The Instigator
sonicbro2000
Pro (for)
The Contender
chungusfanatic79
Con (against)

Children can consent, Drink, And vote, And child porn should be made legal. (Not Rape, )

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
sonicbro2000 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2020 Category: Society
Updated: 5 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 126291
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

sonicbro2000

Pro

Children can consent, Drink, And vote, And child porn should be made legal. (Not Rape. )
Rape is defined as non-consensual sex.
Child porn is defined as pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation. (Which I'm fine with. )
I as a HUMAN BEING am all about human rights and equal rights. Age means nothing to me, And I'm perfectly fine with being called a pedophile. I'm not, But ok.
Rules: NO HATE! For crying out loud. . .
chungusfanatic79

Con

I will use the first round as acceptance and to give Pro a chance to flesh out more reasoning for their stances and possibly provide more evidence for their argument before I begin.

Before we begin this debate we should set some more definitions such as the following:

Child: Biologically, A child (plural children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty, Or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor. (Wikipedia)

Consent: Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another. It is a term of common speech, With specific definitions as used in such fields as the law, Medicine, Research, And sexual relationships. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, A person with a mental disorder, A low mental age, Or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law. (Wikipedia)

The age of consent: The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts. Consequently, An adult who engages in sexual activity with a person younger than the age of consent is unable to legally claim that the sexual activity was consensual, And such sexual activity may be considered child sexual abuse or statutory rape. (Wikipedia)

Statutory Rape: In common law jurisdictions, Statutory rape is non forcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behavior). (Wikipedia)

Drinking age: drinking age is the minimum age at which a person can legally consume alcohol beverages. (Wikipedia)

Voting age: A voting age is a minimum age established by law that a person must attain before they become eligible to vote in a public election. (Wikipedia)

Pro also used the terminology "can". I would ask pro to define if "can" means capable of or if it means is legally able to. Legal wise, As noted by definitions we know legally children cannot consent, Drink, Or vote in the United States. I suggest pro use the terminology "should be able to" such as they used with their other argument but I digress.

I also ask for Pro to clarify if they are also arguing that sexual exploitation of children is something they stand for with their argument, As they put "(Which I'm fine with. )" after the definition of child pornography which includes exploitation.

I will argue for the age of consent and statutory rape laws, Children legally being forbidden from drinking, Children being legally forbidden from voting, And child pornography to remain illegal. I agree with the first rule of "no hate". I would like this to be an exercise to understand how somebody can actually advocate for this.
Debate Round No. 1
sonicbro2000

Pro

Agruement:"define 'can'"

When I said children can consent that means more than capable of consenting
and should be made legal. The government should not be in charge to say what humans can do or not do.
In the first amendment it states: The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution
prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment
of religion, Prohibit the free exercise of religion, (underline) or abridge the freedom of speech, . . . (underline)
"'Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech. '
It doesn"t have an age restriction. Yet for the last 50 years, The Supreme Court
has essentially written young people out of the First Amendment, Holding that their
rights to speech and access to information are limited and conditional. As a result,
young people experience infringements on their rights in countless situations. Moreover,
the exceptions that have been carved out for youth often affect the speech rights of adults as well. "
-https://ncac. Org/update/minors-and-the-first-amendment
I believe that the freedom of speech includes consent, Thus children legally should be able to consent.

"clarify if they are also arguing that sexual exploitation of children is something they
stand for with their argument"

Yeah. Duh. It's not exploitation if they consented. Sex is at their discretion. XD
I believe in the freedom of ones will.
chungusfanatic79

Con

Part 1: Consent

In regards to "if children can consent" I very much say they cannot. Legally, Capacity to consent plays in many cases of rape which include statutory rape. I will note that states differ their definition of capacity of consent, But age is seen as a factor in all 50 states for this.

Common criteria for capacity to consent:[1]

"Age: Is the person at or above the age of consent for that state? Does the age difference between the perpetrator and victim affect the age of consent in that state?

Developmental disability: Does the person have a developmental disability or other form of mental incapacitation, Such as a traumatic brain injury?

