The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Should the social media age be lowered to 10

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 358 times Debate No: 90727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Hi everyone,

This is a fun debate please do not copy and paste. Open debate to all. Feel free to affirm.

My first contention for round one is that Children under 13 don’t have the hardware upstairs to make smart decisions online. Just because kids seem to be good at technology at younger ages, doesn’t necessarily mean that their brains are learning at the same rate as their digital interest. Research on children's brains shows that it takes children about 12 years to fully develop the structures that enable them to engage in ethical thinking. Studies show that for kids under the age of 12, it’s difficult for a child to fully grasp the impact of their actions upon others, online or in person. Young children are now often joining social networking sites, sometimes even putting themselves in harm’s way, by becoming victims of online harassment, solicitation, and cyber-bullying before they are ready to respond appropriately. Studies now show that brains aren’t done developing until a person is 25 years old. Stanford professor Clifford Nass surveyed about 3,500 girls ages 8 to 12 and found that the girls who used online media a lot felt badly about their friendships more so than other girls their age and had more friends that their parents considered a bad influence. Kids can’t make the right decision yet and when younger kids use social media it can cause damage to their future.


Hello Con,
I accept your debate and I know that winning this has a very low percentage. I am also in not in favor that the social media age be lowered to 10. However, I am going to put forth my arguments and try my best:

When we talk about social media. I want to say that LinkedIn, Twitter, You tube, Facebook are all Social Networking Sites.

I know that cyber-bullying exists, I know that people spend hours wasting on SNS and not being productive. However, these are the most common arguments in every SNS debate.

Let me change your perspective here.
#1 Although they would not make smart decisions online and make may make mistakes, what I see is that they may make this mistake once and will never repeat it again, and the sooner and earlier they learn these mistakes the better for them in the future! And when you make a mistake you always learn something from it. You get an idea of why and what made the mistake and hence you try to enhance yourself. That "initiative" that the child takes is itself a personality development towards perfection regardless of what their mistake was.

#2 Yes, I agree that children takes about 12 years to fully develop their brains. But may I ask you a question?
"Why do we have parents?" or "Why do we have teachers or elders?." We have them because they are here to guide us and make sure that we do not do anything wrong. So the brain development part s taken out here. Moreover if the child refuses to adhere to the guidance then I believe that it is not the child, but simply the parent's incompetence to control their own child. The parents have to make sure and constantly monitor his actions. If the parents don't do it. It's their FAULT. Do not blame SNS for the mistake of their parents.

#3 The main reason why I would like the age limit to be lowered is because I believe in "IN TODAY'S WORLD EVERYONE MUST HAVE ACCESS TO EVERYTHING." but in a "CONTROLLED MANNER." Now, please don't say that kids must have access to guns or RPG's or AK-47 or Bombs or whatever. I have specified in a controlled manner which includes how much the child should be exposed to such things just to make it clear. (WHICH IS 0 FOR GUNS AND BOMBS). The reason why kids must have these access is because they will always learn something new in some way or the other. Ask your heart if you disagree. In fact this site is itself a SNS where kids can learn a whole new field.

#4 Recently my friend uploaded his graphic design and I was happened to be tagged in that picture where my brother also saw it who is 9 yrs and inquired about it. Since then I have seen him so much interested and committed in this field of graphics designing. So you see here, through social media he got A NEW SKILL, MOTIVE, GOAL and a clear path of what he must achieve in life when today's kids today are clueless of what to do. I am also pretty sure that he will start producing his own work in a matter of months and give him a boost in his field.

#5 SNS like LinkedIn gives you important feedback on latest updates of what's happening around the world. Now, my brother recently joined LinkedIn, created his profile and subscribed to a page called "Blender" a graphics designing software. This would allow him to study the market of graphic designing and give him a head start or a boost into his field in some way or the other.

The only issue that I have found with SNS so far is that people misuse this opportunity. Social Networking Sites exist to serve your purpose. Now how to use it, totally depends on you regardless of what age you are. At any age you will have proper guidance to tell you which path is right or wrong. SNS are merely to help you serve YOUR purpose and for FREE what else do you want and if you can't take this opportunity it's YOUR FAULT not SNS.

Now, if you don't adhere to the guidance given by your parents, teachers, elders or Councillors it is totally your fault. Not SNS.

So if you destroy your FUTURE it's you who has to be blamed because YOU were the one who chose to spend countless hours doing nothing productive while SNS do what YOU command them to DO for FREE.

So if a child's brain is not developed, then it's the parent's responsibility to MAKE IT DEVELOPED.
Debate Round No. 1


My second contention is that Cyberbullying is an obvious and serious issue for children under the age of 13.. Rebecca Ann Sedwick, the 12-year-old who jumped to her death after enduring a year of cyberbullying from two girls, ages 12 and 14, is a painful example. Rebecca and one of the two bullies were under the minimum age required to use the social media sites (Facebook,, Kik and Instagram) where some of the bullying took place. 20% of kids under the age of 13 who are cyberbullied commit suicide. 1 of 10 attempt suicide. 81% of kids say that bullying online is an easy way to release hatred. 21 per cent of children had posted negative comments, starting from an average age of 11, and 26 per cent had 'hijacked' another person's account and posted without permission. A Pew Center survey found that 15% of teens between 12 and 17 said they’d been harassed on a social network site in the last 12 months, and, because “Facebook dominates teen social media usage,” as Pew put it, it’s safe to say that a lot of the harassment happened there. According to Intel online security programs, 50% of teens with social media have posted something they have later regretted. A survey was taken and this year 50% more kids have admitted to seeing cyberbullying online. 43% of teens have reported to being a victim of cyberbullying this year. 20% of cyberbullying victims have said that somebody posed as someone else online.

We should take a stand to not allow kids to have to be faced with this.. We need to grant them a gift to protect them


Like I said in Round 1,
What is Social Media?
Social Media is something that has been developed to solve your purpose and to work according to your command.

Therefore in the second round you state the issue of cyber-bullying and suicidal attempts which is a way to release hatred.
Now we all know that kids cannot bare insults at a small age. Yes, we are aware of that.

Now first thing is "Why cyber-bullying occurs?"
The main reason being "Jealousy towards someone else" and this is where small kids tend to suppress and dominate others just to be better than them because they know that they are NOT.

Now what are the solutions to "Cyber-bullying?"
In one way, the kid who is bullying others must be constantly warned and monitored by his elders. If he does not come to terms than action must be taken ethically and make him realize his mistakes. THIS IS HOW THEIR MINDS WILL DEVELOP IN THE FIRST PLACE if we talk about maturity.

However, Social media cannot stop people posting their opinions but they still have a way.
They have made a "blocking option."
They have made a "report this user" option.
They have a "mute option"
They have a "ban option"
What else do you expect Social Media to do? People will be like "He is bullying me SO I will suicide and give up my life. I HATE FACEBOOK" Well newsflash for you "FACEBOOK HAS THESE ABOVE OPTIONS. WHY DIDN'T YOU USE THEM HUH?"
Stop blaming social media.

So, please don't say that cyber-bullying is because social media exists. Cyber-bullying exists BECAUSE BAD PEOPLE EXIST.
If not cyber-bullying, we have Rapes, harassment, robbery, murder, stealing lunch etc etc.
What about that?^^
No matter where you go you will find BULLYING in one way or the other. THIS IS BECAUSE OF BAD PEOPLE FOLKS!
Tomorrow, if some murders with a KNIFE. WHO WILL YOU BLAME?
The Knife?
Or The one who USED THE KNIFE?

So you see, knife is a tool to serve your purpose, but the way you USE knife is totally up to you.
And let me make this clear, THERE IS NO STOP TO BULLYING IN ANY MANNER. Bullying does stop at cyber-bullying.

If you look at the Obama's speech against Trump, the way he made a mockery out of him (DO NOT VOTE TRUMP!!!) this means I will BLAME the MIC and not OBAMA because MIC is a tool.
Or if you see trump's speech where he throws out Muslims. THIS IS ALSO BULLYING where I will blame the mic and not TRUMP!! That's just RIDICULOUS.

So why differentiate with Social Media? Even Social media is a tool, like mic or knife.

Moreover, if a kid is facing cyber bullying, it is clearly understood by his behavior and facial expressions that "Something is not right." and they are vulnerable to THREATS. Which is what parents must understand and THIS is where they must interfere. But being stupid they DON'T and let their kid go through that and then regret. This is again the PARENTS to blame.
Even the kids who are not mature, need help. We understand. This is why PARENTS have to take the step. DO NOT BLAME SOCIAL MEDIA for someone else's mistake. I repeat.

The girl who killed herself is utterly stupid. She was looking for attention and when she found herself being humiliated for what she did, she starts to blame FACEBOOK.

However, Social Media is now keeping a check of all accounts whether you know it or not to act against cyber-bullying and hacking. If they find any suspicious activity, they WILL take action against it.
My point being that

The AGE must be lowered to 10 so that every one has equal access and rights but they have to be monitored.
All these technologies that we humans created, are all tools. Now that everything that depends on is HOW we use it. Humans just don't want to blame themselves so they look forward to blaming tools regardless of their ages.

