The Instigator
assel.b
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
brainymes
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old

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...
brainymes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,909 times Debate No: 38348
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

assel.b

Pro

Since Internet became available throughout the world, social networks have taken a special place in men's lives. Facebook reports that the amount of users reached the number of 1.11 billion in the world on May, 2013. No doubt, there are a great amount of young users under 16 years old. So I think that social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old because children might be experiencing negative influence of available information at the Internet. Some of the contents might be automatically switched off by their parents (for example, pornography). However, there is much more beyond that accessible for sharing among children. Therefore, opportunities provided by social networks for information sharing are more dangerous than real communication, because the face-to-face communication is limited in the content than social networks.
brainymes

Con

As a 15 year old, I have grown up in a world where social networks were not only invented, but improved upon. Through the many different kinds of social networks, whether they be picture sharing, status updaters, or whatever else, I'm able to keep in contact with people that I don't see everyday, or even at all. For example, Omegle, a website that allows strangers to converse with each other, gives me the opportunity to meet people from around the world. And if we have a good conversation, apps like Kik or Yahoo Messenger allow me to talk to that person at a later time, which can easily lead to a lifelong friendship. Also, on apps/websites like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, I can see what family members who live out of town, state, or even country are up to, and comment on these postings. Plus, I can see what my favorite celebrities or even the government are doing as well. And to finish this round, I'll present an educational point. With most of these apps, the abilities to discuss things from school, work on projects, or compare answers on homework from long distances is present. So while there may be cons, as you already stated and others, the overall pros weigh them out. Especially considering the fact that not all younger teens are the same.
Debate Round No. 1
assel.b

Pro

Well, thank you for your opinion. Nevertheless, I believe that social networks should be prohibited for children as they result in inability of a child to emotionally and socially connect to the people they meet. He\she dives into the virtual world deeper and deeper and loses the interaction with the world around. In other word, social networking builds the isolation of a young person. So this phenomenon disturbs personal, emotional and social development of a child. It's harder for him\her to make real friends, get attached to the real people, perform in front of an audience, argue own position, express own opinion. Hence, they cannot communicate with others face-to-face and become socially withdrawn.
brainymes

Con

Your argument does make sense to a point, but the thing you have to consider is the fact that in some cases, like if people in "real-life" don't have much in common with you, or you are in a place where people aren't worth talking to, these networks are the ONLY things giving people social lives. For example, if you play an online game, you can chat with people and make friends. Or, as I mentioned earlier, which is contradictory to the face-to-face point, things like Omegle or Skype give the opportunity to develop relationships as well. And I know for sure that the public school system does require some sort of speech/working together activities. Also, the child's lack of social development cannot be completely attributed to social networks. First off, there are many people in the world that have the social skills of a hermit, and have no social network influence in their lives. In my opinion, social skills in a child are determined by how much a parent bothers to pay attention to their child, and help them develop these skills. I will however admit this. In excessive amounts without moderation, social networking can be bad, but this is for any age. One of the main reasons I decided to join this debate is that I've used social networks since 11, and while I didn't use them much, I'm still not a social recluse. And I would like to agree with you, sort of. Social networks should be banned for children, but not for 16 and younger. Most people by at least 13 are developed enough socially that social networking shouldn't have an effect. Plus, most social networking sites, specifically Facebook for this example, don't allow users to join unless they are 13 or older, as I said. Yes, one can simply lie about their age, I did and I know many others have, but there is no way for these organizations to not only legitimately verify all of these accounts, but to do the job of their parents in stopping them. To finish off, again with Facebook, it's not like they aren't trying either. I know people personally that had their accounts deleted after it was discovered they were underage. But what I'm trying to say is, 16 is too old of a limit, and not all people are the same. It is up to the parents of these children to stop them, not some government ban.
Debate Round No. 2
assel.b

Pro

I agree that a lot of people in the world have difficulties with communication skills without the presence of social networks in their life. So if that people have problems, there is nothing to say about children. They have just been surfing the Web from the cradle. Children should direct their energy to education because education takes a special and very important place in the 21th century generation lives. Children should spend their leisure time improving weaknesses and developing strengths instead of liking new photos and giving comments. I suppose that life has a negative impact on child's self-confidence, he\she becomes more dependent on other people's opinions. Moreover, social networking means spending a lot of time in front of computer. Thus, children depending on social networks have health problems. They are just sitting in one position during a long time, therefore there is a chance to get spinal column problems. This period of lifetime is also important because of the formation of young organism and during this time it's necessary to lead not sedentary but active lifestyle. Consequently, if we want to raise socially developed, self-confident, active, healthy generation, we should limit the access of children to social networks.
brainymes

Con

brainymes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 3 years ago
TheSaint
assel.bbrainymesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to show to substantiate any claims. Con being 15 used person experience which is a superior source to nothing. Conduct to pro as Con forfeited a round.