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.
Not in all cases but heinous crimes such as the 2 boys who tortured an innocent baby, children who bash old people, etc. Where no physical injuries are inflicted then they should be treated with some leniency but the age they are treated as adults should be lowered to 14 and not 17 as it is in Australia
you get around, dont u? what do u do, spend ur whole time on here disputing everything for fun? O.O
If a minor does something thats worthy of a trial as an adult, dont you think thats saying something? How long are the authorities going to wait untill he's tried as an adult, untill he's really an adult? When he/she has raped/shot/killed people a bunch of times already? What you reap is what you soe; If a minor does something to the point where its that bad, too bad. They knew what they were doing, so they knew the conciquences if caught.
I don't think minors should sometimes be tried as adults, i think there should be no offical distinction in the judicial system between minors and adults.
The law is only just when it serves to protect rights. Isolation, reform or elimination of right violators is the purpose of the judicial system. Each violator has a reform/solution that will work best for them and society. The age of the violator may be correlated Indirectly to their "punishment", but it shouldn't be a main determinate. I can continue on.
Yes, definitly. Kids that do stuff bad enough that they should be tried as minors aren't just gonna stop the first time. Letting them go or get away with it the first time around just tells them that they can get away with it another time. I know students that when they get in trouble, and they get away with it, it's like they won the lottery. And then they try and see what else they get away with. How much longer can the authorities wait untill they do somehting even worse?
The students are pushing their boundaries they feel are imposed on them by an external source. If they have boundaries they agree with they are not going to push them. Most People, including children, agree and believe that calculated murder, rape, etc are outside of their own accepted boundaries. If a kid accidentally kills 3 people in a car wreck caused by him pushing the externally enforce boundary of speed limits, that doesn't mean hes going to become a serial killer if he is treated with mercy on the deaths of these 3 people; even if he "knew better then to go 90 in a 40".
Yes, most SANE people believe this. If a kid a kid was driving 90 in 40 mph zone, thats his fault. He was going 50 mph over the speed limit, and thats breaking the law as it is. But adding 3 deaths to it over his foolishness, he is gonna have a lot more than just whatever they do for kids now after a trial.
Country roads tend to have a spend range in between 40 and 60, Most people spend 10 miles or so on these ill patroled roads, usually there isn't much obstructing your view of the road and there isn't much risk in speeding even 50 miles over(granted that you do it right).I was thinking of some kids getting unlucky in a joy ride and the driver surviving. He would likly get charged with 3 reckless homicides or vehicular manslaughters and possibly a couple other charges. These are charges that you can indeed be charged with as a minor, rather then an adult.
What do you think would happen on a non-country road? I'm thinking chances are they'd be busted within the minute? So then unless there would be a police chance followed after the chances are they wouldn't get killed, maybe.
One of my teachers told us a story about a guy he met, in which the guy and his friends went out for a country joyride drunk, (and this was on the real back roads with corn and other stuff) and their car hit a huge ditch that was made from a tractor or something and flipped the car over. It killed the 3 friends the guy had in the car, and only the guy (who was the driver) survived. The guy doesn't drink anymore. And he's a famous basketball player in the NBL. I'm not sure who.
I doubt they would be able to unless it was at night or on the interstate, unless theres an undercover cop on the interstate they likly wouldn't get caught. Night time a lot of cops sit with their lights off clocking cars, a 90 mile per hour ride around town will cover a lot of area fast making it likly you'll past one.
Its unlikely the NBA player had a rough punishment, if not i doubt he would of had the opportunity be a NBA player. NBA teams with good players can bring in significant revenue to a city, provide a great quality of life for the players(providing little incentive to misbehave), The player has learned not to drink, and certainly not to drink and drive, and I'm sure hes willing to tell kids not to as well.
yes children do some things that usually go out of hand and therefore we can treat them as adults in many cases. although they shouldn't be treated very harshly. that might cause mental problems.
In most other areas of life, there seems to be a clear legal distinction between minors and adults, with certain treatments and rights afforded on that basis; curfews, access to restricted substances, sexual rights, autonomy in school and in the workplace, and others. If, in every other way, minors are treated as minors, what are the reasons they should treated as adults in only this respect?
It's about culpability. The human brain is not even fully developed until around the age of 25. Do you really expect a human being at approximately half the age it takes for full brain development to be fully aware of the consequences of his or her actions?
Um... excuse me AuntieChrist, For your information, Adults are tried as over 18 years old people. If you say that the human brain is not fully developed until around the age of 25, then are you also implying that adults being tried should be at the age of 25 years and above?
