Best.Korea

People on this site are unwilling to debate me on serious topics. I guess we are both lions now hehe

The only times I made a mistake in life was when I did as I was told. My parent forced me to go to school I didnt want. If I chose the school I wanted and which wasnt as hard, I wouldnt end up failing school miserably.

No, my parent was a control freak, and I wasnt "allowed". Even as a kid, I stood up for myself and made my own choices which I never really regretted, even with no approval from parents. Adults are influenced by peers, media, and authority figures, and most regret many of their decisions as adults. Also, many adults break the law by speeding and driving carelessly, thus endangering lives. Yet their consent is still recognized. The same logic should apply to children in many cases.

By not working much.

Children today have more access to information and education, which can improve their ability to make informed decisions.

Its usually easier to get people to debate if you make a topic they are sensitive about. Also, if you set to "rated" debates instead of "standard", then you wont have a problem with new users forfeiting because they wont be able to accept.

They are usually called sell-outs or power-driven individuals both which degrade society.

Similar to "sell-outs" are "power-driven individuals". They sacrifice their "self" and others just to gain power, praise, fame and approval. They are as bad as sell-outs. But Trump is both a sell-out and a power-driven individual. Its great that USA has finally demonstrated what ancient thinkers told a thousand times: "Caring too much for material wealth corrupts the spirits and minds of people.".

Yes, but whole USA is suffering. Trump is a sell-out.

Even if its just that, it still exists. I learned from "World Conquest Zvezda Plot" anime that sell-outs are bad and that it is better to die doing things you want than to live doing things you dont want.

Sell-out means believing or doing things only because of money.

They are sell-outs too. My issue here isnt that sell-outs are totally bad. I just dont want to lose my virginity to someone who is only doing it for money and doesnt even love me one bit, maybe even finds me disgusting.

If she does it for money, she is a sell-out.

"Sell-out" is a term for person who abandons her own values and beliefs and takes different ones just to earn money. She is a sell-out.

I aint losing my virginity with a sell-out.

Nasty perverted girls.

Here is a debate challenge if anyone wants to debate it in debate section.

This isnt a debate about me. This is simply a debate about if children should have a choice in their life. I think they should. In some legal systems, children can even refuse medical treatment or even testify against parents, proving their ability to consent in those cases. What do you think?

Hinduism is smart enough to know that there is a universal law for behavior in the same way there is for laws of universe. It says that you can choose your behavior, but each behavior has consequences which cannot be separated from it. This is Sanatana Dharma(Law of behavior) and Karma(consequence of behavior).

Giving children a choice helps prevent abuse. Different countries set different ages for consent, demonstrating that legal standards are social constructs rather than clear truth.

Common guys, can you defend your position or not?

Thats not a negation of my argument, but anyway. This society even today doesnt actually care about forcing or hurting children. People hurt children all the time, punish them, yell at them, spank them, force them to do things they dont want, neglect them, refuse to talk to them, try to control every part of their life, all scientifically proved to harm child's mental health, give them junk food which ruins their teeth and health, circumcise them, allow bullying in schools, bully trans children online, most even greatly endanger child's lives by speeding and being careless in traffic, and allow smoking. They just pretend they care because they prefer to live in some fantasy delusion than to face the truth, and they pretend to care so that they would have some delusional excuse to do witch hunts and have more delusional excuse to hurt others. For them, its not about protecting children because they dont care about own children. For them, its all about finding excuses to hurt people they dont like, and imposing control over others. It was always that, and nothing else. You can see it in politics, in constant wars, in media, and in economy. So anyone who cares about consent and preventing harm cannot actually be in agreement with most of society.

"In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7."

It says right in the wiki site you quoted from.

Georgia's age of consent was 10 years old until 1918, at which time the age of consent was raised to 14. USA didnt start existing just in 1920.

You cant see gravity. You can only observe effects it has on things. Gravity is like magic which cannot be explained yet. We just know its there somewhere, causing things to happen. However, I have yet to see an explanation of what gravity actually is. We know that gravity is everywhere around us, but the problem rises in the fact that no one can explain why one body is capable of sending some "invisible hand" which pulls other bodies towards it. Its like there is some world out there which we cannot yet detect. It literally works like magic.

