EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1321

That children should not be allowed out alone at nightn

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
5 points
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
Ave

I thank my opponent admin for doing this debate with me. Admin is the best debater in this site, and it will be an extremely fun topic, and will probably be a good debate. I see that admin is playing devil's advocate, and I also am playing devil's advocate, this will be an very exciting debate, as we are both playing devil's advocate.

Observations

O1: The resolution is, "That children should not be allowed out alone at night." I have to say that children should not be allowed in night alone, when my opponent has to say that children should be allowed alone in the night. Therefore the BoP in this debate is shared in this debate.

Argument 1: Night is very dangerous

First of all, just to say this, this is A VERY BIG disadvantage for me, because it is hard to argue my side. But I will try to argue it the best I can.

Subpoint 1: Criminals

As admin said it, there are three main reasons why criminals strike at night. The first is that it is dark, so it will be hard to witness the crimes. The second is that there are less people in the dark, so it will be harder to witness the crimes. Thirdly, many criminals prefer to take some alcohol or other drugs before committing their crimes. 

So, it is dangerous at night. I have shown that. Because it is dangerous at night, children should not go out in night. The resolution is affirmed.

Subpoint 2: Dark

I don't think I only have this feeling, because most people will probably have this feeling also. Night is dark. Dark is scary. Dark is like your basement. Dark woods. That's where we want our children ALONE. They will be scared. They won't go. They should be allowed to go, because it will terrify them. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.

Argument 2: Responsibility

This will be my shortest argument. My argument will be that children are not responsible enough to go out alone. They will most likely be lost, robbed, or kidnapped, as I showed that night is dangerous, and that children are not responsible, they cannot actually go out alone by themselves. Because I have shown that children are not responsible, they should not go out at night. The resolution is affirmed. Because they are not responsible, and not safe for them, they should NOT go out alone. Even my opponent says that it is bad for the children to go alone in daylight, and night would be much worse, as I said it is dark.

Argument 3: Children accidents

Many children die because of accidents. Such as bikes, smoking, etc. Also in the dark. It is not safe for children. So we should leave them alone in the dark, and we should allow that to prevent children accidents. So we should ban from letting child alone in dark, because of the accidents of children.

Conclusion

That's all I've got now. I've said that night is dangerous, so children should not be alone in the night, they don't have responsibility, and that we should prevent child accidents, so we should ban children from going outside in the dark alone. That's all I got!!! The resolution is affirmed. Peace and Love!!!

Vale


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-08 00:15:29
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I'd like to thank my opponent for opening their case. This is a tournament topic so it should be fun.

In this case pro has proposed punishing kids for being out alone at night. It's like those vagrancy laws in times past, where states used to punish people for being down on their luck. What my opponent has missed is the principle reason why kids WOULD be out alone at night. As per usual I'll talk some substantive, and then about pro's case.

Why would they?
We note that responsible parents generally don't put their children in dangerous situations. That's because they love their children and, rationally, don't want them to be abducted or killed.

But not everyone is fortunate enough to have good, responsible parents. And that's why every year, thousands upon thousands of children choose to leave the comfort and security of their homes - they literally feel better off living on the streets than at home. In these situations, children find themselves out alone at night.

It's tragic and requires a lot of discretion. Some of these kids come from homes where they have literally been abused by people who should never be entrusted with the care of anyone, let alone vulnerable persons like children. Police, teachers and other groups who deal with children usually need to go through extensive vetting checks to ensure they're not criminals or likely to be abusive, but there is no such onus on parents or caregivers. No - we just assume that parents wouldn't do something like that. Well sometimes parents are abusive, and shame on us for being so naive. In fact if it wasn't for child runaways, many such cases of abuse would never come to light.

People are never obligated to report a crime and the same is true of runaways, who have that sacred right to remain silent if they so choose. But trained police know that ordinary kids do not ordinarily run away from ordinary homes. Ordinary homes don't send ordinary kids into dangerous areas at dangerous times. So if a child is there it's because that child has been through something terrible.

Currently, police talk to suspected runaways and either return them, or find another home, or make other arrangements if the child can report a crime.

And to compound the stress and harm that child has suffered already, what pro wants to do is punish them. Because pro is putting the responsibility on children here, for being out alone at night. But is it really the child's fault that they're out alone at night? Is it perhaps because they were previously living in a difficult situation? Bear in mind, child abuse is a crime already, so you can't put the parents in double jeopardy. No, this is about blaming and shaming victims, poor kids who've been through a life that no child deserves.