Intoxication: Was the person intoxicated? Different states have different definitions of intoxication, And in some states it matters whether you voluntarily or involuntarily became intoxicated.

Physical disability: Does the persona have a physical disability, Incapacity, Or other form of helplessness?

Relationship of victim/perpetrator: Was the alleged perpetrator in a position of authority, Such as such as a teacher or correctional office?

Unconsciousness: Was the person sleeping, Sedated, Strangulated, Or suffering from physical trauma?

Vulnerable adults: Is the person considered a vulnerable adult, Such as an elderly or ill person? Is this adult dependent on others for care? "[1]

As we can see, Age is not the only factor for consent. Intoxication or disability would damper the ability to consent in many cases which impairs logical thinking. When we look at both of these criteria, We can see how age plays into this. Developing brains of children do not have the ability to consent because they are not old enough to understand the implications of sexual intercourse in most cases. What is scientific fact, Is the child's brain is not as logically developed as 16-18 year olds (common ages of consent) to make the logical decision to consent. I will explain this in more detail in my next topic. Another common criteria for consent would be the relationship of the victim and perpetrator. A common question in court in cases of teachers and professors with their students: "Was the alleged perptrator in a position of authority? "[1]. Naturally, There is a position of authority between adults and children. Adults are generally much stronger, Smarter, Have more resources, And have more power than children. There is a huge power dynamic between adults and children that should not go unnoticed. Because of this, Children are extremely vunelrable to abuse from adults physically, Psycholgically, And of course sexually.

I would also like to examine another criteria of consent and relate it to statutory rape cases:

"Freely given consent: Was the consent offered of the person’s own free will, Without being induced by fraud, Coercion, Violence, Or threat of violence? "[1]

Free will without coercion. So why do people have sex in the first place? I would say because of sexual attraction and sex drive. Now pray tell, How do pre-pubsecent children have any sexual attraction or drive in the first place? Without a biological drive to have sex given by puberty, Pre-pubescent children must be coerced or influenced in some way to ever desire sex. Just something to ponder for your response.

Your argument about the first amendment and consent is. . . . Interesting to say the least. The first amendment first and foremost, Was to allow people to have opinions and say what is on their mind without retribution from the government. In cases of rape, The victim is never punished for supposedly agreeing to sexual intercourse, The perpetrator is punished when affirmative, Freely given, Or capacity to consent is violated and does not allow sex. Children are not punished for saying "yes" to sex in cases of statutory rape, The adult is the one being punished for attempting to bypass their capacity to consent which is clearly forbidden. I can see how you confuse the first amendment with consent, However as noted with previous criteria for capacity to consent, Some adults in certain circumstances may not even be able to consent. A simple "yes" in some cases is simply not enough to gain the legal ability to have sexual intercourse and attempting to consent by the unable victim is not grounds for punishment. Your argument is invalid.

Part 2: The brain, And how it relates to consent, Voting, And drinking rights

The brains of children are VASTLY different from teens and adults, But we will look at parts of the brain that is responsible for logical thought and decision making which is required for consent, The frontal lobes which include the prefrontal cortex.

"The frontal lobes, Home to key components of the neural circuitry underlying “executive functions” such as planning, Working memory, And impulse control, Are among the last areas of the brain to mature; they may not be fully developed until halfway through the third decade of life"[2]

The frontal lobes in humans are not fully mature until later in life past children, And are weakly developed in children. Furthermore, There is the very important prefrontal cortex which is a member of the frontal lobes. Lets see what it does:

"The prefrontal cortex coordinates higher-order cognitive processes and executive functioning. Executive functions are a set of supervisory cognitive skills needed for goal-directed behavior, Including planning, Response inhibition, Working memory, And attention. These skills allow an individual to pause long enough to take stock of a situation, Assess his or her options, Plan a course of action, And execute it. Poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, Attention, Using feedback, And mental inflexibility, All of which could undermine judgment and decision making. "[2]

