@bronson Okay so, I phrased a lot of things poorly in this, and that's my bad. I had a lot of points that I wanted to get through, and rushed through a couple of things that otherwise I shouldn't/wouldn't have. I had a fun time discussing this with you, and I'd love to potentially have a debate on this some more in the future. My biggest issue with our conversation tonight is that you seemed to be defining consent inconsistently. You defined consensual sex as "anything that's not rape" and so I suppose what's happening in reality is that you're defining "rape" inconsistently. Rape is the act of having sexual intercourse with another person without their consent. I hope we can agree to that definition. But when someone is too drunk to make the decision to give consent, you agreed that it was sex had effectively without their consent, and was therefore rape. The big question now that I need to ask is why someone being too drunk to have sex is something you consider to be rape, but that having the part of your brain that the alcohol is impairing to make it rape being under developed or not fully developed, and impairing your decision making processes in almost exactly the same way, is somehow not rape in your view?
@ajrivers99 I'm pretty sure I answered that question. I said a person too drunk to walk actually had a LOWER state of consciousness than a normal 15 year old. Substantially lower in my opinion. I would say of the few times I've been in that mental state mentally I was the equivalent of like 6 or 7.
@bronson and you and I can disagree on that. My response to you saying that is that I could not make such a determination, although I will add on that I think most people have a really bad habit of overestimating their capacity to make informed decisions both as teenagers prior to the maturation of the Prefrontal Cortex and when they're drunk, high, etc., and so that should be considered in both the situation of someone who is drunk and someone who is still a child.
Consent is not just about sex .... because a child could give their consent knowledgeably to let me use their crayons for example . Because the title says "children can not give consent" which I would agree with when it comes to sex , but children can give consent in many other ways that have nothing to do with sex , therefore I am on the Con side .
@mickeyspromos as the tags should have demonstrated this whole thing was rather clearly about a child's ability to consent to sex.
@ajrivers99 than the sex part should have been clarified In the debate title ..... specifics matter when it comes to definitions
@mickeyspromos uhh... it was literally right there below the title though.
@ajrivers99 adding hash tags does not mean anything if it isn't in the title . The question .... can children give consent ? ... answer : yes , yes they can . If the title were "children cannot consent to sex " I would have been Pro . I take definitions as they are , not as people intend them to be interpreted .
@ajrivers99 it's interesting to note that in literally every state and practically every country minors can, in fact, legally give consent to have sex.
I actually have heard the age-26 argument in a few other contexts, but never here. My objection is always the same: are you willing to prevent people from engaging themselves in all forms of contracts until the age of 26? Seems like if you want to make an appeal to neuroscience you have to be willing to apply it across the board.