In cases where children have sexual urges and act on their sexual urges, child marriages should be legally allowed

Well let me start off I have a problem with your definition. In the definition of child marriage you implied that "where all participants are happy." The definition is actually: "formal marriage between a child under the age of 18 and an adult or another child". You may think that it will result in all participants being happy, but it isn't part of the definition.

I would also like to clarify that child marriage is legal in 5 states. In those states a parent must consent and a judge must look over the case thoroughly and sign off it as well. I am fine with this law. The way you are suggesting it works is not just to legalize child marriage, but to legalize sexual relationships between minors and adults. This is where I seek issue with your opinion.

Yes, I 100% agree with this. But they already exist. Masturbation is one outlet, and sexual relationships. (between two minors). While it is technically illegal for two minors to have sex it is rarely enforced.

2. "Marriage is the best way to control urges"

This is just false. The age at which people have the most sex is "between the ages of 18 and 29". Marriage is legal at that age, and yet that age group has more sex than any other.

Marriage doesn't make a relationship more stable, especially when the wedded pair are minors and don't fully understand what they want. Minors are still learning and they can have a stable relationship without legally committing to it. Mind you a divorce takes 6 months or longer, and there are financial repercussions a child can't understand

This isn't true. Being married doesn't give you any extra protection under the law.

You also stated that "having lots of partners throughout life increases depression and suicide rates."

While the suicide rate fact is true

, the depression statistic was made up. But even with the suicide rate difference it is miniscule.

"Engaging in sex with multiple partners was not associated with an increased risk for anxiety or depression at 21, 26, or 32 years, once adjustment was made for any prior disorder. " - NIH

I already sort of explained this, but making marriage legal doesn't mean minors HAVE to marry someone. And they can stick to one sexual partner without marriage as well, rendering the legalization of it unnecessary

This arguement is ridiculous. First of all child marriage, isn't a criminal offense, it just isn't legally possible to do in most states. So what you are actually referring to is sex between a minor and an adult. Now your arguement is ridiculous, obviously decriminalizing something decreases prison populations, that isn't an arguement to make something legal. If we made murder legal, prison rates would be lowered, but obviously that is illogical.

Now I do agree that prisons are harmful. But the answer isn't to decriminalize everything, it is to 1. Improve our prison system, 2. Improve our communities to prevent people from becoming criminals

"Most of children who are in relationship with an adult dont want for that adult to go to prison. " 

I found no evidence to support this, so this is another fact you made up.

Children are not considered capable of providing informed consent in these situations due to their age and vulnerability.

Relationships between adults and children can lead to serious harm, both physically and psychologically, and can result in long-lasting trauma for the child involved.

This is the same reason children are sentenced lighter in the justice system, and why there are different labor laws when it comes to minors.

This arguement also argues for child labor, harsher criminal sentencing for minors, and less parental responsibilities. Which I hope I don't have to explain why those are unethical.

Furthermore, by legalizing your concept of child marriage, we are making it significantly easier for vulnerable and immature children to be abused and manipulated.

Respecting a child's autonomy also means protecting them from harm and guiding them toward healthy decisions. Allowing children to be involved in age-inappropriate relationships can expose them to situations that can negatively impact their emotional well-being and development.

80 percent of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are made by women because they are abused and treated poorly. This shows child marriage can lead to abuse. As for STDs the statistics may not be accurate as not everyone in Afghanistan is informed enough to recognize symptoms and get tested.

You also managed to contradict yourself within the same paragraph. 

"Woman will give birth to most children if she starts giving birth as early as possible. The longer she waits, the less children she can give birth to. Allowing child marriages makes it possible to raise more children."

"Banning child marriages increases birth rates more than allowing child marriages and regulating them to lower birth rates."

Lets apply this to another harmful urge. Some people have the urge to murder, or rape. Obviously, society condemns people who act on these because they are unethical and quite frankly evil.

No one will condemn someone who has these urges, and instead of acting on them, seeks professional help. Pedophilia is strongly associated with mental illness.

