The Instigator
Lilcross
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
dinokiller
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,127 times Debate No: 14234
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (11)

 

Lilcross

Con

This argument will be done in LD format.

The Affirmative goes first, so I won't post my case yet.
dinokiller

Pro

I choose pro for this debate and wish my opponent good luck :P
Well if you want me to start first, then im fine with it.

With violent crimes, i think you refer to crimes that have violence involved:
Murder, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery, arson and grand theft

Note that this only applies if the person has been found guilty of one of these charges.

Arguments why juveniles should be treated as adults if charged with violent felonies:
1. Violent felony are listed as a serious crime for a reason. If the person knows that its serious and still decides to commit the crime, why do we have to look at him as a child?

2. Crimes are all the same whether a child or an old man committed the crime. We shouldn't be looking at the age if a crime is committed but rather at the seriousness of the crime and the damage of it. (Meaning treating ALL criminals as adults)

I give my spotlight back to my opponent for now :P
Debate Round No. 1
Lilcross

Con

While I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, I'd like to remind him that I stated that the debate would be done in LD format, which he ignored. It would be a waste to end the debate here, so I'll just let it slide.

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

In order to clarify the debate, I offer the following counter definitions:

Felony: an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year.

Juvenile: Of, relating to, characteristic of, intended for, or appropriate for children or young people

Adult: intended for adults; not suitable for children.

My value for the round is Moral Obligation. I ask you judges, if it is moral or not to not take different circumstances into account while giving a sentence as strong as twenty years to a ten year old? There are different circumstances to every crime, and the Affirmative position is too narrow-minded to see that.

In order to uphold my case and provide for Moral Obligation, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: Protection of Human Worth. I ask you judges, if you can protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. Judges, do you really think any sane human being would do such a terrible thing? And do you really think those nine years to life in prison will help his sanity more than a psychologist?

Therefore, the Affirmative has the burden to prove that treating juveniles charged with violent felonies treated as adults in the criminal justice system Protects Human Worth.

The Negative has the burden to prove that if you do not treat juveniles charged with violent felonies as adults in the criminal justice system, you Protect Human Worth.

Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults.

According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam.)

Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult."

By this reasoning, the mere act of punishing a juvenile as an adult is immoral, and therefore does not Protect Human Worth.

Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse.

Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs."

Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced

It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do.

Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons.

Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T.V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it.

Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position.

Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value.

Instead of throwing a ten year old in jail for a mental problem or simply a mistake, how about we try for redemption and get the children rehabilitation.

I will now attack my opponent's case.

1. We look at them as a child because as my Con 1 and Con 3-Sub A states, there are multiple factors that are behind why a child commits violent felonies, such as abuse, growing up in a bad environment, etc. That's not even mentioning the fact that "During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child."

2. If we treat Children as Adults in terms of crime, we should treat them as adults in EVERYTHING, such as voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical otherwise. Also, that narrow minded viewpoint doesn't bring in circumstances such as, as I stated, before abuse and growing up in a bad environment.
dinokiller

Pro

Well i dont even know what an LD format is >.<
Anyway, you keep posting arguments, but i want your source.
No source? = Argument false

"In order to uphold my case and provide for Moral Obligation, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: Protection of Human Worth. I ask you judges, if you can protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. Judges, do you really think any sane human being would do such a terrible thing? And do you really think those nine years to life in prison will help his sanity more than a psychologist?"

Killing and mutilating a 4 year old after being bullied doesnt classify as mental problem. He murdered someone.
The murder is serious considering the victim is a 4 year old boy and since he was 13, he SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong and that murder is an evil thing. For such an unacceptable crime, we should treat them as adults.

Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults.
According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam.)

"Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult."

Murder however is a different story since you ends someones life. As i said, you are TAUGHT to know whats wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations are generally higher then the childrens from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles knows its wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles?

Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse.
"Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs."

Are you even sure that it doesnt work? Some states now treat crimes from juveniles and adults the same way and what was the results? Crimes from juveniles dropped. It seems Gorski was wrong after all for some part.

Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced

"It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do."

I think this is an exception. If a certain person was stealing and you saw it, making you think its ok, then you are influenced by that person. Note that stealing isnt a serious felony.

Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons.

"Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T.V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it."

You are absolutely correct, they shouldnt be having access to weapons. However, since the gun doesnt tells you to pick it up and fire at people, the juvenile is at fault for taking the gun. Kids watches tv most of the day. They should be knowing what a gun is.

Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position.

"Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value."

Why do we put those children in jail in the first place? Because they committed a crime. Was it serious? Of course since he got life sentence for it. Neither the police nor the victims family will show you mercy if you commit a murder.
If we punish juveniles for their crime, how is it immoral i ask you?

Here i fight back since i dont like to be pummeled.

"1. We look at them as a child because as my Con 1 and Con 3-Sub A states, there are multiple factors that are behind why a child commits violent felonies, such as abuse, growing up in a bad environment, etc. That's not even mentioning the fact that "During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child."

At age of 13, you should be knowing that killing is wrong and that you get punished if you commit a murder.
And with the rising mentality of younger ages, they should be knowing whats right and wrong at young age.
You can disagree with me, but my claim still stands that they should be knowing it.

"2. If we treat Children as Adults in terms of crime, we should treat them as adults in EVERYTHING, such as voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical otherwise. Also, that narrow minded viewpoint doesn't bring in circumstances such as, as I stated, before abuse and growing up in a bad environment."

I disagree here. We have these restrictions here to show those juveniles the differene between bad and good. We dont allow childrens smoke or drink alcohol. Why? Because its bad and unhealthy. As for jobs, the juveniles will be disagreeing with you xD (they dont want to work yet xD)
Abuse and growing up in a bad environment doesnt force you to commit a crime. With killing all around you, its absurd to not know what killing is and if it is right or not.

I guess i have to stop here since im running out of text...

Source:
http://www.time.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Lilcross

Con

As a road map for the judges, first I will defend my case then I shall attack my opponents.

My sources are quotes from people. I don't need a link to provide arguments. If you really want to verify my sources, then Google them. It's not required for me though.

Oh, and by the way, Phoenix Wright for the win.

DEFENSE:
Killing and mutilating a 4 year old after being bullied doesn't classify as mental problem. He murdered someone.
The murder is serious considering the victim is a 4 year old boy and since he was 13, he SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong and that murder is an evil thing. For such an unacceptable crime, we should treat them as adults.

Really? How does it not? My opponent makes no argument against the sanity state of Eric Smith, which is a main point of that argument. He murdered someone because he needs mental help. In fact, this was a key point of defense for Eric's attorney. Just because he SHOULD know something doesn't automatically mean he DOES.

DEFENSE 2:
"Murder however is a different story since you ends someones life. As i said, you are TAUGHT to know whats wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations are generally higher then the children from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles knows its wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles."

It being murder doesn't change ANYTHING. It's still hypocritical BS. Also, my opponent completely ignores the main argument again.

"Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses,"

DEFENSE 3:

"Are you even sure that it doesn't work? Some states now treat crimes from juveniles and adults the same way and what was the results? Crimes from juveniles dropped. It seems Gorski was wrong after all for some part."

That's only FEAR from the punishment, not the punishment itself. The argument is that punishing doesn't help the offender sort out any problems he has, which by the way, CAUSED THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

DEFENSE 4:

"I think this is an exception. If a certain person was stealing and you saw it, making you think its ok, then you are influenced by that person. Note that stealing isnt a serious felony."

That was one simply case, my friend. This applies to instances of abuse and violence in a bad environment, which are no doubt off the carts in this age. The kid is then offhandedly taught that this is 'OK', even if it wasn't intended by the parents.

DEFENSE 5:

"You are absolutely correct, they shouldnt be having access to weapons. However, since the gun doesnt tells you to pick it up and fire at people, the juvenile is at fault for taking the gun. Kids watches tv most of the day. They should be knowing what a gun is."

They know a gun can get them what they want, and that's enough reason for parents to KEEP THEM OUT OF SIGHT, which apparently doesn't happen enough. That's not even mentioning that some kids don't even understand the concept of death until a certain age. For me, it was when I was 12 when I was forced to realize that there is no coming back from life we see so much in cartoons and kid's programs. Juveniles apply to 10 and up, so we're literally dealing with the fact that it's possible to throw a kid in jail WHO DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF DEATH YET. So from the kid's Point Of View they can get whatever they want and the person they shoot can come ck from the dead, so everything is A-OK.

DEFENSE 6:

"Why do we put those children in jail in the first place? Because they committed a crime. Was it serious? Of course since he got life sentence for it. Neither the police nor the victims family will show you mercy if you commit a murder.
If we punish juveniles for their crime, how is it immoral i ask you?"

