The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Kids Should Have more Rights

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 597 times Debate No: 55312
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)




Originally, In the Us, Only White male landowners could vote, then all White Men, Next all males could vote. Lastly, women could vote. Chains Like this have been through history. But what is the one thing that you almost never see? A child in the chain. Yet, no one has ever thought of this, or if they have, they have never successfully convinced people. Has no one ever heard of Human Rights. They apply to EVERYONE. Look at article 7. We are all equal before the law, yet kids don't have the right to a jury. Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Yet kids can't say what they want. If a kid called an adult something like a donky , or something along that lines, he would get punished. If a Parent called the kid that, nothing would happen. If a parent wanted the kid to have a new home because he drops the f bomb every day, and some psychiatrist said that he should, the juvenile court would agree. If and adult did that, you couldn't take them to court. article 21. 1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 23 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. But unless you are 16, you can't get a job. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. But why, if the Us helped form the Declaration of human rights, is this being violated. Many countries who helped form this are violating this. Are you saying that a kid has less mental power than a senior with alzheimer's? Are you saying a kid has less mental power than someone with mental disability?
I am not trying to be offensive here but It seems most people think that. Now I think that everyone has the same mental power(unless you have a mental disability, but that should not limit your rights). I hope you will all agree with me. I attained this Info from the UN website, and old friends.


According to my opponent, there is an intrinsic right for a human being to have rights.

He goes so far as to say that those suffering from mental disabilities deserve equal rights to those who don't.

By his logic, a chimpanzee that is more intelligent than a severely retarded human being should be denied their rights because of their species. Such a prejudice is never once justified in his entirely romanticised portrayal of human rights.

Why do humans deserve any rights?
Why do children deserve to vote?

These questions are all left to baseless assertions such as that being human is somehow important and entitles you to have elitist status within a nation. Speciesism is a very severe form of segregation that justifies, very irrationally, why slaughtering an innocent cow for the sake of eating it and not allowing it to se the sun once in its life in the name of battery farming is somehow acceptable just because it is a cow, this is identical to what the Nazis said about the Jews and Slave traders said about the slaves.

So, I ask you audience, why should kids deserve rights?

The answer is that they are no more deserving of rights than the ants they kill on a daily basis.

They do not give back to society in any productive manner; they are leeches on the system that the adults of the generation have upheld for their benefit.

Children owe society, they pay back the debt in adulthood. Once the debt is being paid back then and only then, do they begin to deserve rights.

Rights are not gifted, they are earned.
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whygivethensainfo 2 years ago
Did It occur to anyone that a 1 round debate with me going first gives the contender the advantage.
Plenty of people here have been brainwashed by the system. I am not saying people with mental disabilities are inferior. They may actually be superior. I knew a girl who had AMAZING memory.
Posted by whygivethensainfo 2 years ago
Some people have been saying that kids don't contribute to the society. You can blame thr govrnment. They have outlawed kids under 16 years of age from working.
Posted by Logi 2 years ago
I think that if I am "responsible enough to pay income tax" then I am responsible enough to cast my vote and carry a gun.
Posted by lightingbolt50 2 years ago
It sounds good on paper, but honestly, think of all the kids that would just be voting on their parents behalf. Most kids don't have a political opinion independent of their parents. It would make a huge imbalance.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
Intelligence is qualitative; you cannot quantify it.

IQ is an illusion.
Posted by BasicLogic 2 years ago
Good point. I have a 14 year old friend who is more intellegent than my parents
Posted by whygivethensainfo 2 years ago
That Is not true. Some Kids are not well informed. Some are more informed than certain adults. I do like the test idea.
Posted by BasicLogic 2 years ago
Yeah, but the problem is that kids ar not well versed enough in politics. Maybe if they took a test?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con won the debate due to it being a 1 round debate. The con side always wins 1 round debates. While the con's argument was put very bluntly and the con could have put it in a lighter tone, the children do not give back argument won the debate.
Vote Placed by DerKing 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con appears to be a better writer, but the fact that Pro explained how even though a U.N. treaty promises all humans these rights, children do not receive them. Cons entire argument is based on the fact that you must earn rights, event though a right is something you earn by being human and cannot be take away from you. His logic makes no sense and provides no sources. Instead he talks about something completely unrelated.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that the one round nature of this debate does not do the resolution justice. Sure, I think both sides give solid arguments in that round, but more was really needed, so that there could be something to really consider. Pro basically quotes the content from the UN site. There is some talk of why these added rights should exist for children, but simply quoting an article does little in way of an argument. Pro's reference to everyone having the same mental power was more like what was required, in terms of argument. However, it was basically merely an assertion, ultimately. On the other hand, Con goes far more into *why* children should no have more rights. I'm not sure the discussion of specieism was relevant, but the latter part became a bit more convincing (children should not be given rights, because rights should be given as a reward for contributing). It wasn't the most convincing argument, but it was much better than basically quoting the UN.