The reason most children don't speak about relationships they had with an adult, is because they were manipulated and threatened in order not to. And allowing a child and an adult to have sexual relations legally doesn't regulate it in any way. It does the opposite

So you condemn abusers, yet you encourage a system that makes abuse significantly easier? 

"Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent"

I couldn't find a source anywhere that confirmed this. It seems you just made it up. If you are considering all types or relationships, like friends, coworkers, child-parent, I am sure it is true. But violence and abuse is very common is adult-child romantic relationships.

Two people don't have to be married to live together, and how does marriage provide more wealth?

Even if this was the case, this is such a weak and irrelevant arguement. There are tutors, online courses, or one could just ask a teacher.

Children are sentenced more lightly for any crime they commit

A child already has this option. If they are being abused they can reach out to child protective services

Masturbation and sex with another person of the same maturity level

Sure it won't make them "go away", but it lowers the rate of them and punishes those took advantage of the child.

And again as I stated before, legalizing marriage doesn't make people less likely to have many sexual partners, hence why people in college have the most sexual partners even though can legally get married.

Child vaccinations are administered to protect children from preventable diseases and improve public health.

Children aren't judged in these situations because they are the VICTIM. The way to solve this isn't to legalize child-adult relationships, it is to destigmatize speaking up when you are a victim

Banning child marriages won't make violence go away, but it will discourage and reduce potential violence: While it is true that banning child marriages alone may not eradicate all forms of violence, it sends a strong message that child exploitation and abuse will not be tolerated. By raising the minimum age of marriage, society is taking a step towards protecting vulnerable children from forced marriages, early pregnancies, and various forms of abuse that they might endure in such relationships

Banning child marriages makes violence harder to detect: It is essential to acknowledge that violence within child marriages is often hidden and goes unreported due to fear, social stigma, and a lack of awareness. Banning child marriages can actually empower victims to speak out, seek help, and report incidents of violence, as they won't be trapped in an illegal and harmful relationship.

Allowing child marriages makes the relationship known and easier to regulate: While the intention behind regulation might seem well-intentioned, it is crucial to recognize that child marriages themselves are inherently harmful to the well-being and development of young individuals. Instead of trying to regulate harmful relationships, we should focus on providing support systems and education to prevent such marriages from happening in the first place.

Violence and dropping out of school are common in poor communities, just like child marriages: It is true that violence and dropout rates may be more prevalent in disadvantaged communities. However, child marriages exacerbate these issues by perpetuating a cycle of poverty and limited opportunities for young girls, especially. Instead of viewing child marriages as a solution to violence, we should address the root causes of poverty and invest in social programs that promote education and gender equality.

Child marriages are banned in the USA, yet violence over children persists: While child marriages are indeed banned in the USA, the presence of violence and other social issues doesn't prove that banning child marriages is ineffective. Many factors contribute to societal problems, and addressing violence requires a comprehensive approach, including education, social support, mental health services, and stronger child protection laws

Maybe there are a few cases where a child grows up and doesn't regret anything that happened, but the potential harm significantly outweighs the potential good. You are quite literally arguing for rape. You are saying consent isn't needed because they might like it, but what if they don't? "future consent" is not a real thing and you are currently trying to justify rape.

The importance and benefits of a parent-child relationship outweigh the potential risk for abuse, the same is not true for adult-child marriages.

There is a law that a "MAP" must follow. Don't engage in sexual activity with minors! That is the law. If someone is struggling with these urges they can reach out for professional help.

Police involvement and fear: While it is true that police involvement can be intimidating for anyone, including children, it is essential to remember that law enforcement's primary objective is to protect and ensure the safety of individuals, especially minors. The police are trained to handle such cases with sensitivity and care.

Persuasion and confusion: The assertion that police, parents, and psychologists would collectively try to persuade a child that what happened to her was wrong is a broad generalization. In reality, their primary concern would be to help the child understand and process the situation, providing necessary support and resources.

Confusing the child: While dealing with sensitive issues, professionals involved, such as psychologists, are trained to assist children in understanding their emotions and experiences. Their goal is not to confuse the child but to help them cope with their feelings in a safe and supportive environment.