Oh, really? Here I bring in my trump card for the family argument: The MAMA organization. Victim's families understand the concept of redemption. ANGELA WILLIAMS Founder of MAMA (Mothers Against Murderers Association) Inc, a remarkable support group in West Palm Beach. Seventy-three women, all of whom have lost a child to murder, meet at this storefront office every other Thursday. The walls are lined with the photographs—the mother with her lost child.

"That's one thing I tell my moms all the time: the only way they're going to move on, they're going to have to learn to forgive, you know, and if they don't learn to forgive, then they'll never be able to move on to the next step."

And Angela Williams should know.

"I lost seven. I lost five nephews and two nieces in my family, and that motivates me to keep going to help others. Gun violence — all killed by guns."

MAMA is supporting a petition for clemency on the premise that any child should be given a second chance, even for murder.

ATTACK
*Cracks knuckles* I hope your ready for a spanking, Mr. Edgeworth.

1. With this response, it feels as though my opponent has ignored my entire case. There is no 'should' in the mind of a child. How a child is brought up in the present completely changes him in the future. And it's not like when you are' treated as an adult you aren't punished AT ALL. Your just getting a second chance to make up mistakes, something the Affirmative side cannot do.

Yes, I agree, kids SHOULD know that killing someone is wrong, but that doesn't mean they always DO, which is why a child specialized psychologist will do wonders for a child that doesn't know right and wrong.

2. We don't allow children to smoke and drink alcohol because it's bad and unhealthy? Really, bro? Then why can Adults do it? I'm 15 man, and I want a job badly. Why? Because I want to buy and save up for important things in the future. I don't think I'm one wanting one when I get on Facebook and half the posts are "I NEED A JOB." But anyway, lol. I never said that abuse and bad environments force you to commit crimes. Do they influence you to? Your damn right, they do.

My opponent seems to not understand the fact that violent felonies don't only apply to murder, but they apply to cases such as Robberies as well. They broadens the horizon greatly in terms of bad influences. Morals aren't the same for everybody because everybody was raised a certain way. I don't see why someone should be punished FOR THE WAY THEY WERE RAISED.

And, I don't mean to be a jerk, but it would help if my opponent used spell check. I hate having to correct them when I copy and paste his arguments.
dinokiller

Pro

Well quotes are mostly opinions, soooooo.
Btw, EDGEWORTH HATER!

DEFENSE:
I reinforced myself with a steel butt plate so u cant spank me xD

2 Arguments at once, woot:
"Really? How does it not? My opponent makes no argument against the sanity state of Eric Smith, which is a main point of that argument. He murdered someone because he needs mental help. In fact, this was a key point of defense for Eric's attorney. Just because he SHOULD know something doesn't automatically mean he DOES."

"It being murder doesn't change ANYTHING. It's still hypocritical BS. Also, my opponent completely ignores the main argument again."

Oh really? You think they cant see the difference between stealing a candy from the candyshop and killing someone with a rock? Murder is serious as you know and if they commit such serious felony, they are thinking as adults at that point. And serious crimes accepts NO excuses like a problem. (Unless hes driven insane, but the perpetrator clearly shows his sane)

"That's only FEAR from the punishment, not the punishment itself. The argument is that punishing doesn't help the offender sort out any problems he has, which by the way, CAUSED THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE."

Fear from punishment is fine as it scares them from committing a serious felony in the first place. Even so, murder isnt always committed because the person is having a problem, they could be greedy or they couldve hated someone.
And even if they do have problems, we are talking about a very serious crime here! Having a problem is no excuse for such a serious crime.

"That was one simply case, my friend. This applies to instances of abuse and violence in a bad environment, which are no doubt off the carts in this age. The kid is then offhandedly taught that this is 'OK', even if it wasn't intended by the parents."

And that, my friend, is where you are wrong. As I said, childrens WILL see a difference between stealing and murder.
What you explained was just a simple case were someone is stealing candy (or something xD) because they thought it was ok. Do you think parents can tell their childrens that murder is ok after seeing your parents commit one and the next day see your parents thrown in jail? If you think its possible, prove it.

"They know a gun can get them what they want, and that's enough reason for parents to KEEP THEM OUT OF SIGHT, which apparently doesn't happen enough. That's not even mentioning that some kids don't even understand the concept of death until a certain age. For me, it was when I was 12 when I was forced to realize that there is no coming back from life we see so much in cartoons and kid's programs. Juveniles apply to 10 and up, so we're literally dealing with the fact that it's possible to throw a kid in jail WHO DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF DEATH YET. So from the kid's Point Of View they can get whatever they want and the person they shoot can come ck from the dead, so everything is A-OK."

Yeah right, thats from your point of view anyway. Juvenile only applies to childrens at age of 14 to 17, the argument of yours fails here. As I said, no one tells you to pick up the gun and shoot someone. If the child grabs the gun and commits a crime or robbery, then he is thinking as an adult.

"Oh, really? Here I bring in my trump card for the family argument: The MAMA organization. Victim's families understand the concept of redemption. ANGELA WILLIAMS Founder of MAMA (Mothers Against Murderers Association) Inc, a remarkable support group in West Palm Beach. Seventy-three women, all of whom have lost a child to murder, meet at this storefront office every other Thursday. The walls are lined with the photographs—the mother with her lost child."

This trump card wont work here xD, as you see, its an organization organized because they believed in something. They believe that they can forgive those people that killed their child, but that doesnt mean that the punishment should be overlooked. Also, your so called trump card doesnt show even who the perpetrator was that killed their childs, rendering this argument useless as it couldve been an adult or another child.
Also, it only lists 73 womens from the 70 million citizens rendering this kinda weak too.

COUNTER-ATTACK:
*Slams the desk*

"1. With this response, it feels as though my opponent has ignored my entire case. There is no 'should' in the mind of a child. How a child is brought up in the present completely changes him in the future. And it's not like when you are' treated as an adult you aren't punished AT ALL. Your just getting a second chance to make up mistakes, something the Affirmative side cannot do.
Yes, I agree, kids SHOULD know that killing someone is wrong, but that doesn't mean they always DO, which is why a child specialized psychologist will do wonders for a child that doesn't know right and wrong."

Yeah right, we are talking about 14-17 year old childrens here. They SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong.
But you are the one that keeps saying that they dont always do. (If you are 14 and you still dont know whats right and wrong, then uhh god should help you) Also, if you give them a second chance because they committed a murder, then why didnt we give those second chances to adults that also committed murders? Its really unfair isnt it?
Think about the facts before you accuse me of ignoring your points.

"2. We don't allow children to smoke and drink alcohol because it's bad and unhealthy? Really, bro? Then why can Adults do it? I'm 15 man, and I want a job badly. Why? Because I want to buy and save up for important things in the future. I don't think I'm one wanting one when I get on Facebook and half the posts are "I NEED A JOB." But anyway, lol. I never said that abuse and bad environments force you to commit crimes. Do they influence you to? Your damn right, they do."

Well, its your problem for not being able to get a job, ur 15 so ur allowed to apply at certain jobs. (Dont rage at me because you cant get a job T_T)

"My opponent seems to not understand the fact that violent felonies don't only apply to murder, but they apply to cases such as Robberies as well. They broadens the horizon greatly in terms of bad influences. Morals aren't the same for everybody because everybody was raised a certain way. I don't see why someone should be punished FOR THE WAY THEY WERE RAISED."

Ahum, robbery is serious as you just said since a life is in danger at a robbery.
But here comes a new one:
EVERYONE goes to school right? The school teaches you whats bad and wrong, no? Not listening? Punishment.(Your parents = spanking) At the age of 14, i hardly can believe that someone would still not see the difference between good and bad. No matter how you are raised, when you are 14, you SHOULD be knowing whats wrong and right. (School aid in building the childrens inner mentality)

ATTACK... not interested except for one :P used most of my weapons in DEFENSE

"And, I don't mean to be a jerk, but it would help if my opponent used spell check. I hate having to correct them when I copy and paste his arguments."

JERK, whats wrong with my spelling X_x

SUMMARY:
Most of my opponents arguments has failed, since juveniles are only applied on 14-17 year childrens. And as I said, childrens will know the difference between stealing a candy and giving someone a bullet in the head.
Also, my opponent has no sources which means his arguments could be made up. Google cannot help you at everything xD

Btw, sadly i cant use the Check Your Spelling thing as my browser for some reason cannot load popups.

Source:
http://www.fair-debt-collection.com...
http://www.time.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Lilcross

Con

As a roadmap I will force defened my case and then attack my opponents.

