Search Results: debate topics

In my criminal law class we were discussing this topic.

Legally you are considered an adult at 18 in the United States. However, that does NOT mean that you do not have the ability to waive your rights before 18.

As it stands now, it is a case by case basis and is based on how well the individual knows the criminal justice system.

For example, when I was 12 I did not know the criminal justice system well enough to be able to legally waive my rights if I were to be interrogated by police.

However, a 12 year old who had been in and out of the foster care system or one who had been in trouble with the law before COULD potentially be old enough to waive his or her rights.

My professor cited an example of a ten year old boy who threatened to call social services on my professor's wife (the wife didn't do anything wrong - just told the boy that had he been her child she would have sat him in time out). My professor argued that that ten year old would have been able to waive his rights because the child knew to call social services and had been in contact with law enforcement to an extended degree.

So we know that it is a case by case basis and that each case is unique.

BUT if you were to assign an age where an individual were able to waive their rights... what would it be?

How young do you think you can go before you can argue concretely that an individual of that age does not understand the rights guaranteed to them by being a citizen of the United States?

Seven too young? Or could a seven year old waive their rights?

All citizens are guaranteed rights the day they are born, but when are they old enough to waive them?

I'd like to stick primarily to ages and not get into the discussion on who waives the rights for them if needed if you determine they're too young to waive their own. But, if you have an opinion on this, please share.

This is just a question. Not looking to debate or start any fights. Just curious on your thoughts.

a) Spanking vs not spanking kids
b) Hitting back women/girls
c) Jerks vs Nice guys
d) Guy can sleep around but girls gets slut shamed
e) Religious debates (believers vs agnostics/atheists)

Kind/generous
Optimistic/cheerful yet fragile and easily broken
Feminine/delicate
Very silly, random, and playful at times
Intelligent when it comes to books and school/naive and inexperienced when it comes to the real world and reality
Intellectual-Loves to study and read on a vast variety of topics
Is very timid/shy and gets frightened easily yet is very strong willed and has courage
Aspires to be a philosopher/scientist
Overly sensitive and emotional
Very bright and determined
Opinionated in academic issues and thoroughly enjoys discussions or debates on intellectual topics
Childlike (not childish) and very innocent
Although she may be intelligent in regards to school, she can be quite clumsy, forgetful, and ditsy at times
Honest/straightforward
Humble/modest
In her free time, she enjoys studying, reading, cleaning/cooking, baking or knitting
As her hobby, she enjoys collecting stuffed animals and voice acting for anime girls (when she is older she wishes to visit the laboratory and experiment daily)
Physically pretty but not beautiful/small and weak voice
Will fight for what she believes in

Another controversial debate from yours truly :) Please try to be polite and stay on topic.

Why are celebrities paid such a high salary? Because their famous? Why are they famous? Just because they've been on a screen or a stage?

Being a musician/performer is a job. You have hours, and you are paid a fee for your time and effort. But getting onto a movie set, or the stage at a state capital only means one thing: You were better at your JOB than someone else.

In my opinion, you should receive a higher pay for being exceptional at your job. But that should NOT grant you special treatment, or ANY entitlement, and I feel their wages are way too high.

Who sets the bar for exceptional singing/acting? You, right? The "common man". And honestly, choosing the best performer it's no different than choosing a brand of soda. They all have a different style and flavor. So, exactly what makes them "better", than one person or another?

Fame is something equated to someone who has performed great deeds. How many of these "famous" people have performed great acts to benefit their fellow man? And how many of these acts occurred BEFORE their fame and fortune made them feel a need to "give back"?

Why aren't soldiers and firefighters (to name a few) being paid several thousand a week? They preform great deeds of sacrifice every day to benefit their fellow man while risking their lives, and well-being of their own families.

I don't hate or envy celebrities, I just feel that this is injustice, and I'm sure many agree and have posed this question many times before.