The Instigator
Cloud_heartbreaker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sboss18
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

children these days are spoiled brats

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...
sboss18
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 820 times Debate No: 99889
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Cloud_heartbreaker

Pro

I believe that children these days are spoiled brats. Look around. Nearly every child whose age ranges from 6 to 18 has some form of electronic device in their hands. I'm sure most of them didn't have to raise of finger to get these devices. They merely asked their parents for one and got it, some sooner than other but they got it. Children of the past could not even fathom having such devices in their possession until they were self-sufficient and living on their own yet today 2nd graders have mobile phones and tablets.

P.S. I am a "she" not a "he".
sboss18

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate, as there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding this topic. I'm not sure why there is a 2,000 character limit, but I will try to be consise as possible in my argument.

My opponent is displaying a form of faulty logic known as "juvenoia," the misguided belief that today's children are somehow less well-behaved or more trouble-causing than previous generations of children [1]. Despite this not being a new concept [2] (juvenoia has been around as long as modern human civilization), evidence would actually support the contrary, and actually suggests today's generation of children are actually more well-behaved than their parents' generation 20-30 years ago [3].

"Look around. Nearly every child whose age ranges from 6 to 18 has some form of electronic device in their hands. I'm sure most of them didn't have to raise of finger to get these devices."

This is anecdotal, and Pro failed to provide any evidence to support it. As I mentioned, this viewpoint has been made for generations, and you can easily replace "electronic device" with whatever your parents' generation played with as children. A stick and a hoop? [4]

"Children of the past could not even fathom having such devices in their possession until they were self-sufficient and living on their own..."

Children of the past couldn't fathom owning smart phones and tablets because there were no cell phones and tablets. Refer back to my "stick and hoop" argument.

"P.S. I am a "she" not a "he"."

I fail to see how this contributes to your argument.

Sources:




Debate Round No. 1
Cloud_heartbreaker

Pro

Thank you Con, for accepting my challenge.

My opponent here is accusing me of displaying a form of "faulty logic" yet it is common knowledge that the excessive use of mobile devices can greatly impact the mind and values of a developing child. "Children now rely on technology for the majority of their play, grossly limiting challenges to their creativity and imaginations, as well as limiting necessary challenges to their bodies to achieve optimal sensory and motor development. " (The Huffing ton Post)

" As I mentioned, this viewpoint has been made for generations, and you can easily replace "electronic device" with whatever your parents' generation played with as children. A stick and a hoop? [4]"

In my opponent's first anecdotal critique he/she states that in every generation there was a group of kids with whatever was the latest toy or gadget of that time. I don't disagree, in fact I couldn't agree more yet my point was not that. My point was that in every generation some children were spoiled more than others.

Children of the past couldn't fathom owning smart phones and tablets because there were no cell phones and tablets. Refer back to my "stick and hoop" argument.

Again, my argument was not solely based on electronic devices, it was based on the latest toy or game of that generation.

"P.S. I am a "she" not a "he"."
I fail to see how this contributes to your argument.

I included this because in former writing mentioning me you referred to me as a male when in reality I am a female. I apologize for any misunderstandings.

Sources:
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
sboss18

Con

I thank my opponent for their timely Round 2 post. I will now begin my rebuttal.

"...it is common knowledge that the excessive use of mobile devices can greatly impact the mind and values of a developing child."

The quote you attributed to this idea, as well as the HP article itself, does not suggest technology makes children more "spoiled". Therefore, it is irrelevant to this debate.

"spoiled" - a person, usually a child, who is rude and behaves badly because they have always been given what they want and allowed to do what they want.

Your quote is talking about technology's negative effect on children's creativity and development, and does not talk about them being more spoiled because of it.


"My point was that in every generation some children were spoiled more than others."

I don't think that's necessarily true. Let's refer back to the resolution: "children these days are spoiled brats". You seem to be implying that *all* children these days, or a large majority, are spoiled, which is a hasty generalization. Or you are suggesting children "these days" are more spoiled than children of previous generations, which I've already shown in my R1 post to be a case of juvenoia and that has not been refuted.


Pro has failed to sufficiently prove why children in this specific generation are more "spoiled". Either way, the resolution is simply not true.

Debate Round No. 2
Cloud_heartbreaker

Pro

I will now commence mine as well.

"...does not suggest technology makes children more 'spoiled'."

Today children have endless wants and we as parents are quick to fulfill them due to their unconditional love for them. You see, children are two sided. They have their obedient and polite image which they maintain in front of their parents and they have their loud obnoxious image which derives from always having what they want.

"You seem to be implying that *all* children these days, or a large majority, are spoiled, which is a *hasty

When I said that I was referring to most children as opposed to all children. Indeed if we look back to the resolution "children these days are spoiled brats" I was referring to children of the 21st century. I may have included the fact that in past generations there were spoiled kids as well but that was not my main point.
sboss18

Con

I thank Pro for seeing this debate through. I will now begin my final attack, defense, and closing statements.



"Today children have endless wants and we as parents[sic] are quick to fulfill them due to their unconditional love for them."


There are several errors in this line of thinking. First, as mentioned before, that is not unique to this current generation. Second, Pro did not provide any evidence to support this claim.



"[Children] have...[a] polite image which they maintain in front of their parents and...[a] loud obnoxious image which derives from always having what they want."


I extend my previous claims. And again, this is a hasty generalization. Clearly not all children act this way.



" [My resolution] was referring to children of the 21st century. I may have included the fact that in past generations there were spoiled kids as well but that was not my main point."


Again, Pro has failed to explain why they aren't simply experience juvenoia. There has been zero evidence to support the idea that modern-day children are somehow more spoiled.



Let's recap:


-Pro makes the claim that children in the 21st century are more spoiled than in previous generations. Con refutes this claim with evidence to support the contrary, and Pro leaves it uncontested.


-Pro then goes on a tangent to try and explain how technology is poorly affecting children's abilities to think creatively and imagine, which has nothing to do with the resolution.


-Con's claim that children of previous generations were, in fact, worse-behaved than today's children goes uncontested.


-Virtually all of Pro's reasonings are anecdotal.



A conclusion here is pretty easy to see: There is no reason to support the resolution. I thank Pro for engaging in this debate with me. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sboss18 11 months ago
sboss18
Let's get some votes up in here!
Posted by Cloud_heartbreaker 11 months ago
Cloud_heartbreaker
no thank you, Con for aaccepting my debate.
Posted by sboss18 11 months ago
sboss18
Thanks for the debate, Pro.
Posted by Cloud_heartbreaker 11 months ago
Cloud_heartbreaker
its no problem aha it was my pleasure to offer my thoughts as an argument.
Posted by sboss18 11 months ago
sboss18
Thank you for posting a R2 argument. I've had so many debates die after the first round recently due to my opponent's time expiring. I will begin working on my rebuttal shortly.
Also, I apologize for any misunderstanding regarding misgendering. If you don't mind, when did I refer to you as "he"?
Posted by Cloud_heartbreaker 11 months ago
Cloud_heartbreaker
thank you for the support @dalir.kosimov! I really appreciate it.
Posted by dalir.kosimov 11 months ago
dalir.kosimov
I agree with Pro on the basis that the majority of 'children' are spoiled, but I disagree that their behaviour is directly the result of the possession of"electronic devices". Parenting is the main vice.

This, however, is just but an opinion and should in no way alter your premises. On an irrelevant note, I am glad to see that a person of similar age to me is using this site. Good luck with your arguments.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 11 months ago
CosmoJarvis
I'm rooting for you, SBoss.
Posted by sboss18 11 months ago
sboss18
Try again in your R2 argument then.
Posted by Cloud_heartbreaker 11 months ago
Cloud_heartbreaker
@sboss18 Thank you for the kind words but I must agree with @Gabberman. My arguments were vague and I failed to deliver the intended message. Again I thank you for such kind words but I feel as if I haven't earned them.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 10 months ago
paintballvet18
Cloud_heartbreakersboss18Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: See Con's sources for Round 1. They outweigh the Huff Post article. Arguments: I think the Con's voters make my job extremely easy: Let's recap: -Pro makes the claim that children in the 21st century are more spoiled than in previous generations. Con refutes this claim with evidence to support the contrary, and Pro leaves it uncontested. -Pro then goes on a tangent to try and explain how technology is poorly affecting children's abilities to think creatively and imagine, which has nothing to do with the resolution. -Con's claim that children of previous generations were, in fact, worse-behaved than today's children goes uncontested. -Virtually all of Pro's reasonings are anecdotal. I agree on all counts. Con 5-0.