The Instigator
seraphobia
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Kids/Teens don't need their own cell phones.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
seraphobia
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 902 times Debate No: 60941
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

seraphobia

Pro

I am pro (for), anyone can accept.
AlexanderOc

Con

It is entirley up to Pro to supprt the resolution "Kids/Teens do not need their own cell phones."

It is not my duty to prove the negative, but only to falsify my opponent's claims.
With that, I pass the debate to her for opening arguments.

"Need" shall be defined as described in this link:
https://www.bing.com...
Debate Round No. 1
seraphobia

Pro

I believe that Teens/Kids do not need their own cell phones because:
1. Cell phones are a distraction, especially in school.
2. In an emergency you could ask to use someone else's cell phone, use a house phone, or use a payphone.
3. Texting and driving/ walking is dangerous, and cell phones will encourage that.
4. You can make calls and text using a computer
5. Cell phones are expensive, especially when you have to pay for texts, calls,internet hot spots (in some cases), and basic maintenance.
AlexanderOc

Con

I.Cross-Examination

None needed. Pro didn't supply a reason why cell phones are unessecary to children, she only showed why they are dangerous/distracting. Neither of which are relevant to the resolution.

II.Construct

Looking into the definition, we see "Need" means required to acheive a goal. Therefore, if children require cell phones to attain any possible goal, then the
resolution is rendered false.

-Children need to own a cell phone to own a cell phone.- Resolution falsified.


Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
seraphobia

Pro

As stated in the topic of the debate, kids don't need THEIR OWN cell phones.
And nobody NEEDS a cell phone.
If you can falsify the fact that nobody NEEDS their OWN cell phone, then you will win this debate.
You have not proven me wrong yet.
People only have cell phones because it makes them happy, not because they need them.

Try again.
AlexanderOc

Con

I.Rebuttals
None needed. Pro has not refuted my statement.
The resolution states that children do not need their own cell phone.
In order to need something, it must be required for a goal.
Children need to own their own cell phone to own their own cell phone.
Since children require a cell phone to achieve that goal, they need the cell phone.

Pro goes on to make a claim that people only have cell phones to make themselves happy. She did not supprt this claim.


I have falsified the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
I fail to understand why using semantics is grounds for an auto loss.
That would seem like more of a personal opinion as to whether somebody like semantical arguments, which is putting bias into votes.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Talk about creepy.
Posted by seraphobia 3 years ago
seraphobia
Good luck AlexanderOc.
Please don't use "What If" statements.
They get really annoying, and they don't prove anything.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
This is basically a free win.
Posted by MOV_8556.MOV 3 years ago
MOV_8556.MOV
Kids don't need cell phone but teens do if they are active
Posted by timlopez1331 3 years ago
timlopez1331
Yeah are you for kids not having cell phones?
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
Change the word "need"
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Mister_Man
Sorry, are you for the idea that kids need their own cell phones or against? Not sure if by "pro" you mean "pro not needing cell phones."
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
seraphobiaAlexanderOcTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: what?? Con just trolled this one with semantics.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Mister_Man
seraphobiaAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: The only thing anybody NEEDS is the basic essentials to stay alive. If Pro had said this from the beginning, she would have won hands down. Con relied on semantics.
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
seraphobiaAlexanderOcTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not falsify the premise. No one needs a cellphone. It is not a necessity.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 3 years ago
The_Gatherer
seraphobiaAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an interesting case which con failed to address. Instead, Con instigated an entirely new debate in round 1, and then proceeded to claim that Pro was not arguing the correct debate. Con also used, more than once, a ridiculous attempt at logic which undermined his whole case - namely saying that "a child needs a cell phone in order to have a cell phone." In conclusion, Con changed the debate to suit his own agenda in round 1 and then tried to twist logic to make it seem as if he was winning the debate in previous rounds, while at the same time completely failing to address Pro's argument. Perhaps if Pro had introduced her own definition of 'need' in the opening round this problem would not have occurred, although if she was debating a serious opponent this would not have been an issue.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
seraphobiaAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's persuasion convinced a 1 point win. The contents had Conflicting BoP with a lack of clarification from Pro. I am dropping contents since neither approves of each other's framework version. As such, I looked at how persuasive each debator did. Its definitely Con with the way Con argues 'this is irrelevant' mentality.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
seraphobiaAlexanderOcTied
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: CON's failed to demonstrate her BoP.