As humans grow, So do their logical and decision making skills. Humans are not born with the logical and decision making skills of an adult, And especially not in children. These are skils that are very important when determining consent, Voting, And drinking rights. Let me explain further. When we give humans the right of choice in cases of consent, Voting, And drinking, We presume they have understood the choice logically and understood the consequences of every choice. We presume they are on equal ground of ability for logical and rational thought, Which equal rights entail equal ground. For without a logical and thought out choice, A person may be very negatively impacted in cases of consent and drinking. Without logically thinking through sex, The child disregards the risks of of sex which includes damage, Suspectability to abuse, Risk of STDS, Possible pregnancy if it is possible, And safety. Without logically thinking through drinking, A child will not logically think through the consequences to long-term health, Addiction, And possibility of death from alchohol abuse. Without logically thinking through voting, Children will not logically think of what a vote truly entails and what their candidate will actually do. Younger children and early teens are very suspectible to peer pressure, As scientifically, Their logical thinking is sub-par. They can be taken advantage of by adults very easily, As they will not have the ability to think logically about these situations.

Sources:

[1] rainn org/ articles / legal-role-consent
[2] scitechdaily com / role-of-the-frontal-lobes-in-reasoning-and-decision-making/
Debate Round No. 2
sonicbro2000

Pro

"Age is not the only factor for consent.
(underline) Intoxication or disability would damper the
ability to consent in many cases which impairs logical thinking (underline). "

That's kind of the point. And if they say yes, It should then be okay regardless
of mental diease it's like excluding people from
rights just because their sick or mentally impaired.

"Developing brains of children do not have the ability to consent because
they are not old enough to understand the implications of sexual intercourse in most cases"

So what your saying is that since most children can't understand sexual intercourse
we deny rights to all children? "Mitchell Scott Johnson (born August 11, 1984) and Andrew Douglas Golden (May 25, 1986 " July 27, 2019)
were the 13- and 11-year-old perpetrators, Respectively,
of the massacre on March 24, 1998, At Westside Middle School in
unincorporated Craighead County, Arkansas near the city of Jonesboro. [2]
Johnson and Golden fatally shot four students and a teacher with multiple
weapons, And both were arrested when they attempted to flee the scene. Ten
others were wounded. Golden and Johnson were convicted of five murders and
ten assaults, And were imprisoned until each turned 21 years of age. After
the Cleveland Elementary School shooting in Stockton, California, The massacre
was the second deadliest non-college school shooting[3] in contemporary
U. S. History until the April 1999 Columbine High School massacre. "
-https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Mitchell_Johnson_and_Andrew_Golden#Mitchell_Johnson
They knew what they where doing when they shot up that school yet they still got a prison sentence.
Do you support this?

"Naturally, There is a position of authority between adults
and children. Adults are generally much stronger, Smarter, Have more
resources, And have more power than children. "

That is just a plain blatant lie. "Lina Medina is a Peruvian woman who is
the youngest confirmed mother in medical history, Giving birth at the age
of five years, Seven months and 17 days. Medina has never revealed the father
of the child nor the circumstances of her impregnation. It was suggested she
might not actually know herself by writing that Medina "couldn't give precise responses".
Although Lina's father was arrested on suspicion of child sexual abuse, He was later released
due to lack of evidence, And the biological father who impregnated Lina was never identified. "
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=3awx807you are_Q

"For without a logical and thought out choice, A person may be very negatively impacted
in cases of consent and drinking. Without logically thinking through sex, The child
disregards the risks of of sex which includes damage, Suspectability to abuse, Risk of STDS,
Possible pregnancy if it is possible, And safety. Without logically thinking through drinking,
A child will not logically think through the consequences to long-term health, Addiction, And
possibility of death from alcohol abuse. Without logically thinking through voting, Children
will not logically think of what a vote truly entails and what their candidate will actually do.
Younger children and early teens are very susceptible to peer pressure, As scientifically, Their
logical thinking is sub-par. They can be taken advantage of by adults very easily, As they will
not have the ability to think logically about these situations. "

Inaccurate: "Akrit Jaswal became the world"s youngest surgeon at the age of 7.
With an IQ of 146 he is India"s smartest boy. Now a medical student learning with
people twice his age, He is on a quest to find the ultimate cure for cancer.
He is invited to London"s world renowned Imperial College to discuss his theories
with leading specialists who are fascinated to know whether this child prodigy could
hold the key to defeating humanity"s worst disease. "
-https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=0Be5HcWN9G8

You cannot deny child rights just because you think they are not capable of understanding it.
This is stereotypical, And all children aren't as stupid as you make it sound.
chungusfanatic79

Con

Part 1: Response

For all arguments given by me that have not been rebutted, I will take as Pro conceding to those arguments as they have not provided counter arguments to them.

