In most cases, child marriages should be legal (New Updated Arguments Version)

Introduction

Child marriages are a sensitive topic for many people. However, there is a growing number of debates rising as to what is the right thing to do when one child has sex with the other child or with an adult, what is the right thing to do when child has sexual urges. In this debate, we will talk about problems that children face, and what can be done to solve them.

Definition

Child marriage - a marriage between an adult and a child or a marriage between a child and a child, and marriage where all participants are happy.

Arguments

1. Children have sexual urges

Sexual urges dont start at age 18. In fact, they sometimes start as young as 7 or 8. Some children masturbate as young as 4.In USA, 30% of children had sex before age 16. 50% of children watched porn before age 13.30% of children had sex before age 16.Thats over 90 million people in USA in total, but almost none ended in prison.And thats just whats reported by surveys.The main point is that children arent going to stop having partners just because its banned.Ban just makes it impossible to regulate, as relationships become unknown.Whats unknown cant be regulated.People claim that children shouldnt have sex because they cant consent and it doesnt benefit them.That means children cant have sex with other children, which increases pressure and judgment upon children.But 30% of children have sex, either with adult, either with other children. 50% of children watched porn before age 13.

2. Children have problems in controlling sexual urges

Children struggle to control their sexual urges. There is simply no way from preventing children from acting on their urges. Children have urges. Children need a safe outlet for their urges.

3. Marriage is the best way to control urges

Having multiple sexual partners is harmful. However, children will act on their urges. Marrying to a person and committing to that person is the best for those children who have problems with urges. If children dont marry, then they will have more sexual partners.If children do marry, then they will have less sexual partners. They will bond with one partner.Marriage will allow them to have stable relationship before they reach adulthood.It will help them avoid making risky choices later on in life due to loneliness or restlessness.In marriage, they would have sex with just one person, which is the safest type of sex. Even if marriage ends in divorce, it still limited the amount of sexual partners while it lasted. Child marriages usually last for many years or for a lifetime. Child marriage makes a person commit to just one person while marriage lasts.

4. If there is no child marriage, there is harm

Legalization would help protect children from exploitation by ensuring they have legal protection under the law, and that relationships are regulated by the law. Without marriage, children will still have sexual urges and will still act on them. They will do so with much more partners. They will change lots of partners and increase risk of STI and STD. Having lots of partners throughout life increases depression and suicide rates. Marriage would make it so that child has only one partner and is committed to one partner, and not separated from the partner by others. Stigma causes harm to children. If there is stigma, stigma causes harm to everyone in adult-child relationships. If child marriages are banned, then there is stigma on adult-child relationships. Legalizing child marriage would help to reduce the number of people who resort to sex work in order to earn money. People who resort to sex work are often those with failed relationships early in life. Child marriage helps protect relationships.

5. Banning child marriages increases prison population and torture in prisonsTorture is a very serious problem in prison. Prisons are, in most cases, forms of torture. Prisoners are often treated poorly, abused and violated.Not arresting adult who has sex with a child means that adult will have sex with a child and adult wont be tortured in prison.Arresting adult who has sex with a child means that adult will have sex with a child and adult will be tortured in prison.Having sex with child and being tortured is more harmful than having sex with a child and not being tortured.Arresting adult who has sex with a child is more harmful than not arresting an adult who has sex with a child.Decreasing prison population would improve lives. It would also improve economy, with less people in prison there is more available workforce for buisnesses.

6. Allowing child marriage increases child's happiness

Removing stigma would help children who are in sexual relationships. It would allow them to marry the person that makes them happy. Children in foster care would also have opportunity to marry and be saved from foster care. Child marriages save children from poverty. They make it possible for children from poor families to marry and live in a wealthier, better family. This helps those children, as well as their families who no longer have to provide for the child by themselves.

7. Society should listen to child's voice

Most of children who are in relationship with an adult dont want for that adult to go to prison. Sending that adult to prison would destroy child's happiness. It is better to let them marry. Society cannot decide what child does with own body. Child's body belongs to the child, not to society. Children have autonomy. By law of autonomy, you cannot use someone else's body without consent. Allowing young people to make decisions about own bodies without fear of judgement creates safe environment. In such environment, everyone feels that their decisions are respected no matter what kind of a relationship they are involved in. This promotes overall sense of autonomy among all population. Giving children ability to choose allows them to decide about their relationship which they are involved in, as opposed to adults making those decisions instead of them.

8. Banning child marriages causes trauma for the child

If child has a parter, if child is in love with that partner and if that partner makes child happy, to separate them would cause trauma for the child. They should be allowed to love each other and give each other happiness.

9. Historical proof of valuing marriage and valuing child marriage working for the benefit of children tells us that child marriage isnt bad

In countries where child marriages are legal and where marriage is valued, there is much less STI, STD, and much less suicides.In Afghanistan, child marriages are common. Marriage is encouraged and divorce is discouraged. Afghanistan has more birth rates, less suicides, less divorce, less STI, and less STD than USA. If arranged child marriages have all those benefits, then it logically follows that valuing marriages and child marriages is good. Of course, I argue for child marriages that are not arranged by adults only, but also where child desires to be in that marriage. Such marriages would provide even more benefits for children. Child marriage also increases care between people, as it strengthens ties between families.

10. Allowing child marriages controls birth rates much better

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. Allowing child marriages lowers the cost of raising children, as children no longer have to be provided by the parents until 18. Child marriages lower birth rates if society regulates them to lower birth rates. Society can educate children and teach them about safe sex in marriage, and about how to prevent getting pregnant. Banning child marriages increases birth rates more than allowing child marriages and regulating them to lower birth rates. When child marriages are banned, children still have sex and get pregnant more. They are not guided and regulated by society if child marriages are banned.Child marriages historically do tend to increase birth rates, which is beneficial for society.Banning sex with children does not benefit children, because children cannot be stopped from having sex and judgment from ban just harms them.Usually, it is better to regulate something than to ban it.

11. Allowing child marriages helps adults, teenagers and children who are attracted to children

There is a significant amount of people who are sexually attracted to children. If society condemns child marriages, and calls those people monsters, then those people feel bad from their teenage years when they realize that they are attracted to children. Allowing child marriages would help them satisfy their urges in a way that is safer.About 15% of minor attracted persons are children and teenagers who feel pressure because of society's judgment.

12. Allowing child marriages allows society to better regulate adult-child relationships

Most of adult-child relationships are never discovered. Both adults and children in such relationships have no one to guide them or to set rules of behavior. Adult has no guide on how to better treat a child. Child has no guide which could explain to a child how adult-child relationships are supposed to work. Allowing adult-child relationships changes that. Allowing adult-child relationships by allowing marriage would mean that both adult and a child would get more advice from others, and child would be better protected. It would be possible to regulate those relationships, and make them better for children and secure that children are happy in them.This topic does not deal with abusers. Abusers should still be punished. However, if an adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force a child to anything, and if child is happy and wants to be with that adult, judging such a relationship would be harmful for that child and for that adult.Punishing such an adult by torturing him in prison is wrong. Prisons are always torture, as lack of desired options is always a torture.

13. Great majority of adult-child relationships are not violent

In great majority of adult-child relationships, adult never used force or threat against a child, and never caused pain to a child. In great majority of cases, adult didnt have real sex with a child, but only did gentle sexual activities.

14. Children can consent to be happy

Relationship with an adult in most cases causes happiness to a child. If the adult was friendly and nice to the child, respected child's desires and interests, and respected child's consent and respected what child says, then he didnt force a child to anything. That is the opposite of forcing. To say otherwise would make every activity with a child forced, including school, playing, learning or reading bed time stories. Force would become an irrelevant word that can be applied to every activity. If the adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force the child to anything, then the child will like that adult. Children know what happiness is.

15. Child marriage increases relationship stability

Allowing children to marry gives them more control over their lives. If two young people have known each other since childhood and decide they want to get married before reaching adulthood, then this would give them more stability in their relationship than if they were not allowed to marry until 18. This would also lead to better financial security. Marriages provide more wealth than if person lived alone, while they cut down on expenses.

16. Child marriage improves education for children

Child will have much better education if married, since then both the partner and parents can provide for the education. That is more resources than having parents alone. This especially helps single parents. Allowing child marriages also removes stigma from sexual education, allowing children to be better educated about their rights in a relationship, and about how to protect themselves from diseases. They dont learn that when child marriages are banned, and banning child marriages doesnt stop adult-child relationships.

17. Child marriage protects pregnant teens and unborn children

There is a common misunderstanding that banning child marriages prevents early pregnancy. It does not.Allowing child marriages allows society to better educate children, and lower or increase birth rates if necessary.Without child marriages, children still get pregnant. However, it is more difficult to regulate and educate children about safe sex if child marriages are banned. It is also more difficult for pregnant teens to maintain their relationship if they are judged and not allowed to marry.Pregnant teens often have their reputation ruined by pregnancy. Sometimes they end up as single mothers. Sometimes the father of the child leaves the pregnant teen due to society's judgment. Sometimes a teen is forced to have an abortion due to stigma, and due to the lack of marriage that is needed to have economical stability and support to raise a child. Allowing child marriages would prevent this. Being allowed to marry, and father being made responsible for his child would help pregnant teens and unborn children.

18. Children are held accountable for their actions

We cannot say that children arent accountable for their actions. If a child commits a crime, child goes to prison. If child behaves bad, child gets punished. In the same way child is held accountable for bad behavior, the decisions that child makes are also to be considered important. We cannot say that child is only accountable when doing something bad, but not accountable when consenting to marriage. The decision of a child to enter marriage should be respected.If a 12 year old murders someone, she would be charged. However, she wont be charged if she has sex with another 12 year old. But if she is 18 and has sex with a 12 year old, she will be charged. Therefore, we see that person's age in one crime is much more relevant to sentencing than in the other crime. In fact, in the case of sex, it literally goes from "not a big deal" to "very horrible" just because of the age of a person doing the action, not the action itself.

