Giving Children Phones
Debate Rounds (4)
Hi! This is my first debate on this website so please be patient.
Children do not need phones.
Anyone is free to accept my challlenge. We will begin debating in the second round. Introduce yourself to me in your first argument.
I will start it off. Children in the Capitalist West are provided with much more than the basic necessities of life. It should be common knowledge that children here are blessed with the gift of technology-perhaps too blessed. The USA is constantly innovating its gadgets. Among them are our trademark smartphones. These phones are being distributed to the children of the USA. The question is, do they really need them?
I argue no. Raising a child is possible without spoiling them with technology. As they grow, they look for an idol or role model to learn ideals and logic from. If these children are given phones in their youth, they will grow dependent on it. One thing this generation lacks is being able to critically think. They are molded by these phones, not books. How can we expect the youth to learn if they are never taught? I have seen five-year-olds with iPhones which is absurd. Education nowadays is not a strived-for ideal. We cannot teach the youth how to be leaders if we regard them as followers.
Everyone knows that most of a human's intellectual development comes from their youth. As such, a lot of parents choose to let their child (usually to a certain extent) have a phone. If a child has a phone in their younger days, they will quite likely have a much better handle on the future. I'm sure you know how many times a parents asks their own children about computer problems, yes?
The truth is that the whole world is becoming more and more dependent on technology, and having children learn about it using phones is the perfect gateway for perhaps the next great future Einstein to learn about/create (and to use) computers, etc.
You said it yourself: The USA is constantly innovating its gadgets. If a child were to get a phone in their tweens, don't you think they would be a little too overwhelmed with the new things, instead of easing technology though their early years?
And, there's also a safety factor lying beneath this. (Hoping this never happens) If a child were to get separated from their parent and somehow be alone without anyone else, don't you think they should quickly dial 911? Phones save thousands of lives.
And, if generations lack critical thinking, don't you think that is more of the parent's fault? A parent's job is to protect and teach, if a parent cannot even talk to their child without a phone in their hands, wouldn't that be the parent's bad teaching?
On the note of teaching, by the way, Phones, tablets and computers are being used for plenty of educational reasons as well.
Thanks for replying ImaRealMeanie!
1) You are correct. The world is becoming more dependent on technology. I, however, do not see the the need for a child to use a phone.
2) It is unlikely that they will use it for educational purposes.It does more harm than good to the malleable mind of the child. Their phone would serve more as a distraction than a tool. Even most teenagers and adults struggle to get off their phones. If they are given a phone at this age, it will only grow into a bad habit.
3) Technology is all around us. Being able to get hands-on learning of the phone is not a necessity. Children can simply observe and later on, infer on how to use the gadget. You aren't completely stripping them of technology when I said they shouldn't have a phone.
4) The one thing I agree with you is your safety argument. A child should never be separated from their parent (I fear this too) and if they do somehow, then the parent should invest in the time to actually watch the child.
5) You proved my point. Yes, it is the parent's fault. It's their fault for buying them a phone so soon. Let me remind you that I am the Con here (just a friendly reminder). A large contribution to the generation's disability to not critically think is the technology they idolize.
6) The subject is on the personal use of the phone. Schools provide the students with technology for educational reasons.
Here are my next arguments.
The phone is handy for all sorts of matters but we need to take one thing into consideration. I have stressed that the children category I am speaking of is below the age group of tweens, which is below the age of 10 (It depends on perspective but I chose the most logical number). So I must question-how responsible would a child be with a phone?
1) Children should not be given a phone because of the possibilty of losing it. It costs money and the parent would be furious if it was lost. You could say that the parent would keep the phone, but that would nullify your safety with communication argument. How would we be able to trust them with an expensive gadget that can be stolen or lost?
2) What if the phone gets cracked if the the child drops it? It would be frustrating getting it fixed for the child. If it has a case, it could be accidently dropped into the toilet or some body of liquid. If the phone has a waterproof case, then I would refer back to the previous paragraph.
Those are the two I can think for now. Good luck.
While it is true that children can lose their phones at any time, so can adults. Children can just be taught to be careful with the phones, and if they do somehow lose or break it, an accident is an accident, correct? You can't prevent someone stealing just by putting out a law that says not to do so.
