The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

all children should have mobile phones

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 66777
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




All children should have mobile phones to contact 911 or their parents and family and that to me out-weighs everything else.


This makes a reckless assumption that all children have individuals that can afford the finical burden of providing a cell phone.

I'm going to view this as a presidential debate type event.

"All children should have mobile phones" and "this outweighs everything else" is a very ignorant statement.

"All children should have adequate food" certainly outweighs them having a mobil phone.

For the 16 million children living in poverty within the United States, how should these phones be financed?
Debate Round No. 1


I'm saying sir that the safety value in fact is far more important than ignorance and Children can buy one only if they can afford so. There is a thing welfare, unemployment, SSI, and government grants.


"All children should have mobile phones to contact 911 or their parents and family and that to me out-weighs everything else."

1.) Pro stated "All" then changed his wording to "all that can afford one"

2.) Pro claims children ages 3-12 can produce enough money to afford a phone and monthly bill but does not state how.

3.) Pro insinuates that the government should purchase 16+ million cell phones for children. his previous "outweighs all" statement suggest that a mobile phone is more important than food, clothing, education, health care, and shelter.

Questions for pro (please answer 1 by 1)

1.) Is having a cell phone more important than having adequate food?
2.) How are children ages 6-10 going to fund having a cell phone on their own?
3.) If a child is abducted or being assaulted, what is stoping the aggressor from taking the phone from the child or physically prohibiting them from using it?

A lack of answers to these questions should discredit Pro's stance in the eyes of the voter.

Pro, I'm willing to answer any questions you may have.
Debate Round No. 2


Keaton forfeited this round.


BillionBrainCells forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Hud4 1 year ago
I think we should have phones.
My main point
Your son/daughter has gone out with some friends and doesn't have money for the bus or cab at the end of the night or anything
And it's a long walk. If they had A phone they could have phoned you and asked for a lift or to say they'd be home late or they'd go and be staying over at a friends.
Posted by Paaarriissss 1 year ago
AWWWH HECK NAH. my sister is like ten or something and aint no way she getting a phone at her age.
Posted by Larson23 1 year ago
6 days
Posted by kawaii_crazy 1 year ago
How long do we have to post our arguments?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tonyrobinson 1 year 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted the claims by Pro and Pro did not respond to Con' s challenges.