The Instigator
191101568
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Phones for Kids?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2012 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,437 times Debate No: 21694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

191101568

Con

This is my first debate I started, so sorry if I am bad AT FIRST. This first round will just be an agreement round for if kids are allowed to have phones. Thank you. Please feel free to comment or enter.
Debate Round No. 1
191101568

Con

OK, first off, why in the world would an adult allow his or her child to have a phone? I have 3 starting explanations (still counting) for why kids are not allowed to have phones in my opinion. First, the radiation from the phone can effect the child in a bad way. Second, thieves and other kids will steal or take the phone. Third of all, the child will play or text friends on their phone, resulting of not doing homework or chores.

I'm sorry if this is not advanced, because I just signed up. Thank you.
Zaradi

Pro

I'll present my argument, then rebuke my opponent's.

My sole reason for why we ought to allow kids between the ages of 11-13 access to cell phones is because it helps their parents keep in touch with them. At these ages, the kids are in somewhere in 5th grade to 7th or 8th grade. Gone are the days where they're counting to ten and reciting their ABC's. They're growing up. With an increase in age comes an increase in responsibility. As the kids get involved in more and more things, such as extracurricular activities and school-related clubs and activities, they may need to break off of some pre-arranged schedule in order to make sure everything gets done. With access to cell phones, it allows their parents to keep in touch with them and make sure that they are okay and going to get home at a certain time. Without it, it makes communication between parent and child much more stressed and much more complicated.

Now, I will go to my opponent's arguments. For simplicity, I will abbreviate each reason with 'R'.

R1:

His first reason is the most unbelievable reason: radiation from the phones are going to screw with the kids minds and growth. To this, I have two responses:

1. There's absolutely no proof that this is true.
2. Even if it is true, then there's no explanation as to how much radiation is harmful. There's a certain amount of radiation that comes from X-rays, but those don't harm us. It takes a LOT of radiation to actually have a harmful effect, and there's not enough plausibility for that much radiation coming from phones.

R2:

His second reason is that if kids have phones, they will always be stolen. Three responses to this:

1. No reason why the phones will ALWAYS be stolen.
2. Even if, it's not a reason why kids ought not have it. It's just a reason why kids need to be more responsible and learn to keep track of things.
3. This point doesn't make sense. If kids have phones already, why would they need to steal another phone? It doesn't make any sense.

R3:

His third reason is that this will prevent the kids from doing homework. This is all a matter of teaching them responsibility. Of course, the temptation to just play around on their phone and forget about their homework is there, but not doing it teaches them to be responsible and do their work before playing, which is a much greater outcome that doesn't come if we don't allow them to have phones.

With all his three points refuted, it's an easy vote for the pro.
Debate Round No. 2
191101568

Con

Thank you for rebutting.

Firstly, you state:"My sole reason for why we ought to allow kids between the ages of 11-13 access to cell phones is because it helps their parents keep in touch with them. "

Well, the kids only spend one minute calling their parents to pick up/send them somewhere. The rest of the time are for texting to friends and playing games. Imagine the loss of eyesight!

Second, you state:"As the kids get involved in more and more things, such as extracurricular activities and school-related clubs and activities, they may need to break off of some pre-arranged schedule in order to make sure everything gets done. "

I agree with you that children are more social when they are growing up, but they do not HAVE to have a phone. Their family could plan out everything (time,places) BEFORE the activities to avoid confusion. They do not have to have a phone to meet their needs.

Thirdly, you state:"With access to cell phones, it allows their parents to keep in touch with them and make sure that they are okay and going to get home at a certain time."

I am going to connect and refer to my second rebuttal. As I said earlier, they can plan everything out before the activities to avoid confusion. For the, "... make sure that they are okay...", the kids could go to a nearby place to borrow their phone to call their parents. They do not have to have a phone with them at all times so they could call when emergency. Also, at school, there would barely have an urgent situation enough to call their parents. As you said, "...increase in responsibility...", the children could be responsible and use common sense.

I'm sorry if there was statements that were confusing. This is all new to me.

Thank you very much.
Zaradi

Pro

First off, I'd like to appologize to the judges for a very poor and weak opening argument for the pro side of the debate. I hope to clarify, strengthen, and provide evidence for my claims in this round. Also, I will point out the flaws in my opponent's arguements against my point in this round as well.

One thing I would like to point out to the judges before I do start is that my opponent conceded all of my rebuttals in the last round. In so far as he did that, he basically kicked his entire case. Because of that, he cannot possibly win off of his case unless he brings up a new point. So if I'm sufficiently winning a single point on the pro side of the debate, then that's going to be sufficient to win, since my opponent conceded his entire case. With that in mind, I will first clarify, strengthen, and provide evidence for my side of the debate.

