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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
When do kids become adults
In my fifth period class, we are talking about which age kids are adults. We have 16 years old or 21 years old. Personally I think 16 years old is considered an adult, because at the age of 16, you are old enough to make your decisions.
The longer you treat them as kids, the longer they'll act like kids. When we changed the drinking age to 21, what happened?
When we assumed most were adults after puberty, they got jobs and led responsible (more or less) lives as young teens. Physically, people mature younger, now, but emotional and mental maturity is stunted because the societal message is that they're children.
The longer you treat them as kids, the longer they'll act like kids. When we changed the drinking age to 21, what happened?
The drinking age set at 21 is based on the low end of a biological reality. Human brain development continues into (and throughout) the 2nd decade of life and alcohol has a highly negative effect on the developing human brain. In fact, it is known that alcohol abuse in childhood (e.g. teenager, ect.) can (and often does) derail normal, healthy development of ones mind/brain.
If you want to make that argument, the brain finally reaches peak, on average, at around 25. We should raise it, and really make them anxious, by your point. I'm a fan of small amounts for the younger crowd, at mealtimes, like they do it in Europe.
If you want to make that argument, the brain finally reaches peak, on average, at around 25.
I'm not necessarily in favor of the law surrounding a drinking age. Rather, I am pointing out that there are sensible reasons a person should consider refraining from appreciable alcohol use until after their brain develops (if they decide they want to drink at all). This is a serious problem of mis-education that leads children to make bold/poor decisions that have a profound negative impact on the rest of their lives.
We should raise it, and really make them anxious, by your point.
I'm not sure what you are saying in the second half of this statement. Can you rephrase it please?
I'm a fan of small amounts for the younger crowd, at mealtimes, like they do it in Europe.
I'm not. Most adults are operating on the assumption that they're alcohol use in their youth hasn't came with any consequences and therefore it is okay (even good) to encourage the younger population/upcoming generations to get involved with alcohol at dangerous ages as well. We know that this is not true. Alchohol abuse (particular as a teenager through early twenties) has serious consequences that permanently can stunt mental development (and often does). The adults are in denial about their own lives and transfer this onto the younger population (inevitably f'cking up the youth as well--and the cycle repeats when the children grow up to do the same as their parents/adults).
When we assumed most were adults after puberty, they got jobs and led responsible (more or less) lives as young teens.
Puberty is when a person is just beginning to seriously develop. The advantage of our species is of our high brain to boy size ratio that allows for our higher cognitive functioning. The drawback of this is that compared to other species/mammals, we are extremely vulnerable for much longer durations as our large brains are continuing to develop into their adult form (which is accomplished in one's early to mid twenties).
Getting a job doesn't make one "mature" and "responsible" (although it does require some level of responsibility). "Adults" of previous generations by and large have not lived responsible lives. They have simply done what is necessary in order to personally survive. Our culture is profoundly anti-intellectual even though intellectualism is far and away the most powerful tool that our species has to survive/thrive. Rather than intellectualism, most Adults have agreed to live in an alternative reality, a Disney Channel Snow Globe of a World, designed to shelter themselves from the "harsh/cold" realities of the real world/universe. They lead lives just like any other Mammal rather than fully developed Homo Sapiens (certainly not 21st century Homo Sapiens).
Physically, people mature younger now
How so?
but emotional and mental maturity is stunted because the societal message is that they're children.
I agree that emotional and mental maturity is stunted in most people. In fact, this is the problem with telling people they are adults when they are still developing. They are more likely to make poor decisions that an adult would be more able to handle which could have serious detrimental impacts on developing human bodies/minds.
Why not just be honest about what we currently understand about human development based on modern life expectancy and label ball-park periods of a persons life accordingly? Why pretend that children (16 year olds are children by essentially every metric) are in the "Adult" portion of their life-span?
Your first point is largely true - but people certainly mature faster when they take on responsibility. I'm not suggesting we go back to child labor, but if you want them more mature at a younger age, ramping up responsibility matters.
People mature faster physically now largely due to improved diet. I can get you sources,if you would like them.
I am being honest, and I recognize what you're bringing up, here -though I'd really suggest that even in today's society, most 16 year olds are vastly more adult than child.
Your first point is largely true - but people certainly mature faster when they take on responsibility. I'm not suggesting we go back to child labor, but if you want them more mature at a younger age, ramping up responsibility matters.
I agree with you here, although I think we (as a society) need to reconsider what is "work" and what counts as "having responsibility"
People mature faster physically now largely due to improved diet. I can get you sources,if you would like them.
This is potentially true (I had not considered before). I would be interested in sources if you are wiling to go through the trouble citing them.
am being honest, and I recognize what you're bringing up, here -though I'd really suggest that even in today's society, most 16 year olds are vastly more adult than child.
