debate Pergunta

Should children have the same rights as adults??

again. i suck at debate clearly but i would amor mais help.
so i'm support should not.
POINTS:

1) Moral (right/wrong)
- children cant disern from right and wrong
- there minds cant comprehend.
- only know because parents say so.
- so if a parents tell them that killin people is right then it is right in their minds
- children are essentially sociopaths when born

2) Maturity (sense of judgement (examples))
- ok this is sort of related to morals but in a sense different. this point focuses mais on the examples linking to the anterior point.

3) Abusive (of power when given)
- like what would happen if given the right to vote and drink

4) Misconception (people think children are saints; dont judge a book por its cover?)
-people assume that children are innocent but they lie too.

5) Peer pressure and protection
- easily fall into peer pressure
- protection: law protects them, if they dont then it mais likely they will fall into bad influence. with rules less likely.

so thats all i got. it not very well elaborated, cant type out all to much just a brief description.
any help would be good even if you support the other point so i can think of rebuts. :D i do realise that the points are all closely link and sort of overlap which is a problem i'm facing but i need 5 point and that all i can think off.
so if you can think of one feel free to share it.
any help would be just awesome!!

thanks guys for all the help!

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

next question »

debate Respostas

jameswilson said:

Definitely not! Children's brains aren't fully developed yet and they simply don't have the judgement power to make the same decisions as adults.
Don't get me wrong, I amor kids and think that they are wonderful in many ways, but I know that maturity is key to decision making and that is something that young kids just don't have yet.

posted over a year ago

thanks:D

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

thats so not true i think that children should be given a chance ... i am one thank you very much !

supersoph898 posted over a year ago

Cinders said:

I work with children on a daily basis and I'll be the first to admit that they are bright, enthusiastic human beings with insight that isn't often appreciated por their older counterparts.

However, most of the laws are in place to protect children. I'm not talking about drinking or driving laws - I'm talking about the concept that a minor is not legally capable of consent. If we decided that a child could consent, then that would leave the door open for viable defenses from pedophiles and statutory rapists. It would also let children make legal and medical decisions about their own welfare that I know not a single one of the ten-year-olds in my class would be prepared to make - even the one currently leitura John Milton.

Intelligence and maturity in a child is not uncommon, but the fact remains that a child's brain and psychology is still not fully formed, and as a result, children think differently than adults. A child's mind is a beautiful thing - I would never argue that it isn't. But to claim that children and adults can make the same well-informed decisions is to not understand the beautiful difference that exists between the two brains.

As to your points - Children are quite capable of discerning right from wrong. They develop this at around four-years-old through the concept of "fair" and "not fair." This is also right around the time that children develop a Theory Of Mind - or, namely, that other people are different from them, and think differently from them. Because of this, they begin to understand that they can lie and manipulate, but also teach, explain, and plan ahead. A child's brain is not empty, molded por well-informed adults. Children know things - they figure it out for themselves, with, perhaps, some adult guidance.

In fact, I don't like your no geral, global characterization of children as lobos in sheep's clothing. They know a lot mais than you give them credit for, they are not evil because they don't know any better, and they don't make people think that they are "saints."

Also, link. All the rights that they need to learn and grow into healthy movers and shakers of the seguinte generation. I believe in every one of those rights in the link I gave above. But I stand por my statement that the laws that are in place exist to protect the child - not hinder or hurt the child in any way.

posted over a year ago

when i mean right or wrong not nessary in the moral way, mais of they dont think much of consequences, they dont think. on your other point and you are sort of getting defensive, i'm not siding with this statement, i actually think that children should have the same rights as adults but it a debate and i was given this side so.. and i know that children have rights, but the point of the debate i had was whether they should have the same ones as adults. anyways thanks even though a little late.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Except psychology states that children are aware of consequences, and can actually develop a very deep moral base. That's my point - that argument does not hold with modern understanding of child psychology.