There are numerous seperate points as to why cell phones ought to be given to kids, but they all boil down to a few main points:

1) Safety

When a kid has a cell phone, they have access to the police and emergency services in case they ever need it. Cell phones also have GPS tracking, that allows parents to keep track of their kid's location.[1] Cell phones also provide parents with an easy way of getting in touch with their kids in case of a change in plans (i.e. a parent gets stuck in traffic, a student decides to stay longer during an afterschool tutorial).[1,2]

2) Peace of mind

With the constant ability to contact your child with a cell phone, it's been proven that this provides a form of psychological relief, according to Anita Gurian, a Ph.D of the New York University of Child Study Center.[3]. When your child has a phone, it's proven that the parents gain a form of 'peace of mind' that makes their lives more stress free.[3]

3) Responsibility

This is probably the most commonly accepted to be true. When kids have phones, they have to keep track of minutes and number of texts to not go over a certain plan.[1, 3] Also, phones can be used as a bargaining chip to teach kids responsibility, (i.e. taking away their phone if they don't do their homework)[2].

Without phones, none of these benefits are provided. Now, to respond to my opponent's arguments (which I shall label with A meaning argument, followed by the number it was provided).

A1:

1. Limits can be placed on their phone to ensure that this doesn't happen.[1,2,3]
2. Loss of eyesight? What the heck does this even mean? There's absolutely no proof that this ever happens.

A2:

His argument assumes that parent's aren't ever late or that kids don't occaisionally run late in tutorials or practices. This just doesn't hold up in the light of reality. Traffic makes parents late all the time. And practices hold kids behind normal time all the time. Phones become essential here to communicate this change in schedule.

A3:

His argument here comes from his second argument. Since I refuted his second argument, his third one goes down as well.

Obvious pro vote is obvious.

Sources:

[1] http://www.sheknows.com...
[2] http://www.onetoughjob.org...;
[3] http://www.modernmom.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
191101568

Con

Thank you for responding.

1) I agree with you now that kids should have phones in an emergency only. However, they do not need a regular phone for that. The kids could buy a ladybug phone or a phone that only can be used in an emergency. Also, I had said earlier that a child could use common sense to wait a little longer at the activity until their parents pick them up.
2)Peace of Mind? That doesn't even make any sense. What if the child loses their phone? Will the parents still have a "peace of mind"?
3)There is no proven evidence that phones make children more responsible. You said: (i.e. taking away their phone if they don't do their homework). The child would be angry and throw a tantrum.
Zaradi

Pro

My opponent is definetely making this debate harder on himself than absolutely necessary. Again, I'll abbreviate his new arguments with A and then the number that it came in his last round.

A1: Don't need a regular phone

I'd like to point out that I've never been arguing specifically for 'regular phones' (by this, I assume that my opponent means things like Droids, iPhones, etc), but phones in general. Providing a 'ladybug' phone is still enough for me to affirm the resolution.

A2: Common sense to wait

This doesn't adress the actual argument I've made. If traffic delays a parent picking up their kid by 30 minutes or an hour, how is waiting common sense? Wouldn't it be more common sense to have a phone to communicate the problem with the child and come to a solution to it, instead of making them wait around for a half hour or a hour?

With these two arguments refuted, my first point can be cleanly extended across the flow.

A3: Peace of Mind?

Two responses to this:
1) He never really adresses the source that proves my point. I cited a Ph.D study on this that concluded that when kids have phones, their parents feel more relaxed and have 'peace of mind'. This was never attacked.
2) The argument "what if child loses the phone" presupposes they have a phone in the first place. So in order for my opponent to actually gain offense off of this argument, the resolution has to be affirmed to begin with.

With this argument dealt with, my second point can be cleanly extended agross the flow.

A4: No evidence for responsibility

My opponent seems to be entirely forgetting about my three sources that all point to giving phones to kids teaches them responsibility. None of this was ever refuted, so I'm providing clear evidence to prove my point.

A5: Will throw a tantrum

This argument simply isn't true. If a parent takes a child's phone away and tells them that they will get their phone back once their homework is finished, the homework is probably going to end up being done simply so that the child can get their phone back. This teaches them that with work comes rewards, and not doing work leads to bad consequences, which lead to responsibility.

With those two arguments refuted, my third point can be cleanly extended across the flow.

So at this point in the debate, the round breaks down pretty easily:

1. My opponent entirely conceded his case in favor of refuting mine. So long as I'm winning on a single point of offense on my case, then, it's going to be sufficient for a pro vote.
2. My opponent has not attacked my sources, in favor of just reiterating his arguments. I've provided clear evidence as to why my position stands true. Since he has not adressed that, this is going to be the most damming flaw in my opponent's last rebuttal.
3. I'm sufficiently proving all three of my points. In so far as I am, I'm giving the voters three independent reasons as to why to vote for pro.

