The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
scissorhands7
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

The optional age restriction.

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 4 votes the winner is...
scissorhands7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,388 times Debate No: 5493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Okay, so a few days ago, I checked the comments section, and lo and behold, I saw just the debate I was looking for. I quickly clicked on the hyperlink, only to discover that, to my dismay, I was too young to debate this topic. Now, pondered changing my profile age to 100, but I felt that would be dishonest, and against the wishes of the instigator, so I didn't.

But, it taught me an important lesson: Age restrictions suck. Obviously the intent, that is, to prevent immature debaters from accepting (aguaunodostres) is certainly beneficial, but it prevents other debaters who are mature, and who won't triple forfeit from accepting. I believe the debate started was started by one brittwaller, a very good debater, and we could have had a very exciting debate. However, as I was too young we did not have that debate.

Furthermore, many "adult" debaters on this site could be more mature in their argumentation. I am not mentioning any names, nor am I implying that I have that opinion of anybody here, but often even the older debaters get immature.

The rank option is probably sufficient if one wishes to avoid immature debaters, and could possibly be extended to include anyone ranked higher, or ranked no more than x ranks below you.

Oh yeah, only people older than me can accept this debate, this sort of helps me prove my point, and it asks debaters that use this age restriction to defend their usage of it.
scissorhands7

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate and would like to keep this debate as free from personal opinion and hearsay as possible.

My opponent brings up several points which I shall, in turn, negate.

1. Age Restrictions "suck"
2. Older debaters are frequently as immature if not more immature than younger debaters
3. In order to avoid immature debaters the rank option is sufficient.

A. Age restriction on this debate site is to allow other debaters the choice of what category of debaters they would like to debate. The age restriction is not mandatory, it simply provides debaters with another choice.

B.
1. I agree with my opponent that older debaters can also be as mature as younger debaters, however the age restriction focuses more on experience rather than maturity. I know my opponents argument would be that some younger debaters are more experienced than older debaters, however in many points this is not the case. Yes there are exceptions and that is why the age restriction is optional, not mandatory. Also if the person being restricted from debating were to send the person offering the debate a personal message, than in most cases I'm sure the debater being challenged would extend another debate from the debater that is being restricted age-wise. If in some cases the debater were to ignore the challenge than it should be obvious that its the debaters choice not to debate this person.

2. Also a humans brain is not fully developed with rational decision making skills until the person reaches the age of 23. Therefore it is understandable that debaters with the fully developed brain capacity would not want to have an unfair advantage.

C. In most cases this statement would be correct, however:
1. Experience on this site may not be relevant if a person has a majority of outside experience. Although there are some exceptions, for the most part, the older you are the more experience you have debating. In these cases you are more likely to find a more experienced debater and avoid younger inexperienced ones by implementing an age restriction.
2. Also if it is shown that a debater has much experience but cannot debate a member simply due to age, a personal message requesting to debate the person will in most cases obtain your admittance, if it doesn't than the person in question would obviously not want to debate the younger opponent.
3. Additionally factoring in the more recent developments of this site, it is understandable that one would not want to debate an opponent who is involved in immature practices. Although not wanting to bring in outside personal issues, I think it only relevant to the "maturity" issue of this debate to note that some of its younger members have been involved in immature practices none of which I care to go into detail about.

I would like to thank my opponent for his rousing debate subject and would like to send him my warmest regards. I eagerly await his response to my primary rebuttal and hope that we can steer this debate away from any snide personal comments and keep this debate as factual and as clean as possible.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"A. Age restriction on this debate site is to allow other debaters the choice of what category of debaters they would like to debate. The age restriction is not mandatory, it simply provides debaters with another choice."

I am arguing it's not necessary and counterintuitive.

"1. I agree with my opponent that older debaters can also be as mature as younger debaters, however the age restriction focuses more on experience rather than maturity. I know my opponents argument would be that some younger debaters are more experienced than older debaters, however in many points this is not the case. Yes there are exceptions and that is why the age restriction is optional, not mandatory. Also if the person being restricted from debating were to send the person offering the debate a personal message, than in most cases I'm sure the debater being challenged would extend another debate from the debater that is being restricted age-wise. If in some cases the debater were to ignore the challenge than it should be obvious that its the debaters choice not to debate this person."

Define experience. If you mean experience in life affairs, I fear you are making an illogical point. Experience can be supplemented with knowledge. For example, I have no experiences on Mars, but I have quite a bit of knowledge about Mars. Younger as well as older debaters can get this experience.

"2. Also a humans brain is not fully developed with rational decision making skills until the person reaches the age of 23. Therefore it is understandable that debaters with the fully developed brain capacity would not want to have an unfair advantage."

Note that the top percentile of debaters includes almost exclusively people under the age limit.

"1. Experience on this site may not be relevant if a person has a majority of outside experience. Although there are some exceptions, for the most part, the older you are the more experience you have debating. In these cases you are more likely to find a more experienced debater and avoid younger inexperienced ones by implementing an age restriction."

Debate experience can mean a number of things. For example, I am on a formal high school debate team. By definition I have much more experience in formal debating than any adult who has never formally debated. However, if you mean dinner party discussions, I would like to point out that these aren't really debates so much as talking. Debating requires preparation, research, and often leaving one's own views behind. So you see, debate experience can mean numerous things.

"2. Also if it is shown that a debater has much experience but cannot debate a member simply due to age, a personal message requesting to debate the person will in most cases obtain your admittance, if it doesn't than the person in question would obviously not want to debate the younger opponent."

Ah, yes, that is true. Also, the younger debater could lie about his or her age. However, this restriction still discourages younger debaters from debating such subjects.

"3. Additionally factoring in the more recent developments of this site, it is understandable that one would not want to debate an opponent who is involved in immature practices. Although not wanting to bring in outside personal issues, I think it only relevant to the "maturity" issue of this debate to note that some of its younger members have been involved in immature practices none of which I care to go into detail about."

Adult members have been involved as well in controversial issues regarding maturity. One exclude them.

A final point: If one is concerned about getting a quality, mature partner, one can simply challenge a member that meets their criteria.
scissorhands7

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his thoughtful rebuttal and would like now to address and readdress some points.

I'm apologize for incorrectly perceiving the true resolution of this debate, I would like to state for the readers that it was never clearly stated.

1. I'm sorry I did not provide enough clarity with my example. When I state experience I mean that older debaters coming to this site generally have a large amount of prior experience debating. And I do not mean table-talk. Your average Joe (as of now) does not debate on debate.org. This is opinionated, but in some degree logical. Most everyone participating in debates on this site has at least some debate experience outside this site. Yes it is possible that someone who has no debate experience gets on, but for the majority of members, outside debate experience is prevalent. Additionally many of the older debaters (as reason suggests) have more debate experience (high school debate, college debate, professional debate, online debate, etc.) than perhaps extremely young debaters.

In regards to the top percentile of debaters on this site being under the age limit:

As I have previously stated that during those years the human brain is developing. My opponent by his non-negation of this topic has conceded the evidence of it. Additionally, since the human brain is developing, it stands to reason that a 18 year old brain is more fully developed than a 15 year old brain. This comparison can be extended for all ages under the age of 23. Thus it can stand to reason why a person the age of 18 would like to have the choice of whether to debate a person with a brain that is more underdeveloped than his.

This is evidence enough of why an age restriction, though not necessary, is beneficial for the debaters who so choose to use it.

2. My opponent has conceded the logicality of such an action.
However my opponent suggests that sending a speedy message is "discouraging" in the eyes of younger members.
As I can not speak of the opinions and beliefs of younger debaters, I can state that sending a speedy message took less than 30 seconds of my personal time.

3. I will refrain from further expressing my opinions on this final point as it would only resort to trolling. As I would like to keep this debate, a debate and not a shouting match, I will refrain from commenting.

4. "one can simply challenge a member that meets their criteria."

That is an exactly a true statement supporting my position. My opponent has suggested that the option allowing a person to choose who they debate is a positive quality of this site. Therefore my opponent has conceded that the age restriction is a positive option of this site.

Although my opponent has advocated manually choosing the partner in which to debate, this accomplishes the same task. The person who would be specifically choosing who they are debating (age-wise) if they so desire.

Since the age restriction is an optional measure of this site, and manually choosing a debater based on age is an optional measure of this site, then you can logically equate my opponent advocating of manually choosing a debater based off of age "their criteria" with the optional facility of choosing a pool of debaters based on age.

I hope this logic has made sense.

To sum up the argument so far (and I would like to apologize to readers for its lack of factual evidence)

My opponent has conceded
1. Up until the age of 23 the human mind is not fully developed, and therefore a debater over the age of 23 would have an unfair advantage over a child at the age of 15.
2. Sending a message in most cases will resolve the age problem
3. The ability to choose who you debate based off your "own criteria" is a positive quality of this site and indirectly that the age restriction which is also optional, is a positive measure.

Therefore I have negated my opponents resolutions that

1. Age restrictions "suck"
2. The restriction of a mature debater who is under the age restriction cannot be resolved.

I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal and look forward to his closing arguments and final round.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"1. I'm sorry I did not provide enough clarity with my example. When I state experience I mean that older debaters coming to this site generally have a large amount of prior experience debating. And I do not mean table-talk. Your average Joe (as of now) does not debate on debate.org. This is opinionated, but in some degree logical. Most everyone participating in debates on this site has at least some debate experience outside this site. Yes it is possible that someone who has no debate experience gets on, but for the majority of members, outside debate experience is prevalent. Additionally many of the older debaters (as reason suggests) have more debate experience (high school debate, college debate, professional debate, online debate, etc.) than perhaps extremely young debaters."

Extremely young debaters, that is those who cannot have any prior experience, aren't even supposed to join. The youngest age you can list is 14. Furthermore, most adults have not had any formal experience recently. Besides policy think tank members, college students, and recent college graduates, most are probably pretty rusty on making an argument. Those in high school and college debate have more current experience.

