Social Networking sites should have age restrictions so children do not use tgem without parents per
Debate Rounds (3)
The internet and the children on it cannot be safeguarded by faulty age restriction sign ups.
In the age of the internet age restriction would only be blocking out children from learning about its safety.
By stopping children from social networks because you are misinformed about the reasons behind age restriction is stupid.
The term social networks seems to blanket over many different categories and would not be physically possible to determine. Children with half a brain would be able to scam these sign ups meaning they would be pointless.
Unless you are a genius that can detect if kids on social media are younger than they say, only a credit card or legal information can prove that a child is under or over an age gap (I suspect around 13 by your reasoning).
Children are growing more tech savvy and this will only deter them.
Just like adults revealing information on the internet kids need to learn not to expose private information.
Most of these kidnappings happen in meetups and not homes anyway.
As I said before are youtube , instagram, steam; social media,social media is a very blanket statement.
Missyloo13 forfeited this round.
The fact of the matter is that in this technological era it is necessary to find a way into technology and things such as Social media are important for children. Not only is it important to use social media, age restrictions would be faulty and unwieldy.
Letting kids learn from social media and whether they want to use it or not is important to their later life and age restriction and parent permission are not the same thing you could be 13 and get through the age restriction without your parent's permission, or 10 and get your parents permission but not get through the age restriction,so they can be very different.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments: This should have been relatively easy for Pro--though the benefit of age restrictions is hard to quantify and, as Con points out, age restrictions are easy to bypass, they aren't particularly harmful, either, and Pro could have made the case that even limited effectiveness was justification enough. Instead, Pro tried to rebut the whole idea as presented by Con as regards to lack of efficiency, and I think that rebuttal failed. The short rounds and final forfeit really hurt Pro here, I think. So arguments to Con. Sources and S&G were equal enough, despite Pro's type in the title. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.