Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5744
Child Marriage is A Human Rights Violation Needing Global Action
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
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
dmitrykostomarov
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Child marriage is a violation of human rights, it takes away children's futures and the potential. Marriages are binding contracts that requires maturity that children just do not have yet.
Forcing children into marriage means we are taking away their opportunity to go to school get an education, and enjoy a care free childhood.
The Idea that a child can actually consent to marriage is a big mistake from the beginning.
Children do not have the emotional and cognitive maturity to take big responsibilities that is taken when getting married, and they are simply not able to consent in such a context most of the time it is persuaded or suggested upon them in a way that takes away theirr will to decide.
Even if a child seems happy or says they want to marry, their actual ability to even understand the consequences of the decision they are about to make is just not there.
Children should be protected against the outcomes of decisions they are not in a state to think through.
Also, Child marriage causes poverty and gender inequality. A lot of times it results in early pregnancy, high health risks and economic dependency which in turn, force girls into a disadvantage cycle that can last for a lifetime.
We must speak in the favor of children's rights to develop, learn, and choose their own course of life that is not burdened with things like marriage which they cannot even manage to comprehend yet.
Con
#2
Child marriage is a violation of human rights, it takes away children's futures and the potential.
This sentence makes no sense. Nothing can take away future, since future is time which is going to come anyway. Those in marriage dont stop existing, thus their future is guaranteed.
As for potential, we know that the only potential which matters is happiness and liberty, but my opponent wants to take away those for some reason.
Child marriage taking away potential doesnt change that some children are happy in marriage.
Marriages are binding contracts that requires maturity that children just do not have yet.Forcing children into marriage means we are taking away their opportunity to go to school get an education, and enjoy a care free childhood.The Idea that a child can actually consent to marriage is a big mistake from the beginning.
My opponent is making contradictive statements. He says that in order to be in child marriage, child must have maturity which child cannot have.
Thus, child marriage cannot even exist, let alone violate any rights. Thus, topic is proven false since my opponent conceded that child marriages dont exist.
But anyway, I will keep responding to other points.
Maturity is obviously not needed for marriage. My opponent talks of forcing children into marriages, but he ignores that there are children who want to marry and are happy in marriage much more than they would be in school.
Children do not have the emotional and cognitive maturity to take big responsibilities that is taken when getting married, and they are simply not able to consent in such a context most of the time it is persuaded or suggested upon them in a way that takes away theirr will to decide.
My opponent again makes contradictive statements. My opponent at the same time says that children take big responsibilities and that they cannot take them. Well, those two are mutually exclusive. If children cannot take big responsibilities, then they cannot at the same time take them in marriage, thus such responsibilities either dont exist for them or they are able to take them. Any other option doesnt logically exist.
Also, children not having emotional and cognitive maturity doesnt change the fact that they can both want marriage and be happy in marriage.
My opponent wants to take away choice from them and decide for them, which is slavery.
Even if a child seems happy or says they want to marry, their actual ability to even understand the consequences of the decision they are about to make is just not there.
Ability to understand consequences not being there doesnt change the fact that some want marriage and are happy in marriage. Thus, to destroy such marriage would destroy their happiness and goals.
Children should be protected against the outcomes of decisions they are not in a state to think through.
This is a contradictive statement. Children are not in state to think through school which is much more complicated than marriage. Thus, children should be protected from school?
Also, Child marriage causes poverty and gender inequality. A lot of times it results in early pregnancy, high health risks and economic dependency which in turn, force girls into a disadvantage cycle that can last for a lifetime.
Poverty, gender inequality, health risks, and early pregnancy doesnt change that some children want to be in marriage and are happy in marriage. Being happy and achieving goals is most important for those children, thus such child marriages shouldnt be destroyed.
We must speak in the favor of children's rights to develop, learn, and choose their own course of life that is not burdened with things like marriage which they cannot even manage to comprehend yet.
My opponent again contradicts himself. He first said that he wants to decide for children, that children shouldnt be able to decide to be in marriage, and now he says children should be able to decide?
Being burdened by marriage they cannot comprehend doesnt change that some children are happy in marriage and want to be in marriage, thus such child marriages shouldnt be destroyed.
My opponent wants to destroy all child marriages, but the only ones that should be destroyed are the ones that are forced and non-happy.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Child marriage is a violation of human rights... This sentence makes no sense.Nothing can take away the future, since future is time which is going to come anyway.
Wow, where to start? Don't act like you don't know what "future" means in this instance. Things like education opportunities, career advancement and personal freedom. Saying that time will come either way is like saying someone in jail still has a future, one day at a time. The question is that time, what you do with it and without any surprise, children are denied that right to shape their future through child marriage. My friend, being alive and living are not the same.
The only potential which matters is happiness and liberty, but my opponent wants to take away those for some reason.
So, are we going to pretend that happiness is just ‘smiling through it all’? Children forced to marry may seem "happy", but only while their child marriages are maintained they have little freedom or real choices. Of course, most of these kids don't even realize that other than LC they could do something different because their parents would never hear to that those who did have been groomed or pressured into thinking it is normal. Your definition of happiness here is just about as substantial as a house made out of playing cards.
