The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Our youth is our future.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,692 times Debate No: 51213
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

In this debate, I will argue that our youth is our future. I will speak of how the elderly represent ideas that no longer fit to this modern world we live in. This is, in a sense, a Liberal vs. Conservative debate, but it is also about much more than that. It is about the future of humankind. My opponent will argue that the youth is not the future and that we should rather trust the people who have lived much longer. In the first round of this debate, my opponent will simply accept the debate and state his or her stance. In the second round, my opponent and I will write our main arguments. Rebuttals and final arguments will be in the third round. Further rebuttal will be in the fourth round. Finally, the fifth round is for the conclusion. The rules for the debate are simple: The debate structure must be followed, proper grammar and spelling will be used, sources will be sited using the MLA format, and there will be no forfeiting.

I await the beginning of a delightful debate.
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my challenger for responding. I truly look forward to a delightful and informative debate and I hope for it to be factual, rational, and logical. I wish to influence my adversary’s opinion on the matter with persuasive techniques and suficient evidence to support my claim. Without further ado, let’s begin.


Main Argument

Our youth is our future. This is the premise and resolution of the debate. My case is the following: Education quality increases over time. New scientific and technological discoveries are made and they are implemented into the education system. There was once a time when these facts were completely unknown. If you were employed at a major corporation and you were responsible for hiring and firing people, would you rather hire the expienced, older individual or the person that is fresh out of college and has all of the latest information at the ready? Granted, experience is key to anything, whether it is business, politics, or science. However, you must have the latest information accessible. You must have experienced people in leadership positions of a company, but the employees should be those that are younger and fresh out of college. This is, in a sense, the American dream: to work yourself up. These youngsters have the capacity to work themselves towards greatness while those who are experienced have already worked themselves up. This is essential. youthpolicy.org provides the following image:


Not only is it logical, but it is also democratic. The above image shows that most people support global youth work. The fact of the matter is that proper education will lead to economic success. Providing the youth more opportunities than older people will ensure economic prosperity. I am not saying that we should abandon the elderly and experienced, but I am simply stating that we should give more opportunities to the youth.


I believe that education is, in a sense, much more progressive than experience. Yes, experience will assist in making the right decisions, but education will ensure that you even have the capacity to make those decisions. resources-now.org states, “[s]o you want to make a difference, but you can’t do it all by yourself. Whether you personally want to do something for your community,your nonprofit wants to launch a new program,or your work team needs to implement a project,collaboration is essential,especially in these times of lean resources. Collaboration with community members,nonprofits,large corporations,small businesses,artists,or government agencies can maximize your efforts and increase your audience. There are many benefits of collaboration including new skills and abilities,variety of ideas,increased man power,additional monetary resources,and improved efficiency.


The young mind is capable of things no one can predict or comprehend. The youth is our future.



MLA Citations

"Youthpolicy.org." Youthpolicyorg. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.youthpolicy.org...;.


"E3 Alliance | Education Equals Economics." E3 Alliance. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://e3alliance.org...>.

"Resources Now « Raising Resources to Build Stronger Organizations.Resources Now."Resources Now. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://resources-now.org...;.


Barnes, Melody. "What I Heard From Parents, Teachers and Students about Education Reform." The White House. The White House, 22 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.whitehouse.gov...;.

CJKAllstar

Con

Thank you for your arguments, and I will first offer my points.
1. Experience




A 2013 report by High Fliers Research showed that college graduates without work experience have little chance of getting a job[1]. Now, I could list hundreds of statistics to prove my point. On the factual basis, experience is valued more. From Canada with 84% respondants to a survey saying experience was more important [2], to the U.S where paid interns had a 63% chance of securing employment as opposed with unpaid or no internships, with 37% and 35% respectively[3]. Experience is valued a lot and that is an intangible fact, why? Well, only common sense can show that with experience comes safety. Businesses and employers value safety and security. Someone with plans to change the future is fine, a good example was Tesla with his Wardenclyffe Tower, which was rejected grant. Safety and conservatism are spread throughout the adult world. Only one in 5000 inventions are successful[4]. Bottom performers, who are usually newer have a success rate in terms of selling products of 45%[5]. Newer things clearly have a chance of failure. If we take the purpose of human development as specified in the Human Development Reports as "The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choices. In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time. People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and sense of participation in community activities. The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives"[6] then failure stops an unsuccessful choice. It creates more paths, but more of those are at fault. We value security and conservatism and experience so that we can develop and give people more of a chance, but successfully. And this is where the youth fall in. I also think it is fairly agreed that youths are more liberal. I urge you to view this article - http://goo.gl... [7]. This article explains more than enough of this statement.

