The Instigator
laurenelainee
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
CommanderTaco
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Should Children be allowed to have cellphones at such a young age?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,042 times Debate No: 11431
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

laurenelainee

Pro

They should, mainly because of emergency. If something happens to them they are allowed to dial 3 simple numbers, 9-1-1. That could save a lot of children from child abductions. Now if you're thinking what if they don't know how to use it? That's also alright because in this day & age there are things called tracking systems on cellphones. Thus, allowing to track where their children are and possibly what they're doing.
CommanderTaco

Con

I first would like to thank my opponent for presenting this debate topic.

I am here to argue that young kids should not have cell phones. Since there was no age limit posted I will assume ages about 12 and under. I believe children should not have cell phones for the following reasons.

1.) If children were to have cell phones, what makes you think they won't learn how to use them. Children are usually far more capable of what we give them credit for, and technology is something any child learns to use fast. Children who learn how to use cell phones would most likely take them to school, and be distracted by them thus not learning a thing in class.

2.) While it may be important for them to carry cell phones in case of emergencies (dial 9-1-1.) Children are also know to be mischief. What makes a person think that some or even most kids will not play pranks on people.

3.) These so called tracking chips on a person's cell phone seems like an invasion of the child's privacy. How long is there to be a tracking chip in the child's cell phone, till what age would it be to remove the tracking chip. One would think a child would not be in much danger if a child has a tracking chip installed in their cell phone, but the opposite can be in effect as well.
A child with a tracking chip may end up having some sort of stalker who uses the tracking chip to find the child. Imagine a scenario where a child is followed by a creepy man no matter where they go, and are unaware that their phone has a tracking chip. The man eventually kidnaps the child and throws the cell phone somewhere to hide their tracks.

The above scenario is one of many possibilities that can happen. As stated by http://www.pcworld.com...
"we haven't even begun to explore the possibilities of malicious hackers turning their attention to this latest generation of phones." This concludes my first argument, and I wish my opponent luck on our debate.
Debate Round No. 1
laurenelainee

Pro

I would like to say you're welcome to my opponet.

1.) Is it not true though that some kids may not know how to use a cellphone? It is very possible that a child would be very unaware of how to use such a device? Parents may teach their child on how to use the cellphone responsibly.

2.) I understand your point, but if the child is properly taught than they would not make that mistake. I'm not saying that every child will follow this rule, but if they're properly taught then they would not be mischevious.

3.) My opponet says that "a tracking chip would be an invasion of privacy." Will this "invasion of privacy" matter when the child is in an emergency and have no where else to turn? What are they going to do? This tracking chip would be taken off when the parents feel that the child is responsible enough. I read your article, and I was not impressed. I would like for you to provide an example on when and where this sceneario can happen. Honestly, unless this sceneriao hasn't happened, I do not believe it can happen. The parents have full control of when & where they can check the cellphone.
CommanderTaco

Con

My opponent claims that kids 8 and above should have cell phones. I believe that children around the age of 12 and under don't have the responsibility to handle such a device. In today's society it seems inevitable to walk around a town without seeing someone texting or calling someone on a cell phone. I argue that kids don't have the right set of mind to handle the responsibility that comes with cell phones.

1.) If most little kids learn how to use cell phones, then they will most likely do as older teens do, and take their phones to school. When kids take their phones to school, they are usually distracting the kids from class.

2.) Kids are kids, and will buy things such as ring tones and games off the company store. Kids will raise the cell phone bill up.

3.) While I may not have found a scenario where a tracking chip has been used to abduct a child, most child abductions are usually done by family members or friends. Which makes the chance high that they will have your child's cell phone number. This video shows that Cell phones can be tracked by the number.
A child with a cell phone is taking a chance to be tracked not only by parents, but stalkers as well.
Debate Round No. 2
laurenelainee

Pro

My opponet states that children from the ages of eight and over can not handle the level of responsibility of a cellphone. Do you know every responsibilty level of every single child? No you do not, if a child is taught well on how to use a cellphone by their parents it is very possible they could handle it. Is it not true that when you say a statement like this, " I argue that kids don't have the right set of mind to handle the responsibility that comes with cell phones," you are making an assumption? Why would you make such an assumption, like you did, when you have no vital proof of it.

1.) If kids eight and under take their cellphones to class it is more than likely they will not have it out. Chances are they will keep it in their backpack. If they do take it to class with them, and let's say they stick it in their pocket, how will the teacher not see it? A child's pocket is very small and most of the time tight. Thus, letting the teacher know the chid has a cellphone. Now if the teacher/school has a problem with said cellphone then they can simply send a note to the school/teacher stating why their child has the cellphone.

