The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Vox_Veritas
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,589 times Debate No: 63950
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Wylted

Pro

First round acceptance. No semantics or trolling.
Vox_Veritas

Con

I accept, on the condition that my opponent does not use the following argument:
"I didn't say that children should use phones; I only said that children should be ENCOURAGED to use phones!"
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

extend all arguments
Vox_Veritas

Con

First of all, it is agreed that most "phones" these days come with internet access.

Children under a certain age (the maturity of each individual child should be taken to account in determining when a proper age for phone possession is) should not have phones. I've got several reasons.

1. Danger from pedophiles
In between 1 and 5 percent of Americans molest children.
http://www.kgbanswers.com...
Now, obviously all or even most of these are not in prison. That means they're still at large. One avenue for targeting children is the internet. The 50 year old pedophile may pose as a teenager, start dating a 14 year old girl, and after some time has passed and she is totally infatuated with him, ask for nude photos, which she would be happy to provide. He may even suggest that they meet up, and if her infatuation for him is strong enough and she is dumb enough, she will agree to this. Her likelihood of meeting up with him is higher if she is less mature and lacks good judgment, which is more likely in a younger teen. She will meet up with him and he will kidnap her, followed by many many instances of rape until he murders her.
As probably around 2.5% of Americans are pedophiles, and each one is unlikely to stick with just one kid, an American girl has a fairly good chance of being duped into giving nude photos to a pedophile, who may share his photos with all his pedophile buddies. And, there is a valid possibility of her meeting up with a pedophile and getting molested. Even if she consents, it's still not a good idea to let a 50 year old have sex with a 14 year old girl.

2. Addiction to Social Networking Sites
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and DDO (especially DDO) are addictive, and if given the chance a kid will spend their entire day sitting down and using the phone. They will become socially awkward nerds and they will grow unhealthy from all that sitting.

3. Pornography
A teen with internet will have access to internet pornography. He is likely to grow addicted, ruin his life on fleeting pleasure, and become a Nymphomaniac (not related to the user "Nymphomaniac"), AKA a sex addict. Girls won't want to date a pornography addict, and if you believe in a personal God you will notice that pornography is harmful to one's relationship with God.

But, let's assume for a moment that you get your kid a phone without internet. This would certainly shut down many of the above arguments.
Well, such a phone would still have text messaging (unless it predated the 21st century), and text message addiction would become a reality.
Frankly, if a kid needs to call someone, he can ask to borrow someone's phone. He/she doesn't need his/her own phone.

Back to Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

Cell phones keep kids safe. Access to emergency services is in their pockets at all times. Every kid in America can have instant access to police or medical services. This is a safer world for children and one where parents can rest easier at night.

Rebuttals

1. In today's world there is just no denying all the access to technology kids have. Kids need to be taught sooner rather than later how to avoid online dangers.

My opponent quotes a source saying that 2.5% of people are pedophiles and between 1% and 5% molest children. This is fear mongering lies. If you follow his link you'll see they quote their stats from the source I quote (coming up). That source states that between 1% and 5% of teachers molest children. I believe that's where the 1% to 5% number came from. I'm not sure about the 2.5% number. It looks like they cite their stats for the first 10 or so provided but get lazy with the last 30 or so. So these numbers can't be trusted.

http://www.cpiu.us...

Upon reading the stats that are cited on that page. It would seem that most children victims of rape and molestation are assaulted by people they know. 96% of females are raped by people they know. Only a total of 1/7 of victims were assaulted by strangers.

This means cellphones would not likely be a contributing factor to a child getting raped.

I'd say if anything, having a cell phone is a deterrent to a stranger trying to scoop up a kid and rape them.

2. My opponent ha not shown how having a phone causes addiction to porn or social networking and how such addictions would be negative.

That being said, a parent does have the capability of restricting access to certain content on the phone and spotting these addictive tendencies early is probably a good thing.
Vox_Veritas

Con

"In this world there is no denying all the access to technology kids have. Kids need to be taught sooner rather than later how to avoid online dangers."
Teaching is fine. But they won't always listen. Don't you think that most of the high number of underage drinkers have been taught about the risks of alcohol, especially to a youngster? Or course they know! Teenagers are more likely to make foolish and risky decisions, so even if you tell them what precautions they need to take on the internet, many won't listen.
And do you doubt that people are out there who are willing to take advantage of children through the internet? How about this guy?
http://northbaypoliceblotter.com...
Or the 500,000+ internet predators who are online every day?
http://m.fbi.gov...

Let's face the facts: children often not take the proper safety precautions, and there are plenty of people on the internet waiting to find their next victim.

"This (my claim that in between 1 and 5 percent of the population molests children) is fear mongering lies."
To back up this attack on my claim, he points out that my source came from a source which was talking about teachers.
Well, take a look at this source, which draws its source from a place other than the place Pro cited.
http://www.yellodyno.com...
I'd hardly call it fearmongering lies.

By the way, this source says that the vast majority of victims are abused by ACQUAINTANCES. You don't think that they haven't been acquainted with their manipulative abuser on the internet?

I mentioned internet because the majority of "cell phones" (such as iPods and iPhones) in the United States these days have internet access. Even if they don't, you don't know who your kid is calling (a lot of parents don't, anyway) and they can get into trouble even without internet if they have a phone.

My opponent has mentioned a single use for them: emergencies. Why can't they ask to use someone else's phone in such a situation?

