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

Primary age students should not be allowed to access social media.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/6/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 100608
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Primary age students should not be allowed to access social media.


I accept this debate and will be arguing for Con.
Debate Round No. 1


There is really no possible way to block stalkers because they can always get past what ever obstacles that you move into their way. Stalkers have very well educated knowledge on technology and Internet. The Internet. The thing that triggers most problems. The Internet attracts children because all of the games and how wonderful it is, it really isn't that great. The amount of stalkers and hackers there are on the Internet there is really is absolutely no way through. They might click on a website that might say "Fun Facts About Space For Kids" and as soon as they click on it the person owning the website has tricked them into a big mess. They can steal their photos, contacts etc which they can then steal their ID.


Pro has immediately launched into their main, and only argument, and doesn't show any statistics that it is a real problem.
Here are reasons why we shouldn't restrict social media.
It is the parents responsibility to educate their children and to have an open dialogue with them about technology and the internet.
Learning the ins and outs of technology and social media are imperative to success in the modern world. If you lack the basic knowledge of such things your options for education, careers, and even housing suffer.
You made the debate about social media then open up with half your opening argument about scams on the internet? Social media websites don't allow advertisements or such that do those things.
Limiting freedoms on the grounds of protection is what is bringing down the western world and opening the door for corruption and its ilk to soil our freedoms we cherish. This is assuming the government would be enforcing your policy.

I will bring my points to the debate now:
Most of my advantages to allowing access to social media are derived from the disadvantages from restricting it.
When the dialogue has been opened, it makes for much easier communication in the future from the sex talk to drugs and alcohol. This would reap numerous benefits.
"Learning the ins and outs" reaps all the benefits that restricting social media does not.
By disallowing the restriction of such freedoms like the internet we open the door for further freedom violations of the like we've seen with the patriot act and the following "safety" narrative being shoved down our throats. What could be next? Porn?

My last advantage is not derived from the arguments I made against Pro.
By allowing children such early access to social media we are letting them get a news source that is tailored to them. This increases the public's immediate knowledge of current events which is undoubtedly a good thing, but also starts conversation and discussion. With this restriction, children would never be able to ask what this or that is or clarify what's happening because they would have no idea it is even taking place.

So if we evaluate the reasons to vote Pro and the reasons to vote Con it is clear who the winner should be.

One would only vote for Pro if they believe the slight and unreasonable threat of hackers and stalkers on modern social media sites. And one would have to value that "protection" above all the other advantages that are lost by restriction.
One would vote Con if they could see that the benefits are far outweighed by the disadvantages. Not only that but there are multiple reasons why social media is a good thing in a child's life.
Debate Round No. 2


There is no doubt that you won"t be able to shelter your child from mature content if you allow him or her on social networking sites.
Even if your child doesn"t follow celebrities or bands who post and share mature content, other kids or adults can share #things that just aren"t good for little eyes to see.
Even the ads on Facebook alone nowadays can be enough to make my jaw drop!
When your child is exposed to continuous status updates, photos, and YouTube videos that promote #things that go against what you are trying to teach at home, how much influence do you think you will have in your child"s life?
Peer pressure is a strong thing, and with social media comes a very large deal of peer pressure, especially for very young children with tender minds who are still trying to find their own way in the world. I know how easy it can be for me as an adult to spend more time that I intended on Pinterest or YouTube at any given time!
Children have almost no concept of #time, and may spend hours browsing and surfing the web.
This is something that each parent can view as a problem or something that makes no difference on his or her own.
Just be aware of this possibility!
Homework will normally get pushed to the side in favor of scrolling Twitter if a child is given the option.
Many kids nowadays even sneak phones into their classrooms and goof around instead of paying attention.
Friends and family may also get brushed off at get-togethers and parties if a child is absorbed in answering Facebook messages or pinning to Pinterest.
Do you know about the COPPA law?
The Children"s Online Privacy Protect Act basically protects a kid"s personal info and keeps it off the web.
That"s why every site asks you to verify that you are over 18.
If you allow your child to have a social networking site when they are underage, that law can no longer protect your child since your child"s personal information has been authorized to float around on unsecured websites.
I know many young kids on Twitter and Facebook who post and comment things about their parents.
Of course young children will always have reasons to vent, but do you really want your child saying bad #things about you and your style of parenting on the web?
In the worst cases, Child Protective Services have been involved due to lies and exaggerations by angry children.
Facebook presents a huge target for bullying.
If you don"t want your child exposed to bullies, or watching others be bullied, avoid letting them on social networking sites!
Kids can be harsh these days.
When I was a kid, we didn"t have all the social sites that are available now!
Let your kid be a kid.
Childhood is over in the wink of an eye, so encourage your child to enjoy it while it lasts.
Facebook will still be there when your child isn"t a child anymore!
I"m sure that each parent does what they feel is best for their child!
And if you and your children have come to terms of agreement that allow for your child to use social networking sites, please share your secrets!
These are just a few of the worries and concerns that parents can watch for and be aware of if you do decide to allow your children on social networking sites!


For the first part of this round I will be addressing Pro's round 3 arguments.
After that I will be critiquing Pro's arguments as a whole in this debate.
Lastly, I will explain why you should vote Con.
Let's begin.

It's hard to sort through Pro's round and get the individual arguments so bear with me.

1. "Mature content" will get to your kids no matter what you do.

In this argument Pro attempts to claim that mature content shows up everywhere, even if your kids don't subscribe/follow sources of said content.

This specific definition is from "" but when I looked around at other sources they said the same thing with different wording.

Adult content:
Content, such as pornography or violence, that is not generally thought to be appropriate for viewing by children.

Now if you look over facebook's ad policy, I chose to only show facebook because that was Pro's main concern, it disallows any form of adult content. Here is a quote from facebook's policy:
"Ads must not contain adult content. This includes nudity, depictions of people in explicit or suggestive positions, or activities that are overly suggestive or sexually provocative."
They then go on to show examples of what is allowed and what is not. You can see that here:
Twitter has an even more extensive policy on ads:
This shows twitter doesn't allow adult content but also expressly prohibits "get rich quick" type ads. Also prohibits hate content, sensitive policies, and violence as well as tobacco and tobacco products, weapons, gambling, financial services, political campaigning, health and pharmaceutical products and services, etc.
All the other major social media platforms have extensive lists such as this. I won't go into individual details because those are a public resource.

These policies show that ads that show this "adult content" are just not allowed and in the rare occasion that one slips through the vetting process it is usually reported and taken down. So the chances your child will have one of these on the screen AND they see it are amazingly slim, even more than I had originally thought.
The other point of this argument is that other people may share mature content. Well, if one is worried about these effects you can supervise your child's account. It is really that simple, don't allow them to follow those people if it's such a big deal. I come from the stance that it is not. There have been hundreds of studies specifically on mature content in video games, these studies have all but 100% proven that it has little to no negative effects on children but, in regards to social media, has the benefits I outlined in my previous speech.

2. Peer pressure is strong, especially on social media.

First off, isn't the point of childhood and young adulthood to find their own way in the world? Peer pressure is apart of this world and, like it or not, exists even after school and into adult years. That's why it is peer pressure not "playground" pressure. Going through things like peer pressure and bullying is rough but ultimately necessary to produce a functioning adult that isn't sensitive to any type of criticism. This is because it teaches kids to have a thick skin.

Peer pressure also has positive aspects to it.

3. Kids will spend too much time on social media.

This argument is horrible. Not just from the standpoint that parents should have taken control and supervised their children when it regards this especially, but also that there are multiple ways to monitor this. Off the top of my head, there is Disney's "My Circle" and Skydog (which has recently discontinued service.) Both of these services provide time restriction control, website type control, bedtime no internet control, etc.
Pro goes on for a while about this but it is simply down to parental supervision and intervention.


Yes, I concede the fact that COPPA no longer protects a child when they lie about being 18 to a social media website. But yet again this is the parents responsibility to monitor what their child is doing online. Have an open dialogue with your children about what can and can't be shared online.
Pro complains about kids venting about their parents online and apparently thinks this is a good reason to restrict social media to 0. This makes no sense, when kids are whining about parents it is to other kids, who cares if another kid thinks your parenting style is bad? They have no authority to state that.
Pro points out Child Protective Services get involved occasionally. I have never heard of CPS getting involved because of stuff a child has posted online about parents, and yet again Pro does not cite anything.

5. Let kids be kids

What? You are saying let kids be kids by restricting their free time? Do you actually think this is what you are doing Pro? Social media is a part of childhood now, whether or not you like it.

In sum, Pro makes multiple claims that are not backed up by any citations that is never provided, makes nonsensical arguments that I debunk, and has yet to respond to my arguments.
All Pro has done this debate is voiced off their opinion without anything to back it up, she hasn't even defended it from my criticisms.
I think it is clear that Con has won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
social media can be used for so many corrupt, unnecessary, unethical and even distracting ways. It prevents children from making logical communication adaptions, *from an inconclusive analysis of modern society.
Posted by kgbisafterme 1 year ago
"take that!" excuse me, ho, you don't seem to understand. Ur rude urself I'm merely repaying the favor.
Posted by Taylor_Watson 1 year ago
that is quite rude
Posted by Taylor_Watson 1 year ago
excuse you!
Posted by kgbisafterme 1 year ago
Con has left the building!(and taken the stage)

P.Sur a jerk tay.
Posted by Taylor_Watson 1 year ago
take that!
Posted by Taylor_Watson 1 year ago
students/ children
Posted by Taylor_Watson 1 year ago
students That are 12 and under
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
Define "primary age."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kgbisafterme 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sky high goes the guy. bye.