Child marriage taking away potential doesn’t change that some children are happy in marriage.
Look, just because a kid says they’re happy doesn’t mean we should accept that at face value. Kids say a lot of things. They’ll say they’re happy eating candy for every meal, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for them. The idea that some children are happy in these marriages doesn’t magically erase the fact that most are trapped in situations they didn’t choose and can’t escape from. You’re focusing on the exceptions and ignoring the majority who are hurt by this practice.
My opponent is making contradictive statements. He says that in order to be in child marriage, child must have maturity which child cannot have. Thus, child marriage cannot even exist.
Oh boy. So because it shouldn’t happen, you’re saying it doesn’t happen? That’s a bit like saying child labor isn’t real because kids "can’t" work legally, right? But guess what it happens, and that’s the problem. Your argument that child marriage “can’t” exist doesn’t even make sense. Just because something shouldn’t happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t.
Maturity is obviously not needed for marriage.
Wait, what?! So, you should let kids make one of their life's most important decisions without maturity? Next up.. 8 year olds are signing mortgages. Do you think marriage is a friends with benefits kind of relationship? A thing that is supposed to last forever a signed agreement that requires you for life, and forces you into acting like an emotionally, financially or just sexually responsible person Sometimes, kids do not know how to tie their shoes properly but u think they are ready for the life time commitment of company? Ppl these words only teach one thing that you are stupid. Come on.
Children not having emotional and cognitive maturity doesn’t change the fact that they can want marriage and be happy in marriage.
Well what about informed consent? Not all children who desire to have something know what it is. Kids would love to stay up all night eating pizza and TV, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for them. That has nothing to do with “wanting”, but you may be misunderstanding what really would be the best for them. They can call themselves happy to their heart's content, but they cannot grasp what it is that they are signing up for. It would be ridiculous to allow a child to enter into a legally binding contract without understanding it so why is marriage any different
My opponent wants to take away choice from them and decide for them, which is slavery.
Seriously? Slavery is not "protecting children from decisions that will harm them". It’s called responsibility. If we or our government stops kids from working dangerous jobs or drinking alcohol, do you call it "slavery"? We care about them because they have not yet begun the process of taking care of themselves. That is not giving our kids freedom by allowing them to marry 10 year olds, that is putting deep chains on them without even informing them they have shackles around their ankles. True freedom is respecting them and allowing the time for it all to grow up beautifully.
Children are not in a state to think through school which is much more complicated than marriage.
Wait a minute, school harder than marriage? The Poet (marriage) (Often dealing with networking relationships, and complicated financial/legal situations including shared custody of children. I do not know what marriage is in your world, but in reality, it is a far cry from choosing whether or not to do your algebra worksheet. After all, school is designed to ready us for the future, and marriage requires professional level responsibilities that kids just don't have the tools for.
Poverty, gender inequality, health risks, and early pregnancy don’t change that some children want to be in marriage and are happy in marriage.
So recently, because evidently some misguided young people "yearning" to be married, we should throw all the poverty and inequity and health risks at them as early as possible... right? In other words, it's equivalent to saying, "Well, there are people out there who like playing with IEDs so hey, why worry about safety?" You are just as selectively seeing the few cases of happiness and being like “see this proves that it’s not always harmful so what are you complaining about? That is what human rights are about, looking after everyone the same way.
Being burdened by marriage they cannot comprehend doesn’t change that some children are happy in marriage.
So, let me get this straight: Kids don't know that marriage is a burden (your words), so we ought to leave them there alone with it anyway? That is more than incorrect, it is heartless. When someone is walking into a trap, should we just Turn The Other Cheek and go;" Oh well, they are happy for now!"? Of course not. Funny thing how ignorance stops being bliss if you are still paying the price for it years later. Your comparison is the equivalent of someone signing off on a contract they cannot read and then saying it's ok because a smile was present when they signed it.
CONCLUSION:
This statement supports your entire argument implying- because a few kids might seem to be in love and happy, forget about all the evidence we have showing how direly damaging child marriage is! Confusing fluency with control is incredibly naive, you never grasped that true happiness and freedom isn't the capacity to speak and read well, it's about having choices, in a way that makes sense. No young girl would want to get married if she had a choice, keeping them in school simply gives them the time, education, information and tools they need to make the best decisions possible about their future.
You highlight the occasional rags to riches to rags story to justify a system that profoundly subjugates the large population of children under its sway. This isn't about control of kids this is to protect them from being preyed up on and grow up with all of their potential intact.
This statement supports your entire argument implying- because a few kids might seem to be in love and happy, forget about all the evidence we have showing how direly damaging child marriage is! Confusing fluency with control is incredibly naive, you never grasped that true happiness and freedom isn't the capacity to speak and read well, it's about having choices, in a way that makes sense. No young girl would want to get married if she had a choice, keeping them in school simply gives them the time, education, information and tools they need to make the best decisions possible about their future.
You highlight the occasional rags to riches to rags story to justify a system that profoundly subjugates the large population of children under its sway. This isn't about control of kids this is to protect them from being preyed up on and grow up with all of their potential intact.
Please, rethink your position, because right now, you're defending a system that robs children of their futures under the guise of "happiness."
Con
#4
Don't act like you don't know what "future" means in this instance. Things like education opportunities, career advancement and personal freedom. Saying that time will come either way is like saying someone in jail still has a future, one day at a time. The question is that time, what you do with it and without any surprise, children are denied that right to shape their future through child marriage. My friend, being alive and living are not the same.
Education opportunities, career advancement and personal freedom doesnt change that some children want to be in marriage and are happy in marriage. Being happy and getting the marriage you want is more important than education or career. Being happy and getting marriage you want is most important. Such marriages shouldnt be destroyed.
Shaping future doesnt change that some children want to be in marriage and are happy in it. Children are not someone in jail. Such marriages shouldnt be destroyed.
So, are we going to pretend that happiness is just ‘smiling through it all’? Children forced to marry may seem "happy", but only while their child marriages are maintained they have little freedom or real choices. Of course, most of these kids don't even realize that other than LC they could do something different because their parents would never hear to that those who did have been groomed or pressured into thinking it is normal. Your definition of happiness here is just about as substantial as a house made out of playing cards.
Happiness is not "smiling through it all", nor did I define happiness like that, so attacking the definition I didnt even use is an obvious strawman.
Also, the position I am defending does not defend forced marriages, as clearly stated in round 1, but consensual and happy marriages.
My opponent says that children have little freedom or real choices, but he is the one arguing to take away choice from a child, so he has no point here.
My opponent says they were groomed or pressured into thinking its normal, while arguing for position which wants to groom and pressure them into thinking its not normal, as well as take away freedom and choice.
Look, just because a kid says they’re happy doesn’t mean we should accept that at face value. Kids say a lot of things. They’ll say they’re happy eating candy for every meal, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for them. The idea that some children are happy in these marriages doesn’t magically erase the fact that most are trapped in situations they didn’t choose and can’t escape from. You’re focusing on the exceptions and ignoring the majority who are hurt by this practice.
Not accepting it at face value doesnt change that some children are happy and want to be in marriage. Such marriages shouldnt be destroyed. If children say over and over that they are happy, then they probably are.
Kids saying they are happy eating a candy every meal doesnt change that they want it and it makes them happy.
Even if not good for them, it doesnt change that they want it and it makes them happy.
My opponent says that I am ignoring majority hurt by this practice, but my opponent doesnt understand his or my position in this debate.
My position is that marriages in which children are happy and want to be in marriage are the ones which should be allowed, while forced and non-happy ones should be abolished.
His position is that both types should be destroyed. Thus, he needs to defend why children who are happy and want to be in marriage should have their marriage brutally destroyed.
So because it shouldn’t happen, you’re saying it doesn’t happen? That’s a bit like saying child labor isn’t real because kids "can’t" work legally, right? But guess what it happens, and that’s the problem. Your argument that child marriage “can’t” exist doesn’t even make sense. Just because something shouldn’t happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t.
My opponent seems unable to understand what was said. For example, "it shouldnt happen = doesnt happen" wasnt even mentioned anywhere in text he is responding to. What was talked about is conditional word "needed" or "required", which has nothing to do with word should.
Wait, what?! So, you should let kids make one of their life's most important decisions without maturity? Next up.. 8 year olds are signing mortgages. Do you think marriage is a friends with benefits kind of relationship? A thing that is supposed to last forever a signed agreement that requires you for life, and forces you into acting like an emotionally, financially or just sexually responsible person Sometimes, kids do not know how to tie their shoes properly but u think they are ready for the life time commitment of company? Ppl these words only teach one thing that you are stupid. Come on.
Making one of their life's most important decisions without maturity doesnt change that some children are happy in marriage and want to be in marriage. Being happy in marriage and wanting to be in marriage is more important than maturity. Wanting to be in marriage is most important. Second, my opponent is making blatant lies, such as that marriage lasts forever, which isnt always true. There is divorce sometimes. Thus, marriage neither prevents maturity nor does it "chain" someone somewhere for life. We know what marriages in USA look like, and most are such that there is no any special obligation to stay in marriage if person doesnt want to. Marriage is not signing mortgages.
Kids not knowing how to tie shoe laces properly doesnt change that some want to be happy in marriage and want to be in marriage.
My opponent again talks of forced marriages, after it was made clear in round one that I am not even defending that.
Well what about informed consent? Not all children who desire to have something know what it is. Kids would love to stay up all night eating pizza and TV, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for them. That has nothing to do with “wanting”, but you may be misunderstanding what really would be the best for them. They can call themselves happy to their heart's content, but they cannot grasp what it is that they are signing up for. It would be ridiculous to allow a child to enter into a legally binding contract without understanding it so why is marriage any different
Children not knowing what something is or lacking informed consent doesnt change that some children are happy in marriage and want to be in marriage. Them wanting to be in marriage is most important for them. Further, my opponent is the one arguing for children to enter into legally binding relations, such as schools and being banned from marriage. The only one arguing that force is good is my opponent. Child marriage is not like other legally binding contracts, thus no comparison can be made.