Oh really? You think they cant see the difference between stealing a candy from the candyshop and killing someone with a rock? Murder is serious as you know and if they commit such serious felony, they are thinking as adults at that point. And serious crimes accepts NO excuses like a problem. (Unless hes driven insane, but the perpetrator clearly shows his sane)

And that, my friend, is where you are wrong. As I said, childrens WILL see a difference between stealing and murder.
What you explained was just a simple case were someone is stealing candy (or something xD) because they thought it was ok. Do you think parents can tell their childrens that murder is ok after seeing your parents commit one and the next day see your parents thrown in jail? If you think its possible, prove it.

My opponent still COMPLETLY IGNORES the main point of my Contention 1 and Con 3. (He cannot attack my Con 1 without defeating my Con 3, as which they closely relate. (And vise-versa.)

Con 1 defence: The basic premise behind these Contentions is that it's hypocritical to treat Jueviniles as Adults in terms of Crime and not anything else. My opponent basically states that because it's murder it changes everything. THIS IS WHEN I REFER TO MY CONTENTION 3. During the adole scence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. As Gorski stated, Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces,"

Con 3 defence: I've already stated before an argument my opponent ignored: This applies to instances of abuse and violence in a bad environment, which are no doubt off the charts in this age. My opponent seems to not understand the fact that violent felonies don't only apply to murder, but they apply to cases such as Robberies as well.

Stealing overlaps with Robbing.

Con 2 defence:

Fear from punishment is fine as it scares them from committing a serious felony in the first place.


Again I refer to my Con 1: Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses.

Even so, murder isnt always committed because the person is having a problem, they could be greedy or they couldve hated someone.

If this is the case, then I agree that they should be punished. However, I really doubt that a kid would murder unprovoked if they had no mental problem. If provoked, I provide the argument above.

And even if they do have problems, we are talking about a very serious crime here! Having a problem is no excuse for such a serious crime.

A mental problem DOES excuse crime. Here I basically repeat my Con 3. The person responsible for causing the mental problem/misunderstanding (that something is right and wrong) should be held responsible. Which is why we should fix it via Rehab.

Sub A defence:

Yeah right, thats from your point of view anyway. Juvenile only applies to childrens at age of 14 to 17, the argument of yours fails here.

Jueviniles apply to the age of 10-18, and in some states even younger. I state in my OPENING PARAGRAPH before that a Juevinile at the age of 13 was tried as an adult in the first place. My opponent isn't very thorough in the reading in my case, which is why I already know the outcome of this debate:

Source: http://www.juvenilejusticefoundation.com...

As I said, no one tells you to pick up the gun and shoot someone. If the child grabs the gun and commits a crime or robbery, then he is thinking as an adult.

Really, bro? Really? So if I smoke a cigaratte I have the mental capacaity as an Adult. Yeah, OK. OK.

Judges, you may extend my Contention 4, as my opponent hasen't attacked it. If my opponent cannot fuffil his burden than he automatically loses.

P.S: My opponent cannot make new arguments in the final round, as I will have no way to defend myself sense it's the final round.

Contention 5 defence:

This trump card wont work here xD, as you see, its an organization organized because they believed in something. They believe that they can forgive those people that killed their child, but that doesnt mean that the punishment should be overlooked. Also, your so called trump card doesnt show even who the perpetrator was that killed their childs, rendering this argument useless as it couldve been an adult or another child.
Also, it only lists 73 womens from the 70 million citizens rendering this kinda weak too.

Rehab is a form of punishment. And the juevnile is kept in a facility for a year as well. The MAMA organaziation is focused on juevile on juevnile violence.
The number of people in an organzation isn't felective on the quailty of thier views and argments.

And now I shall proceed to smack my opponent into next year, at which hopefully my oppponent will learn advance his comprehension skills.

Yeah right, we are talking about 14-17 year old childrens here. They SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong.
But you are the one that keeps saying that they dont always do. (If you are 14 and you still dont know whats right and wrong, then uhh god should help you)


Uh, yeah, we are talking about 10-18 year olds here...and sometimes even younger.

Also, if you give them a second chance because they committed a murder, then why didnt we give those second chances to adults that also committed murders? Its really unfair isnt it?
Think about the facts before you accuse me of ignoring your points.