Social Media is a BOON in this era which everyone should utilize it. Please do not snatch this BOON from small children. Let them experience this BOON but at the same time take care of them.

Let me tell you this,
We have worked hard enough to achieve what we have today. So respect what we made. Respect our INVENTIONS.
Don't blame our technology or tools. Blame the ONES who MISUSE THEM.
Debate Round No. 2


I agree with you when you state that we shoudln't punish social media. In order for us not to punish the invention of social media we can't allow 10 year olds to be on social media.

My third contention is that we don’t need more kids being attached to social media. Kids 13-17 spend at least 3 hours a day on social networking websites. 39,757 years of time have been spent on social media. Teenagers use social media 20% more than adults. The average American spends ¼ of their day using social networking sites. It’s bad enough that teenagers are already addicted to social media. Therefore, if we lower the age restriction we are passing on social media addiction to younger children. Teenagers have the average of 7.4 social networking apps on their cell phones. 18% of teenagers can not go for more than a few hours without checking their cell phones and 24% of teenagers check their twitter feed before getting up in the morning. Why are we allowing social media addiction to now begin in younger ages? Cell phones have replaced watches, clocks, and news. We shouldn’t let it replace our close friends and family.

I hope all of you see that this has gone to far and kids under 13 can not use social media. This has been a fun debate.



Your point is Legit.

All right let's heed to your point. Let's raise the age limit to 30 (for an example).
Do you think that this is going to stop them from signing up?
No and as far as I know the facts will be facts and nothing is going to change. People will still remain on What's app, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and on Mobile at least 1/4th of the day irrespective of age restriction on sns .
My point being. Raising the age limit will or keeping it above 10 will not change anything.

Moreover, let's talk about lowering the age limit to 10 (for example).
If this happens, then people will have a mindset that the right age to go on social sites is 10. Therefore, by the age of 10 they will have access to social media and what's happening around them. But as I mentioned before, it has to be monitored by their parents. This gives them the "RIGHT TO ACCESS." This means we are giving them their rights instead of stealing them by restricting age.
Just imagine if your brother who is 1 year older than you gets a smartphone by your dad but you don't get it just because you are 9 years and he is 10. You ought to feel abandoned and weak because you are less regarded.
Now if your dad gives both of you, there is EQUALITY and JUSTICE.
Same thing with SNS, Everyone must have Access to Everything in a Controlled Manner, this will give you self-importance and self-esteem in your own eyes and also boost up your morale.

I agree to the fact that these social sites are tempting and are attracting a lot of people who spend 1/4th of their day messaging.
Now, that's human nature. We get addicted. Be it social media, video games, origami, poker, pool, bets, drugs, alcohol etc.
We humans get addicted to many things and the only way to stop them is to stop their supply.
So talking on a general view even adults get addicted like kids. So what is the difference between an adult and a kid if they can't control their emotions? Thereore the question of limiting the age is pure bs and makes no sense.

So now, the only way to stop this social addiction is to bring it down.
Is this what you want? Or is this what anyone would want?
I don't think so.

Only if people could control their emotions, then people would say "How Godly this invention is". We are so blinded by it's disadvantages that we do not realize the power of this invention. This invention must be available to ALL. It should not be age RESTRICTED. What should be restricted. IS YOUR INTENTION AND YOUR ETHICS.

Once you control them....
You will see this as a MASSIVE BOON for EVERYONE.

And one more thing...
We humans want to make our life easier. So, what's the harm in replacing a mobile phone with a watch in case of luxury?
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by brainFreeze 5 months ago
thank you for your opinion and your vote.

Means a lot.
Debater Good
Posted by DebaterGood 5 months ago
Very good debate! Good job to both.
Posted by brainFreeze 5 months ago
Sorry for my grammatical mistakes. I skipped a word or few in my debate as well in the comment section below.

All I ask is to ignore such mistake and concentrate on the content.

Posted by brainFreeze 5 months ago
I forgot to mention one more point...

Even if they don't lower the age limit to 10. These young generations still can sign up on these SNS and get access to it.
So practically as well, it will not make a difference unless social media starts to ask your identity while signing up.

Lowering the age limit or raising the age limit will not make it any better. But instead if they LOWER it,
it will be better because then they will have LEGAL access to the sites instead of going on the ILLEGALY. I know it's a question of right and wrong again but they have to be constantly monitored.
You get the point
Posted by SamuraiPanda15 5 months ago
@eGadfly, I totally agree. XD
Posted by eGadfly 5 months ago
Social media is the butthole of the internet. I suggest the age limit be raised to 45.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NickLawrence 5 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Good debate! Very good points from both sides.
Vote Placed by DebaterGood 5 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Arguments go to Pro because the points made were slightly better than Con, who had good points as well.