The Instigator
RacH3ll3
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
DATCMOTO
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

people under the age of sixteen should have thier own debating site, instead of this one

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 5 votes the winner is...
RacH3ll3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,825 times Debate No: 8336
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

RacH3ll3

Con

hello :). We were talking about this in one of the threads of the forum, so I decided to debate you against this.

---DEFINITIONS---

people under the age of sixteen-(sixteen and under)
should have thier own debating site- (one exclusively for them)
instead of this one-(Debate.org)

I am con, arguing that they shouldn't.

-----
I will let you state your reasons, and I will post my arguments in round two.

thank you DAT. :)
DATCMOTO

Pro

OK, As Rach3ll3 has stated this started off from some comments on one of the forums.
These comments were made in the wake of I-Am-A-Pandas banning from DDO.
I must state that this is not something I feel particularly strongly about either way BUT I thought it would be fun to explore and for me personally to debate something other than our impending Eternal Judgement. ;D

To begin.
If debate.org (hereby known as DDO) were to be split between over 16s (hereby O16) and under 16s (hereby U16) users it would:

(1) give the U16s the chance to 'cut their teeth' as it were, with people their own age, a chance to grow in confidence and, more importantly, maturity.

(2) Protect the O16s from the worst elements of the U16s. Although it's not always the U16s who cause trouble they do tend to enable others to act with less maturity than they otherwise would.

(3) The O16 site could vet membership by examining the U16s record, another reason for them to learn to behave themselves etc.

That'll do for now.
Debate Round No. 1
RacH3ll3

Con

Thank you :) and this debate is mostly just for fun.

"(1) give the U16s the chance to 'cut their teeth' as it were, with people their own age, a chance to grow in confidence and, more importantly, maturity"
Being around "immature" people would make them mature? I think being around older adults makes kids more mature.

"(2) Protect the O16s from the worst elements of the U16s. Although it's not always the U16s who cause trouble they do tend to enable others to act with less maturity than they otherwise would."
There are some O16s who are just as immature, or worse, on this site. It would not get rid of all of the immature people.

"(3) The O16 site could vet membership by examining the U16s record, another reason for them to learn to behave themselves etc"
The U16s could 'behave' until they were a part of the O16 site. Then, once they were on the O16 site, they could "misbehave".

----

Let me just say a few points:

PoeJoe, is fifteen. http://www.debate.org...
Yet he has a fansite up, and he has helped a lot with the website.
{website} http://debatefans.com...
We probably wouldn't have the fansite if he was on the U16 site.

This is why not all of U16s should be on a different site.
Thank you :)
DATCMOTO

Pro

Being around "immature" people would make them mature? I think being around older adults makes kids more mature."

This has not proved to be the case. Because of the nature of the internet, social etiquette (including respect for elders, and profane language etc) can be by-passed without fear of consequence. In short, I believe us 'oldies' (I'm 38) pay the price for a lot of pent up aggression and angst from schools etc. They get away with it because 'they can'.

"There are some O16s who are just as immature, or worse, on this site. It would not get rid of all of the immature people."

Let us use another example: Alcohol.
We prohibit the use of alcohol for anyone under 18 in Britain (21 in the States right?) I am sure there are many many people under the age of 18 who could and do use alcohol sensibly. I know from experience that there are many many people over the age of 18 who do not use alcohol sensibly.
Neither of these facts negate the fact that we have to draw the line somewhere.
At debate.org we have no line at all, with often horrible consequences.

"The U16s could 'behave' until they were a part of the O16 site. Then, once they were on the O16 site, they could 'misbehave'."

True, but then we could send them straight back. (the 'humiliation' adding a punishment element)

"We probably wouldn't have the fansite if he was on the U16 site."

I'm not a fan of the site, but I think my 'draw the line somewhere' argument pretty much answers this.

Hey, maybe this is turning into a 'real' debate after all!

One more thing, I would actually prefer an over 18s site.
VOTE PRO: get rid of the kids!
Debate Round No. 2
RacH3ll3

Con

Thank you :)

"This has not proved to be the case. Because of the nature of the internet, social etiquette (including respect for elders, and profane language etc) can be by-passed without fear of consequence. In short, I believe us 'oldies' (I'm 38) pay the price for a lot of pent up aggression and angst from schools etc. They get away with it because 'they can'."

I think the main reason people act this way (profane language, etc.) is because they are not seeing or talking to these people in person, and they know they can get away with pretty much saying anything. Yes, some of this is teenagers, but you have to admit, there are some 'silly' adults out there who act just like a junior high student. (By the way, 38 isn't that old) :)

"Let us use another example: Alcohol.
We prohibit the use of alcohol for anyone under 18 in Britain (21 in the States right?) I am sure there are many many people under the age of 18 who could and do use alcohol sensibly. I know from experience that there are many many people over the age of 18 who do not use alcohol sensibly.
Neither of these facts negate the fact that we have to draw the line somewhere.
At debate.org we have no line at all, with often horrible consequences"

Agreed, we should have some line drawn, but not over age. Maybe they can have a period (say, a couple months) to prove that they are immature enough to stay here. This would be better than banning everybody.

"True, but then we could send them straight back. (the 'humiliation' adding a punishment element"

But what about the people on the u16 site who do not like that person, and they are only, say, 14? They would have to put up with the immature person another year.

