The Instigator
epicuriousluxurious
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WriterSelbe
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

teens should not be allowed to date in high school.

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 1 vote the winner is...
WriterSelbe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,721 times Debate No: 19441
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

epicuriousluxurious

Pro

I am going to post this debate again because my opponent did forfeit the previous debate that we had. To whoever accepts this debate, this thought has been in head for long time, I would like to see if anyone agrees with me. All my statements are general, exceptions do not necessarily counter my arguments. I am not arguing that it should be illegal to date, I am just trying to give reasons why parents should teach their children that high school is not the right time to date.

Teen years are generally the hardest years that one can face. It is the period in which most teens feel insecure, are inexperienced with handling life challenges, and most importantly, these years are vital in determining the success of one’s future. Therefore, dating should not be allowed by parents because it can jeopardize their mental health, academic achievements, and even their physical health.



    1. The probability of High School students getting betrothed to their high school boyfriend/girlfriend is quite low. Only two percent maintain the relationships established in high school.

    1. The emotional trauma (from breakups) can affect one’s well being. It can plant fear within one’s heart in future relationships

    1. How can teenagers who are generally, mentally unstable excel in maintaining a relationship and in getting exceptional grades? Most students have the ability to achieve exceptional grades such as a gpa above 3.8; distraction is the culprit.

    1. Teenagers are not love gurus and are not intellectually experienced enough to handle serious relationships.

    1. Finally, a relationship in high school can have a higher probability in dating violence. It has been reported that one in four students experience some type of physical/sexual abuse, One in five felt emotional abuse, and nearly eighty- percent of the students who had been abused continued to date the person who abused them.


I am going to start out with these facts and I will elaborate more as the debate progresses. Thanks to whoever accepts this debate.



http://womensissues.about.com...


WriterSelbe

Con

For my case, I will argue against the points of my opponent.

#1: My opponent states that most high school relationships do not end in marriage. However, experience in high school relationships prepares one for future relationships outside of school in the working world. This ensures that high school graduates will not be completely drowned in their own naivete in their first relationship after high school.

#2: The same can happen after high school, so the argument is void.

#3: In life, one has to learn to deal with their own distractions. The world is dog-eat-dog, and those who can't manage their own thoughts deserve the grades they get. It is not the fault of the relationship but the fault of the easily distracted person. They must learn to deal with distraction, and it best be early on in life.

#4: Technically, the part of the brain for judgment is not completely developed until a person is well into their twenties. However, we still allow college students to make their own decisions. Also, conflict and experience helps with the development of judgment, which is best to grow at a younger age.

#5: This happens between people who aren't dating as well. The only way to prevent all sexual and physical violence is to separate all human beings. The same goes for sex in general; not abuse, but sex. Many adults and highschoolers will have sex regardless of relationships, so prohibiting dating would just make the sex even less meaningful between people. Rather than having it be something that their relationship brought them to, it would be something their sexual frustration brought them to.

For these reasons, I negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
epicuriousluxurious

Pro

Thanks for accepting my debate, and thanks for the very well thought out responses.
"However, experience in high school relationships prepares one for future relationships outside of school in the working world."
I will like to share with you that as a country our divorce rate is extremely high. As you can see in this
website http://www.nationmaster.com...

You will find that the U.S is on the top of the list. Aren't we supposed to be "experienced in dating?" after all, eight-nine percent of 13 to 19 year olds "practiced" dating before. Also, notice that countries that don't advocate dating as much are on the lower end of the list.

I would also like to assert that dating does not require practice. You either meet the person that you are meant to be with, or you don't. There are too many people with varying personalities. The "practice" you get in high school will be almost useless considering that no one is able to practice for the millions of differing personalities in this world.

Emotional trauma
Why do you think the trauma that a teen does undergo is supposed to be taken the same way as a thirty year old would? Teen trauma can affect later marriages rendering the practice of dating useless. Teen traumas have caused suicides, depression, and fear. Adults are less prone to suicides, depression, and fear. Dating violence IS more likely to occur in high school. We are arguing from probability.