Cinders posted over a year ago

Hiding 7 comments... click to show.

thats. not true. they are totally aware to it. they dont think a few steps ahead. i mean if you give the example of a child touching a hot pot then yeah of course they do know. but according to a new york times study, a child below the age of 13 dos not have the capacity to so called process the things they do logically thus the law/ conservation that minor cannot be prosecuted unless a major offence or due to other reasoning. and about moral base, morals is defined por many different things most importantly, is what the child grows up with. if his parents tell him that murdering ppl is right then he will think that it is right. and the argument does hold with modern child psych

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

I'm confused... you say my claim is untrue, then agree that children are aware of consequences? I also think we're discussing two different things. I believe you're thinking about the legal concept of Mens Rea, whereas I'm thinking of the psychological concept of Theory of Mind. Still, to clear things up, I have been using the term "morals" to describe a concept of "right and wrong," as it is used in Moral Development Theory, and that is how I define it. Even if I didn't take my developmental psych course in college, por simply observing the way my students play chess using strategies (as opposed to aleatório moves), I can see that they most definitely have Theory of Mind that's developed enough to think and plan ahead. While of course their brains are different and still developing - as I've already conceded - they are VERY aware of right and wrong. They may not get the concepts RIGHT all the time, but they understand them and puzzle through them, and they always know when wrong has been done to them personally. Often, they even know whenm THEY have done wrong to someone else, even if they don't always confess. Early Childhood Development Researcher and Kindergarten Teacher Vivian Paley wrote a book called "You Can't Say You Can't Play." In it, kindergarten students debate the fairness of the rule in the title. Is it right for no one to say "No" to someone who asks to play? What if they people playing are having a personal game with each other? What if those people don't LIKE the person who has asked to play with them? Why should THEY lose out on fun just to include that person? The book, a fascinating read filled with student quotes, explores their deliberation and tells another moral story about a princess as a sort of side plot. Inevitably, even the hold-outs learn to appreciate the inherrent "fairness" behind the new rule when they notice that everyone is participating mais often. Chidren are developing their moral understanding, and that STARTS with "fair" versus "unfair" and evolves into "right" and "wrong" in the older grades. Children ALSO know the difference between breaking a conventional rule (like no running in the hallways) and breaking a moral one, because the latter has the aspect of fairness or right/wrong and the former does not (See: Emerging Morality: How Children Think About Right and Wrong por Susan Crosser). According to Jean Piaget, children go through several stages of moral development, but they are not AMORAL. They are completely aware of right and wrong. They need guidance in figuring out the nuances. But I've asked a first-grader who once complained that "What Sally did was wrong," WHY he thought that Sally's actions were wrong. He said, "Because Sally made Lizzy cry, and Lizzy is hurting now." That shows the beginning of his understandings of right and wrong. It doesn't mean he's always a saint - he will also make Lizzy and Sally cry from time to time, sometimes, maybe, even on purpose. I know, as does every teacher, that he and his classmate's are still growing and figuring morality and the rest of the world out. Even preschoolers, who are at Piaget's "Morality of Constraint" stage, are aware of actions being right and wrong. The way you discuss these stages, one might think that you're claiming that children are amoral. They aren't. They ARE at different stages of moral development, but they reach those stages at different rates, like puberty, based on experience and adult guidance. My ten-year-olds are at the stage of Morality of Cooperation. I can think of one of them who is beyond that, at Atticus tentilhão, passarinho, finch levels of morality.

Cinders posted over a year ago

i never agreed thatt children are aware of the consequences. when i'm talking about consequences, it like the simple things they are able to catch but the big ones such as smoking they dont see far ahead. they are mais concerned about right now. for your chess senario (that is a totally different point, there is a reason why games are mostly targeted towards children because it is meant to challenge them intelectually but when society put the pressure on to them such as peer pressure and mais things are in play, the situation changes.) that not entirely true they know what is right or wrong. of course they know when wrong is done to them because well you could say children are esstientally psychopath. they only feel for themselves. but care not so much for others in a certain way. i dunno about taht book you are talking about but based on general census at the point of when the child is 3-10 they do know it but how well they understand it and their interpretation of it is still considered weak. i am not at all

