Should teens under 18 be able to live independently from their parents
Debate Rounds (5)
I am going to assume certain things.
teens: the years of a person's age from 13 to 19
independently: without outside help; unaided.
For the sake of the debate, I would request sources throughout the argument. Am I also to assume we are following the standard debate procedure:
Round 2 & 3: Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusion
I will represent my rebuttals next round as agreed. I still haven't seen an argument from my opponent.
First, I will make the case for teens under age 18. Again, I will point out that teens include age 13. At age 13, the mere thought of independence is liberation. That means, in the mind of a 13-year-old, playing your game boy all day, not having to clean your room, no one to argue with. That lasts for about 30 seconds. Then you realize that you don't know how to cook, or get a job, or the space isn't big enough. The question admits 'independently', so no mommy or daddy to come help you.
To rebut this, my opponent has to prove the following:
1. Teens, including the age of 13, can
"Studies, if any, done on teenagers living independently have shown overall positive results" (the other two are in the comments).
My opponent has failed to do so. Futhermore, there are no sources given as to the credibility of the argument. They are blank rebuttles, to be blunt.
"Teens at the age of 13 can still recieve financial help from the government"
I'm sorry, but this bad. Most states have the age of maturity at age 18. If the state has no specific emancipation age, it is up to the courts to be an arbiter of the case. The legal status comes from approval of a petition. A minor (age 13), a parent or a friend can be the petitioner. The motion states 'living indepdently', and thus, in fairness, parents cannot take part in this legal process. The petition then requires sufficient proof.
"Factors such as the child's age; the mental and physical welfare of the child; the ability of the parents to provide basic material support to the child in the form of food, shelter, clothing and medical care; and the mental and physical welfare of the parents all play an important role in establishing a child's best interest. The courts require petitioners submit substantial evidence of emancipation's necessity before deciding. . ."
This is from the same Cornell source provided earlier. The process essentially requires parental participation and physical maturity, both of which minors the age of 13 cannot attain. This automatically disqualifies the petition. Of course, there are circumstances where this does not apply, but we do not have to see the legal aspect to make the case. Any teen that feels annoyed or angry at their parents can file for a petition. In essence, a minority would be approved by the judicial process i.e. this is not possible. Also, the US is in a trillion dollar debt. If we have to financially help minors live indepdently, we would also have to make cuts. Cuts in education, business, etc. Allowing teens to live independently would stain the economy.
"Can get a taxi go to the grocery store and buy instant foods that can be cooked by using microwave and rent a small apartment."
All of which costs MONEY. The cost of living has dramatically rised over the last decade. As prices rise, it will inevitably require a raise or additional income. Again, no parental involvement. Taxi fares, everything else the same, no where less than $35-40. I agree with my opponent on this. They would be eating instant foods, heavy in sodium and sugars. This is a safety issue, because daily intake of said food will cause teens to fall ill. I'm absolutely sure my opponent has not rented a small apartment before. To rent an apartment you must be of legal age (18+) to sign a lease contract. Most cases allow a parent to be a cosigner, but again 'live independently". There is a big risk with letting a 13 year old live in an apartment, because there is no guarantee of a payment.
"as they grow up they'll eventually reach the age of 16 and will be able to apply for jobs while still going to school"
This is only valid if my opponent can disprove my arguments, but I will still address this. Teenagers, day 1, have to learn to cope with lonliness. Indeed, this can be psychologically demanding and can drive someone to even commit suicide. They will also have to learn soft skills aka money management, cleanliness, etc. My opponent insists that once they reach 16 they can get a job. Teenage unemployment is among the highest in the states. Even if they reach 16, there is no guarantee they will get a job. The firm's hiring is subject to diminishing returns. As the number of workers increase, their productivity only increases slightly. Their productivity has to exceeed what the firm is willing to pay, and that's the only way a firm will choose to hire that extra person. I believe I do not have to further prove why a teenager going to school and working is undesirable and demanding. At some point, they have to realize that the opportunity cost (what you give up to get something else) of going to school is too high. Thus, they will have to work full time.
I believe I have effectively rebuted all my opponents argument. Unless my opponent offers an equally stronger argument, there is no contention for futher debate.
rachepena201 forfeited this round.
rachepena201 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.