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

Since the person who accepted my earlier debate on this was a troll who is notorious for accepting debates and not debating seriously by re-creating new accounts all of the time, I am redoing this debate with a requirement to have a rank as good or better than mine. If you wish to debate me and are a lower rank, please comment and I may or may not choose you as my opponent. Note: any argument that is based off of "society says so" or anything that doesn't actually provide logical reasons why children can't consent will be dismissed. Structure of debate: Round 1: Opening statement/Main Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Conclusion/state why you believe you won I believe that in instances where a child 5 years or older agrees to do something sexual with an adult or other child, it should be legal. The reason why I chose 5 years is because 90% of the brain is developed by age 5[1]. To claim they are unable to consent by the time they have 90% of the brain developed seems difficult to believe. Just as rape is illegal though, rape of children would be illegal too. So if force is used against the child, then it would be illegal. However, if a child agrees to it, I find difficulty with finding what right of the child is violated. If both agree to the sexual activity, just how is any right violated? I believe that specifically for this aspect, the burden of proof lies with con to show how rights are violated when a child participates in sexual activity, so I can't comment more on this. It seems as though majority of people have an impulsive belief that it's wrong for children to engage in sexual activity, but where does that belief come from when a vast majority of the brain is already developed by age 5? I suppose one could argue that the child has less experience, but how else are they supposed to get experience with sexual activity but be involved in it? Someone who waits until they are 16 to have sex is just as inexperienced as a 5 year old who hasn't had sex yet, but for some reason it's viewed as okay to most people for a 16 year old to have sex. Another argument might be that the child doesn't have enough knowledge of the potential negative effects of sex. The only negative things about sex is unexpected pregnancy, and STD's. The former is not a concern for children because a young girl can't get pregnant, and a young boy can't make a person pregnant, so that concern is not really a valid concern at all. As for STD's, the child could be taught at or before 5 about how sexual activity could lead to a "permanent sickness"(this is a term that children would understand) and that should be sufficient for them to make a decision about it. They could also be taught about protected sex. If it's necessary, I would be okay with making unprotected sex between children and an adult to be illegal, but protected sex is not. That way that concern is addressed. Or else, in order for them to have unprotected sex, it requires consent from the parents. In addition, I believe that since children can be tried as adults for murder, then they should be able to consent too. For example, a brother and a sister were tried as adults at ages 12 and 13 [2]. If they can be held responsible as an adult for such actions, then they should also be treated as adults for sex. Otherwise, this is inconsistent. If children are supposedly too young to understand consequences of actions, then they shouldn't ever be tried as adults, yet they often are. Finally, I believe that anything that does no harm to anyone else should be legal. If the child suffers from no psychologically negative effects from the sex, has no interest in going to court, has no interest in getting the person in trouble, then there is no valid reason why it should be illegal.