"That's kind of the point. And if they say yes, It should then be okay regardless
of mental diease it's like excluding people from
rights just because their sick or mentally impaired. "

I said before, Equal rights entails equal ground. Without the ability to logically think on equal ground, There should be limits to protect that person without up to par logical thought. Without logical thought, The victim cannot think through and come up with an educated answer, And is left with being taken advantage of by coercion or influence.

"So what your saying is that since most children can't understand sexual intercourse
we deny rights to all children? "

Yes. And it isn't just most, It is an extreme many. Could you recall the dangers of sexual intercourse at 6 years old? I couldn't. As you bring up these rare circumstances, Remember that they are RARE and not an indicator of the extreme majority population of children.

"They knew what they where doing when they shot up that school yet they still got a prison sentence. Do you support this? "

I support them not being punished as adults. As stated, Scientifically a majority children do not have the logical thinking skills to fully understand crime and its consequences. Which is why the court may punish children less harshly. The existence of that alone proves that society has already accepted child criminals have sub-par logic and thinking skills. Almost like the insanity defense. . .

"That is just a plain blatant lie. "

It is not a blatant lie. Your source even had this to say: "It was suggested she might not actually know herself by writing that Medina "couldn't give precise responses". "

That is another danger, Children could not have the ability to even report rape and abuse. You have shown a position of authority and power that can be abused by adults and he probably took advantage of that. Thanks for showing us.

"Inaccurate"

It is not inaccurate at all. You have shown another extremely rare case, Of a very smart child who can perform surgery which is unrelated. Now how may this give child the ability to consent to sexual intercourse? Not to mention he is the age of 7, Prepubescent. I think you can answer this as I am tired of repeating myself

"You cannot deny child rights just because you think they are not capable of understanding it.
This is stereotypical, And all children aren't as stupid as you make it sound. "

Yes, We a society can deny your definition of "rights", Because an extreme majority of prepubescent children will not understand the dangers of sex, Drinking, Understand politics, And a whole lot more. This is backed by science as previously stated.

Part 2: The CP argument

Pro supports child pornography as I will provide the counter argument. Now as with previous arguments we already know children have sub-par logical thinking skills thanks to the hardly developed prefrontal cortex. How would a child know the dangers of starring in said pornography and performing sex acts? As we can see from my previous arguments, Actually having a child perform in a pornography, Taping and producing child pornography should definitely be banned as it is child abuse.

But Pro is probably thinking "As the person watching, I am not actually involved in the crime! ". I would ask Pro, Where is the pornography coming from? Ah right, The only reason it exists is because of the person who literally sexually abused a child on camera and uploaded the footage. By consuming and enjoying the footage, You could say you are supporting the crime especially if you paid for it. By having an audience, Child porn producers have an incentive to produce more and commit more child sexual abuse. It is a cycle of an industry, Which you are directly involved one way or the other as the consumer.

If we encourage production or viewing of child pornography to be okay and legal, There will be a demand for more. For real child pornography with the involvement of real children, This will produce more statutory rape crimes but the only difference is that they will be on tape. Because of the direct corelation of the production of child pornography, And the statutory rape of the child to create the pornography, I would say to ban child pornography from being produced and from being viewed as it creates a demand, And were it to be legal, It would be accepting real statutory rape films in society as an ok thing.
Debate Round No. 3
sonicbro2000