Academic achievements
You also classify dating as a distraction. We can avoid distraction by not taking part in a useless practices such as this. The distractions that you refer to are distractions that are unavoidable.

You are completely right in that judgment is not completely developed in his/her twenties. I do believe that college students should not date either. They are technically grown adults, but they too run the risk of affecting their future if they give into dating given these reasons below (in the link).

http://www.ncvc.org...
We are however arguing why high schoolers shouldn't date.

Why do you suppose that dating will help a teenager grow as a person when it can very well hinder a person's growth in judgment. I agree in that high school is where you can develop judgment, but honestly, what does dating have anything to do with gaining judgment? When a person comes to realization that the adult world is so much more different than a teenage world, his/her past experience in high school dating will be of no use. How can one grow in judgment by dating when his/her boyfriend/girlfriend are also trying to grow in judgment in the same thing?

How does prohibiting dating make sex less meaningful? Sex is sex, the consequences are consequences. The scars are not temporary. By prohibiting highschool dating, we can reduce physical violence and make it easier for students to attain their goals. We may not be able to completely annihilate all the issues, but it will surely help. This is truly for the good of the student.

Given these reasons, I disagree with your point of view.
Good luck
WriterSelbe

Con

Firstly, I would like to point out to my opponent that no relationship is failed relationship, regardless of whether or not it ends in divorce.

Secondly, my opponent is correct in saying a person does not practice dating, but a person does gain experience in interacting with people flirtatiousl and romantically and gauging whether a person is genuine or not, which does require practice. The older a person gets, the more serious the ways they can be taken advantage of or hurt get. If you don't date sooner on when the consequences aren't as severe, then you won't be able to identify the signs and stop the relationship before it is too late.

My opponent states that teen trauma can affect a person in their later life. Trauma is something that happens for everything: If one goes to a restaurant and gets the flu right after eating there, they may experience trauma. One can get post-traumatic stress disorder after experiencing a storm, but neither of these can be prevented. They are parts of life. Also, regardless of whether or not a parent restricts dating, the restriction cannot be enforced. Teenagers could have 'dates' at school or anywhere they choose. Or, because they aren't taking relationships seriously because they aren't allowed to, they will just skip to sexual experimentation.

Next, my opponent talks about dating being an avoidable distraction. As stated before, all distractions are. School is an avoidable distraction. I could avoid that distraction by not going, but would that be in my best interest? No. I could have a distraction that is a boy. Would avoiding them make me less distracted? Probably not. This would only lead to more teen angst, which is a distraction itself.

Everyone risks their future in everything they do. There is no action you could engage in that would not risk your future. Whether or not I take a sip of a Diet Coke or fill in the D bubble on the test could risk my future. Weighed with everything else, this point is deemed irrelevent.

Dating changes with age along with everything else. In grade school the math we learn is basic, but in college it changes drastically and completely. Does that mean the basic math we learned in grade school is completely useless? Absolutely not, considering you wouldn't be able to do any math at all without knowing the basics. The same goes for relationships. If you don't learn the basics earlier, you won't be able to learn the advanced parts later. Also, the last line where my opponent asks how the two in a relationship can grow in judgment when both are trying to grow in judgment. Simply put, the two would learn how to deliberate on boundaries, what they agree with, and what they don't.

Teenagers are known to have sex with people they are in a relationship or are not in a relationship with. The difference after the forbiddance of dating would be that no teenagers having sex would be in a relationship. When in a relationship, another person is acknowledged as a meaningful person in the other's life. However, when there is no relationship in question, the sex is meaningless. During this sexually frustrated period in life, some teenagers are going to have sex. Forbidding them from dating just means they won't be having sex with someone they know as intimately, thus the sex means less.

With these arguments, I conclude my argument and urge spectators to vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
epicuriousluxurious

Pro

Thanks for the response
"Firstly, I would like to point out to my opponent that no relationship is failed relationship, regardless of whether or not it ends in divorce."

Why do you believe that divorce is not indicative of a failed relationship? I am assuming you believe that there are benefits from failing such as learning more about life. You can apply this logic to anything-marriage on the other hand is not suitable to fit this form of logic. Marriage is sacred, it is not an experiment, and trial and error in marriage is downplaying God's laws.