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

l saying they totally have no idea of the right and wrong just that their definition for right and wrong is constently changing. your example of sally made lizzy cry, though may be seen a lot but place in the shoes of a bystander the child has the mental capcity to be able to know the right thing to say. trust me, my 5 ano old sister constiently trys atuação like a mother when me and my brother get in a fight but 5 minutos there she is wrestling my brother. i'm not saying children are amoral, i'm simply quoting directly from the study that logic does not fully develop until the age of 21. 18 is consider fairly devolp therefor is the legal age of an asult in most countries. the problem is mais of they know it but do they actually follow thourgh with it? people say a lot of things but following through is another.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

You've alluded to a vague NYT study and "general concensus" but I've directly quoted three different child specialists (Paley, Crosser and Piaget), none of whom ever compared children to psychopaths, who feel no anxiety and ARE amoral - as in, without understanding of right and wrong. You can't say you ARENT saying children are amoral in one sentence, and then compare them to psychopaths in the next. And to say that children have no understanding of right and wrong, or cannot discern one from the other, is in essence to claim a lack of morality, or amorality. Kids aren't blank slates - they bring a lot to the table. They aren't fully formed geniuses, either. My initial argument was celebrating the differences between the child's brain and an adult's brain. But if quoting three seperate scholarly sources won't help, I guess there's nothing else I can do, though I would be curious about this study you keep alluding to. As to my confusion about your apparent agreement, you said: "they are totally aware to it" in the first few sentences of your comment, which is what confused me.

Cinders posted over a year ago

As for the chess example, I was using that to demonstrate that these students have a developed Theory of Mind, which is necessary to have an understanding of basic morality. You also said that a child "dos not have the capacity to so called process the things they do logically," and I was showing that they do use logic.

Cinders posted over a year ago

you have seriously misunderstood what i'm saying! (also just to point of this is like a whole other debate not even related to this topic) anyways, i'm not saying that children dunno what right and wrong is or they dont have morals or they lack morals. but my comparison to sociopaths was to empathise that in reality though they know whether right or wrong they may choose to do the opposite (in a bad way) mais often than an adult and most of the time for their own benefit. therfore, like a sociopath they only feel for themselves at that point of time therefore they dont think ahead. so in other word consequences dont play much thought in their brain process. it mais like if its good for me now, it good for me later as well. to be perfectly honest, the 3 scholar that you have quoted though i may not know them or have read about them but based on what you say, to be it sounds pretty biased, i'm not saying me myself am not biased but trying to keep an open mind and hearing your point, i'm doing my best to make that judgement call. the study is based on MRI scans of the brain which was some i think 4 years ago. not so sure. to clarify about they being aware of it, i mean that have some sense of it (maybe not the right usage of words) but they can think like a step ahead but that like the most they will consider. they can consider it further but they chose to act upon it then dwell.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Chess eg: ok. thanks for clarifying about the theory of mind example. logic is formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. which means that playing a game does not necessary mean that you have logic. so if an adult played chess with a kid and the kid won. would that automatically mean that the kid has mais logic than the adult?? i seriously doubt it.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Crowfeather197 said:

that is cruel! you are an idiot to think that children have no thoughts and only think about what there parents think. they have minds! they are humans! children CAN THINK! you are DISRESPECTFUL! "all people should be created equal" counts for children too! JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE OLDER DOESNT MEAN YOU GET mais RESPECT! you think that children cant think? you think that they cant control themselves? THEY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS! THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED A PERSON, NO THEIR PARENT'S TOY! THEY ARE PEOPLE, AND THEY THINK, AND THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT. YOU WERE A CHILD ONCE TOO. HOW DARE YOU SAY SUCH A THING! THEY DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE!!!!! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, TO SAY THIS? I HOPE YOU LEARN YOUR LESSON BECAUSE HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU WERENT CONSIDERED A HUMAN TOO? WHAT IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT YOU COULDNT THINK? YEARS MEAN NOTHING!
i hoped you learn something.