The youth as shown here are more likely to prioritise growth over deficit reduction. They are more likely to be progressive on things in general and due to the nature of liberalism, more likely to want to make a change. The youth are more liberal. Now, due to the nature of liberalism placing the country is more likely to instil a change. Whether for the better or the worse, as I have proved before, it is more likely to fail. Now, in times of great recession as of 2008, it is a fairly strange notion to accept a higher chance of failure in any case. We cannot have any chance of failure with the economy, or with trade, or benefits or the welfare of people. The average age of a president in America is 54.8[8], and it is not hard to see why. People need safety for the country more importantly than advancement. Advancement will make their lives better, but safety will stop their lives from worsening if it doesn't.

2. The purpose of elders in this.
If we focus on the youth then we cannot withhold safety and conservatism that lies within the old. Focusing on the youth, listening to them not only brings ideas more likely to fail but also means we do not focus on values which set the foundation for this country. If, using the example of deficit v. growth we focused on teens and switched our examples, then maybe we'll see an end to austerity, but more likely an increase in investments which hope to be boosted upon later, which are more likely to fail than austerity. But the moment we run a teen-based country, then bye-bye to the idea at all if it follows this correlation. Goodbye to conservative views in general and it is just another way to instil liberalism upon a country, which is literally going against the general views of most western countries.

America here for example:
Political Ideology -- 2010 Half-Year Update (1992-2010 Trend)
The U.K has a conservative government, these countries all are listed as right wing in Europe from source [9].
Norway
Britain
Netherlands
Italy
Germany
France
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
Hungary
Austria
And I am sure the list is very high. Conservatism is more popular, and there are certainly more people who aren't youths in America:

In the end, the youth are the next generation of people, but for them to be able to make changes and affect the country, they need to be in the shoes that people are in now so they can make more informed decision on the general population, which that can only come out of them aging and not being youths. To summarize, the youth aren't the future as the future will have more elders, who are mostly conservative and the youth are mostly liberal so will contest this and negatively affect the majority. The future relies in the elders to guide the youth to make their choices more open as I have shown above, so that they can do the same when they age, making the general population a freer place. Thank you for this debate.

Sources:
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
[1]http://goo.gl...
[2]http://goo.gl...
[3]http://goo.gl...
[4]http://goo.gl...
[5]http://goo.gl...
[6]http://goo.gl...
[7]http://goo.gl...
[8]http://goo.gl...
[9] http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals & New Arguments

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for a complex argument. His argument is rather great, yet I feel that it is not sufficient. I apologize that my first argument was not very strong and I hope to make this one complex enough. My adversary begins by sharing statistics about how greatly experience is valued in the workforce. Granted, experience is key. However, I believe that experience should be reserved for the leadership positions of a corporation. The actual employees of that corporation should be youth for the youth has:


a) a recent education, therefore having the most recent facts accessible

b) a wider capacity to reform what needs to be reformed

c) great innovative skills


This is undeniable. However, I must recognize that my opponent’s statistics are also undeniable. I give him that. However, it is also a matter of how you interpret facts. Facts simply stated mean nothing. You must interpret them correctly.Today's youth is the future generation, which means they will populate the world one day. They are more intelligible about certain things, like technology, which makes them great for innovation, which will drive is towards a bright future. This my opponent has chosen to ignore fully.

My opponent states that, “[e]xperience is valued a lot and that is an intangible fact, why? Well, only common sense can show that with experience comes safety. Businesses and employers value safety and security. Someone with plans to change the future is fine, a good example was Tesla with his Wardenclyffe Tower, which was rejected grant. Safety and conservatism are spread throughout the adult world.” Conservatism is a hideous ideology. I must concur with the “with experience comes safety” logic, but I must say that we disagree on the interpretation of the facts. I never said that we should hire only youth. I said that we should focus on the youth and give them more opportunities. Why do I believe this? Education quality becomes better and only better. Elders were educated in a time when facts were theories and certain discoveries were not yet made. The youths are the ones that are fresh out of college and have the latest data available. This my opponent cannot deny.


