The Instigator
Dolce.Eleganza
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Siege
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

There must be cell phone policies in Public Areas

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 3 votes the winner is...
Siege
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 34834
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Dolce.Eleganza

Pro

I've decided to start this debate, for I've observed how many people who just cannot live without their phone. Personally, to each their own. However, I've been in many disterbing situations where cell phones should have been turned off, for the sake of respect of the ocasion. I don't think it's appropriate to be texting in the front row of a concert hall or at dinner with a group of friends nor with an individual partner. You either focus on where you are and what you're doing, or on the people that can't wait for you to respond because it's a real emerjency? That's the excuse people make nowadays, "What if it was an emerjency? Come on, people, I bet if someone was in a life or death situation it would not come to their minds to call everyboddy because they set focus on the present situation. I'm not saying unexpected events don't strike, all I'm saying that not all the texits, tweets, emails etc. are not always important, therefore, there's no reason why people should be on their phones all the time.
Siege

Con

I would like to thank Pro for this debate.

To begin with, I would like to state rather simply that the motion put forward is absurd. To say there "must be" policies is a matter of severe opinion and can not be proven.

To claim there "must be" policies insinuates that there should be mandated cell phone policies in public places, but this is not true, and would be a severe over-stepping of boundaries by the government. Take for example, movie theatres. They do have cell phone policies, even though they do not have to. Movie theatres drafted cell phone policies out of their own accord, because they believe that it is what is proper. And do people obey these policies? Let me note that the repercussion of breaking these policies are not jail time are a legal fine, as it would likely be for a "mandated" cell phone policy, would only insult in the perpetrator being asked to leave. The answer is yes, for the most part, they overwhelming do. There are also examples of places like Museums which do no allow flash photography. Again, the only repercussion is being asked to leave, but people overwhelmingly obey the policy. To simplify this point, it is simply unnecessary to mandate a policy for all public areas. Leave it up to the administrative body of that particular public area to draft their own policies has worked for years and there is no need for change.

Even more abhorrent, is the fact that my opponent overlooked how things such as "streets" and "roads" are considered public places. To state that people should not be able to speak or text on their phone while walking down the street is simply ridiculous.

To conclude, I would like for voters to reject the motion put forward as it is simply ridiculous and as I have clearly shown, there is no need for such a severe change.
Debate Round No. 1
Dolce.Eleganza

Pro

Dolce.Eleganza forfeited this round.
Siege

Con

Will forfeit this round also to keep things even.
Debate Round No. 2
Dolce.Eleganza

Pro

Dolce.Eleganza forfeited this round.
Siege

Con

Please vote against the motion.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Dolce.EleganzaSiegeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I made the terrible mistake of attempting to read pro's argument, not realizing it was an FF. I did not even have to read con's case, to see the giant glowing holes in pro's case. But "To say there 'must be' policies is a matter of severe opinion and can not be proven," sums it up.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Dolce.EleganzaSiegeTied
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: Forfeit from Pro.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Dolce.EleganzaSiegeTied
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: Pro forfeited. Also, I think Siege explained how it is unnecessary to mandate a policy for all public areas. "Leave it up to the administrative body of that particular public area to draft their own policies has worked for years and there is no need for change. " - Siege