My opponent has failed to uphold his Burden of Proof. I'll give him a chance in this last round to make a solid case.
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

In my last round, I've already pointed out that internet content can be blocked on mobile phones. This round will just be for some direct rebuttals to the statements made last round. I think I've shown that kids having access to police in emergency services in the palms of their hand and right in their pocket is extremely advantagious and makes them safer.
""This (my claim that in between 1 and 5 percent of the population molests children) is fear mongering lies."
To back up this attack on my claim, he points out that my source came from a source which was talking about teachers.
Well, take a look at this source, which draws its source from a place other than the place Pro cited."

Actually the 1 to 5 percent number was originally cited by you and the source couldn't be tracked down. This is number is cited by a website in this new source and it's cited as an estimate by an expert. I can't track down the original CNN transcript it was supposedly cited to. Either way the number is a mere estimate and not the result of actual research. The number should be completely disregarded, it's just a number the good doctor pulled out of his behind as a gut feeling based on personal experience.

"By the way, this source says that the vast majority of victims are abused by ACQUAINTANCES. You don't think that they haven't been acquainted with their manipulative abuser on the internet?"

This is absurd. Again this is from the source I tracked down used by the author of one of your citations. Using the term acquaintances in the way my opponent is would define the term so broadly as to make it meaningless. In the context used it means close family members or trusted people close to the kids such as baby sitters, teachers and friends of the family.

"I mentioned internet because the majority of "cell phones" (such as iPods and iPhones) in the United States these days have internet access. Even if they don't, you don't know who your kid is calling (a lot of parents don't, anyway) and they can get into trouble even without internet if they have a phone."

Contacts and internet access can be restricted like I stated in previous rounds.

"My opponent has mentioned a single use for them: emergencies. Why can't they ask to use someone else's phone in such a situation?"

Clearly one on their side is better then relying on the kindness of strangers who may not be anywhere to be found, especially in smaller cities or country settings.

keep kids safe, vote me.

Vox_Veritas

Con

An acquaintance is, literally, someone who you know or have met. Does "I'm pleased to make your acquaintance" ring a bell? This definition, which is the right one, extends to people who you have met and regularly talk to on the internet. Such is the case with many children and the people who exploit them. If you talk to somebody regularly, they count as an acquaintance.

Okay, how about I use a different source? (Yes, I am aware that this is the last round, but I'm basically making the same argument, with perhaps slightly different statistics.)
"An estimated one in twenty teenage boys and adult men sexually abuse children."
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org...
How many teachers who are teenage boys do you know? This source is clearly referring to males in general, not just teachers. According to this source, the number of female child molesters is so small that it's not even worth taking into consideration.
So, let's look at the demographics.
There are slightly over 150 million males in the United States as of the time that I am posting this. Let's assume that a mere 80 million of these are thirteen and up. 5 percent of 80 million is...4 million! At the least, there are 4 million pedophiles in the United States!
Now, if we are to believe a source provided by my opponent earlier, the average child molester abuses around 140 kids. Think about this: there are enough pedophiles in the United States to rape 500 million kids!
The danger posed to children is very real. There's no point in continuing to deny this.

My opponent has said that parents can simply not allow their kids to have internet access.
However, even this will not work.
Why? Because, while kids these days are often spoiled brats, their parents often lack willpower. If their kids throw a big enough deal about being denied internet access (and most American kids would in fact want this), then most parents will give in and provide their bratty child with the internet access that he or she feels entitled to.
Then again, this logic also applies with phones, so there really is no solution here except to have self-control.

I am testimony to the fact that people who have things like a cell phone will sit around like a lazy bum and do nothing but play with their phone all day. As most Americans don't have more self-control than I do, especially not kids, well, it's kind of a given that kids with phones will sit around all day and waste tons and tons of time which could've been spent doing something more worthwhile. Frankly, kids are generally not ready for that kind of responsibility.

You say that phones can be used for emergencies, but how often is a child put into a life-threatening situation where there's no one around to let him/her borrow a phone? Unlikely for sure!

My opponent fails to uphold his burden of proof. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
They are i invisible. Good luck refuting something you can't see!!!
Posted by Vox_Veritas 2 years ago
Vox_Veritas
Extend what arguments?
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
aw crap
i forgot to accept

it shifts the debate from whether or not children *can* own cellphones
to whether or not children *should*

oh will, i'll follow this debate closely
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
school age minors capable of using one
Posted by mrsatan 2 years ago
mrsatan
Children of what age range?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I can't imagine it would alter your arguments much but then again, I don't know your arguments.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Okay, I'm changing it now.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
it will change the debate from whether parents should *let* their children use cellphones to whether or not parents should *encourage* their children to use cellphones
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Let me review my arguments to see if it matters. I'll change it soon if it still works. This will just take 10 minutes.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Debatability, explain the difference briefly so I can alter it before somebody else accepts
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 2 years ago
Mr.Lincoln
WyltedVox_VeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm all for kids with cell phones, but Pro failed at the BoP and Con had more convincing arguments
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
WyltedVox_VeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. I saw minor issues from both sides, which ultimately balanced this out. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to provide rebuttals for all of the addiction claims that Pro challenged him on. By failing to rebut that challenge and prove that such addictions would form Con dropped these arguments. Pro was able to overcome every argument raised by Con aside from the one in the final round which I won't consider anyways since it was the last round. Con wasn't able to defeat pro's argument about emergencies, and instead just provided conjecture regarding kids surpassing their parents blocks or parents being too lazy to care. Pro showed how those blocks are a reality, whereas hypothetical's regards children possibly overcoming them are just that - hypothetical's. For these reasons, I'm voting Pro. Sources - Tie. Both presented iffy sources, thus balancing out.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
WyltedVox_VeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro wins because con largely fails to show correlation between molestation/rape and cell phones. Pro's potential for good cell-phone use in emergencies really came out un-refuted by con. I think con should have mentioned that children's cell-phones are really distracting in class.