This is particularly true in the case of child abandonment. If some anonymous person leaves a baby out on the street, what are the police going to do, fine the baby?

A quick primer on debate mechanics
Let me get into debate theory for a moment. Resolutions with "should" in them are virtually always model topics and this is no exception. That's because they ask the affirmative to show what Americans call a "plan", to solve for something. It's not like we're debating that we believe it's better for children to be at home or whatever, "should" is something definite, particularly in debate. In fact there are four elements that pro needs to prove:
  1. A problem - why is it bad that children are out alone at night? <- most of pro's analysis has been here
  2. A solution - so far this has been vaguely left to "banning" it
  3. Why the solution solves the problem - haven't heard anything about this
  4. That the solution is net beneficial - ie will society as a whole really be better off if kids are not allowed out alone at night?

Pro has not made any real attempts to prove most of this stuff. He has not shown a clear model - what he actually believes should be done about the problem. He has not shown why that model actually prevents children being out alone at night. And we've heard no analysis on why this is good in a more general, principled sense. These are all simply things pro has assumed. The resolution is clearly a model yet pro has run it like it's a judgment.

In model topics, you'll often find the PM/1st aff will have very formulaic speeches. That's to ensure they have all the required elements in there. It's very structured. What pro has done is given some hodgepodge of reasons why children being out alone at night is a problem. Putting aside the fact that it's obvious and the reason why kids are out there is that them being at home is a bigger problem, pro has not supported the resolution, which requires more than just a belief that it's better for kids to be out alone at night. It requires him to show a model.

With regards to burdens this makes a difference. I can't refute a model that pro doesn't present. I could talk about such models in abstract and why they don't work, but that holds little relevancy to the debate. Therefore the burden is on pro to present a case for the topic. That's called a burden of proof. My burden is merely one of rejoinder - I will refute all the things pro brings up.

I've already told you why I think pro has misdiagnosed the problem, and now will proceed to address the rest of his material.

Night is dangerous
In the modern era, where lighting is common, nights aren't that dark anymore. And since people have cars and stuff, it's rare in the first world for people just to lie in wait in the dark hoping some child strolls past. This is a very romantic idea of criminology. Alcohol or drugs are not always consumed at night, and so on.

At best certain AREAS are more dangerous at night than during the day. Applying a blanket policy to everywhere is a denial of the realities of crime and a giving in to mass hysteria about how crime really happens.

As for the point about kids being scared, the fact they're brave enough shouldn't really be a problem to solve either.

Responsibility
Pro claims kids cannot go out alone by themselves. Hundreds of thousands of runaways around the world, every year, would beg to differ.

Accidents
This happens during the day also. Pro fails to specifically link this to the night because it doesn't.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-09 23:21:59
| Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
      I apologize that I have forfeited last round, it was because I was very busy in time. I will make my rebuttals this round.

      "We note that responsible parents generally don't put their children in dangerous situations. That's because they love their children and, rationally, don't want them to be abducted or killed."

      Yes, the parents which are responsible generally don't put children in dangerous situations. GENERALLY. Means most of the time. Still, some children go out. We should not allow children going out, because it will be more secure. Children can also be sneaking outside in the windows, and go out, their parents not knowing. If we ban them from going outside, then that means they can't go outside.

      "But not everyone is fortunate enough to have good, responsible parents. And that's why every year, thousands upon thousands of children choose to leave the comfort and security of their homes - they literally feel better off living on the streets than at home. In these situations, children find themselves out alone at night."

      In those situations, they have to be outside in the night. It doesn't have to do of being allowed, they have to be outside in those situations. My opponent's argument on this isn't actually about the debate topic. Hence, there is no need pour moi to rebut more.

      "In the modern era, where lighting is common, nights aren't that dark anymore. And since people have cars and stuff, it's rare in the first world for people just to lie in wait in the dark hoping some child strolls past. This is a very romantic idea of criminology. Alcohol or drugs are not always consumed at night, and so on."

      Night is dark. That is not true. The sun isn't in our side, so it is dark. That's science. By dark, I don't mean pitch black, so you can't see anything, only that it is dark.

      "Pro claims kids cannot go out alone by themselves. Hundreds of thousands of runaways around the world, every year, would beg to differ."

