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.
Because a baby is not capable of taking care of itself.
And after a certain point, some senor citizens are not capable of taking care of themselves either.
Therefore they reasonably do not deserve the same rights as normal adult human beings because they are not physically or mentally capable of performing the same tasks that adults are capable of.
I knew that you were going to go this route. One's abilities and capabilities have nothing to do with ones age. Sure, he can't take care of himself and due to that he is treated special. Not because he is too young. They're two different issues. Just because, commonly, children can't take care of themselves doesn't mean that young equals incapable. It's true that being young comes with being undeveloped. But agan that has nothing to do with ag discrimination.
I knew that you were going to go this route. One's abilities and capabilities have nothing to do with ones age.
It does until proven otherwise. If a baby can prove that it can take care of itself, then it's welcome to prove itself, but I guarantee it cannot and will not.
Sure, he can't take care of himself and due to that he is treated special.
Right, and he can't take care of himself because he's too young. His biological age contributes to determining his physical and mental capability.
Just because, commonly, children can't take care of themselves doesn't mean that young equals incapable.
Once again, it does equal incapability until the child can prove they are capable.
But agan that has nothing to do with age discrimination.
"It does until proven otherwise. If a baby can prove that it can take care of itself, then it's welcome to prove itself, but I guarantee it cannot and will not."
If you can say that it does until proved otherwise, then why can't I just say it doesn't until proved otherwise. You can also look at this many other ways too, but overall a argument like this is like a "He said" "She said" thing. There really isn't a point in arguing about something like this since I see it as a matter based on opinions, don't you agree?
Just to repeat myself to verify...or something. You talk about discrimination based on ones abilities. Ones abilities aren't determined by age (Although it's true that younglings don't normally have many skills).
The point of this debate is to talk about people being treated differently just based on the fact that they have been on this earth a different amount of time. Ageism has nothing to do with one's abilities and skills. That's the main point that I wanted to make in this conversation.
I don't think someone should be discriminated against based on ones age when it comes to things like debating, for example. However, it needs to be understood that children just don't have enough life experience or knowledge as most responsible adults. Saying a child isn't aloud to go clubbing or drive a car, or go have sex with a hooker but an adult can isn't discrimination at all. This is quite a tough question to answer, because both sides have equal arguments that can all be quite valid, so I'll tag my answer as 'Yes and No".
But that is just something they aren't ALLOWED to do because it is unsafe and for some people unlawful. But many kids still have sex at like 12 or something.
Discrimination based on age might be in different ways. Firstly, when it comes to job, work competency,discrimination of age still exists. For example in hospitals or health care system: people tend to trust those doctors, who have more experience, in other words they sometimes don't want to be treated by young doctors. It's discrimination of age. The second is that in job competency, where you can be not accepted just because of your age. You can be focused off, as you have less skill level. But on the other hand when it comes to respect or decision, in my point of view, adult people have rights more. So that discrimination based on age can exist, but not everywhere, especially in job, however, in some ways like making decision or regarding, discrimination sometimes should exist.
Younger people aren't always less knowledgeable then the people older then them, assuming that the older people in life are more Intelligent or such is discriminating the younglings.
The only reason that I think that younglings shouldn't be allowed to do many of the things adults do is because of the face that It's common for children to be unprepared or something in that sense. I mean if a child was intelligent and had a decent income or wealth of some sort and overall had what it takes to raise a baby and still be able to continue on with their life's (Going to collage ext.) then I would be fine with that. But fact is, usually kids aren't prepared for babies. I'm no going to discriminate and assume that all kids aren't ready for it, but I do keep the statistics in mind. I'll be interested in your reply.
At what age, minimum, should any child be allowed to drink an alcoholic beverage under the supervision of a parent? If your answer was anything over "0," you already know the answer to this question.
Why do you think that children aren't allowed to drink alcohol? I agree that children shouldn't be able to drink alcohol, but no because of their age. I think they shouldn't because they can permanently damage their undeveloped brain. Age discrimination has very little to do with one's capabilitys.
