The Instigator
luvx
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
officialniaaa
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Teens under 18 should have more legal rights

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 4 votes the winner is...
officialniaaa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,872 times Debate No: 37978
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

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 school system was designed to direct people into 3 different paths: farm; factory; or college. Now that we no longer have the farm and the factory, school prepares us for college. Various features of school were incorporated from the factory including responding to a bell, separate facilities, separate specialized subjects, listening and doing as you are told without question and age segregation that resembles batches of the factory. Why do we learn with people the same age rather than the same interests or abilities? Why is the date of manufacture of the product important? This is why we learn with people the same age. And why should we assume that education should only take place at one stage of a person's life? Education can take place at any stage of a person's life, not just the early years.

The system of modern schooling was created outside the public eye and was centered on obedience, not intelligence. The idea of compulsory schooling paid by taxation was a revolutionary idea. At first, people were against the idea, claiming it was indoctrination, or not feasible. Before the industrial revolution, people got married and had full adult rights at puberty.

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.

So why do teens have immature brains? It's because we treat them immaturely. Their bodies tell them they are adults so they want to act like adults they want to significantly contribute to society, they want to have sex, have families and leave home but we tell them "you are a child" and we give all the control to the parents.

Rights come with responsibilities. Yes they should be tried as adults.
officialniaaa

Con

Teens under 18 should NOT have more legal rights. They smoke and are immature as is. Coming from me a 14 year old, teens are very immature and my opponent says its because we treat them that way. If we didn't treat them that way they would then shift and think that they are in charge of everything and under 18 you should do anything but be in the position of the parent. We would change roles therefore making them responsible for their own actions. My opponent also didn't state HOW MANY or WHAT legal rights teens have and what they should be granted more. Since they didn't, I will. According to howstuffworks.com, teens today have aprox. the same rights as adults minus 13. I cannot state what those are after countless amounts of research. If we gave teens more rights, we then would limit ourselves to giving them more freedom and distracting them with it therefore taking their minds of off better things in life. I think granted driving, smoking, drinking, clubbing, partying, curfews, and job opportunists are to much for teenagers to handle at this age. Point blank.
Debate Round No. 1
luvx

Pro

1. They smoke.
Many adults smoke too. Should we take away their rights?

2. Giving them rights will distract them from better things in life.
Can you explain how? And how is freedom distracting?

3. Driving, smoking, drinking, clubbing, partying, curfews are too much for teenagers to handle at this age.
In many countries people under 18 are allowed to drink and alcoholism is lower than in America, where the drinking age is 21. Many teens in other countries do fine without curfews. In western countries like the US, teens socialize exclusively with other teens. In countries where teens are treated like adults they don't abuse their privileges.

Before the industrial revolution, people got married and had full adult rights at puberty. Census records show those who got married young had a lower divorce rate. Most of those youth never abused their rights.
officialniaaa

Con

Your argument is politically stupid. You know why? Your question was under the age of 18. 18 is an adult. You are saying that 17 year olds are adults and that is completely irrelevant in this situation. And teens shouldn't smoke. You said in your speech that teens have developing brains correct? Correct so why would they ruin it by drinking, smoking , and clubbing. And i didn't say freedom was distracting I said some types of freedom are distracting from different people and focus in other things. You have provided no evidence. Back - knowledge is not evidence. You still have not said what legal rights they would gain. According to teenshealth.org drugs can...... (quote) There are no physical reasons to start smoking. The body doesn't need tobacco the way it needs food, water, sleep, and exercise. And many of the chemicals in cigarettes, like nicotine and cyanide, are actually poisons that can kill in high enough doses.

The body is smart. It goes on the defense when it's being poisoned. First-time smokers often feel pain or burning in the throat and lungs, and some people feel sick or even throw up the first few times they try tobacco.(end of quote). Its not taking away their rights, its keeping them safe. I have friends that smoke and I know they don't focus well either. My opponent has no evidence and their arguments make no sense. They are going against their own case. Can you tell me what giving them more freedom is going to do when they already have limited freedom and abuse it at that. Proof, as an African- American child, my mother does not let me fool around in grades or anything. She raised me and I don't go against her word but thereare other teens like me who still defy it. I have a grandfather also who died from smoking at at young age. What good will it do? It can get you to heaven faster but that's pretty much it.
Debate Round No. 2
luvx

Pro

I am sorry to hear about your grandfather.


1. I did say in my speech teens have developing brains, we all have developing brains. Our brains develop throughout life, but reach their full potential at puberty.


2. Once they are competent, they will be able to make their own medical decisions, get a job without their parents' permission and a medical exam, leave home without their parents’ permission and own property.


