avatar
27 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @sigfried @orionlt

    The winner for this round will be determined based on the best out 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @ninadabit @navapanichz

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @ninadabit Thanks, Nina. I'm a little disappointed not to seal the win of course, but it was a thoughtful judgment. I knew going in that the viewpoints of the judges and viewers would have an impact in this topic.

      I think for you, I had to respond to your concerns, which I think Con didn't make a major focus, but because he mentioned them, you were able to use them in decision, but I didn't spend enough time refuting to keep them at bay. Parental honesty wasn't something we spent time on, but I can see how you draw it from the social stigma argument.

      I really wanted to get across that I was not trying to create any stigma, I was only offering advice and counsel. It is not evil to have sex, it is not wrong to have sex, it just isn't the most prudent choice at that age. But I think there is a strong view out there that Abstinence means a sex-negative viewpoint or a puritanical viewpoint. It's out there for sure, but I wanted to make sure I was not representing it that way to avoid that bias. I think I needed to do more to make that clear, and paint a picture of sex positive abstenance as simply a life strategy, rather than a moral view.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I totally got that you were going for offering advice and counsel. You're an incredibly clear debater and that was definitely part of it. I'm all for going on sex-positive abstinence, I think in this debate though I was looking a lot more at the overall outcomes for the entirety of teenagers and the value of their social standing became a strong voting issue in this debate.

    • 2 years ago

      @ninadabit So perhaps more on the outcomes of teenage pregnancy, STDs, and the impact of early relationships on school work?

      That last one I only had the "rational" argument for. Do you think citations would have helped or just more time spent on painting the picture of the nature of the competing priorities?

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Personally I don't look for citations as a judge simply because if I check them it has little merit in adjudication if your opponent didn't question or point them on their own. But yes, I'd go for the long term impacts of how that affects their overall life, especially when con is going for the large long-term impacts. I think honestly the best thing to do would be to weigh those long term impacts to be able to outweigh the social impacts that the con is bringing up.

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @navapanichz Thanks for the judgment @navapanichz I really appreciate how you clearly lay out your thinking on the round.

      It seems like I needed to do more work in framing what the debate was about. It was not that I had a plan that said we need to advise teens, I'm asking people to consider what they think good advice for teens is and simply answer the question the resolution poses.

      AKA if you walked up to a typical teenager and they asked you? "Should I have sex now, or wait until I'm 18?" What would you tell them?

      The risks I offer are the reasons why they should wait. The only person that can avoid them is the teenager themselves. Our "advice" is not going to solve anything, only their action will. But to decide if they should or should not, we need to consider the risks and benefits which is what my case is about.

      That was a fear going in, that people would see this as a policy debate, where the agent of the action is the state or the schools or such. But I wanted the agent of action to be understood as the teenager. I think what I forgot that was while my opponent didn't directly challenge that framing, an audience or a judge still might naturally have it in mind. So I need to make framing part of my conclusion if I thik there is going to be any chance it isn't sticking with the audience.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Hi, ultimately my decision came from the idea that even as it was framed, giving someone advice is a sort of policy, like we want the advice to generally be effective and that's only really possible if it's consistent with the tools we provide. I think that certainly would have helped your case because you ultimately brought up a lot of compelling points.

    • 2 years ago

      @navapanichz Well, I dissagree with the take on the topic, but so it goes. :) It's a given that judges and debaters will read things differently sometimes.

      I'd just say that if we were to look at it as policy, the resolution calls on the Students themselves to be the enactors of the policy. That's why resolutions will often use This House, or The Us Government should.... Those are the enactors of policy in the debate. In this case, it is the Student themselves that are the enactors of the action. What is their policy in reguards to having sex or abstaining.

  • 2 years ago

    @orionlt Congrats for advancing to the next round!

    @sigfried Too soon.. thanks so much for participating!