My opponent’s statement:

The youth as shown here are more likely to prioritise growth over deficit reduction. They are more likely to be progressive on things in general and due to the nature of liberalism, more likely to want to make a change. The youth are more liberal. Now, due to the nature of liberalism placing the country is more likely to instil a change. Whether for the better or the worse, as I have proved before, it is more likely to fail. Now, in times of great recession as of 2008, it is a fairly strange notion to accept a higher chance of failure in any case. We cannot have any chance of failure with the economy, or with trade, or benefits or the welfare of people. The average age of a president in America is 54.8[8], and it is not hard to see why. People need safety for the country more importantly than advancement. Advancement will make their lives better, but safety will stop their lives from worsening if it doesn't.


My response:

We need growth and innovation, which Conservatives cannot provide. Progressivism and Liberalism are beneficial for the economy. Compare the Liberal (Democratic) spending and the Conservative (Republican) spending:

As you can see yourself, Liberals can manage finances much more responsibly than Conservatives. I must agree that we need safety and experience, but I believe advancement, innovation, growth, and reform are much more important matters. It is a matter of electing the right candidates and supporting the proper movement. This is the movement of the youth; to pass education reform and innovate markets; to develop new technologies, invent new products, revolutionize the economy, and so forth. This is a fundamental trait the elders lack. Conservatism cannot accomplish this. We need Liberalism and Progressivism to lead our nation. A proper Liberal candidate, actually, can provide safety and experience as well. Again, it is a matter of electing the right candidate.


My opponent’s statement:

In the end, the youth are the next generation of people, but for them to be able to make changes and affect the country, they need to be in the shoes that people are in now so they can make more informed decision on the general population, which that can only come out of them aging and not being youths. To summarize, the youth aren't the future as the future will have more elders, who are mostly conservative and the youth are mostly liberal so will contest this and negatively affect the majority. The future relies in the elders to guide the youth to make their choices more open as I have shown above, so that they can do the same when they age, making the general population a freer place.


My response:

It seems my opponent is quite knowledgeable. Again, it is a matter of interpretation. I concur that elders must guide youths into the right direction, but in the end, it is the youth’s duty to innovate and reform, invent and develop, revolutionize and influence. Conservatives lack this capacity. We must learn from the past, live in the present, and plan for the future. Elders live in the past and wish to return to the past. The youth learns from previous mistakes and innovate and plan for the future. Imagine what this nation and this world would be without innovation and reform. It would be dark. It would be dangerous. It would not be the world we recognize.
CJKAllstar

Con

Thank you for your points. I too will also offer some rebuttal.

Rebuttal
My opponents state these, in which I disagree.

"a) a recent education, therefore having the most recent facts accessible"
Facts are accessible to anyone, any time. In most jobs facts which are viable and needed will be taught to you, or will be learnt if they are that important, and if not, then you can visit one of endless amounts of resources to get new information, no matter your age. This point is invalid.

"b) a wider capacity to reform what needs to be reformed"
The only way to know what needs to be reformed is with experience, then you have seen it run and know what to do. I would certainly rather listen to someone about reform who has had more experience with it. Knowledge only takes you so far, in practice things are different. There is a reason the average age of politicians in the UK is 50[1]. Their experience gives them more capacity for reform.

"c) great innovative skills"
I let the other two slide as they were marginally sensible, but you simply have no proof of this. Innovative skills are a personal thing and a fifty year old could be more innovative than a twenty year old. Someone who has innovation who has been working in a media/IT based field for years however would have the experience on top of that, so not only are his/her products innovative, but with a higher chance to succeed.

"Today's youth is the future generation, which means they will populate the world one day. They are more intelligible about certain things, like technology, which makes them great for innovation, which will drive is towards a bright future. This my opponent has chosen to ignore fully."