posted over a year ago

I agree and will NEVER stop agreeing with you on this. Age classification is a fake, manipulating tool just for the purpose of suffering our youth, our FUTURE. Adults are a politically-organised group, and I hate organised matters with a flaming passion. Derivative they are, as practically all governments have turned Darwinian and established a "new species" out of those who had "come of age." I will not let your words go unnoticed. It is cruel and disgusting - especially what the politically-organised derivative did to our Free Internet and Planet - they tainted it with stupid pictures of their "fully-developed" gendered anatomy in action just to keep the Future out. You will be heard for the true freedom and equality of us humans, my pal! I see children get mocked por their derivatives when they ask about their lack of equality. A stupid, contagious one said "children are not important until they become..." - how offencive and NOT well-thought! Hey, I'm 20 and am sick of age groups. And I want us humans to be equal WITHOUT some politically-organised virus marionetting our Future. Doubters can call me a sorry Russian, but that's their failing. FOR EQUALITY OF THE HUMAN RACE, LET'S SPREAD THE NEWS!

Masha-Parakina posted over a year ago

You two obviously haven't had that talk about how the brain of children and teenagers aren't fully developed yet. It's fully developed until they're 24!!! With equal rights come equal duties. You probably haven't thought about the fact that if children would get equal rights, the children's prisons would disappear and children would be sent to "grown-up" jail immediately. If you think kids are as smart as adults, go ahead and let them drive 60 miles an hora on a highway.

Chaann94 posted over a year ago

I couldn't agree more. I knew there are people on this site with a brain. Age is just a number.

qwertyuiop1738 posted over a year ago

^No it's not. It's a quaint/sentimental idea to say such, but it's also denying biological fact. Age is a developmental phase- physically and psychologically.

ThePrincesTale posted over a year ago

dreamfields said:

I think there is a problem with semantics. While I agree children to some degree should enjoy most of the same "rights" as adults, I do not believe they should have the same privileges as adults. Rights and Privileges are not the same. Privileges such as driving and voting can be taken away. I think that a person should be expected to accept and be able to handle the responsibilities associated with privileges before they receive them. Hope that makes sense.

posted over a year ago

My first comment seems not to have enviado correctly. I'll try again: I heartily agree that definitions are important here, as with any debate. What, then, would you say is a 'right' as distinct from a 'privilege'?

harold posted over a year ago

call it a privilege or a right but in terms of the government and the law, driving and the chance to vote is a right not a privilege.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Hiding 2 comments... click to show.

yeah but it can be considered off topic, and if you call it a privilege then it will be really easy for the other team to rebut on.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

ImNotRubbish said:

Children Should Have Rights!!! Were Still Human So Dont We Deserve Rights?! When You Were A Child Or If You Are, You Dont Want To Be Pushed Around In Your Child capuz, capa Because Even Adults Admit We Need To Live Our Life While Were Young So Let Us!

posted over a year ago

samuraibond005 said:

I think that it should be up to a parent or guardian. My parents let me own deadly weapons, but I learned how to use them and be seguro with them. Teach my seven ano old brother the same thing and he could own a weapon without there being any kind of problem. I am sure that given training I could drive or even fly a propeller propelled airplane, I could have years atrás too if given training. There are things that I couldn't have done, things my step brother can't do, and things I still can't do, and my parents and step parents know these things.
I am also obedient enough to listen to my parents if they told me not to do something.
So I think it should be up to the parent or guardian until said person is able to live on their own.

posted over a year ago

Thanks:D

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

smileypop9 said:

No.
Can you imagine 12 ano olds driving, drinking, smoking, having sex?

posted over a year ago

No because we cannot imagine it?

alismouha posted over a year ago

this does not prove anything, you see there is no proof in a hypothetical situation.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Hiding 2 comments... click to show.

