The optional age restriction.

"1. I'm sorry I did not provide enough clarity with my example. When I state experience I mean that older debaters coming to this site generally have a large amount of prior experience debating. And I do not mean table-talk. Your average Joe (as of now) does not debate on debate. org. This is opinionated, but in some degree logical. Most everyone participating in debates on this site has at least some debate experience outside this site. Yes it is possible that someone who has no debate experience gets on, but for the majority of members, outside debate experience is prevalent. Additionally many of the older debaters (as reason suggests) have more debate experience (high school debate, college debate, professional debate, online debate, etc. ) than perhaps extremely young debaters. " Extremely young debaters, that is those who cannot have any prior experience, aren't even supposed to join. The youngest age you can list is 14. Furthermore, most adults have not had any formal experience recently. Besides policy think tank members, college students, and recent college graduates, most are probably pretty rusty on making an argument. Those in high school and college debate have more current experience. "As I have previously stated that during those years the human brain is developing. My opponent by his non-negation of this topic has conceded the evidence of it. Additionally, since the human brain is developing, it stands to reason that a 18 year old brain is more fully developed than a 15 year old brain. This comparison can be extended for all ages under the age of 23. Thus it can stand to reason why a person the age of 18 would like to have the choice of whether to debate a person with a brain that is more underdeveloped than his. " I agree, that the brain does not finish developing until 23. However, it is a non sequitur that an older person will always be more rational. For example, many of the great philosophers were experts in logic by the age of 12. John Stuart Mill had written something like 5 treatises in logic by the time he was twelve. So the advantage only occurs if the child has equal of less potential than the adult. "However my opponent suggests that sending a speedy message is "discouraging" in the eyes of younger members. As I can not speak of the opinions and beliefs of younger debaters, I can state that sending a speedy message took less than 30 seconds of my personal time. " It is discouraging. It says, as a general statement, that this debater doesn't want to debate you. Although this might not be true, that's what it seems like. "3. I will refrain from further expressing my opinions on this final point as it would only resort to trolling. As I would like to keep this debate, a debate and not a shouting match, I will refrain from commenting. " Of course, let's just not mention it. "That is an exactly a true statement supporting my position. My opponent has suggested that the option allowing a person to choose who they debate is a positive quality of this site. Therefore my opponent has conceded that the age restriction is a positive option of this site. " Different. The age restriction makes broad and often incorrect generalizations. The specific challenge feature does not. "3. The ability to choose who you debate based off your "own criteria" is a positive quality of this site and indirectly that the age restriction which is also optional, is a positive measure. " Generalizations=stereotypes=negative I strongly affirm.