Should elementary shool kids have phones?
Debate Rounds (3)
Many parents these days are working odd hours and often leave their children bye him or herself. Many times kids are stalked home from shool and it is critical that these children aleart the authorities. Children's lives are at stake- this is their lifeline. This also the parent's source of comfort.
Although children can become addicted to different gaming apps the phones ultimate role still stands: safety.
My opponent concedes that children CAN become addicted to games. This is entirely true. Kids can become very addicted to these games, leading to horrible consequences.
When elementary school kids are given cell phones, they often get addicted to them, and games on the phones, as my opponent conceded. This causes the kids to miss out on the real world around them, and miss out on their childhood. This is a terrible harm of children having cell phones.
Therefore Elementary school kids SHOULD NOT have cell phones.
"An estimated 3.4 million children become stalking victims each year. " (www.safehorizon.org for more information)
Please understand my view- even if a child has a 1% chance of being hurt, one close to you, will you knowingly ignore it?
I would not knowingly ignore, because if I knew about it, then the child WOULD NOT EVEN NEED A PHONE! And you fail to make a connection between a kid having "a 1% chance of being hurt" and having a phone. It is completely irrelevant. Plus if the chance of the child getting hurt is only 1% then, the child is in no real danger, because the chance of them getting hurt, as my opponent said before is ONLY 1%. That is a minuscule amount that puts the kids in no danger what so ever. Unfortunately I cannot understand your view because it is illogical, and does not make sense.
My opponent also fails to respond to ALL of my points. He does not respond to my point about kids getting addicted to games, in fact he actually concedes to it in his first argument. He also fails to respond to my point on kids missing out on their childhood because they are spending way too much time on their cell phones.
So Elementary school kids SHOULD NOT have cell phones.
You are evading my statement that even if it was 1%, not it is. Also, having a phone will help you keep in touch with authorities and parents.
Also, on http://www.parents.com... an app is shown out of many on how children can be watched and tracked in case of an emergency.
Also, to address your silly child's gaming addiction: What is your proof that they become addicted?
"He also fails to respond to my point on kids missing out on their childhood because they are spending way too much time on their cell phones." How silly is this- they can have a simple phone with no games if this is what their parents wish.
The main focus is safety and you keep on avoiding this argument by stating 1% isn't really dangerous. Once again I meant that as a figure of speech, not a real fact.
In http://bjp.rcpsych.org... a random study showed of all the criminal juvenile cases %34 were stalkers.
Stalking is a growing problem- let's protect innocent children.
Ok so on to your Apps. Only 2 of the apps allow parents to restrict their child's freedom, and require both the child and the parent to have smartphones. These are smartphones that have games on them, so you are contradicting yourself when you later say "they can have a simple phone with no games." So this drops both of your points. And if the parents were able to limit the freedom of their child by allowing him/her to be tracked then the child would have a smartphone, and all smartphones have games.* So the children will play these games, and will get addicted to them. Which brings me to game addiction.
Game addiction is brought up by you in round one, so you are conceding to it. "children can become addicted to different gaming apps" These are your exact words that you use in round 1, so you are conceding to my point. Since you are conceding to my point I need no evidence but I will still give some.**
So now in more response to "they can have a simple phone with no games." When is the last time you saw a phone with no games, that just calls and texts. Those are things of the past. Therefore my point on missing out on their childhood is proven correct, and you must vote CON on that.
So to your study that 34% of all criminal juvenile cases were stalkers, this is only from 300 cases, when there are thousands, if not millions of criminal juvenile cases that take place each year. Only 300 is a extremely small fraction of all the crimes that is just simply obscure and not relevant, and should be dropped from the debate. So this means that my opponent gives absolutely no evidence throughout the entire debate that proves that young children are actually in danger from stalkers, and use phones to help them. He provides a source in round 2, but once I brought up that no where on the website he provides does it say, what he claims it says he drops it from the debate, and I just dropped his newer source. Therefore he has absolutely no evidence that children are in danger, and that stalking is NOT a growing problem. Therefore my opponent has no case, as his whole case is on stalking which has been dropped from the debate.
FOR ALL THESE REASONS I URGE YOU TO VOTE CON!
"Smart phone users now have a huge variety of games to choose from"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con, rather than debate with Pro, chose to criticize his sources and choice of wording. Arguments to Pro because, although Pro could have done a better job of expressing his points, he still gave a valid point that phones are a contributing factor to the safety of children, and Con didn't rebut it; he simply criticized Pro for his sources and quoted Pro's round 1 argument about game addictions. despite the fact that Pro had just addressed it in the round before.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.