The Instigator
TheYoungAnarchist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
xPrtN00bSn1p3r
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should age factor into the respect and/or assumed intellignece of an opponent?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/15/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 83934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheYoungAnarchist

Con

Con shall argue against the position that age should factor into whether or not one might be a worthy opponent within the range of a reasonable debate.

Pro shall argue for argument stated above.

Definition: Age-The period of time one has lived.

Definition: Reasonable-Having sound judgement;Fair or sensible.

Round 1:Acceptance of Definitions, Thesis
Round 2:Arguement
Round 3:Rebuttal
Round 4:Conclusion
Round 5:Explanation of Victory

Rules
  1. Arguement shall be presented through evidence found in personal experience, through story, or by literature of any kind.
  2. Respect is to be asked of any challenger. A lack of respect shall not result in an automatic forfeit but shall result in the loss of any future conversation past that of this debate, and shall often lead to a weaker arguement.
  3. Failure to conclude a round within the given time period shall result in an automatic forfeit of the person responsible.
  4. Bias is accepted, but only to the extent that it strengthens the core of the arguement presented.
  5. No forfeiture without a given cause.
  6. No trolling.
Thesis

To begin properly, a question must be introduced. Why should society be structured in a way to reduce the assumed intelligence of one being based soley on age? A simple answer is due, it should not. Many young minds are capable of keeping up with, and, occasionally, surpassing the intelligence of older individuals due to being more open minded on certain topics. This idea does exclude infants and toddlers, due to the incapability to grasp ideas and hold on to them for extended periods of time. Should it be that an individual should be discriminated against based on the fact that such a being of such low age could have any plausible thing to say? Age is nothing but a number. A worthy opponent in such fields as philosophy and fiction are not determind based upon such an idea, so why should polotics and economics have it any different. To reduce intellect based on age is to reduce an individual to something far less than human.
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

I accept the definitions of 'age' and 'reasonable'.

I firstly want to point out that Con's thesis is angled in a way that assumes my thesis will make age the sole or even primary factor in sizing up an opponent's intelligence, this is not the case.

I merely think that a genius 3 year old and a genius 16 year old stand 2 completely different probabilities of being intelligent enough to beat me in debate. You see when it comes to debating, experience is hugely linked to how one can represent how intelligent they are, per se. Einstein would struggle to 'debate' his theories at a younger age but wouldn't struggle to prove them mathematically at any age. At an older age he's both have gained the capability to use his intelligent and articulate manner (by hearing and saying what sounds good and what doesn't and learning both the hard and easy way over his life).

There is no coincidence in that all successful politicians in debates are of an elder age to the rest. I am not saying that older means better at all but rather that one's potential in debating becomes better wiht experience up to the point where aging has gone so far that mental deficiency, such as Alzheimer's becomes apparent.

Best of luck on this debate, Con.
Debate Round No. 1
TheYoungAnarchist

Con

Arguement

-I in no way would like associate the factor of age as the main factor in determining whether one's self is able to create an arguement, but, for the sake of this arguement, I would like to bring this variable to light. I do understand that many other things contribute to how well one can convey an arguement, one of the main contributers being who the being was raised by and how well that person treated and acted towards the individual in question. I am also refering to society as a collective whole, not just a certain group of intellectuals deciding upon it. I am not argueing whether the person in question has schitzophrenia or whether this person has seen battle. Instead I would like to focus on the matter of age itself. I would also like to excluse your example of "a genius 3 year old" out of this debate to to my perviously saying I would prefer to exclude infants and toddlers due to their young age, and the vast expanse of meanings associated with genius. Instead, I would like to focus on older individuals ranging from 8 and up, if you would accept that premise. And, as you refered to many more succesful politicians being those of a much longer life than the majority, I would like to save that for another debate, due to effects such as where that person originated form and what popular media has to say about those individuals.

Presenting one's intelligence in correlation to their age has become much more common due to certain public services, primarily being education, and has had an effect on the newer generations. I would consider this effect to be negative as it has reduced the ability of certain individuals such as teachers and caretakers to fully understand younger individuals(I do associate this conclusion with bias due to my experiences as an child with a talent for learning). This effect has restricted many pathways and has significantly reduced the number of opportunities I have had available due to the thought that I would not have anything useful to say. This gap has only increased, caused by newer programs such as Common Core being introduced into public education.

Older individuals who have not been introduced into these unfamiliar scenes vote on whether reforms should be made. These actions are not made with the consent of the people("people" refering to the younger masses), but are still "justified" based on the fact that the body primarily being affected is that of those who have no say due to their age. With certain restrictions such as these it is much harder for younger indivduals to express thoughts as they are not brought into a society in which this is not only requested, but commanded of them. I am not saying that every baby has the capability to lead a nation or tip the balance of the world, but I would like to point out that every shild has the ability to think critically.

On the basis that a child is brought up to thrink critically (About not only his actions, but every action made visible to him and the effects of these actions), construct ideas, and listen to others ideas do I believe someone is able to pose some sort of threat in a debate, regardless of age.
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

Con has merely explained that there are things other than age that factor in but has yet to explain why age should not factor in at all.
Debate Round No. 2
TheYoungAnarchist

Con

TheYoungAnarchist forfeited this round.
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

xPrtN00bSn1p3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheYoungAnarchist

Con

TheYoungAnarchist forfeited this round.
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

xPrtN00bSn1p3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheYoungAnarchist

Con

TheYoungAnarchist forfeited this round.
xPrtN00bSn1p3r

Pro

xPrtN00bSn1p3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.