Instigator / Con
5
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Topic
#1010
Age of Consent Policies
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Athias
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Description
Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rejoinders
Round Four: (Double) Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments
Stipulations:
1. Consent: to express approval or agreement in the absence of duress. (Since I'm arguing against the age of consent, the legal definition will not be the standard. My opponent can submit it, but he or she will have to substantiate its integrity.)
2. Age of Consent: the age at which one is legally competent to give consent especially to marriage or to sexual intercourse (Legal Definition.)
3. This debate will not be confined to pedophilia. Nevertheless, pedophilia can be mentioned and explored.
Resolution: Are age of consent policies logically consistent or not? Are they moral or not?
Round 1
Opening Argument:
The two premises on which I base my arguments are as follows:
- Age of consent policies are logically inconsistent.
- Age of consent policies are immoral.
As denoted in the description, age of consent (legal) is the age at which one is legally competent to give consent to marriage or sexual intercourse. However, for the purposes of this debate, particularly as far as it concerns my argument, I will adopt the definition of consent I provided above. Age of consent policies arbitrarily divide the capacity for individuals to make value judgements as it concerns sex based on their age alone. In the United States, it varies from state to state usually between the ages of 16 and 18 (where 16 is adopted by a majority of the states.) The reasoning for this framework is identical to that which informs the supervision of an infant by its parent: an infant's naivety to the dangers of its environment subjects it to the prospect of mortal danger; therefore, as the more experienced party, the parent presumes the infant's proxy in all decisions which serve the infant's utility. The government's approximation of this is known as Parens Patriae. At first glance, it's difficult to argue against this rationale. After all, our species has persisted due to the experience and innovation of its predecessors. So then why would I challenge the "wisdom" of a government using its "experience" in its seeking to protect the most naive of its citizens? We must first consider that from which we are attempting to protect them.
It's important to note that age of consent doesn't protect minors from the dangers of sex. Instead these policies seek to regulate those with whom the minor engages in sexual contact and activity. Seldom are sexual interactions among minors condemned and/or punished, and in the cases where court proceedings are conducted, often the liability of each minor party is mitigated by Romeo and Juliet laws. When we speak of age of consent, typically one party is a minor and the other is an adult. Now here's the inconsistency: sexual contact between adult and minor is almost always condemned and punished. Ceteris Paribus, the sexual contact and sensations experienced between minor and minor and adult and minor (and even adult and adult) aren't different. The mechanics are essentially the same. If the government took the position that the participation of any minor in sexual activity is prohibited, that would be one thing. But to condemn it particularly in the cases where an adult is involved as if some non-sexual benefit (which these policies presume to be "predation") manifests makes no sense. After all, the adult is often presumed legally to be the competent and experienced party. The logic in this case is "reversed" in that the adult's experience, competence, and dare I say "wisdom," are presumed to harm the minor. The presumptions made about adulthood which served the adult's benefit is now used to aid in that adult's disadvantage. One would presume that adults would be more competent in dealing with unexpected pregnancies, STI's contractions, financial obligations, etc. Instead, the government treats this capacity as the makings of a predator.
The second inconsistency I'd like to explore is consent. The law deems that minors cannot provide valid consent to sexual interaction with those among the age of majority. It dismisses the value judgements which inform consent. Deciding the capacity to consent on age alone produces a slippery slope argument. If the minor has no capacity to provide valid consent, then operating on that same logic, said minor cannot withhold assent, or provide valid dissent because age of consent policies render value judgements by a minor on his her own sexual desire and capacity null. It's one thing to state that a person who was raped DID NOT CONSENT; it's another to state that said person COULD NOT consent. Extending this premise of incapacity to provide valid consent to its logical conclusion would make it impossible to rape a minor because the minor would have the capacity to know that which is neither in its best interests, nor its worst interests--an
undeniably absurd inference. The government, in my estimation, is currently
operating on the illogical platitude, as described by Judith Levine in
her book, Crimes of Passion: Harming Minors, "statutory
rape is not about sex the victim says she did not want. It is about sex
she did want but which adults believe she only thought she wanted
because she wasn't old enough to know she didn't want it." The government can't have it both ways: either the minor is capable of making value judgements and thereby can provide valid consent and dissent, or the minor can't, and we ultimately render the sexual prospects of that minor to the decisions of an outside party. Furthermore, would rendering these decisions on the sexual prospects of minors to outside parties be moral?