And let me also clarify, the ADULT is in the wrong. Because, even if the child grows up and doesn't regret it, the adult can't know this to be the case. The adult also needs to recognize that they are in a position of power, and might--even if unintentionally--be causing the child to do something they don't want to. The adult needs to recognize this and control their urges

THIS IS 100% FALSE. two 12 years old being in a sexual relationship is ILLEGAL, but a judge will look at the context of the situation and most likely not charge anyone

This is not true at all, most schools teach about sex and safe sex practices. It is not at all condemned. Neither is masturbating

There is no law preventing a child from wearing what they want

I previously wrote that one of your arguments was the stupidest I have ever heard. I now retract that comment because this is the stupidest arguement I have ever heard. Should we also legalize drug dealing, murder, why not decriminalize everything? The solution again is not to decriminalize it, but to provide resources to prevent people from doing the crime in the first place

Your description doesn't make sense. Imposing a law that requires the parties to both be "happy" is impossible to enforce. It is too subjective and would be impossible to argue in court.

still legalizing sexual relationships between an adult and a child, just only under certain circumstances. And you didn't specify this in your initial arguement

I mentioned sexual relationships, but noted that it should be between two people of the same maturity level to prevent abuse

That is not at all what I said. You arguement is that if we legalize child marriage there will be benefits. One of the benefits you argued for was that children will have less sexual partners. I argued that making marriage legal doesn't reduce the amount of sexual partners someone has. I never argued that is marriage was illegal that there would be less sex, just that making marriage legal doesn't reduce sex

Afghanistan, as I noted previously, is a horrible role model. They oppress women significantly

Legalizing marriage doesn't force anyone to get married, so legalizing it won't automatically make all these relationships known.

there was however, at certain ages, a correlation between sexual partners and drug dependency

because child marriage isn't possible, it isn't a criminal offense

What is illegal is sex between a minor and an adult

Your arguement wasn't that banning child marriage harms children, it was that banning child marriage increases prison rates.

The book you are siting is fighting against you. Here is a quote from the author of the book: 

 “Unfortunately, when people heard ‘not traumatic when it happens,’ they translated my words to mean, ‘It doesn’t harm victims later on.’ Even worse, some assumed I was blaming victims for their abuse.”

The book you are referring to explained that the children involved don't experience trauma when it is happening, but experience the trauma when they grow older and understand the abuse they were put in. 

"Commonly, the abuse had been confusing for the child but not traumatic in the usual sense of the word. Only when the child grew old enough to understand exactly what had happened — sometimes many years later — did the fear, shock and horror begin. And only at that point did the experience become traumatic and begin its well-known destructive process."

I mentioned this in my arguement. Future consent is not real consent. As I pointed out I can't have unconsensual sex with someone and then assume they will like it. You can't give "future consent".

they don't allow children to consent, but then they punish children equally

If a child has the right to self-govern themselves, they wouldn't need parents, and wouldn't be treated differently under the law.

Again 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are women

The evidence shows that most people in these types of relationships experienced trauma and often a lack of education

The past association of homosexuality with mental illness was based on misconceptions and prejudice, and has been thoroughly discredited by modern scientific research and understanding of human sexuality

Okay, wealth isn't just created out of thin air. What are you saying is that one family takes on the financial burden of having an extra kid while the other family cuts costs by not having to take care of said kid. That is not more wealth, it is more wealth for one family and less for the other.

But that contradicts what you now said because the adult is losing wealth by taking on the financial burden of the child.

A child cannot provide proper consent.

"In the preferred specification of the model, each additional year of early marriagereduces the probability of literacy among women who married early by5.7 percentage points, the probability of having at least some secondary schoolingby 5.6 points, and the probability of secondary school completion by 3.5 points"

Minors sentencing is often based on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

For starters, you can't just magically find someone you love and who wants to marry you. Child marriage is not a viable option to solve parental abuse.

the solution is to improve the foster care system

by criminalizing it and encouraging victims to speak out, we can significantly reduce it.

Deterrence is effective method

the shame one experiences from these relationships is because they blame themselves for not fighting against it

So you argue that we shouldn't make child marriage illegal, because people will have sexual relations with children either way. But now you contradict yourself and say that making something illegal works, and that by legally limiting a "MAP" they will stick to one partner.

