CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Altogether, this really depends on several circumstances, but there is no logic in saying that children should not receive any form of privacy at any time for any reason.
Children are human, as are adults, toddlers and elderly people. Regardless of age, we are all human. Human rights is the obvious; we all need and it and most deserve it. As humanity in general deserve human rights, children in general deserve human rights. The right to privacy, if I'm not mistaken, is something that we all need from time to time, despite our age, gender or location. If we do not question the rights of all humanity, why then do we question the rights of children?
It would be interesting to see what the people arguing "no" are going to say, and especially if it is for the right reasons. After all, human rights should be a given, so therefore privacy should also be a given.
"After all, human rights should be a given, so therefore privacy should also be a given."
Actually, there is a different set of human rights for children. UDHR doesn't apply, the 'convention on the rights of a child' does, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about privacy, unfortunately.
You raise a valid point, though I hope you will find this quote from Wikipedia as informative:
"The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference."
This would therefore suggest that privacy is implemented within the UNCRC.
Regardless, some choose to wave privacy, some choose to remove it from others. The majority, however, understand its importance to us all, and treasure it amongst themselves and deliver it to others.
I don't get why this debate seems to have pissed you off, but it is rather perplexing.
I say that everyone deserves human rights; children and adults. Am I wrong?
I say that privacy is a human right. Am I wrong?
Therefore, privacy is deserved by all human beings; children and adults. Am I wrong?
Get over any issues you may have had, because one person's issues with privacy does not ultimately relate to every other child in the entire world; this is an obvious fact in life and I am shocked that you do not understand this.
I don't think its a good idea to worry about people like that, he gets his kicks from trying to insult people, you only feed his ego if you respond in kind. He called me a pedophile for defending Homosexuals, go figure.
Privacy is a right to all. Everyone deserves to have this boundary around them. You can't say that just because this guy is a child, he is liable to be under the control of his parents and everyone else.
Nobody likes people nosing into their private affairs. Maybe parents get over-concerned with how their children performs at home or in school, but forcefully taking a child's phone to read all his text messages is not the way to go about it.
Perhaps a better alternative is to sit down and talk with the child about his performance if it is dipping. A child deserves privacy like any other adult because we are all homosapiens after all.
Children deserve rights, not just of privacy. Why cant children enter a cash prize draw of 1000's dollars, pounds, yen euros and other currencies? Why not? So what if they waste it an adult might just waste it too? Y cant a child feel free to go out when they want, yes their parents may advise but not stop. Now my parents used to say to me 'I am the adult and you are the child!' So what? Thats makes me different how. Now I am not rebelling I just think children deserve a say, they have a voice and they deserve a say and they deserve it now! Why not? So what if they waste 1 million of any currencies on toys and things? An adult might waste it on a sports car or a big house! Which in fact they do not need! They only need a car that drives and a house that keeps them dry and warm! If you think about it sports cars and big houses are a little like toys except for adults! Children for many ages have been put down as a smaller member of society but I want this to stop! Now theirs sexist, homophobic and racist but why not agist? Why cant their be agism? Think about that!
Children DO deserve privacy and other rights as well. Children are humans, and humans deserve rights. This goes out to not only the immature ones, but also for the ones below 18+. Depending on how mature a child is, the more you can trust on his/her's privacy.
Total privacy no, children are under the guardianship of their parents or other guardians, they are until they reach eighteen or are emancipated. Parents need to be aware of the actions of their children at all times. Children (below sixteen, though some a bit younger) have little capacity for understanding the complexities of life and can get themselves into serious danger or trouble, if they do the responsibilities fall at the parents feet not at those of the child.
Privacy from the outside world, definitely, no third party should have access to any information (except that which is given) regarding any one (with no criminal record) children included.
That is not relevant to the debate topic. The topic asks simply for "the right of privacy", therefore not limiting it to a particular level of privacy.
"Parents need to be aware of the actions of their children at all times."
Being aware and maintaining constant eye contact are two very separate things.
"Children (below sixteen, though some a bit younger) have little capacity for understanding the complexities of life and can get themselves into serious danger or trouble, if they do the responsibilities fall at the parents feet not at those of the child."
That is a given, but it doesn't justify total requirement of observation. Children learn as they grow into the world, not with a leash tied around their necks (not literally - using "leash" as a metaphor for restriction). If a parent is incapable of trusting the child in any situation or condition, then perhaps they are the ones who are in most need of constant observation.
"Privacy from the outside world, definitely, no third party should have access to any information (except that which is given) regarding any one (with no criminal record) children included."
Okay, so you've officially argued against your side. Congrats!
As the topic does not state a limit on privacy (as I have mentioned), we must assume that the topic covers all forms of privacy (obviously). Perhaps you didn't understand this, after all, it is an easy mistake to make and I wouldn't blame you for it.
That is not relevant to the debate topic. The topic asks simply for "the right of privacy", therefore not limiting it to a particular level of privacy.
Well when it comes to children the rules are not that simple, I was arguing from the perspective of a parent, maybe in your world everything is either one way or the other but life is not that simple.
Being aware and maintaining constant eye contact are two very separate things.
Of course they are I never stated they were not, this though depends on the age of the child and as I stated above things are not that lucid.
Children learn as they grow into the world, not with a leash tied around their necks
I am aware of this, this is why I started my point with total privacy, I believe that some things need to be watched, and somethings should be left up to the child, it is in instilling rules as a parent that you teach your children. As they grow older the grip should be loosened.
If a parent is incapable of trusting the child in any situation or condition, then perhaps they are the ones who are in most need of constant observation.
How do you work this one out, any situation, really, so a two year old child should be left to deal with their own lives and their parents if they do not trust the child should be monitored.
Okay, so you've officially argued against your side. Congrats!
No I haven't, I made a distinction from the start, privacy is a fundamental right, one that everyone should have with certain caveats, if you are in charge of the welfare of an individual and are answerable for their actions then it is you that needs to know what that person is up to, trust is earned in the eyes of your parents and with that trust comes freedoms and privacy.
As the topic does not state a limit on privacy (as I have mentioned), we must assume that the topic covers all forms of privacy (obviously). Perhaps you didn't understand this, after all, it is an easy mistake to make and I wouldn't blame you for it.
It is up to the person debating on a subject how they interpret the subject if no limits are given. As the topic is ambiguous it is open to my understanding of it as much as anyones, and if it is all forms of privacy then my argument is valid.
"Well when it comes to children the rules are not that simple, I was arguing from the perspective of a parent, maybe in your world everything is either one way or the other but life is not that simple."
An undeniable point of view. I completely agree that in the eyes of a parent things would probably seem more difficult. But consider this: parents are genetically and morally bound to caring for their children. To most (I would hope), this is a 24/7 job taken with care. This demonstrates how parental guidance would seem to be an unquestionable duty from the eyes of a parent. In my point of view, being technically a child myself, I can see how things are from a child's perspective. I can see how we are capable at times, such as when we are preoccupied with playing electronic games or watching movies, of taking care of ourselves. Most cases in life, perhaps, children do need parenting, but to suggest that children should be deprived totally of privacy (as the topic suggests) is misguided.
"Of course they are I never stated they were not, this though depends on the age of the child and as I stated above things are not that lucid."
Ah, yes, the child's age, I was wondering when this would be brought up. This, too, is an undefined aspect of the topic. By "children", I would most likely assume those between the ages of (3-5) and (16-17). Young children need the most attention; they are in deeper developmental stages in life. Older children (Teens) are also in need of attention, but are also in need of Independence. So, you see, it is different for each stage in child development, but wherever we look, privacy is going to have to come into play in some shape or form and at some time in a child's life; do deny this simple fact is to be arguing for your side.
"How do you work this one out, any situation, really, so a two year old child should be left to deal with their own lives and their parents if they do not trust the child should be monitored."
Okay, you've read my argument backwards, and it probably isn't your fault. I meant from my argument (rather than any situation in general to be monitored) that the parent should be capable of leaving a child in private in some situation at some point. For example, a one year old may be left to play with a child-size ball in a living room for a few minutes. Or, perhaps, a common thirteen year old should be left alone to have a shower (I would certainly hope). Do you now understand my point of view?
"No I haven't, I made a distinction from the start, privacy is a fundamental right, one that everyone should have with certain caveats, if you are in charge of the welfare of an individual and are answerable for their actions then it is you that needs to know what that person is up to, trust is earned in the eyes of your parents and with that trust comes freedoms and privacy."
It's hard not to laugh, because you seem to have done it again. You have once again argued against your side. Let me highlight the exact point: "privacy is a fundamental right, one that everyone should have with certain caveats". Your side of this debate is to argue that children do not deserve the right of privacy, and yet you continuously contradict this point of view with arguments such as the one I highlighted? Is this intentional? Is this totally by mistake? Perhaps you should consider switching sides, or at least changing the tag on your arguments.
"It is up to the person debating on a subject how they interpret the subject if no limits are given. As the topic is ambiguous it is open to my understanding of it as much as anyones, and if it is all forms of privacy then my argument is valid."
Valid? Perhaps it could be, but it isn't winning the debate for your side. Unless you can explain how children do not deserve the right of privacy in any situation then your arguments are making the expectations.
But consider this: parents are genetically and morally bound to caring for their children. To most (I would hope), this is a 24/7 job taken with care. This demonstrates how parental guidance would seem to be an unquestionable duty from the eyes of a parent.
Adopted parents and legal guardians have no genetic or moral ties to the child, yet they are still responsible for the welfare of the child.
I can see how things are from a child's perspective.
I was a child before I was an adult so I can see it from both sides.
Most cases in life, perhaps, children do need parenting, but to suggest that children should be deprived totally of privacy (as the topic suggests) is misguided.