What do you mean by not needing to explain your argument? Your argument clearly states that adults tried should be over 25 years of age. You said that the human brain does not fully develop until the age of 25 years old, and the law said that adults are people over the age of 18 years. So according to your argument, we should change the law then.
His argument is that a certain degree of brain development needs to have occurred for a person to be tried as an adult and that the human brain is not "fully developed" intill about age 25, however around age 18 it is developed Enough, although not fully. He needs to explain what properties that are dependent on brain development are so important and which tend to emerge around age 18.
Then if this is the case, what about at the age if 17 may i ask. is that grown enough for you? Anyways... 25 minus 18 equals 7. That means there are seven years in difference until the brain is fully developed. Do you really think that 7 years to 'fully developed' is enough to know what's right or wrong? Do you really think that 7 years to 'fully developed' is enough to be dependant?
The speed at which the brain develops decreases with time. put another way the difference in development between age 25 and 18 is smaller then 11 and 18. I don't believe the brain ever stops developing; I was just clarifying his argument for you. It has problems and you picked up on a few of them.
I don't think being able to distinguish between "right and wrong" is the property in question; rather if the person is capable of going beyond short term self-interest to see the long term self-interest and if they are capable of "choosing" to act in the long term self-interest; This is something many people past 25 don't have though and I'm not convince we should try minors(any of them) differently then adults. Although I do believe our laws and justice system can be vastly different, orient it less towards punishment and more towards identifying the ones who violate others rights and making it such that that doesn't happen, either though education, temporary isolation and education(such that there is a material change in their lives), or for some extreme and rare cases possibly though permanent imprisonment(or death, what ever is cheaper although with death sentences there is a possibility of killing a innocent man and that makes me unsure of it).
First of all, I have to tell you that you have obviously never learnt maths because the difference between 25 and 18 is the same as 11 and 18. To distinguish what is 'right or wrong' is excatly the case because why else would you try someone if they didn't do anything wrong? That's just stupid.
Are you a minor yourself? Or just have low reading comprehension and little knowledge of debate, ad hominems get old fast and all you do is discredit yourself with them since you've shown an inability to use them wittingly.
we are assuming brain development is a function of age as is clear in my previous argument: BD(age)
[BD(18)-BD(11)] > [BD(25) - BD(18)] which is clearly different then 25-18 and 18-11. I also stated that BD'(25) < BD'(11).
ah... think about what is right and wrong; not of examples of right and wrong but the definition of right and wrong, how they come about and evolve and you'll understand.
Also you never try someone because they did something wrong, you try them because they are suspected of doing something unlawful and there is enough evidence to put them in court. Innocent till proven guilty, due process, legality is no substitute for morality, etc.
First of all, will you please define the meaning of minor. If you're calling the age of 14 then I guess yes, I am a minor. And I know the rule of debating because we just learnt about it at school, and my reading comprehansion is actually pretty good thank you very much. Also, how am I discrediting myself may i ask?
I am very sorry but i am still not very sure how 25 minus 18 will be smaller than 18 minus 11. If you type those two equations on any calculator, I will 100% guarantee you that those two answers will be the same. Also, i am still very sorry, but how may I ask why 25 is smaller than 11. Will you please explain to me?...
Yes, you do try them because they are suspected to break the law, but that is the process before going to the actual jail place. Have you ever thought about the jail people's process before?
Your third paragraph is a more primitive version of what i was saying.
Your age shows, mainly because your type of ignorance reeks of the uneducated western variety. Don't call arguments stupid because you don't understand them, call them stupid because you have an agenda and you understand them. Calling someone's argument stupid creates negative emotions and should be either used for a purpose or avoided, also if you do so without a full comprehension of the argument you discredit your ability to reason and analyze because people can tell such things by your replies and will consider it bad/rash/rude/immature etc to act without adequate info in a non-urgent situation where the point is to learn, understand, and analyze . Also do not down vote unless there is a clear and recognizable error in either logical form or in the truth of a premise.
First of all, I know what a function is. I don't get into the best selective school in victoria for nothing you know?
And also about the rule of debating. Which one do you want. The is the script one and there is also the face to face one with the audience. Are you asking me for the 'rule of debating because you're so called checking me or you don't know what it is and can't be bothered going on the internet to check?
