Instigator / Pro
7
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Topic
#5384

In most cases, child marriages should be legal (For WyIted)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Best.Korea
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
3
1498
rating
32
debates
67.19%
won
Description

No information

-->
@WyIted

Why master D:

part of me wants to apologize for not keping good track of this, but you aren't giving me good effort either

-->
@WyIted

Yeah, I have 5 rounds written in advance, so you could say I am "ready".

-->
@Best.Korea

are you ready. That argument may be coming tonight.

-->
@Best.Korea

I don't know that anyone needs to be punished, but sure. If we are going to have justice it needs to go both ways. My priority would be in developing ways to prevent child marriage and punishing people could be a part of that process but it wouldn't necessarily need to be.

-->
@WyIted

You are wrong.

If you both do something bad, its wrong to want to punish just one.

Either want to punish both or no one.

If you did something bad but dont want to punish yourself, then how can you desire punishment for someone else who did something bad?

Didnt you both do something bad?

-->
@Best.Korea

Can you explain in detail why it is wrong for somebody to prevent children bring raped because they did something bad before. I am having a hard time understanding your argument

-->
@WyIted

Thats exactly how logic works.

You cannot punish others if you are bad as well but you dont want to punish yourself but just them.

Thats just opinion which exists in your brain.

-->
@Best.Korea

I don't necessarily hate them. I feel bad that their mind has been imprisoned.

However not having a flawless history is no excuse to allow evil to go unchecked. Nobody has a flawless history and by the same logic I shouldn't be able to prevent a rape I walked in on because the rapid would say "look whose talking buddy you have an imperfect history as well"

We have to hold people accountable and we don't lose our right to call out evil just because we have participated in it.

Do you really think I shouldn't call out something like how Islam itself promotes a hateful ideology just because some Christians are hateful?

-->
@WyIted

Well, I think its bad to hate 1 billion people.

Plus, Christians dont exactly have flawless history.

-->
@Best.Korea

I don't think it's bad to hate a religion that promotes harmful things like beheading, suicide bombings and fucking children.

-->
@WyIted

Sure, hate muslims more.

What really happens is that maybe muslims arent as bad as you paint them.

Let me guess the commentators ate all named Ahmed and similar names

-->
@WyIted

Well, there is a huge difference between child marriage in islam and child marriage in some culture which promotes STD.

-->
@WyIted

The comments on his channel disagree.

The comments on his channel think he won the debate.

Bk. That Muslim lost the debate. I watched it also. He started going into conspiracy theories in the end and backed Aledo to say only child marriages in Islam count

Also, its not unusual to debate child marriages.

There is a debate on YouTube, on ModernDebate about child marriages, and muslim debater defended child marriages.

-->
@Barney

Well, WyIted can use that argument, but I am rather sure I addressed it somewhere among 60,000 characters.

But even if I didnt, I will instruct voters to consider all my opponent's arguments as false so I dont have to address each individually.

-->
@Best.Korea

> "because it seems like not all will fit"
A clear implicit argument against child marriage.

I just wish I set over 10,000 characters.

I should have gone with 3 rounds of 20,000 characters, because it seems like not all will fit and I might lack about 5000 characters, but thats okay, I will just have to delete sentences which repeat.

-->
@Barney

This is really just everyone's opportunity to justify their hate.

Because if they dont even need to justify it, then we are not really living in society based on justified opinions, which only works against said society so I am fine with that.

To the person who reported this debate: I agree with all negative sentiments toward it.

Muslims idolize a warlord who was also a pedo. This violates the rule:
“You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.”

However rules are somewhat context dependent. The context of both a mythological/historical figure, and that of a debate, makes it something that would be unhealthy for the site if we limited debates to topics we don’t find repugnant.

At the same time, the topic is so ugly that it’s hard for the comments to be worse than the base level it creates.

Additionally, while I’m pretty sure I used to have less chill and banned some deplorable users for being deplorable… It can be beneficial for certain things to be exposed to the harsh light of day, so that they may be figuratively lynched by logic.