My opponent AGAIN completly ignores my Con 1 & Con 3:

JUEVNILES BRAINS ARENT FULLY DEVELOPED. ADULT BRAINS ARE. WHICH IS WHY ADULTS SHOULDEN'T RECIEVE A SECOND CHANCE (in some terms.)

Ahum, robbery is serious as you just said since a life is in danger at a robbery.
But here comes a new one:
EVERYONE goes to school right? The school teaches you whats bad and wrong, no? Not listening? Punishment.(Your parents = spanking) At the age of 14, i hardly can believe that someone would still not see the difference between good and bad. No matter how you are raised, when you are 14, you SHOULD be knowing whats wrong and right. (School aid in building the childrens inner mentality)


I was only saying that Robbery broadens the horizon greatly in terms of bad influences. Not that it wasen't serious.
Let me ask you, dinokiller. Who has more ifluence on a child? A parent, sibiling, a friend, or a teacher? Yeah, I'd go with the former. Again I say that juevniles are the ages of 10-18, and sometimes younger.

SUMMARY
I urge a Negative vote. My opponent has failed to counter of my arguments and I have completely squashed his meger two points of offence. There is no reason of any kind for you to vote Aff a this poi
dinokiller

Pro

You big showoff, you still dont understand me huh?

"Con 1 defence: The basic premise behind these Contentions is that it's hypocritical to treat Jueviniles as Adults in terms of Crime and not anything else. My opponent basically states that because it's murder it changes everything. THIS IS WHEN I REFER TO MY CONTENTION 3. During the adole scence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. As Gorski stated, Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces,"

"Con 3 defence: I've already stated before an argument my opponent ignored: This applies to instances of abuse and violence in a bad environment, which are no doubt off the charts in this age. My opponent seems to not understand the fact that violent felonies don't only apply to murder, but they apply to cases such as Robberies as well."

I've told you many times already that children go to school to learn from right to wrong. Parents CANT prevent them from entering school and since that can't happen, at an age of 14, i doubt you cant see the difference of whats right and whats wrong. Also, we've argued about the age of juveniles and I still claim that childrens under the age of 14 are considered child and that people at the age of 14-17 are considered juveniles. Your argument wont change mine and my source wont change yours anyway.

Yes, i know their brains are still in development, but at 13, i doubt you cant see the difference between whats wrong and right.




"Stealing overlaps with Robbing. "


It all depends whether its an armed robbery or candy stealing. Candy stealing isnt a serious crime and the shop owner may even overlook it. A bank robbery instead is a serious crime and if a child even plans to do something like that, they are thinking as adults the moment they planned this heist.





"Again I refer to my Con 1: Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses."

They lack critical adult functions, but they somehow learned to kill with a knife or shoot with a pistol, yeah right. We are talking about 14 year olds here, they CAN anticipate consequences for their actions. Everyone learned what the JAIL is.



"If this is the case, then I agree that they should be punished. However, I really doubt that a kid would murder unprovoked if they had no mental problem. If provoked, I provide the argument above."

Prove it that most kids that committed murders are being provoked into killing. Because now, you only list the killings from the childrens with mental problem. (Oh well, you cant prove it anymore)



"A mental problem DOES excuse crime. Here I basically repeat my Con 3. The person responsible for causing the mental problem/misunderstanding (that something is right and wrong) should be held responsible. Which is why we should fix it via Rehab."

The fact that childrens doesnt know whats right and wrong at the age of 14 is considered VERY RARE.
Crimes involving mental problems could still be prevented, insanity not. Parents influencing their childs are considered guilty as you said, however, a 14 year old cant be influenced that easily by their parents as they understand the concept of right and wrong.



"Jueviniles apply to the age of 10-18, and in some states even younger. I state in my OPENING PARAGRAPH before that a Juevinile at the age of 13 was tried as an adult in the first place. My opponent isn't very thorough in the reading in my case, which is why I already know the outcome of this debate:"

Your source states nothing about the age, only the punishment against juveniles. And here i have my proof that juveniles are considered 14-17 old:

http://www.fair-debt-collection.com...



" So if I smoke a cigaratte I have the mental capacaity as an Adult. Yeah, OK. OK."

Of course not, smoking has nothing to do with your mentality. Serious crimes however, are something that only adults can think of. (rape, bank robbery, etc.)


By the way, didn't take the effort to Content your 4th, can't find it anywhere and even if i had found, it already has been answered towards you.




