The Instigator
MysticEgg
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Michaelphelps
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,115 times Debate No: 38039
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

MysticEgg

Pro

Hello, everyone!

There is an opinion question about this issue and due to its interesting outcome I have decided to start an open debate on it. But before we continue, allow me to clear up the resolution to help avoid any tedious semantics.

So, what does the resolution mean? It means people who are 13+ should be allowed to have accounts social networking sites (SNS). Now I do not mean unconditionally; I mean with restrictions from parents or guardians. These restrictions will vary and are largely irrelevant, but I hope this serves to clear up any misconceptions about the resolution. By social networking sites, I mean - and only mean - sites that fully meet the following criteria:

i) A site where one has to make a profile to make interactions with users.
ii) A site where people can form relationships. (I don't mean "love" relationships alone, although these are included)
iii) A site where one can legally make an account at 13 or older.

Now that's out of the way, I will continue with the rules:

1) The first round can be for acceptance only. If it is, then the debate will continue normally; if Con wishes to use the first round to make opening contentions, however, Con must put - and only put - "No round posted here as agreed." in the fifth round.
2) The burden of proof is shared.
3) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.
4) A forfeit of a round (for any reason) is a forfeit of conduct; a forfeit of a round is only a forfeit of conduct.

I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please post a comment! Good luck to all and allez!

Michaelphelps

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Pro

Thank to Con for accepting this challenge; I wish him the best of luck!

((Now, for the sake of my own cross-referencing and the fact that it took me a while to write this up; I'm going to use the arguments I used for my other debate (version two) on this topic.))

Contention One: Connectivity
SNS such as Facebook allow people immense amounts of connectivity with people and places around the world with an almost instantaneous effect! This easily beats phone lines for speed and as a result; it is only unavailable if the person is not online. With modern mobile phones; people can be notified now, too. And it is probable that Internet speed will grow faster than mobile phone speed[1].

So, people who are 13+ should be able to use SNS to contact family members and friends, because it is faster and more cost effective.

Contention 2: It's a tool to be used!
This applies to the Internet in general but can be applied to SNS, too. Twitter allows you to gain fast, brief, honest, and concise opinions quickly. Why should this be limited to people who are 16+? People who are 13+ can be just as mature and can use it just as effectively as people who are older. Age shouldn't be the deciding factor here, because otherwise we advance into the correlation equals causation fallacy. In this case, it is age equals maturity. While this is true to an extent, we are dealing with a close age range here and thus need more evidence than a general trend.

I believe I shall leave it at that for now and will await my opponent's opening contention(s) and refute(s)! Until next round!
Michaelphelps

Con

Thank you for debating me. I wish you the best of luck. Now to refute your points.

Your first argument was: Ppeople who are 13+ should be able to use SNS to contact family members and friends, because it is faster and more cost effective.

If you are looking for an SMS service there are multiple alternatives which are not dangerous or threatening to children. You can use Apple's messages service or Kik as oppose to a site like Facebook. Social networking sites can be a dangerous realm for those under the age of 13. There are vulgar conversations and dangerous individuals such as child predators. A much more secure alternative is a service such as apples messages which is free for individuals using wi-fi.

You second argument was: Twitter allows you to gain fast, brief, honest, and concise opinions quickly.

Why is this important. You can gain concise opinions by asking friends or family members. Twitter and other social networking sites are unnecessary and pose a legitimate danger to children in this day and age. These risks include: Hoaxes, Social engineering, Identity theft, Phishing sites. etc. For more info visit. (http://blog.lifestore.aol.com...)

Your final argument was: People who are 13+ can be just as mature and can use it just as effectively as people who are older. Age shouldn't be the deciding factor here.

Unfortunately Social networking sites have no way of judging ones maturity and age is still a good indicator of age. Therefore they recommend those using the site be a certain age. Judge Julian Mack who wrote the book Juvenile court (http://www.jstor.org...) Stated that "juvenile justice was based on the belief that young people do not always make good decisions because they are not mature, but this means that they can be reformed more easily than adults" These young impressionable children should be kept safe from potential dangers until they reach a more mature age over 13.