Being charged is different than committing a crime.

I never said a judge would be involved. I said that technically two children having sex is a crime. 

safe sex is taught all across the U.S.. Many schools start handing out condoms as early as middle school. Sex education begins in the 5th grade. Sex among teens is normalized, with the exception of some religious groups.

Drug dealing and murder cannot be prevented either, but criminalizing it reduces the rates in which those crimes are committed.

In this context, there is no difference between drug dealing and sex with a minor. 

These statistics aren't proof of anything. You didn't prove that U.S. children have more sex. And sex doesn't equal abuse

Afghanistan does not "outmatch" the U.S.. As I have explained, they have a culture of mistreating women, which is why 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are done by women. Afghanistan had less divorce because they culture deems divorce taboo, not because child marriages are legal. (correlation is not causation).

Again because the child is vulnerable they can easily be manipulated into not talking about possible abuse. 

This was not refuted. Maturity levels may never be exactly the same, but it is much more difficult for a 14 year old to abuse another 14 year old because of the power dynamic in the relationship.

And again you cannot stop adults from having sex with children, but you can reduce the rates via deterrence. I feel like I have to repeat everything 5 times to get it into your thick skull.

I never "conceded" that banning child marriage doesn't reduce sex with children.

I said it won't completely eliminate sex with children.

Also here you go again with the "prove" statements. "I have proved that map in marriage has less reasons to go after other children."

No you didn't prove anything. You made a claim and gave a hypothetical explanation on why it may true. Without and data or studies to back it up, it isn't proved. 

Yes, but specifically ADULT-CHILD sex. Not sex between two minors.

But my point wasn't that the U.S. doesn't have a problem with suicide. I was saying that 80% of suicide attempts in Afghanistan are women

Let me show you show examples of stories about child marriage in Afghanistan from a research study

Okay well now you are switching up the definition. You stated that child marriage must make "all participants happy". You didn't say that it would have to be regulated to try and ensure happiness.

As seen in Afghanistan, as you so like to look to, legalizing child marriage does not prevent abuse. And again you continue to make claims and then act like you are proving them. 

Pedophilia is mainly about sexual urges, most people who are engaging in these acts with children probably don't want to go through the lengthy process of getting married just to have sex.

And what happens when the child grows up? If the person is a "MAP" like you state they would lose attraction.

Having sex with many partners is harmful, not necessarily sex outside of marriage.

And people in marriage have sex outside of marriage often. 

"Research from the past two decades shows that between 20 and 25 percent of married men cheat and between 10 and 15 percent of married women cheat"

Okay so your arguement is that banning sexual activities with a minor increases prison population. Not banning child marriage.

You arguement was that "Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisons" you have now decided to throw in the "banning child marriages harms children" because you know your other arguement was weak. These are two independent arguments and should be seen as such.

That is an EXTREME misrepresentation of the book. In the book her evidence-based opinion was that trauma comes later in the relationship. She didn't "change the tone", the book was already out. People just misunderstood the book, and after the media looked into it they relegalized people like YOU are misrepresenting her findings. And it does, because you ignored the context of the book, just like the people accusing her of being a "friend of the pedophiles" did. You can't cherry pick her findings that children didn't feel abused in the relationship and then ignore her findings that they felt the trauma when they got older.

"It doesnt change the statistics presented in the book."

And you still didn't even present the quotes from the book, probably because you ignored context and exaggerated, so the quotes themselves make your arguement fall apart.

What if they become an adult and they don't consent then? Does the adult go to jail? Let's just agree with this 90% statistic for a moment and ignore context, that means 10% of these relationships would still be rape even with your made up "future consent" bullshit.

If we are regulating it they aren't governing themselves.

 In the U.S. the majority of suicides are men, meaning that overall men's mental health is worse when it comes to suicide. In Afghanistan, 80% are women, which shows women's mental health in Afghanistan is significantly worse than men's.

People who have looked at and collected data in Afghanistan argue that child marriage is an extremely harmful part of their society.

Women who marry early have demonstrated to have less academic proficiency. Nothing forces these children out of school, but they have a family to take care of, so they get spread too thin.

