The Instigator
macaroona
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
ww54ww
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Children *need* exposure and interaction with electronic media.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2007 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,504 times Debate No: 618
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

macaroona

Pro

Despite the pediatric 'laws' against permitting children under the age of two any screen time (be it computerized or televised) many parents continue to purchase and show their very young children electronic media aimed at their age group(s).

I am one of those parents.

In my opinion, educational electronic media teach narrative, image and symbiotic literacy to young children in ways traditional text-based media do not. These skills are a necessary aspect of 21st century life. They help children discern between flashing trickery and real information, they allow for cultural fluency that promotes relationships (i.e. - 'have you seen Cars?' 'Yeah! I Love Lightening McQueen!') and many are simply unbelievably fun.

I have noticed that my children are no less active than others whose parents are not as screen-time positive. I also seek out and encourage play with more activity oriented electronic media, such as Nintendo's Wii. Ultimately, however, it is the very nature of screen time, which encourages a kind of focused attention and unique immersive thinking, that I think really benefits children whether or not they are standing up to play.

Children *need* exposure to electronic media. Rather than we wary of it, parents should actively seek out innovative and educational forms of screen time and encourage children to use it. It is only when we truly and emphatically embrace electronic media that it can live up to its potential as a medium.
ww54ww

Con

Children do not need exposure and interaction with electronic media. Has anybody noticed that children are increasingly imitating the faulty actions of celebrities? Guess where these children see the celebrities' actions. On television, at the movies, in video games! Seriously, unless you wish our children to just become copies of faulty celebrities, only without all the glamour, children should not have exposure or interaction with electronic media.
Debate Round No. 1
macaroona

Pro

You don't distinguish between different forms of electronic media, nor between the genres of a specific form. I assume you are referring to television, and since you refer only to 'celebrities' I assume you are totally unfamiliar with educational children's media.

I abhor celebrities (and all celebrity 'gossip') and no young children I know watch them on television in those absurd E! shows or what have you.

It's ridiculous to judge all media based on some of it's worst examples. It's like judging all people based on the example of Charles Manson.

A wealth of educational programs are thriving on a number of networks aimed at children. Dora the Explorer, Blue's Clues, Pinky Dinky Doo, Little Bill, Sesame Street, Baby Einstein, Jack's Big Music Show, the list goes on and on. I maintain that children *need* exposure to these types of shows in order to fully live up to their potential as members of this media saturated society.

Certainly ALL media is not created equal. In my initial post I was clearly writing about specific, child-oriented media of all sorts.
ww54ww

Con

I highly disagree. As a child, I rarely watched TV, played video games, or did anything electronically. My family was so poor that we could not afford a telephone or even a refrigerator. Currently, at the age of 29, I graduated from Harvard University Business and Wharton School of Finance as valedictorian. Now I work at Morgan Stanley, and I have a monthly income of $750,000 to$1,000,000. I can assure you that I am a very active member of our "media saturated society."
Debate Round No. 2
macaroona

Pro

Obviously, that post is a joke. There's no way you are 29 and went without a television. No educated person would write that way. I really wish intelligent debate could have come out of this, but clearly since you are incapable you've posted a bunch of crap instead. You suck.

This site sucks. I win.
ww54ww

Con

ww54ww forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by macaroona 9 years ago
macaroona
I would argue that with VERY rare exceptions, 'past presidents' generally come from very privileged families with exceptional amounts of money and resources, and so if those electronic devices and learning tools were available (which of course, they were not as many of them are very new), they would have had ALL OF THEM. I'm sure no expense was spared as George W. Bush woke up Christmas morning as a child.

In today's context, many of the electronic media I reference are available for free, on television. Perhaps in light of their usefulness, electronic media of the computer/toy sort should be available in schools. Many elementary schools in America make use of LeapPad reading systems as part of their curriculum today.

Electronic devices that are educational are as necessary as dolls. Just becuase they are sometimes expensive (and often not, a LeapPad costs $14.99 at Target) does not mean they are any less useful. While some computer access is available at local libraries, I would argue that every child should have access to computer learning tools via their schools' computer lap or local library if parents lack the resources needed to purchase one. I used community computers growing up as my parents could not afford one.

Are you familiar with the electronic learning toys I am talking about? Do you in fact, have children?
Posted by StrawberriixHeartz 9 years ago
StrawberriixHeartz
But you haven't disagreed with my other points. Its true though, past presidents have become very successful without the use of electronic devices. Electronic devices are not "needed" in today's societies, many people and children can't afford these luxuries, what happens to them? They don't die from it and they aren't any dumber from the other kids. Electronic devices are wants not needs.
Posted by macaroona 9 years ago
macaroona
The literacy rates were substantially lower in the 1900's. While you could argue this was not due simply to the lack of Leapsters or V-Smiles, its undeniable that 5 year olds today are expected to know much more than they were 100 years ago. Perhaps owning a Leapster might help the average modern five year old to keep up with todays standards!
Posted by StrawberriixHeartz 9 years ago
StrawberriixHeartz
The Negative (Pro) insulted the Affirmative (con).

I think that it all depends on what sort of electronic device, electronic devices like the electronic dictionaries or those read a loud things have proved to be quite useful to little kids because it allows them to learn things in a more fun way. Isn't that what education is about; learning things in an easier or possibly fun way?

Then again, electronic devices include recent technologies that were developed during the late 1900s. How about the times before these electronic devices? People didn't have any problems reading or writing. Electronic devices is not a need but a want. Presidents from prior generations have become successful without the interactions of technology. Does it mean that they were lacking educational minds while leading our nations?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by lola 9 years ago
lola
macaroonaww54wwTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Aulwynd_c 9 years ago
Aulwynd_c
macaroonaww54wwTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kingtruffles 9 years ago
Kingtruffles
macaroonaww54wwTied
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 
Vote Placed by macaroona 9 years ago
macaroona
macaroonaww54wwTied
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 
Vote Placed by BahiraMalika 9 years ago
BahiraMalika
macaroonaww54wwTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
macaroonaww54wwTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by sammer_the_hammer 9 years ago
sammer_the_hammer
macaroonaww54wwTied
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