Can a child have an argument?

Originally Posted by Andross

Knowledge pertaining to survival is one thing, but knowledge pertaining to intellectual or philosophical matters is something completely different. A young child's mind, for example, just isn't developed enough to comprehend a system of morality that is more than "good people" and "bad people."

I'd argue that drawing firm lines between good and bad is actually a very good stance on morality, which is muddied with age. Black and white (no racial implications intended) are not your way of judging morality, perhaps, and probably not mine either, but it's A way.

Also, for the definition of a child given, my ten year old sister has better arguments than my mother. And most adults.

I do think that a child can, in terms of philosofy, think and develop like an adult.

And by a child I mean: 8-14

Arguments are essentially a mixture of opinion and evidence - if a young person can sucesfully bring both into an argument then yes, a child can have an argument.

Whether older folk with a superiority complex will listen to their argument is another matter however. Take for example in school, the teacher is always right, even when they are wrong.

I don't think a child as young as 8 could properly articulate his thoughts into a proper claim, statement or proposition in an argument. Past the age of 10, however, I believe a child could develop in ways that allow him or her to properly hold an opinion and defend it.

I honestly don't see why not. Age is no indication of intelligence. Experience may be, but not age. As long as a child can defend their points, they can be respected just like anyone else. In fact, not taking a child's arguments seriously can deprive that child of any personality that child may have and lead them to believe their opinions are wrong.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

I'd argue that drawing firm lines between good and bad is actually a very good stance on morality, which is muddied with age. Black and white (no racial implications intended) are not your way of judging morality, perhaps, and probably not mine either, but it's A way.

It's an illegitimate grasp on morality that only serves the powerful. By grouping people up as "good guys" and "bad guys," the rulers can and will dismiss any logical appeal from those who are outside the "norm" with anti-intellectual, emotion-based arguments. The still-developing brains of children, by and large, are simply incapable of processing the complexities of ethical dilemma, and should therefore have no say in matters of morality.

Originally Posted by Andross

It's an illegitimate grasp on morality that only serves the powerful. By grouping people up as "good guys" and "bad guys," the rulers can and will dismiss any logical appeal from those who are outside the "norm" with anti-intellectual, emotion-based arguments. The still-developing brains of children, by and large, are simply incapable of processing the complexities of ethical dilemma, and should therefore have no say in matters of morality.

What is this I don't even...

Okay, first of all, why the hell are you using a Game of Thrones clip?

Second of all, using a fundamental 'good/bad no middle ground' style of reasoning can/should be something that the powerful should be afraid of. Bad is bad. There can be no weaseling around the facts, and justifying bad actions with mediocre intentions. Once an action has crossed the line, it cannot cross back.

It's not a perfect system, but it doesn't even come close to something that 'only serves the rich and powerful.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

What is this I don't even...

Okay, first of all, why the hell are you using a Game of Thrones clip?

Because it's a perfect model of how a child would behave in a discussion over a man's fate.

Second of all, using a fundamental 'good/bad no middle ground' style of reasoning can/should be something that the powerful should be afraid of. Bad is bad. There can be no weaseling around the facts, and justifying bad actions with mediocre intentions. Once an action has crossed the line, it cannot cross back.

Except people aren't like that. They do not "cross a line" and automatically become a bad person.

Yes, there would be no weaseling around the facts, but that's only because the facts are then only interpreted in a single way.

You might say that killing someone is a "bad thing," but I'd argue that killing a man is a "good thing" if it has a positive net impact on society. Good and evil are concepts for the unintelligent.

It's not a perfect system, but it doesn't even come close to something that 'only serves the rich and powerful.

No. You are never going to win an argument against a tyrant with good publicity by calli]ng him out for doing "bad things."

It accomplishes nothing.

It depends on their maturity not age. For example I'm 19 years old yet I know more about politics and am a better debater than pretty much anybody at my age and even most grown adults. Yet you can't say that for the vast majority of 19 year olds. Not to mention countless "adults' don't know jack ♥♥♥♥ about anything and voted a man to become president simply because of his race.

I believe that children can have a logical argument, as long as they speak clearly and know what they are talking about. No one wants to see a child argue because the child wants to be cool. If you have to tell people you are mature, then that speaks volumes. There are some very mature children that can argue very well and get their point across, so long as they don't do it to get attention.

So my answer is yes, a child can have a logical argument.

From my experience with kids they don't do well with arguments. A lot of time they will argue with you over anything really, but they tend to be easy to beat in these arguments. The main reason being they're young and don't know much about how stuff works. Now this isn't to say that kids don't say some pretty interesting or insightful things. Kids have a unique perspective on the world. They don't see things with all of the preconceptions we do. They tend to see things more plainly and can often times point out how ridiculous we are.

Now there are plenty of people who are older who may be unable to hold an argument do to stupidity or what have you, but in general reasoning skills improve as we get older. It's not intrinsic to our age, but its a trend.

I don't think if you subjected a young child (11 and under) to a debate they would fair very well. They may no some about the discussion, but they probably wont be able to deal with topics that have multiple or no right answers. They may raise certain points of merit, but I think a full argument is out of the question.