19. Child marriages are the tradition of our ancestors

By legalizing child marriage, we can preserve cultural heritages that have been passed down from generation-to-generation since ancient times.Our ancestors married sometimes very young, at age 12 or 11. The age of consent 1000 years ago was usually 12, but it was not enforced and people married even younger.Indigenous cultures around the world rely heavily upon early marriages between partners so that family lines remain intact. It also serves as strengthening of ties between clans through intermarriage agreements made prior birth. This becomes difficult without legal recognition. Allowing these practices legally ensures continuity within societies. It gives people freedom to express themselves culturally regardless of external pressures placed upon them by society.

20. Allowing child marriage gives child a choice

If a child is treated badly by her own family, allowing child marriages would allow that child to leave family and marry for someone who will treat her better. Maybe you cant always find someone you love, but sometimes you can. That sometimes should not be prevented.

21. Banning child marriages harms innocent people who are in prison

There is no doubt that there are innocent people in prison. Some people didnt commit the crime, but the witnesses lied about them and put them in prison. If someone is put in prison for having a relationship with a child, but is in fact innocent and didnt do that, he would still be beaten and abused in prison.

22. Sexual activities in marriage are healthy for children

There are plenty of benefits of sexual activities and orgasms. The benefits include living longer, being less likely to get ill, having better mood and improved reasoning. There is no reason to believe that only adults receieve benefits from sexual activities. Children receieve same benefits. Sexual activities make children happy when they are desired by children themselves. There are plenty of examples of children engaging in sexual activities with other children. Child marriages make children happy and serve for their benefit. Banning child marriages wont make relationships with children go away. Banning child marriages will just cause more broken relationships and more sex outside of marriage. Sexual activities are safest in marriage.

23. It is wrong to say that if children dont fully understand something, it should not be done

It is wrong to say: "Children shouldnt be vaccinated. Children cannot fully understand vaccinations. Children should not be born. Children cannot fully understand life.".If children dont fully understand child marriages, that does not mean that child marriages are wrong. Children can desire to be married. Children have partial understanding of child marriages. Partial understanding is enough to have a desire. Most adults dont have complete understanding of each other, as they cant read each others thoughts. Allowing child marriages is beneficial for children. Child marriages make children happy and provide health benefits.

24. Judgment harms children

Society's judgment harms children who are in relationship with adults, teenagers or other children. They would not be able to figure out why society hates their relationship. This would make them feel shame, and be uncomfortable to even mention their relationship due to fear of upsetting others. The judgment would make them feel like they are approving of something bad and participating in something bad. The judgment would make them blame themselves. It would make them more scared, confused, depressed and suicidal. That blame comes once they grow up and learn that society strongly judges such relationships. Its the society that puts pressure on those children and makes them think that what they agreed to was horrible. Also, they hear rape stories on media, and believe that they are bad for approving that which society condemns.

25. Judgment causes general harm

People often justify their evil actions by saying that they are still better than others. For example, a person might justify polluting the environment by thinking that it is not bad because he is still better than map which he judges. Judgment causes harm by harming children who are futute scientists. It harms innovation.

26. Child marriages help prevent violence over children

Banning child marriages wont make violence go away. Banning child marriages will make violence harder to detect. Allowing child marriages makes the relationship known. If the relationship is known, it is easier to regulate it and prevent violence.Violence and dropping out of school is common in poor communities, just as child marriages are common in poor communities.Banning child marriage will not make violence go away, as violent people dont stop being violent if they are not married to a person they commit violence against. Child marriages make the relationship known and easier to regulate, making it easier to prevent violence. In USA, there is plenty of violence over children, plenty of depression, plenty of suicides. Child marriages are banned in USA.

27. Child marriages give the child more autonomy

Child's body belongs to the child. It does not belong to anyone else. Therefore, only child can make decisions regarding own body. Other people dont get to decide instead of the child. Child marriages allow a child to make a choice, and make it so that the child is better informed. Child marriages allow a child to marry for who child wants, who child likes, who is kind to child and who makes child happy, and who doesnt force a child. Children are not a property, and banning children from marrying who they want would decrease child's autonomy. Banning children from making important decisions decreases their knowledge about important things, and harms them once they are adults. Child marriage teaches a child to be more responsible by educating a child and giving child more knowledge in decision-making. Even if child makes mistakes, child learns from them, as opposed to not making a mistake and not learning.

28. It is not possible to prevent children from having sex

We see that it is not possible to prevent children from knowing about sex, with all the movies containing sex, and with child's curiosity to discover themselves, and with regular community talk which informs children, and with people who seek to inform children to build a relationship with them. You cant teach children not to have an urge. Entire history shows that controlling sexual urges is impossible to implement. It is also harmful and causes mental pain and discomfort, along with losing health benefits of sex, along with those who cant control their urges be judged by everyone and therefore, harmed. No country was able to stop children from acting on their urges, or adults from being with children.When it comes to sex, no country has lowered sex rate by making it illegal.They have increased prison population, and caused many problems such as adultery, but they didnt lower the percentage of children who had sex.