Agreed. When I was 16 I was 6' 1. Compare that to 12 when I was no where close to the size of a "man". Mentally, at 16 I was beginning to get a handle on the rules of society for which I was born into, which means that I could potentially become a productive member/contributor in such a society.
Rather, I am arguing that "child" does not just refer to "little people" but rather people who are still undergoing standard human biological development leading toward a fully matured form. This is why it is helpful to introduce terms such as Adolescence, Young Adulthood, Early Adulthood, ect. (as Psychologists have). This is why I stated there are no "hard lines" as to what constitutes an "adult" by a single age (although it can be ball-parked by age groupings based on standard ranges of developmental stages)
I've only just started feeling like an adult and I'm almost 40!
I think we are too hard with the rate we expect people to grow up. I mean, if you think about it, what is a 21 year old going to be doing? They are going to be taking advantage of the fact they can now drink legally by being completely irresponsible with alcohol!
When I first came here (to CD), I thought you were an immature teenager with some decent contributions. Then, you stated you were post College and therefore at least in your low twenties. If you are seriously anywhere near 40 than you have led a frighteningly sad life indeed..
When I first came here (to CD), I thought you were an immature teenager with some decent contributions.
xMathFanx, perhaps you didn't understand me properly the first time. You have been repeatedly exposed as a liar and a troll, the only reason you are in this thread is to troll, your attacks prove this, and they also prove which of us is the immature one. Your own actions here today expose the sort of childish, sniping little baby you are.
The problem you have is a raging God complex. You simply cannot deal emotionally with being schooled by anybody else because it poisons you and fills you with hatred. You are the clinical textbook definition of an extreme narcissist.
I don't even understand what you want. We aren't debating anything. You literally are just writing things to try to upset me and it's pathetic.
MathFan is FactMachine. I have proven it to myself time and time again by how mysteriously factmachine doesn't troll mathfan but will troll every other user he can.
Conversely, MathFan calls out all abusive trolls but with FactMachine he tolerates bullying to severe degrees.
Ignoring all that, their names both imply some math/physics geek who feels superiority for his objectivity.
Also notice FM... MF... The initials imply a bad cop good cop scenario.
I have proven it to myself time and time again by how mysteriously factmachine doesn't troll mathfan but will troll every other user he can
There is nothing "mysterious". FactMachine and I tend to have more overlap with each other concerning fundamental issues than most other members. This is why we became "allies"
Conversely, MathFan calls out all abusive trolls but with FactMachine he tolerates bullying to severe degrees.
This is actually a fair statement. However, I have addressed it elsewhere (and so has FactMachine). If you consider a person's "World View Framework" as a large Checkerboard, no two people are going to have complete one-to-one overlap with each other. I share a larger surface area with FM on our respective Checkerboards then other members (and I was aware of it since I first joined, you can go back and read my early posts).
As for "bullying", I do not support FM's messages/behavior in various areas to other members and at the same time he has addressed this issue himself (about himself). That is, you are getting caught up in his surface behavior while if you look at many of the fundamental, deeper beliefs that he subscribes to they are much more in line with a healthy, productive, more egalitarian, rational society while many people on the surface appear/act "nice"/"friendly", while if you really look at what they believe, it is a recipe for Dystopianism (and causes much harm in the world already).
That is, I'm looking beneath the surface/deeper into who the person is, what they stand for, ect. while you are looking at the surface. If you are familiar with the term gilded, this is the problem that we are encountering here (and it reveals a lot about your psychological state). Most/many people are like gilded jewelry. That is, the surface is clean and presentable, while the inside rots. FM is more like real aged jewelry. That is, the surface is rough and not as presentable, however the inside is real, solid, valuable. In short, you are being shallow, superficial, not a deep thinker, nor good judge of character, ect. on this matter (from my perspective of course) and I would recommend that you look deeper (not just with FM, but with people more generally).
Ignoring all that, their names both imply some math/physics geek who feels superiority for his objectivity.
This statement nearly encapsulates much of your view of the world. To think that in the 21st Century, many/most people still consider even the thought of intellectualism as negative, weak, uncool, ect. ect. is precisely why I tend to get along well with FM even if we have differences and I don't go out of my way to criticize his "bullying" because it is relatively minor problem by comparison to the much more serious issues. Furthermore, this is what SJW's can't get through their head; they zoom in on the pixel at the expense of the big picture. We have a society based on Science and Technology in which nearly nobody knows anything about Science and Technology. Moreover, the general population live their lives like any other Mammal, readily accept the "cool toys" produced by Scientists/Mathematicians/Engineers/ect., and then condescend and demonize the same people who made their quality of life possible (while not having the maturity to use said toys and such responsibly). This is bound to blow up in humanities face devastatingly unless something very quickly (in the next 1-3 centuries) radically changes.
