EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That children should not be allowed out alone at night

3 points
1 point
adminadmin (PRO)
I thank my opponent for the opportunity to do this exciting topic.

Being out alone at night is dangerous even for fully grown adults. Adults have often been violently attacked, kidnapped, raped, mugged, harvested for their organs, bitten by vampires, run over by a car and all manner of other terrible things. If being outside alone at night is dangerous for an adult, who is at least somewhat capable of defending themselves, how much more dangerous must it be for the poor defenseless children of the world, who are not? Society has a duty to protect its most vulnerable members from harm, especially when those members are the very future of that society. It is in the name of protecting our kids from real dangers, which devastate families and whole communities, that I'm proud to propose this motion.

My model
By a standard law, all people below the age of 13 should be required to be off public land (streets, parks etc) unless directly supervised by an adult above the age of 18 (adults with certain criminal convictions being disqualified), from when the sun sets to when the sun rises. An exception to this law would only exist for life-endangering emergencies. City councils / regional authorities will also be empowered to designate areas of public land where the law is not to be enforced because police presence there is adequate to protect children throughout the night even when not supervised directly. When police officers find a child out alone at night, they shall return the child to their legal guardian and issue that guardian a small penalty fine. Anybody who looks under the age of Justin Bieber may be required to provide ID to officers, for which a school-issued ID would suffice.

My model has two incidental benefits. First, with the higher demand for school IDs, there would be greater incentive for teenagers to stay in school. To avoid being expelled they'll have to somehow engage with learning. Learning stuff takes away time to do criminal stuff, so you'll probably see less youth crime. A second benefit, which is particularly relevant for third-world countries, is that the proposed law forces governments to take responsibility for so-called "street children" - the orphans and homeless children of the world for whom living rough on the streets is the only option. These kids are particularly vulnerable so anything that helps them is a benefit.

Why criminals strike at night
First, I intend to establish what's so special about the night, that causes criminals to be less likely to act during the daylight. There's three main reasons.

First, the night is dark. It is difficult to see stuff at night. This makes it harder for witnesses to witness your crimes. It makes it harder for any victims to identify you. It makes it more likely that the victim themselves will make a mistake, like fumbling while looking for their cellphone to call for help, or taking a wrong turn and ending up in some dangerous neighborhood. Basically, attacking at night makes it more likely your strike will be successful.

The specific issue doesn't even need to be criminal. Accidents are more likely to happen at night too. Children can trip and twist their ankles in their forest, or get chased by a wild dog, or run over by a truck that forgot to turn the lights on. All these are made far more dangerous by the fact that it's dark, so victims can't see the issues coming so well.

Secondly, few people are out at night. Most people don't go strolling about the park at night, but prefer to engage in activities such as eating dinner or sleeping. As such, they are unlikely to witness or intervene in a crime committed on public land at night. Less witnesses means a lower chance of being identified and punished for ones crimes. It also means police need to do wider patrols since they can't rely on callouts, so police are more sparse.

Thirdly, many criminals prefer to take some alcohol or other drugs before committing their crimes. This is why these acts are often described as being deranged, or the work of a madman - more often than not they actually really are. At night is when everybody goes out for a drink, both good and bad people. When the bad people see an opportunity on their way back they will be quick to seize it.

Attacks against children
It is true that the majority of the attacks against children take place in the child's own home, or some other private location. But this isn't because children are safe there - it's because responsible parents already recognize this danger and keep their children indoors at night. By affirming this motion we reinforce responsible parenting behavior and nudge more irresponsible parents into taking better care of their children. While the majority of parents do this, the problem is still relatively significant. Lack of supervision is the number one factor in child neglect cases. While this includes unsupervised time at home, the message that kids need to be supervised on the street at night is probably a pretty generalisable one to other circumstances. It might get them more conscious about child safety with specific things they need to be doing.

Even walking alone during daylight hours is unsafe for children, and police will regularly warn parents about this sort of thing already when it happens. This model is aimed at stopping the worst offenders and keeping all our communities safer thereby.