Thank you and I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Con for his points; I'll respond.


Contention One: Connectivity
My opponent suggests that there are other, better ways to communicate with people. There are, indeed, alternatives to SNS, called SMS! (Short Messenger Service). However, my opponent seems to suggest that Apple's SMS or Kik
"are not dangerous or threatening to children."
This, it saddens me to say, is simply not true.

Sub-Contention One: Apple's SMS
While it is possible to block numbers on an iPhone running iOS6 or iOS7 - messages are almost always one off from a random number sending scams. Thus, it is difficult to effectively stop scammers. And there are scammers on Apple's SMS.[1][5] I've provided some source pictures to show what I mean.[2][3] While these are not so much child based; they still pose a threat to children following the inks back. Sometimes these advertise porn messages of famous people. Of course, it is largely the same scam but it is not appropriate and dangerous for a child.

Sub-Contention Two: Kik
Kik is very dangerous to children and ripe with stalkers. Often the stalkers are either posing as underage of just teenagers acting in an inappropriate manner.[4] As McAfee put it:

"What do you know about the people your kids are chatting with on Kik? Not much besides a user name, full name, image and an email, none of which can be verified. So how do you know if your kids are talking to kids their own age, friends, or stalkers and other predators hiding their identity? You don’t."[6]

There are loads of stories on the dangers of Kik; here's another review[7].

OK, but what about Facebook? That's dangerous, too...?

True, Facebook can be misused. Everything can, after all. But Facebook is a lot safer, mainly due to its privacy settings and control it gives you. For example, this amount of control is for pictures alone![10] It is safer and more effective than Kik and I would argue that Apple messenger is very limited. You can send messages and pictures but no one ever makes a fully-fledged profile with the family on something like Apple-messenger.

Facebook gives you that control and privacy more than any other SNS.

Contention Two: Tools!
My opponent's response is a straw man here. I was not talking specifically about Twitter opinions; although that was part of it. I'm talking that SNS such as Twitter allow you to get very short and honest opinions from many different people. True, they can be faked, but there is rarely a reason to do so. Family members can give opinions, too. You're very limited by this, however and there are not legitimate reasons to stop people who are 13+ using these sites.


On the age aspect:
Clearly SNS cannot judge people's maturity but that is the point of the parents. I am not against age recommendations. Indeed, I even made that one of the aspects of SNS that had to be met or this debate!

Opponent's Contention One: Maturity
I addressed this in my opening contentions and my opponent hasn't responded to it adequately. Yes, there is a trend to be more mature as you age but I mentioned that anything too specific (say 15 vs 16) is a correlation vs causation fallacy. I pointed out that we needed specific data to avoid the fallacy and my opponent hasn't provided any.


Thanks to my opponent! I'll see you next round!

Source(s):
[1]http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com...
[2]http://sophosnews.files.wordpress.com...
[3]http://www.faronics.com...
[4] http://www.lostweens.com...
[5]http://onlineinvestigations.com.au...
[6]http://blogs.mcafee.com...
[7] http://www.bewebsmart.com...
Michaelphelps

Con

Thanks to Pro For his points, I will now respond.

Contention One: Connectivity
When I stated that you can use Apples messages and kik as social networking alternatives, I meant to use them only as an example. My point was that there are other more secure SMS services their are email services that allow you to filter emails you receive and texting or SMS services that are private and don't allow for scams. Such as TextSecure (https://play.google.com...). As you can see there are a plethora of alternatives to dangerous social networking sites if your goal is connectivity.

Contention Two: Maturity
This quote form Gween O'Keeffe. describes my stance

"Since logic and sophisticated reasoning don't kick in until high school, younger children may not realize when one of their posts is inappropriate. Yet it's that social tentativeness that makes Facebook so attractive to kids: creating a virtual social network lets them avoid the hard work of building live-action ones."

(http://content.time.com...)
Social networking sites detract form the time spent forming in-person social interactions and relationships and learning social cues.

You also stated that social networking sites:

"need specific data to avoid any fallacy"

I cant refute this point if I don't know what data you feel is necessary.

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 3
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanking Con for his input; I'll respond.