3. People over 18 are allowed to smoke. Should we make smoking illegal for everyone to keep them safe?

officialniaaa

Con

Thanks for the message about my grandfather,. No we shouldn't penalize them because they are OVER 18. They aren't under 18. They can do what they want but as long as your a teenager you must abide by the rules in your house. Again, you are going against your own case. And your 2nd question doesn't make sense. I say that teens should stay how they are and listen to their parents. When they hit 18, I wouldn't care a single bit about what they do. Not at teens want to smoke, but they do anyhow because of pressure. That's what society does to a teenager. Teenagers haven't been on the planet long enough so it is important for them to learn from their mistakes. Overall, I believe that teens should NOT have more legal rights. For what? AGAIN YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO PROVEN EVIDENCE OR FACTS OR EVEN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You have not said what legal rights they would get also. Enough of smoking. How about education? According to SB, Total number of high school dropouts annually3,030,000
Number of high school students who drop out each day8,300
Percent of Americans with a high school diploma85.3 %
Percent of all drop outs that happen in the ninth-grade36 %
Percent of students who repeat the ninth-grade that go on to graduate15 %
Percent of students in the largest 50 U.S. cities that graduate High School59 %
Percent of US crimes that committed by a high school dropout75 %
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 prison60 %
Percentage of Hispanic dropouts that were due to a pregnancy41 %
Percent of US jobs a high school dropout is not eligible for90 %.
Teenagers are already distracted cant you see? We don't need more drop-outs we need better education. If we want MORE rights that's selfish on our behalf. Coming from a young 14 year old girl, I say watching over teenagers is now hard today especially with more distractions and ads that come on. We are more vulnerable today than any other. People who vote pro, must not have read my arguments because I have provided strong representation from the people being polled and actually provided evidence. And may my last words be, if you vote pro, think about our future. What happens when we get more legal rights and more chances of bullying not being aware of that is happening and more people dying and more people not caring? Where will that lead us may I ask? Ask yourself, why? Where? Whats the point? As teenagers we should be focused on our future because what you do as present, determines the future. Past is past. We need to use our resources. Be happy. We all have the same materials, some of us are just smarter in how we use them.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Andy99 3 years ago
Andy99
You might be an exception. I am talking about 90% of the teens.

Also most teens are dependent on parents. If you are dependent on somebody you can't have all the rights, you have to by the rules the parents set.
Posted by TheInterlang 3 years ago
TheInterlang
@Andy99

So the words I'm saying are just random hand spasms? I'm too busy thinking about sex right now?

Please explain something you thought was wrong.
Posted by Andy99 3 years ago
Andy99
Teems are ignorant, unaware and hormonal changes screw them. Everything I used to think during my teen years was wrong, everything !!!! I found out when I started working and saw the world.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Smoking, alcohol abuse, and drugs are characteristic mistakes of youth because the youthful brain is not as well wired to link actions with consequences. Many more people start these bad habits when young than when old. Some younger people do not make the mistakes and some older people do, but that does overcome statistical basis for the laws. If we allowed five-year-olds to have firearms, some would not abuse the right. Nonetheless, the prohibition based upon the expectation is valid.

Con said, "Your argument is politically stupid." That's not a conduct violation because it attacks the argument and does not attack Pro personally. It's not a good idea to be so inflammatory, but it's not a conduct violation.

I think Pro could have won the debate by picking one area where rights could be argued to be overly restricted. Possibly leaving school at 14 rather than 16, or something about medical care.
Posted by TheInterlang 3 years ago
TheInterlang
Not all teenagers smoke or want to smoke. Sorry, con, but I like my lungs.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
luvxofficialniaaaTied
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 had the burden of proof yet did not fulfill it; Pro provided no actual support for any of the claims made and several were in fact incorrect (as teenage brains have an inability to link consequences to actions, and statistics show that people who marry below the age of 25 have higher divorce rates than those who marry above 25). Frankly neither side supported their arguments very well, but as Pro has the BoP that is a heavier factor.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
luvxofficialniaaaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Conduct: Both sides did well. S&G: Same as conduct. Sources: There were none. Argument: Pro never fulfilled his BOP. He made a lot of claims he didn't back up. Con did well in not making unsupported assertions and put forth a more well understood answer.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
luvxofficialniaaaTied
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 had the burden of proof, but Pro provided no evidence to support any the numerous claims Pro made. "Brains continue to develop" is true, but under age brains are acutely lacking in the facility to link actions with consequences. Con didn't cite the science on that, but gave clear examples of the thinking of young people that errs in that way. Pro needed evidence that brains not just develop at older age, but that the characteristic mistakes of youth continue at the same rate. Pro did not meet the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by RedMoonlight 3 years ago
RedMoonlight
luvxofficialniaaaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for a one of Con's not so friendly remarks (your arguments are politically stupid). While I feel this could have been debated better, arguments is a definite win for Pro, whose arguments were clear and concise while Con went off on a tangent about smoking, which Pro later proved should be a right in which age is not a relevant factor. Additionally, a lack of ability for teenagers to make their own decisions contributes to the low quality of life of those with irresponsible parents, who are unable to do anything for themselves due to our legal system.