In principle at least, the idea that the government should be allowed to step in and override parental authority on where children are allowed to go is very well established and important. You can't generally take a child into a brothel, for instance. In this case, the dangers of the night are amplified manifold by the comparative helplessness of children.

Staying Safe
While the main aim of the law is targeted at caregivers, the law also teaches children an important lesson about keeping themselves safe. An adult has much better judgement about which situations are dangerous and which are not. It also teaches children about what risks there are, and encourages them to take responsible adults along whenever they do something that might be dangerous.

The overall message of personal safety is important not only immediately, but in the child's later life as well. It can help develop awareness skills that enable us to avoid dangerous situations and enjoy awesome, fulfilling lives.

While the need for independence comes later during teenage years, children actually need significant amounts of supervision doing their younger years. While getting lost one night may not seem like a big issue for most adults, for children it can have very serious consequences. First, most obviously, many children have medical issues that they cannot attend to themselves. Since most medicines are to be kept out of reach of children, they are unlikely to have anything on hand to save their own lives with.

Furthermore, there are mental and behavioral issues. The feeling of abandonment isn't a great one. It can cause depressive disorders and antisocial behavior as children seek to abandon the society that they believe abandoned them. That's not good for their development, particularly socially, but also mentally more generally.

The resolution is affirmed.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-12 13:55:21
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)

I'd like to open by thanking my opponent for that entertaining first argument. In this debate his side needs to convince you that you can't be trusted to look after your own children to the extreme point that the Government actually needs to legislate a manditory curfew. Making a convincing case for the Government removing MORE rights from its citizens is always a delicate task and I think he's done a stellar job.

That being said, there are some important issues that he will need to address.
First let's consider the big picture here. My opponent has identified a problem. He has presented irrefutable evidence that children below the age of 13 are roaming the streets of our cities, after dark, alone; and has presented strong statisical evidence that shows they are being attacked, kidnapped, raped, mugged, harvested for their organs, run over by cars, chased by dogs and bitten by vampires... except that, well, he hasn't has he?
In fact he's presented NO evidence that this is even a problem at all!

Is this a problem?

The fact is that while, with the possible exception of the Vampires which Twilight teaches us are far too moody and melodramatic to actually notice things that transpire in the Human world, all these things he mentions DO exist and are possible outcomes for a child just as they are for an adult, and in fact, just as they are for a child WITH an adult - there has been little to no research done on this subject. His proposal that we parents should hand over right to raise our children to a Nanny State based on his paranoia is simply laughable.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume for a minute that there might actually be a problem here to fix. Whose responsibility should it be? The Parent's or the Government's? Of course it is the Parent's responsiblity.
Who is more motivated to see the children grow up to live a long and happy life? The Government or the Parents? Again, obviously it is the Parents. (In fact depending on the state of the nation, an over-population of citizens can lead to a lot of problems for a cash-strapped Government!) 

Firstly - there is no evidence that a problem even exists, but secondly, if it did exist - there's no reason why it should be up to the Government to legislate it. Making sure your kids are safe from danger is an act of Parental love. If we need an Governmental LAW to force us to display that love... then the vampires have already won.


Problems with PRO's model:

Enforcement - Obvious question but by his own admission, there are not enough Police at night - how does PRO suggest we enforce this curfew? Most previous attempts at a city-wide curfew have taken place during wartime occupation and are enforced by the Military. And these were easier, because they were only looking for people, rather than having to differentiate between ages.
In 2006, the cost of adding just an extra 1000 policemen to NZ's force was estimated at over 1 billion dollars. PRO has not provided us any estimate of the numbers of extra staff that would be required to enforce this curfew, but it would be reasonable to assume that it would exceed several billion dollars in extra cost. At 2006 prices.

