Children 5 years or older should be allowed to consent to sexual activity

Oh, I just noticed that I didn't provide the links to the sources in my previous round. I'll do that now: ROUND 1 SOURCES: [1] http://sites.ed.gov... [2] I couldn't find the exact source I used for this, but other sources showing that kids that young are tried as adults include these two: http://www.usatoday.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... Ok, now to move onto rebuttals, I'll number each of my arguments that correspond to each paragraph, starting with the paragraph that begins with "Since Rape in General is a Horrible thing..." 1} While regret is something that could likely occur, this isn't a violation of the child's rights. You would need to explain what right is being violated, since I don't see any right that is, based on what society agrees upon for what rights we have. If regret was all that was needed to prove a violation of rights occurred, we would be jailing many more people for supposed rapes just because the person regretted consenting to the sex, even though they did in fact consent to begin with. It's inevitable that we will feel regret at some point in our lives, but what one person feels regret for, another person may not feel regret for at all. So why should an activity be illegal for all kids just because some of them will feel regret afterwards? Many of them won't feel regret and will be happy they engaged in such activity at such a young age in order to gain experience. I agree that there would likely be a lot of strain on the child's anal or vaginal body parts, but this is still not a violation of a right since there is consent to this happening. The child would be consenting to this strain. Also, this strain would most likely only happen between adult and child, I don't think it would happen between two children nearly as much. However, children aren't technically allowed to consent to sex between themselves either. 2) Knowledge and experience are two different things. What my opponent talks about here is knowledge, not experience. Knowledge is, nonetheless, very important. However, children could be taught at a younger age about sex in order to solve this problem that my opponent pointed out. It's not like we can't solve this problem by teaching them about it at or before age 5. My opponent did argue that there is no reason to teach kids at a young age about sex, but there would be if they were allowed to consent to sexual actions. Plus, children DO in fact engage in sexual behavior, if nothing else, out of curiosity, so there is in fact already reason to teach them about sex, std's, etc. We are doing a disservice to children by not informing them of the risks of engaging in sexual behavior, such as touching or sucking on genitals of other children. As shown here, children do in fact engage in sexual activity: [1] I can also confirm this is true because as a kid, I did some sexual exploration too, even as young as 4 as I remember. So, I now ask my opponent, why do we keep children ignorant of the fact that when they explore sexual organs, they may contract a disease from that? Is it really moral to keep children ignorant of this when they themselves are doing activities with other children that can cause the spread of such diseases? Unless we kept our children away from other kids, it's pretty much inevitable that they will do the "I'll show you 'mine' if you show me 'yours'" proposition and kids go even further than that already. 3) While I would agree that children should not be tried as adults, the fact of the matter is they are. When I pointed out that children are being tried as adults, I was mostly trying to point out an inconsistency here. Our society sees children as old enough to be held responsible for criminal actions, yet doesn't see them as responsible for sexual actions. I wasn't trying to argue FOR trying kids as adults, I was merely pointing out an inconsistency to argue for my position. ROUND 2 SOURCE: [1] https://depts.washington.edu...