      Bare assertion.

      "This happens during the day also. Pro fails to specifically link this to the night because it doesn't."

      I know, exactly, but more in the dark, so they shouldn't be allowed in the night.

      Therefore, vote for Pro.


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-13 13:11:00
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I'd like to thank my opponent for his penultimate round.

At this point in the debate I have presented a compelling reason not to disallow children from being out alone at night - because the reality is that when kids are out alone at night it's a function of poor parenting and not naughty children. Even if child runaways were sneaking out of windows, as pro would have you believe, then that sounds to me like they're escaping something. If they're doing it just to get themselves hurt, as pro seems to think, then it's still a good idea to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Let's look at what pro hasn't given you:
  • A complete model. Pro hasn't provided us with a case that completely addresses the resolution. It is a case of many gaps, three major parts of which I outlined in the first round.
  • A rebuttal. Pro hasn't answered my case except to assert his case is true. Even if it was, that doesn't mean my counter-case showing the actual reasons why children are out at night isn't.
  • A valid case. All pro has done is provided a bunch of assertions of the danger and not backed any of them up with evidence or very much logic.
Maybe pro will explain these things in his final round - I suspect it will be too little, too late.

Pro argued that children won't go outside in those rare instances when they might just causally sneak out. First of all that's not how kids work. Children respond, like all humans, to external forces. If they're not happy being at home and feel the need to sneak out, that's not the child's fault, so it makes no sense to punish them. Indeed that they sneak out is an important signal to law enforcement that something untoward is going on. But moreover that's not how the law works. Kids will sneak out of abusive homes regardless of whether the law says it or not, not just because kids don't care much for or know a lot about the law anyway, but also because the law won't physically stop them sneaking out of windows. If any vulnerable group is mostly likely to ignore a law for the sake of seemingly improving their life, kids are likely to be high on that list.

Pro doesn't think he needs to rebut because such homeless, desperate kids need to be outside. I am glad I have convinced him of that fact. Now he needs to accept that criminalizing their misfortune isn't going to do society any good. You're just going to be compounding the harms of child abuse and neglect. You can't dismiss an entire case with a brief assertion like that, with no analysis, and no material link. Otherwise me just saying "pro's wrong" must be taken to be a substantive rebuttal.

I concede that the night can be darker than the day. Yet most actual abductions happen at day because that's when kids are usually about. Most are abducted by their own family... what my opponent described only happens a few times a year at best, and even then the kids are usually found safely within a few hours. Being dark in an of itself doesn't in any way constitute a threat. If anything it makes potential victims harder to see just as much as it makes potential abusers harder to see. The real reason why kids are out at night is not so they can get themselves abducted but because they are runaways. Therefore, it is better parenting, not further attacking children, that is needed.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-15 03:08:54
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-08-16 22:06:18
CrowJudge: Crow
Win awarded to: admin
2016-08-17 18:51:25
Bi0HazardJudge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
Both sides assumed that being not allowed out alone meant the state making children outside at night illegal. So, I will assume that is what it means in this debate.
PRO made three arguments in the beginning, Night is very dangerous, children's lack of responsibility, higher likelihood of accidents at night.
CON didn't really make a case for why children should be allowed(reverse case), but pointed out the lack of elements PRO needs to prove in their round, and instead pointed out that children run outside at night to escape which is bad parenting. CON rebutted PRO's case and pointed out that their is no benefit of criminalizing children running out alone at night instead of creating a reverse case, so the burden of proof was on PRO(like usual). PRO forfeited and in the next round just responded to some of CON's rebuttals like arguing that simply telling your kids not to is not enough and banning them from going outside will stop them. Pointing out that one of CON's rebuttals doesn't relate to the topic, and there are more accidents at night. CON pointed out that PRO lacked the clear elements and responded to the rebuttals by pointing out they are just assertions and Children out at night is a parenting problem.
Convincing me of CON's win, since CON pointed out the lack of clear elements, and provided a reason why they would be out at night(parenting issue). PRO made a small case, forfeited a round, and responded to some of CON's points while ignoring the elements pointed out.
0 comments on this judgement
2016-08-23 07:38:50
cooldudebroJudge: cooldudebro
Win awarded to: admin

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 15000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 2 days
  • Tournament debate for: Autumn/ Summer Regular Tournament