Most crime takes place during the Day - Again with the exception of vampires, all of the crimes and accidents my opponent has mentioned have a far higher incidence of happening during the day as opposed to the night. Ironically for some of the exact reasons my opponent has mentioned. Criminals need to see as well, and they like to go out drinking just as much as honest folk. More maybe. And it should be mentioned that anyone specifically targetting kiddies is far likely to attack immediately before and after school hours because at night it would be unusual to see kids alone. For PRO's model to work it really needs to extend to the day as well. And make no mistake, if it passes - that WILL be the next step.

Homelessness is already covered - In most countries of the world, there are already numerous laws that authorities can invoke to get Homeless street kids off the street and into homes. There are also laws that can be invoked requiring children below the age of 13 to attend school. Maybe if these issues are important to the Government, they should stop making up extra laws and start enforcing the ones they have?


Counter model: 
Having established that Kiddies are poor defenceless sausages and that there IS a minority of society that is trapped somewhere between actual legal neglect and an ideal loving relationship, the Government should take just one of those Billions of dollars, which they obviously have just laying around there, and increase the public awareness of the problem. They should promote community watch programs, increase education and support networks for failing Parents and increase efforts to identify and correct seriously troubled homes.
They should then take another of the Billion dollars and throw a big party - during the day - and give everyone a day off work, because who doesn't like a party on a public holiday?
The last Billion should obviously go towards stamping out that vampire problem once and for all because, damn. It's 2014. Come on.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-13 17:30:29
| Speak Round
adminadmin (PRO)
I thank my opponent for continuing the debate.

The very fact that my opponent has seen need to introduce a counter-model shows that he concedes there is a problem that needs to be solved. Since he challenged me on it I'll show that the danger is real anyway, but primarily this debate is about what the nature of the solution should be. Furthermore, we both seem to agree that responsible parents do not let their children out alone at night. In effect, while we disagree with minor details regarding the model, we both accept the resolution - that children should not be allowed out alone at night. I challenge con to tell us why a child should ever be allowed out alone at night, which he kind of needs to do anyway to win this debate.

Proof the dangers are real
Con agrees that children are more helpless than adults. Even if one single child is harmed from being out alone at night, that's a problem I'm glad to be solving. Therefore I intend to show that at least one adult has suffered the harms I mentioned, and the impact on children logically follows.

But those are just statistics - here are some more personal stories. Take young April Jones. One night her parents let her play outside because she had been a good girl. It was not long before she was kidnapped and brutally murdered.

Azaria Chamberlain. One night she was camping near Uluru in Australia (that place with the huge rock) when her family failed to supervise her, and she was eaten by a passing dingo.

PJ Avitto. Tragically stabbed to death on a public elevator.

"Arial". One night she was abducted by aliens. Here's a video of her talking about how it was.

This all complements my more theoretical evidence from last round to show that children being unsupervised at night is actually a real problem that we need to solve. A quick glance around the net shows that all too many parents are more than happy to allow their children to play outside at night unsupervised.

Oh, and here's a source showing that monophobia is very common in young children.

Why supervision solves for harms
While it is common for unsupervised children to be attacked when at night alone, unsupervised children are relatively easy targets because they are defenceless. There have been a small number of isolated incidents when adults and children have been attacked together, but the occurrence is extremely rare. Being a child and being alone are the two biggest risk factors for dangers in public at night. Both together is a perfect disaster.

There are several reasons why the dangers are much less with an adult. First, with their increased life-experience and more responsible outlook, adults have a better instinct for what is and what is not a dangerous situation. An adult would know, for example, how unusual it would be for a total stranger to offer a ride without some malicious intention. A child might have more trouble recognizing that threat.

Second, adults are also more knowledgeable and better able to respond to emergencies after they arise. From being able to offer medical help to being more likely to carry a cellphone, adults are a useful thing to have around when you're a child stuck alone in the dark. More generally, being able to solve problems together typically yields better results than trying to solve problems on your own.

Third, attackers are less likely to attack pairs. The logic is simple - pairs of people can defend themselves better, and provide twice as much evidence to ensure you are caught. If would-be attackers can find somebody more vulnerable, they'll default to them. It's the old "divide and conquer" adage.