But if we improve the system then we can make it more likely for a child in foster care to find a home. 

But nothing is stopping them from having multiple partners?

What happens when their partner grows old and they are no longer attracted to them?

Also, not every urge has to be satisfied. An important part of being a responsible adult is not acting impulsively or based on urges alone. If people have these urges they can reach out for professional help.

The reason two people of the same age having sex is no big deal legally is because there isn't an abuse of power.

Let's say two people are equally drunk and have sex. No one will be charged for rape even though it is technically illegal to have sex with someone who isn't sober.

But if a person is sober and the other person is drunk, than the sober person is charged with rape because of the power dynamic.

Jaywalking is a crime, but it isn't condemned.

Obviously this is condemned as that child has nowhere near enough life experience to make that decision

Safe sex - sexual activity in which people take precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.

You don't know what safe sex is clearly.

43. Having unsatisfied sexual urges is like feeling pain

1. I have proven that allowing child marrigage does not lead to some large scale abuse. Sex outside of marriage is abuse. It increases suicides. It increases STD.

2. Afghanistan proves that child marriages arent bad. It was already stated before that US has more suicide rate among women than Afghanistan does. Afghanistan proves that we need to place value on marriage. Placing higher value on marriage lowers divorce rates.

3. Child is more vunerable without marriage. In child marriage, the relationship is known. Child is encouraged to report any problem. Child marriage would be under community's observation.

4. Most of child abuse is caused by children. A 14 year old can easily abuse a 10 year old if in relationship with her. A 14 year old can easily abuse another 14 year old if he is much stronger than her. Even among adults, man can easily abuse a woman due to being stronger.

5. It was already explained why deterrence doesnt work. People dont think they will get caught. They believe no one will find out. If they abuse a baby, baby cant tell anyone as long as they dont leave a mark.

6. I have already given reasons why ban on child marriage doesnt prevent adults from having sex with children. Adults have stronger sexual urges. Adults believe they wont get caught. Adults feel pain from not offending.

I have also explained why ban on child marriage doesnt at all reduce adults from going after children. I claimed that it motivates adults to go after children even more. I gave reasons for that. My opponent never refuted those reasons.

7. Does my opponent concede that child-child marriages should be legal?

That is quite enough for me to win the debate. The debate deals with adult-child or child-child. My opponent was defending child-child a lot, despite that child-child marriages being legal is my position, and his position is opposite.

My opponent is making no sense.

Suicide rates show the percentage of women committing suicides. My opponent claims  that a country, USA, who has twice as much suicide rates among women than Afghanistan, doesnt have problem with suicides. Then he goes to  claim that Afghanistan, country that has much less suicide rate among women, actually has greater problem with suicides than USA.

My opponent doesnt care that USA has more suicide rate among women. He does not even challenge that claim. Not to blame him. He cannot challenge it.

We are not going to read your cherry-picked stories. I could say that all marriages are bad. I could show countless number of stories of adults abusing adults in marriage. I still wouldnt prove that all marriages are bad.

Also, you are showing an example of forced marriages. I am arguing for consensual marriages. I am arguing for marriages in which child is happy. You think those two are the same.

You asked how they could be regulated to make child happy. I gave clear way of regulating it to make child happy. Then you complain about me not mentioning that argument in description. I am not even supposed to mention arguments in description.

In definition, it was said that marriages in which children are happy are to be allowed.

It was obvious from that definition that marriages would have to be regulated for the purpose of creating a marriage in which child was happy.

If that was not obvious to you, that is your fault.

I have no obligation to guide you step by step before the debate starts.

Afghanistan is a poor country. Afghanistan was at war for 20 years. Violence and poverty are common there. Afghanistan does not have much education.

My opponent's argument is nonsense. My opponent confuses "reduces abuse" with "eliminates all abuse". I never claimed that child marriage will eliminate all abuse. I said it would reduce abuse.

Legalizing child marriage in Afghanistan did reduce abuse. It reduced suicide rates. It reduced poverty. It increased birth rates.

This is a nonsense assumption. My opponent claims that people would rather risk prison than get married. The topic is about children who have already acted on their sexual urges. They would be given the option to marry.

