The Instigator
josealways123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EndarkenedRationalist
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
EndarkenedRationalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,356 times Debate No: 40664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

josealways123

Pro

Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

I'd like to welcome my opponent and extend my hope for a great debate!

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary vaguely defines 'child' as "a young person" or "a person not yet of age" [1]. In the United States, 'of age' generally refers to age 18, so my opponent is arguing against anyone younger than 18 having a cell phone. It is his burden of proof to provide a specific age for usage.

He claims that phones cause radiation leading to cancer. However, as the National Cancer Institute reports, "studies...have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves" and more [2]. Thus my opponent's claim is false.

Cell phone use connects children to their friends and families. They are sources of communication and entertainment and, in this technological era, are essential. Thus I must urge you to vote CON in this debate!

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.cancer.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
josealways123

Pro

It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com...
Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof.

My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit "radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that "radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells" and has not been found to "cause cancer in animals" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer.

PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON!

[1] http://www.cancer.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
josealways123

Pro

What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children.

http://healthychild.org...
http://www.earthcalm.com...
http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org...

So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum.
So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate.
I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human?

PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18.

Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them.

My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link "cell phone use with any adverse health problems" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim.

Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone.

I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON!

[1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
The video of cell phones popping pop corn is a hoax. The trick is shown in https://www.youtube.com... There are also a number of youtube videos showing that even ten cell phones cannot pop corn. BTW, when a cell phone rings it is mainly receiving, not transmitting. There is a ping to establish communication with the cell tower, but the power from a cell phone is mainly when it is transmitting rather than receiving.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
josealways123EndarkenedRationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate hinges on the evidence of cell phones causing harm to children. Neither side did a good job of presenting their evidence. Pro presented a video hoax, which Con did not investigate and expose. Cons evidence was thorough, authoritative (National Cancer Institute), and referenced multiple large scale scientific studies -- but Con did not argue why his evidence was better than Pro's. Pro then cited a blog and two ads selling alleged protection devices. Pro's references cited isolated studies and Pro didn't argue why those studies were better than Con's. Pro had the burden of proof, and his evidence was not good enough to prove there was a danger. Con should have pointed out the importance of cell phones for safety in potentially dangerous situations to cash in on Pro's failure to address the point. Pro should have played up the uncertainties in the studies with respect to children and made a "you can't be too safe" argument.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
josealways123EndarkenedRationalistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This one was a tough one for me. I think both did a great job though. I kind of wish Pro would emphazie on the other effects that cell phones of on children and young adults, not just with radiation, but with distractions and kids, and responsiblitiy issues. Great job to both debaters!
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
josealways123EndarkenedRationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The NIH evidence decisively disproves Pro's main point of contention. Moreover, Con is winning a clear extension of the definition and the communication point. This means that Con is dominating the offense and winning this debate. I vote Con.