The intelligibility of technology is dependant on the person. Innovation can be carried on by anyone, and nothing shows that the youth is anymore technologically advanced. If we take "youth" as "the period between childhood and adult age"[2][3], then these statistics show that technology is actually run by adults, those between about 25-34.
social network avg age distribution




A bright future is run by those who are skilled and experienced, as education is open for all. Here in these statistics and a majority of statistics you will find will show that men who are old enough to have had experience, but young enough to accept new technology. You also state education becomes better and better. Well why? Because new things are discovered, found or realised. And who are these people? Not the youth. In fact, 48 is the average prime age for a physicist[4], and with the new cosmic inflation discovery, I can tell you that physics isn't something to be conceded. These are the people the future rely on, the youth can only advance if people actually build the technology, if people actually do the research and if experienced men help develop the world. This cannot be contested. The latest data first of all can be found out by anyone, but only the experienced find them out.

Your next point isn't too relevant. Information passed to the youth is brought on by the experienced. Innovating markets are done by those who know how to, and the people who build these markets set the foundation. Saying that elderly people cannot have these skills needs proof, but even accepting that you are forgetting the middle ground, those who aren't youths, or elderly. The adults, the ones who populate the market, the ones who use the most technology. The adults who earn more as they age as their experience gives them wanted skills:




And the statistics for this are endless. Saying Conservatism cannot accomplish this is a whole new debate, which does not need to be mentioned. Even if Liberalism was a better ideas, those running it would be those who were experienced. Those to innovate and rule are those who know how to. The youth are taught to, and do, but only when they aren't the youth anymore. Yes, the youth now will run the world, but that's because they won't be the youth anymore, and they would have been helped by those who aren't the youth.

I disagree with the statement that Conservatives do not lack the capacity to develop. Politics and technology aren't the same. Again, excusing the lack of proof, and excusing the fact that this capacity is dependant on the person, you can be a Conservative in politics and progressive in development. I am a huge advocate for technology, but the experienced will need to do it, control it, and they as I've proven above, seem to buy it more.


"The youth learns from previous mistakes and innovate and plan for the future. Imagine what this nation and this world would be without innovation and reform. It would be dark. It would be dangerous. It would not be the world we recognize."

You state that the youth earns from previous mistakes, and adapts. But those who are experienced are easily better than this, and that goes easily without saying. If you have more experience, you've seen what works and you don't have to take a leap of faith, but rather still produce quality, safety and dependant on the person, innovation. And it will be the world we recognise, because as we speak the experienced are making it run, the youth are being educated so they can eventually make the world run, under the help of the experienced.

We live in a world, which people are endlessly working to make it function. Who are these people? The experienced. The youth will come to fill their roles, but they won't be the youth. So let's focus on those who work tirelessly, so they can help the youth even more. Helping the youth more is a constant pull, but helping those who do is a push, one that creates the momentum of experience, which only helps to benefit the youth, even more.


Sources:
[1]http://www.parliament.uk...
[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3]http://www.unesco.org...
[4]http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals

Introduction
I believe my opponent is extremely knowledgable of this topic. I believe that I will lose this debate, but I shall see once the voting period begins later. I would like to point out that my opponent did not cite his sources in the MLA format, which was a rule I specifically stated in the first round. The voters will decide whether or not he receives a penalty for that. Overall, my opponent is highly skilled and his statistics are undeniable. I have learned a lot from this debate and from my opponent. I must agree that the youth needs guidance from elders, but in reality, the phrase "our youth is our future" is true. The youth IS the future. They may be guided by their prodecessors, but in the end they are the ones that will lead this world and drive us towards a better future. Experience is key, but the ones that are unexperienced will become so sooner or later and they will guide the next generation. It is a process; one generation guides the next and that one will guide the following. We must learn from the past, live in the present, and plan for the future. I am afraid this debate has already been lost, but I am not conceding at all and I will fight until the end. I will complete this debate and I will continue to strenghten my stance.

Experience
My opponent continues to emphasize the value of experience in the workforce. Experience is key, yet the youths are the ones that will lead the world into a bright future. My opponent states that "You [I] state that the youth [l]earns from previous mistakes, and adapts. But those who are experienced are easily better than this, and that goes easily without saying. If you have more experience, you've seen what works and you don't have to take a leap of faith, but rather still produce quality, safety and dependant on the person, innovation. And it will be the world we recognise, because as we speak the experienced are making it run, the youth are being educated so they can eventually make the world run, under the help of the experienced." That is very true. However, the phrase "our youth is our future" remains true. Under the guidance of elders, the youth will proceed to become experienced and skilled and they will lead the world and guide the next generation. Your points are valid, yet they must be interpreted properly.

