The Instigator
AeroVictor
Pro (for)
The Contender
ChrisArthur
Con (against)

children should have a cell phone

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
AeroVictor has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 408 times Debate No: 102057
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

AeroVictor

Pro

Children should have a cell phone because if it happened an emergency and the kid doesn't have a phone nearby he could die or be injured very bad, also the kid could use the phone to use like a relieve tool (as using to talk to a friend and playing games) but there's the issue of having inappropriate things like offensive messages and 18+ videos, but that can be blocked with the parental control: "Parental Controls, also known as Restrictions,according to the: http://www.imore.com... "this allow you to set what your children can and can't access on an iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad or other phones[...], [...] as well as content by age rating, and the ability to make changes to accounts and other app settings. In other words, they're a way to block your child's access to anything and everything you deem inappropriate for them based on their age and sensitivity, and your own best judgment [...]" But this does not prevent them from entering and changing the restriction, but you can put passwords on the restricted mode to prevent the kids entering and changing the restricted mode.
My conclusion: that Kids could and should have their own cellphone
ChrisArthur

Con

Judging from your Round 1 answer, I'd say you want to just jump right into this debate. I wish you had introduced it a little better and clarified the term smartphone (which is very different than a cell phone). I'm guessing you meant smart phone from what you wrote. A smartphone, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "a mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded applications." Another suggestion I have is that I would not have called the last part of your introduction a conclusion, since it is your thesis (but that is besides the point). I will argue why kids should not have smartphones. I am definitely in favor of kids having cell phones like the old fashioned kind over smartphones. I oppose, to this day, the idea of kids having smartphones. So I will argue that.
If your claim is that they use their smart phones for emergencies, well a cell phone can do just that. Its only purpose is to communicate via text (sms) and calls. With cell phones (flip ones specifically), the parents do not have to worry about "inappropriate things like offensive messages and 18+ videos." Those phones do not allow a child to surf the internet.
When you give a smartphone to a dumb kid, it could get hectic. I say dumb, meaning they make decisions that are compulsive and not very wise, but kids are not dumb. They are quite smart, especially when it comes to portable devices. Since technology is always advancing, the younger age groups have a higher chance of being able to understand the newer technology over the parent since that is the generation they grow up with. Even with "parental controls" (which the fact that you had to cite that was legitimate shows this is a feature a lot of people are not familiar with, so how do you expect parents to be aware of this ability?) there are still ways kids can get around anything. Kids can be quite devious. They learn tricks adults don't know (yet). Plus, not all parents block content on their kids' phones. The ones that do, their kids will just go watch porn or whatever at their friends house.
You statement "offensive messages" makes me think you are referring to bullying? It is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent bullying. No "restriction" exists that will decipher if something might be considered as bullying over text messaging/other social media platforms. However, if a kid does not have a phone at all, they most likely don't have access to Snapchat or Facebook at home so they are less likely to be cyber bullied. As for being bullied in real life, that is also unpreventable (but stoppable).
When you say "the kid could use the phone to use like a relieve tool (as using to talk to a friend and playing games)" that not only has horrible grammar, but is also off putting to think about since kids spend most of their time in school anyways. They don't need "relievers", which are ultimately just distractions. What they need is to be paying attention, like I had to growing up without a phone (until my very first phone, the Samsung Juke). I get that it is possible to relieve [their stress] but playing games and texting while in class are not beneficial in any way. If the kid has a lot on his mind, then he can go see the school counselor but just using the phone to a ease the pain/whatever emotion is not a justifiable excuse.

As for the need to call in case of emergencies, well that depends a great deal on how much freedom these kids' parents allow them to have. There is a legal curfew for kids being outside for a reason, to reduce the chance of any emergencies. If parents payed better attention to their kids and knew EXACTLY where they would be and when, then there also would be less of a chance that any emergency would occur and not be handled. Let's say Sally's parents give her the okay to walk to a friend's house after school, the parents at Sally's friend's home would be responsible if anything were to happen. If Sally lied to her mother and actually walked with her friend to a boy's house whose parents are not home or they walk to a park (anywhere that isn't Sally's friend's house), then ultimately Sally is at fault for whatever may or may not occur. However, in the event of it being nobody's "fault" but rather just something that happened to Sally out of the blue as she was obeying her mother's instructions (or she was simply just not being conniving), then a phone would come in handy. Whether it be to call 9-1-1 because she fell on the sidewalk and broke her fibula or was abducted Liam Neeson-Taken-style, anything requiring assistance of some sort can be acquired through a cell phone. It does not have to be smartphone, unless she wants to take selfies while in pain or kidnapped (I am being completely sarcastic).
I currently live in Chicago with the highest crime rate and gun violence in the United States, so I'm pretty street smart. I go to college there. I have personally witnessed students my age or higher get mugged. The one common thing I've seen in a lot of cases is that you are more likely to get robbed while on your phone. In fact, here are some statistics that prove my point:
  • "1 in 10 smartphone owners have been victims of phone theft" (https://transition.fcc.gov...).
  • 40% of phone theft occurs from 12 pm-5pm (^) [That is coincidentally the time when kids get out of school].
  • "research showed that children under 15 were the most common targets with up to half a million young people aged between 11 and 15 falling victim to phone theft" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...).
  • In England, "certain groups are especially vulnerable - 14- to 24-year-olds, and particularly women, are more likely than any other group to be victims of mobile phone theft" (http://www.independent.co.uk...) The most common phone thievery there is directly pickpocketed from the user. In America, 11% of the phones stolen are taken from the person [which is still a lot, though it may not seem like a large amount]. The rest are due to negligence. [Leaving behind a phone is more commonly the case in America, which means people are irresponsible so kids maybe shouldn't add to this ].
  • "And the research showed that children under 15 were the most common targets with up to half a million young people aged between 11 and 15 falling victim to phone theft" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...).
  • Today's study added that the typical phone robbers were boys aged 14 to 17" (^)
  • "Overall, mobile phone theft has risen 190% since 1995" (^).
  • "70 million smartphones are lost each year, with only 7 percent recovered" (http://www.channelpronetwork.com...).
Basically, what I'm getting at is kids with smartphones are a major liability for parents. The do not need all those fancy features such as access to the internet and downloadable games.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.