Morals are concepts which establish conditions in which we ought to live, usually separated by notions of right and wrong, or good and evil. For this particular debate, I'm going to subscribe to epicurean moral themes--i.e. happiness is the greatest good, and pain and suffering is the worst. The former is maximized, and the latter is minimized best by individualist philosophy, particularly the axiom of individual sovereignty--i.e. we are of and ought to have exclusive control over ourselves. [I will expand on the reasoning as the debate continues.] From there, other concepts are derived such as liberty, property, association, etc. Now what does any of this have to do with sex? When a minor decides to have sex, said minor either thoughtfully or superficially considers the value(s) in having sex. It could be to attract the attachment of one whom the minor desires, boredom, lust, control, etc. Whatever the reason, one thing always remains constant: the minor is behaving his or her body in sexual contact. When the government can arbitrarily impose policy that dictates how an individual, in this case a minor, can behave his or her body, the government is presuming authority over that minor's body, undermining that minor's individual sovereignty. The government is committing an infraction upon a fundamental right of all individuals, including minors, to behave themselves as they see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's capacity to the same. The government recognizes, for example, a 14 year old female's right to bodily autonomy when she decides to get an abortion, but doesn't acknowledge said autonomy as it concerns the very act which produced the result that informs her decision to get an abortion? This inconsistency is demonstrative of government whim, which necessarily makes minors government property because their capacity to express values as it concerns themselves are diminished and outright dismissed in favor of government priority. And human beings--individuals--no matter how old, are the property of no one else.
Your floor, TheAtheist.
Opening Argument:
Before I adress your points, I would like to explain why I support a universal age of consent. There are two reasons:
- Minors are not mature enough mentally to have sex.
- Minors are not mature enough physically and mentally to have children.
Why are minors prohibited from smoking, drinking, and gambling? Because they are not mature enough to do those things. An adult understands the consequences and so he can consent. A child, on the other hand, doesn't. Sex is similar to smoking, drinking, and gambling: it is an activity for adults.
Having a child at an early age can be both physically and mentally damaging to a girl. Someone who hasn't grown up herself yet cannot take care of another individual. It's also very damaging for the baby to grow up with an underage mother.
Rebuttals:
Now I would like to adress your points. You claim that age of consent policies are logically inconsistent and logically immoral. You state three reasons for this:
- In cases where two minors have sex, they both aren't punished. In cases where a minor and an adult have sex, only the adult is punished.
- If minors cannot consent, they also cannot dissent. Therefore, an outside party must make those decisions, which is immoral.
- The government should not be able to impose policy that dictates how an individual can and cannot their body.
It is true that when two minors have sex, they are seldom punished; while if an adult has sex with a minor he will be convicted of statutory rape. And there's a perfectly logical reason for both these things. Minors aren't prosecuted for breaking the age of consent because they did not give consent to have sex. Minors cannot give consent. There's a reason it's called statutory rape - sex without consent is rape. If a minor got raped, you wouldn't imprison them for breaking the age of consent laws, would you? But when an adult has sex, they fully understand the consequences of sex and are able to give consent. That's why the adult goes to jail and the kid doesn't.
It is also true that minors cannot dissent. That's why they are required by law to go to school, for example: they are not mature enough to make a decision on that subject. But this does not mean that age of consent laws are illogical. Consent and lack of dissent aren't the same thing. If it's not consensual sex, it's rape, period. According to your logic, I could rape a sleeping woman since she didn't dissent to me having sex with her. But your logic is flawed and that's why I would be going to jail.
It doesn't matter whether the minor receives pleasure from sex or not. A minor cannot consent. A minor also receives pleasure from drinking alchohol and smoking, so should we let children drink and smoke? A minor does not have the rights that an adult has. In the case of abortion, the parents can decide to abort the child because having a child would only hurt the minor more. Not having sex doesn't hurt the minor. Therefore, your three arguments are invalid.
Round 2
Rebuttal
Before I adress your points, I would like to explain why I support a universal age of consent. There are two reasons:
- Minors are not mature enough mentally to have sex.
- Minors are not mature enough physically and mentally to have children.
Why are minors prohibited from smoking, drinking, and gambling? Because they are not mature enough to do those things. An adult understands the consequences and so he can consent. A child, on the other hand, doesn't. Sex is similar to smoking, drinking, and gambling: it is an activity for adults.
How "mature" does one have to be in order to have sex? How "mature" does one have to be in order to behave one's body? You're merely asserting that they aren't mature enough, regardless of your analogies to smoking, gambling, and drinking, which can be argued many adults aren't "mature" enough to handle (otherwise, they wouldn't smoke, drink, or gamble at all, in my opinion.) Minors are often taught by the adults in their lives about the consequences of their actions almost all the time. Why are minors in particular incapable of understanding the consequences of sex?