Pro

"Equal rights entails equal ground. Without the ability to logically
think on equal ground, There should be limits to protect that person without up to par logical thought. "
Incorrect and wrong. Adults act immature and they have types of physical and mental disabilities, Yet they can still vote.
They can still consent. They can still drink. They can still drive. "Limits" is how you get a revolution. Are you condoning that the U. S. Government
should "protect" you/anyone else, From seeing things that might offend them? I believe it is unconstitutional to do this,
and thus should be illegal to discriminate against age, Mental status, Etc.
"Without logical thought, The victim cannot think through and come up with an educated answer,
And is left with being taken advantage of by coercion or influence. "
Your treating children as if their not a human being, Like I said before, This is unconstitutional and a infringement of the United States Constitution.
"Could you recall the dangers of sexual intercourse at 6 years old? I couldn't.
As you bring up these rare circumstances, Remember that they are RARE and not an indicator of the extreme majority population of children. "
Prove to me that this is a rare occurrence. And what are the "dangers" of sexual intercourse at 6 years old?
And don't just say STD, Or pregnancy. And trauma doesn't count because their are plenty of adults
who either have life long trauma or have committed suicide due to sexual attacks or rape. Just blaming it on the victim's age don't prove anything.
"As stated, Scientifically a majority children do not have the logical thinking skills to fully understand crime and its consequences. "
Untrue and blatant lies. Read into it since obviously you don't know what "logical" is.
-https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers
And when it says "Not charged as the age of criminal responsibility in [insert country and age here]" That doesn't count.
"That is another danger, Children could not have the ability to even report rape and abuse.
You have shown a position of authority and power that can be abused by adults and he probably took advantage of that. "
Yeah they do.
-https://www. Stopitnow. Org/ohc-content/reporting-child-sexual-abuse
"It is not inaccurate at all. You have shown another extremely rare case,
Of a very smart child who can perform surgery which is unrelated. Now how may this
give child the ability to consent to sexual intercourse? Not to mention he is the age of 7,
Prepubescent. I think you can answer this as I am tired of repeating myself. "
I am also tired of repeating myself since your obviously not getting it. Just because their underaged, Mentally disabled, Etc.
doesn't mean that they should be excluded from the bill of rights. I feel like I'm advocating for something
bigger here but y'all are just to discriminatory because [insert bullsh it reason here].
"How would a child know the dangers of starring in said pornography and performing sex acts? "
Now I know I wanted to legalize child porn and the public viewing of child rape in videos, But right now under this particular
argument I'm going to defend child masterbation in videos.
Child masterbation in videos:
If the child was raised promiscuously or whatever the terminology, Is he or she should; one: Have the right to post whatever the hell they want.
Two: Have the right to do what ever they would like. And three: Talk too, Whom ever he/she wants to. Children should be protect under via law, Regardless
of what you think. The video shouldn't be censored and people should be able to watch it no matter the person. Child rape videos are alot harder to
defend, So I'm just going to post a comment I've read on this site:
Comment:
"Just today I was watching a guy fu ck a 2 year-old girl in the a*s. She cried, But he just kept pounding. So I thought to myself how is this different from school? Some children cry and don't want to go to school. But we send them anyway. What about ear piercings, Or circumcision? There are videos of circumcision on YouTube. You can see baby's penis getting cut while the boy is screaming in pain. That's legal. Videos of murder, Torture and decapitation are all legal. . . Child porn should be legal too. If I want to see a 4 year-old girl being fu cked like the little slut she is,
I should be able to see it just like any regular guy can see porn when he wants. It would give me pleasure, . . . Now, I understand that if you don't want to help children, Or want to see them suffer,
You would be against child porn. But even if you hate children, You could legally watch their suffering on child porn,
If it was legal. So even if you hate children, Or love children, You should be in favor of child porn. "
-https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Child-porn-should-be-legal/2/
"Taping and producing child pornography should definitely be banned as it is child abuse. But Pro is probably thinking 'As the person watching,
I am not actually involved in the crime! '. I would ask Pro, Where is the pornography coming from? Ah right, The only reason it
exists is because of the person who literally sexually abused a child on camera and uploaded the footage. "
If it's child abuse and by abuse I'm assuming you mean rape, Etc. The guy would still be arrested for 20-40 years but the video/s
should still be uploaded and you shouldn't be arrested for 50+ years for watching it. Also recording a video does
not cause or contribute to child rape. It's like I'm watching someone in a movie be brutally murdered, And it contributing to murder. It just doesn't add up.
"By consuming and enjoying the footage, You could say you are supporting the crime especially if
you paid for it. By having an audience, Child porn producers have an incentive to produce more
and commit more child sexual abuse. It is a cycle of an industry, Which you are directly involved one way or the other as the consumer. "
Wrong and incorrect. If child porn was made legal I why would I go rape a child if I know I would get arrest when I could just
be lazy and watch it on my couch. Keeping child porn illegal will have unattended consequences; i. E. Mass and unfair incarceration, Violence, And of course raping's of young boy and girls
"If we encourage production or viewing of child pornography to be okay and legal, "
First off I never said too "encourage" child pornography. I just said to make it legal, And decimalize it. Your putting words in my mouth.
"There will be a demand for more. For real child pornography with the involvement of real children, This will produce more statutory rape crimes but the only difference is that they will be on tape"
I'm sorry did you miss something? That's already happening. The government is just censoring it and thrown people in prison, And I believe this is a
violation of the first amendment.
"I would say to ban child pornography from being produced and from being viewed as it creates a demand, "
By saying this you are in direct support of mass incarceration, And if the ban was to get worse, I. E. Censoring and arresting the crew and directors of the movie
"cuties" this will just cause the opposite intended purpose. Think of the war on drugs as an example. "This lead too mass incarceration in the U. S. , To corruption, Political
destabilization and violence, Systemic human rights abuse. "
-https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wJUXLqNHCaI
So basically Shimoneta. XD
In defense of "Cuties" - Netflix Controversy
-https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=aAIoUEsLZ54
I'm not going to, (and can't) type the whole thing but the guy is basically saying that their missing the point and message of the movie. He's saying there is a big
lack of understanding of what fiction is, And people think that Netflix is pro-pedophilia. What society is doing is burying the issue and calling for censorship.
This is basically the equivalent of censoring Clockwork Orange, And arresting the director. Are they pro-violence, Or pro-rape? Of course not. And the fact of the matter is,
that if the government (worst case scenario) makes the movie illegal to watch, And the director of the movie is sentenced to life without parole.
People who where in direct support of content like this would be unfairly discriminated and arrested. And it hurts even more when you know their are
government officials in direct support of this and are getting away with it. Not that I care, But if hundreds of U. S. Citizens are getting arrested, The least you could do is make their
sentence shorter. This is basically the price of freedom, You either have freedom and risk people taking advantage of that, Or not have freedom and have no rights
at all.
chungusfanatic79

