The Instigator
posy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ButterCatX
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

people under the age of ten be left at home for more than an hour

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 2 votes the winner is...
ButterCatX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 69067
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

posy

Con

it is DANGEROUS!!
ButterCatX

Pro

I believe that it depends on individual cases and that it wont be dangerous to all, such as when I was ten I was more than capable of taking care of myself for more than an hour.
Debate Round No. 1
posy

Con

but children under the age of ten are not as responsible.(like my children)
ButterCatX

Pro

Well then it is YOUR children, not every child and many are responsible enough and can ensure the safety of both themselves and others for extended periods of time.
Debate Round No. 2
posy

Con

well i have also seen other children who are not responsible enough. And nobody should take the risk
ButterCatX

Pro

I believe that the risk is determined by the parent i.e. if the parent teaches the child to be responsible, they will be responsible and there will be little or no risk. I do not believe that it dangerous to all children because some children can be responsible and will do what they need to.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
======================================================================
>Reported vote: 2001bhu // Moderator action: removed<

7 points to Pro. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: good debate love the profile pic con}

[*Reason for removal*] This is the second debate where 2001bhu voted for ButterCatX because he liked his profile pic. This is unacceptable. You can't follow someone around the site voting for all his debates because you like his profile picture.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
======================================================================
>Reported vote: ClashnBoom // Moderator action: removed<

4 points to Pro (arguments, S&G). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con had the word dangerous in all caps.}

[*Reason for removal*] This may be a valid reason for awarding S&G given how short the debate was (a single mistake), but it is not a sufficient reason for awarding argument points.
======================================================================
Posted by 2001bhu 2 years ago
2001bhu
lol Bluesteel hasn't seen this vote
Posted by ButterCatX 2 years ago
ButterCatX
@Skeletonman1999 So vote for the side you agree with.
Posted by Skeletonman1999 2 years ago
Skeletonman1999
When I was 8 my mom left me home with my 2 younger brothers for 12 minutes to go to the store and came back with the house still intact so I don't see it as to big of a risk.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
posyButterCatXTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to Pro. Con didn't capitalize at the beginning of a sentence, also Con lacked proper punctuation. Con's main argument here was basically off of personal opinion and experience. Con basically presumes to say that ALL kids are irresponsible, while Pro points out that not all kids are the same. He goes on to say that every child is different, and some are more responsible then others, when in most cases are very true.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
posyButterCatXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Pro. Con had several spelling and grammatical errors in every round. Some of these errors include improper capitalization and a lack of punctuation and spacing where needed. Pro had no such errors and thus is awarded S&G points. Arguments - Pro. Con attempted to base her own kids as evidence for a resolution that carried a much larger burden. Pro effectively pointed out how just because her kids might not be capable of caring for themselves doesn't mean that every person isn't capable. As such, I believe Pro effectively rebutted Con's only real challenge, and thus affirmed the resolution. I would recommend that Con present some statistics next time so that valid proof can be given as evidence for such claims. Ultimately, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.