Contention One: Connectivity
My opponent appears to have consented that Apple Messenger and Kik are beaten by Facebook; which is good! But my opponent argues that there are better SMS and E-mail services than the ones provided by Facebook.

TextSecure is an example my opponent provides. While it does seem to be better than standard messaging services; I'd point out that (correct me if I'm wrong) it is only available on Android phones and not phones such as the iPhone. If that's the case, I argue that TextSecure fails to my contention: connectivity. I'll consent privacy, but connectivity? My opponent has not shown how it actually beats SMS like Facebook for the contention provided. Hence, my opponent's response is largely an evasion.

Also, E-mails services are surely not SMS! They are for letters or formal intentions, and it is not a text messenger. Thus, E-mail doesn't work as an example for that fact that my contention focuses on connectivity between SMS, not E-mails.

(I will address privacy further in my post).

"As you can see there are a plethora of [safer] alternatives" We can't see that yet, my friend!


Contention Two: Maturity
I would hope that my opponent doesn't allow this quote to support his stance:

"Since logic and sophisticated reasoning don't kick in until high school" Well, in the U.S.A. (which I'll assume you're referring to) one starts high school at 14[1][2]. The resolution is on 13+, which leaves one year of "immaturity" if you will. However, even having said that, if you read my opponent's source; it become clear that this article was talking about young children[3]. Specifically, ones under 13. Hence, I believe my opponent's has semi-quote mined. I'll grant that Mrs O'Keeffe doesn't agree with my resolution, but she has been quoted out of the article's context. Thus, semi-quote mining.

When I was talking about the data; I was trying to warn my opponent about avoiding any fallacy, specifically the correlation equals causation fallacy. In this case, the fallacy could be "age causes maturity". I never denied this as a general trend, but warned that for specifics. (13+ vs 16+) we need more data than a general trend. As of yet, my opponent hasn't provided any.


Note One: Privacy
((I'll call it a note for now, because my opponent hasn't actually presented this formally.))
It is, of course, a valid concern: privacy. Children are sometimes ensnared by predators or cyber-bullies. But, I would point to the actual facts we have here, instead of assuming that any case reported by the media represents a high percent of children.

From my opponent's own source: "There are now more than 7.5 million Facebook users younger than 13[3]" 7.5 million! Or 7,500,000 people under thirteen using Facebook. I seriously doubt that even two million cases of under thirteen predators are reported by Facebook each year. The scale we are talking about here is huge! While privacy may occasionally be compromised for various reasons, I hope my opponent will understand and agree with my point of view here. It's relatively nothing, speaking from an objective, number standpoint. My opponent would want to deny these millions (dare I say billion{s}?)of people (not under thirteen; that was just an example) a chance to connect, share, play, enjoy, benefit, and organise on SNS because of a relatively few cases each year that are hyped up by the media?

No reason as to why this should be the case has been given.

On that note: I'll thank my opponent once more, the audience, the voters, and see y'all next round!

Source(s):

[1]http://answers.yahoo.com...
[2]http://ph.answers.yahoo.com...
[3]http://content.time.com...


Michaelphelps

Con

Thanking Pro for his remarks; I'll respond.

Contention One: Connectivity
You stated that: "My opponent appears to have consented that Apple Messenger and Kik are beaten by Facebook" I have done no such thing I was simply using these as examples. Apples messages service is a very secure system as long as one keeps their email secure. Whereas on the Facebook platform you can message someone even if they are private.

TextSecure was another example I used although their are many other safer more secure SMS alternatives to Facebook. Such as Tiger Text (http://www.tigertext.com...) This platform is a secure safe way to communicate with people. It is a safe alternative to the dangerous facebook platform.

Contention Two: Maturity

You stated that:
"in the U.S.A. (which I'll assume you're referring to) one starts high school at 14. The resolution is on 13+, which leaves one year of "immaturity" if you will"
At the age of 14 is when males usually hit puberty. With the onset of puberty comes emotional and mental maturity [1] so that is correct one year can make a lot of difference in the maturity department. females typically become mentally mature slightly before men.

