The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 36494
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The first round will be to accept this debate. So do you accept?


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14.
Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like:
1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard.

2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive.

3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children.

4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites.

5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives.

I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.


You mentioned several studies in your argument, not one of which have you bothered to cite. Since I would rather not take them 'as-is' I will ignore them in my rebuttal, if you would like to re-iterate them in the next round, please ensure you link me to the studies done on the subjects.

The supposed fact that phone companies specifically target bears no connection to your argument. We are not talking about a 'what came first' situation here since it's quite clear what happened here. Advertisers work in conjunction with marketers and analysts to determine who uses their assigned product the most.

If such research yields that children under the age of 14 like cellphones with cartoons on them, then the phone company will instruct the advertisers to come up with a plan to capitalize on that specific market while making the necessary product. It is a simple mechanism that takes existing trends and amplifies them, rather than create them as implied by your argument.

1. You claim cellphones are responsible for disobedient children in class, while it is inherently apparent that even before the age of cellphones such problems existed in more analogue forms. The fact of the matter is, while it may be that in this day and age cellphones are what's keeping children inattentive during class, may well have been replaced by notes, drugs and discreet chatter before such time.

A cellphone in this case is not the cause of the problem, but simply a tool to sustain it. Cellphones are in no part responsible for the emergence of this trend, which, as discussed, greatly predated them and as such, taking away cellphones(as many schools have already done) will not solve this problem.

2. While I refuse to acknowledge many of the uncased claims you made in this portion, some are quite obvious and once again, are not inherently the fault of cellphones, but of general human behavior. Take the status symbol for example, taking one away will solve nothing.

Not when you consider that clothes, cars, shoes, jewellery, tattoos, piercings and so on are also status symbols. If your point is that a cellphone is a vice, then you are correct. However, taking away a vital means of communication from someone just because you deem him or her to be too young to handle it is absurd considering the points you've raised are all apparent with cellphone users of all ages.

When you say that children do not do 'important' things you're inserting your own subjective meaning of the word into the mix. To me, 'important activities' do not include physical activities for example. And I'd further like to argue that a cellphone(Particularly smartphones) open many doors to a variety of creative activities. Once again however, we are dealing with subjective terms here, and neither you nor I can declare what is 'important' for a child to do and what is not.

3. This portion is filled with claims which you had not cited, despite my initial disclaimer I thought I should put another one here to make it clear as to what I was talking about.

4. Once again, this type of behavior is not exclusive to children under the age of 14 and is found in all age groups. Furthermore, in this technological age taking away a certain tool from someone will only cause him or her to replace it with another. You simply can not stop someone, whether a child or a fully grown adult from accessing this type of information regardless of how you feel about it. Children can also have access to adult websites without cellphones, and as such taking them away will again not solve anything as cellphones are not the cause.

5. The solution here is not to take the phones away, but to educate its users both young and old on the dangers of using it and of course how to avoid them. While I do not agree with keeping an eye on the phone bill as it has the potential of creating misunderstandings and other awkward situations which could arise should the child discover what you're doing, not to mention it's extremely easy to circumvent if they really want to get on your nerves.

I'd like to finish this off by emphasizing the importance of having a means to communicate wherever you go. Regardless of a cellphone's potential to entertain and keep in touch with friends, it is also a tool to ensure one's safety. As you mentioned in your argument, there are many crimes nowadays committed against children. When you take a child's phone away, you remove his or her ability to call for help should something occur, thus possibly endangering their lives simply because you chose to strip them of this tool because you deemed it 'too distracting' . Furthermore, none of the points you raised are exclusive to children under the age of 14, and can be found in any age group.
Debate Round No. 2


AbirHBK forfeited this round.


I'd like it noted that the instigator failed to provide evidence for most of his claims, and appears to have either forgotten about this debate or ignored it on purpose as he is currently debating elsewhere.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Piccini 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Easy one for Con. Conduct, because of Pro's forfeit. Sources because Pro used uncited studies.