29. Future consent tells us what is right

Preventing children from learning would be bad for them. Banning child marriages prevents children from learning. They will be less informed if they are not allowed to be in relationships. It was shown that child marriage benefits children by reducing depression and suicides, by reducing sex outside of marriage, by making children happier and healthier, by protecting children in relationships, by removing stigma which hurts children. It also helps better guide adults on how to treat children, as opposed to increasing prison population and torture. It was also pointed out that most relationships are never discovered and great majority of children dont want for their partner to go to prison. They keep same opinion even when they grow up. Their opinion should be respected.Children do not need to fully understand child marriages. Society can understand child marriages, and decide that children should be allowed to marry because of the benefits it gives. Children in child marriages are not on their own, as society and parents are there to advise them and protect them if something goes wrong in marriage.Banning child marriages leaves children on their own, as there is no one to guide them as the relationships are secret when child marriages are banned.Child marriage is a child's choice. When child grows into adult, she doesnt want for her partner to go to prison. Since adults are well informed, it follows that child marriage is well informed decision of a person who approves of her child marriage after becoming adult.This is what is known as "future consent". When child grows up, she agrees that her marriage as a child wasnt a bad thing.

30. Power doesnt matter in a loving relationship

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.Children are more likely to get abused by other children than by adults. Adults have more control over their actions. They can be better educated by society. They also have more moral maturity.In every relationship, one person is more "powerful". In parenting, parents are more powerful than children. However, in loving and consensual relationships, power doesnt matter as there is no force at play. Adult and child have attachment to each other. They love each other and make each other happy. They do that which both have the desire for. Child marriage helps create stronger attachment and increases happiness.

31. Child marriages prevent children from being in bad company

Most of the children who enter into bad company do so because they dont have guidance and because they desire sex.Child marriage satisfies child's sexual urges and gives guidance to children.

32. Child marriages ensure that children have same rights as adults

Children have the right to love and to form relationships. It would be cruel to deny children of that until adulthood, as certain percentage of children never reach adulthood. Child marriages are in child's interest. Future consent demonstrates that. Child desires love and creates attachments. To destroy child's love and child's attachment would be very cruel and inhumane, and would reduce children to mere property without a voice.

33. Banning child marriages increases the number of child sexual abuse

You cannot reduce sex with children by criminalizing it. The victims, as explained before, dont want to speak out. They like the adult and dont want him harmed.The number of abuse cases keeps growing. Map always assume they wont be caught. Due to lack of marriage and lack of legality, some map resort to having sexual activities with lots of children. There were even cases of one map being with over 100 children. Without the ability to marry and without legal protection, map person has less reasons to stay with just one child. There is no education to guide map in behavior. There is no legal law that he must follow. The longer map stays with one child, the more likely map is to get caught. Due to having to hide the relationship, map is more likely to end a relationship and seek other children when map suspects that the current relationship will be discovered if he continues. When child marriages are banned, map would impose himself more on a child, due to no education and no legal guide for behavior. Map is also more likely to use threats against a child, in an attempt to hide the relationship. Map is also more likely to hurt a child when child marriages are banned. This is due to less reasons to treat child well. If he is nice, he might go to prison. If he is not nice, he might go to prison. No matter what he does, he might go to prison. If child marriages were legal and regulated, map would be able to satisfy his urges legally and at the same time follow the rules not to hurt a child. He would be punished if he hurts a child, but tolerated if he doesnt. This gives him a reason not to hurt a child, as he would be much safer and in much better position if he doesnt. Most map are kind non-violent people. However, there are those who are violent. Banning child marriages makes them much more violent and harder to control.The proof for child marriages reducing sexual abuse is Afghanistan and USA. In USA, 30% of children have sex before age 16. In Afghanistan, only 4% of children are married before age 15. In USA, child marriages are banned and condemned. In Afghanistan, they are seen as normal. We see that allowing child marriages does not harm children, not in terms of scale and not in terms of abuse, as Afghanistan has less suicides, less divorce and less STD than USA. STD is confirmed even by random testing, and all sources agree that STD is lower in Afghanistan. Let us be reminded that Afghanistan is a poor country, and that USA is among world's most developed nations. The fact that Afghanistan has child marriages and outmatches US proves that there is value in child marriage.

34. Banning child marriages increases the number of forced abortions

If child is in a relationship with an adult, and if child gets pregnant and relationship is discovered, child will be convinced to have an abortion. Even if child doesnt want to abort, the pressure of adults will break her. The decision to have an abortion will be, by all standards, an adult's decision imposed on a child.

35. If child marriages are banned, child is treated differently

When the police gets involved, child is scared and confused. The police will persuade a child that what happened to her was wrong. Parents will continue the persuasion. Child will even visit psychologists who will add to persuasion. In short, entire society will try to convince her that the adult who was so kind to her was in fact a monster. This confuses the child who cannot find a reasonable explanation for adult's reaction, and is forced to accept adult's explanation that was imposed on her so many times. She simply isnt allowed to disagree, or she will be faced with more convincing, more emotional attacks and more visits to psychologists. Adults, who are in greater number and better at reasoning than she is, will simply outmatch her. That is the true power imbalance.