Con

"Incorrect and wrong. Adults act immature and they have types of physical and mental disabilities, Yet they can still vote.
They can still consent. They can still drink. They can still drive. "Limits" is how you get a revolution. Are you condoning that the U. S. Government
should "protect" you/anyone else, From seeing things that might offend them? I believe it is unconstitutional to do this,
and thus should be illegal to discriminate against age, Mental status, Etc. "

When we look at the variables involved in being able to consent to something as dangerous as sex, Adults with certain disabilities should have their PRIVILEGE to drive and in other cases their ABILITY to consent taken away from them if the disability is great enough. Disabled people getting their privilege to drive taken away has existed for a long time, Yet no "revolution" to be found. For example, Legally blind adults understand their inability to drive and it makes no sense to allow somebody with a large disability on the road, To which they can't even pass the driving test. For those adults with disabilities that greatly affects their ability to make a logical choice in potentially dangerous circumstances such as sexual intercourse, I still believe it is the right thing to do to limit their harm. I would say this especially applies to those with disabilities that makes them unaware or such that it puts them in a vegetative like state, This protects them from abuse.

However, You have brought up a good argument about drinking and voting for adults with mental disabilities. For as the law stands, We protect the right to vote for adults with mental retardation and the like, And alcohol is not banned for them either. For this I would say, If the disability is great enough that a court would decide such a course of action for drinking and voting. I am not informed inn this field of knowledge so I do not know if they already do this.