Also notice FM... MF... The initials imply a bad cop good cop scenario.
You may fool others but I'm not tricked even for a second.
You have it the wrong way around. You are fooled into thinking that FM and I are the same person, while many/most others likely have the good sense to see that we are different people
You are scum and so is he
Name one thing I have done/said on this site (in proper context) that would make me a "scumbag"
Fuck off with mocking SJW, maybe if you fought for social justice you'd actually realise how important it is.
Wrong again.. IRL, I am very big, athletic, physically imposing guy (young adult) and have been/am a big anti-bully force (I have I high reputation for this). That is, I actually step up and confront bullies where I see it. Now, there are many SJW causes that are partially true that I respect, however the serious issue is a profound over-simplicity found in SJW neo-Marxist type thinking that a person could learn in a day and then apply this very faulty lens to view any given structure in society. In fact, this leads to profound problems and carrying through on broken theories make much/most of SJW causes a bad force for the world. I have discussed some of this elsewhere and would be glad to elaborate at length on different issues. Also, I'm Vegan..
Fucking emotionless math geek
This is your prejudiced/bigotry hijacking your mental faculties (as well as general ignorance). Firstly, I would point out the profound irony of you proclaiming the necessity for social justice and simultaneously condescending another person as a "geek". Second, the claim of "emotionless" you simply pulled out of the aether and in reality it is quite the opposite. People who are serious about intellectualism are moved this way by a deep emotional impulse as they are touched by the power knowledge about ourselves and the universe has to offer (both personally and the good it can do to improve the lives of others for society at large).
You have simply assumed my positions, what I stand for, ect. before you have heard it out..
The fact you ally such a vile bully shows me enough to judge you.
I just explained to you why you are only seeing part of the picture when it comes to FactMachine. I do not intend to surrender my allyship with FM for the reasons I have already stated. This is a debate site intended to share noteworthy ideas with other people around the world. FM can behave like a cyberbully, I agree. He also happens to have some of the most noteworthy ideas out of the people on this site from what I have seen thus far (from my perspective). Simply read his argument wall history and you will find some of the gems I am referring to (he goofs around a lot though). It is for this reason why he is my ally.
If you read his views on the society that he argues for to come into existence, it is intended to liberate humanity and usher us into a more cooperative, rational age. He has essentially became quasi-misanthropic because he sees humanity wasting all of its gifts for meaningless/trivial bullsh't. That is why he is often so angry/disgruntled. If you are familiar with the comedian George Carlin, he makes this point well and also makes fun of people often but it is more out of disappointment rather than pure hatred. Here is a link to Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls8RXqyZDsk
You're the only scumbag on the entire website who has allied that vile troll.
Again, your use of name-calling/insulting tactics is highly ironic considering you are attempting to establish yourself on a moral high ground (based on nothing).. Notice I have never called you a "scumbag" or the like..
You will try to wage war with the aliens when the time comes
Please watch the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Note how much more mature the elite Physicist is compared to the overwhelming majority of the population and how receptive/welcolming he is to the extraterrestrial being/alien while most peoples instincts lead them to war/violence against the alien visitors (this is about 2/3-3/4 of the way into the movie). I agree with him (the elite Physicist character)..
Because us agreeing on one thing doesn't change who you're allied to.
Both Nathan Allen and Fact Machine are huge enemies of mine who are nothing but vile bullies who have worked to frame me for shit I did not do and accuse me of things I did not commit.
Both Nathan Allen and Fact Machine are huge enemies of mine who are nothing but vile bullies who have worked to frame me for shit I did not do and accuse me of things I did not commit.
NathanAllen has, among other filthy things, accused me, FactMachine, Nomenclature and Brontoraptor of being the same person.
He went as far as trying to trick us (maybe succeeding for the other 3) into clicking a link or two that gives him our real IP addresses.
He is putting our real lives at threat and trying to track all four of us down and Andy sits back and lets him do it because he's a fucking lgbt who plays the gay victim card when we attack him.
You have been repeatedly exposed as a liar and a troll
This is news to me
the only reason you are in this thread is to troll, your attacks prove this, and they also prove which of us is the immature one. Your own actions here today expose the sort of childish, sniping little baby you are.
Well, actually... I was shocked to discover that you are "approaching 40" based on your argument history on this site. I felt it needed to be addressed due to your high level of immaturity even for a teenager, let alone a 40 year old (I'm surprised Brontoraptor hasn't commented on it yet)
The problem you have is a raging God complex. You simply cannot deal emotionally with being schooled by anybody else because it poisons you and fills you with hatred.
