The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

weather or not age should be a limiting factor

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 451 times Debate No: 49166
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




i think that age shouldn't be a factor because there are so many young people with the same potential as adults.
Debate Round No. 1


so you agree with me


Age should be a limiting factor in that with age comes wisdom, knowledge, understanding, maturity, experience, and brain development.

Older people will be more inclined to make better decisions due to these things. The stages into adulthood are primarily a learning experience, and to allow those in these stages power that would could only normally be possessed by adults would be not only dangerous to the children, but also potentially dangerous to those around them.

For example, if alcohol had no age limit, teenagers and adolescents may be more inclined to make more poor decisions with alcohol. It is even worse when factoring in that the affects of alcohol are dangerous to people who are not fully developed.

In order to insure a safe society, and insure the well being of those who are not yet adults, it is best that age limits be appropriately laced.
Debate Round No. 2


I know that drinking is dangerous but what about all the accidents that happen with adults drinking and driving or just being reckless on the road. I know now with age comes wisdom but there are many adults who lack wisdom and many young people who have it so why not let them try.


It’s not just in the case of alcohol. It also applies to driver’s licenses, legal sexual intercourse, smoking, voting, having the ability to consent as an adult and a plethora of many other things. These laws exist to not only protect the interest of an individual, but also to protect the interest of society. It is appropriate that there be an age limit because, to reiterate, with age comes wisdom, knowledge, understanding, maturity, experience, and most importantly brain development. A more mature brain allows people to make better decisions and think through their decisions better. This being said, it is more appropriate then that things that are risky, such as drinking or being able to get a drivers license, have an age limit on them. This age limit allows the freedom to still exist with appropriate restrictions in order to still keep society a safe place.

Laws are not based on exceptions. Just because there may be a very responsible and mature thirteen year old doesn’t mean they all are. In the same, just because there may be an irresponsible and immature adult doesn’t mean that all adults are that way. Laws must be placed on a general basis, and not on exceptional factors. Fact is, younger people are going to be more inclined to do something stupid than an adults is. That being said, age limits are still justified.

Age limits are what keep 10 year olds from driving on the street, 11 year olds from smoking and drinking, 15 year olds from enlisting into the military, 30 year old men from having sexual intercourse with 14 year old girls, and 13 year olds from voting.

I think it would be best if age limits stayed how they are.

Debate Round No. 3


OK that my be true but what about all the debate going on about lowering all the standards that you mentioned that means that people are realizing that the new generation are becoming more mature and I bet nine out of ten times if were to ask a kid about sex that would be able to telling you about it and that if you asked a 13 year old what the wanted form life and had a back up plan as appose to most adults these days no knowing what they want are just plain doing the wrong thing. the world is change and we need the laws to accommodate those changes.


What you are proposing does not abolish the age limit, rather it only lowers it. This arguments is therefore insufficient and fails to fulfill your burden of proof.

My opponent has dropped several of my arguments in addition to failing to affirm the resolution that age limits should be abolished.

I have given proper reasons for why the government should still keep age limits which my opponent conceded.

This resolution is negated.

I would sincerely like to thank my opponent for not forfeiting a single round of this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 2 years ago
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: Pro has my sympathy points, but they cannot be officially counted :-( Arguments to Con, with insufficient rebuttals by Pro. The arguments weren't particularly in depth or even strong, just there was hardly any resistance to them by Pro. Also a very unclear resolution, I recommend being more specific on what you are arguing for, as it sets a clear goal of accomplishment.