The Instigator
luvx
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
jvava
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Teens should have adult legal rights and responsibilities

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
luvx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,586 times Debate No: 38622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

luvx

Pro

Teens have very little control over their lives. They can't make healthcare decisions, even when they have the mental ability to decide for themselves. They can't get a job without their parents' permission and permission from the state based on a medical exam, if they leave home without their parents' permission they can be reported as a runaway, returned home against their will and placed in the juvenile system and anything they buy, even with their own money can be taken from them by their parents at any time for any reason. They are forced in to a school system where their significance is diminished and they are forced to become dependent on their parents, who are only required to provide basic needs but make everything else a "privilege."

The modern school system was created in Prussia to produce:
1. Obedient workers for the mines.
2. Obedient soldiers for the army.
3. Well subordinated civil servants to government.
4. Well subordinated clerks to industry.
5. Citizens who thought alike about major issues.

Adolescence was created when they wanted to keep people in schools for extended periods of time and keep them out of the workforce. Before the industrial revolution, people got married at 13 and had full adult rights at puberty.

Rights come with responsibilities. Teens should have jobs and support themselves, and they should be tried as adults for their crimes.

There were claims that the brain is not fully developed till 25. Our brains develop throughout life. Even at 70 your brain is still developing because the synopses in your brain reconnect constantly based on your experience, when your 40, your brain will be different at 70, but it doesn't necessarily make you wiser. Someone who is always angry is different than someone who is always happy.
jvava

Con

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you.

Let me say that I am a teenager, and I do not believe that I need more rights. I may want more rights - like when my parents are fussing at me or I simply want my own space - but, I don't see why we need them.

And I don't see how more rights would contribute to society. Teens are already flunking in school, getting drunk at parties, becoming pregnant after dates, etc. In my opinion, teenagers are not contributing to society as a whole. Why would we provide them more rights when they abuse the ones already set out before them? They're already breaking the rules; stretching the guidelines would result in them breaking even more rules, ones that may cause signifigantly more damage.

I noticed a flaw that I would like point out in your previous argument.

"Even at 70 your brain is still developing because the synopses in your brain reconnect constantly based on your experience..."

You noted that our brains are always developing due to experience.

But, teenagers haven't had a good taste of experience quite yet. They aren't nessecarily sure what smoking can result in, what not going to school can cost you. This is why we have laws in place against this; to prevent them from figuring out the hard way. We want to protect our children from dangerous situations that may have consequences in the future.

Laws will inform them what they can and cannot do; and a majority of teens do not want to break the law.

Confusing, I know - but what I'm trying to say is that teens haven't experienced quite as much as adults have, so they can't base their decisions off of experience. And those that do make decisions are usually ill-informed on the consequences. This is why we have laws in place, to act as the experience that teens don't have yet. They might not know what smoking is like, but since it is illegal it must be bad. And a majority of teens don't want to break the laws; I sure know I don't.

Without these laws, how will teens know what will hurt them and what won't?

Now, adults are more equipped to make informed decisions because they have experience with such things. This is why adults have more freedoms than teenagers and children do. An average 14-year old has faced a lot less in their lives than an average 25-year old. You can't deny this; this is why the 25-year old is more equipped to make decisions.

Now. another argument: teens as a whole aren't contributing to society as a whole. Here a few numbers you might want to ponder over:

High School Dropout Statistics (US)

Total number of high school dropouts annually

3,030,000

Number of high school students who drop out each day

8,300

Percent of Americans with a high school diploma

85.3 %

Percent of all drop outs that happen in the ninth-grade

36 %

Percent of students who repeat the ninth-grade that go on to graduate

15 %

Percent of students in the largest 50 U.S. cities that graduate High School

59 %

Percent of US crimes that committed by a high school dropout

75 %

Amount of money a high school graduate will earn more than a drop out

$260,000

Percent of black drop outs that have spent time in prison

60 %

Percentage of Hispanic dropouts that were due to a pregnancy

41 %

Percent of US jobs a high school dropout is not eligible for

90 %

Demographics of High School Dropouts (Percent who drop out)

National Rate

8.1 %

Male

9.1 %

Female

7 %

African American

9.6 %

Hispanic

17.6 %

White

5.2 %

Asian American

2.1 %

Foreign Born

20.7 %

Children of Foreign Born

13 %

These numbers are outlandish! Teens are not following the rules under restrictive laws; imagine what they'll do under less restrictive laws. Oh, I got these numbers from http://www.statisticbrain.com..., if you want to check them out. It's all real.

It seems as though protecting teens now will allow them to be something semi-substanial in the future. If they don't go on a date and end up pregnant, they might gave time later to do things they enjoy: like getting a job, or joining a club.

And I'm sorry, you can't expect to break your parents rules and they give even more responsiblities. You have to earn respect. This is a rule every child from the dawn of time has had to follow.

Rules may seem silly now, but when you're 20 and serving time in prison, you'll wish you would've followed the rules.
Debate Round No. 1
luvx

Pro

High school was created when they wanted to keep people in schools for extended periods of time and keep them out of the workforce. Before the industrial revolution, people got married at 13 and had full adult rights at puberty.

1. I may want more rights - like when my parents are fussing at me or I simply want my own space - but, I don't see why we need them.
Why do adults need them? For the same reason teens need them.

2. "Even at 70 your brain is still developing because the synopses in your brain reconnect constantly based on your experience..."
I meant that outside factors and not age influence the brain, after the age of 12 or 13. teens experience things like going to school, which is what influences their brains. If everyone went to work at 13, their brains would look different. That's what I met by that statement.

3. But, teenagers haven't had a good taste of experience quite yet.
Having experience doesn't make you wiser. You can spend 12 years in a classroom and not learn anything. And I always knew what smoking can result in and never did it and never will.

4. Laws will inform them what they can and cannot do; and a majority of teens do not want to break the law.
Did you hear about the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) and people still broke the law despite alcohol being prohibited. Should we take away their rights? And age is an arbitrary, illogical way of determining whether someone should have these rights. Laws should have enough flexibility to distinguish the maturity of each individual.

5. Teens are not following the rules under restrictive laws; imagine what they'll do under less restrictive laws.
History says the opposite. Before the industrial revolution, people got married at 13 and had full adult rights at puberty. High school never existed. Teens did just fine. In the feudal period teens had adult rights at puberty and did just fine. There was never a concept of "adolescence" before the industrial revolution.
jvava

Con

How about you post some of these articles and websites that you're getting your facts from, and then maybe this debate could be a bit more honest.

Give me some proof about your brain development theory. Give me some proof about some of these things you are criticizing me for; and maybe they are true, but I am not going to risk being scammed by you. I won't put up with it.

With that out of the way, let me provide you with my argument (with websites, articles, etc.)!

Read this definition of experience, provided so graciously by Merriam-Webster:

2. practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity

You gain knowledge from experience - or so says the dictionary. And I thought that, for most people, that was a given.

When politicians talk about their experience, they are talking about their political knowledge.
When co workers talk about experience, they are talking about their practical knowledge at how to do their job.
You get the picture.

So experience does make you wiser; it can provide you with better judgement, etc.

http://etherealmind.com...

Click on this link; the headline might surprise you, but it's true.

Getting off topic. Sorry. So teenagers don't have as much experience, which you did not deny.

Without experience, teenagers cannot make true, fact-based decisions. This is where a parent comes in - to offer the teenager guidance. To help them make the tough choices in life. You make a parent sound bad, like something that holds teenagers back - but, in reality, they HELP them and make their lives easier. This is a responsibility of a parent, after all - to provide guidance when needed. To give better judgement to situations that teens cannot come to a conclusion on by themselves.

This is one reason a parent is needed.

Your 'example' of prohibition cannot be compared to my argument. I said that teens would break LESS restrictive laws; your claim is that they break MORE restrictive laws. I cannot deny this - if a rule is too restrictive, any one (not just teens) will break it. But lets put it into modern context.

Gay marriage has become the topic of much political and ethical debate - something that I am strongly against.

The first step to the legalization of gay relationships was the introduction of homosexual activity legalization; one of the last states to legalize this was Texas, in 2003. Next came the introduction of civil unions. It sounded all good at first - and then they wanted more. And more. And now the liberals are tossing around gay marriage like it is something that has always been acceptable. Just a few short years ago, though, it wasn't something to talk about. It was something taboo.

My point is that, whether it is with drug legalization, gay marriage, or the latter, people are going to demand for more and more when you give more and more to them. This is why I am against allowing teenagers to smoke and do other such activities; they will continue to want more and more and more. And if government keeps giving it to them, at what point are they going to stop? We need to stand our ground; we need to be firm and say "No!" to teenage drug, alcohol, etc. legalization.

You use history as an example - which is inaccurate.

Life used to be a whole lot more complicated. Farming and industry were really the only two ways that a MAJORITY of the people could earn a living. And these lives were hard and back-breaking. They didn't have as high a standard of living as we do today. Teenagers married so that they could escape family poverty and make money for themselves - which put them into the same boat as their parents. It was a never ending cycle, a never ending pattern.

But the standard of living has improved; people don't need to go out and find economic last resorts. The parents can - and should - pay for their kids' childhood. They should, because children and teens are still learning the basics of life.

The childhood and teen years are full of guidance and self-discovery. They shouldn't be burdened by the concerns of raising a family, home ownership, etc. They should live in an environment that motivates them - and encourages them to discover their moral compass. Their moral compass, however, should be influenced by the parents.

Let me put it into an example: does the world need government? It sure seems as if we make it on our own, and all the government does is steal our money.

No! Government is there to supply us with basic needs - roads, schools, etc. Although you may not like HOW government is spending your tax money, you cannot deny that these basics help you in your daily life. Without roads, you couldn't get anywhere; without schools, you would be uneducated.

Government is like parenthood - it may seem pointless, but it, in fact, makes our lives better.
Debate Round No. 2
luvx

Pro

1. How about you post some of these articles and websites that you're getting your facts from, and then maybe this debate could be a bit more honest.


http://drrobertepstein.com...


Dr Robert Epstein - Myth of the teen brain


http://drrobertepstein.com...


Dr Robert Epstein – Teen 2.0 reviews


http://www.johntaylorgatto.com...


John Taylor Gatto - School As Religion


http://en.wikipedia.org...


John Taylor Gatto – Quote from wikipedia


John Taylor Gatto (born December 15, 1935) is a retired American school teacher with nearly 30 years experience in the classroom, and author of several books on education. He is an activist critical of compulsory schooling, of the perceived divide between the teen years and adulthood, and of what he characterizes as the hegemonic nature of discourse on education and the education professions.


2. Give me some proof about your brain development theory. Give me some proof about some of these things you are criticizing me for; and maybe they are true, but I am not going to risk being scammed by you. I won't put up with it.


I just did


3. You gain knowledge from experience - or so says the dictionary. And I thought that, for most people, that was a given.


Then why do we go to school to gain knowledge?


4. When politicians talk about their experience, they are talking about their political knowledge.


They may be talking about their childhood experiences or past experiences working as politicians.


5. So experience does make you wiser; it can provide you with better judgement, etc.


What if you don't learn anything from those experiences? You can spend 12 years in a classroom and not learn anything.


6. Without experience, teenagers cannot make true, fact-based decisions.


I said this in #5, you can have all the experience, it doesn't mean you will USE your past experience later on to make wise decisions.


7. This is where a parent comes in - to offer the teenager guidance.


Just like adults, if a parent is needed, the teen can ask them for advice. Adults do that sometimes, but adults can make healthcare decisions, leave home without their parents permission, and can get a job without their parents' permission with no medical papers. Teens should be able to do that too and should pay their own bills and be treated as adults. The concept of "adolescence" should be abolished.


8. Government is like parenthood - it may seem pointless, but it, in fact, makes our lives better.


Government is here to make laws and parents are here to raise human beings. They are 2 different things.

jvava

Con

I don't agree with you. Your theories may sound good on paper, but in reality they would not work in the slightest.

Teenagers are not contributing to society with restrictive rights; why should we provide them with more rights? They have to prove themselves, like everybody has to. It may not seem fair at times, but parents are there to offer you guidance. They are there to help you make decisions on situations in which you are unsure of how to react. You go to school to gain mental ability; you experience things to better your judgment. The two are different, but you need both.

The reasons that adults have more legal rights is because they know how to react better, because they have tested their judgment. Most know what is good and bad. Most teens may believe they know what is right for them. Their parents need to help guide their decisions. Anyone who has raised a teenager would agree with this.

Teens' brains may be fully capable - but they still require more tests of judgment. Your argument is silly; you sound like a teenager who is complaining about not being able to get something.

Why is it silly?

The legal system is set up to protect teenagers - to give them a second chance in life. But this policy is not just for teens; why do you think the US offers bail? The legal system wants to provide a second chance to its victims. And not to crowd prisons.

Your argument sounds good on paper. It sounds fair and just; but wait till you applied it to the real world. Wait till you saw the effect it had on our young population.

I'll say this to potential voters: if you are a parent, think of your child being completely independent from you. Think about how they would utilize their legal rights. Most don't even know what legal rights they are granted under the current system.

My argument might not be as fair-sounding, but it is true. Teens need parental guidance. The world has changed since the Industrial Revolution. Parents need to serve some role in their teens' lives.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TheInterlang 3 years ago
TheInterlang
People often complain about how teenagers lack experience, but the reality is that they hold the experience high so they can't reach it. Parents intentionally lie to their children to "preserve their innocence," the working age is 16 and the rules are so strict, you are actually exempt from the "minimum wage", and anything you do as a teen is actually considered the actions of your parents. Although this may be good for things like crime, it punishes teens who write songs, invent things, and start businesses.

Smart kids have "made thousands" from their inventions, but don't get to touch a shaving of a penny until they are 18, and may not ever.
Posted by TheInterlang 3 years ago
TheInterlang
People often complain about how teenagers lack experience, but the reality is that they hold the experience high so they can't reach it. Parents intentionally lie to their children to "preserve their innocence," the working age is 16 and the rules are so strict, you are actually exempt from the "minimum wage", and anything you do as a teen is actually considered the actions of your parents. Although this may be good for things like crime, it punishes teens who write songs, invent things, and start businesses.

Smart kids have "made thousands" from their inventions, but don't get to touch a shaving of a penny until they are 18, and may not ever.
Posted by Baldur 3 years ago
Baldur
The contender suffers from the very thing he believes teens suffer from - a lack of experience. For instance, he believes that our government seeks to minimize the number of people in prison - despite having by far the highest incarceration rate in the world (except - possibly - North Korea). This is not necessarily his fault, as he has been unable to gain experience due to his schooling. His arguments may be true for himself, but do not apply to others - and especially not to those who deal with bad situations. He also bases some of his judgments on his personal dislikes rather than on facts.

He might consider what our current laws do to teenagers who need to escape bad situations:

http://www.laweekly.com...

A word of advice from Mark Twain: Never let your schooling interfere with your education.

(Incidentally, both schools and roads were present long before governments got involved in them.)
Posted by jvava 3 years ago
jvava
Well, if you can, that'd be great! The voting period ends in like 6 days, so you've got a bit of time. Thank you for showing me I have a little support in this debate! :)
Posted by LayTheologian 3 years ago
LayTheologian
I would if I could. I haven't finished three debates yet.
Posted by jvava 3 years ago
jvava
LayTheoglian, are you saying that you agree with my argument? Because if you do, vote!
Posted by LayTheologian 3 years ago
LayTheologian
"I meant that outside factors and not age influence the brain, after the age of 12 or 13. teens experience things like going to school, which is what influences their brains. If everyone went to work at 13, their brains would look different. That's what I met by that statement."

This is a laughable argument.

Moreover, Pro cited no peer-reviewed journals to support Pro's claim that the teenage brain is developmentally equivalent to the adult brain.
Posted by TheInterlang 3 years ago
TheInterlang
Con, actually the reason why teens can't contribute is BECAUSE of their restrictive rights. Teens are literally given no credit for anything they do. The credit falls on our parents. Teens are treated as a part of their parents, long after they have been physically separated from the mother, yet a teen cannot file a copyright, sue anyone, or even vote, because of restrictive rights.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Ian159
luvxjvavaTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Woah! This debate was all over the place., but easy to follow nonetheless. Con was a little rude; he may have even verged into ad hominem. Con lost many main points in the debate, and failed to back them up. Pro did a great job backing up their points and defending them.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
luvxjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I found this debate to be somewhat poorly structured. It was easy enough to follow, but the points were not impactful, so I will not score arguments. I did get the feeling that PRO is just venting due to some aspect of her life, but I recognize that this is an ad hominem from CON, and will dock conduct for that. Also, CON demanded sources and PRO provided them, and CON dropped the point. Sources PRO. CON's closing was exceptionally weak...had he closed like he debated the rest of this debate, I more than likely would have given CON arguments. Otherwise, not a very persuasive debate, IMHO.