My opponent stated "I never denied this as a general trend, but warned that for specifics. (13+ vs 16+) we need more data than a general trend" My opponent has never specified what data they feel would be necessary



Note One: Privacy
My opponent stated that: "Children are sometimes ensnared by predators or cyber-bullies. But, I would point to the actual facts we have here, instead of assuming that any case reported by the media represents a high percent of children."

The fact of the matter here is that cyber bullying especially on facebook is a dangerous trend. According to some studies 54% of cyber bullying occurs on Facebook [2] this is alarming people under 13 should not have to cope with this it is alarming and is preventable children under 13 should not be allowed to use social networking sites as it is a useful outlet for cyber bullying.

My opponent stated that:It's relatively nothing, speaking from an objective, number standpoint. My opponent would want to deny these millions (dare I say billion{s}?)of people (not under thirteen; that was just an example) a chance to connect, share, play, enjoy, benefit, and organise on SNS because of a relatively few cases each year that are hyped up by the media?"

That is correct Facebook in 2010 facebook received 223,374 reports of sexual predators targeting children, nearly double the 2009 number [3]. And this number continues to climb. child predators are still prevalent and are not the only threat let alone the largest. There are threats from phishing sites, scams, cyber bullying and porn among others [4]. The under 13 facebook environment is a dangerous place. Children under thirteen should not be allowed to have to deal wit the multitude of threats facebook poses.

I'd like to thank my opponent, voters and the audience.

Sources.
[1]http://www.ask.com...
[2]http://www.bizreport.com...
[3]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
[4]http://eyeguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 4
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Con for his response; I will follow suit.


Contention One: Connectivity
I would apologise to my opponent if I have misquoted him out of context, however my round four response has not been touched. My opponent's response was based a lot on privacy; I conceded privacy on certain SMS, but this contention is aboutconnectivity. As such, I will extend my contention from last round. I would recommend that - based off the discourse in rounds four and five - my opponent concedes this contention and moves it over to privacy instead. That way, we can discuss things on one floor.

In any case, because my opponent's response was based of privacy, whereas here I am arguing for connectivity; extend contention.


Contention Two: Maturity
"With the onset of puberty comes emotional and mental maturity...so that is correct one year can make a lot of difference..."
I would highlight the word "can" here. It would be wrong to judge the entire population of a certain age group based off an average number of what *can* happen to someone in particular circumstances. The odds are quite low, relatively, of something happening that would really damage a child's life. It's like crossing a road. There comes a point when people mature and can be trusted to cross the road - but that doesn't mean people should be banned from crossing the road until they mature. With reasoning such as that, we could justify banning almost anything to under thirteens. In fact, I argue that my motion is better, as thirteen is quite old; there are only a few things that one cannot do at thirteen, legally. (Driving, sex, alcohol, etc...)

My opponent has yet to show why we should ban all SNS to all people 13+ (until 18); all my opponent has done thus far is give examples of when, on average, people mature, but one cannot you that as total justification to block everything.

On the "trend" aspect:
I will just drop the data aspect - not concede it - just drop it. I feel it would be too tedious at this point in the debate.


Note 1: Privacy
"The fact of the matter here is that cyber bullying especially on facebook is a dangerous trend. According to some studies 54% of cyber bullying occurs on Facebook [2] this is alarming people under 13 should not have to cope with this it is alarming and is preventable children under 13 should not be allowed to use social networking sites as it is a useful outlet for cyber bullying."

One must be careful when citing sources - particularly when it comes to missing out words. Sometimes it's OK and useful, but missing out the word extreme makes a big change, as my opponent has done.

"54% of extreme cyber-bullying takes place on Facebook[1]" There is a rather big difference between cyber-bullying and extreme cyber-bullying. Extreme being comments to "kill yourself" or "share if you think she[']s a slut" is a world apart from standard bullying.

Also, I agree with my opponent that people under 13 shouldn't cope; this is about 13+, however.

"That is correct Facebook in 2010 facebook received 223,374 reports of sexual predators targeting children..." That is incorrect; my opponent has mis-quoted his source. The actual source states: "CyberTipline, the nation's hotline for reporting sexual exploitation of children, received 223,374 reports...[2]"
Facebook and CyberTipline are not the same things - my opponent has (willfully or no) lied, here.