They can learn to drive. But why do all those things when there is a billion other things to do?

qwertyuiop1738 posted over a year ago

Dragonclaws said:

Yes. The individual should be judged on his/her own capabilities, regardless of age. If an old man is unfit to make serious decisions, someone else makes them for him. I know a guy online who graduated from Rutgers before he was old enough to drive, something the media got a kick out of. I have confidence that he was mature enough to do so when he was 12--and lying about his age to be able to use the Internet. He's currently a scientist at Harvard and 16. It's completely unfair that a whole age group is penalized for a generalization.

posted over a year ago

thanks but. not so valid people who are like that are mais highly evolved therfore they have a higher brain function. its just an exception.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Exceptions should be treated decently, though. It's like, "yes, you're mentally superior than most eveyone, but, sorry, you belong to a social group that is mostly inferior, so you still can't have the same rights". It's prejudice to restrict someone's rights based on their social group's tendencies and not because of individual flaws. There's a stereotype of Asians as bad drivers, but we don't place extra restrictions on Asians getting permits because that would be racism. This is ageism.

Dragonclaws posted over a year ago

Hiding 7 comments... click to show.

That is not an argument that children should have the same rights as adults, that's an argument that people should have rights based on merit and/or ability. Do you have an argument that applies to all children?

harold posted over a year ago

All people should have rights based on merit and ability. This applies to all children, as children are people. I do not have an argument for all children as a whole the same way I do not for all Asians or whites or whatever, because making laws based on stereotypes is prejudiced and wrong.

Dragonclaws posted over a year ago

but the thing is that stereotypes mean the social norm, the majority and dont you think it would be mais reasonable that the law play to the majority.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

mais reasonable than playing to minorities to the detriment of the majority, but there's no detriment in play here. Do you think Jim corvo laws are reasonable simply for benefiting the majority?

Dragonclaws posted over a year ago

i dunt know who jim corvo is, but this point has gone completely off topic. and also how on earth do you expect the world to have 2 separate list of right, one for the highly evolved and the other for an average. if that is so then every single court argument would be used por a lawyer to win the case. it is highly unrealistic

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Jim corvo laws restricted the rights of black Americans por keeping them out of places designated as for white Americans.

Dragonclaws posted over a year ago

I expect everybody to have the same rights inherently, but to have certain people deemed less capable based on individual ability rather than social group.

Dragonclaws posted over a year ago

ok about the jim corvo thing.. way off point no way to possibly use in a debate *note: even though it over, i have a couple of friends who will be doing it as an assignment so i'm helping them out. that may be true but the point is not about a person's capability but about the child's right. i really pardo, dun see where you are going now.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

2Dfan said:

Yes, children should have the same rights as adults.

Supporters of this don't have to defend our position: we simply believe in equal rights for everyone. It's those who want UNEQUAL rights who have to explain how one group can justify denying certain rights from another group.

alisonfaith297 listed certain stereotypes about children that have been perpetuated por adults to convince us that children cannot be trusted with equal rights. I would like to point out that all of these EXACT SAME STEREOTYPES used to be applied to women por men back when women did not have equal rights as men, and also applied to slaves por slave owners during the slavery era, or to serfs por landlords during serfdom. Everywhere you look, the dominant group always perpetuates stereotypes about the dominated group to make the dominated group believe that they are being dominated for their own good. This should tell us everything we need to know about why all these stereotypes exist: not because they are true, but because they are convenient for those in power.

