Kids aren't simple minded

I would like to know how one quotes what has not yet been said.

That would be you, I'm merely quoting what you would say.

this person is using full N-word. ban

You are now blocked.

(forgot to address Unrational the madman)
You're the one who is trying to make me look worse than I am. You think I am trying to win by any means and manipulation. My goal is not to win, it's to spread the message that kids aren't inferior. Thinking kids are stupid and inferior is like thinking black people are stupid and inferior. People like you justify the discrimination against children online and harassing them for not being 13 by claiming it's a 'proven fact', and that racism wasn't necessary and that ageism is. Science was advance back then as well, but of course, none would admit that there is no 'proven fact' that black people are stupid and inferior.
"But it's shown that kid's minds are smaller! You fucking idiot get off Reddit child! It's for you safety, you're too innocent to learn bad words, so fuck you for daring to use the internet! Niggers lives matter but yours does not, imagine being under 13. Fuck you for existing and I wish your mom aborted you after you were partially born, and the method where they rip off your limbs!"
Smaller doesn't mean stupid, you underestimate how smart a kid can be.
"Well that's rare, most have a lower IQ than room temperature!"
You would be quite wrong about that. It is very common for kids to be as smart as I mentioned. It is rare, however, for kids to have a lower IQ than room temperature. It is also uncommon for kids to be as smart as Albert Einstein, but neither are the majority of the population of adults, so that claim would be invalid.
Also when Unrational the Madman said that kids are naive and vulnerable, he was referring to 3 year olds, who are more like babies than kids. I made it clear that this debate is talking about kids the ages of 10, 11 and 12.

Breathe, cowboy. If all you're about is spreading a message, you're in the wrong gig. Go to Forum.

You're the one who is trying to make me look worse than I am. You think I am trying to win by any means and manipulation. My goal is not to win, it's to spread the message that kids aren't inferior. Thinking kids are stupid and inferior is like thinking black people are stupid and inferior. People like you justify the discrimination against children online and harassing them for not being 13 by claiming it's a 'proven fact', and that racism wasn't necessary and that ageism is. Science was advance back then as well, but of course, none would admit that there is no 'proven fact' that black people are stupid and inferior.
"But it's shown that kid's minds are smaller! You fucking idiot get off Reddit child! It's for you safety, you're too innocent to learn bad words, so fuck you for daring to use the internet! Niggers lives matter but yours does not, imagine being under 13. Fuck you for existing and I wish your mom aborted you after you were partially born, and the method where they rip off your limbs!"
Smaller doesn't mean stupid, you underestimate how smart a kid can be.
"Well that's rare, most have a lower IQ than room temperature!"
You would be quite wrong about that. It is very common for kids to be as smart as I mentioned. It is rare, however, for kids to have a lower IQ than room temperature. It is also uncommon for kids to be as smart as Albert Einstein, but neither are the majority of the population of adults, so that claim would be invalid.
Also when Unrational the Madman said that kids are naive and vulnerable, he was referring to 3 year olds, who are more like babies than kids. I made it clear that this debate is talking about kids the ages of 10, 11 and 12.

Doesn't mean they're stupid, not knowing facts doesn't mean incompetent and not cunning.

By starting this debate, you asked someone to assert that kids are simple minded within the confines of the argument. Further, nothing in how he framed his points implies even a dislike (let alone hatred) for anyone of any age. Please don't attempt to drag someone's name through the mud without warrant; even more so in the comments where it could be taken for trying to get pity votes.

Your behavior in the comments, is showing difficultly with: informed decisions, planning skills, and an unsophisticated logical framework with regards to applying it. (quotes from con's argument, which you are choosing to emulate).

I'm not offending anyone. Whole world agrees with me.

You say stupid, it's a fact children know less and think less well than adults. You can bullshit all you want. That's the entire reason it's wrong to take advantage of them, they're naive and vulnerable.

Same argument as always, previously you said that they shouldn't fight wars for their safety. This is not about safety, its about competence. Kids need protection not because they're stupid, but because they're young and deserve a chance to live.

I am fine with him offending me. But he is offending 27% of the world by making those claims.

I suggest you watch your next words carefully, spreading shit about me hating children or whatever.

I would die to protect children in an emergency especially if they're related to me or to someone close to me. You don't know shit about me to say that.

Being offended is everyone's right [or, choosing not to be offended]. Why one is offended is on them, entirely. Censorship is not the answer to being offended.

He offends me not because he disagrees, but because he hates kids.

My vote contained an error of identification. I said, "The killer for Pro was accusing Con the lack of sourcing; something Con failed to do himself." The error was at the last phrase, which should have said "...Pro failed to do himself." Sorry for the confusion. Does not change the vote result.

And then he refuses to accept that kids aren't stupid, and that personal experience doesn't apply for all people. Also he is the one being mean because what he says against children I take as insults, I think you know why.

As a 12yr old challenging full on teenagers/adults in debates, I can say that R1 Con is highly unjustified.

Not a promising opening.

This debate, as is, will come down to outframing the opponent.

This entirely depends on how you categorize "simple minded" and what your metrics are to measure whether someone is or isn't such.