"One more thing, I would actually prefer an over 18s site"

Awww...but I just turned seventeen today, I still have to wait another year?

---

There are 3,062 members under sixteen. 94 of these members have been recently online. This means a little under 3,000 are inactive or just haven't been on in the last 72 hours.
http://www.debate.org...
There are 9,299 members above sixteen. 135 of these have been online recently. This means a little over 9,000 members above sixteen haven't been on in the last 72 hours.
http://www.debate.org...

*This was, of course, as I was writing this. Numbers change daily.

That being said, you can see that even though the majority goes to O16's, there is a large amount that are U16. This site would lose alot of it's members. About 1/4 of them, actually.

Also, what about the debates that the U16s were in? Would they be transfered? And if so, wouldn't that take alot of time?

Thank you this was a fun (and original) debate.

Can I please ask the voters to give RFD's Thank you.
DATCMOTO

Pro

"I think the main reason people act this way (profane language, etc.) is because they are not seeing or talking to these people in person, and they know they can get away with pretty much saying anything. Yes, some of this is teenagers, but you have to admit, there are some 'silly' adults out there who act just like a junior high student. (By the way, 38 isn't that old) :)"

>Here my opponent has all but conceded the point by first agreeing with me (that the 'faceless' nature of internet communication is partly responsible) and then by falling back on her 'but adults do it too' argument.
And.. just for the record, I KNOW 38 is not old.. I was being sardonic.

"Agreed, we should have some line drawn, but not over age. Maybe they can have a period (say, a couple months) to prove that they are immature enough to stay here. This would be better than banning everybody."

>But then, as you previously stated yourself, people could (and would) simply behave themselves for the probationary period until they got their foot in the door.

"But what about the people on the u16 site who do not like that person, and they are only, say, 14? They would have to put up with the immature person another year."

>Better them than than us!

"Awww...but I just turned seventeen today, I still have to wait another year?"

>Not if you win this debate.. if you lose you must set a good example and be the first to leave. ;)

"This was, of course, as I was writing this. Numbers change daily.
That being said, you can see that even though the majority goes to O16's, there is a large amount that are U16. This site would lose alot of it's members. About 1/4 of them, actually."

>Good, more space for us and the influx of the new and, I would hope, better class of debaters, attracted by the new mature and scholarly atmosphere.
Can you imagine what people think when browsing some of the forums? HOW many potential new members have AnimeFanTony, usakid and BigMac and many others like them scared away with their puerile antics?

"Also, what about the debates that the U16s were in? Would they be transfered? And if so, wouldn't that take alot of time?"

>Yes it would be a lot of time and trouble.. But anything of value always is.

>>>Thankyou Rach3.. And Happy birthday:)
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
Congratulations!
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
We'd have to register using a credit or debit card. A small enrollment fee has been discussed before on the forums. And.. whose gonna pay to troll?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
What would stop people from simply lying about their age?
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
To echo DACAMOTO's point about alcohol, when I go to the pub for a few pints with my mates I don't want to have to moderate my language for fear of bring overheard by a child. That's one of the reasons why kids aren't allowed in bars.

Similarly, it is frustrating that I cannot discuss adult-orientated subject matters in a frank and open manner on this site for fear of falling foul of DDO's T&C's. That's why I believe that membership should be limited to over 18's. The webmaster could then set up a separate site for the youngsters. He could call it JuniorDebate.org or KantankerousKiddiesKorner.com or MyFirstLittleFistyCuffs.net (or whatever).
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
"If debate.org (hereby known as DDO) were to be split between over 16s (hereby O16) and under 16s (hereby U16) users it would"

I think you mean "hereafter". Unfortunately, you are not the messiah bringing forth new terms for all the land to hear.
Posted by RacH3ll3 7 years ago
RacH3ll3
@ DAT:

aww thanks :) . But if that was the reason they were voting for me, I would be winning all of my debates :(
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
You guys are just voting for Con because she's an attractive young American while I'm just a beardy old Brit. (sour grapes)
Posted by Fhqwhgads 7 years ago
Fhqwhgads
All I'm going to say is that most kids under 16 wouldn't have the attention span for a debate site, unless they were real debaters (regardless of format of debate). But the kids we don't want on here are the stereotypical under-16s. If we could separate the stereotypical kids from the intelligent kids who really wanted to debate, it'd be a better place here overall.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Con did a great job. Her rebuttal to using the U16 area as a punishment to O16 players was on the mark. Datcmoto should have lost this debate with his "better them than us" comment. I found it to be very U16. I have debated two U16 users and both debates were better than the ones I had with Infrareded and sadolite, both O16 users. I see no reason to seperate anyone who can make logical arguments, support good positions, and behave well, due to age. Well done, Con.
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
Yes, under 16 is fifteen and under. O16 would be sixteen and over.

And thank you for being interested in it :)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dobsondebator 7 years ago
dobsondebator
RacH3ll3DATCMOTOTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
RacH3ll3DATCMOTOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Vote Placed by Fhqwhgads 7 years ago
Fhqwhgads
RacH3ll3DATCMOTOTied
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 sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
RacH3ll3DATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
RacH3ll3DATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70