USA did have age of consent at 10 for almost hundred years in some states, but it was different back then. Child abuse didnt reduce later with increasing age of consent. It even increased. Giving children right to consent protects children from abuse. If parents have no right to deny their children of choice, then they are less likely to deny children of choice. This protects children from over controlling parents. Over controlling parents are scientifically proved to harm child's decision making development and child's knowledge and confidence and ability to reject unwanted advances. Sadly, today, there are bunch of control freak parents who think children are their property, and their children either rush into relationships to escape parent's control or they become incapable of even having decent relationships.

If children had a right to choose, they would choose who they like the most to be with. If children are given right to consent, then entire society would have to inform and persuade children to get their consent, which creates great motivation for both parents and everyone else to inform children and talk with them much more to get their consent about anything. This would greatly increase child's knowledge and decision making abilities and consent abilities and sense of control over life. Once they are 18, they would have much more knowledge and sense of control and confidence than children who were denied of choice for 18 years, which further prevents being taken advantage of later in life.

The consequence of not informing children and not letting them decide will always be less informed children who are less capable of making decisions. Not sure why this would surprise anyone.

Thats just the consequence of not informing children.

Denying children of consent doesnt protect children. It just means adults around them make decisions for them without asking for their opinion or trying to inform them much. There is no guarantee that adults around them will make decisions which children will ever agree with.

In various cultures and historical periods, children have been granted decision making power much earlier than in modern western societies, and this enabled them to be more capable than children in western societies.

I am glad you are enjoying our debate here, but anyway. Ability to consent, like all abilities, are developed with practice. By not letting children consent and teaching them to obey, their ability to consent is reduced and this enables adults to take advantage of them. It is also reducing their ability of consent even when they turn 18, due to lack of experience and practice in making their own decisions.

Well, sure, but if people want to make bad choices, then they shouldnt be surprised that their nation only gets worse over time.

Bad choice which repeats over time doesnt just stay same over time, but even causes other bad choices. In this way, society which doesnt stop with bad choices doesnt actually stay same, but gets worse over time because one bad decision of one person can cause another person to make a bad decision.

Teaching children that they can consent but also can say "no" to unwanted physical contact improves their right to bodily autonomy and ability of consent, and enables them to be able to determine their life and reject unwanted advances much better than teaching them that their opinion doesnt matter.

Japan increased age of consent from 13 to 16. I guess they too have fallen for the lie that writing random age barriers on paper and taking away choice somehow solves problems.

I am just saying that children should have a choice.

Children usually choose food which they know they like. The mere act of choosing requires knowledge, proving that children have some knowledge.

If you are wondering why I dont respond to your "everything will go to shit if we let children consent to something" nonsense argument, is because it is not only an unproved argument, but actually contradicts even with law in US and Europe which already lets children consent in many cases, and contradicts with all cases of countries which let children consent, and contradicts with entire history.

None of the arguments I gave were negated in any way.

Children make choices daily: what to wear, what to eat, what activities to join. This is demonstrating obvious decision-making ability.

Consent is not all or nothing but exists on a great spectrum where children are capable of consenting to some things but not others. But all people can consent to some things, but not to others, as no person has all knowledge.

If children couldnt have knowledge, then sending them to school would be pointless as they couldnt learn anything.

Well, I dont know where he is. His YouTube got deleted long time ago. I dont think we can invite him.

No. Maybe I use some similar arguments, but when talking of same topic, similar arguments tend to come up.

Some children demonstrate clear decision-making capabilities, and have IQ much higher than adults.

Children develop more autonomy over time, and they should be allowed to exercise all consent appropriate to their level of understanding.

I am asking for you guys to give some arguments to defend your position that children shouldnt have a choice in their life.

If children cant consent, then everything done to them is done without their consent. So school, healthcare... are all done without their consent. It is immoral to force things on others, even if you consider it beneficial. For example, you cant force people to go vegetarian or to meddle in their life the way you think is beneficial, because what is beneficial is determined by what is wanted, and something unwanted cannot be beneficial. In this way, saying that children cant consent is a concession that school and healthcare and whole of  society are immoral and evil.

Well, what is the point which is being missed by the question? 

I think he did some debates on YouTube and his videos got removed, but I didnt really watch his debates.

To some things they can understand, yes. The UN "Convention on the Rights of the Child" says that children have evolving capacities and should participate in decisions affecting them.

Children have goals and wishes, and those goals and wishes can be fulfilled irrelevant of their knowledge or age.