Healthy doesnt change that person wants something.
My opponent wants to decide whats best for others instead of letting others decide whats best for them.
Children not being able to grasp what are they signing up for doesnt change that some children are happy in marriage and want to be in marriage. Nothing my opponent says can change this simple fact.
Seriously? Slavery is not "protecting children from decisions that will harm them". It’s called responsibility. If we or our government stops kids from working dangerous jobs or drinking alcohol, do you call it "slavery"? We care about them because they have not yet begun the process of taking care of themselves. That is not giving our kids freedom by allowing them to marry 10 year olds, that is putting deep chains on them without even informing them they have shackles around their ankles. True freedom is respecting them and allowing the time for it all to grow up beautifully.
Taking away choices is by definition slavery. Renaming it to "responsibility" doesnt change that it is slavery. Child marriage is not drinking alcohol or working some dangerous non-marriage jobs, so I dont know why my opponent mentions these.
Not yet begun the process of caring for themselves doesnt change that destroying their want to marry and destroying their goals is slavery. Some children are happy and want to be in marriage, thus to take away that would both reduce their happiness and destroy their goals.
Taking away choices is not true freedom. Maybe my opponent doesnt know what freedom is.
Anyway, my opponent has not really produced any argument other than "It doesnt matter what child wants. It doesnt matter what makes child happy. Child must do as I say." while arguing against force, which is obvious contradiction, and I cannot even understand how someone can think that such contradictive statements make sense, but its his argument.
Wait a minute, school harder than marriage? The Poet (marriage) (Often dealing with networking relationships, and complicated financial/legal situations including shared custody of children. I do not know what marriage is in your world, but in reality, it is a far cry from choosing whether or not to do your algebra worksheet. After all, school is designed to ready us for the future, and marriage requires professional level responsibilities that kids just don't have the tools for.
Algebra worksheet doesnt change that school is harder than marriage.
Dealing with networking relationships, and complicated financial/legal situations including shared custody of children, doesnt change that school is harder than marriage.
After all, many children fail in school and fail to achieve any good grades. This is common knowledge. Also, school determines what job you will do, but children cant understand long term consequences of school. Thus, I could easily say most kids dont have what it takes to be great in school.
My opponent again contradicts himself, saying that marriage requires something which children dont have. My opponent again concedes that child marriages dont actually exist, thus he forfeits the debate.
Maybe the word "requires" confuses him so much that he uses it to argue against himself like this.
The word requires means "cannot exist without", thus when my opponent says that children dont have something which if it lacks, then child marriages cannot exist, he is saying that child marriages cannot exist.
So recently, because evidently some misguided young people "yearning" to be married, we should throw all the poverty and inequity and health risks at them as early as possible... right? In other words, it's equivalent to saying, "Well, there are people out there who like playing with IEDs so hey, why worry about safety?" You are just as selectively seeing the few cases of happiness and being like “see this proves that it’s not always harmful so what are you complaining about? That is what human rights are about, looking after everyone the same way.
Throw all the poverty and inequity and health risks at them as early as possible, doesnt change that some children want to marry and are happy in marriage. Besides, when it comes to health risks, the highest suicide rates and lowest birth rates are in developed countries which banned child marriages.
My opponent again misunderstands my position. My position is not "Allow all child marriages", but "Allow the ones where children are happy and want to be in marriage".
My opponent isnt solving anything by banning happy and wanted child marriages, because the rates of sex offenses among children are still extremely high in countries which banned child marriages. So what did USA solve, other than placing 200,000 children on sex offenders list and ruining their life? What did Japan solve, with highest suicide rate and lowest birth rate in the world?
My opponent ignores that marriage is a way to socially regulate relationships, and removing that just produces socially unregulated relationships.
So, let me get this straight: Kids don't know that marriage is a burden (your words), so we ought to leave them there alone with it anyway? That is more than incorrect, it is heartless. When someone is walking into a trap, should we just Turn The Other Cheek and go;" Oh well, they are happy for now!"? Of course not. Funny thing how ignorance stops being bliss if you are still paying the price for it years later. Your comparison is the equivalent of someone signing off on a contract they cannot read and then saying it's ok because a smile was present when they signed it.
Child marriage that is happy and wanted is not a trap, nor does paying the price later changes that.
Someone signing off on a contract they cannot read and then saying it's ok because a smile was present when they signed it, doesnt change that some children in marriages are happy, want to be in marriage and stay married and happy for their whole life, even after they become adults, they still want to stay in marriage.
Confusing fluency with control is incredibly naive, you never grasped that true happiness and freedom isn't the capacity to speak and read well, it's about having choices, in a way that makes sense. No young girl would want to get married if she had a choice, keeping them in school simply gives them the time, education, information and tools they need to make the best decisions possible about their future.You highlight the occasional rags to riches to rags story to justify a system that profoundly subjugates the large population of children under its sway. This isn't about control of kids this is to protect them from being preyed up on and grow up with all of their potential intact.Please, rethink your position, because right now, you're defending a system that robs children of their futures under the guise of "happiness."