Age discrimination is discriminating one because of their AGE not because of their abilities. I agree that being younger commonly gives you less capabilities then a older person, but that doesn't give you the right to assume that a younger person is and less of anything then someone older then him/her. For example, I'm pretty young myself, yet my IQ is 116 (Although that's from testing last year). The average adult in America has a IQ of 98. Age discrimination would be assuming that I'm dumb (Intellectually) because I'm young.
Age does have something to do with capability. But age discrimination has nothing to do with capability. Maybe you should read more about it on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
I'm not sure what has you under the impression that I'm not aware of the buzz-words fifteen-year-olds use to invoke some higher power whenever they're feeling threatened by authority; I was fifteen once too. There's also a closely-related anti-"ableism" movement, which contends that it is just as wrong to discriminate against others on the basis of ability. They find the whole concept of intelligence quotients quite offensive.
This pair of sentences: "Age does have something to do with capability. But age discrimination has nothing to do with capability" is why your argument makes no sense.
A link to a Wikipedia article generally contains the bare essentials of a topic and is generally thought the most condescending direction to information one can give.
Age and ability are related, indelibly. Do you agree?
So how can anything having to do with one have nothing to do with the other?
I think that there is a difference between not being allowed for maturity reasons and discriminating by age. Age should not be the source of bullying or discrimination or unjustice because it is not the child's fault for being young and age doesnt make a difference in many circumstances
It, as so many other things, depends on the individual.
Things like education, and debating should have no discrimination. Nor should someone's words be put down just because how old they are.
But there are obvious things that need to be regulated depending on age. Such as certain tasks or responsibilities.
Then again there's this, how is anyone supposed to learn if you don't let them make the mistake in the first place? An adult has already made the mistakes and learned from them so of course they're more educated in that aspect. But children aren't ALLOWED to make the mistake, that doesn't make them lesser than an adult, it just makes them held back.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, it makes sense in my head right now, but I'm really sleepy. :)
I have to argue your idea of ''mistakes''. Children can learn for other people's mistakes faster then they can learn from there own. Because of this fact intelligent children can possably become more wise than a unintelligent adult.
It's true that normally a adult would be more wise then a child but assuming that would be discrimination. If it's possable for a child to be wiser then a adult then one shouldn't assume otherwise.
That's not true from my experiences. Every person I know of has to learn first hand. Mistakes can be lessons if a parent takes the opportunity. It's far more difficult to learn from another persons mistakes, as you can see in the world's history.
Well, I consider allot of things that has happened in history to be a bit idiotic. But that's off topic I guess.
And I disagree, anyone with decent intelligence can learn just as easy from others as they can form themselves. I do believe that if they make the mistake themselves then get punished for it then they will get it more engraved in there mind. That is true. But that intensity of the teaching has little to do with the actual, erm, the amount of learning taken in.
I disagree with allot of th ideas that say that one can't learn from others as well a on can learn from themselves. I, myself, have made very few mistakes in my life. I normally am a pretty passive guy watching the world go by. It's pretty easy for me to learn from others mistakes. I consider it easy enough to be considered common sense.
No. If your are 11 and someone is 17. It doesn't give the person that is 17 the right to push you around or tell you do stuff. It should only be allowed if it is a parent telling you something.
When you're talking about something like this it can get kinda complex. Overall, like all sorts of discrimination, I don't agree with it. Say a minor was going for a job at the same time as a adult. Say neither of them has much job experience and neither of them has any sort of criminal recored. They both should have a equal chance to get the job, yet still I bet the older one would always get it at least 4 times out of 5. Did you know that younglings get pulled over much more often then the elderly for speeding slightly above the limit? Don't you just hate how sometimes when your better then someone in every way, you still get treated worse just because they're older then you? I just consider it to be unfair.
It depends on the nature of circumstances surrounding the person's age. The key word in your title argument is "discrimination" which is the underlying factor in an unjustifiable decision or attitude in which the person is treated with prejudice solely because of his or her age. This type of scenario, unless not justified by a legal reason cannot and should not be tolerated in society and the resulting consequences for those who indulge in it should be exposure to civil liability.