"It is unlikely that map would lose attraction. Not all map are attracted to children alone. There is also emotional attachment at play. It is not easy to leave someone you loved for so long.

Even if they divorce, marriage was still a good thing. It made the relationship last longer than it would without marriage. It made the relationship known. It made child happy while it lasted.

This is a blatant lie. Having sex outside of marriage usually means having more sexual partners. Lack of marriage makes relationships less stable. Not valuing marriage also contributes.

25% is a very low number compared to lack of marriage. It comes from countries where marriage is not valued. It comes from places where sex outside of marriage is legal. I have already given reasons why sex with a child outside of marriage should be condemned and illegal.

If someone has sex with a child, marriage should be given as the option.

If child doesnt want to marry him, then he should go to prison. If child wants to marry him, they should be married if everything is fine. It is child's decision.

This is another quoting out of context fallacy. The arguments are not independent of each other or standing alone. They are united arguments that outweight your case together. The fact that you are not addressing the argument of difference between child marriage and murder shows that you have no case.

This is just ranting. I dont need to agree with author's conclusion to agree with statistics she provided. She knew that people would hate her before publishing the book. I already answered the Trauma argument.

Child's consent is very important.

If child didnt consent at all, then adult should go to prison even before child becomes an adult.

If child consented, but changed mind once she became adult, then her partner should go to prison with lower sentence.

That would help deal with abusers while protecting and encouraging friendly relationships.

"They are governing themselves, as it is their consent that matters." 

Women's mental health in USA is worse than women's mental health in Afghanistan when it comes to suicides. In USA, woman is more likely to commit suicide than in Afghanistan. If women commit suicide in Afghanistan at rate of 3, and if women commit suicide in USA at rate of 7, then woman is more likey to commit suicide in USA. My opponent conceded this by not providing any rebuttal.

This is an appeal to authority. My opponent didnt provide data in this debate. We are supposed to trust some people mentioned by Con. In that case, I will also mention that there are people who looked at  and collected data and who argue that child marriages are beneficial.

I am not going to open my opponent's links and no one else should too. If my opponent had meaningful data, he would have provided it in the debate. Instead, he resorted to appeal to authority and hearsay. 

Thanks for conceding that child marriages create more families. Also, you ignored the argument of poverty causing school drop out. You can have kids and go to college. You cannot go to college if you are poor.

So why dont you improve foster care system?

So far, the foster care system harms children not just by abusing them, but also by making them much more likely to become criminals. Children who spend a long time in foster care are much more likely to become criminals than children who are married. Child marriage is better for the child than foster care is.

The lack of motive and punishment stops them. They can satisfy urges legally.

Maybe they will divorce. Maybe they will stay together. Maybe they will be just friends. Still better than banning marriage.

"This is another argument from possibility. My opponent cannot make difference between "can happen" and "will happen". He does not know that those two are often mutually exclusive. His entire case rests on that." 

I already explained that children often abuse children. My opponent's case is based on a fantasy. There is no equality between people of same age. One of them is often much stronger and much smarter.

So if a drunk man ties down a drunk woman and forcefully rapes her while she screams in pain, thats not abuse and no one should be charged? 

By same logic, map can get drunk and have sex with a child, and then no one would get charged for rape because map wouldnt have power to consent to sex.

Well, I do like watching people beat themselves up with their own arguments.

My opponent ignored that people of same age arent equally powerful. He also forgot that two drunk people are rarely equal in strength or in drunkness.

He also forgot that map can be drunk. My opponent forgets a lot.

"It literally is condemned. Parents condemn their children due to jaywalking, and warn them not to do it. Hell, my parents warned me not to have sex when I was 8. My opponent doesnt understand reality." 

Thanks for conceding that child-child sexual relationships are condemned. It took you a long time. The entire past rounds you were arguing that its not condemned. I guess I am starting to get through to you.

My opponent doesnt understand that being safe doesnt mean just protecting yourself against STD. In fact, having multiple sexual partners is harmful for mental health even if it doesnt result in STD. My opponent also forgot that valuing marriage helps prevent STD. This proves that sex in marriage is the safest.