Also, It is not about "seeing" things that could "offend" me. It is not about protecting me and my opinions. It is about protecting the vulnerable. That is the entire point of ages of consent, Drinking ages, CP illegalization when it comes to children. It protects vulnerable people from danger when they cannot logically decide for themselves the best course of action.

"Your treating children as if their not a human being. Like I said before, This is unconstitutional and a infringement of the United States Constitution. "

AS I have said before and which you failed to rebut until now, Your first amendment argument is hardly an argument at all for consent/drinking/voting. The first amendment does not protect free ACTIONS of an individual, It protects ability to speak their mind and allow opinions. That does not give children the ability to consent where the perpetrator is punished and not the child. Also, I find the argument that I am treating children not like a human being, To be an admittance from you that you do not understand my stance in how I am wishing to protect human beings.

"Prove to me that this is a rare occurrence. And what are the "dangers" of sexual intercourse at 6 years old? And what are the "dangers" of sexual intercourse at 6 years old?
And don't just say STD, Or pregnancy. And trauma doesn't count because their are plenty of adults
who either have life long trauma or have committed suicide due to sexual attacks or rape. Just blaming it on the victim's age don't prove anything. "

Sure, As I was replying to your school shooter example, Children ages 11 and 13 actually shooting up a school in the US is rare occurrence. School shooting is already a rare occurrence, Especially for people this young. From 1970 to June 16, 2020, 7 school shootings involved an 11 year old shooter. 49 cases involved a 13 year old shooter. There was a total of more than 1, 000 cases from this selection[1]. This is a rare occurrence when you look at the total of shootings, And also the number of shootings committed by that age.

I will rephrase the next question for you: When you were six years old, Could you logically cite the dangers of sexual intercourse? It was an example, That young children will not logically understand the risks of sexual intercourse. Children are not exempt from STDs AT ALL, And you have provided an example earlier of a child becoming pregnant. To say that "trauma doesn't count", Well it obviously does. And blaming it on the victim's age, I am not. When you are forced to go through something, And it is something you DON'T EVEN LOGICALLY UNDERSTAND it produces HUGE trauma. "Any type of child abuse is horrific, But child molestation is one of the most damaging types of abuse a child can suffer. Child molestation almost always affects a victim for the rest of his or her life in various ways, And it"s important for victims and their loved ones to understand the long-term effects of child molestation. "[2]

"Untrue and blatant lies. Read into it since obviously you don't know what "logical" is. "

Ironic, Considering you just provided me a list of young killers and this did not prove they knew the dangers and consequences of crime. This evidence, Is not logical for replying to this argument.

"Yeah they do. "

Do you think children will know how or even when to report sexual abuse when they don't even understand the dangers of sexual intercourse or in most cases know what sex even is? Especially it coming from an authority figure, They could think because of their authority they should never go against them. The link you provided, Would be used by an adult who has found that a child has experienced sexual abuse.

What if a third party adult never found out? (very common) "Only about one-third of child sexual abuse incidents are identified and even fewer are reported. "[3]

"Just because their underaged, Mentally disabled, Etc.
doesn't mean that they should be excluded from the bill of rights. I feel like I'm advocating for something
bigger here but y'all are just to discriminatory because [insert bullsh it reason here]. "

Again, A child or mentally disabled person is never punished for being a victim of rape. The "rights" you so much advocate for is for the ability for the adult pedophile to not go to jail. The perpetrator is the one punished, You are moreso advocating for their "rights" and not the victims. And I find my reasons not "bullsh it" because children and mentally disabled persons will not understand the implications of sexual intercourse and could be put in huge danger. Children moreso, Because if they are prepubescent they will not even have sexual attraction, Which the "desire" to have sex would have to be from influence or coercion, Which goes against legal consent.

"Now I know I wanted to legalize child porn and the public viewing of child rape in videos, But right now under this particular
argument I'm going to defend child masterbation in videos. "

You are going against the debate. You are now describing a very specific form of child pornography and not the whole of child pornography as we agreed on debating. If anybody is voting, Please remember this tactic used by Pro in your decision.