Second, the use of the word, "mature," automatically and arbitrarily dismisses any capacity for a minor to be considered competent because minors by the definition of the term mature are less mature than adults. The inclusion of the term is an extension of the arbitrary age-based division. Explain what role "maturity" plays in one's capacity to provide valid consent when it concerns sex.
Having a child at an early age can be both physically and mentally damaging to a girl. Someone who hasn't grown up herself yet cannot take care of another individual. It's also very damaging for the baby to grow up with an underage mother.
Please substantiate these assertions. We know historically girls would have children often after reaching puberty. In third world countries, girls have children at young ages. Were there any signs or records of mental damage then? Child Labor Laws have stifled any chances of minors having the capacity to meet their financial obligations, and minimum wage laws have done nothing more to help, but instead, exacerbated teenage unemployment. Furthermore, the 1998 Rind report challenged and casted doubt on the public perception of necessary psychological damage to minors when they engaged sexual relationships with adults, particularly in the absence of force. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on
college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with "child sexual abuse" were, on
average, slightly less well adjusted than the controls. However, this poorer
adjustment could not be attributed to child sexual abuse because family environment
was consistently confounded with child sexual abuse. Family environment explained considerably
more adjustment variance than child sexual abuse, and CSA-adjustment relations
generally became insignificant when studies controlled for family environment.
Self-reported reactions to and effects from child sexual abuse indicated that negative
effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men
reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were
completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs
about child sexual abuse in the general population were not supported.
It is true that when two minors have sex, they are seldom punished; while if an adult has sex with a minor he will be convicted of statutory rape. And there's a perfectly logical reason for both these things. Minors aren't prosecuted for breaking the age of consent because they did not give consent to have sex. Minors cannot give consent.
No, you're stating that they are incapable of giving consent, not that they used discretion and withheld it. (This will be important as we go forward.) And how does the sex between two minors occur if neither is capable of providing valid consent? Are they raping each other, or does their incapacity to consent cancel each other out?
There's a reason it's called statutory rape - sex without consent is rape. If a minor got raped, you wouldn't imprison them for breaking the age of consent laws, would you? But when an adult has sex, they fully understand the consequences of sex and are able to give consent. That's why the adult goes to jail and the kid doesn't.
Sex without valid consent is the legal description of rape. And valid consent in the context of age of consent is informed by arbitrary age-based divisions. As I mentioned in the description, you can submit the legal definition of consent, but you'd have to justify its integrity, not argue Ipse Dixit. Furthermore, what are the consequences that should be understood in the sexual engagement between adult and minor, and how does awareness of those consequences establish a crime? As I stated above, wouldn't the adult's presumed capacity for appreciating the consequences make the adult a more viable sexual partner for the minor than another minor?
It is also true that minors cannot dissent. That's why they are required by law to go to school, for example: they are not mature enough to make a decision on that subject. But this does not mean that age of consent laws are illogical.
It is illogical. If a minor cannot dissent, then the minor is subject to the whims of any adult regardless of his or her protests. Just because some of those adults are members of government with the privilege to write policy doesn't change a thing.
Consent and lack of dissent aren't the same thing.
One either affirms or negates. The presumption which informs valid consent is that the lack of a yes informs no. (The logic of this is quite nebulous since the converse of that statement can also be made--i.e. the lack of no informs yes.) Even if we were to operate on the former, would there be a presumptive no as it concerns minors? If they are incapable of both consent and dissent, then what is presumed in the absence of consent? I'm not suggesting that the lack of consent is dissent; I'm suggesting age of consent renders the dichotomy meaningless when it concerns minors. You're in essence characterizing them as value-less beings who cannot exercise value-based decisions as far as their bodies are concerned. So what crime would an adult be committing when he or she engages a minor in sexual activity? Violation of state prerogative? If you're arguing on behalf of state-prerogative, then you'd only be informing my point on immorality delineated in my opening argument. You're essentially consigning these minors to be state-property. And you'd have justify how consigning human beings to be the property of other beings is at all moral.
According to your logic, I could rape a sleeping woman since she didn't dissent to me having sex with her. But your logic is flawed and that's why I would be going to jail.
Since you referred to a sleeping "woman" and not a sleeping "girl," I can assume that you're referring to an adult presumed capable of making value-based decisions as it concerns her body. The difference here is that one is not supposing that woman is incapable of consent; one is supposing a no, in the absence of yes, because there was no decision made due to her being unconscious. With minors, one is supposing their incapacity by reason of being, regardless of the circumstances. So according, not to my logic, but the rationale of age of consent, it would be possible to rape a sleeping woman, but it would be impossible to rape a sleeping girl, because even if she were conscious, her values as it concerns her body wouldn't matter.
