The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Relationships Shouldn't Be Allowed Until High School

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,709 times Debate No: 30685
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Relationships (Dating) Should Not Be Allowed Until High School

Hello, I'm Dylip. I've challenge thett3 to this debate as I hear they are very good at debating.
In this debate I will be arguing why dating should be illegal for teens (or children) until they have reached high school.
In this debate, citing of sources is not required, as in I would like to debate from the debators current knowledge on the subject.

thett3, I hope you accept this debate.


I accept. I'm actually in a high school relationship, so I look forward to trying to articulate why I view these relationships are good things.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate, I predict it will give more insight to others.
First off,
I believe people who aren't in high school (I believe once you get into high school, you reach a higher level of maturity), should not be allowed (by either law or parents/legal guardians) to 'date'.

From personal experience, I (sadly) know that a breakup can be hard. Especially to a child in middle school or elementary school. They will not know what to do. At that age, children and teens believe that talking to parents about 'relationship issues' is 'uncool' or 'awkward'. So, if they face a tough breakup, they will likely be devastated and not know what to do. Talking to friends almost always ends up in the friend(s) making fun of them. So, they could possibly (likely) turn to self-harm, drugs, or anything to make them feel better.




=My case=

1. Non-aggression principle and governmental legitimacy

The individuals engaging in these relationships are engaging in private, personal, and contractual agreements. They are harming no one else's rights and as such any law disallowing the right of individuals to contractually ("contract" being used in the Austrian sense of mutual consent) engage in activity violating the rights of no one else is illegitimate. Government has no right to intervene is these kinds of affairs.

2. Experience

The good thing about these pre-highschool relationships is that given the relative lack of freedom held by these children (they cannot drive for example, there parents have to bring them to/from places) and their relative immaturity means that they generally either cannot or will not engage in harmful or sexual activities. What they can, however, gain is valuable experience. They might get sad at a "heart break", but this helps them to not make the same mistakes again and therefore cultivate more meaningful relationships in the future. By banning pre-highschool relationships the entire process is moved back.

3. "Highschool" as a useless metric

There's nothing inherent in High School that makes the relationships there any less heart breaking or damaging than those pre-highschool. If anything they are more painful as they often involve sex which has its own emotional strings attached. But "high school" means nothing, its the maturity that matters and makes a relationship significant, and theres no reason to presume this only occurs in high school.

=Opponents case=

My first attack is solvency. My opponent gains no ground since he cannot prove that parentaldisallowment/governmental legistlation will stop these kids from dating each other. There are plenty of examples that this isnt the case. Moreover if Pro contends that kids have so little respect for their parents that they wont even talk to him, why does he presume they wont be with their "love" even if their parents say no.

Secondly my opponent doesn't explain why we need to value protecting people from suffering over their own personal freedom. Suffering isnt inherently bad; it often allows us to grow as people and realize our faults, along with adding maning to our lives.

Third, Pro doesnt explain why only pre-highschoolers ought to be "protected" against this. If anything, high school relationships can be more devastating.

Fourth, Pros arguments are an argument against the culture not the relationships. That these kids have nowhere/no one to turn to to resolve these problems is an issue that needs to be tackled on its own, banning frivilous things like this do nothing to help the real problem of the collapse of the family unit. Its like handing someone a tissue to fight the flu, you're battling the symptom not the disease.

Debate Round No. 2


Wow... Eh... I forfeit. No point in arguing with that.


Oh well thanks to Pro for respectfully conceding.

How about some jams?
Debate Round No. 3


Eh. Heard it.


Psh already heard it. That song never gets old! Ok heres a video of ducklings blowing in the wind:

Debate Round No. 4


Listen to this, it's pretty good.



Pretty good
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SANTORUM2012 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point to con for pro's FF. Also, Cons rebuttal was VERY impressive.