The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

I negate the resolution resolved: The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. In understanding why it is wrong to tell someone 16-21, you must first understand the fallacy in her first of 3 points. Attacks on point 1:Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. that is unsupervised. To accept this point is to accept that malicious activity done between these hours, is done by all or a vast majority of juveniles (otherwise why would you limit juveniles from being outside and post this as a reason as for why). Yes, most things (never say nothing) done may not be productive where inventions for society are conserned, but then again you can't say it will always be negative either. And if it's not negative, you have no right to tell someone what they can and can't do unless you're a parent. If a parent allows their juvenile to go out at those times, and they aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have a right to say "Oh, no you can't." More over, let's point toward my opponents use of these words 'Nothing productive happens .' This is to broad. How can you just assume nothing is productive, and then not explain why nothing is productive. Better yet, it's not productive for whom? Just because something that person is doing (let's say a 19 year old is out seeing his gf) doesn't better society, does that mean it's harming society? Not at all. Attackson point 2:A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims. The article my opponent posts says NOTHING about how it protects teens nor what it protects them from. It just simply makes the claim. Blank statements supported by invisible evidence means nothing in a debate. You claim in protects, but then on the other hand can't provide what it may protect them from. If something is to be enforced without the citizens knowing why it's enforced, it's unjust. Why, because the government's job is not to protect an individual better than they can protect themselves simply because they can't. "The resolution presumes that the maker of laws, the government, has better knowledge of what is best for each individual than that individual himself. The individual makes decisions based upon his individual valuation of risks and rewards. The individual may take up some risky activity like hang gliding or smoking that the individual even if he is fully aware of the risks involved." By my opponents stance,she would support the government taking away hang gliding, bungee jumping, smoking, etc. based on what is good for that individual. You cannot be protected from your own values, and when you're dealing with putting people 16-21 on a curfew, that's what we'retalking about. Attacks on 3: A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy. Vandalism, truancy, and loitering don't happen when it gets dark outside [...] It happens when people aren't looking. The way to get rid of it isn't to limit someone from moving around for a certain number of hours, the way to get rid of it is to make it illegal and enforce it with more emphasis. To accept thispoint is to accept that a vast majority or all of themes crimes are committing during these times. Being that it's about equal unless you can prove it's not, this point is ull and void without backing. To stop an 18-21 year old individual from walking around during certain times is to stop a grown man or woman from doing what they want to do, when they aren't in the wrong. It's to oppress an individual from excersizing certain rights, when he/she hasn't done anything wrong. Because of this unfortunate fact, the resolution is false. RESOLUTION NEGATED