2.)My opponet claims that kids will run up the bill with buying games,ringtones,etc. In this day and age there are such things called a lock on a cellphone. If a child continues to run up a bill then the parent can go to where they got the phone have certain restrictions set on the phone. Thus, preventing the child from over running the bill.

3.I would like my opponet to provide me a statistic and source stating that most child abductions are by a family member. Honestly, I do not believe that statement. The video that you provided says right in the beginning "this website may not include all phone numbers." What happens when the child's number is not valid in the system? What happens if the cellphone is pre-paid? When I was little I had a cellphone at age eight. Not once did I ever get tracked by an allegded "stalker."
CommanderTaco

Con

My opponent states "if a child is taught well on how to use a cell phone by their parents it is very possible they could handle it." While I agree partially with that statement, that Kids will listen to their parents most of the time. Kids still have a level of immaturity that comes with being a kid naturally. I have no proof of this except today's society.

1.) Kids may not use it in school I agree, but having a cell phone would still ruin them academically. Text messaging is becoming a recognized language of it's own, and with kids doing nothing but texting most of the time they will ruin their grammar skills.

2.) I have no counter argument for parents putting restrictions on their kids phones.

3.) Here is a link that states, some of the child abductions are done by family members or acquaintances.
http://www.examiner.com...

We have mainly been talking about morals in this argument, but let's get to the other issue as to why kids should not have cell phones.

4.) It's bad for a kid's health to have a cell phone. Cell phones produce radiation, and radiation can cause diseases. Here are two videos showing the danger of cell phones.
Debate Round No. 3
laurenelainee

Pro

1.) My opponet states that texting can ruin a child academically. While I only partially agree with him, they're solutions to this problem. If a child is suffering because of texting than they can get a tutor for extra help.
3.) I thank you for providing me with the proven statistic.

4.) Your video is very accurate. Yet, in the video the man asks, "how far away should I hold the cellphone?" If a child gets their cellphone tested, and follows instructions on how far away to hold the cellphone, then that could solve their problem. Now I'm not saying every child is going to obey this rule, but it could decrease diseases caused by radiation from the cellphone.
CommanderTaco

Con

You are welcome for the stats.
In conclusion I am stating I believe that most young children around the age of 12 don't have the right state of mind to handle the responsibility, and are taking a huge risk to their health by having a cell phone at such a young age.
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and hope you the readers have enjoyed this debate as well.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 4 years ago
Ninja_Tru
This was pretty good. Short and sweet.

-I feel as if the debate ending is kind of muddy. Following the arguments, what I get is, "Kids would use their phone to dial 911. Some kids would mess around and play pranks, but others wouldn't? And some kids would be stalked, but it's not likely? Some kids would get radiated, but others would learn to keep their phones away?"

-I think both sides should explain their harms. Pretty much, say WHY your problem matters. WHY is some academic screwing around less important than kids being endangered? WHY does brain radiation more dangerous than the off chance that a kid will need to use a phone? This'll make it easier for a reader to vote one way or the other.

-And maybe the arguments by both sides interact a lil bit.... The Con says that kids might get stalked if they carry cell phones, but then again.... the Pro kinda said that being kidnapped is something kids should be able to call the cops about by using their cell phones.... Maybe having cell phones means that more of these kids getting picked up will be rescued later?

-I ended up voting neg because he used some vids. Nothing much else.
Posted by laurenelainee 4 years ago
laurenelainee
youngest age is 8
Posted by Immortal 4 years ago
Immortal
What's young age? Children? Pre-teens? Teenagers?
Posted by hauki20 4 years ago
hauki20
Like said before, define young age and I might be compelled to argue for a view I don't hold. I don't promise anything, though.
Posted by tBoonePickens 4 years ago
tBoonePickens
I guess a child abductor isn't going to check for a cell phone or maybe even shut it off. I'll tell you, the quality of child abductors has simply gone down the drain!
Posted by wjmelements 4 years ago
wjmelements
Define young age.
Posted by Puck 4 years ago
Puck
Not really a topic I am against. Nor have much interest in. :P Make it a public debate (you don't have to challenge people) and someone will take it up. :)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by laurenelainee 4 years ago
laurenelainee
laurenelaineeCommanderTacoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by debate11 4 years ago
debate11
laurenelaineeCommanderTacoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by cult-logic 4 years ago
cult-logic
laurenelaineeCommanderTacoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 4 years ago
Ninja_Tru
laurenelaineeCommanderTacoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 4 years ago
Teleroboxer
laurenelaineeCommanderTacoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00