It doesn't matter whether the minor receives pleasure from sex or not.
So then what does matter?
A minor cannot consent.
Another ipse dixit statement. Please elaborate.
A minor also receives pleasure from drinking alchohol and smoking, so should we let children drink and smoke?
Another ipse dixit statement compounded by arguments to common practice. You're not even attempting to justify your statements. You're informing only that which the state already does.
A minor does not have the rights that an adult has.
Correction: minors do not have the privileges an adult has. (And adults do not have the privileges a minor has.) That is not to be confused with rights which are supposed to reflect a moral economy. The state was intended to protect rights, not create, dictate, or undermine them. Many of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights which the state alleges it sustains as "inalienable" are derived from the natural rights philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment.
In the case of abortion, the parents can decide to abort the child because having a child would only hurt the minor more.
A 14 year-old girl does not need her parents consent to have an abortion. She can appeal to a judge on her own behalf. That's the reason I used a proverbial 14 year-old girl as my example.
Not having sex doesn't hurt the minor.
And you haven't substantiated how having sex does hurt the minor. But there's still time.
Therefore, your three arguments are invalid.
You're going to have to provide much more substance to your counterarguments to render my arguments invalid.
On to the next round.
Forfeited
Round 3
My opponent has forfeited the second round. My comments will replicate this one for rounds three and four since TheAtheist has made it clear to me that he'll no longer participate. I will however post a closing argument for Round 5.
I forfeit this debate. I have not prepared enough on the subject, and I think's Con's debating skills exceed mine. Con won.
Round 4
My opponent has forfeited the third round (as well as the debate.) On to round four.
I forfeit this debate. Vote Con. TheAtheist out.
Round 5
Closing Arguments
1. Age of consent policies and their application have been shown
to be not only illogical and immoral but also counterintuitive. The legal
description of age of consent presumes tort or criminal activity when engaging minors whom the government deems incapable of consent in sexual activity. Romeo and Juliet policies, however, often mitigate the liability of any minor
or parent for criminal sexual activity. It is only the partner who's above the statutory division (age of consent) that's held criminally liable for an activity, outside the arbitrary division, which is never prosecuted unless there was duress. This makes little sense because the adult is often presumed legally to be the competent and
experienced party. The logic in this case is "reversed" in that the
adult's experience, competence, and wisdom are presumed to
harm the minor. Age of consent policies also fail to make
explicit the nonsexual benefits adults gain in pursuing sexual
relationship with minors.
2. Ceteris Paribus, the contact, mechanics, and sensations are
identical, whether it be an adolescent or an adult. "Predation" is
presumed to manifest in sexual relationships minors have with adults
because of an undue position of influence an adult allegedly has. This
however neglects that "power dynamics" can be interesectional--i.e.
differences in personality, appearance, ethnicity, weight, height,
social status, income, etc.
3. The age of consent also contradicts its recognition of bodily autonomy among minors particularly when recognizing, for example, a 14 year-old girl's right to have and "consent" to an abortion, while denying she had the very "capacity to consent" to the activity which made her pregnant to begin with. This inconsistency is demonstrative of government whim, which necessarily consigns minors to be behaved as government property because their capacity to express values and make value judgements as it concerns themselves are diminished and outright dismissed in favor of government priority. And human beings--individuals--no matter how old, are the property of no one else.
4. Age of consent policies when extended to their logical conclusions are absurd and produce slippery-slope arguments. If a minor has no capacity to consent, then operating on that same logic, said minor cannot withhold assent or dissent. It would therefore be impossible for an adult to rape a minor, much less minors raping each other, because the minor would know neither that which is in its best interests, as described in Parens Patriae, nor its worst interests.
Finally, human beings aren't machines, ready
for use once every part has been assembled. If anything, humans have demonstrated
their capacity in evolving pertaining to the accumulation of information, learning from their
experiences, adjusting and adapting, and adding to their stores of knowledge. The state
arbitrates a statutory division for which a person can optimally weigh
benefits and costs, but no such age exists. At any age a person is capable
of both good and bad decisions. Even if we are to consider that the proportion of "good decisions" heavily favors adults, the significance of this disparity isn't explicit. It's one thing to observe the
development of one's life and categorize it into stages (infancy,
childhood, adolescence, adulthood); it's another to legislate and coerce these divisions.
Thank you to my opponent, TheAtheist. And thank you to the onlooking readers. Vote well.