"As I have previously stated that during those years the human brain is developing. My opponent by his non-negation of this topic has conceded the evidence of it. Additionally, since the human brain is developing, it stands to reason that a 18 year old brain is more fully developed than a 15 year old brain. This comparison can be extended for all ages under the age of 23. Thus it can stand to reason why a person the age of 18 would like to have the choice of whether to debate a person with a brain that is more underdeveloped than his."

I agree, that the brain does not finish developing until 23. However, it is a non sequitur that an older person will always be more rational. For example, many of the great philosophers were experts in logic by the age of 12. John Stuart Mill had written something like 5 treatises in logic by the time he was twelve. So the advantage only occurs if the child has equal of less potential than the adult.

"However my opponent suggests that sending a speedy message is "discouraging" in the eyes of younger members.
As I can not speak of the opinions and beliefs of younger debaters, I can state that sending a speedy message took less than 30 seconds of my personal time."

It is discouraging. It says, as a general statement, that this debater doesn't want to debate you. Although this might not be true, that's what it seems like.

"3. I will refrain from further expressing my opinions on this final point as it would only resort to trolling. As I would like to keep this debate, a debate and not a shouting match, I will refrain from commenting."

Of course, let's just not mention it.

"That is an exactly a true statement supporting my position. My opponent has suggested that the option allowing a person to choose who they debate is a positive quality of this site. Therefore my opponent has conceded that the age restriction is a positive option of this site."

Different. The age restriction makes broad and often incorrect generalizations. The specific challenge feature does not.

"3. The ability to choose who you debate based off your "own criteria" is a positive quality of this site and indirectly that the age restriction which is also optional, is a positive measure."

Generalizations=stereotypes=negative

I strongly affirm. I thank my opponent for his opinions.
scissorhands7

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his meaningful rebuttal and would like to summarize the debate and my points.

1. Is my opponent suggesting that it is impossible for member who were actively involved in debates throughout high school and college, to continue debating online and in other formal arenas?
One does not "lose the ability to debate" it is similar to riding a bicycle. You may get rusty, however most of the older debaters on this site have since "got back into shape" so to speak.

2. I never stated that it applied to everyone. However it is logically obvious that a majority will be.

3. Taking personal offense from having to send a message is only opinionated and includes no logic.

4. My statement was only a simple inference through logic, not a generalization.

So Far I would like to sum up the debate in context for the voters:

1. My opponent never posted a specific resolution for me to refute. By this measure alone you should vote PRO.

My opponent has conceded
Below I will post the points my opponent has conceded and under those points I will post his quotations affirming the conceded points.

2. Up until the age of 23 the human mind is not fully developed, and therefore a debater over the age of 23 would have an unfair advantage over a child at the age of 15.

"I agree, that the brain does not finish developing until 23. "

3. Sending a message in most cases will resolve the age problem

"Ah, yes, that is true."

4. The ability to choose who you debate based off your "own criteria" is a positive quality of this site and indirectly that the age restriction which is also optional, is a positive measure

"If one is concerned about getting a quality, mature partner, one can simply challenge a member that meets their criteria."

Since my opponent has made no clear resolution in any of his rounds, and since the points he made in his primary post and in additional points have all been refuted by me and conceded by opponent. I urge you to vote Pro.

I would like to ask the voters on this debate to vote for who had the better arguments and who won in terms of the debate and not for outside reasons like agreeing with my opponents viewpoint before reading the debate.

I would like to end by thanking my opponent for his clever arguments and good manners. I would also like to thank the voters for taking the time to read this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Yes I was.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
What the eff? Why did I win? I mean, I like winning, but I lost this debate, yet, I am ahead thirty points. Was scissors really bombed that bad?
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Robert: Voting as a Cleaner

Conduct: PRO

Neither debater conducted personal attacks against the other. However, scissorhands7 made the effort to thank his opponent at both the beginning and end of his each round.

Spelling and Grammar: Tie

Spellcheck.net showed neither debaters made any huge mistakes and neither made more minor ones then the other really.

Convincing Arguments: PRO

I thought PRO's points stood better in the end compared to CON's. PRO was successfully able to refute all his opponent's arguments.

Reliable Sources: Tie

No sources on either side, so obviously nobody gets the points.

So therefore, a slight victory for PRO.

Great debate by both sides however, and thank you for making such a interesting debate.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Joe: Voting as a Cleaner

Conduct - PRO - Both debaters refrained from personal attacks, which is good, but scissorhands7 made the effort to thank his opponent and the audience. scissorshands7 also apologized for his lack of sources.

Spelling and grammar - TIE - A quick copy+paste into Microsoft Word shows both debaters made minor grammar errors. Nothing big though.

Convincing arguments - PRO - This was close, but scissorhands7 wins slightly here. He was able to refute all his opponent's arguments and was able to defend his arguments slightly better.

Reliable sources - TIE - No sources on either side.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
so what exactly are you proposing to debate?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
LR4N6FTW4EVAscissorhands7Tied
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:04 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
LR4N6FTW4EVAscissorhands7Tied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
LR4N6FTW4EVAscissorhands7Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LR4N6FTW4EVAscissorhands7Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04