In these days, we have heard many news of children getting kidnapped.To avoid this, children should be given mobile phones or watches that have the availability of calling or text messaging.People doesnt let their children who are under 10 outside alone.Therefore for this purpose I agree for them to carry mobile phones.And side by side they will also come to know how to handle phones.They will get an experience of how to protect thier phone from getting stolen.
Thank you to the Pro for posting this motion. The reason that I, the Con, have accepted this argument, is simple. Although in theory this is a nice idea, the societal issues and the sheer economic issues that giving children over 10 a phone would cause means this is not a practical idea. If my opponent has a foolproof plan for providing children with these phones or a concrete idea of the manner in which they would be distributed, the Con would be extremely interested to hear them.
Firstly, the Con would like to apologise for forfeiting his last round due to unforeseeable circumstances. Secondly, seeing that the Pro has forfeited his final two chances to speak, unless something unavoidable has not allowed him to post his argument it appears to the Con that the Pro has no logical suggestion in terms of how his idea should be practically brought about. The Pro states that all children above the age of ten should be given mobile phones. All the Con wanted to know was how this was possible when there are countries such as Botswana and the Congo where 90% of the country live under the 2$ a day poverty line (UNICEF) that obviously cannot afford to distribute phones. Even in MEDC's like the USA and England, it would prove ruinously expensive if the government was to provide these phones, and many parents would not have the financial capability to make this possible.
Thank you once again to the Pro for what is in theory a nice idea, but his failure to provide a plan of how this would be implemented leaves it as an aspiration rather than a concrete goal. The Con believes he has proven that this motion is not practically possible/wise, and therefore has successfully opposed the argument.
Thanks to the Pro for creating this debate.