"Secondly, my opponent is correct in saying a person does not practice dating, but a person does gain experience in interacting with people flirtatiousl and romantically and gauging whether a person is genuine or not, which does require practice. The older a person gets, the more serious the ways they can be taken advantage of or hurt get. If you don't date sooner on when the consequences aren't as severe, then you won't be able to identify the signs and stop the relationship before it is too late."

Of course you are correct, only, teenagers are not as mature as you describe. How many teenagers commit suicide because of relationships? How many teenagers actually view this as an experience? They view this as the real thing! And they treat it like the real thing. Again, I have to bring out the divorce statistics. If we are so experienced with interacting with people and understanding the opposite sex, why in the world do we still have a higher divorce rate than that of other countries who do not advocate this as much? You may believe the statistics are irrelevant, but this just shows how high school dating does not have an impact on the success of marriages (Which is what you believe it leads it to). Your argument actually bolsters my claim.

"My opponent states that teen trauma can affect a person in their later life. Trauma is something that happens for everything: If one goes to a restaurant and gets the flu right after eating there, they may experience trauma. One can get post-traumatic stress disorder after experiencing a storm, but neither of these can be prevented. They are parts of life. Also, regardless of whether or not a parent restricts dating, the restriction cannot be enforced. Teenagers could have 'dates' at school or anywhere they choose. Or, because they aren't taking relationships seriously because they aren't allowed to, they will just skip to sexual experimentation."

You very well know that the trauma that I describe is trauma from dating in high school. The probability of teen violence is significantly higher than violence in adulthood. Trauma from relationships will affect teens more. Some resort to cutting themselves, some resort to suicide, and some even resort to anorexia (girls who feel worthless especially). I have had anorexia, it's not just about wanting to feel thin- its also rejection. I have read so many stories on boyfriends telling their girlfriends how ugly and fat they are-these girls turn to anorexia and harm themselves in so many unfathomable ways. The consequences from dating can be lethal. The cons far outweigh the pros. Also, How many teenage pregnancies result every year? 409,840 infants are born out of 15-19 year olds. How many dreams and aspirations does this ruin? Approximately 819, 608. How many teens develop HIV and die from it? Too many.

I am not banning teens from dating, I am encouraging parents to educate their children on why teen dating is vain. Knowing this, it will help but it will not annihilate all the issues. You are making a drastic assumption when you state that teens will skip to sexual experimentation. Teens will still date, I never said that I wanted to ban teen dating. Teens will still date, again, if we warn them on the uselessness of dating, high schoolers could have an improved mental health. Again, we are not arguing on the effects of not dating- the effects…we will never have an answer until try it out.

Next, my opponent talks about dating being an avoidable distraction. As stated before, all distractions are. School is an avoidable distraction. I could avoid that distraction by not going, but would that be in my best interest? No. I could have a distraction that is a boy. Would avoiding them make me less distracted? Probably not. This would only lead to more teen angst, which is a distraction itself.

How is school a distraction. School is what gets us to places; it is incomparable with dating. School grants us opportunities and knowledge. Dating damages us more than benefits us. Your statement is a logical fallacy. You assume that everyone benefits from dating when CLEARLY that is not true. You then go on stating that teen angst is a distraction that is more distracting than teen pregnancies, suicides, HIV, and anorexia? Hmmm…anyone can disagree with you on this fact.

Everyone risks their future in everything they do. There is no action you could engage in that would not risk your future. Whether or not I take a sip of a Diet Coke or fill in the D bubble on the test could risk my future. Weighed with everything else, this point is deemed irrelevent.

This point is not irrelevant. When you look at the statistics of depression, suicides, HIV, and anorexia that mostly result from teen dating, how can you compare this to something so trivial such as taking a sip of coke? How does depression, suicide, HiV, and anorexia not risk my future? It would risk my future quite literally.

Dating changes with age along with everything else. In grade school the math we learn is basic, but in college it changes drastically and completely. Does that mean the basic math we learned in grade school is completely useless? Absolutely not, considering you wouldn't be able to do any math at all without knowing the basics. The same goes for relationships. If you don't learn the basics earlier, you won't be able to learn the advanced parts later. Also, the last line where my opponent asks how the two in a relationship can grow in judgment when both are trying to grow in judgment. Simply put, the two would learn how to deliberate on boundaries, what they agree with, and what they don't.

