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

This House Supports Teen Dating*!

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/4/2014 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,536 times Debate No: 64550
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (3)




Shalom Alecium!

This House Supports Teen Dating*!

*Here it is implied that this is more than just a romantic relationship, there is some form of sexual contact such as kissing, close hugging, fondling, et cetera. Holding hands, or lightly hugging will not be counted as sexual activity. Even a light kiss may be counted as sexual activity.

1. My opponent will start immediately, and will only write 'no round as agreed upon' or something similar in the last round.
2. The first argument rounds are for positive material only.

This debate should focus on whether erotic relationships should be held by teenagers. Anything from kissing to sexual contact counts.



It’s about time I finally got a debate in with Ajab! Before I start I must say, I have never had such an annoying time researching for a debate topic, having to sieve through pages and pages of teenage dating websites which contaminated the search results. *Sigh*


Terms weren’t specified by Con, I assume that ‘support’ is to advocate, and that this would be a global value of society. What we advocate for will of course depend on the individual values that are held, and I will be arguing that teen dating (Dating, as defined by Con, for 13-19 year olds) is in accordance with these.

I will determine the values of society via. the criterion of a form of ‘communal’ egoism, which depicts that the self-interest of the summative members of society determines that is good, which within the definitions of egoism is synonymous with the values of society. Hence what maximizes self-interest of society is this house’s ultimate value.

=Aff Case=

Contention 1 – Dating is pleasurable/positive

This cannot be understated, dating and all its associated acts are significant sources of pleasure for the related parties up to and including sexual intercourse. Our anatomy is built for reproduction, and the process of dating triggers hormonal releases that drive the process. Given that dating is clearly valued by society for its blunt pleasure/happiness inducing effects, it lends strongly to the resolution that we should generally support dating in general given all other factors are equal.

Of course, all other factors are not equal, and contrary to Con’s stance, these factors actually lend support to affirming the resolution (more on this later). Sarah Sorensen affirms it has been shown that early romantic relationships (teenage dating) are a tool for development of Identity and Interpersonal Skills, as well as providing emotional support for the parties involved. As children need to become autonomous from their parents, a romantic relationship can provide emotional support independent of existing family ties.[1]

Moreover dating also plays an important role in the social status of teens with their peers, earning respect and a public demonstration of their attractiveness which also positively affects a teen’s self-esteem.[3]

Contention 2 - Moderate Dating is Harmless To Education

A comprehensive study with a sample of over 9,000 12-16 year olds summates:

“While dating overall had very little impact on educational outcomes, dating frequency and the involvement of early sexual activities did appear to matter. Interestingly, moderate dating did not show any impact on high school graduation, but showed a positive impact on college enrollment compared to non-daters. However, serious dating, consisting of early sexual intercourse and a high dating frequency, showed a significant negative impact.”[2]

Note that “serious dating” involves sex at a very early age (13 or earlier), or excessive levels which are applicable to essentially any pleasurable activity taken in excess. This is what I am advocating in this debate, measured teen dating which may include sexual activity. To which the review affirms:

“On the other hand, moderate dating may be beneficial because it does not take away too much time from studying, and the time taken away might be necessary for the students to develop social skills (e.g., interpersonal skills, or skills in coping with relatively complex relationships).”[2]

Contention 3 – Within General Self-Interest of Teens

This is rather trivial to demonstrate, given that three in four people ages 16-18 have reported to having has a relationship/dated, and half had had a serious relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend.[1] If teenage dating was not desirable among youths, we would expect to see significantly lower levels of such to occur.

Furthermore, for teens that do date, it is within their own volition, and does not directly affect parties not involved, and prima facie does not affect the rights of others in any conceivable way. Given this, the only objections that would be relevant are those that involve only the teenage parties involved, it would have to be for their ‘greater self-interest’ for teenage dating not to be a powerful value.

If they value a romantic relationship (which indeed would involve kissing etc.), and it doesn’t impinge on the values of others in any meaningful way, then why should this house not support it?

Contention 4 – Within General Self-Interest of Society

I will make the stronger case that all of society should value teenage dating. The reason for this is we desire a mature work-force, and we clearly value renewing our population and next-generation. By supporting teenage dating we in turn also support having a more emotionally experienced next-generation. The experience of early dating would leave them better equipped for the emotional turmoils later life will bring, including later relationships, childbirth, family problems, etc.[4]

Also stemming from contention 3, if the values of society are at least partially influenced by the values of the individual, which is a very reasonable assumption, then contention 3 goes some significant way into affirming this one.


Con will need to bring a strong, positive case for affirming that teenage dating is not just slightly, but *significantly* against the values of society. I simply do not see how Con can accomplish this but I will leave that to him. Dating is an activity which brings enormous physical and emotional pleasure for the parties involved, and doesn’t have violate the rights of others, nor significantly impacts other factors, such as education.