36. This society doesnt care about child's well being

Plenty of people spank children, even tho it was proven that spanking harms children. Plenty of people give children junk food, knowing it is bad for child's health, teeth and brain, and that it causes obesity. Plenty of people lie to children and therefore, teach children to use lies. Plenty of people break the speed limit, knowing that it increases the chances of children being hurt and dying in traffic. They dont care. Plenty of people support circumcision, knowing that it harms children. Plenty of people dont bother to try to fix foster care system, knowing that plenty of child abuse happens in foster care. Children abuse children there. Plenty of people smoke, knowing it increases the chances of birth defects and makes children more likely to smoke. People upload porn to internet making it easily available, knowing that children might see it. Its not the map who needs to change. This society is wrong about child marriages. This society is blind. Its this corrupt society which harms children while claiming that map harm children. This society harms animals too, by torturing them, slaughtering them and turning them into meat. These are double standards that society should abandon. You cannot judge others for that which you yourself do.

Source:"The Trauma Myth" - scientific book about adult-child relationships

Brains and personalities are still developing when you're a child. If you marry someone when they're 14, 10 years later they'll be like a different person. This would lead to higher divorce rates. For this reason, only 2% of people married today were together in high school, and high school is already a late period of childhood.

If you're fifteen, you'll have a very hard time getting employed and finding time to work alongside school. Now, imagine if you had to support a child as well with your few after school hours as a fast food restaurant. It's just not sustainable. 

I concede that there are some reasons that child marriage is a good idea, but the risks outweigh the gains, and these relationships are unsustainable long term.

Some of my other arguments will be sprinkled in with my rebuttals.

Here are Pro's main points:

This is a real problem,  but children can ...eh... tickle there pickles as an outlet. There is no need to risk teen pregnancy in a relationship that will probably end in divorce.

It would be very straining to have to worry about school, a family, and other issues in teenage years. Especially considering how hard it would be to maintain said relationships when both parties are constantly changing.

Children can be easily manipulated into doing things they don't want to do. There are good reasons people cant engage in sexual activity before they are mature and responsible enough .

37. Being married to adult carries benefits for the child

I would like to start by noting a lack of clear counter points in your arguments.

Some of your points make absurd jumps. For example, one of your arguments states that STDs aren't a risk because they don't have to have sex, but aren't you arguing that's why children should get married?

You're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions. For example, some children are smart so that means all children can make responsible choices.

You also ignore a lot of things, like how people have an outlet for sexual urges that isn't sex.

I'll continue with this debate when you actually provide counterarguments. If I were to refute everyone of your points, I would just be repeating a lot of what I said in the first round.

Again, I'd like to point out the lack of counter arguments that pro has presented.

The closest things that pro has resembling rebuttals are the following:

If I don't believe people should have complete control over there bodies, then I don't believe in free speech, therefore, I don't believe in debating. This doesn't make sense, but I'll debunk it any ways. I don't have to believe in all aspects of free speech to believe in free speech as a whole. For example, I support free speech, but not hate speech.

Your second thing that somewhat resembles a rebuttal is this:

Who gets to decide what is good an what is bad? People need to decide for themselves. To answer your question, both government and parents do.

Parents, being the one who raised you, have natural say in your life, and you agree to listen to the government by simply being a part of society.

Additionally, we agree that murder is bad, even though there is not one body that enforces that belief. That's because there is no need for that. We can all agree that there are some things that are just bad things.

Again, please look over my initial arguments and address them so we can keep this debate as productive as possible.

124. My opponent thinks that he is helping children by denying them of choice, but overwhelming majority of people who were in relationship with map as children dont want for those map to go to prison.

133. My opponent's arguments are greatly outweighed here, and he didnt even respond to 10% of my arguments, despite having plenty of character space to do so. The only arguments he mentioned were the ones already refuted in round 1.

No, children cant control their urges and just masturbate. Well, at least 30% of them cant, which is a significant number.

"Divorce rates" are irrelevant, since the purpose of marriage is to have relationship allowed, known and regulated. You are not solving "divorce rates" by banning marriage, as relationships still happen anyway. They just become unregulated and unknown, hidden.

My opponent says that children can be manipulated, but banning child marriages does not prevent that, but even enables more manipulation since it moves relationships from "known" to "hidden".

My opponent says it would be difficult for children to be in relationships, but again, banning child marriages only makes that worse per amount of harm done in total.

I have also provided clear example that countries who have child marriages and value marriage have less STD.

My opponent also didnt respond to the fact that some sexual activities dont even spread diseases, so the very argument of diseases, even if it was true for other cases, cannot apply to the case of sexual activities which spread no disease. But the only way to encourage such sexual activities is to allow them in the first place, which means that my opponent already loses an argument when it comes to STD, because we know that countries which dont value marriage are those who have plenty of STDs. This is because if there is no marriage, people are still going to have sexual urges and act on them, but they will be more likely to exit from a relationship and seek other partners, since relationships outside of marriage are much more likely to fall apart due to lack of social support and no social approval. My opponent didnt respond to any of these points which I made in round 1. Well, many of my points were not responded to, and my opponent cant really say that he didnt have space as he didnt even use most of the character space he had available.

So unless my opponent can suggest some better working solution than allowing child marriages, he is free to present it, but so far he didnt present any solution.

We already had time in USA when child marriages were legal, and children became less safe after child marriage was banned. Today, suicide rates are higher and increasing, and there are more people in prisons, more children suffering as result, which just goes to prove that children didnt really benefit at all from the witch hunt against map.

You provided several stories about events such as children being labeled offenders for hugging peers. I agree this is bad, but I don't see how allowing child marriages would prevent it. If anything, it would cause more children who don't know better to do stupid things.

Child sex is bad, we can both agree on that. I don't see how promoting it through marriage would do any good. If something is bad, don't encourage it!

We shouldn't let people who can't read proficiently decide who they're going to spend their life with. It would just end in divorce and children that can't be properly supported.

Sure, it has benefits, but they don't come close to over weighing the issues.

Picture this, a 12 year old facing the issues of middle school and raising a baby. They can't get a job, can't drive, ect. A few years later, her husband in all likelihood will leave her, barbecue 11 year olds aren't known for responsible decision making.

It makes sense that children born to teen mothers do so much worse in life. And it's not a small difference, it's a big deal.

This is ridiculous, and a terrible situation. This is the thing that my opponent is advocating for.

143. We can see by simple weighing that system which places 200,000 children on sex offenders list, labels 5 year olds as sex offenders, ignores and takes away child's choice, places great amount of people and children in prison, increases judgment and suicide rates is inferior to system which doesnt do that.

We can also see that system which allows consensual relationships and bans non-consensual is encouraging consensual relationships much more than system which punishes both consensual and non-consensual relationships, per amount of punishment distributed to consensual and non-consensual relationships. Thus, more people are moved from non-consensual to consensual relationships, more people are likely to choose consensual over non-consensual, as people who feel the need to be in these specific relationships will prefer the types of these relationships which are less punished.

We also see that system which my opponent supports doesnt actually reduce amount of sex offenses. It merely makes relationships hidden and unregulated, multiplies amount of sex partners, motivates some map to have multiple partners, some even up to hundreds  of partners.

Opponent's system also breaks relationships and increases depression rates, while also ignoring the very wants of people he claims to protect.

It was previously mentioned that when it comes to any group of people, their greatest wants are exactly their greatest wants, and thus most important to them.

We have already seen data that most of children in relationships dont want for their partner to go to prison.

So if you go against the main goals of people you claim to protect, then you are not really protecting them, but imposing your wants on them.

144. Response to opponent's arguments

My opponent says that he doesnt see how legalizing consensual sexual activities with children would reduce the amount of sex offenders who are children, but the very premise which puts so many children on sex offenders list is that consensual sexual activities with children are illegal and the wishes of people involved arent being listened to.

It was already explained in previous rounds, and even demonstrated that my opponent is trapped in dichotomy: 

He either listens to wants of the said group or he doesnt.

The only way you can help someone is if you support their goals, listen to their wants.

My opponent claims to support children when he talks of their troubles as teen mothers or being abandoned after a relationship.

Yet the very goal of those same children, that of not wanting their partner to go to prison, is ignored by my opponent completely.

Thus, my opponent cannot take "ignoring group's goals" and "going against group's goals" position and still claim to support said group.

My opponent's position, which is basically defending what exists now, doesnt benefit anyone.

Also, this debate is about if legalizing child marriages would improve situation compared to what it is now.

My opponent cannot defend some 3rd non-existent system, since he cannot prove how would that system even work or if it would be sustainable and not just sink into what exists in USA.

Currently in the world, there are only 2 systems: where child marriages are legal and where they are not.

There are variations of both systems, but we have seen that systems where child  marriages are legal and where marriage is respected have less suicide rates, lower divorce rates and higher birth rates than areas where child marriages are illegal.

My opponent cannot explain this, just as he cannot explain how going against people's goals helps them.

145. Other responses

My opponent said that legalizing consensual sexual relationships with children would cause more children to do stupid things, which only means that my opponent thinks how consensual relationships are stupid things.

It was already explained that system which my opponent argues for would simply cause more unconsensual relationships, since it fails to make difference between consensual and non-consensual relationships, but punishes both greatly.

It is like if person only had choices "A" and "B" and had to choose one, and was punished for whatever he chooses, person would have no reason or motivation or guidance to prefer either of the two, thus it wouldnt matter to a person which path to take.

But if consensual relationships arent punished while non-consensual relationships are punished, it motivates many of those who would otherwise choose non-consensual relationships to choose consensual relationships instead.

It would also set an example for others, as well as enable regulations of a relationship to make sure it is consensual. Such regulations cannot exist in the system which my opponent argues for.

No numbers show that system which my opponent argues for reduces rate of child abuse. In fact, by placing 200,000 children on sex offender's list, it has already ruined the lives of many children. Also by all the judgment teen mothers face from society which judges sex and teen pregnancies, this system didnt improve their lives in any way, but has merely harmed them.

Add to that all the people in prison for consensual sexual activities.

Even if my opponent argued that children cant consent, the example of choice of who to be with on an island, as well as existence of child's goals, would disprove his argument.

In fact, person needs choices to be able to be smart and free, thus my opponent, by taking away choices from children, makes them less smart and less free.

My opponent claims  that sex with children is bad for children, but again ignores that his system punishes children for having sex. So his system is bad for children.