My parents did not date in middle school, high school, or in college, and our family is probably more united than most of the families here. You are honestly comparing math to dating? A lot of the schools in Asia ban teen dating. Asia's marriage success rate is much higher than the marriage success rate here. Go figure!

Teenagers are known to have sex with people they are in a relationship or are not in a relationship with. The difference after the forbiddance of dating would be that no teenagers having sex would be in a relationship. When in a relationship, another person is acknowledged as a meaningful person in the other's life. However, when there is no relationship in question, the sex is meaningless. During this sexually frustrated period in life, some teenagers are going to have sex. Forbidding them from dating just means they won't be having sex with someone they know as intimately, thus the sex means less.

I beg to differ. Most of the teen pregnancies that result are from teen COUPLES. Again, I am not banning relationships and this is not what this debate is about. Just because a teenager is sexually frustrated does not mean that he/she should have sex. Just because human beings are inclined to sin, doesn't mean we should sin. There are some errors within your logic.

Having said all this, I still strongly disagree with you

With these arguments, I conclude my argument and urge spectators to vote con.

http://www.cdc.gov...
WriterSelbe

Con

First, my opponent would have to tell me what it means to fail a relationship. Every relationship is built and different from others, so no one can really gauge the value of it. A relationship can't be graded like a worksheet or test. A divorce could be considered a new beginning by someone. A divorce can't be indicative of a failed relationship.

Secondly, I didn't say teenagers were mature. I said they were maturing, meaning they were maturing from the choices they were making. If they weren't allowed to make choices like my opponent suggests, they wouldn't be able to mature as early as they should. Basically, the resolution suggests we send people in the relationship-making state of a baby into the world to fend for themselves romantically. It's like sending a grade school student right into college, skipping high school completely. They wouldn't know what to do about anything. Experience is key. Also, the difference between high school dating and divorce is that high schoolers can't get married, so the statistic only applies to adults, making it irrelevant.

My opponents next contention is that relationships cause anorexia and self-inflicted harm tendencies. Those with anorexia refuse to eat because there is a malfunction in their brain, no offense to my opponent, and they have an eating disorder. Though outward occurences can affect this and spur it on a bit, ultimately it is the responsibility of the malfunction in the brain. The same goes for those who harm themselves. It is because there is something in their mind that doesn't click right.

Now, my opponent states she agrees with me. 'Teens should not be allowed to date,' means that teens should not, for any reason, be allowed to date. It does not state that they should only be educated. Thus, my opponent vindicates and agrees with me. My opponent did state she wanted to ban teen dating, in the resolution and her case. By contradicting herself, my case in itself is proven right.

School is not beneficial to everyone. Many people kill themselves because of school, something I again state is an avoidable distraction. Someone could not go to school, thus it is avoidable. Distraction: an interruption; an obstacle to concentration. If someone is concentrating on getting through their life happily and school is preventing that, then school itself is a distraction. However, one would not suggest that a student stop going to school.

My opponent says that I stated none of this point risks her life. Again, I said everything risks your life, but one cannot avoid everything in the world. One could contract a disease from sipping Coke just as they could from having sex, though a different disease. Everything is risky, but we cannot stop doing everything. That would mean ceasing to exist.

My opponent now references her personal life, also irrelevant. Just because Asia does it doesn't prove it is right.

Finally, my opponent once again contradicts the resolution, negating it within her argument, vindicating me once again. The resolution states dating should be banned, yet my opponent states that we should not ban dating.

Thus, my case is the most accurate, and I urge voters to negate.
Debate Round No. 3
epicuriousluxurious

Pro

Thanks for your good responses
I would like to establish
1.To ban dating is not realistic; the goal of this debate is to communicate the reasons why teens should not date. Most of the debates on this website are not realistic, we are not arguing about the outcomes, we are just focusing on why teens should not date. I am sorry if I am not making sense, but even if I do contradict myself, I am not trying to.

