The Instigator
seraphobia
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dennybug
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Kids don't need mobile phones.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Dennybug
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 888 times Debate No: 60713
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

seraphobia

Pro

Kids really don't need mobile phones, I am pro (for.).
Dennybug

Con

Thank you!



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

need
nēd/
verb
  1. 1.
    require (something) because it is essential or very important.
    "I need help now"



Before we begin I'd like to state that the BOP is on my opponenet since she is the one making the affirmative claim.

My job in this debate will be to simply show that in SOME cases a kid will need a cellphone. While my opponent will have to address these contentions as well as show proof for her own.

I will simply be searching for flaws in the logic of this resolution.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In some cases phones can save lives. Consider the following story:

http://www.khou.com...


"Lia Vega, picked up a nearby phone and pressed the call button twice to dial the last number called. That number was her grandmother s.

Her mom will call and let her talk to me a lot, but using the phone and calling me on her own, Iwas very surprised, said Bobbie Gonzalez.

Lia told her grandmother her mom wouldn t wake up and Gonzalez raced to her daughter s side.

Mommy fall down to the floor of sissy s bed, Lia recalled telling her grandmother on the phone.

Taylor was taken to the hospital, where doctors informed her she had several seizures because she was hypoglycemic and diabetic. Her low blood-sugar level triggered theseizures."


In this particular case, the necessity of a phone was very important. Without the use of a cellphone. The little girl wouldn't have been able to get proper help in the right amount of time.


That is all. I await my opponents case.

Over to Pro,
Debate Round No. 1
seraphobia

Pro

If she had not had a cellphone she could have:
1. Asked someone else if she could borrow their phone.
2. Used the nearest payphone.
3. Used a house phone.
4. Yelled for help.
Wait a second... Who said that was her own phone? It was most likely her mothers!
5. Gone to any home, resturant, store, etc. and told someone.

That story does not prove that kids need their own mobile phones. "A nearby phone" is not their own mobile phone.
Also let the people reading this take a moment to realize that while your debate looked good, most of it was COPIED AND PASTED.
You have not yet proved me wrong, try again.

Sources: Dennybug's last argument.
Dennybug

Con

Thanks pro!






Refutations:



That story does not prove that kids need their own mobile phones. "A nearby phone" is not their own mobile phone.

My opponent makes this claim while failing to comprehend her own resolution. "Kids don't really need phones" This resolution does not imply ownership, it simply restrict complete usage of phones as an pre-pubescent child.

My opponents resolution says that Kids don't really need cell phones. So under all circumstances she will need to defend this.



If she had not had a cellphone she could have:
1. Asked someone else if she could borrow their phone. (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)

2. Used the nearest payphone.
(This would still necessitate a phone as a child)

3. Used a house phone.
(This would still necessitate a phone as a child)

4. Yelled for help.
(If you read the source, you'll see that she was alone with her mother in the house, 2 year olds are naturally prone to cry so it wouldn't even sound suspicious if there's a crying little baby next door)

Wait a second... Who said that was her own phone? It was most likely her mothers!
(This would still necessitate a phone as a child)

5. Gone to any home, resturant, store, etc. and told someone.
(As a 2 year old girl, she would have no comprehension of her neighborhood)




My opponent accuses me of copy and pasting, I have quoted my source to provide insight into what my argument is. There isn't a person on this website who would consider that copy/pasting your argument. Especially after I just listed the source.





My opponent has failed to address my contention properly, and has yet to provide a case for why kids don't need phones.

Phones provide easy access to

-Emergancy Services
-Family and Friends
-Text messaging

Most smart phones provide access to:

-Music
-Video (Including movies)
-Video Games
-Email access



So phones provide a useful platform to not only staying safe, but keeping children from boredom. I have presented a case in which a celluar phone was critical to the situation and could have resulted in a tragic accident.


I'll ask my opponent to respond to everything I've said and to refrain from accusing me of copy and pasting an argument.

The argument is what is said to convince voters, not the actual source materials, that is an ignorant claim.


Over to pro,
Debate Round No. 2
seraphobia

Pro

1. A home phone could have worked exactly the same.
2. Nice job stating that I did not say it was their own phone smart "Alec".
3. I don't use mobile phones, ever, and I'm still alive.
4. Cell phones are a distraction for kids and even teenagers.
5. The whole purpose of a phone is to call people, not play games and listen to music.
6. You can text using an email
7. You can call with a home phone.
Dennybug

Con

My opponent has completely disregarded that mobile phones can be useful and in the case which I presented, even paramount to saving someone's life. For this she should lose conduct, as the case she presented is faulty.


A home phone can't be accessed outside of one's home, this could hinder you from trying to call emergancy services. Sine you can't carry around your homephone a far distance from your house, it's a little useful when you're out in a canyon and someone has broken their leg.

My opponent makes an anecdotal fallacy, with a faulty premise, I'll say what she means with some syllogism

-I'm a kid and I don't use a cellphone.
-I'm still alive
C: No kids need cellphones.

Obviously this kind of reasoning is completely illogical.


My opponent states that Cellphones are a distraction for kids, yet fails to provide evidence. She is the one making the claim and doesn't even present evidence for her case. I really hope she learns from this debate.

My opponent says that phones are to call people with, not to play games.
She implies that all people use phones to play games on which is not the case, AGAIN she doesn't provide any sort of evidence to back up her ridiculous claims

This debate is about whether or not kids need cellphones, and says that since kids don't need games, they don't need phone.

Again, completely disregarding my case. Cellphones are not only used for playing games.



A phone provides easier access to email, my opponent disregards this completely.





THanks again, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
thanks krit and 9space
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
Someone can message me to vote when this is over. For some reason I doubt it will get much publicity.
Posted by seraphobia 2 years ago
seraphobia
Good luck Dennybug.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
seraphobiaDennybugTied
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: Pro didn't really make any convincing arguments, just simplified statements. Also failed to uphold the BOP.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
seraphobiaDennybugTied
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: And Dennybug did stuff and Dennybug did stuff, so I voted him, his argument's better, he spend more effort on them, he won like yeah, he won like yeah...
Vote Placed by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
seraphobiaDennybugTied
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 barely tried this debate, which reserves me to give CONDUCT to Con. Pro's arguments were based on hypothetical situations, and they weren't arguments per se, but rather answers to Con's proposed situation. (Arguments) Overall, brief debate but well done Con, you are improving *ahem*