Children are not inferior

12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds!

            II.I: Rebuttal

12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds!

If my opponent was correct, they will have simply proven that children aren't inferior to children. Nevertheless, this statement not only has a nonapliciable conclusion, but is also incorrect. 

If you read the debateart.com code of conduct, you will find that 12 year olds are not allowed on this website to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage. . It can be concluded that 12 year olds have inferior rights to 13 year olds, in terms of their ability to access this website legitimately . 

Humans are inferior to dolphins and leopards in terms of swimming and running.

I was referring to children and teenagers. They have equal rights. 

Their "inferior" rights to the internet is merely the decision of people treating children as inferiors, and they think that children don't deserve social media. In the mid 20th century, black people were excluded from white people. This is just history repeating itself through another form.

  I was not referring to their rights currently, I am referring to reality.

If you truly believe children are inferior, tell me, is Baby Jesus inferior?

There are two things to unpack.

I.II.a In the mid 20th century, black people were inferior, in the eyes of white people. You never specified from whos perspective the individual had to be viewed as inferior. Though I am against racism, it is true that there was a period of time when black people were inferior in the eyes of white people. 

I.II.b The comparison between 12 year olds and black people is faulty. Black people were viewed as inferior simply because of their skin colour. The reason 12 year olds are excluded from certain media platforms is because they are, in most cases, irresponsible and should not be exposed to content on social media. To say that little children are being "discriminated' because they cannot use social media is like saying little children are discriminated because they are not allowed to smoke and drive. It is simply a matter of responsibitily. 

If you truly believe children are inferior, tell me, is Baby Jesus inferior?

There are certainly people who believe Baby Jesus is worthy for respect, but using this argument against a pastafarianist isn't going to work. Even if, for the sake of the argument, baby jesus is real, baby jesus, is not children, he is a single child. The presence of one non-inferior being does not mean that entire species is of their status. 

There are two things to unpack.

I.II.a In the mid 20th century, black people were inferior, in the eyes of white people. You never specified from whos perspective the individual had to be viewed as inferior. Though I am against racism, it is true that there was a period of time when black people were inferior in the eyes of white people. 

And children are viewed as inferior in the eyes of teenagers!

I.II.b The comparison between 12 year olds and black people is faulty. Black people were viewed as inferior simply because of their skin colour. The reason 12 year olds are excluded from certain media platforms is because they are, in most cases, irresponsible and should not be exposed to content on social media. To say that little children are being "discriminated' because they cannot use social media is like saying little children are discriminated because they are not allowed to smoke and drive. It is simply a matter of responsibitily. 

Again, the assumption that 12 year olds are irresponsible is only made up by people who view them as inferior.

There are certainly people who believe Baby Jesus is worthy for respect, but using this argument against a pastafarianist isn't going to work. Even if, for the sake of the argument, baby jesus is real, baby jesus, is not children, he is a single child. The presence of one non-inferior being does not mean that entire species is of their status. 

I think they are listening to this debate right now, I wonder what God feels about you insulting his children?

There are two things to unpack.

I.II.a In the mid 20th century, black people were inferior, in the eyes of white people. You never specified from whos perspective the individual had to be viewed as inferior. Though I am against racism, it is true that there was a period of time when black people were inferior in the eyes of white people. 

And children are viewed as inferior in the eyes of teenagers!

That may be so, but this debate does not concern who's eye's the inferiorness comes from. In the eyes of teenagers, children are inferior. 

It is not an assumption, it is a generalization of what we know. It is not "made up", it is based on facts. Anyone under the age of 16 cannot apply for a driver's licenses, not because the government are ageists, but because that is the age of which, on balance, teens become mature. 

There is a very big difference between not allowing a black man, who has the same abilities as a white man to drive, and a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle. 

 Anyone under the age of 16 cannot apply for a driver's licenses

generalization

Again, for the sake of the argument, I will believe that baby jesus is real. Even if he is superior, that does not mean that all children are superior. 

Nevertheless, you have not given me any reasons for me to believe in baby jesus in the first place. 

a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle. 

because the government are ageists

That may be so, but this debate does not concern who's eye's the inferiorness comes from. In the eyes of teenagers, children are inferior. 

In fact, as the creator of this debate, it does indeed concern who's eyes the inferiorness comes from, and that would be from the teenagers perspective.

There is a very big difference between not allowing a black man, who has the same abilities as a white man to drive, and a 6 year old, who is not yet mature enough to manoeuvre a vehicle. 

Ok so kids can't drive. So what? Knowing how to drive is based on height.

However, the responsibility to use social media is not based on practice, it is merely based on knowledge I'm sure most parents will teach their kids. Somebody with 100 IQ would know not to interact with pedophiles. Unless you're implying that children have IQ under 100, your point is invalid. However, if you are implying that children have IQ under 100, I can easily prove otherwise, take a look at this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/teen/meet-the-11-year-old-who-is-smarter-than-albert-einstein-and-stephen-hawking/articleshow/70086958.cms

You do realize that 15 year olds are not children, right? 

generalization

See? Even you admit it, they are all stereotypes, just because a few children are like that, doesn't mean all are.

That may be so, but this debate does not concern who's eye's the inferiorness comes from. In the eyes of teenagers, children are inferior. 

In fact, as the creator of this debate, it does indeed concern who's eyes the inferiorness comes from, and that would be from the teenagers perspective.

Well, it's a little too late for that. It is in bad faith of the debate for you to shift the definitions and interpretations half way through the debate. You cannot just say "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out". Perhaps you should have made your resolution something like "On balance, children under the age of 13 are not morally inferior to their adult couterparts". 

(My opponent) In fact, as the creator of this debate, it does indeed concern who's eyes the inferiorness comes from, and that would be from the teenagers perspective.

Well, it's a little too late for that. It is in bad faith of the debate for you to shift the definitions and interpretations half way through the debate. You cannot just say "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out". Perhaps you should have made your resolution something like "On balance, children under the age of 13 are not morally inferior to their adult couterparts". 

The way you said "whoops, there's a hole in my debate, let's patch it up after my opponent points it out" makes it sound like you killed my statements and now I am making a fool of myself trying to repair it.

This psychology can make me lose credibility.

You volunteered with the assumption that I was talking about adolescents were not inferior to other animals and middle aged adults.

However, I was implying that 12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds and shouldn't be harassed for their age on the internet.

If you refuse to resort to my definition, I am afraid I have won by default.

I will create another debate after this one and I will state more clearly what I am debating. If you accept the next debate, I will post it in the comments, then we continue fighting. If you decline, however, even if you think you won, you would only win the argument in your head. You would not win the argument I created.