The Instigator
Missyloo13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Burningsnow
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Social Networking sites should have age restrictions so children do not use tgem without parents per

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...
Burningsnow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 885 times Debate No: 58211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Missyloo13

Pro

If we could find a way so kids need parental permission, like age restricted sign ups, that is all I want.
Burningsnow

Con

Lets start off by saying your title is misspelled.
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.
Debate Round No. 1
Missyloo13

Pro

I do not think it is stupid because children have gotten kidnapped because they put things on social networking sites revealing information, when their parents did not have the slightest information that their children were on that site. Maybe complete genius children could get through a restriction on the Internet, but by what I have learned about the Internet is that it is smarter than most of the average adults, so there should not be a problem with making one smarter than children.
Burningsnow

Con

I agree that children often do stupid things on social networking sites but being 13 will not automatically make you smarter than a 12 year old and an age gap will only stop them from experiencing what will happen to them in their future.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
Missyloo13

Pro

Missyloo13 forfeited this round.
Burningsnow

Con

Even though my opponent has forfeited I will state my case.
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.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Half of them do anyway*
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Couldn't children just lie about their age? Half of them anyway.
Posted by Missyloo13 2 years ago
Missyloo13
Sorry about the spelling, I cannot edit because it is in the debating period. I meant sochildren do not use tgem without permission, sorry.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Missyloo13BurningsnowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
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.