Given this, on balance this house supports teenage dating.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
Debate Round No. 1


Shalom Alecium!

I thank Envisage for accepting this debate!


This is a rather important issue which I feel has been neglected in recent years. I did not specify the terms because I wanted to give the Proposition its right.

To begin lets discuss the burden of proof: in this resolution the onus rests entirely on Envisage. It is he who is affirming the resolution, and supporting to show that teen dating has a high productivity. In the end this is what this debate will boil down to, Envisage has to show that teen dating has a high productivity and should be supported while I only need to show that this is not always the case.

In this debate I will be providing citations by their reference names. Studies are given specific names, usually it is the name of the chief author, followed by the year. If anyone wants the full name they can Google the reference name, or ask me and I can send them a private message.

I think that one part of the resolution my opponent absolutely ignored is the part of the "terms and conditions". Here it was made clear that teen dating will include, for the purpose of this debate, some sort of sexual/erotic action. I define this as sexual stimuli will be a part of the transactional stimuli exchanged by the two parties. This ranges from kissing, to engaging in coitus.

I will lastly, as per the rules, only use this round for positive material.

The Psychological Harm

There is much for which we should thank Eric Berne, and Levi-Strauss. One of these is the Cost-Benefit Matrix Social Theory. This theory states that all human actions are fundamentally ruled by certain analysis that the human brain does. We are good because it makes us feel good about ourselves, gives us a sense of superiority, or gains us stimuli.

Similarly we do acts, especially in adolescense based on this form of theory. In the case of sexual activity in teenagers let us base it on a risk factor (Werner, and Smith 1982). A risk factor is a certain condition which increases the chance of teenagers engaging in sexual activity.

"Among girls with no risk factor it was found that only 1% engaged in sexual activity, in comparison to 22% of those with two risk factors, 50% with those who had four, and 86% with those with 8 or more risk factors." (S. Small, and T. Luster 1994)

The most common risk factor for girls was a lack of a male parental figure, while in males it was having an absusive or negligent mother figure. (O' Beirne 1994) Other common risk factors were poverty, popularity sensitivity (a condition where popular people seem to be trapped in the norms which they thought they made), low self-esteem, difficulty in school, and lack of close friends. These studies used 2100, and 2200 teenagers of all backgrounds (hetero/homo/black/white/hispanic etc.).

In fact t



Thanks Con.

=Con’s Framing=

Con has attempted to frame the debate in terms of productivity, which strongly implies the following argument:

P1) This house should support Teen Dating if and only if (iff) Teen Dating is Productive

P2) Teen Dating is unproductive

C) This house should not support Teen Dating

The biggest problem with this is the key term ‘productive’ has been left undefined by Con, thus has been left ambiguous as to what would qualify as ‘productive’. It could imply financial benefit, economical benefit, emotional benefit, etc. Therefore under this ambiguous definition, it can be easily conceived that each of my 4 contentions would qualify as ‘productive’ *EVEN IF* we accepted the presupposition within premise 1.

However I would also like to challenge the assumed premise 1, of which some variation Con MUST affirm in order for his arguments to be valid, so failing to support this means all his arguments collapse.

Why should we support teen dating if and only if it is productive> A very straightforward counterpoint is when arguing for human rights, it can easily be argued that certain actions within human rights are not for the overall benefit of society (or productive) for example free speech, but still be supported nonetheless. That is because we value having autonomy over our speech over the unproductive, or negatively productive consequences that free speech may entail.

Similarly, even if teen dating was unproductive, or negatively productive, we still have grounds to support it as it grants teens autonomy over their choices, and autonomy to being able to act on their thoughts, emotions, and will. The only grounds upon which we probably should not support certain actions is if the negative consequences (be is productivity, or whatever) strongly outweighs the implications of reduced autonomy or increased constraint on the populus

=Neg Case=

The Psychological Harm

Con has yet to present any arguments here. Hence I will wait for Con to provide them next round.

Back to Con!

Debate Round No. 2


Ajabi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Ajabi forfeited this round.


Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ajabi 1 year ago
Sorry Shaun
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
What the hell happened, did Ajabi die or something
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
He said he will be away for 2 weeks.....
Posted by sabrin100 1 year ago
Did Con manage to finish his debate ?
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Ok... I will wait
Posted by Ajabi 1 year ago
Sorry Shaun as I said I had family stuff. If you want you can extend, or wait and I'll send it to you tomorrow. Its 12 13 here and Im dead.

If you want I can concede this debate and we can copy/paste our rounds in a new debate.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Got the first part of my rebuttal done... now just awaiting the rest of your argument....
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Fail. Never write directly into DDO.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF & unrefuted arguments
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited 2 rounds.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: ff