Young people between the ages of 13-17 are able to make an argument that can be used in a debate.

>>I don't think that younger people can be good debaters, they have barely lived a few years and only base their arguments on book or obtained knowledge, not natural intelligence or experience. This argument has nothing to do with the topic. This says nothing about a 13-17 year old person being able to formulate an argument. This only says that 13-17 year olds are unable to be good debater, which is not true. You claim that the fact that they do not have experience, but can only base their arguments upon books or obtained knowledge. However, even though this statement may be true, your argument is not. For instance, let us assume that there is a debate going on right now about abortion. If I do and debate it, am I not qualified for debating it even though I might know people personaly who have had abortions or have had the thought of having one? Just because I was not the one needing the abortion, does not mean that I am not qualified to debate about abortion. >>13-17 year olds haven't lived life enough to actually know what is right or what is wrong. I do not think this is an accurate statement. Are you saying that because I am 13, I do not know what to do when someone asks me to break my friend's leg? Of course not. I know that breaking my friend's leg on purpose would be wrong. Therefore, I have proven you wrong in this statement. >> Even though if they hav eone a few debates that doesn't mean that they are the best at debating. I never said that 13-17 year olds are the best at debating. I am just saying that 13-17 year olds are able to form arguments for a debate. >>I think that the question shouldn't be that they can make a debatable argument but if they are really good. But the debate is about if the can make a debatable argument. If you wanted to debate about whether 13-17 year olds are really good debaters, and not the topic for this debate, then you should not have debated me. >>Of course they can make a good argument but that doesn't mean that they have enough experience to be the best. You are just agreeing with me. I am not twisting your words for my own means, I am copying word for word what you said (ahem, sagarous). Again, this debate is about whether or not 13-17 year olds can create a debatable argument. Not whether they have enough experience to be the best. >>An example that they are not always the best is your previous argument, you shouldn't base your argument in what your friends have done or accomplished. If you think you are a good debater and go to a college debating team, you'll get killed if you have a weak argument like that (no offense intended) I agree, that was not the best argument that I have ever made. However, it was still a debatable argument. Now to elaborate on my points: Seeing as I have put forth an argument that works, and my opponent has tried to refute it, I have proven that 13-17 year olds are able to create arguments that can be used in a debate. Also, my opponent is a 13 year old. He has put forth arguments, albeit arguments for a wrong topic, but arguments none the less. Therefore, he is helping me prove my topic, and because I have proven my topic with my own arguments, and my opponent is merely helping me prove my topic, I should win this debate.