-->
@WyIted

Yeah, because I dont even need to read your arguments.

It is a simple plan. Agreed

-->
@WyIted

I approach debates whatever I want. They are my debates.

So it goes:

Round 1

-my arguments

Round 2

-more of my arguments
-saying that your arguments are all wrong

Round 3

-even more of my arguments
-again saying that all your arguments are all wrong.

Its a simple plan.

How do you expect to defeat Joe Rogan in a celebrity tournament if you approach debates this way?

-->
@WyIted

I have 5 rounds written before this debate even started.

I think it's likely a mistake to have your round 2 written before I write my round 1 lol

-->
@WyIted

My plan is to win by ignoring your statistics.

I already have used max character space for debate, so I have no room to answer your statistics.

It is highly unlikely me and underdog will have the same arguments. I am just going to pust a bunch of statistics and than make ad hominem. Attacks

-->
@TheUnderdog

You dont have to write big comment.

Just after debate is done, post your opinion on what you think on the weight of my case.

-->
@TheUnderdog

"Why isn't it?"

I will post 4 more rounds of text, so just read it all and later post your opinion on it.

"FishChaser called those who support child marriages, "degenerate"."

No. FishChaser is my good friend. He is allowed to say that. I dont mind.

"Even mods use barfing symbols which is code for them thinking you are degenerate."

Yeah, but one can understand their point. In fact, their mere tolerance for me on this site is quite good.

-->
@Best.Korea

->nor is every addictive activity same.

Why isn't it?

->If you are interested, follow the debate.

I can read what you said, but then I would make a very big comment that I'm sure you wouldn't want to respond to IN ADDITION to Wylted's response (and the other debates you have going on).

I'll see what happens though; I can't make it too long because I'm in comment mode.

Compare me to others who disagree with you on this. FishChaser called those who support child marriages, "degenerate". Even mods use barfing symbols which is code for them thinking you are degenerate. I have not done any of these things, and I easily could in order to score points among the majority. I have not; because I wrestle with the question and try to come up with something that makes sense instead of falling to peer pressure.

But you just dismissing me sassily is making my patience wear thin.

-->
@Barney

There are 4 more rounds of my arguments written in advance lol

While assigning zero points, my RFD is ready:
🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢

-->
@TheUnderdog

"But the theme is, "Should there be age restrictions on trying addictive activities?""

No, thats not the topic, nor is every addictive activity same.

If you are interested, follow the debate.

If you ignore what I say in debate, I will just ignore you.

-->
@Best.Korea

->If you cant tell the difference between alcohol and sex, then there is nothing for us to talk about.

Well I'm a virgin that never consumed alcohol in my life.

-> This is not a debate about beer or alcohol.

But the theme is, "Should there be age restrictions on trying addictive activities?" (Whether that activity is sex, drugs, or other).

Young kids need levels of protection.

-->
@TheUnderdog

"How?"

If you cant tell the difference between alcohol and sex, then there is nothing for us to talk about.

"They are both mind-altering and prone to addiction."

That is "similar means same" fallacy.

"If 8 year olds were allowed to drink beer, then it would damage probably the majority of their minds significantly."

This is not a debate about beer or alcohol.

-->
@Best.Korea

->Alcohol is different from sex

How? They are both mind-altering and prone to addiction.

->I dont exactly support alcohol ban either.

If 8 year olds were allowed to drink beer, then it would damage probably the majority of their minds significantly.

-->
@TheUnderdog

Alcohol is different from sex, so I dont know why you bring it up, although I dont exactly support alcohol ban either.

-->
@Best.Korea

If 8 year olds are mentally capable enough to consent to sex and marraige, then are they mentally capable enough to consume alcohol? I'm pretty sure sex and marraige is the more serious thing (I support lowering the drinking age to 16).

-->
@7000series

My shame died from years of being abused as a child.

But I wasnt abused by pedophiles, but by non-pedophiles.

Absolutely shameless.

Fine

-->
@WyIted

Please master, debate me!