"First, my opponent would have to tell me what it means to fail a relationship. Every relationship is built and different from others, so no one can really gauge the value of it. A relationship can't be graded like a worksheet or test. A divorce could be considered a new beginning by someone. A divorce can't be indicative of a failed relationship."

I don't know about you and where your morals stand, but my morality is that a relationship is to be taken seriously. One of the reasons why we have more divorces than other countries is because we don't take our marriages as seriously. According to you, we practice not taking our relationships seriously but with non-chalance in our teens years. My definition of a failed relationship- termination of an intimate relationship http://en.wikipedia.org.... Anyone on this site can agree with me that divorce is not favorable towards anyone. There should never be a divorce rate so high such as ours. Anyways, your argument centers on why we should date to grow as person so that we can have more successful marriages in the future. Except I think it is doing the opposite. It's definitely not helping our country in this sense.

"Secondly, I didn't say teenagers were mature. I said they were maturing, meaning they were maturing from the choices they were making. If they weren't allowed to make choices like my opponent suggests, they wouldn't be able to mature as early as they should. Basically, the resolution suggests we send people in the relationship-making state of a baby into the world to fend for themselves romantically. It's like sending a grade school student right into college, skipping high school completely. They wouldn't know what to do about anything. Experience is key. Also, the difference between high school dating and divorce is that high schoolers can't get married, so the statistic only applies to adults, making it irrelevant."

Firstly, we can mature by committing crimes, joining gangs, and anything really. Basically, what I am trying to say is that we don't have to mature in dating to become mature in life. You are arguing that the experience derived from high school dating does not have an impact on the adult life? You are saying that dating does not impact on adult relationships. So then, what is the point of high school dating? You argue that does have a positive effect on us? Show me some stats please.

"My opponents next contention is that relationships cause anorexia and self-inflicted harm tendencies. Those with anorexia refuse to eat because there is a malfunction in their brain, no offense to my opponent, and they have an eating disorder. Though outward occurences can affect this and spur it on a bit, ultimately it is the responsibility of the malfunction in the brain. The same goes for those who harm themselves. It is because there is something in their mind that doesn't click right."

Hmmmm….. people don't commit harm on themselves because their boyfriends broke up with them? I can pull up more statistics if you like? Who are you to state that people who refuse to eat have a malfunction in their brain? High school students are more susceptible to anorexia, depression, and suicide, because their brains are not completely developed yet including yourself and myself. Why should they date if they aren't completely stable yet? Also, you did not respond to my statistic of HIV and pregnancies. They ruin dreams and lives because of the irrational decisions that teens make. Anything including dating can be good by itself, but the issue is, it has ruined more lives than it has noticeably helped.

"Now, my opponent states she agrees with me. 'Teens should not be allowed to date,' means that teens should not, for any reason, be allowed to date. It does not state that they should only be educated. Thus, my opponent vindicates and agrees with me. My opponent did state she wanted to ban teen dating, in the resolution and her case. By contradicting herself, my case in itself is proven right."

I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but I am assuming that you are not understanding what I am saying. What I am saying is that it is unrealistic to ban teen dating, I don't advocate it at all- although, its too unrealistic to abolish it.

"School is not beneficial to everyone. Many people kill themselves because of school, something I again state is an avoidable distraction. Someone could not go to school, thus it is avoidable. Distraction: an interruption; an obstacle to concentration. If someone is concentrating on getting through their life happily and school is preventing that, then school itself is a distraction. However, one would not suggest that a student stop going to school."

In most cases, school has gotten people a higher education, and broad view on life, and for most people, a job. Teen relationships have gotten into suicides, teen pregnancies, and you name it. The point of dating is marriage, teen dating in a carefree "whatever" sense is downplaying the idea of marriage; which again is evident in the statistic that I showed you. You can argue that people get into dating because of school…but anyone can see that this is sort of a pointless argument that can be applied on nearly anything.

"My opponent says that I stated none of this point risks her life. Again, I said everything risks your life, but one cannot avoid everything in the world. One could contract a disease from sipping Coke just as they could from having sex, though a different disease. Everything is risky, but we cannot stop doing everything. That would mean ceasing to exist.
My opponent now references her personal life, also irrelevant. Just because Asia does it doesn't prove it is right."

I agree that everything would be risking one's life- it's a matter of how much risk. There is a probability that I can survive a fall off of Mt. Everest, but does that mean that I should do jump off of it and have fun? I am stating my personal life because I want to prove that many people in this world do not need practice for a successful marriage and life in general. The suicide rates in this country are extremely high for a country that has "students practice life more." When you compare math and dating, math does require basic knowledge, but dating for most of the people in this world does not. Definition of right- produces good moral outcomes. Teen dating doesn't necessarily produce good moral outcomes.

"Finally, my opponent once again contradicts the resolution, negating it within her argument, vindicating me once again. The resolution states dating should be banned, yet my opponent states that we should not ban dating."

If I could ban dating, I would. I can't ban dating because it's not realistic. I am not contradicting myself.

In Conclusion,
We don't need high school practice, and therefore, the pros of teen dating don't outweight the cons.
WriterSelbe

Con

Firstly, regardless of whether or not my opponent intends to contradict herself, she is, supporting my end of the debate. The resolution states that all dating should be banned, but my opponent changed her stance mid-debate, which again, vindicates the negation of the resolution.

Secondly, just because a person divorces doesn't mean they hadn't taken their relationship seriously. After marrying, people can change drastically. Someone who was originally a family person could become more of a working person and it could affect the relationship. That doesn't mean that they failed their relationship with their spouse. It only means they changed, and they have every right to divorce if it is in their best interest to. Also, I said nothing about maturing to have successful marriages. I said maturing so that a person knows how to act around romantic interests and how to read them to make sure they are not being taken advantage of. Another thing, regardless of what our moral rights and wrongs are, we are debating the technical rights and wrongs. Morality isn't taken into account here.

I said high school dating has an effect on adult life. In fact, I said everything has an effect on life, so this argument is void. I said that just because something could affect someone doesn't mean they should completely stop it, an example being relationships and school. I owe no statistics because they can't prove or disprove anything I have just said. It goes both ways.

'Though outward occurences can affect this and spur it on a bit, ultimately it is the responsibility of the malfunction in the brain. The same goes for those who harm themselves.' This is my statement from the last round. I clearly said outward occurences can affect and spur on these self-harming moments, but ultimately it is a malfunction in the brain causing it. Disorder: Disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of. Anorexia is the refusal to eat, and anorexia is an eating disorder. As defined above, a disorder is a disruption in the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of. Disruption: activity that is a malfunction, intrusion, or interruption. I can say so, because it is right. Since we already settled that teens will have sex regardless of whether or not they are in a relationship, response wasn't necessary.

I understand what you are saying. 'Not allow' is synonymous with 'ban.' Yes, I agree it is unrealistic to ban dating, but stating that you don't think dating should be altogether banned is agreeing with the negation. Also, here is a list of reasons for teen suicide:

  • Depression or feelings of loneliness or helplessness
  • Alcohol or drug addiction
  • A family history of abuse, suicide, or violence
  • Previous suicide attempts; almost half of teens who commit suicide had attempted suicide previously
  • Fear of ridicule for getting help for problems
  • Being bullied or being a bully
  • Exposure to other teens committing suicide, such as at school or in the media
  • Access to firearms or other lethal objects
  • A belief that suicide is noble
It is notable that relationships are only a small footnote, and that never in there does it say dating relationships. Also, dating does not necessarily have to have the goal of marriage. A good time and experience in relationships can be a goal. Not everyone has the same views on morality and relationships. Hypothetically, if teen dating was downplaying the idea of marriage, what would the problem be with that? Some people prefer clean relationships that don't involve commitment. Not everyone believes in the same relationship laws as you do, and they don't have to either.

People do not need practice for a successful marriage. They need practice for dating; interacting with people romantically before people become serious.

The resolution states we should not allow dating, therefore, yes, my opponent is contradicting herself.