Finally, adults can fight back much better. While pinches and eye gouges from little kids may be a bit annoying, imposing your will on an adult is much, much more difficult. Not attacking groups that includes adults is a fundamental rule of safety for anyone who wants to attack children. It follows that children out alone at night WITH an adult are safe.

While it is true most crimes do take place during the day, that doesn't mean we should ignore the terrible and all-too-real threats that lurk in the dark. Dealing with daytime threats is another model for another debate.

Can't we just trust parents?
If the status quo was working, then no unsupervised children would be attacked at night. Both of our models make the protection of children ultimately the responsibility of parents or some other responsible adult. It is true that they ought to have the greatest stake in the protection of their children. The unfortunate reality is that, however, this trust can occasionally be misplaced.

The reason why child abuse and neglect are even crimes is because just sometimes, we can't trust a child's guardians to act in the child's best interest. Merely telling people "don't beat up your kids" hasn't stopped violence against children, even when it has been originated in the child's own family. To protect our children, sometimes we do need laws that limit the rights of parents. I cited an example of that last round, how parents can usually take their kids to work, but not if their parents are working as prostitutes.

In effect, I am simply expanding the scope of a law that already exists. In much of the world, such as most of the USA, it's technically illegal to leave any child below the age of seven unsupervised even on private property, such as in the child's family's own backyard. Leaving kids unsupervised is dangerous, just as being out at night is dangerous. It is a miracle, and only through the means of responsible parents, that more children are not seriously harmed.

Con is correct to point out much of the world already covers it. Some of the world, however - specifically much of the third world, where this is most needed - does not.

In addition, it is easy for police to turn a blind eye. It's hard to prove some random wandering child is homeless so most police officers don't even bother to question them. It's also sometimes difficult and traumatic for the child to admit it. This model forces police officers to take in all children they find and treat them fairly.

Pro is concerned about the cost of my model. The problem with that is the marginal cost is actually minimal because the problem is minimal. Police officers rarely see children walking the streets at night, so enforcing the law would be simple and straightforward. It would require no special resources the police don't already have, nor would it require an abundance of police time. Even if new officers need to be added to the force to deal with these cases, they would not be a great majority.

Because bad parents don't typically like to admit to being bad parents, con's model would have to be to educate ALL parents. Because his solution is not targeted to the problem, it will inevitably be at a much higher cost. In the US, a single police officer costs the justice department an average of $116,500 per year. At con's $1 billion price point, I could therefore add 8,500 officers to the force, and still save $2 billion. That's almost a half of the NZ police force. All to hand out a couple of fines. Unless he means one of those old British billions. Then the number of officers would be astronomical.

It should also be noted that through the fines, though small, the cost of implementing this model would be offset.

Preventative solutions are great, but they are totally ineffective. Unless they are backed up by concrete consequences, nobody takes them seriously. Drink driving is a good example - while telling everybody not to drink and drive is awesome, unless we were to actually arrest drunk drivers, they would still be a much greater menace on our roads when they exist. This, ultimately, is the biggest problem with con's model.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-16 17:13:10
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)
Again, I thank my opponent for his round. 
In this round my opponent has attempted to prove that children under the age of 13 wandering the streets at night and being attacked by vampires is actually a problem which requires legislation. I'd like to quickly address some of his "proofs":

