The Instigator
EmyG
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
snelld7
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,504 times Debate No: 8602
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

EmyG

Pro

---I'd like to start out with definitions.
-Juvenile: a young person; youth.
-Curfew: an order establishing a specific time in the evening after which certain regulations apply, esp. that no civilians or other specified group of unauthorized persons may be outdoors or that places of public assembly must be closed.
-Youth: the period of life from puberty to the attainment of full growth; adolescence.

---Now, I'd like to clarify the topic.
By saying the U.S. should have a juvenile curfew, I mean every city, town, etc. should implement this curfew. Persons not following the curfew will have a punishment of some sort. However, that is NOT the debate. The debate is on whether or not we should have a curfew. Juveniles are roughly between the ages of 11 and 21. However, people younger than 11 that are NOT with a parent should follow this curfew. If the juveniles ARE with a parent, the curfew DOES NOT apply. The curfew applies to juveniles that are ALONE. Any questions, please comment.

---I'd now like to state my three points.
1. Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. that is unsupervised.
2. A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims. http://www.associatedcontent.com...
3. A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy. http://www.crimefreeaz.com...

---I will explain my points in my next argument, and attack my opponent's.
snelld7

Con

I negate the resolution resolved: The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

In understanding why it is wrong to tell someone 16-21, you must first understand the fallacy in her first of 3 points.

Attacks on point 1:Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. that is unsupervised.

To accept this point is to accept that malicious activity done between these hours, is done by all or a vast majority of juveniles (otherwise why would you limit juveniles from being outside and post this as a reason as for why). Yes, most things (never say nothing) done may not be productive where inventions for society are conserned, but then again you can't say it will always be negative either. And if it's not negative, you have no right to tell someone what they can and can't do unless you're a parent. If a parent allows their juvenile to go out at those times, and they aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have a right to say "Oh, no you can't."

More over, let's point toward my opponents use of these words 'Nothing productive happens .' This is to broad. How can you just assume nothing is productive, and then not explain why nothing is productive. Better yet, it's not productive for whom? Just because something that person is doing (let's say a 19 year old is out seeing his gf) doesn't better society, does that mean it's harming society? Not at all.

Attackson point 2:A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims.

The article my opponent posts says NOTHING about how it protects teens nor what it protects them from. It just simply makes the claim. Blank statements supported by invisible evidence means nothing in a debate. You claim in protects, but then on the other hand can't provide what it may protect them from. If something is to be enforced without the citizens knowing why it's enforced, it's unjust. Why, because the government's job is not to protect an individual better than they can protect themselves simply because they can't. "The resolution presumes that the maker of laws, the government, has better knowledge of what is best for each individual than that individual himself. The individual makes decisions based upon his individual valuation of risks and rewards. The individual may take up some risky activity like hang gliding or smoking that the individual even if he is fully aware of the risks involved." By my opponents stance,she would support the government taking away hang gliding, bungee jumping, smoking, etc. based on what is good for that individual. You cannot be protected from your own values, and when you're dealing with putting people 16-21 on a curfew, that's what we'retalking about.

Attacks on 3: A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy.

Vandalism, truancy, and loitering don't happen when it gets dark outside [...] It happens when people aren't looking. The way to get rid of it isn't to limit someone from moving around for a certain number of hours, the way to get rid of it is to make it illegal and enforce it with more emphasis. To accept thispoint is to accept that a vast majority or all of themes crimes are committing during these times. Being that it's about equal unless you can prove it's not, this point is ull and void without backing.

To stop an 18-21 year old individual from walking around during certain times is to stop a grown man or woman from doing what they want to do, when they aren't in the wrong. It's to oppress an individual from excersizing certain rights, when he/she hasn't done anything wrong. Because of this unfortunate fact, the resolution is false.

RESOLUTION NEGATED
Debate Round No. 1
EmyG

Pro

---I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

---Seeing as my opponent has not posted any argument, just attacked my own, I must only defend/build my argument.

---Point 1: Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. that is unsupervised.
Productive is a positive thing, not negative. Therefore, if something happening between these hours is not negative, it is NOT productive unless it is positive. My opponent used the example, "A 19 year old is out seeing his gf." Well, if a 19-year-old male is out seeing his girlfriend, wouldn't they be at one of their houses? If not, where would they be? What would they be doing? Maybe at a party. A party where there could be underage drinking, illegal substances, and violence. This is certainly harming society. If the couple is simply at home, my opponent is correct. They are not harming society at all. However, they are not bettering society. Therefore, they are not doing something productive. Plus, wouldn't they be supervised if they were at home? I said that is unsupervised. Therefore, my first point still stands.

---Point 2: A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims.
http://www.libraryindex.com...
My opponent says my first article just made the claim. It did not prove anything. Here is a new article.
"By my opponents stance,she would support the government taking away hang gliding, bungee jumping, smoking, etc." What does this have to do with the debate? NOTHING. Therefore, this statement shouldn't even be said. Also, I would like to point out that the curfew applies to ALL YOUTH, not 16 to 21. I said roughly 11 to 21.
This point still stands.

---Point 3: A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy.
My opponent is somewhat correct, these happen when no one is looking. However, my opponent says, "Vandalism, truancy, and loitering don't happen when it gets dark outside." It does. It happens when people aren't looking, right? That is mostly at night. Most people are at home between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., so that's when people wouldn't be looking. Therefore, it would happen most during those times. My opponent says the only way to stop it is to make it illegal. Isn't it? You can get in major trouble for vandalism, I know. Doesn't that mean it's illegal? Therefore, a curfew would help prevent this because people are going to do it whether it is illegal or not. It's illegal to drink under the age of 21, but people still do it. Therefore, this point also still stands.

---Thankya :)
Vote Pro.
snelld7

Con

snelld7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
EmyG

Pro

---Considering my opponent has forfeited the last round, all of my arguments still stand.

---I'd like to briefly review my points.

---Point 1: Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. that is unsupervised.
I'd like to use three scenarios to further explain this point.
One:
There are three guys at an unsupervised party. Let's call them Adam, Jake, and Mason. (No specific people. Any group of friends with these names is completely coincedental). Jake has a black suburban and is driving the three guys. At the party, the guys both drank and smoked weed. They now decide to drive home, which is quite a ways away. Another group of guys catches up with them. They decide to race. Adam, Jake, and Mason hit a small family, killing the parents and seriously injuring the kids in the backseat. The boys are arrested and the kids are now orphans. This is NOT bettering society in any way. It IS harming society.
Two:
A guy, Landon, is out seeing his girlfriend, Elizabeth. Landon picks up Elizabeth and they go to an unsupervised party. There is drinking, smoking, pot, and fighting. Landon and Elizabeth do none of these things. They then leave the party to go to Elizabeth's house. Elizabeth's parents aren't home. The couple simply watches a movie and goes to sleep, Elizabeth in her bed and Landon on the living room couch. By going to the party, they were neither harming or helping society. When they returned home, even though Landon was at Elizabeth's house and it WAS unsupervised, they were following curfew. Landon, by staying the night, followed curfew.
Three:
A youth leader takes his youth group is out to do some late-night witnessing. They ARE being productive, and they ARE supervised.

---Point 2: A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims.
I'll use one scenario.
One:
A middle-aged guy, Anthony, wants to kill a younger guy, Jeremy, for getting his daughter pregnant. Jeremy is very violent and will fight Anthony to his death. Jeremy is walking down the street to meet Anthony in an alleyway around midnight one night. A cop sees Jeremy and takes him home. Anthony didn't commit a crime against the teen, Jeremy. And the teen didn't commit a crime against Anthony.

---Point 3: A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy.
It's simple. By not staying out all night, there won't be as much vandalism, loitering, or truancy. Simply because there won't be teenagers out to vandalize. They won't be bored and have to resort to loitering. And they won't be tired, too cool, etc. to go to school.

---It is for these reasons I am pro. The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew.

---Please Vote Pro :)
snelld7

Con

snelld7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
Sure, I guess. Or you could just start a new topic.
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Sorry about this forfeit... I'm just moving into my dorm and between football practice, class, and homework, i've been a bit busy... redo? (copy and pasting all arguments until my forfeited round)
Posted by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
Haha, thanks. I passed a sign in Arkansas the other day saying, "Juvenile Curfew: 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m." We had a discussion about it, so I thought it'd be a good topic. It'd help me because my curfew is early and with a curfew, everyone would have the same. Haha.
Posted by FlashFire 8 years ago
FlashFire
Ooh, nice topic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
EmyGsnelld7Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
EmyGsnelld7Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70