  • 2 years ago

    If 15 and 16 year olds can consent to having sex then it should not matter the age of the person they consent to, provided they are also over the age of 15. They either can consent or they cant. Many people try to engage in mental gymnastics and assert that they can consent if the person is close to their age but magically its impossible for them to consent to having sex with someone much older. They never really explain how or why thats not possible, they simply assert it as fact. In that sense, they use the exact same logic as "statutory rape." Such laws assert that people under a certain age cannot consent and dont really bother demonstrating the truth of this claim.

    15 year olds either can consent or they cant. If they can, then they can consent to having sex with much older people too. Its really simple.

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui So you would advise Teens to go ahead and break the laws as a matter of concience?

      Because this topic is not about whether we should change the laws, it is about what we advise Teenagers to do in the society we already live in.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried "So you would advise Teens to go ahead and break the laws as a matter of concience?"

      If your question is whether or not one has a moral obligation to follow immoral laws, the answer is a resounding "no."

      That is not to say that your advice to teenagers doesn't make sense independent of whatever the law says. That being said, I don't see how you reached that conclusion based on anything that I said here. I said exactly what I said and meant it in precisely the way that I said it. Nothing more, nothing less. I made no comment about what teens SHOULD do, just that, logically, if they can consent, that the age of the person they are consenting to having sex with shouldn't matter at all. That's all I said. Your conclusion doesn't follow from anything that I said.

      "Because this topic is not about whether we should change the laws, it is about what we advise Teenagers to do in the society we already live in."

      My logic still flows from there. Either 15 year olds should or shouldn't be having sex, and if they should, then the age of their partner also shouldn't matter.

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Thanks for the clarification. I'd thought you were commenting on the round's outcome, but I think I misunderstood and you are more discussing a related issue.

      The laws vary a lot, state to state. In some states, teens can be guilty of statutory rape, in others they can't. And the age of consent varies state to state as well. I think 15 is the lowest now and 18 the highest. Federal law in the US is apparently 12!

      Map on North America age of consent here
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

      This is probably the most useful round up of laws
      https://www.ageofconsent.net/states

      I think there is an understanding that an older person can absolutely take sexual advantage of a much younger person who is as of yet not considered an adult due to their relative inexperience and emotional vulnerability.

      So the laws are designed to try and protect against that, and I think that is a worthy goal.

      But the truth is that sometimes the teens are the ones that initiate these relationships, eagerly, and knowingly. And in those cases, you aren't really protecting anyone. Still, I think adults in society can be called on to simply refuse sex with people they know are under-age.

      I've had personal experience in losing my virginity prior to 18 and in having a relationship that might be considered statutory rape (with me being the person under age) depending on the state and the laws at the time. Though it was in no way a relationship that I would consider myself victimized by. It was my choice and my partner was fairly close in age even if we were technically on either side of the dividing line.

  • 2 years ago

    Thanks for the excellent debate @orionlt I enjoyed it very much!

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Thanks for what I think we can both agree was a really high quality debate :) Best of luck!

      • 2 years ago

        @orionlt Yep. We got into some pretty nuanced territory which can be pretty hard to do in these short debates. I really enjoyed that aspect of it.

    • 2 years ago

      I didn't expect vote Pro here, but I think that @sigfried proved what he set out to – that teens should wait, not for reasons of morality, but because it is wiser/ultimately more beneficial to do so.

      • 2 years ago

        Here's the entirety of my FB post on this debate:

        My friend Sigfried Trent engaged in a very timely debate on whether or not teens should be counselled to wait to have sex at age 18. I plan on having my almost 12 year old watch this. I would recommend to others with preteens and teens to watch the video and decide if it's right for your kid to view. Also, please vote on the debate -- Sigfried could win $5000 if his side prevails.

        I think we should acknowledge that kids are hearing about sex and noting hearing accurate information about it from their peers and many health classes are less than ideal, particularly the abstinence only ones that have over and over again just lead to higher teen pregnancy and STD rates.

