The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

Parents should ban their children from the use of smartphones

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,017 times Debate No: 91625
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Should Parents ban their children from the use of smartphones

I say NO.

The first round is acceptance.

Second round is arguments.

Third round rebuttal.

Fourth round conclusions.

BOP (Burden Of Proof) LIES ON PRO & CON BOTH.



Hope for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Should parents ban smartphones from their kids" rooms at night? Of course!
Hi, I"m back and I"m going to show out my arguments:
Types of disadvantages (of giving mobile phones to children) I'm going to talk about.
1 Social disadvantages .
2 Educational disadvantages.

Let me start with the social disadvantages.
Why do that? Because more than 20 percent of teenagers say they "almost always" wake up during the night to check or post on social media, a habit that disrupts their sleep, increases fatigue at school and may harm their sense of well-being.
"It seems very important to discourage adolescents from using social media during the night," Dr. Kimberly Horton, a research assistant at Cardiff University in the U.K. and one of the study"s authors, said in a written statement. "No amount of effort to develop regular bedtimes or to lengthen the time in bed would seem to be able to compensate for the disruption that this can cause."
For the study, researchers from the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research Data asked more than 800 12- to 15-year-olds about their sleep habits " including how often they woke up at night to use social media. Researchers also asked about the teens" levels of energy and well-being.
What did the researchers find? Waking up at night to use social networking platforms like Snapchat and Instagram was surprisingly common. Twenty-two percent of 12- and 13-year-olds and 23 percent of 14- and 15-year-olds said they "almost always" did so. More than a third said they did at least once a week.
This behaviour seems to take a real toll. More than half of the heavier night-time social media users said they usually go to school feeling tired.
"In turn, we find a significant association between feeling tired when they go to school and their overall levels of subjective well-being," Dr. Chris Taylor, a researcher at Cardiff and one of the study"s authors, added in an email to The Huffington Post.
For some teens, this combination could contribute to mental health issues. Heavy social media use and poor sleep have both been found to take a toll on young peoples" mental health, so the combination could be even more problematic.
So what"s the solution? Pushing back school start times probably isn't the answer, as the study"s authors argue that more time to sleep in the morning doesn"t compensate for sleep disruptions. Structured morning routines can be helpful for mediating the effects of poor sleep, the researchers explain, so disrupting those routines with later school start times may not be beneficial.
Instead, the study suggests that it may be more effective to discourage teens from using technology at night. One way to do it? Keeping digital devices out of the bedroom so that a good night"s sleep won"t be ruined by the lure of Twitter.
"The benefits of having a regular bedtime, a reasonable bedtime, and a sensible amount of time in bed entirely are expunged if adolescents are waking up to use social media," Horton said.
Secondly, educational disadvantages:

Fears over the disruption to classrooms from pupils using smartphones have prompted the Government to commission a review into the way technology affects behaviour in schools.
Children should not be allowed smartphones until they are 16, according to Tom Bennett, the school behaviour expert leading the review. And teachers should not allow them unless absolutely necessary, says Mr Bennett, who is already leading another review into how teachers are trained to tackle bad behaviour.
He has now been asked to look at the wider challenges of managing modern classrooms. Although technology can enhance learning, teachers have reported that the growing number of children bringing digital devices into class is leading to disruption, officials warn.
"We need to make sure the advice we give to schools, and the approaches being used are fit for the 21st century when even primary school pupils may be bringing in phones or tablets. That is why we have taken the decision to expand Tom Bennett"s review to look at how teachers can tackle bad behaviour," said Nick Gibb, the schools minister. "Whether it is the use of mobile phones or the attitudes of parents to their child"s behaviour in class, we will now probe deeper into behaviour to ensure that no child has to put up with having their education disrupted by misbehaviour."

Most schools have some sort of policy regarding smartphone use, amid concerns over cyberbullying and online pornography. However, the picture is far from uniform " ranging from zero-tolerance to partial bans.
"I think smartphones in a classroom represent an enormous level of temptation for students, but that isn"t to say that I would ban them," said Mr Bennett. "My personal recommendation is that schools think very cautiously and carefully before allowing them. I think the default should be that they are not allowed unless teachers invite them for some specific reason.
Children are getting access to the technology too young, he said. "People ask me, "When should I give my child a smartphone?" and I say, "Whenever you"re comfortable with them viewing pornography", because their curiosity will take them there.
"My personal belief is that I don"t think a child should have a smartphone until they are 16, unless it is under adult supervision."
Phone use was a child protection issue, he said. "Most parents would supervise in some way internet access for children, and I think it would be an absurd proposition to say that schools shouldn"t do that because we are looking after their safety. I don"t want children in playgrounds swapping pornographic pictures or pictures of horrific scenes or racist websites or whatever. I want to know roughly what they are looking at, and that includes in school."


Thank you.

Adil Muhammad,


It is one thing to cite or use a source to help give your argument some backbone but the Con side has simply copied and pasted from the article cited. This is not the conduct of a good debater.

Now the main part of Con sides is dealing with night time use of phones, however, the resolution deals with phone use in general, thus I will debate that resolution.

There is a question why parents would ban the use of a phone if they are most likely the ones that payed for it or pay for the plan. If that is not the case, it seems the child would be in the right to use the phone as they please. There might be negative outcomes of use, but as a we grow up, we must learn to take responsibility. Also most peoples issues with kids on their phones are just silly. "Kids do not talk one on one." "It hurts there eyes and attention." They said the same thing about new papers, about radio, about tv, about the internet. Old people look at change and are scared on a evolutionary basis.

Smartphones shrink the internet down to a portable device that allows access to infinite information. I simply say that any small negative is subjective but the access to information on the spot is objectively a better.

I would like to say again to voters that the con side has plagiarized his argument, and his central points are build on opinion and not fact.
Debate Round No. 2


WORTHY opponent! Please forfeit the rounds of this debate as I have taken the wrong side. I'm con, so I should've talked about the advantages of mobile phones for children. Thank you.


Wrong side? How? You set the debate, said in the 1st round your position, then the 2nd round copied two articles on the topic. You could I least try.
Debate Round No. 3


next time :)


lyokowarri0r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by adilmuhammad 1 year ago
Oh noooooooooo! I took the wrong side!!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sashil 1 year ago
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: CON has plagiarized. PRO on the other hand has forfeited the last round. But I would like to award the conduct point to PRO although both parties in question have been involved in some form of conduct violation. My justification for the above is that PRO walked out of the debate at a point where it was already over. CON failed to post any arguments in round 3 and there was no need for PRO to address anything in round 4. -Feel free to ask me for any clarification in regards to the above-