Thank you to my opponent, TheAtheist. And thank you to the onlooking readers. Vote well.
Thank you to my opponent too. As I already said, he won.
If we were to extend your rationale to its logical conclusion (i.e. beings who aren't conceived have rights) then children would be able to levy post facto legal disputes against their parents for bad skin, or bad hair, or poor vision, genetic defects, etc. in order to express their claims or "rights."
"Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them."
And to whom is this fine owed? Who else has a claim to the parents' good health other than whom you allege--i.e. the unborn child? How would the unborn child collect it? How much do we take? Aren't you just pressing your own alleged claims and/or rights and funneling them through the assumption of the unborn child's proxy?
"Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers."
This depends on the context. If one's sexual habits are casual, then yes, there's a risk in contracting STI's. However, if my partner and I have no STI's and remain in an exclusive sexual relationship, then regardless of how many times we have sex, the "danger" is incidentally the same. Now, if we're characterizing pregnancy as a danger, then contraception is quite the effective remedy. And again, from personal experience, even trying "other forms," coitus is the best way to enjoy one's partner.
"If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic."
"Future" children don't have rights. They've yet to be born; they've yet to have being. They have no more so say in their own creation than everyone else. Which rights can they exercise before they're conceived?
"Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had."
I know. That doesn't change, however, that one has the responsibility to be an agent in one's self-preservation. Hence, one "demands" that screening be conducted before engaging in coitus.
"Personal responsibility isn't always achieved..."
Personal responsibility isn't something achieved. It's innate; it's cultivated through one's experiences.
"...since some couples don't care about spreading STIs."
Which couples are those? And if they don't care about spreading STI's, then they warrant the consequences of their actions.
"Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents?"
They aren't kids; they are neither conceived nor born. We are speaking to prospect, not fact. For better or worse, children are the beneficiaries of their parents' positive and negative aspects. Since they aren't self-sufficient, and the zygote/embryo/fetus requires its mother's labor to gestate, it doesn't get to get to dictate its mother's participation--even her curing any STI's--because they zygote/embryo/fetus doesn't gestate itself. It doesn't provide the genetic material in its own conception. The womb belongs to its mother; the ovum and sperm belong to its mother and father, respectively. What claim does the zygote/embryo/fetus have?
I'm not at all advocating for spreading STI's, or infecting unborn children with them, but it is a terrible yet inevitable consequence of progenation.
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro concedes
Am I making sense?
"The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity."
If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic.
"Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women."
Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had. Personal responsibility isn't always achieved since some couples don't care about spreading STIs. Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents? It's better if STIs were treated before marriage and starting a family. Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them.
Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers. It's like resorting to cannibalism when there are other forms of meat available for human consumption. If the other forms are available, why select what's objectively dangerous for human beings?
"Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex."
The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity. Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women. I agree that contraception ought to be used effectively to prevent STI's and unplanned pregnancies, though abortion would still be an option. Furthermore, while there are other ways to enjoy one's partner, in my experience at least, coitus is the best way. The state really has no prerogative other one it imposes itself to interfere in the sex lives of others particularly and especially in the absence of duress.
Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex.
The format of our debate was delineated in the description:
Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rejoinders
Round Four: (Double) Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments
Not to mention, if there was something with which you were unsure, you could've waited for a response. After all, three days are allowed between our submissions. You're relatively new, so I'll chalk it up to that.
Just to confirm before I post my argument. Should I include rebuttals or not?
You've submitted a rather sophistic argument. I never once referred to "the" age of consent. Take a look at the subject title, "Age of Consent Policies." Plural. And I presumed that the concept of "age of consent" was recognizable without explicit definition, but if you need it defined, I don't mind providing you a definition.
EDIT: I've added the definitions. Is it more definitive now?
Still too woolly.
You argue against "the" age of consent and refer to "the" standard, but not the standard. The use of the word "legal" only adds to the ambiguity of the proposition.
You're still not making clear what you actually want to debate. As such an opponent could only initiate a discussion rather than a definitive argument.
Just commenting out into the blue: If people aren't careful, the age of consent could be raised to 25
A debate between the two of you would be very entertaining! You’re both probably the best debaters that I’ve seen.
My position is one against age of consent policies. Given the resolution, my position naturally supposes that age of consent policies are both logically inconsistent and immoral. Further elaboration will be submitted during the debate.
Could you elaborate on your position?
Will consider it. Working on a case now. Hopefully, I am not busy so it doesn't go to waste.
This is simply a repost of my previous challenge, "Age of Consent." This time, there's no rating requirement. Perhaps now, a challenger will emerge.