The Instigator
danniman33
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

should kids in jr high school have cell 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 7 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 55537
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

danniman33

Pro

If jr high kids did not have cell phones it would be very not fun for the students. If they had them it would be useful for tools and other things like communication.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I will be arguing that kids in junior high school should not have cell phones.

Unfortunately this is only a one-round debate, so my contentions will go unrefuted, whereas I will have time to address and rebut my opponent's arguments.

He first claims that "If junior high kids did not have cell phones it would not be very fun for the students."

This is an interesting jump for kids to students, as not all students are kids and not all kids are students -- I think it would be fascinating to find a non-kid as a student in junior high school, but I digress.

First, my opponent appears to be suggesting that "it" isn't fun for students without cell phones. What is "it"? School?

If it's school, then the obvious response is that (1) school is not intended to be fun; it's intended as a place to hone young minds and equip them with the tools they need to grow and flourish into responsible, intelligent adults (2) why would you want to use a cell phone in school, where students are already prone to distraction? It would merely enable students to hold background conversations while they should be listening to their teachers and allow them to, if they so choose, cheat and (3) does not contribute to their learning in any way -- if it did contribute, Pro has not provided us with how it does, so we must assume that it dos not.

There's also the point that "fun" is subjective and some students may find school fun, any way, simply because they love to learn. I happened to be one of these kids, actually.

If Pro is simply making a general statement that having cell phones is fun, then the same basic reasoning applies: (1) fun is subjective (2) fun is not an argument unto itself; just because something is fun doesn't mean you should do it. For instance, toilet-papering a house is fun, but that doesn't mean that I should do it (3) it is possible to have fun without a cell phone (4) you can't exactly miss what you have never been exposed to, so saying that "it would not be fun" is simply unfounded (5) the negative ramifications -- cheating, distractions, etc. -- outweigh the benefits.


Pro then claims that cell phones would be useful tools, but gives us only one example: communication.

First, to communicate with whom? Their friends while they are still in class? I've demonstrated why this is potentially dangerous.

How about with their parents? This is ostensibly plausible, but not only is there not a need for it -- in junior high school, many students either take the bus home, carpool with their friends, or have their parents pick them up, anyway -- but the negative ramifications, again, outweigh the benefits. Communication during the school day merely invites problems, especially when we're discussing junior high school students, who are by definition young and immature.

Now that I have refuted my opponent's contentions, I will offer my own:

1. Junior High Students are Young and Immature

This merely goes without saying, and people can look back to their junior high days when they were about 11, 12, or 13 and consider what they did when they were in school. This is a matter of trusting these children with a device that is potentially dangerous and could potentially cost their parents quite a pretty penny.

2. Monetary Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cell phone bills are VERY expensive. While it could be "fun" to have a cell phone -- again, fun is subjective -- there is no evidence whatsoever that it is NECESSARY. Young children do not need a fun for communication or for any other reason because they are still minors and their parents still provide for them, so this is simply a waste of money for their parents, many of whom are already struggling amid this economy.

This also gets to the point about maturity. Some phone plans -- mine, for instance, because I'm a poor PhD student who effectively lives in the Stone Age -- charge per text. Therefore, the kids are left either without texting, which takes the "fun" out of it, or because they're immature and disobedient to authority, they opt to text anyway even if their parents asked them not to, and cost their parents quite a lot of money.

3. Cell Phones are Dangerous

Let's ignore for a minute the cancer risks from cell phone radiation and so forth.

Using a cell phone is effectively using an unbelievable tool whereby you can contact anyone in the world at any point in time. At the same time, people can contact you, can add your number to lists, can attempt to steal your identity, etc.

Can we trust young children with that kind of responsibility? Pro has provided us with no reason why we should.

Conclusion

I have negated the resolution.

Please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 2 years ago
ChadIrvin
danniman33JohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no real argument and only stated opinion, while con stated facts. The only downside was the lack of sources.
Vote Placed by Cutiepuffle 2 years ago
Cutiepuffle
danniman33JohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con sniped this sucker.
Vote Placed by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
danniman33JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It's obvious that Con is the winner here.
Vote Placed by MB17 2 years ago
MB17
danniman33JohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made only one claim backing it up with an opinion rather than a fact or a statistic. Nevertheless, con was able to make a lengthy rebuttal to it and even make some arguments of his own. Therefore, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
danniman33JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: refuted all pts
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
Cobo
danniman33JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: Well that was a slaughterfest. A tip to both sides. For Pro you need understand that in the vast majority of 1 round debates the pro usually loses. For Con, it's about damn time you stop noob sniping, join the tier tourney or something...
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
danniman33JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The single round debate is pretty unfair because pro could only formulate basic arguments and could not rebut to any of con's points. That being said this debate goes completely to con since he successfully refuted the resolution and provided effective arguments against it.