The Instigator
Mr.Walrus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
East
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Should 12 year olds be able to have social media accounts?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
East
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,574 times Debate No: 68657
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Mr.Walrus

Pro

I think so. Kids with social media can make more friends. Kids now can have new ways to communicate with their friends. Let kids have social media!
East

Con

Apparently I need to complete 3 debates to become a full member, so here we go.

Pro says children should have social media accounts because they allow kids to communicate with their friends. Communication is important, but limiting interaction to social media or technology is detrimental to developing communication skills [A]. Kids can still communicate with one another through the phone, computer and internet without having to use social media. They should also be encouraged to communicate in person together in school or outside.

That addresses Pro's lone contention.

Reasons to not allow kids under 13 to have social media:

1. Research shows young people are easily addicted to social media, which can have damaging effects [B].

2. Spending too much time on social media makes kids fat, lazy and takes away time from their studies [C].

3. Privacy is an illusion. Social media poses a lot of safety concerns. Not only does the government have access to your information, but putting too much online can be a risk for children who become easy targets for aggressors. People can scam your kids, get their information, stalk them, harass them, bully them online or otherwise make them targets in situations they may not be prepared for. This applies to both adult and children predators. Sometimes social media stores or posts information without the kid's direct knowledge or consent.

4. Everything that is put on the internet stays there forever. That means if a kid says something while they are young and immature online, it will be permanent and could come back to haunt them later on in life when they are much older and wiser.

5. Even if a parent tries to monitor their kids, full time monitoring is almost impossible. Kids are not mature enough to make safe and intelligent decisions that can protect them both now and later on in life, until they are at least teenagers. It's easier to lie and manipulate younger children.

6. Social media can expose kids to things they are too young or ignorant to see, including misinformation.

7. Not only children but adults and society as a whole can be negatively harmed by social media. We develop a false sense of connection and decreased productivity [E]. If this can happen to adults, it can surely happen to kids who are at an even greater risk.

Conclusion

While social media offers many benefits, kids can wait until they are 13 to be privy to them. Not only do they have access to these benefits elsewhere, but after age 13 they will be more mature and can make smarter and healthier decisions regarding how to use social networking sites.


[A] http://www.forbes.com...
[B] http://www.elon.edu...
[C] http://www.pacific.edu...
[D] http://creeviking.hubpages.com...
[E] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Walrus

Pro

Mr.Walrus forfeited this round.
East

Con

Extend everything I said in the first round, thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Walrus

Pro

Mr.Walrus forfeited this round.
East

Con

Extend everything I said in the first round. My opponent has forfeited, thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Mr.WalrusEastTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Mr.WalrusEastTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits without making any arguments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Mr.WalrusEastTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF