The Instigator
luvx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JohnnyS101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Teens should not have curfew laws

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 10/31/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,526 times Debate No: 39774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

luvx

Pro

Studies show curfews do not reduce or prevent crime, or make the community safer. Curfews also violate the rights of parents do dictate the upbringing of their child how they see fit. Chicago has a curfew for under 17 and still has a problem with shootings. Given these facts, So why do people continue to support curfews?


In addition, teens are traumatized by the arrests, for normal human behavior that harms no one.

JohnnyS101

Con

I am for curfew laws. And I will state several reasons as a rebuttal to your reason:

"Curfews do not reduce or prevent crime, or make the community safer."
I will object to this, where is your proof? Sure Chicago has a curfew law for under 17 and crime rates are still high but if you let go of curfew, more kids will be out on the streets, more people to do mischievous activities, more people to harm.

"Curfew also violates the rights of parents who dictate the upbringing of their child how they see fit."
Not necessarily. Many parents would not like their children roaming way after dark outside, and where does having your kid outside past curfew fit in the upbringing of a child? They may stay up all they want as long as it is in the security of their own property.

And lastly I have some thoughts of my own. What good does having children out past midnight on the streets? You may say that there is not but that does not mean you may limit them, I say you may. They are not yet adults. When you see kids out late at night it is usually associated with mischievous activity. Why? Because what else would children and teens do outside, especially in the crime ridden streets of Chicago.
Debate Round No. 1
luvx

Pro

1. I will object to this, where is your proof? Sure Chicago has a curfew law for under 17 and crime rates are still high but if you let go of curfew, more kids will be out on the streets, more people to do mischievous activities, more people to harm.

Most mischievous activities happen during the day. And again, studies show curfews do not reduce or prevent crime or victimization, or make the community safer.

2. Not necessarily. Many parents would not like their children roaming way after dark outside, and where does having your kid outside past curfew fit in the upbringing of a child? They may stay up all they want as long as it is in the security of their own property.


Many parents would also like to discipline their child for talking back and being disrespectful, should we require parents to discipline their children for those things because many parents would already do that and not doing that is not "upbringing" a child.


A parent is allowing their teen to go across the street and buy something to eat, and are allowing their teen to go by themselves, the government should not interfere. If a parent is allowing their teen to take midnight walks by themselves, the government should not interfere.

JohnnyS101

Con

1. Sure studies show that curfew does not prevent crime, much less reduce it and make the community safer, yet if curfew was to be ridden of, there would be in increase in crime due to my previous evidence. There would be more teens, more people, and in essence, more victims.

2. Your analogy is flawed, in one essence you are forcing the parent to discipline their children for personal reasons, in the comfort of one's home, with the inability to really put a reason to what talking back and being disrespectful really is. The curfew law is vast different from your analogy. In this instance, we are not allowing the child or teen outside past midnight in most cases, you are not forcing the parent to do anything to the child.

Curfew laws vary from city to city, there is no federal mandate. The reasoning behind this is because there are no real reasons a teenager or child should be outside after midnight, especially on school nights. Give me a reason as to why they would need to be out besides no reason. There are curfew laws because there is no reason for having children out late.
Debate Round No. 2
luvx

Pro

1. Sure studies show that curfew does not prevent crime, much less reduce it and make the community safer, yet if curfew was to be ridden of, there would be in increase in crime due to my previous evidence. There would be more teens, more people, and in essence, more victims.

If curfews don't reduce or prevent crime, how will abolishing them increase crime?

2. Your analogy is flawed, in one essence you are forcing the parent to discipline their children for personal reasons, in the comfort of one's home, with the inability to really put a reason to what talking back and being disrespectful really is. The curfew law is vast different from your analogy. In this instance, we are not allowing the child or teen outside past midnight in most cases, you are not forcing the parent to do anything to the child.

Many curfew laws contain a provision that says a parent can be fined if their child is breaking the curfew, if the parent "knowingly,
or through insufficient control, permitted the minor to violate the curfew". "Insufficient control" basically forces a parent to adopt certain parenting styles, violating their right to privacy in parenting.

If a parent is OK with their teenager outside at midnight, by themselves, then there is no reason for the government to interfere with their right of allowing their teenager outside at midnight.

3. The reasoning behind this is because there are no real reasons a teenager or child should be outside after midnight, especially on school nights.

There is no real reason why I should eat 1 bag of potato chips each day and only drink coca cola. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Now give me a reason why I should just devour 2 bags of chips a day. Give me a reason why I should not prep for the SAT. There are no reasons, it doesn't mean those things should be illegal

JohnnyS101

Con

JohnnyS101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.