Wrong, and I have addressed this before. Firstly, you fundamentally don't understand that anyone familiar with studying science quickly and perpetually come up against their extreme limitations, even if they are Isaac Newton. The fundamental goal of studying/researching Science is to gather the most amount of information about the Universe as possible, and one quickly finds out that they are not intelligent enough to figure out over 99% of the problems there are and must settle for working on a very constrained subsection in order to make any kind of progress at all. Science is a very humbling enterprise. This is no where near a "God Complex". Someone like Ray Kurzweil could genuinely be guilty of a "God Complex" given some of the claims he makes in some of his books/lectures (e.g. the final chapter of the book "The Singularity is Near").
I don't even understand what you want. We aren't debating anything. You literally are just writing things to try to upset me and it's pathetic.
In this context, I am trying to get to the bottom of whether I am talking to a near 40 year old man, or a young adult in their low to mid twenties as I had previously thought
Your bizarre denials are a symptom of the exact same God complex I just diagnosed you with.
Well, actually... I was shocked to discover that you are "approaching 40" based on your argument history on this site.
Conversely, I was not shocked to wake up, log in, and see more of your hateful personal attacks. They are to be expected because you are pathetic.
Wrong
Thanks for proving the point. You have a God complex.
Firstly, you fundamentally don't understand that anyone familiar with studying science quickly and perpetually come up against their extreme limitations, even if they are Isaac Newton
You don't understand how to write coherent sentences. You can't even structure a simple sentence properly, which makes it hilarious when you pretend to be some sort of intellectual authority. This is a classic symptom of narcissism, and so is deluding yourself about it.
the fundamental goal of studying/researching Science is to gather the most amount of information about the Universe as possible
Just where to begin.
Firstly, your claim has no relationship with, nor does it dispute anything I have said. Secondly, science should not be capitalised. Thirdly, science is split into a plethora of different branches, very few of which study the universe. Fourthly, universe should not be capitalised.
In this context, I am trying to get to the bottom of whether I am talking to a near 40 year old man
But you are demonstrably lying. You did not reply to me or ask me how old I was. You replied to bronto with a troll attack which began with you comparing me to an "immature teenager".
You are a liar, a narcissistic troll and an intellectual halfwit. Everything you say about everything is untrue, irrelevant and stupid.
Nomenclature(to xMathFanx):"You don't understand how to write coherent sentences. You can't even structure a simple sentence properly, which makes it hilarious when you pretend to be some sort of intellectual authority...universe should not be capitalised."
"It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people’s grammar were just plain annoying. Now there’s evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS
new evidence from fMRI scans of brains exposed to real-time grammatical errors, has led some scientists to predict that soon we may be able to find a cure for GPS, for many sufferers a debilitating, off-putting, sociopathic syndrome.
Behind all grammar corrections, back-handed compliments, and “it’s-only-a-joke” jibes lies hidden anger. When a Grammar Bully corrects your grammar (especially strangers online), you can rest assured that you are not the cause of his anger. Your word usage was simply the trigger of that anger. The Grammar Bully is in need of companionship, so publicly correcting you sends the homing beacon out to other Grammar Bullies. Grammar Bully is ringing in the friends with whom he can bond over mutual hate of the their/they’re misstep.
When we are angry or stressed, a bonding hormone called oxytocin is released, urging us to form social connections with other humans so as to better our chances for surviving the cause of the stress. A Grammar Bully is feeling insecure in some way, and the insecurity is driving her to gather up friends. Many observers may think the Grammar Bully is about belittling others, but really, the Grammar Bully is just looking to find other Grammar Bullies because she is feeling angry and/or stressed.
Anger can be subconscious and many times it is. We are discouraged from expressing anger when out and about in polite society, so we suppress it. Unfortunately, anger is one of those emotions that bubbles up to the surface. Grammar-correcting behavior is one of suppressed anger’s outlets.
Kids can't be adults at 16, because they haven't even finished growing yet. Most girls have, but it's a fact that guys continue growing past the age of 16. How you be an adult when you aren't even fully grown?
There is no biological basis to claim that children become "adults" at the age 16. At 16, one's brain is nearly a decade away from becoming fully developed into it's adult form (with higher cognitive functioning), have essentially no life experience, are still learning the rules of society, ect. ect.
There is no "hard line" for when a child becomes an adult. One of the largest factors deals with one's full biological development (brain development, height, weight, some more memories/life experience, ect.). A person's Frontal Lobes don't reach full development until the ages 21-25 with some development continuing throughout one's twenties and into the early thirties. This characteristic is a substantial factor in what makes us uniquely human. In my view (roughly speaking), a person is a child until their brain develops; a person is a "child" teenager through very early twenties, are young adults for duration of their twenties, and by the time one hits their thirties they are/have been fully biologically developed and have a number of years life experience, thus enter the Adulthood phase of Human development.
There are typically conflations with the role societal conventions play into what is considered an "adult" and "child" based on the amount of responsibility that one must assume (which varies greatly from person to person), while other factors are more pertinent.
