The Instigator
acidman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Teenage boys talking to young girls should not be considered bizarre

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: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 39178
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

acidman

Pro

I would like to thank you for letting me begin my argument. First off, I will tell you why I find this topic to be of importance. I have Asperger's Syndrome, and now as a teen, like many other "aspies" I got along better sometimes with children of a younger age, either of a slight age difference or more, even though I was not less mature than most boys my age, in fact, far from it. Because of my maturity, and my skills at understanding people like a psychologist, I was able to gain insight into those children, and develop a tolerance for them. I also was attracted to the hedonistic yet unselfish, sincerity and surprising breed of down-to-earth simplicity of children, while wanting to be a protector and mentor to them. However, I realized something. Society did not view my intentions as innocent. Everywhere I got dirty looks and words and my own brother called me a child stalker, while my mother treated the matter as one of shame and embarrassment. My father did not even let me talk to my 9-year old COUSIN when I was 14, even though the girl's parents had no opposition to it. There are a multitude of reasons for this. The media reports shocking stories of child kidnapping and child molestation every day, and puts viewers under its spell of fear and anxiety, causing them to obey every command out of fear that their children will be raped, which has become the number 1 taboo in American society. However, this is exaggerated. First off, the accused pedophiles or "pedophiles" fall under 3 categories: Very aggressive, criminal troublemakers who do it for the thrill, people with subconscious issues, and those who have about the same motivations and attitude toward children as a schoolteacher. The former two categories consist of real pedophiles, whose intentions are to harm children, or even teens. But the latter is not an issue because the end result is not going to be an unhealthy friendship or even molestation, but simply a mentor/mentee relationship. The teenager involved knows that the children is inexperienced and less knowledgeable, and they know that they are the superior, and they know about higher thinking, such as the debate we're having right now. But why not have fun being silly if you know its good fun, and its only to aid the child and give you a sense of accomplishment, knowing you can reach down despite the fact that you know what lies above? And why not teach someone if you are a good person, even if society has no way of knowing because they can't read your thoughts. What needs to happen is preventing the end result, not the initial step, because only later down the road does the initial step become corrupted. Lastly, I want to say that teens themselves can in some cases be mature enough to be the mentor. An example is me, because I grew up in a conservative family. For me, there was never any alcohol, smoking, drugs, gambling, any THOUGHTS about premarital sex, skipping school, not telling the teacher when someone is being bullied, etc. Even at age 14.
Stonewall

Con

Thank you for having me for this debate.

I thought about what you said for a while. I have an autistic brother and he does many of the same things. He often talks with younger girls and they usually have a blast if they're playing or something. But it's still my opinion that it should be seen as strange, or, as you put it, bizarre.

Think about it this way: You're walking down the street around dark. You're completely alone, except you see this large guy with drooping pants, backwards cap, lotta bling, and a weird symbol on his shirt, and he's coming straight for you moving kinda fast. What's your first thought? That he's gonna ask for the time? No; your first thought is, "This guy's gonna kill/rob/maim me." And you'd be right to do so... a little stereotyping in a situation like this is not a bad thing. You're perfectly justified in thinking that, four times out of five, this guy doesn't want to have a friendly chat.

You're that one in five. You're the large dude on the street who really just wants to know the time. It is abnormal to see a person who's, say, 16 or older talking to little girls when there's the option of talking to friends or family of the same age or older around. It's reasonable to think that it's somebody who has some weird thing for children. Four times out of five, this is the case. Four times out of five, adults only talk to children for extended periods of time for some deeper purpose. Now, I'm not saying like anybody who has talked to kids is a pedophile or whatever. But preferring to hang out with them when there are peers you could talk to is abnormal.

So, I'm not saying that you should feel bad or whatever for hanging out with young girls. That's your mental state, and that's how you socialize at all, so more power to you. But it's perfectly reasonable for "normal" people to think that's questionable because, four times out of five, it is. If you're gonna be that big guy on the street late at night, you gotta understand that people won't think you're trying to get the time.
Debate Round No. 1
acidman

Pro

You give the example of a guy alone with you at night running at you, and with the type of clothing you describe. However, this example is a false analogy because there are many things irregular with HOW the man in this example is doing things, which include him coming quickly, him having drooping pants, and him doing it at night when the two of you are alone. In my example, my mistake has a supposed irregularity with WHO he is doing it with, yet the activity in and out of itself is entirely normal and the children having a relation with someone older is not necessarily a bad thing if you consider parents, older brothers and cousins, and teachers. The problem lies with the teenage boy being a stranger. However, the problem with this is that you do not know what kind of person he is, and you do not know why he would go through the trouble of starting a conversation. However, if he IS a trustable person, and people knew, and if he had no problem with starting a conversation and he isn't going out of his way, and if he is only talking to children has an extra supplement to his social life, why shouldn't he talk to children? I did not advocate PREFERRING to hang out with children, I said preferring SOMETIMES, which means it must depend on the type of mood he is in. Lastly, you claim people have the right to be suspicious even if there is nothing wrong with what the teenager is doing, however, this argument is flawed. In the examples I gave in my first argument, I was getting bad TREATMENT because of my choice of companion, not an awareness of the possibility that I was a pedophile and extra precautions being taken when they did not know me well enough to make a solid judgement.
Stonewall

Con

I will address a few points you made in the second round. At the bottom of this round is a question of clarification that needs to be talked over.