"Rehab is a form of punishment. And the juevnile is kept in a facility for a year as well. The MAMA organaziation is focused on juevile on juevnile violence.

The number of people in an organzation isn't felective on the quailty of thier views and argments. "

Hmm, no comment about it then. Its their decision.


"Uh, yeah, we are talking about 10-18 year olds here...and sometimes even younger"

I said 14-17 year, stop repeating its 10-18.


"JUEVNILES BRAINS ARENT FULLY DEVELOPED. ADULT BRAINS ARE. WHICH IS WHY ADULTS SHOULDEN'T RECIEVE A SECOND CHANCE (in some terms.)"

TELL ME THEN HOW DID THEY LEARN TO STAB AND SHOOT AS ADULTS? CERTAINLY YOU NEVER LEARNED TO KILL IN YOUR CHILDHOOD.



"I was only saying that Robbery broadens the horizon greatly in terms of bad influences. Not that it wasen't serious.

Let me ask you, dinokiller. Who has more ifluence on a child? A parent, sibiling, a friend, or a teacher? Yeah, I'd go with the former. Again I say that juevniles are the ages of 10-18, and sometimes younger."


14-17 year cough cough*
Seriously though, influencing a 10 year old is pretty hard too.



Summary:
Gotta rush on this, but now he somehow indirectly insulted me, but o well.
He claims that i ignored their points while i answered them indirectly, clearly he didnt took the time to understand my points.

I leave the votes to you voters.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hanguard 4 years ago
Hanguard
Lilcross won.. Dino was pretty immature, and acted as if he was a ten year old. Wouldn't be surprised if he is.
Posted by Fried_Out_Combie 5 years ago
Fried_Out_Combie
"Oh really? You think they cant see the difference between stealing a candy from the candyshop and killing someone with a rock?"....best quote of the whole debate.
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
con went pro for a sec
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
Vote bombers, grrrr UNACCEPTABLE.
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
btw, great debate
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
Nah its not about you, im raging against those 2 idiots that vote bombs.
Vote bombs = give all points to a person for unvalid reason.

Oh and OBJECTION!!, I never used LD FORMAT, I only cracked people in cross examinations!!!
Posted by Lilcross 5 years ago
Lilcross
Heh! Phoenix Wright sure does have it's fair share of fan's here. I love it.

Oh, and Dino, didn't mean to offend you. I wanted to add that and a 'Thank You' for the debate at the end of my argument but the thing cut me off.

So relax, it's just for fun. No need for insults, alright? (And I promise to provide links next time.)
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 5 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Objection!!!!!!! Edgeworth How could you not know lincoln douglas debate format!
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
BlackVoid, i understand you T-T.
WHAT THE HECK IS WITH THOSE VOTE BOMBERS THESE DAYS ANYWAY?!!
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Although I know pro didnt have any bad intentions, he still should have realized that since he didnt know what LD format, is he should not have accepted the debate anyway. Because of this I give conduct and args to con, as pro had no value or criterion.

Con should indeed give links to sources. Everybody else does, and you're required to in an actual debate case too.

I feel con effectively shows that the brain functions (or lack of) are a strong factor in crimes. Pro does a good job of explaining that juveniles know exactly what they're doing, but con never said that they didnt. Con's argument was that juveniles cant control impulses or emotions as well as adults, not that they're not aware of what they are doing. This is really the biggest point in the debate so thats what you have to vote on.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Fried_Out_Combie 5 years ago
Fried_Out_Combie
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt like the Con defeanded and defeated better arguements
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 5 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I personally agree with the Pro, but there is no question that Con won this round. the only hing I would have liked to see where some sources. LD is a value debate but in the instance you gave of Eric Smith, I have no way of know if it's true by you just telling me. Also, quotes need to have sources as well. If I don't know who said it it has little to no relevance to me. Ultimately the Pro only loses because of lack of a Value/Criteria Premise.
Vote Placed by TheBoxTheorem 5 years ago
TheBoxTheorem
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 tbtaylor 5 years ago
tbtaylor
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 boycrazy71421 5 years ago
boycrazy71421
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 forever2b 5 years ago
forever2b
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Macho 5 years ago
Macho
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 Mathwiz25 5 years ago
Mathwiz25
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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 LDdebaterCG 5 years ago
LDdebaterCG
LilcrossdinokillerTied
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