At last, I would like to say to you that I am not western. I am in fact Asian so that argument is invalid, and you are in fact being pretty racist because you are underestimating all those westerns just because you think they are uneducated. Do you really need a doctor, just because a person's argument better than your's called your argument stupid? Also, I would like to ask you is being racist really better than calling someone's argument stupid? Does it hurt someone less to be racist or to tell the truth that their argument is stupid? Do you really think that being racist will affect someone less? You're the one who is bad/rash/rude/immature etc to be someone who is probably older than me to know nothing about how much racism can affect people. Oh. AND BY THE WAY... I CAN DOWNVOTE ANY ARGUMENT I LIKE THANK YOU VERY MUCH! THIS IS 'MY' ACCOUNT AND 'I' CAN DO WHATEVER 'I' LIKE WITH IT!
JUST BECAUSE 'YOU' DON'T LIKE IT DOESN'T MEAN I CAN'T DO IT. YOU GOT THAT?
ahh, how cute. Which Asian country? japan and a few others are westernized.
Your attitude is very much of a chav, also, re-read all of my previous posts to you till you understand them; you've demonstrated repeatedly a lack of comprehension and I think I'm done with you till you display more.
Thank you for calling us, asians cute and I am very proud to say that I am not from Japan or any other westernised country. Just because I am asian does not mean that I have a lack of comprehension. You are still being racist. You're the one who has a lack of reading comprehension because in the argument in which i stated something was stupid, I never said that you're argument was stupid. I said that trying someone when they didn't do something wrong was stupid. You are only done with me because you can't find anymore arguments to argue with me. So, I win!
Oh and by the way, one of the rules of debating is that you have to rebut everything that they say. I had many arguments but you didn't rebut any of them. That just violated one of the rules. OH! sorry, I forgot that you're the one who knew the rules, not me so I shouldn't be teaching you should I? But how come I keep on finding rules that have been unkept then?
I couldn't hold my tongue any longer. Essentially, the argument of brain development devolved to both parties calling the other racist/stupid. Great progress.
To clarify, pups6116 is thinking of a linear function, where the rate of brain development is constant. Were this to be the case, the brain of a newborn infant would develop at the same rate as a ninety-year-old. As we know this isn't the case, there must obviously be a changing rate. Casper3912 analyzed, likely correctly (as brain development slows as age increases), that the rate of brain development decreases but never fully stops. Rather, it approaches single number apparently asymptotically. Essentially it would look like an exponential function with a negative coefficient (if I understand him correctly). Pups6116 seemed to misunderstand casper3912's definition of brain development, and so the misunderstanding was labeled as stupid, when rather it seems mostly to be ignorance probably due to your age.
The "rules of debate" was a sarcastic remark that had no bearing whatsoever, and pups6116 showed his/her immaturity by getting so offended by such a simple remark. As a brain is not fully developed until the age of 25, but is probably sufficiently developed in 18 year olds for the individual to be able to judge basic concepts of societal rights and wrongs, I don't think we need to change the current laws. Except for in cases of extreme violence or aggression, a minor (one under 18) should be tried as a minor. In cases like murder or rape, however, where the individual clearly knows that those crimes are 98% inexcusable, the minor should be tried as an adult.
But I suppose this debate is pivotal upon which age a person is capable of recognizing the differences in morality.
Dude, I would like to clearly inform you that you have no have no signs of knowing what sarcasm means. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean that what I was saying is wrong OK? When I was rebutting his 'rules of debating' sarcasm, I was being sarcastic too. He stated it twice and I stated it twice. So what makes you think that casper was being sarcastic and I wasn't?
The most important thing I will mention in this post is for you to get back on topic! This has nothing whatsoever anything to do anymore with the topic! If you cannot stay focused, stop arguing. You said nothing about any of my points, did not develop any argument, nor present any new information. If you are on a debate website, debate.
Secondly, you seemed much more offended than he did. Perhaps his sarcasm carried better over text. Yours did not.
"You are only done with me because you can't find anymore arguments to argue with me. So, I win!"
These kinds of statements make me die a little inside. Especially the "So, I win!" as if 1) we are debating competitively and 2) You are saying you win because the other person has given up hope of convincing someone who obviously will stick dogmatically to their preconceived views, even if the arguments presented to him or her are convincing.
Perhaps your constant belief in the infallibility of a "rules of debate" and that the violation of one rule invalidates an argument makes me believe that you are less sarcastic.
P.S. Fallacies, are illogical. Logic is an essential component of debate. Therefore, one should not be fallacious. This is in reference to "Oh and by the way, one of the rules of debating is that you have to rebut everything that they say." The key word is "everything", and that is a logical fallacy, better known as a blanket statement. (Irony is intended in this post-script)
The main point of this post is for you to return to the topic!