___


"However, this example is a false analogy because there are many things irregular with HOW the man in this example is doing things, which include him coming quickly, him having drooping pants, and him doing it at night when the two of you are alone."


I don't get why those three things in particular make it a bad analogy. It's not perfect, but it's pretty comparable: You don't know this guy's story, and he doesn't know yours. He's rushing because he heard his wife's giving birth and he couldn't take the time to put on decent clothes or a belt. Well, hopefully. Four times out of five, you're getting mugged. You call my situation irregular- I dunno, I think any stranger talking to my child at the playground is pretty irregular. Maybe they're just being friendly. Maybe not. It doesn't hurt to keep your guard up.

"In my example, my mistake has a supposed irregularity with WHO he is doing it with, yet the activity in and out of itself is entirely normal and the children having a relation with someone older is not necessarily a bad thing if you consider parents, older brothers and cousins, and teachers. The problem lies with the teenage boy being a stranger. However, the problem with this is that you do not know what kind of person he is, and you do not know why he would go through the trouble of starting a conversation. "

I agree wholeheartedly. Lots of people have some relation to children, whether they're family or teachers or counselors or whatever. That's not abnormal. But if any of those people started taking extra time talking to them or seemed too friendly, it would bother me. I guess that's a Mama Bear thing (I hear guys get Mama Bearish too). Especially if they're strangers.

"However, if he IS a trustable person, and people knew, and if he had no problem with starting a conversation and he isn't going out of his way, and if he is only talking to children has an extra supplement to his social life, why shouldn't he talk to children? I did not advocate PREFERRING to hang out with children, I said preferring SOMETIMES, which means it must depend on the type of mood he is in."

I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to make, then. Nobody has a problem with anyone they know sometimes talking with kids. I occasionally talk to my nieces and nephews, and, as far as I know, the rest of the family doesn't even give it a second thought. The only time anyone ever has a problem is when anyone starts being too friendly. See my final point at the bottom of this round.

"In the examples I gave in my first argument, I was getting bad TREATMENT because of my choice of companion, not an awareness of the possibility that I was a pedophile and extra precautions being taken when they did not know me well enough to make a solid judgement."

I think that's one and the same, though. You weren't getting dirty looks because you were talking to someone, you were getting them because talking to young children kinda sends off that weird vibe. That's why your brother called you a child stalker. You said yourself that they're worried because, "The media reports shocking stories of child kidnapping and child molestation every day, and puts viewers under its spell of fear and anxiety, causing them to obey every command out of fear that their children will be raped, which has become the number 1 taboo in American society." Parents should be wary of strangers talking to their children a little more than necessary, because most people, especially strangers, taking extra time to talk to kids don't function in that teacher way. Like I said before, nobody has a problem with anybody talking to children. It's when people do it too much (See the point below).


___



I dunno, maybe I took a little liberty with what this debate was about. I interpreted, "Teenage boys talking to young girls should not be considered bizarre" to mean, "Teenage boys talking to young girls often should not be considered bizarre." In the first sense, of course you're right. That's debateless. Anyone talking to anyone, in and of itself, isn't bizarre. Certain age things, in combination with excessive talking, can be considered strange or taboo. I just figured you meant the second one, as the first would be pointless to have a debate over. If all you want to debate is, "Teenagers talking to children is normal," then I could just forfeit the rest. It's pretty safe to say that most people don't take issue with someone talking to their child in general as something to treat as abnormal. That doesn't need to be argued. Please clarify in the next round so I know how to continue this conversation.
Debate Round No. 2
acidman

Pro

Let me clarify. I did mean that teenagers talking to children in and of itself is normal, and not that teenagers should often or always not be seen as abnormal. I agree with you when you say that parents and teachers should be careful when seeing teenagers talk to children, so should be a little suspicious. I supose there's really no point in debating, so I agree, you can just forfeit the rest.
Stonewall

Con

Well, ladies and gentlemen, this debate turned out to just be the opponents agreeing with each other without either knowing. Um, so I guess you guys can vote for whoever, but I guess tying would be fine too.
Debate Round No. 3
acidman

Pro

acidman forfeited this round.
Stonewall

Con

Again, I encourage a tie.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.