So this is an easy vote, not all that hard or complicated. My opponent isn't doing enough work to prove his case true. I'm sufficiently proving my three points true. It's an easy vote for the pro.
Debate Round No. 4
191101568

Con

1) You say that a ladybug phone is still a phone. However, how is that a phone when there are only two buttons: 911 and home.
2)You say that common sense is useless when waiting 30 minutes or more. Uh, what? Even when you have a phone, you call your parents to confirm that you are waiting longer. Isn't that the same thing as just waiting using common sense? Didn't you say before that kids will be more responsible, and isn't using common sense responsible? My opponent sure doesn't make any sense!
3)You only cited ONE Ph.D study. Perhaps other Ph.Ds do not agree with that. If a child loses he/she's phone, they will have to pay lots of money and have to get a new phone.
4) You say that you cited three sources that kids will have responsibility. I bet those were the only three you found. Ha!
5) If you don't agree about kids throwing tantrums, listen to this. When you say,"If a parent takes a child's phone away and tells them that they will get their phone back once their homework is finished, the homework is probably going to end up being done simply so that the child can get their phone back." What if the child does their homework sloppy and messy just to get the phone back?

P.S. Please don't always say,"It's an easy vote for the pro." No one even voted yet.
Zaradi

Pro

Okay, my opponent's basically given up now. He's gone to arguments that don't actually refute anything and amount to a total worth of "I'm right and you're wrong. Nahna nahna boo boo!" Needless to say, I'm a little dissapointed. Anyway, like before, I'll go through and refute his new arguments, explain how the round went down, and why I'm clearly winning. As normal, his arguments will be represented by an "A" and the number in which they came.

A1: Ladybug phones can't be phones! Can they?

Actually, they are. A phone doesn't need to have fifty billion apps on it to be a phone. All it has to do is be able to contact other phones, and it meets the criteria of being a phone. Since it can contact two different numbers, their home number and 911, it meets the categories of being a phone. In so far as he concedes this, it's an easy vote for the pro right here.

A2: Common sense is useless! Yeah! I said it!

Uhm....I'd like to ask my opponent to point out where I said this. Since he can't respond to this, I'll do it for him: I never said this. I said that it would be more sensicle to confer with your kid over a phone in the event of a delay than just having your kid sit there for potentially an hour. I didn't say common sense was useless. He's totally strawmanning my arguments.

A3: Only one Ph.D study! Deeeerp!

Perhaps other Ph.D's don't agree? Unless you can provide evidence to back up this claim, it's not a valid assertion.
But again, losing a phone pressuposes that they have a phone in the first place, which is an affirmation of the resolution. So in order to gain access to this offense, the resolution already has to be affirmed first, which means I have to win before he gains access to this offense.

A4: Only three sources? Pah!

If this is an argument, I fail to see the impact, or warrant, or any part of an argument, of it. But just to prove you wrong, look here[4], and here[5], and here[6], and here[7]. Boom.
Also, I'd like to point out that even if three sources isn't many, it's more than his none. Just sayin'.

A5: Sloppy homework isn't homework!

As long as the homework is getting done, then it's teaching them responsibility. It doesn't matter how bad the work is or how bad my handwriting is, if I had to do work to get a reward, I'm being taught responsibility. Which is exactly what my point says.

So the round breaks down in a few ways:

1. My opponent abandoned their case in want to refute mine. So as long as I'm sufficiently proving at least ONE of my points, it's sufficient for a pro vote. The more points I prove, all the better.
2. My opponent hasn't even refuted a single one of my arguments sufficiently. I've disproven all of his refutations and my points still hold strong.
3. My opponent simply gave up in his last round and didn't really give any argumentation. At the least, deduct a conduct point for this poor behaviour.

At this point, despite my opponent's protests, I feel that this is necessary: It's an easy, simple vote for the pro.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 191101568 5 years ago
191101568
I'm sorry about that. But feel free to comment and vote whenever you like!
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
I agree with you, but I would take the debate if the resolution was the latter one.
Posted by 191101568 5 years ago
191101568
This is a debate:

Cell phones should not be given to kids aged (0-13) and should be regulated from parents. If you enjoy this topic, feel free to enter.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Is this a debate resolution "Cell phones should not be given to kids and should be regulated by parents" or "Cell phones should be banned for kids through Federal Law"?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 5 years ago
mariahjane
191101568ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It's each person's choice as a parent since it's their money. Pro made better arguments and used better sources.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
191101568ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped his own case and did not meet his BOP. His refutations against Pro's were extremely weak, since many of them were either not true or had no evidence to back them up. His attempt to refute Pro's sources also failed, since all he actually said was, "I bet those were the only ones you could find!" (or something like that). Clearly, Pro has won this debate.