Further, my position in this debate doesnt depend on sex being good for children, but on banning of consensual sexual activities being bad.

Sexual activities can be bad, but banning them can be worse, it can add to harm.

My opponent didnt list any benefit of banning consensual sexual activities, while I listed many harms of the ban.

My opponent didnt list any harm related to allowing consensual sexual activities, while I listed many benefits.

Even if my opponent would prove that allowing consensual sexual activities increases number of consensual sexual activities, all he would prove is that there is less non-consensual sexual activities and that there are more examples of respecting consent.

So legalizing child  marriages and giving children a choice means much less children on sex offenders list, much less judgment, much less children forced to take pills, much less children forced to have abortion, much less people in prison thus better economy and better quality of life.

The system which my opponent argues for has no known benefits for children, but it involves many known harms to both children and adults.

Thus, by principle of certainty, only the system I argue for has certain benefits, and greatly outweighs my opponent's position when we consider only known benefits and known harms.

My opponent might try to move this debate into unknown area, such as claiming that we dont know about how much will consensual relationships increase if we allow them.

Unlikely, but even if everyone was in consensual relationships, my opponent faces many new problems in his position.

Take the example of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has child marriages and less suicides than USA.

So from this example, my opponent can only logically hold one of these positions:

1. Legalizing child marriages didnt reduce amount of children in sexual activities, but it made sexual activities less harmful

2. Legalizing child marriages reduced amount of children in sexual activities, thus reduced harm in total

There is no 3rd possible position or 3rd possible conclusion from example of Afghanistan.

But it is not limited to Afghanistan.

USA had child marriages legal, and had less suicides back then.

USA has highest number of suicides today, when child marriages are illegal.

My opponent cannot explain this situation in any way.

Even if we assumed that banning child marriages reduced percentage of children in sexual activities from previous 100% to today's 30%, we would expect to see triple the benefit today if we are to trust my opponent. Yet not only that we didnt see triple the benefit, but we have seen an increase in suicides and depression after age of consent was raised, as well as increase in prison population.

146. My opponent again mentions divorce rates, but ignores that the system he is arguing for has greatest divorce rates in the world, and greatest rates of failed relationships.

Obviously, relationship is much more likely to fail if all of society is against it and tries to end it, thus the system where entire society supports a relationship is the one where relationship is more likely to succeed.

147. Allowing child marriages is a lack of action. It is not an action. Therefore, it is not an action which contains harm. By this simple truth, we see that an opposite case is an action. Banning child marriages is an action which contains harm.

Thus, by principle of certainty again, we see that only allowing child marriages is certain to cause no harm, since lack of action cannot cause anything.

My opponent cannot account for mistakes in his system. Obviously, banning harmless relationships is harmful, yet only my system has ability to identify harmless relationships, or relationships where ending a relationship would cause more harm than letting it continue.

Even if system which my opponent argues for can reduce harm in some cases, it also causes harm in other cases, since it has no ability to make difference between harmless relationship and a harmful relationship, since the very position my opponent defends already argues for punishing all relationships. Punishing harmless relationships is harmful.

148. My opponent says that teens dont have ability to raise children, but this contradicts with the very nature which gives teens sexual urges and ability to get pregnant.

Also, the system which my opponent argues for pushes women the other way, to wait until past age 30, which is the worst age to give birth, both by defect rates, fertility rates and survival rates.

Further, the system which my opponent argues for does not in any way improve situation for children. Children being shamed and forced to abort is obviously a greater violation of their body than being in consensual relationship and having a family.

Even if system which my opponent argues for could reduce teen pregnancy, all it would mean is that it also reduced birth rates while making lives of teens worse.

My opponent cannot claim that his system improved lives of children, since today in USA we have greater percentage of suicides, greater rates of depression, greater amount of divorce and neglected children, as well as much more people in prison, while going against the goals of interests of the very children it claims to protect.

So what did the system which my opponent argues for improve?

My opponent claims that I advocate for pregnant teens, but that is not true, otherwise what is his position then arguing for? To forbid teens from having a choice?

My position in this debate merely stands on proving that banning child marriages carries more harm than not banning them. It does not argue to make all teens pregnant nor it results in all teens being pregnant, as my opponent for some reason assumes.

149. If great number of people follows my opponent's position in this debate, they will constantly try to break up consensual relationships and meddle in people's lives and put people in prison, and increase violence there, as well as keep pressure on children while denying them of a knowledge of what a consensual relationship looks like since it bans all consensual relationships.

If great number of people follows a position where child marriages are legal, then people would regulate relationships to make sure they are consensual, while informing children so they know that their own goals are being met and that they know that they have all the rights in a relationship.

Obviously, there is no denying that only legalizing child marriages is in the interest of children, since the very position my opponent takes is built to deny children of their goals and wants, and causing harm where otherwise there would be none.

150. Only my position in this debate guarantees equal rights for one and all.

My opponent's position gives children a status of property to be managed by others. Otherwise, if he let children decide, he would forfeit his position in a debate.

Thus, his very position is built on taking away choices from children, since he wont let them choose and he also denies them of their goals, interests and desires.

