CreateDebate


Debate Info

27
9
Yes No
Debate Score:36
Arguments:27
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (18)
 
 No (9)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3324) pic



Do children deserve the right of privacy?

Yes

Side Score: 27
VS.

No

Side Score: 9
2 points

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.

Side: yes
1 point

"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.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
Kinda(1649) Disputed
-2 points
DaWolfman(3324) Disputed
3 points

I thought it was a dammed good response to the question at hand, but hey thats just me ;)

Side: yes
SMCdeBater(242) Disputed
1 point

No, did you?

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.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes

OF COURSE but not total privacy because you never know what could happen

Side: yes
1 point

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!

littleroth

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: Yes

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.

Side: Depends on the factors
SMCdeBater(242) Disputed
2 points

"Total privacy no"

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.

Side: yes
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Depends on the factors
1 point

Lol fuck no.

(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.

Side: No
DaWolfman(3324) Disputed
1 point

You rich white kids and all of your rights bs.

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.

Side: yes
1 point

An absolute right to privacy? No. And neither should adults for that matter.

Side: No
1 point

kids may give away pravite information like addresses , phone numbers , passwords , email addresses , zip codes , bank information , credit card and billing information.

Side: No

Children are minors so they do not have a right to privacy.

Side: No