This is at the discretion of the guardian, so it is up them how much or even if the child's privacy rights are respected. So if I was to state a black or white position on this I would say that the child does not deserve the right of privacy
It would be bad parenting to deny your child privacy absolutely so this is why I argue two points, I have changed my tag on this debate as you seem to need that clarification.
Valid? Perhaps it could be, but it isn't winning the debate for your side. Unless you can explain how children do not deserve the right of privacy in any situation then your arguments are making the expectations.
Winning the debate is probably your goal, but it is not mine, this topic as I have stated before is too grey to make absolute definitions so I expanded on the areas that I felt were important, like I stated above if it was a situation where I had to say either yes or no the it would be no. This is because the child's welfare is not their own to take care of, there is nothing more to say on that.
"Adopted parents and legal guardians have no genetic or moral ties to the child, yet they are still responsible for the welfare of the child."
This hardly differentiates at all. The fact that acts of parenting must come into play will show how viewpoints such as those of a parent can often be blinded by responsibility. True, this seems rather hard to believe, but I have spoken firsthand to many parents, and have come to understand that this is a part of reality that has to be dealt with in the life of any parent or guardian.
"I was a child before I was an adult so I can see it from both sides."
As a person ages, their viewpoints in life change dramatically; any Psychologist could tell you this, and far more. Perhaps you remember what being a child was like; this still would not ultimately shake the view of a parent (which I assume that you are? Correct me if I am wrong).
"This is at the discretion of the guardian, so it is up them how much or even if the child's privacy rights are respected. So if I was to state a black or white position on this I would say that the child does not deserve the right of privacy"
Black and white; naturally. It would ultimately seem that in a definitive yes or no situation it would be decided that no would be the appropriate answer. Yet, we have so much to consider in this debate, so I would ultimately say yes, simply based on the broad nature of the topic.
"It would be bad parenting to deny your child privacy absolutely so this is why I argue two points, I have changed my tag on this debate as you seem to need that clarification."
Now I can finally understand your viewpoint. You argue that it ultimately depends on the factors of life. I can respect that.
"Winning the debate is probably your goal, but it is not mine..."
That is fair. It seems, humorously, that you identified my competitive nature.
The fact that acts of parenting must come into play will show how viewpoints such as those of a parent can often be blinded by responsibility.
This I can not dispute for the responsibilities of any guardian can and do get in the way of a child's development (read anything by Freud).
As a person ages, their viewpoints in life change dramatically; any Psychologist could tell you this, and far more. Perhaps you remember what being a child was like; this still would not ultimately shake the view of a parent (which I assume that you are? Correct me if I am wrong)
Yes I am a parent I have two sons. There is no doubt that a persons views change as they get older but ask yourself "why is this?" Any responsible legal guardian, parent or not has seen far more of the harshness and reality of life. I personally remember a great deal of my childhood, it is how my memory works (ask me what I did at five yesterday and I probably wont know). I know what it feels like when a parent does something that you hate them for but as you get older you will realize that it was necessary.
Black and white; naturally. It would ultimately seem that in a definitive yes or no situation it would be decided that no would be the appropriate answer. Yet, we have so much to consider in this debate, so I would ultimately say yes, simply based on the broad nature of the topic.
I was arguing about the broad nature of the topic and you seemed to see it as contradictory to the topic which is why I gave a black and white answer. So are we in agreement that it is much too grey an area to take yes or no positions?
I would love to say yes to the right of privacy, my boy's well being is very important to me. If you wish to set up a new debate topic on this subject on a more broad base let me know and I will get into this with you on a deeper level.
That is fair. It seems, humorously, that you identified my competitive nature.
I too can be competitive in the debates around here, sometimes though I use them as a means to discuss a topic, especially one that is close to my heart and one for which there is no straight answer.
(If I'm correct in assuming this has to do with parents and children)
You rich white kids and all of your rights bs.
I grew up with literally NO privacy until the age of 12/13. My parents did in general respect my privacy from then on but nothing was set in stone. If they wanted to 'invade my privacy' the choice was theirs.
These people (I don't know what you call them) are your parents... you're part of a family. Only selfish cunts think they have the right of privacy - especially if they're doing something wrong.
Whoever says parents can't read their kid's texts should ask who's paying for the phone.
I'd really like to know who you are trying to direct that at?
I have had to work to support myself since 14, because that is when my parents could legally send me to work. The clothes, phone, insurance ... all payed for by me and only me, I support myself.
I grew up with no privacy until I was 14, then I had work.
I call them my parents. Privacy is deserved to all, the level isn't relevant. If a kid wants to have a right of privacy whether it be change or jack off is not important. That kid still deserves that right.
Whoever says parents can't read their kid's texts should ask who's paying for the phone.
Sure I agree, my phone bill has been payed by me since I've had a phone which I bought myself.
kids may give away pravite information like addresses , phone numbers , passwords , email addresses , zip codes , bank information , credit card and billing information.