The Instigator
XavierSeals24
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Onionscannotnevernottalk
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Children Under 13 Be Able to Use Facebook?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 295 times Debate No: 80046
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

XavierSeals24

Pro

I think that children under 13 should be allowed to participate on Facebook. If you look at Mark Zuckerburg says he wants it himself. Also it can help with education and getting to talk to classmates like what Mark made it for. People say Cyber bullying can occur, it can but it is not the website doing it, it is the person responsible.
Onionscannotnevernottalk

Con

I think that children under 13 should be allowed to participate on Facebook. If you look at Mark Zuckerburg says he wants it himself. Also it can help with education and getting to talk to classmates like what Mark made it for. People say Cyber bullying can occur, it can but it is not the website doing it, it is the person responsible.

Thank you for your input and I'd like to throw a few thoughts in. Immediately it is clear that the premises of your argument, namely, the real cruxes or benefits of introducing FB to children, are not necessarily yielded in the best way, or even in a conceivable way from using facebook. I will argue that not only does facebook not provide what you claim it does to U13s, but that even if it did, it is not worth the risk.

So you mention two really interesting points. Education, specifically social learning, but also the issue of bullying.
Firstly you mention Zuckerberg himself wanting everyone to benefit from FB. Well, clearly FB is bigger than Mr. Z, and the interests writ large in advertising and in creating a safe environment for impressionable young children are far beyond the purview of FB, which you acknowledge at the end of your argument when you rightly cite people being ultimately responsible for any hurt to children. This is a debate about wider society; it is about which minds should have access to FB. Access to FB creates all sorts of distractions: conversing, playing games, and advertising to say the least.

You mention social learning. Clearly, this is something which a) is done in other forms than FB, and b) even if it could be properly done by FB, would require enormous adaptations to access including how many friends one can add, advertising and other areas of restriction - areas a commercial giant like FB may be apprehensive about introducing. I acknowledge this is a weaker argument here, but thats not the key point. The point is, in trying to make FB safer, it would a) water down FB into something that it essentially is not, if it could be done at all, but b) would result in a kind of environment much better legally administered by alternative technologies including apps on android technology. Social learning is a process and a good, which U13s can acquire far more easily and efficiently than being given access to FB. The House should have more constructive means for enabling social learning than opening the figurative flood gates of FB! And if one did open the floodgates, it wouldn't be FB anymore and would defeat the motion's purpose of having a stable definition of 'facebook'.

Secondly, bullying. The non-responsibility of FB for bullying only intensifies the importance of high regulation of material available to children. If social learning is so people-pushed, as you note, then surely personal responsibility is accordingly very relevant for any debate on children's development and thus creating a criteria for the acceptability of the motion. What this means is that FB has to integrate concerns for personal responsibility and regulate it to allow U13 entry - something logistically and ethically hard to FB to put forth in this era of security-conscious citizens! Regulating behaviour won't work well on FB and so any pro-active engagement with FB would be very hard to facilitate. That's worth bearing in mind; the house must focus it's energies elsewhere.

Thanks for your input :)
Debate Round No. 1
XavierSeals24

Pro

XavierSeals24 forfeited this round.
Onionscannotnevernottalk

Con

Onionscannotnevernottalk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
XavierSeals24

Pro

XavierSeals24 forfeited this round.
Onionscannotnevernottalk

Con

Onionscannotnevernottalk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
XavierSeals24

Pro

XavierSeals24 forfeited this round.
Onionscannotnevernottalk

Con

Onionscannotnevernottalk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
XavierSeals24

Pro

XavierSeals24 forfeited this round.
Onionscannotnevernottalk

Con

Onionscannotnevernottalk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.