And, there are much more safety cautions being used with children's phones, partly from parent supervision. While children above the age of ten might feel a bit uncomfortable, children under that age usually would be okay with their parent having some sort of app to watch what their child is doing on the phone. There is even tech being developed to find items that a person has lost- phones, game cartridges, keys, etc. All on your/the parent's phone.
Now, I'm not saying that giving a young child a phone is absolutely important for their survival in this world. What I'm saying is that, as I have stated, humans learn most during their youngest ages, so having them learn about phones then will give them a head start in the digital world.
And, being given a phone at young ages will give them some restraint as well. They will, at first, never be very far from it, but will soon learn a phone isn't exactly their entire world, if taught right by their parents.
I must ask, however, who do you know that 'idolizes' phones? To most of the world, they are simply tools to communicate and entertain. And this 'disability to not critically think' is very strange. How are phones for young children the main culprit? If phones are a culprit, then so can books, teachings and everything else could be affecting them to think that way.
Thanks ImaRealMeanie for putting up a great debate!
1) Children can be taught, but it won't have any meaning until they actually lose them. Most children learn from experience or observation. The concept of logic is hard to grasp until they reach an older age. Yes, an accident is an accident, but only then will they have learned. I want to prevent this by only giving phones when children reach an older, more responsible, age.
2) Children do learn most during their youngest ages, however, that can also be a problem. They can learn to love this technology. I am not against tech, but it is possible for them to have an increased addiction to it if they start then. It could cause problems and distract them later on (ex. school).
3) Yes, they will learn. I doubt they will learn in time though. A parent's words are just words if the child cannot grasp logic and reason. It's difficult to gauge the accuracy on parent influence. They can take away a phone and the child would be confused.
4) I said this generation idolizes phones, which includes the teenagers. Using your phone is not taboo. Like you said, phones are meant to communicate and entertain. However this generation is on them all the time, allowing little time for socializing. An important part of a kid's life is to make friends, is it not?
1) Exercise is extremely important for a child's health. Kids need exercise to grow up strong and healthy. Phones may reduce the time they get to excercise. Staring at a screen isn't good for them when they can be playing outside. If they are at school, they can use it during recess or lunch as well. Entertainment is a plus, buy exercise is a must.
2) Another key area to a child's life is being able to socialize properly. Making long-lasting friendships is what makes our lives better. We grow up and share moments with our friends. I wouldn't want my child's best friend to be technology. I must say though, kids usually make friends anyway. However, phones can be detrimental to their social skills. Your argument can be interpreted in a different way. You say that children will be more experienced if they use a phone now rather than later. That experience can lead them to other addicting gadgets like computers or tablets. By then, they will see the world of gaming. Socializing with people on the internet doesn't feel as genuine as the real thing.
Here is a great example: http://www.ted.com...
In Conclusion, I believe kids should not have phones.
Thanks ImaRealMeanie for having the time to debate with me! Good luck on your next argument.
Vote for Con!
The problem with your first 'answering' argument is that this isn't all that specific to young ages. What I mean by that is 11 year olds all the way to eighteen can 'be taught, but it won't have any meaning until they actually lose them.' Your argument can't really say much about it being only younger (2 to 10 year old) children.
Your second 'answering' argument can go both ways, yours or mine. While it is true they can be addicted, they can be also learn to not be addicted on the other hand. It really only matters in terms of their environment.
'It's difficult to gauge the accuracy on parent influence.' That's what makes this debate extremely unstable. On one side, they can totally ignore their parent's teachings, and on the other, they can be totally obedient. However, sometimes a child simply, even though they are over the age of 10, can still view their parent's words as just words. So, again, this view is not young child specific.
Your second argument steps on your fourth 'answering' argument, as you said, 'I must say though, kids usually make friends anyway.' unless a child stays in their home in a dark room on their phone for the entirety of ten years, I doubt a child can't make a singular connection with someone their age. Besides, 7 year olds usually don't get life-long relationships, as they usually make friends based on how their first impression was.
I will not argue that exercise is important, but so can any other form of entertainment. TV, books, and other activities that don't require exercise can do the same effect, sometimes even more so.
Again, how many times have you heard a relationship that starts with 'what's your name? Let's be friends!' last for as long as the pair live? I know this is plenty overreacting, but I'm just trying to say 'life-long' friends usually don't start becoming friends until their, say, in their teens?
Your example does not say anything specific about young children, especially 2 to 10 years olds. (At least, I think that's the age range here.)
Thank you very much, getrekt20!
Vote your favorite Pro!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.