"CON concedes the problem exists" - This is a classic half truth. Yes, this side of the house does concede that minors being allowed to wander the streets at night is not an ideal situation. In this sense we concede that the problem deserves a solution. HOWEVER - we do NOT concede that the problem is big enough to warrant the government spending time, money and resource  on it to the degree that my opponent would like. We do NOT concede that the problem of>Quick reminder of the criteria we're arguing:  "By a standard law, all people below the age of 13 should be required to be off public land (streets, parks etc) unless directly supervised by an adult above the age of 18 (adults with certain criminal convictions being disqualified), from when the sun sets to when the sun rises."
Example 1: Night of the Long Knives - the majority of these attacks took place within the home. Kids affected were under the supervision of an adult. 
Example 2: Chibok schoolgirl kidnapping - the attack took place in a school, not>Example 3: Azaria Chamberlain - The child was asleep in a tent. There was a group of adults around the campfire outside the tent, who were periodically checking in>Example 4: PJ Avitto - This attack took place at 5:30pm. According to the weather report, sunset>Example 5: Arial - There is no evidence to suggest that this attack even took place. Certainly Arial is suggesting here that aliens take kids from their bedrooms, again placing this scenario outside the scope of our debate. 

In conclusion, it is highly unlikely that PRO's expensive law would have prevented ANY of these terrible attacks taking place, and it would not have given us any more charges to levy against those responsible. In short, it is a pointless law.

Can't we trust the parents? In short - YES we can. We have to. Looking after their child's welfare is THEIR responsibility. We have already got laws in place to ensure that. We need to trust in those laws. 
PRO seems to be suggesting that preventing harms to 100% of the minors in the world is an achievable target. I regret to inform him that this is sadly not the case. His proposed law would not help him achieve this either because there is no motivation. Parents who let their kids wander the streets at night are already vilified among their peers. They either change or they don't care. By his own admission, the fine for allowing your kids to go out alone would be small, so that's not a motivation either. For evidence that fines are an ineffective measure, I submit every parking infringment notice ever. 
His law removes rights from citizens and places a restriction that most good parents already impose. It costs the taxpayer money and creates more non-crime babysitting work for Police. And at the end of all that, it will still not get us any closer to his 100% safety ideal.

Cost - this is a major concern. If we are talking about drafting a law which we already know is not going to do much to address the actual problem, but will send a message - then we NEED to know how much it is going to cost us! In the last round we tossed around some pretty big numbers. This round PRO has assumed that we actually DO have a billion bucks to spend>
The spirit of this debate is a sound parenting principle, but drafting the legislation my opponent wants us to draft is an expensive, ineffective and morally questionable exercise. Vote CON on prop this debate.  

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-19 09:59:36
| Speak Round
adminadmin (PRO)
I thank my opponent for continuing his case. This is the last round, and I'm going to use it for my summary.

Right from the outset of this debate I made one thing clear - this change will have no effect on the vast majority of society. Indeed, the only reason one ought to make this change is because in the rare minority of cases where it does happen, it's massively problematic and harmful. That's been consistently conceded by side negative. There's two main issues at the end of this debate:

1. Are children ever being left out alone at night?
I told you that even if it only happens once in a million years, that's bad enough to be considered a serious issue. At no point in this debate has con argued against the immense damage to a child's welfare that being allowed out alone at night can bring.

As I told you, the very fact con decided to bring up a counter-model admits there's an issue worth spending at least 3 billion dollars on here. That practically concedes also that the problem is significant, as that's a significant sum of money. Nonetheless he has argued against my more specific evidence. In the interests of brevity I'll simply say that what he has not refuted from it is that the night is dangerous, that children are vulnerable, and that supervision could have solved for the harms. I also showed criminals are more likely to strike at night, and that being unsupervised in daylight is already being somewhat successfully policed.

2. Is it a sufficiently significant problem to warrant government intervention?
Parents who beat up their kids could be argued to have no motivation from child abuse laws too. The point is that government must act not when a problem is widespread, but when it is harmful. Solving issues that have no impact serves no purpose for a government, but solving rare but impactful issues keeps society running smoothly.

Con's entire message is that we can trust parents, but then he also agrees some parents don't care much about their kids. My question to all the voter is - can we trust the bad parents? Or do we sometimes need safety nets to ensure that kids who, through no fault of their own, end up in a dangerous situation, do not necessarily end up significantly harmed.