Statistics
My opponent lists many statistics about salary, technology ownership, etc. The statistics are true, but they support my stance. For example, the graph "Oregon High Tech Employment by Age" shows that youths are not very common. However, the youth, again, is the future. They will become older in time, gain all the experience and skill they need, and they will become the elders, guiding the youth of that generation. The statistics my adversary states are all valid, but they can be interpreted to support my stance. The youth will grow up and that, of course, is in the future.

Conservatism
"Your next point isn't too relevant. Information passed to the youth is brought on by the experienced. Innovating markets are done by those who know how to, and the people who build these markets set the foundation. Saying that elderly people cannot have these skills needs proof, but even accepting that you are forgetting the middle ground, those who aren't youths, or elderly. The adults, the ones who populate the market, the ones who use the most technology. The adults who earn more as they age as their experience gives them wanted skills." This does not refute my stance. The youth is still the future. The elders will guide the youth, they will die, and the youth will have grown up and they will guide the next generation. Truly, the resolution of "our youth is our future" cannot be refuted, rebutted, or denied in any way. Unless there is a time paradox, the youth will always be the future.

Review
The youth is the future and always will be the future. The youth will be guided by the previous generation(s), but in time it is their turn to lead the world and educate the next generation(s). Honestly, the phrase "our youth is our future" cannot be refuted. One can argue all they want, but in the end the youth IS and ALWAYS WILL BE the future. Elders will die in time. The youth will outlive previous generations and will become the next leaders of the nation and the world. My opponent has misinterpreted my writings and my stance. He argues that experience is valued and that the youth will be guided by elders. He argues that safety and experience are key and that the youth does not have the skill necessary to lead. This is true, but it supports my stance as well. I have said this multiple times, but I will gladly repeat and emphasize it: the youth is and always will be our future. Elders will die. They will guide and teach until they must cease, the youth will grow up to become elders, and the process will repeat itself. The youth is our future and that cannot be denied.
CJKAllstar

Con

Thank you for that round. And to the floor, those reading this debate, I hope you can see what has happened here. The penny has dropped, and my opponent has resorted to using semantics and pointing out my lack of following rules, which was an unfortunate mistake, only now. Semantically, the youth is our future. I agree, but that is not what you have been debating I'm afraid.

"I will speak of how the elderly represent ideas that no longer fit to this modern world we live in. This is, in a sense, a Liberal vs. Conservative debate, but it is also about much more than that. It is about the future of humankind. My opponent will argue that the youth is not the future and that we should rather trust the people who have lived much longer. "

"The fact of the matter is that proper education will lead to economic success."

"I believe that education is, in a sense, much more progressive than experience. Yes, experience will assist in making the right decisions, but education will ensure that you even have the capacity to make those decisions. "

"They are more intelligible about certain things, like technology, which makes them great for innovation, which will drive is towards a bright future."

"I said that we should focus on the youth and give them more opportunities. Why do I believe this? Education quality becomes better and only better. Elders were educated in a time when facts were theories and certain discoveries were not yet made. The youths are the ones that are fresh out of college and have the latest data available."

"As you can see yourself, Liberals can manage finances much more responsibly than Conservatives. I must agree that we need safety and experience, but I believe advancement, innovation, growth, and reform are much more important matters. It is a matter of electing the right candidates and supporting the proper movement. This is the movement of the youth; to pass education reform and innovate markets; to develop new technologies, invent new products, revolutionize the economy, and so forth. "


" concur that elders must guide youths into the right direction, but in the end, it is the youth’s duty to innovate and reform, invent and develop, revolutionize and influence. Conservatives lack this capacity. We must learn from the past, live in the present, and plan for the future"


These are key quotes to really summarize what the debate is about. Yes, literally speaking the youth will grow up and run the world, so they are what is to come, but this is now what you've spent the last few rounds arguing. You have been arguing that the youth are key for developing and succeeding for the future. You quoted "economic success", because it matters for the development and welfare of the future. You made education a factor because in your words, proper education will lead to economic success." You debated about "planning for the future". You said explicitly said that "advancement, innovation, growth, and reform are much more important matters".

