This House Supports Teen Dating*!
Resolved: 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*
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
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
Back to Con!
Ajabi forfeited this round.
Ajabi forfeited this round.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|