Kids should have cell phones
Debate Rounds (5)
Kids need phones for emergencies. What if your at a movie with some friends and an adult comes and starts walking around you and acting creepy. Without a phone you can't call somebody to pick you up you will just have to deal with this strange adult. This is just one of many scenarios of an emergency.
Kids need to be social in order for them to develope correct social skills and learn how to act around people. With cell phones kids can talk to each other whenever they want and can arrange hang outs much easier.
Cell phones teach kids responsibility. They have to make sure they don't lose their phone and not send mean texts and things like that. I'm not saying this is the only way to teach responsibility but kids will enjoy learning this way.
Kids shouldn't have cell phones, kids should have a life.
no it's a way of dumping over text, making 'love' over SEXT my goodness all responsibilities of face to face communication and basic maturity in life are out the window the pandora's box is opened! REVERT TO THE WAYS OF THE AMISH TODAY!
You are now saying parents should be making sure their children don't sext but this is causing invasion of privacy which doesn't make them maturely accept RESPONSIBILITY!
Yes you can. Nonetheless kids should not have cell phones, they should have fun. This is a stupid debate because your only backup is the hope that in an emergency they are able to get to their phone.
At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LaL36 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because con gave an irrelevant video. While con accused pro of having only one argument, con really had only one argument which was that kids should have lives. These don't always interfere with each other.