        I think it is important to remember that our kid can be an accurate source of information for friends and that being a trusted peer source can help decrease risky sex behavior amongst their peer group which leads to less pressure for everyone including your kid.
        And I think this information needs to be given when these issues are coming up as just talk rather than waiting until it could be too late. Just like HPV prevention with the vaccine with a shot before sexual activity, I think these kinds of thoughtful discussions can inoculate the kids against risky behavior.

        I did recently hand my kid two detailed books for ages 4 and 7 that she was a bit embarrassed by my talking about, but I noticed she read them avidly. I also believe she discussed them with a friend. Hopefully the mom was okay with that. They're more about accurate names of body parts and a very very soft touch on sex. "It's so Amazing" and "it's NOT the Stork" are the names. I recommend them.

        That said, here's what I replied to Sigfried about the debate itself:
        First, Sigfried, your thinking dovetails with mine that older is best and that teaching safe sex is not mutually exclusive. Overall you won the debate for me.

        For the statutory rape laws I give points to the pro side, since I am pretty damn sure in the states that there is consent laws based on age such as two 16 year olds won't get in trouble. BUT someone who's 18 and someone who's 17 you can run into problems, which is hard for kids to understand as far as the law. [NOTE: I see Sigfried posted on this in the comments.]

        I was disappointed that neither of you touched on the emotional side of sex. The closest was on the pro side with the pleasures. I think you should have followed up with your statement that kids are not quite sure about what they're choosing at this stage to make the explicit connection to sex and the potential for regrets and other emotional harms that are less drastic than suicide but are still real and can carry through forever.

        There was a brief mention of social pressure/societal pressure. I also think this should have been looked at more from your side like saying raising the idea of non-stigma sex combined with education can actually help raise the age overall. And cite cases outside the US on this stuff. I believe it was the Netherlands that I recently read that these kids are self-raising the age even. Looking into whether it's social norm, changing peer pressure, etc would have helped your case.

        Likewise within the US citing cases like Colorado with the free contraception combined with the US data that the Millenials are waiting later to have sex might lead to better outcomes.

        • 2 years ago

          @shellyb1 Since you mention it, I'll share this on the topic. I lost my virginity when I was 15. And while I don't have any regrets about it, I did discover how conflicting the emotional experience could be. My body was 100% Go Go Go, but my emotional reaction was conflicted.

          For me, a person who makes strong attachments, there was a strong tension between enjoying the experience and the sheer excitement of it, and the knowledge that it was not at all likely I'd be with this person long term. I could not really keep an emotional distance that the situation required, but I knew I also couldn't simply fall head over heels in love at that point in my life. And I knew that while my partner was a wonderful person, she wasn't a partner for life. And as I mentioned, I'm the bonding sort.

          But it's only in retrospect I could really parse out those feelings. At the time it was much more a deep-seeded conflict of emotions I couldn't quite understand. I thought it should be all joy and happiness but there was always a feeling of fear and hesitation entangled in it. It was only with getting a bit older and wiser I could come to understand it, and with understanding, I could have relationships without that emotional turmoil in the background. Which makes things much better all around.

          And I also took some risks that were pretty foolish, not at 15 but my second go at things closer to 19. I was much better prepared for the consequences by that age, but it was still pretty foolish behavior in retrospect.

          The one thinks I think you can't ever do is pretend that an adolescent doesn't have an incredibly strong sex drive or try to just completely shut it down with no outlet. That just flies in the face of reality. Our social reality and our biological reality just aren't fully compatible these days and we have to have strategies to cope with that fact.

      • 2 years ago

        The community votes were an exact draw within the first 24 hours after debate completion (10 vs. 10).
        This means the debate will be determined on best of 3 by the RJs.
        So far, Nina voted Con.. we'll be waiting for 1 or 2 more RJs to settle the final result.
        Good luck!
        cc @gigi @sigfried @orionlt