151. Everyone is a judge over his own body. To claim otherwise cannot yield anything other than slavery. Thus, if my opponent says that other people are judges over child's body, he would merely reduce child to a status of slave and have child's fate be decided by others instead of the child. And if he claims that child is a judge over own body, he forfeits his position in a debate.

152. Obviously, person can own his own body, and  person owns his own body much more the longer he owns it. Thus, since my opponent argues for denying person of person's own body for 18 years, he reduces body ownership and experience that comes with it.

153. My position reduces pain, as it reduces amount of people suffering in prison, as well as amount of judgment experienced.

154. Obviously, if child marriages were legal, people's minds would be occupied by desire to make sure those marriages work, where banning child marriages only occupies people's minds with desire to destroy every relationship, good or bad.

155. Many of my arguments went completely unchallenged. The job of voters is to weigh arguments per their total impact with all arguments together. Each argument adds to weight, kinda like how "1 < 4" but "1+1+1+1+1+1 > 4".

156. My opponent didnt deny that the system he is arguing for punishes children emotionally, since it makes them feel guilty if they are in a relationship with an adult, as they feel that they are approving, accepting and consenting to something widely considered wrong.

Only my position in a debate removes this feeling of emotional guilt, where my opponent's position creates it.

This very guilt causes great harm to children, since they are unable to seek their goals in a relationship as their thinking is focused on what others think.

157. Adult child relationships will exist as long as there are those who seek them. There will always be those who seek them. So my opponent's position demands to fight endless unwinnable war against map yet it also fails to bring any greater good from it. It even fails to reduce number of adult child relationships, as it encourages map to seek multiple partners to avoid being detected, since my opponent's position makes almost impossible any long term relationship, but makes possible many short term relationships instead of one long term. Thus, we see in US society cases where one map  had relations with hundreds of children. Basically, the system which makes long term relationship more difficult only makes way for plenty of short term relationships instead of one long term, which harms mental health greatly and causes relationship break up.

158. Imagine if someone took away the person you loved. Imagine if you really loved someone and shared plenty of good moments together, someone who was nice and kind to you, someone who was your best friend, then someone takes him away from you and hurts him. Thats how a child feels when society breaks away their relationship. Relationships are key to happiness and key to having your goals realized, thus any position which seeks to break up consensual relationships is harmful and unwanted by very people in those relationships.

159. If morality is subjective, everyone gets to judge equally. The only way everyone can get to judge equally is if everyone has equal area to be judge of. Thus, even subjective morality yields an objective standard where people can be judges over their own body. It is a necessary outcome of subjective morality which demands that if all moral opinions are equal, then they get to be applied to an equal area. Thus, everyone can do whatever he wants with his own body where he is the judge of. But if someone were to force others, then he would be claiming that his morality is above that of others, thus not equally true nor applied to equal area, but since he cannot prove that his morality is above that of others, he would merely be doing a violation of both logic and of other people's bodies.

So we can only conclude that children objectively own their bodies, per principle of equality, thus they can choose to be in relationship with an adult if they want to. To go against this would yield a contradiction, since you cannot explain why your moral opinion is above that of child's moral opinion if all moral opinions are equal.

Since every reason for a moral opinion is an arbitrary reason except the one objectively derived from principle of equality, and principle of equality gives child ownership over own body, it is objectively true that child owns their own body. No deviation from this logic can be logically justified without violating the objective principle of equality.

Same applies to goals. Each person's goals are equally valid, since they have equal amount of proof proving them to be valid. Thus, each person gets same amount of area to realize their goals on. Thus, each person gets to own their body, while being banned from owning bodies of others, due to principle of equality and equal application of equally worthy goals.

To say it in a very simple way, any moral opinion which seeks non-equality while being equally non-proven commits a logical contradiction it cannot justify, thus due to this contradiction it becomes objectively wrong.

160. Conclusion

I think 160 arguments is long enough. I dont have characters left to write more since I need to write conclusion. As we can see, there is an overwhelming number of arguments supporting legalization of child marriages. My opponent claimed some benefits of the ban, but none of those benefits were historically shown to happen. After child marriages were banned, situation got worse for both map and children. My opponent cannot explain these results, as these results are not consistent with his arguments. However, the results are consistent with my arguments. But even if it wasnt for those results, we have still seen that there is no moral justification in banning child marriages, since there is no moral justification in reducing children to a level of property and taking away their right to choose. Since only my position argues for equality, ability to choose, and gives children more rights, where my opponent's position is only built on taking away choices, only my position can be logically justified in terms of moral laws and principle of equality. My opponent argues for non-equal treatment of equals, which is wrong.

I concede that child marriage has some short-term benefits, however, they are nothing compared to the downfalls, which my opponent has not directly addressed. I will reiterate them for my concluding argument. 

1. They do not last. Only two percent of high school relationships remain together. The number gets even smaller the younger the relationships starts.

2. Teen pregnancies are bad. This is a very big one. Statistically, the father would leave the mother. Even if they stayed, both of them wouldn't be able to focus on education and preparation for future life. 

3. They cannot support families. Working afterschool shifts at McDonalds would come close to covering costs of childcare. 

Child marriages are a terrible idea that hinder development of the children and the children that they would have.