The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Should elementary shool kids have phones?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/23/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 42842
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




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 claims that children are stalked on their way home, though you simply cannot prove that. My opponent gives no evidence saying that children are being stalked on their way home, and that they are using their phones to save themselves. Until he provides evidence showing that they are being stalked, or gives a specific example of a child using his/her phone for protection from a stalker, my opponent's point on stalking and how children use phones to protect themselves must be dropped from the debate. My opponent states that parents are working longer hours, and leaving kids at home by themselves. For this point he provides no evidence. But even if it were true, it is simply illogical. Once children are at home, they have a house landline that they can use as "their lifeline" as well as the parent's source of comfort so they can check in on their kid, if necessary, giving no need for the young child to have a cellphone.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


"An estimated 3.4 million children become stalking victims each year. " ( 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 searched the site and NO WHERE on the site does it say "An estimated 3.4 million children become stalking victims each year. " Unless you can provide a direct link to where it says that your point on stalking is still dropped from the debate.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


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 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 a random study showed of all the criminal juvenile cases %34 were stalkers.

Stalking is a growing problem- let's protect innocent children.


So you asked " even if a child has a 1% chance of being hurt, one close to you, will you knowingly ignore it?" in round 2. I responded with no. Your point of "it is" is illogical. I responded to the point that IF there is a 1% chance of them getting hurt. So IF there is a 1% chance of them getting hurt, like you said in round 2, then there is no need for a phone, because the chance of getting hurt could only be 1%.

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.



"Smart phone users now have a huge variety of games to choose from"

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
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.