Debate Round No. 4
epicuriousluxurious

Pro

Whether I made the resolution clear or not, you still don't seem to understand that I find high school dating useless. I titled this debate "teens should not be allowed to date" because I find dating useless and in some ways detrimental. I am not claiming that this should happen in real life because this is so unrealistic. How does this negate the resolution?

You need to give me some evidence showing how high school dating specifically has benefited marriage or life in general. you need to give reasons why dating is useful for you refuted yourself many times by stating that "we don't date in high school to practice for marriage" when clearly, exploring romantic interest is for the sake of finding love for marriage. In the second round, I already did refute your statement by asserting that exploring romantic interests would be completely vain. You can't explore all the different types of personalities. Why do it in the time of mental instability and the time of academic importance when you can push the "time of exploration" back eight years?

Here are reasons why people fail at marriage. 1. We don't listen 2. We only hear what we want to hear. 3. We provoke and allow ourselves to be provoked 3. We don't keep our word. 4. We engage in name calling and profanity 5. We lie.
If we had high school to prepare and practice, might we be held accountable to avoid these basic seeds that have sprouted to ruin so many marriages here in the U.S? So what use is teenage dating? If one intends to marry, he/she must understand that person well enough.

"After marrying, people can change drastically. Someone who was originally a family person could become more of a working person and it could affect the relationship."

Hmm...in this case, the two still don't seem to know each other that well yet. I do believe that most people think that marriage is supposed to be taken seriously. Divorce is shown to have an impact on children and the mental health of the parent(s).

http://www.rogerswebsite.com...

you said,
"In fact, I said everything has an effect on life, so this argument is void. I said that just because something could affect someone doesn't mean they should completely stop it"
You also said
"Also, the difference between high school dating and divorce is that high schoolers can't get married, so the statistic only applies to adults, making it irrelevant."

If teen age dating has also been known to cause violence, pregnancy, depression, suicide, anorexia, and HIV, assuming that any of these happened, it would probably affect someone more negatively than lets say learning about how to drive. The probability of teen violence also isn't low. You still haven't refuted my claim concerning teenage pregnancy either. Teenage pregnancy can ruin dreams and aspirations which definitely affects someone negatively. I also want you to read the statistics of teen violence here in this website.
http://www.clotheslineproject.org...

22% of all homicides against females ages 16-19 were committed by
an intimate partner
Females ages 16-24 are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence than any other age group
–at a rate almost triple the national average.
In 9 out of 10 rapes in which the offender is under 18, so is the victim.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and
–Human Services (HHS), Fact Sheet on Violence: Adolescents & Young Adults, 5, (2002).

There are many things that can trigger a disruption. But given all the statistics that I presented (and I advise you to read them over), dating is a huge reason why teens have to undergo unnecessary suicides, depression,…ect.

Since 80-90 percent of us date/dated in high school, this has occurred to MANY people behind closed doors. You claim that teen violence is not conducive to suicide, depression, and many other things that I listed? Look again.

From the same website
Patterns of dating violence behavior often start early and carry through into adult
relationships
Violent relationships in adolescence can have serious ramifications for victims: Many will continue
to be abused in their adult relationships and are at a higher risk for substance abuse, eating
disorders, risky sexual behavior, and suicide.
Jay G. Silverman PhD, et Al, "Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control,
Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality." Journal of the American Medical Association, (2001).


"I understand what you are saying. 'Not allow' is synonymous with 'ban.' Yes, I agree it is unrealistic to ban dating, but stating that you don't think dating should be altogether banned is agreeing with the negation."

Believe what you want to believe, this doesn't change the debate nor does it refute what I am supposedly saying.

" A good time and experience in relationships can be a goal. Not everyone has the same views on morality and relationships."

Alright, but has lead to many suicides, pregnancies,..ect so then again, dating in high school is useless.

"Hypothetically, if teen dating was downplaying the idea of marriage, what would the problem be with that?"

It will effect the way they way they handle latter marriages NEGATIVELY.

Conclusion
Teen dating is so unnecessary. The cons of "having fun" in high school outweighs the pros of having fun.

