The Instigator
thebestdebater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InsertNameHere
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

There should be curfews for minors under the age of 18

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 1 vote the winner is...
InsertNameHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,511 times Debate No: 25643
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

thebestdebater

Con

I am arguing against chid curfews, for children who are under the age of 18. The arguing will begin in Round 2. I thank my opponent in advance.
InsertNameHere

Pro

I thank my opponent for setting up this debate. I will obviously be arguing in favour of a child curfew. Good luck to us both!
Debate Round No. 1
thebestdebater

Con

1. Curfews are counterproductive

A curfew would be completely counterproductive. If a minor is seen walking on the streets one day, past the curfew time, they will immediately be arrested. Immediately, these children will be sent into a psychological state, in which they view themselves as criminals. They will no longer view themselves as a good citizen who follows the law, but instead, as a harm to society. A study from the University of Berkeley has proven that when children are in this psychological state, they will keep committing crimes, thinking to themselves, "Hey, I'm already a criminal, so why not?" This will in fact lead to more juvenile crimes, and a greater harm to society.

2. Ineffective: Child curfews are ineffective in helping anybody. For simply, being outside, children could give up their whole future. With a criminal record, children will not be able to get into good universities, and will not be able to get a good job. Even with outstanding marks, a child will not be admitted into a good university, as, universities will view them as a security threat. For what? For simply being out in the public. Not only will this ruin the future of a child, but it will also decrease their self-confidence. Making them weak, vulnerable, and not useful in society. Instead of saving children, a curfew will in fact hurt children. There are many minors who work night shifts, as they have school during the day, so that they can support themselves, and/or their families. With a curfew, the government would not be allowing many minors to earn money, and be able to live a good life.

Child curfews would also be ineffective in taking juvenile offenders off the streets at night. A study by Stats Canada has proven that the majority of crimes done by children have taken place from 3-8, when the children are done school, and their parents are not home yet. Juvenile offenders do not go out at night. Even for the very few who do commit crimes at night, they are trouble-makers, and they are criminals. A simple curfew is not going to stop a criminal from committing a crime. Robbing a bank is illegal. Does that mean that robbers will not still go and rob the bank? No! They will still rob the bank, attempting to get away with it.

Child curfews would be ineffective and counterproductive.
InsertNameHere

Pro

Thank you thebestdebater for a quick response.

My opponent mentions that child offenders are sent into a psychological state where they view themselves as criminals. This has not been cited so how often does this actually happen and does it have a permanent affect?

Secondly, my opponent mentions that having a criminal record prevents a child from getting to a good university. However, once a child reaches the age of majority all such records are cleared so would have no effect anyway. Breaking a curfew is a minor crime so would definitely be cleared. Assuming such records did stay wouldn't that just provide incentive NOT to break curfew? It's also true that some minors may work night shift, but surely in such cases curfews wouldn't apply anyway? Work is quite a different circumstance from roaming the streets for recreation.

Again, my opponent provides no proof for his claim that most juvenile offenders commit crimes from 3-8. However, assuming this is true he seems to be missing the fact that there's also more people around at that time to see things occur, thus they're more likely to be reported.

Debate Round No. 2
thebestdebater

Con

thebestdebater forfeited this round.
InsertNameHere

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited this round. Good luck to us both in the next!
Debate Round No. 3
thebestdebater

Con

thebestdebater forfeited this round.
InsertNameHere

Pro

Another forfeit... :/
Debate Round No. 4
thebestdebater

Con

thebestdebater forfeited this round.
InsertNameHere

Pro

Thanks anyway for giving me a good first round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
loll.
what it means when peoples forfeit.
and even delete their account.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
thebestdebaterInsertNameHereTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.