Even the words are loaded. For example, the word "maturity" already implies a pro-adult bias. (Just like the word "virtuous" (literally means "manly" from vir=man) had a pro-male bias.) Anyone who uses loaded words only prove their bias. The first thing we need to do is stop using words such as "immature" or "childish" as insults! Then maybe we can have a serious discussion without perpetuating negative stereotypes about children.

posted over a year ago

but its a debate, you sort of have to support it... also if i do mention about slves and women vs. men then i'm off topic. it still has to be about children rights... thanks for your input. but being a debate i cant really use any of this. this is mais for like a dicussion.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

The presence of bias or prejudice is not the same as an argument in favor of something. It works as a good rebuttal, but it's not a complete debate unless you can present an argument FOR your position.

harold posted over a year ago

no the point is i can think of a million ways to rebut that but either way i have to be on topic, and this you are talking about a different situation. biasness and rights though have overlap but the way i see 2Dfan argument is going into mais of arguing whether discrimination id right or wrong. so yeah its off topic.

alisonfaith297 posted over a year ago

Chaann94 said:

Hell no. Because of these things;

1. 10 year-olds would be driving 60 miles an hora on a highway.

2. 5 year-olds would be allowed to drink and smoke.

3. With equal rights come equal duties. Do you want to make kids pay taxes on their allowance?

posted over a year ago

Why would a five ano old want to drink and smoke out of a billion other things he/she can do. Besides, if they don't have property in ownership or didn't buy anything, why would they pay tax?

qwertyuiop1738 posted over a year ago

hollyhardman1 said:

I think that children should have mais rights. children . should be able to be able to have their own say and opinion and not to be told I am an adult and I am mais important than you. if an adult starts an argument with a child that means the child isis told to be quiet and let the adults win. if an adult hits you because children are children means they can't hit back. adults do stuff like grounding you and you want to know why and the adults say I don't have to answer to you I am an adult. I think that children should have mais rights because adults make their perfil sound mais important than it is. I am 13 and I am sick and tired of all this. in this country we believe rights should be equal to everyone.children should have mais rights.

posted over a year ago

I'm sorry, but if an adult hits you, you most certainly do have the right to hit the bastard back.

Cinders posted over a year ago

^Yep.

zanesaaomgfan posted over a year ago

I totally agree. Parents think they have power over a 6 ano old or whatever. 12 years later, BOOM! All of a sudden, they have so much power. This a very dangerous stage of life. Some people go crazy with they're freedom. If they had freedom as soon as they were born, they would not take advantage of it and see it as a everyday life thing. Oh, and yes, you can hit that "adult" back. It's called self of defense. It currently isn't against the law if a adult hits a kid, but it is if an adult hits an adult. I am twelve and I strongly agree with you. Thanks for being brave/awesome and standing up for our rights. We must be able to enjoy our youth to the fullest.

qwertyuiop1738 posted over a year ago

ncole1 said:

I am going to say no, however, yes in the sense that the age of majority is too high in light of the fact the criteria that we use to declare an adult legally incompetent set the bar (in terms of mental capacities) much lower than the implicit mental capacity set por an age of majority of 18. For instance, in order to declare someone incompetent to make a decision, they need to be INCAPABLE of understanding what they are deciding, and simply making a "foolish" decision is not sufficient grounds to declare someone incompetent. Yet we deny majority to adolescents due to the fact that they make "foolish" decisions, even if we admit they are capable of understanding what they are doing. This is a double standard. And if you think about it, adults do "foolish" things too, yet we would not consider these grounds to declare them incompetent.

I would argue that people should be granted legal majority when they are CAPABLE of making an informed decision, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO OR NOT. This would correspond to the beginning of abstract thought, i.e. Piaget's formal operations. Approximately at age 13. Furthermore there have been a number of studies on adolescent decision making and even when they show that the average adolescent is not as capable as the average adult, the average adolescent is nonetheless within the NORMAL RANGE for adults, in other words, an adult with the maturity and capacity of a 13-year-old (or older) would not be declared "incompetent".

It is therefore inconsistent and discriminatory for the age of majority and the ages to work and vote to be higher than 13. So I would not say that "children" should be given the same freedom as adults, but this is because I define "children" as those under 13, not those under 18.

posted over a year ago

next question »

direitos dos animais	estados unidos	Keep Earth Green
Gay Rights	Barack Obama	Human Rights
lgbt	Martin Luther King Jr	Washington, DC

debate

debate Pergunta

Should children have the same rights as adults??

debate Respostas

Clubes Relacionados