"If the child was raised promiscuously or whatever the terminology, Is he or she should; one: Have the right to post whatever the hell they want. Two: Have the right to do what ever they would like. And three: Talk too, Whom ever he/she wants to. Children should be protect under via law, Regardless"

You are going outside the scope the argument, By saying that children should be able to post and do whatever they want on the internet. Already, Adults cannot do whatever they want on the internet or post whatever they want. Makes no sense for children to be able to. I don't even have to explain this. . .

Also your next "comment" source, Is irrelevant. You are letting other people talk for you and not instead putting official sources in for the debate and using them in your own conversation. I am not even going to bother responding to that gross comment. (I also ran out of room)

"Also recording a video does not cause or contribute to child rape. " "Wrong and incorrect. If child porn was made legal I why would I go rape a child if I know I would get arrest when I could just be lazy and watch it on my couch. Keeping child porn illegal will have unattended consequences; i. E. Mass and unfair incarceration, Violence, And of course raping's of young boy and girls"

Its clear you never understood my argument. I am not going to copy and paste until you understand, But I will give you clues in case you really are clueless: Availability produces DEMAND. DEMAND leads to PRODUCTION which requires the crime. I have never said that viewing child porn would make you want to go rape a child (although I could actually make that argument but it is too late in the debate). How would illegalization create violence or more rapes? The production of it alone requires rape and abuse of children.

"First off I never said too "encourage" child pornography. I just said to make it legal, And decimalize it. Your putting words in my mouth. "

The government making anything legal is encouraging it. It is saying it is okay to do when it previously wasn't. Sorry if you don't think that's the case, But that's how I see it.

"I'm sorry did you miss something? That's already happening. "

Clearly haven't missed anything when the existence of the industry alone proves my argument. It would be way worse legalized. Just because "something is happening" does not qualify legality and thats a fallacy.

I responded to irrelevant things to the debate at first but I ran out of words, Just take that as you will.

Sources:
[1] https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/971544/number-k-12-school-shootings-us-age-shooter/
[2] https://www. Wmlawyers. Com/2017/09/long-term-effects-child-molestation/
[3] https://www. D2l. Org/the-issue/statistics/
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chungusfanatic79 5 days ago
chungusfanatic79
Yep, Ran out of words for round 4. I think I have written more for this than two college essays. I think there is also too many rounds as we are obviously just repeating ourselves back and fourth
Posted by IsaiahxWood 1 week ago
IsaiahxWood
Well i would love to do that, Though It be a smaller one word wise cause I hate reading 8000 word a round lol
Posted by IsaiahxWood 1 week ago
IsaiahxWood
Well i would love to do that, Though It be a smaller one word wise cause I hate reading 8000 word a round lol
Posted by sonicbro2000 1 week ago
sonicbro2000
@BionicSwede It isn't.
Posted by BionicSwede 1 week ago
BionicSwede
@chungusfanatic79 This account looks fake and pretty sus
Posted by chungusfanatic79 1 week ago
chungusfanatic79
@IsaiahxWood You could challenge them to a similar debate based around morality after this one. I would add I think I have read somewhere that sonicbro2000 may have religious beliefs.
Posted by IsaiahxWood 1 week ago
IsaiahxWood
There is a big problem with this, I honestly think this is more of a moral than a scientific issue. Benjamin Franklin was a toddler when he first learned how to read, Write think, Etc. . . So you could make the argument that it ok. But what about if its right? Abortion is possible, Doesnt mean its ok if its a person, Honestly I think thats the main issue.
Posted by Leaning 1 week ago
Leaning
Surprisingly well argued debate, By both people.
Posted by chungusfanatic79 1 week ago
chungusfanatic79
Also frick I put the wrong source in source[2], Here is the right one ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov / pmc/ articles/ PMC2892678/ "Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy"
Posted by DeletedUser 1 week ago
DeletedUser
No completely wrong (fallacy) children should be always exposed with respective of their age. . .
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.