The Instigator
swalker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
american5
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should there be a curfew for people under 18 years to reduce crime?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,080 times Debate No: 16369
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

swalker

Pro

The first reason that curfews should be abolished is because of how difficult they are to maintain. Teenagers can easily hide from night patrols, and there are many excuses they could give if they are caught. Curfew laws do not affect those who are going directly to or from a recreational event (such as a dance). Nor do they affect those who have to venture onto public roads because of an emergency at home. Adults can send teenagers out at night, if for a legitimate cause. A teenager is also exempted from curfew laws if they are with a responsible adult. The problem is, not all adults are responsible, especially those that have just turned eighteen. Many of these laws exempting teenagers from curfew can aid teenagers while they are giving an excuse to a patrol officer or similar figure. Because of the amount of work needed to maintain curfews, and the many teenagers than can escape them, they are rendered useless.

Another reason that curfews should be abolished is because of their unconformity. The sketchy regulations surrounding curfews cause many misunderstandings when teenagers are traveling from town to town, or when they are trying to get somewhere at night. One large problem is that there are no state-wide curfews that set the curfew. For example, in one town, people under the age of 16 may have a curfew from 11:30pm to daybreak, and in another town that is only minutes away, all people under the age of 18 may have a curfew from 10:00 pm to daybreak. Therefore, when traveling through a few communities at night, a teenager may risk breaking curfew because of their ignorance of the different town's alien curfew laws.

The third reason that curfews should be abolished is because they are ineffective. Towns set curfews in place, because they hope that by keeping teens off the streets, they will reduce crime rates. Contrary to popular belief, the same number of crimes occur during non-curfew hours as occur during curfew hours in places such as the District of Columbia. It has actually been proven that if there is no curfew and sports facilities, such as basketball courts and swimming pools, are left open most of the night, crime rates decrease, because it gives bored teenagers something to do in the quiet of night. Rather than committing crimes, they would visit these recreational areas to pass the time. Curfews have been proven ineffectual against dropping crime rates.

The confusion of curfews affects teenagers across the nation. The benefits of curfew are few, if any, and are not worth the trouble it is to maintain. Because of its unconformity, teenagers who travel at night may be fined in some towns, and perfectly free in others. Teen curfew has been proven ineffectual against the principal cause for its placement in our culture, yet it still remains. What is the use of teenager curfew, if it brings not benefit, but only perplexity and irritation?
(1) www.helium.com
american5

Con

I would like to start by wishing my opponent a good match

Now I would like to start by saying that criminals are not always youth in revolt but about 24.3% of criminals are under the age of 18 that is almost one quarter of the crimes committed and just because teenagers can come up with an excuse dose not mean we should give up. This only proves that we should tighten the law someone needs to be dying for them to leave and they need proof of this. Now as for them being able to hide that means we just need to make the punishment worse arrested for 3 days and no bail and if that dose not work grow it to worse until they become to scared to go out past curfew. Now just because it is a lot of work to maintain curfew means nothing that just gives more jobs because more work equals more jobs which equals less unemployment.

http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Now about different curfews for different towns when travailing out of town a unacompined minor should take the responsibility of calling the town and finding out about their curfews so they can assure they are not breaking the laws and know when to leave their town and make it to the next.`

Now your third reason I would like to see some proof of before I will debate that

I think I have stated a good argument and hope for a interesting argument.
Debate Round No. 1
swalker

Pro

my oppent i accidentally aruge agains my self the first round because i though that information was for a curfew
because teenagers are at a vulnerable age and can get into quite a bit of trouble even if they have not done anything to get into trouble. If you are out late, you may be blamed for something that you have not done , like robbery or anything, also you could be grabbed. There are all kinds of things that could happen to you. Stick to your curfews and be good! A
american5

Con

american5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
swalker

Pro

swalker forfeited this round.
american5

Con

american5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
swalker

Pro

swalker forfeited this round.
american5

Con

american5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by swalker 6 years ago
swalker
I'm arguing against myself
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
I think you intended to be Con the resolution (though you've phrased it as a question: it should be 'There should be a curfew for people under 18 years to reduce crime').
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
swalkeramerican5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded, and fofeited leaving arguments unanswered.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
swalkeramerican5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both shown horrific conduct by forfeiting. But con wins by refuting his pro's arguments.