Minor issue: effectiveness
Pro has compared the fines I proposed to parking tickets. I can possibly accept some rather heartless adults would see it that way, but not any child. Being in that stressful situation, and then dumped in a police car, taken to the station etc, is going to send a message to kids that being outside in the dark is taken very seriously. The reason why the punishment cannot be crippling is because you don't want to victimize them, since the kids are quite possibly the victims themselves of serious neglect. This model would achieve helping them to stay safe.

Minor issue: cost
As I've argued, this isn't a significant factor. You can't put a price on public safety. Murder is expensive to enforce but a great law to have, even though it happens rarely. I've also shown the cost would be minimal to police because the problem is minimal, that the cost is inherently offset by the value of the fines, and that the spending is effective as every dollar actually is spent on the problem, unlike the counter-model which has to target everybody. Or put another way, it targets all the reasonable parents of the world with annoying public service ads just as much as bad parents.

Strangely, con has argued neglectful caregivers WILL respond to annoying ads but NOT to fines.

I also showed two significant auxiliary benefits that would be awesome.

Thank you everyone, and stay safe!

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-22 09:39:21
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)

Hi Everyone! Thank you to my opponent for the entertaining debate. I appreciate that it was not by choice that he had the weak side of this argument and I appreciate him giving it the old college try.
This is the final round and I'll be using this to sum up my side.

The resolution being disputed here is that children should not be allowed out alone at night. There were a number of ways that PRO could have chosen to interpret that resolution but he is elected to define it as an issue so serious that it requires government intervention. "Children" have been defined as minors below the age of 13. Agreeing with PRO's argument means agreeing that we, the people, should cede the rights of free citizens to be in a public place by themselves. PRO's proposed law would indicate that a Parent's own sense of love and responsibility is not enough, and that the faceless government should step in and mandate a curfew for our kids. 

One of my primary points has been to ask the simple question... WHY?

PRO has not been able to give us any evidence that minors being alone in a public place after dark is a problem that needs fixing! At best, he has given several isolated examples - all of which were easily defeated, (Although half my answers got cut off!) and together they fail to establish a pattern. The children were not unsupervised in most of his examples, most of them were on private property, and some of them didn't even take place at night.

By contrast I've pointed out that ALL of the harms he has proposed are far more likely to occur during daylight hours anyway - a point which he has already conceded.
His one point is the fact that if we can even save ONE child's life through these draconian laws, then giving more freedoms away to the nanny state is worth it. This is a flawed argument and he knows it. When I suggested that for us to start down this road chasing the ideals he would have us chase, this would not just stop at a curfew after dark but would likely be extended to all areas of our life - he basically conceded the point saying that that would be a discussion for the future.

To be perfectly clear here - PRO has provided NO factual evidence that a problem of unsupervised minors actually exists. Based on this LACK of evidence that minors are actually wandering the streets and parks at night unsupervised - he wants us to pass a law enforcing an age-based curfew.


Cost has been the other major issue in this debate. PRO has failed to provide any solid figures for how much this law would cost. When I provided evidence showing that just 1000 of New Zealand's finest was estimated to cost the taxpayer 1 billion dollars annually - he responded with a counter claim that that figure would actually provide many more. That's nice to say, but my figures were sourced. They included the REAL cost of more police. Not just extra manpower on the ground, but all the extra facilities that are needed when the number of police rise. Bigger Police stations, Courtrooms and Prisons, more rehabilitation programs, higher medical and equipment costs, etc etc. When I challenged PRO to explain or even source his figures, it was like Simon and Garfunkel up in here! (Sounds of Silence reference there)
The truth is that PRO has no idea of the true cost of imposing a curfew like the one he's suggesting, and since he also has no idea how big the problem is, we have to assume that he's asking us to sign off a blank cheque to save one life. Well, maybe one life since he can't actually prove that either. Oh and also, since many of his examples of minors being killed, kidnapped, stabbed and abducted by aliens, happened in scenarios not covered by this resolution - that dream of a 0% minor mortality rate is still not happening with this law.

