The Instigator
lizz6217
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

should kids younger than 18 have relationships with the opposite sex?

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 2 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 69655
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

lizz6217

Con

I believe that kids having boyfriends and girl friends at a young age is wrong. they learn at a very young age that there are a lot of people out there who will break your heart from breakups. Theses things are bad and can lead to depression or suicide from the belief that nobody loves or will ever love them. The stronger relationships are even worse because that is when people will become sexually active and leave the mother as a teen parent 1 in 3 single mothers have to drop out of high school or college because they have to care for their baby, and pay for them. Having young love is a bad idea.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

I accept.

With a normative resolution, we have a dual burden of proof, where CON must be able to prove that younger childrens should not have relationships with the opposite sex, and PRO must prove the opposite.

I'd like to clarify my own burden in this debate, though, which is not to argue that kid X and Kid Y should necessarly form a relationship, either with each other or with others. Rather, my burden is to prove that, for children who are ready for and desire such a commitment, they should take that leap and form a relationship. CON, on the other hand, is arguing that they ought not. In this sense, he is arguing necessarily not T, where I am arguing possibly T. For that reason, I believe it is fair to say that CON's burden is higher than mine.

Rebutting Con's Case

CON states, "I believe that kids having boyfriends and girl friends at a young age is wrong."

Without any objective criteria for what constitutes right and wrong, or even a standard by which we can reach said criteria, or evidence that such a standard even exists, there is no bass for a claim that anything, never mind childhood relationships, are "wrong."

CON states, "they learn at a very young age that there are a lot of people out there who will break your heart from breakups."

It is true that children will tend to learn about breakups if they were to have relationships, but what CON fails to understand is that:

(1) They're going to learn about the horrors of breakups later on in their lives, anyway, so this does nothing more than prepare them for that later reality at a time when, as children, they're not nearly as emotionally invested in their relationships as they would be when they're, say, 25, and looking toward moving in with one another or considering marriage. CON's proposal to shield these children from reality is doing nothing than babying them, craddle and grave, and acting as though they cannot make their own decisions.

(2) If the harsh reality of break-ups is so bad, then why is CON only extending this to children? For instance, why can you have a relationship at 18 years old, but not 16 year olds? How about 18 versus 17, or 18 versus 17.5 or 17.8? He doesn't establish a clear diving line at all, or why we should believwe that this principle ought only apply to children.

(3) There are other forms of drama that kids will experience throughout their youth--their parent splitting up, the pressures of school, bullying, etc. Why hasn't CON advocating for banning any of those? If his goal is to prevent heartache, why is he targeting only relationships, which may not even *result* in heartache at all, but not events which directly cause heartache? Clearly, causing heartache cannot be the standard by which we ban something.

CON states, "Theses things are bad and can lead to depression or suicide from the belief that nobody loves or will ever love them."

I'm going to cross-appy my above evidence about harsh realities and the fact that plenty of other traumatic events--events far worse than a break-up--can cause these types of problems in young children, so that cannot possibly serve as the standard. Moreover, CON fails to provide causation strictly from a breakup to depression or suicide, or the "belief that nobody loves or will ever love them." That's a sign of a deeper, broader psychological problem that rightly deserves treatment, but he cannot explicitly link that casually to X, because the relationship is facile at best. CON also fails to realize that relationships also may bring joy, and may help to ameliorate truama from other parts of a child's life, which turns this point completely.

CON states, "The stronger relationships are even worse because that is when people will become sexually active and leave the mother as a teen parent 1 in 3 single mothers have to drop out of high school or college because they have to care for their baby, and pay for them."

He claims that the stronger relationships are even worse, which is wildly aburd when placed next to his earlier points about how difficult and traumatizing breakups are, so I encourage our judges to toss out both his points, as neither can be at this point applicable.

Next, he makes this wildly absurd jump that strong, committed relationships will necessarily translate to sexual activity, so this is casual at best. He is condemning not young relationships, but young, unsafe sexual activity, so this contention isn't the least bit topical. His statistic on teen parents, also, which he doesn't source, is also irrelevant to this resolution even if it were true, because relationships can blossom even in the absence of unsafe sexual activity. The solution to this is not to prevent children from having relationship, but to instill in them via their parents and educational institutions the tools to have safe sex. We know that, no matter what we do, kids are going to find a way to have sex with one another. Our goal should be to ensure that they are informed of the risks and are willing and able to protect themselves so that it doesn't result in pregnancy.

But, even in a case where it does, why does CON want to prevent children from makin their own decisions? Perhaps having a child was right for that couple at that particular point in time. He is attempting to cast a wide net and formulate a non-existent and utterly irrational objective standard, when in reality, it is nothing more than an attempt by whim to impose his subjective opinion onto others.

With that, I yield back to CON.
Debate Round No. 1
lizz6217

Con

lizz6217 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lizz6217

Con

lizz6217 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lizz6217

Con

lizz6217 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
lizz6217

Con

lizz6217 forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

Extend.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
lizz6217ResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited multiple rounds of the debate which is rarely acceptable in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to counter any of the arguments raised by Pro, this resulted in Pro left standing unchallenged. For that, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. This is a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
lizz6217ResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff