The optional age restriction.

I'm apologize for incorrectly perceiving the true resolution of this debate, I would like to state for the readers that it was never clearly stated. 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. In regards to the top percentile of debaters on this site being under the age limit: 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. This is evidence enough of why an age restriction, though not necessary, is beneficial for the debaters who so choose to use it. 2. My opponent has conceded the logicality of such an action. 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. 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. 4. "one can simply challenge a member that meets their criteria. " 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. Although my opponent has advocated manually choosing the partner in which to debate, this accomplishes the same task. The person who would be specifically choosing who they are debating (age-wise) if they so desire. Since the age restriction is an optional measure of this site, and manually choosing a debater based on age is an optional measure of this site, then you can logically equate my opponent advocating of manually choosing a debater based off of age "their criteria" with the optional facility of choosing a pool of debaters based on age. I hope this logic has made sense. To sum up the argument so far (and I would like to apologize to readers for its lack of factual evidence) My opponent has conceded 1. Up until the age of 23 the human mind is not fully developed, and therefore a debater over the age of 23 would have an unfair advantage over a child at the age of 15. 2. Sending a message in most cases will resolve the age problem 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. Therefore I have negated my opponents resolutions that 1. Age restrictions "suck" 2. The restriction of a mature debater who is under the age restriction cannot be resolved.