The Instigator
emily061298
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Is technology the reason for kids growing up too fast?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 70318
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

emily061298

Pro

Technology is causing kids to grow up too fast.
Zarroette

Con

I accept. I await my opponent's opening argument as she has the burden of proof to show that technology is the reason for kids growing up too fast.
Debate Round No. 1
emily061298

Pro

emily061298 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

For all of you voters, I think you will find that my opponent has the burden of proof, and therefore requires an argument. In the case that one is not provided, I automatically win, even if I do not provide any argument myself.

So, we still await Pro's argument which attempts to affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
emily061298

Pro

emily061298 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Still awaiting an argument to affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
emily061298

Pro

emily061298 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

I will make a brief counter-case so that you have a reason to give me argument points in the event my opponent forfeits the last round.

Counter-case


A1: There are multiple factors to children growing up too fast

In "The Hurried Child", David Elkind expresses a variety of reasons that children are growing up too fast. Some of the reasons include "overwhelming stress, bewildering social change and constant rising expectations" [1].


If my opponent makes arguments in the final round, I reserve the right to respond to them.


Reference

[1] http://powell.rivendellschool.net...
Debate Round No. 4
emily061298

Pro

emily061298 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
emily061298ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited multiple rounds in the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro had the burden to affirm her claim, and utterly failed to do so by forfeiting every following round. For this, and the fact that Con at-least provided a counter-argument, Con wins. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources whereas Con did.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
emily061298ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Illegalcombatant 2 years ago
Illegalcombatant
emily061298ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presents a powerful argument for reductive materialism but Con counters with telic recursion. I though Pro made some good points on mind body dualism but Cons made up later with their argument from specified complexity. Now granted I am speaking out of my a$$ but you got to admit it's better than "FF"
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
emily061298ZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Uh, ops. FF