OK so, the reason why I did not raise any new arguments is because I am concluding this and when you conclude, you do not raise any more arguments. I really hate to tell you this but by rebutting my off topic arguments, you are also going off topic. I only thought I won because a good debator can make people believe in their point of view regardless on their opposition's previous view
The main point on this particular post is to tell you the reasons in why I said what I had said previously and I will not return to the topic because all I did was be led innocently to the 'off topic' topic and then be led away from it. I did nothing wrong!
Conro your awesome, At times I have little patience and I dislike it strongly when someone claims that i am incompetent in math, racist, and indirectly claims i lack the ability to adequately analyze my positions rather then ask for further clarification and provide logical insights from their perspective. Those among others makes me die a little inside too, I guess i should be more patient before i decide to joyfully insult someone for quick verification on why they display such qualities. Playing to their qualities rather than against would likly provide better results, but its not as satisfying.
Its surprising that a 14 yr old, probably male, with such a condescending and defensive attitude would come from a "non-westernized" Asian country. I tend to think of such people as I think of buddists, doaists etc which tend to be the opposite,I figured he was lower-middle/working classed, of a minority race and in eastern Europe or Australia.
You are entirely correct: it provides better results to explain so a second grader could understand, but it's not nearly as satisfying when you could berate the person for their apparent stupidity.
The quality of his debates lead me to believe he is indeed westernized: "cats or kitties", "should schools block facebook", "which spelling is better 'surprise' or 'surprize'". These kinds of inane topics remind me of my little sister in middle school in the US.
Can I ask you one tiny question? Why the hell were you stalking my page/account? Ths is a free world+country+website. I can create any topic I want to. How does tat affect you by any chance may I ask?
You claim it is a free world+country+website (none of which is true, especially since we are from different countries with variant levels of freedom) while previously attacking me for researching my opponent. To form the best possible arguments, I must know who I am arguing with.
Additionally, those debates are public. I can view them at any time. It doesn't affect me overmuch, but it just lessens my opinion of you as a serious, logical, rational debater when you debate such inane topics.
P.S. Dispense with the pleasantries of "may I ask" when the entire tone of your post feels equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum. Or are your "may I ask"s petty attempts at sarcasm?
OMG!!! You fricking stalker. I can't believe you. You stalked my page and now you're stalking my profile?! Look, if you're obsessed with me, just say it. No need to use this argument as an excuse.
You think that the debates I create are too childsh. Well, too bad your little friend there participated in them. So... are you trying to say that your precious little team mate is too irrational for you?
This is perhaps the funniest argument I have had on this site. Your apparent horror at me looking into your record is incredibly amusing. Should we not do background checks of politicians? Should we not do investigations into peoples' lives if we are trying to gain a better understanding of an action?
It is hardly stalking if I go to a PUBLIC debate and look at the title and make a judgement on the character of the person. Do you hear me knocking on your door?
I never said my "little friend" wasn't childish. I merely said you were.
You need to know that this is the 21st century. Everyone can say dude. Females plus males and also you need to face the truth. You are incompetent at math and you are racist.
There are many kids that are much smarter than adults. Even if a emotionally troubled minor commits a crime thats bad enough to be tried as an adult, you can't just let it go. Chances are, the minor will go and do it again and again untill their caught again, and by that time the damage is done. The authorities can't put other lives in danger by letting a minor go untill they are fully tried as an adult just because it is a minor.
Charging someone as a minor doesn't mean they get let off free, It means there is a punishment, but a different type then an adult would get. Minors have different vested interests, wants, needs, understandings and Opportunities. A punishment tailored towards these factors should be more effective then one tailored towards another type of person. In other words, the authorities are indeed punishing the offender, providing a deterrent, but are also considering how what type of punishment they do on the minor affects society. If a minor gets some combination of fines, prison house arrest, community service, probation, or being a weekend prisoner instead of an adult charge that may land him more prison time, stigma and fines then said minor can still attend highschool, work a job, tell other students about how they shouldn't do his mistake; In this way the state provides a deterrent, gains a spokesperson, keeps graduation rates up, etc.
i understand what you are saying, but a lot of the time, when a people are wanting to charge a minor as an adult, the minor has a previous criminal record. in that case, they would have already gone through what you have said above, and then they would have continued on doing things even after their "pardon." THATS when you want to try someone as an adult. even though the authories wouldnt like to bring that on a child, would you like someone that is doing the exact same thing as adult doing something set free into the public and trust, after all they've done, that they won't do anything anymore because they are a "child?"
