The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The age of consent should be eliminated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,059 times Debate No: 7708
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




The age of consent should be eliminated. For purposes of this debate, the "age of consent" is the age at which a person's consent to sexual activity is considered legally valid.

I allow my opponent to state their argument first.


I accept your challenge.

The age of consent shouldn't be eliminated because....

1) Many girls below the age of 12 can get pregnant but be fully unaware of the consquences of sex.

2) Many little kids don't even know what sex is when they consent to it.

3) Many kids are unaware of the consquences of unprotected sex.

4) Child molestation can damage a person as they get older.

I really can't believe I am debating this.
Debate Round No. 1


1) True, but many girls over the age of twelve (or any age of consent) can get pregnant without being fully aware of the consequences of sex.

2) It's true that currently many young people are not fully aware of what sex is. But this would change should young people legally be permitted to have sex. Sexual education efforts would have reason to aim towards people who gain the right to give legal consent.

3) Well of course. Many people, in general, are unaware of the consequences of unprotected sex. I'm not trying to assign young people superhuman powers here.

4) There is a difference between child molestation and consensual sex. I'm not trying to defend molesters, I just don't want someone who has consensual sex to be grouped with molesters! There have been many situations in which two people have consensual sex, but, because one of them is legally considered too young, the other is sent to prison and placed on the sex offenders registry for life (in one case, they were murdered by a vigilante). This decreases the reliability and perception of such registries.


1) Now we know that some people are too young to even be educated on sex and protection. Something makes me doubt anybody will teach a three year old about sex. Or for that matter a three year old can interpret what a person is saying.

2) Molestation doesn't always have to be about rape. A two year old will likely consent to his or her father and mother. It is not considered rape although it is completely wrong.

I personally am not against changing the registry system. I personally think registering is wrong. You went to prison and did your time already. If they have a problem with sexual offenders after prison than make them spend more time in prison. I think the age of consent should be lowered and revised so a 18 year old doesn't go to prison for having sex with a 16 year old. Of course I am just arguing with you because I think there still should be some age of consent.
Debate Round No. 2


1) "Too young", however, changed with individuals, and shouldn't be dictated across an entire jurisdiction based upon chronological age. We should not force everyone to conform to the lowest common denominator. (As to your statement that anybody would teach a three-year-old, you're currently right-- but only because there's no reason to (and they'd likely be accused of being a p´┐Żdophile.)

2) You're making moral judgements now, though. If it's consensual, it should be legal, even if you find it distasteful.

3) Even if the sex offenders registry were eliminated, there would still be the concern of prison violence. Other inmates would only be told that their new companion was a "child molester", with no explanation given. They would likely not have time to explain themselves.


grayron forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my opponent's account no longer exists, please consider this a three-round debate (ignore rounds four and five).


grayron forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Again, please consider this to be a three-round debate.


grayron forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
Right, and that's understandable. However, you have similar emotions and development being a boy that's 18 as a girl that's 16. That's why they say females are matured by 18 and males by 21. Plus, you can't just say it's wrong because it's a law[....] there are plenty of laws that aren't just and there are many more that people can argue aren't just.

22 and 80 is WAAAAY different than 18 and 16. 18 and 16 is basically a senior in high school dating a second semester sophomore or a first semester junior....You really think it's wrong for a senior and a junior to date, get serious, and have sex?
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
The 'age of consent' law is there to protect young people from being manipulated BECAUSE they are not yet fully developed emotionally. This is exactly what sexual offenders take advantage of, this immaturity, hence the law.
Posted by runningdeergv 7 years ago
if there is nothing inherently wrong with a sixteen year old girl having sex why is it different if the person she is having sex with is eighteen or fifty (just like a twenty two year old and an eighty year old. it is obvious that sex at sixteen is wrong and there should be a law against
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
"age of consent" DEFINATELY shouldn't be eliminated...however it should DEFINATELY be revised to where an 18 year old goes to jail for a 16 year old and Maybe let high schoolers not be affected by this law?
Posted by asyetundefined 7 years ago
This argument FAR transcends mere legality such as prostitution or marijuana - it is a paramount ethical issue. Thus Kleptin is wrong in stating PRO can easily win.
Sex is about mutual consent and intentionality, things of which a moral-patient (ie: child, mentally-deficient person) is probably incapable of fully achieving; age of consent (perhaps just as a social-imposition) is necessary.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Pro can win this one very easily, I think. It's a standard legalize&regulate debate, like prostitution and marijuana.
Posted by maxh 7 years ago
Yeah, I looked at his debate history. He has said "[i]t is my belief that school uniforms greatly increase the attractiveness of females in school." I'll go with him hoping for a lower AoC for less-than-savoury reasons.

I point out to him that this would not legalise rape.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Maxh, he wasn't using it as an ad hominem. This is what he meant:
Posted by maxh 7 years ago
LOL, ASCII pedobear. One of my favourite ad hominems.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
You're not a consistent libertarian, sorry :).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lazy 7 years ago
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