You have set your whole debate not on whether the youth are the ones to populate the world next, but this debate is really whether the youth have more utilitarian benefit than adults for the development and future of the word. Now, I have already refuted all of these points apparently successfully since you have spent this round playing semantically rather than refuting these points. You made your stance clear and we together debated something specifically and I have fulfilled my part, and you have decided to literally change the course of this debate to reside in your own comfort zones. I will leave the floor to decide why that is, but what you have done is changed the debate. The floor can take it as it wants, it could be seen as a forfeit to ingenious gameplay, but it does mean my points still stand on those issues and yours do not. The only point which from yours does stand is not where this debate actually is, and I am not going to adhere to this.

And please let us not get started on the bringing up of my lack of using MLA sourcing. Firstly, if you want to follow rules like that, then I do not see any sources at all on your third and fourth round. Considering you have put down fairly objective facts such as;

"The actual employees of that corporation should be youth for the youth has:


a) a recent education, therefore having the most recent facts accessible

b) a wider capacity to reform what needs to be reformed

c) great innovative skills"

And with the purpose of sourcing, to show whether a fact can be relied on, you have failed as you did have facts to use sources at all. You only brought this up until now. Considering you did not mention it after the first round I presumed you were fine with it. You did not pick up on it until now. Which I see as slightly sleazy.

The next round is round five. No new arguments, and no rebuttals according to your rules. So now you have landed yourself in a trap. There is not much I really need to do here. I have completed my rebuttals for previous rounds, and whether you think so or not, you have brought a new argument but named it rebuttal even though you just explained how this point nulled what I said, which is not rebuttal, so this is going against your rules as well.

I do urge the floor to vote for me, but will happily accept a justification for this. You have to prove to my why:

1) It is rebuttal, and not just using a new motion to nullify my arguments.
2) You have not actually broken rules with citing and rebuttal (similar to the above).
3) Why "the youth is our future" is actually what we have been debating.
4) Why this strengthens your stance.
5) If you do admit the above, why it is justified.

However as next round is summary, you cannot bring any new points and must do this as conclusion. If you do just conclude without adhering to this, then this has also effectively been left to stand, so this is an awkward situation you have put yourself in.

This is rebuttal to the point you made, as I am explaining why it is irrelevant, thus taking down your argument. I hope you and the floor can see why I have clearly been victorious thank you.

Sources:
[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Pro

Conclusion
After a careful review of the debate and a study of all the statistics, and after evaluating my own statements, I have concluded that it is best that I concede. My opponent's facts and statistics are undeniable and I praise the complexity, originality, and accuracy of his arguments. I accept defeat and I am prepared to endure the loss of many, many votes. This debate has been very informative and perhaps I will debate my opponent again in the future.
CJKAllstar

Con

Conclusion
My opponent has conceded thus I have won this debate. It was interesting and difficult, but my points at most have been left to stand and I finish with a summary that, for the utilitarian benefit of society, those with experience and those who run the world are those who actually find information, discover, develop, teach and allow the youth to be those who run the world, those who do are those who drive the future of mankind. Thank you for this debate however.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I am highly considering concession.
Posted by RossM 3 years ago
RossM
A comment to WilliamsP, please stop being so condescending.
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I am wondering if I should concede or if I should give my opponent the greatest rebuttal of all time... My opponent is highly skilled.
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
The debate could have done with a better name because literally unless time runs backwards the clich","Our youth is our future.", is impossible to argue against.
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I am currently constructing my rebuttals. They will be posted at some point tomorrow.
Posted by MUSA 3 years ago
MUSA
Funny comments. I believe, at least in this country, America, can only succeed with new technologies. Who but are children can create these new technologies ? My kids don't eat right, are lazy and don't exercize, period. Computers will cause people of this generation to die young from heart disease unless they create nanobots to eat plaque in their arteries. I was born in 1962 and got heart disease at 42 along with a heart attack. I didn't eat right, or exersize. No, it is not running genetically in my family bloodline.
Posted by Dwint 3 years ago
Dwint
Our youth is our past. There is evidence.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
But... How do you argue against that?...
"Nah man, the youth will die early, old people will live on the be the future..."

"Like, totes magots!"
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I am a proud Liberal/Progressive.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
sO, ARE YOU LIBERal or conservative?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RossM 3 years ago
RossM
WilliamsPCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put forward some interesting points, but Con won the debate for the sources and information he used.