I also believe my opponent has based his argument on people 1-13, whereas this debate is about people 13+. Last round, I gave people under thirteen as an example to express staggering numbers in a minority. There will be more 13+ users on SNS such as Facebook than 0-13 users.


My contentions summarized:

One: My opponent has been talking about privacy while my contention is on connectivity. My opponent has consequently ignored my actual contention.
Two: My opponent has given facts on when people start puberty, on average. However, he has not shown how this should give justification to block everyone, everywhere.
Note 1: My opponent has merely mis-quoted sources, which I have pointed out and refuted.

Therefore, I extend all arguments.


Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate over the past few days; to thank the audience with the voters for reading this debate through. Another thank you goes out to the voters - for voting!

I'll see y'all around!

J


Source(s):

[1]http://www.bizreport.com...
[2]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Michaelphelps

Con

Thanks to Pro For his response; I will now present my remarks.

Contention One: Connectivity
You stated that I failed to address your contention so I will do my best to satisfy this. The examples I provided above among others effectively do the same thing as facebook. You can text and message any individual who has a phone number. These and others are secure and effective they are far superior to Facebook' s potentially dangerous message service.


Contention Two: Maturity
"It would be wrong to judge the entire population of a certain age group based off an average number of what *can* happen to someone in particular circumstances."

Obviously not everyone will become mature at the age of thirteen as there will always be exceptions. But science has proved as hormones are released during puberty individuals develop a more mature mentality.

"but that doesn't mean people should be banned from crossing the road until they mature."

If individuals are not yet mature they cannot always utilize good judgement like you or I. Therefore people should be banned from accessing social networking sites until they are mature. They will be less impressionable and more sensible safe Internet users.


Note 1: Privacy

"One must be careful when citing sources - particularly when it comes to missing out words. Sometimes it's OK and useful, but missing out the word extreme makes a big change, as my opponent has done."

Very well, Here are the other standard cyber bullying stats [1]: "One million children were harassed, threatened or subjected to other forms of cyberbullying on Facebook during the past year. (Consumer Reports, 2011)

This is an unacceptable number. Facebook is a harbour of cyber bullying. Nobody should be subjected to cyber bullying.

"I also believe my opponent has based his argument on people 1-13, whereas this debate is about people 13+. Last round, I gave people under thirteen as an example to express staggering numbers in a minority. There will be more 13+ users on SNS such as Facebook than 0-13 users."

Although several of arguments were based on children they are not the only ones at risk.
The risks applicable to children are also relevant to those older such as stalkers and predators [2]


Summary of my arguments:
1. I have address the contention of connectivity and shown how there are safer alternatives to facebook which provide similar services and also allow you to connect with people.
2. I showed how maturity doesn't kick in until puberty which is typically around 13. I have also shown how maturity it critical when interacting online and how children should be mature before they exposed to the dangerous realm of facebook and other Social Networking sites.
3. I have found relevant sources some of which I have accidentally mis-quoted (I apologize) but I have also proved my case with accurate information.

Thank you to my opponent, the audience and Voters. Thank You!



It's been fun.




[1]http://www.internetsafety101.org...
[2]http://www.momlogic.com...


Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jonathan11 3 years ago
Jonathan11
I completely agree with the first vote and I will explain my reasoning. Both very good debaters, but I feel con could not refute all of pro's points, such as the maturity pillar. If con spent more time refuting instead of bringing up irrelevant facts he would of won.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
MysticEggMichaelphelpsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that in general young people are not mature enough to handle the hazards of social networking, and there is good evidence for that generality. However, Pro said in the challenge that parental consent would be required. Parents have the responsibility to judge the maturity of their children, and are well equipped to do so. The problem in judging the debate is that after stating the condition, Pro never pointed back to it as a reason to overcome Con's general objections. Pro would have had a clear win had he used the argument that he had set up. As it is, I'm not sure if it is too much of a stretch for the reader to recognize an argument that Pro only implied. I'll go with Pro in this case, but it's a close call.