I thank you for debating we me
You made me bang my head a couple of times, you are good, I can't believe you are 14..amazing.
WriterSelbe

Con

You said dating should be stopped, but then said you didn't believe so. That negates the resolution, regardless of how unrealistic the resolution is. Now, I don't have to show you a statistic about how teenage dating helps finding a successful marriage because marriage is not the ultimate goal of dating for all people. It may seem obscure to conservatives, but it isn't. Secondly, you ask why do it in your younger years when you could push it back? Because humans do what they want to do and prioritize so that they are put first in their lives. Humans will do what they want to do, and depriving them of what they want affects their happiness and behavior.

Exactly correct. However, these people aren't marrying, so it doesn't matter at that stage in time. People dating for marriage are only a portion of the people dating. Not everyone intends to marry, as there are different lifestyles. If someone intends to marry, they do need to know that person well enough, and that is why dating is good for that.

Yes, they do know each other. It's just that after they began immersing in other things they changed as people. That doesn't mean they didn't know each other; it just means they don't anymore. Lots of things are known to impact the minds of children and parents.

All of the things you listed could be an affect of school, besides HIV, though it could be contracted at a school. Again, emotional disorders like anorexia can't be caused by anything other than the mind, though certain occurences can spur it on. Also, the statistics for domestic abuse definitely wouldn't be shown as high because adults wouldn't be given a survey as a large group as it would be done at a school. So, since we have no real way of knowing the ratio from adult relationship abuse and teenage, the statistics are void.

Again, abuse can spur things on but ultimately cannot be the major cause of it. Not all people are going to have later marriages, so it doesn't matter if it affects their later marriages.

You are good as well, and I enjoyed debating with you.

This debate is now concluded, and I urge voters to vote negative.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by epicuriousluxurious 2 years ago
epicuriousluxurious
my opponent needs to have evidence to deny the statistics. Also, notice that she has no sources to back up any of her claims. I do have to say....even though it seems that I have shifted my views, still nothing that she presents is substantial enough to refute that teen dating is useless in fact it can be detrimental(she has not given substantial evidence to refute this) therefore, I think that teen dating should not be allowed. I DO think that teen dating should NOT be allowed, but banning it is unrealistic. I find it meaningless for her to argue with me about my phrasing when I did not mean whatever I said to "negate the resolution". If I did violate any rules, geez, I've never actually debated before I made an account on this site. Tell me all the rules before I debate once more.
Posted by epicuriousluxurious 2 years ago
epicuriousluxurious
when I mean a divorce is not favorable, I mean to children...or anyone mentally
Posted by epicuriousluxurious 2 years ago
epicuriousluxurious
thanks blackvoid!
Posted by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
In the future, try to keep it at 3 rounds of debating. Its what 90% of debates are, and anything longer turns off judges because it's so long.
Posted by epicuriousluxurious 2 years ago
epicuriousluxurious
sqadsiix,

If you look at the sites that I posted, they will confirm my belief with statistics. If you want me to give you more sites, I will. I believe you in that you have other issues, but many teen issues stem from dating.
Posted by epicuriousluxurious 2 years ago
epicuriousluxurious
Whoops sorry, I accidently, left the last part of your debate on the end of my argument. Well, vote pro, Lol!
Posted by SquadSix 2 years ago
SquadSix
I am sorry but I have to say this, it seems the Pro to me is saying things based on a view of a psychiatrist who is interviewing an unresponsive teenager who doesn't want to be there and is feeding wrong answers. I am growing up with problems and dating isn't one of them. I don't get a 3.8 gpa I get maybe a 3.2 or 3.3 and I have never had a date in my life, and I am one of the smarter kids in my class(and not just top 10 maybe top 5(except in math)). It just seems to me like Pro is just saying opinions rather than facts to me.
Posted by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
Well. I don't wanna be </3 lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
epicuriousluxuriousWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments weren't all that clear, hard to follow. But one thing perfectly clear is that Pro conceded. The resolution is that high-school teens shouldn't be allowed to date. Pro conceded that this is not in fact the case, so Con wins. Part of the reason Pro's posts were hard to read is that Pro didn't visually distinguish between quoted material and new material. I was tempted to give a spelling/grammar point for that, but I'll discuss it in the DDO forum before I start doing so.