Its not true that no young girl would want to get married if she had a choice. Plenty of young people fall in love and want to be with each other. Plenty of girls willingly go into marriage. My opponent just wants to close his eyes and pretend that these cases dont exist.
However, the very fact that he refuses to accept that they exist just further proves his position is about destroying happy marriages.
"Keeping them in school simply gives them the time, education, information and tools they need to make the best decisions possible about their future." doesnt change that you want to take away their decisions from them, as you are clearly acting to prevent them from getting what they want and forcing choices on them. Thus, to claim that forcing choices on them gives them a choice is nonsense and a contradiction.
Children who want to be in marriage and are happy in marriage shouldnt have their goals and happiness destroyed just because you want to dictate whats best for others.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Education opportunities, career advancement, and personal freedom don’t change that some children want to be in marriage and are happy in marriage.
First things first just because you want something does not make it okay for you, even with children. Your point oversimplifies the issue, suggesting that child marriage is about a little girl who wants sexual intercourse with an older man and disregards all the many implications that has on her future. What is realized through a bad choice that doesn't really lead to true happiness, but that results from manipulation and socialization.
Happiness is not 'smiling through it all,' nor did I define happiness like that, so attacking the definition I didn’t even use is an obvious strawman.
Allow me to explain: the happiness you are referring to often comes with strings that most children who grow up in these situations believe to be standard. Happiness can only be anchored in a particular context. But the happiness given by a forced marriage can easily lead to a facade of imprisonment and the absence of real choices. You are being oblivious to the fact that children may not even regard themselves as deserving any more than a life preordained by other people
If children say over and over that they are happy, then they probably are.
The delusion that repetition is synonymous with truth. Kids usually do not have the brain power to fully believe through ramifications of their choices. It may even make them smile and be happy right then, they are not capable of comprehending the possible long term ramifications. Persisting only that they be happy now ignores how child marriage still is as harmful to these girls who are heard beneath societal and family pressure.
My position is that marriages in which children are happy and want to be in marriage are the ones which should be allowed, while forced and non-happy ones should be abolished.
The problem with your position is that it assumes that a childs welfare can so neatly be cordoned off against the structural harms we know automatic coupledom young presents. You cannot give happy couples THEIR example and sweep under the rug everything else that goes on in our societies of systemic oppression and exploitation. While certain kids may appear happy while being prostituted that does not mean prostitution is healthy or life long.
Making one of their life's most important decisions without maturity doesn’t change that some children are happy in marriage and want to be in marriage.
This is a massive misconception of what maturity means. Marriage cannot be seen a light decision whatever the case, it is serious! It is reckless and fully irresponsible to suggest that children can make such life altering decisions when they are not at an emotional or developmental stage to do so. That would be a scary over simplification of relationships between individuals and the obligations engaged in by marriage.
Taking away choices is by definition slavery. Renaming it to 'responsibility' doesn’t change that it is slavery.
We are interested in the particular form of freedom (or lack thereof), to be sure, but also in how we conceive political and social freedom. And exploitation is not liberation when children are not in a position to choose otherwise. What is freedom if we are not free to make good and conscious decisions? It is no more slavery to protect children from harmful decisions than it is enslavement to safeguard their futures.
Child marriage that is happy and wanted is not a trap.
Oh right, because if a child tells you they're happy not leaving the situation adults, no problem… It would be like saying a person who is drowning is "happy" cause they have not learnt to swim. If a child does not plainly see the pitfall they up being shuffled toward, that does not indicate it is any less of a trap. It would be like directing someone to walk blindfolded into oncoming traffic and then patting them on the back because, hey, they said they are ok. Stupidity may seem like bliss, but it is just a smiling tragedy.
It’s not true that no young girl would want to get married if she had a choice.
Well, some kids might be ready for marriage! Why wouldn’t they? Or that they only want to eat candy for dinner and can fly when they wear a cape. Just because something is good for them. Yes, a child may dream of marriage as it is a fairy tale, but who are we kidding, what do you really THINK that means. The details you are glazing over in that and they do not have the life experience or emotional maturity to decided such things. And they don't "want" anything, they are being sold a fairy tale not the real thing, and you've fallen for it like this shit is half priced.
You are just trying to dress up a barbaric and cruel practice as reasonable argument. What you mean to say is, "Oh, the kids are claiming they're happy and by golly we have just enough evidence upon which to rest our hopes that this must always be so." Spoiler: a child's short term idea of happiness today is not worth trading their entire adult life. Perhaps, instead of perpetrating the practice that binds young people into lives they only sort of know about, you ought to button your lip. Because right now? You advocate something in the process that does far more damage than good, calling it “freedom” is an utter joke.
Con
#6
It seems that my opponent failed to address many of my points despite having more than enough character space, as I didnt use even half of character space for my argument. I addressed all of his points. By this, he has essentially conceded the debate.
First things first just because you want something does not make it okay for you, even with children. Your point oversimplifies the issue, suggesting that child marriage is about a little girl who wants sexual intercourse with an older man and disregards all the many implications that has on her future. What is realized through a bad choice that doesn't really lead to true happiness, but that results from manipulation and socialization.
Wanting something not making it okay doesnt change that some children want to be in marriage and are happy in marriage. "Something" isnt equal to marriage.
My opponent again makes a strawman of my position by saying how little girl wants to be with old man.
No implications it has on future is even relevant when your position is the one that wants to take away choices from her, thus choose her future for her.
It is your position which argues for use of force, socialization and manipulation.
My position doesnt even depend on that.
Person can obviously love someone older than themselves. There is no ultimate rule which says you must only like those of same age as you.
And has it ever occured to you that there are two young people of similar age who want to marry each other?
Allow me to explain: the happiness you are referring to often comes with strings that most children who grow up in these situations believe to be standard. Happiness can only be anchored in a particular context. But the happiness given by a forced marriage can easily lead to a facade of imprisonment and the absence of real choices. You are being oblivious to the fact that children may not even regard themselves as deserving any more than a life preordained by other people
Its unclear what "strings" is opponent talking about. All societies teach their standard to children.
My opponent again talks about forced marriages, failing to address consensual and happy marriages.
He talks of absence of real choices, but his position is the one arguing that children shouldnt have choice to marry. My position is that children should have a choice. Thus, imprisonment and taking away of choices only exists in position held by my opponent. Therefore, my opponent is again mistaking his position for my position.
Children may not consider them deserving doesnt change that children need to have a choice who to be with. Even if their choice doesnt suit your standard, it makes them happy because only they know who makes them happy and who they want to be with.
The delusion that repetition is synonymous with truth. Kids usually do not have the brain power to fully believe through ramifications of their choices. It may even make them smile and be happy right then, they are not capable of comprehending the possible long term ramifications. Persisting only that they be happy now ignores how child marriage still is as harmful to these girls who are heard beneath societal and family pressure.
Repetition not being truth doesnt change that children are the only ones who know what makes them happy and what doesnt, who they like and who they dont. My opponent cannot explain how taking away choice from a child is actually supporting their choice. It obviously doesnt, as its a contradiction. Only my position in this debate allows a child to choose. My opponent never once said that child should get to choose, thus we can see who supports choice and who doesnt.
"Kids usually do not have the brain power to fully believe through ramifications of their choices" doesnt change that children have wants and goals, and choices belong to children. Children can know what they like and who they like. Even if it isnt fully informed choice, its still a choice based on information they have, and there is no justification for taking away their choice. Most people dont completely understand their choices, even most adults fail in marriages. Most adult people dont have much knowledge about future. However, their choices still belong to them. Taking away their choice doesnt help their choice.
The problem with your position is that it assumes that a childs welfare can so neatly be cordoned off against the structural harms we know automatic coupledom young presents. You cannot give happy couples THEIR example and sweep under the rug everything else that goes on in our societies of systemic oppression and exploitation. While certain kids may appear happy while being prostituted that does not mean prostitution is healthy or life long.
My opponent again attacks a strawman, after it was explained over and over.
His position is "All child marriages are harmful".
My position, as a counter position, is "Some child marriages are not harmful".
Obviously, if some child marriages are not harmful, then it is false that all child marriages are harmful.
I dont see what is so hard to understand about this, but my opponent attacks a strawman because he cannot attack my actual argument.
Obviously, you can fight against harmful child marriages while not fighting against non-harmful ones.
The only difference in our positions is that I argue how non-harmful and happy child marriages shouldnt be destroyed, where my opponent argues they should be destroyed.
"The problem with your position is that it assumes that a childs welfare can so neatly be cordoned off against the structural harms we know automatic coupledom young presents."
It is not an assumption. You can fight against harmful things while not fighting against non-harmful things. That is much superior than your position.
You talk of harms, health, oppression and exploitation, but that doesnt change that your position takes away choices, thus produces harm to health of choice, produces oppression and exploitation by taking away choices from young person and setting yourself as someone who should decide for young person regarding if he/she should be with someone he/she loves.
And we are not even talking of young children, but also children who are age 15 to 17. You want to restrict them and control them as if they were things and not persons who feel love and attraction.
This is a massive misconception of what maturity means. Marriage cannot be seen a light decision whatever the case, it is serious! It is reckless and fully irresponsible to suggest that children can make such life altering decisions when they are not at an emotional or developmental stage to do so. That would be a scary over simplification of relationships between individuals and the obligations engaged in by marriage.
"Marriage cannot be seen a light decision whatever the case, it is serious! It is reckless and fully irresponsible to suggest that children can make such life altering decisions when they are not at an emotional or developmental stage to do so." doesnt change that some children feel love, and want to marry, and are happy in marriage. Besides, children are making choice regardless, to marry or not to marry. However, taking away choice doesnt mean that a better decision is made. Taking away choice means that you impose your decision on them, which means that their most important thing - freedom - is taken away from them. My opponent has already conceded, by not denying that child marriage sometimes does not take away any decision from the child, but either allows child to change mind later, either is the choice child agrees with even after becoming adult, thus child's choice is supported and respected much more in both cases than if such child marriage was destroyed.
Obligations by marriage dont exist since divorce is possible at any time, thus my opponent didnt explain how does child marriage prevent child from choosing later in life. My opponent thinks child should wait until 18 to be able to choose, but thats 18 years of choice being taken away.
We are interested in the particular form of freedom (or lack thereof), to be sure, but also in how we conceive political and social freedom. And exploitation is not liberation when children are not in a position to choose otherwise. What is freedom if we are not free to make good and conscious decisions? It is no more slavery to protect children from harmful decisions than it is enslavement to safeguard their futures.
"When children are not in a position to choose otherwise" doesnt change that my opponent is the only one arguing that children shouldnt be able to choose otherwise than what he decides for them, thus he is the only one taking away child's choice. One can either marry either not marry. My opponent argues that children cannot choose anything other than not to marry, which he decided for them. Thus, only his position is the one where there is no other choice for the child.
"What is freedom if we are not free to make good and conscious decisions? It is no more slavery to protect children from harmful decisions than it is enslavement to safeguard their futures." doesnt change that some children want to marry and are happy in marriage. Freedom is not you choosing what decisions are good for others. That is the opposite of freedom. Non-slavery(freedom) is not "being protected from harmful decisions", as if you can dictate what decisions can people make, then that is slavery, not freedom. People have freedom to make decisions which other consider harmful. While some child marriages dont destroy future, destroying such child marriages destroys both future and present choice of a child. There is no point in destroying all child marriages.
Oh right, because if a child tells you they're happy not leaving the situation adults, no problem… It would be like saying a person who is drowning is "happy" cause they have not learnt to swim. If a child does not plainly see the pitfall they up being shuffled toward, that does not indicate it is any less of a trap. It would be like directing someone to walk blindfolded into oncoming traffic and then patting them on the back because, hey, they said they are ok. Stupidity may seem like bliss, but it is just a smiling tragedy.
"person who is drowning is "happy" cause they have not learnt to swim." doesnt change that some children are happy in marriage and want to be in marriage. Child marriage is not drowning. It is just my opponent holding assumption that every happiness child displays in marriage is false. Child marriage is not any pitfall nor traffic. It is simply child being with person child loves and wants to be with. Destroying that doesnt mean child is given a choice, but it means child is denied of choice. My opponent holds assumption that all child marriages are bad for the child to the point where child would never choose them, but he ignores that many stay in marriage even after becoming adults, thus their choice is respected and realized. There are no traps which my opponent talks about, since his position is a trap which denies children of choice, destroys their goals and happiness. Denying people of choice cannot at the same time uphold their choice. Since only my position argues that child should have a choice, and my opponent obviously thinks having choice is important, it follows that my position is clear winner.
Well, some kids might be ready for marriage! Why wouldn’t they? Or that they only want to eat candy for dinner and can fly when they wear a cape. Just because something is good for them. Yes, a child may dream of marriage as it is a fairy tale, but who are we kidding, what do you really THINK that means. The details you are glazing over in that and they do not have the life experience or emotional maturity to decided such things. And they don't "want" anything, they are being sold a fairy tale not the real thing, and you've fallen for it like this shit is half priced.
My opponent again repeats negated argument that children dont have maturity to decide. It was already explained that this doesnt change that they have wants, happiness, decisioms, goals. My opponent says that children dont want anything, but this is false. They are not being sold anything. Children have goals and desires like anyone else. If my opponent wants to say that children shouldnt have a choice, then why is he complaining about some child marriages taking away choice? Its obvious that some child marriages give child a choice, an ability to choose who child wants to be with. My opponent is the only one here arguing that choice should be taken away from child.
You are just trying to dress up a barbaric and cruel practice as reasonable argument. What you mean to say is, "Oh, the kids are claiming they're happy and by golly we have just enough evidence upon which to rest our hopes that this must always be so." Spoiler: a child's short term idea of happiness today is not worth trading their entire adult life. Perhaps, instead of perpetrating the practice that binds young people into lives they only sort of know about, you ought to button your lip. Because right now? You advocate something in the process that does far more damage than good, calling it “freedom” is an utter joke.
Child marriage is not trading any adult life. Its not even trading education. Many married people continue going to school.
If happiness stops, divorce is possible. That is still better than if happiness never existed in the first place, if marriage was never even allowed.
It is false that all child marriages do more damage than harm.
Some people obviously fall in love at a young age, marry and stay forever together. There is no damage there. It just means person gets to be with someone they love for a much longer time than if forced to wait until 18.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
First it must be said in defense of con, that someone can play devil's advocate for any topic. This topic in particular doesn't have many avenues of defense, so credit for effort.
Sources (tied):
Pro was the only side to give any, but they were not integrated. It was more like a further reading suggestion.
Legibility (tied):
No overwhelming errors from either side.
Conduct (tied):
The comment section has heated up (a reported comment is actually what got me to read this), but nothing particularly bad, and certainly nothing crossing the line into cheating (aka voter manipulation).
Arguments (pro):
Essentially con's case defuses down to some tiny percent of child marriages are genuinely happy. He drops all for this, and (apologies if I missed it) gives no defense to the obvious question of why not wait for maturity?
Pro's case could have been stronger. The global action needed was weak, and had con done a good attack against that it could have cost pro the debate. As is, pro is easily able to show that child marriages are a human rights violation.
---
C1 Human Rights
Pro argues "it takes away children's futures and the potential" and elaborates that they lose their freedom and ability to go to school to build a future for themselves.
Con counters that they still exist... Characters in fiction not understanding figurative speech is great, but in real life it comes off as purely obtuse.
Con moves on to dropping all of this for the happiness angle, without first showing that it's healthy... And again and again and again...
Consent:
Pro argues children are too inexperienced to give informed consent.
Con counters that it's somehow a contradiction that makes child marriage impossible. Also that kids don't consent to schools Con also argues that not being forced into marriage is slavery.
Pro uses more figurative speech, equating forced into a marriage without informed consent to be putting them in chains. School builds them tools to handle things, an is less complex than a marriage.
Happiness:
Con argues some children are happy being married.
Pro counters with a eating nothing but candy analogy, and an IED analogy.
Harm:
To heighten earlier points, pro built out some harm: 'Child marriage causes poverty and gender inequality. A lot of times it results in early pregnancy, high health risks and economic dependency which in turn, force girls into a disadvantage cycle that can last for a lifetime"
How could you think that you’re anything but a sad loser with your so called “troll debates” tbh, I don’t even believe you’re trolling, it seems like you genuinely don’t get it. So, let’s call it here
These weak opponents are the reason I do so many troll debates. These are not serious opponents. Basically, I can debate any topic against these people. But thats what happens when I am so much above their level that I need to give them so much advantage, so its at least a tiny challenge for me and not too boring hehe
It’s seriously amusing how you think you can play by your own rules while debating topics like whether a 4 year old should be allowed to transition or if schools should be abolished. Of course, no one is going to take you seriously with views like that
You’re bringing weak arguments, and yet you expect people to engage with them seriously? It’s no wonder you feel the need to cling to debating rules when your actual points are so out there. At this point, you’re just a massive weirdo trying to defend positions that are not only extreme but also completely detached from reality. Maybe instead of worrying about how others debate, you should focus on making arguments that don’t make you sound like a joke.
It’s funny that you think pointing out your weak arguments in comments means I can’t stick to the debate format. If anything, the fact that you’re so pressed about it says more about your own insecurities. You seem more concerned about “basic debating rules” than about actually having a solid argument.
Let’s be real, your best attempt was claiming some children want to be in marriages and are happy completely sidestepping any understanding of long term harm and maturity.
But sure, go ahead and keep pretending that debating rules matter more than actual points. It’s not my fault if your argument wasn’t strong enough to get a serious response in the first place.
Is formal debating a bit outside of your capacity?
You were adding new arguments in comments. No wonder people dont take this site seriously. You have people like this who arent capable of even limiting their discussion to formal debate so they post more arguments in comments.
I guess respecting basic debating rules and basic debating decency is too much to ask for even here on a debate site. But then dont expect anyone to take these people here seriously, because no one will take these people seriously lol
It seems you’re missing the point of my previous messages. I’m not here to start anything or beg for votes and approval, but this is a serious topic to me. I wanted to clarify why I didn’t address all your points.
Well, sure, by all means, spam more arguments in comments. Maybe that will get you the approval you are after lol
Because clearing up weak arguments means I’m just “doing anything for a vote” I knew I had this after the first round, especially when your best point was “some children want to be in marriage and are happy” That really ignored everything I said about long term harm and maturity.
Maybe if you actually addressed my main points about protecting kids from choices they don’t understand, we wouldn’t need this follow up.
Great. Now we are also adding arguments to comments. These people will really do anything to get a vote lol
Hello everyone,
I just want to clarify some things regarding my debate with Best.Korea
First of all, I am grateful that he at least attempted to argue the points he tried to make, even though they were mostly petty reasons and not exactly relevant in combination with child marriage. For example, he said, "some children want to be in marriage and are happy," which grossly simplifies the complexities of maturity and long term implications that I discussed.
I didn't engage with each and every point it seemed unnecessary to discuss shallow arguments. For example, He often used the word "choice" without considering the social forces that mold what children decide upon. And like I said, "Happiness given by a forced marriage can easily lead to a facade of imprisonment" which just shows how true agency is lost in such matters.
For this debate, I framed the issue in terms of the structural harms imposed by child marriage and how we really need to protect vulnerable children from choices they don't understand.
Given that Korea seemed so much to rely on anecdotal evidence in this debate and waved systemic issues away, it was hard to take the debate seriously.
The ultimate goal was to understate the grim effects of child marriage, with a balanced argument hence, I consider myself successful in my motive.
Now if this clears one's position about why one avoided argumentation at certain places while covering others.
Thanks for reading!