My counter proposal was simple. Use a fraction of that money and devote it to education. Educate the Parents and educate the kids. These programs have been proven to work, as evidenced by most of PRO's own examples. I deliberately haven't built on my proposal because, quite frankly, I haven't needed to! Educating people about the dangers of unsupervised minors - not just at night but even during the day, has been going on for decades and the fact that THERE IS NO PROBLEM with this, is evidence enough that this program is working.

Regarding the initial resolution, I would hope that you would find, as I do, that while it is NOT ideal for minors to be out at night alone, there is no simply need to legislate that fact.
A vote for CON on this resolution is a vote for independent responsibility. It's a vote to say, "We are not idiots. Let US be the boss of what's safe for us!"
Finally, it's a loud statement to the government to stop passing pointless and expensive laws on little research to attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that won't work.


Seriously, unless you think we should all live in a little bubble and trust the state to decide what's best for us - you should vote CON.
I can't vote, but if I could, that's what I would do.  

Since I still have space, I'll leave you with one more activity that PRO would probably like to see banned:  VOTE CON!



Return To Top | Posted:
2014-06-25 05:08:49
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Cool. Another loss based on RFD... Hope I can resolve THAT before the tournament! Lol
Posted 2014-07-09 08:01:26
... and fixed. Sorry if you got a few notifications in a row there. I think whoever did the transfer in the end copied an old version of the determine-winner code that must have caused a conflict. Glad I spotted it before the tournament :D
Posted 2014-07-09 06:20:03
Result on this looks wrong. Debugging.
Posted 2014-07-09 05:53:22
Smilies and links should work in debate comments now too (fingers crossed) :)
Posted 2014-06-22 15:59:28
Yay! :)
Posted 2014-06-22 15:54:46
Testing new feature that should allow the following characters to display in debate comments: ><
Posted 2014-06-22 15:54:34
Nah, I'm good. For what it was worth, I think the main points got expressed although I had a couple of nice cutting remarks about your examples that ironically got cut themselves!

To be honest, I'll consider it a win if anyone actually votes on this debate at all! Shame really, because it's been a fun one.
I'll pay more attention from now on.
Posted 2014-06-22 15:53:35
haha - that should read... "greater than" symbol displaying.
Unfortunately I typed the argument directly into the browser and although I did check it in the preview window before posting, I was mostly focussed on the beginning and the end. Although I didn't notice it missing, it IS possible that it was removed at that stage and I just didn't notice it.
I'll pay more attention this time.
I was using chrome.
Posted 2014-06-22 15:51:19
Interesting. Rebecca reported similar issues for the salmon debate.

I can magically rewind this debate to the start of round 2 if you like? Sill trying to figure out what exactly causes it. I think it's related to the system that makes sure the argument is kept to under a certain amount of characters when in html mode, but not sure.
Posted 2014-06-22 15:51:11
hey I just noticed that my round 2 argument didn't display correctly. There are whole sections of text missing and a "
Posted 2014-06-22 15:48:37
Made it just in time :D
Posted 2014-06-12 13:56:04
I foolishly just lost my entire argument by not saving adequately. Grrr...

Thinking I should make an auto-save option.
Posted 2014-06-11 16:25:05
Haha - I swear I just join these debates to find out what the topic is!
Posted 2014-06-09 14:05:20
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-07-03 02:38:27
TophatdocJudge: Tophatdoc
Win awarded to: admin
Both debaters argued very well in my opinion. I was persuaded by Con's argument that majority of the problems with children happen during the day. This was a key point because if crime is far more likely to occur in the day, shouldn't unsupervised children in the day be more worrisome due to higher chances of incidents taking place. However, the resolution is about children being unsupervised at night. It seemed Pro was more concerned with eliminating the chances of incidents altogether whether it be 1 child or 1,000 children. Con's argument fell just a bit short of winning because the counter proposal seemed to put too much faith in parents who may be irresponsible.
2 users rated this judgement as good
3 users rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-07-07 07:13:40
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None