGavin
Ok, well I hate to do this but I have two days left to post my argument so I should clarify how we intend to do the L-D format.

In L-D, the first two rounds are arg/cross, so in theory my round one arguments should ONLY be direct questions to you. However, i don't believe that this format permits direct questioning, only for me to post my cross-x as rebuttal. Similarly for round two, and your cross-x of my constructive.

*Please confirm whether you expect me to exclusively ask questions during this round 1 period.*
In my view I can problematize your resolution but I can't simply ask questions because there's no facility in which you can answer them directly.

Also,in L-D the participants have the same time but the Pro gets to go both first and last and has one more kick at the can, just for a shorter time. This structure does NOT have three phases built into the rebuttal round, and of course the individual rounds aren't timed, so it's not really an LD debate. Who will go first in round three? Presumably me, so that you can have the last word?
*Please confirm round 3 structure*.
Posted by TorontoGavin 6 years ago
TorontoGavin
"I basically tried to stop the confusion." Haha fail!

So to be clear, instead of saying you are flipping the debate, it would also be fair to say that you are inverting your resolution. The resolution says "SHOULD" be treated as adults, and we are going to run it pretending that it says "SHOULDN'T". You have argued PRO, and gone first, and argued that youths should NOT be treated the same. I will now go second and argue that youths SHOULD be treated as adults. Everything else will just be normal, except that we will read your proposition in the negative.

Incidentally, One reason it would take forever and you had to 'flip' it is that it is the convention against status quo. So, youths are currently treated differently, and therefore it's a bad proposition to say that the status quo should be maintained.

"I didnt tell u how to argue"

For the record, after defining the terms you then did say that the first prop argument would be based on justice, the justice of treating all equally. That is exactly telling the prop how to argue the case. I won't take that argument, if it's ok with you.
Posted by ResilientKeii 6 years ago
ResilientKeii
I didnt tell u how to argue. I basically tried to stop the confusion.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ofbecerra 6 years ago
ofbecerra
ResilientKeiiTorontoGavinTied
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 Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ResilientKeiiTorontoGavinTied
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