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

Are Cell Phones Safe?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ImpatientLinguini has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2018 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 919 times Debate No: 107819
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




You will have a total 3 rounds to argue, and in the first round, you need to say that you accept the discussion. Font size should be 12 pt. You will be on the pro side to argue, and your time to argue is 3 days. The voting will last 10 days, and we will see who wins!



When arguing the topic of cell phones being safe or not, I believe cell phones are safe. Bad things may happen regarding cell phones but the phone itself is not to blame. I believe it is the people who use, make, and participate in cell phone usage that make not the phone unsafe, but being on a phone unsafe. In a scenario where you are thinking about how easy it is to locate someone using a cell phone, this again traces back to the errors a cell phone producer has made. The creation can only be as good as the creator, but the cell phone can not have the intent to harm, since the phone is not alive. Using this example I may be able to explain what I mean in a better way. If the phone had no user to it then it would be logical to assume that the phone is safe. Add a user to the phone and the argument immediately becomes, who is using it? This would force anyone arguing that the cell phone is unsafe to admit that a better way of presenting this topic would be to ask: Has the cell phone become unsafe?, or even, Who is to blame for making the cell phone unsafe? I do believe it is not a matter of what makes it unsafe but who makes it unsafe.

If the literal translation of safe is being used then physical harm would also have to be addressed. If one person is hurt by the light from a cell phone or its features, I could argue that this can not have an exact answer. If a cell phone could cause cancer because of a certain feature or reaction to something, it would be equally fair to say that something with the same feature could cause said, cancer. An example of this could be: If the rapid color to light change from a TV causes seizures, but a phone's rapid color to light changing also causes seizures, would the TV be considered unsafe because it was discovered to cause a problem first? The point to this example is, many occurrences of specific events from anything can cause an ill or bad reaction to it. This is relative since it depends on the person using it to dictate whether the phone is unsafe for him or her. To conclude the argument for physical harm I will use the same point I've used before: I believe the people who use and make the phone are to blame for its potential harm.
Debate Round No. 1


First, thank you for accepting the debate.

Since you have put the argument faster than me, we must have only two arguments on each sides. You may end the debate as you want, but please do not put another argument, thank you.

Now I will set my argument.

How often do you clean your cell phone? It’s not really something we think about, but a recent study noted cell phones could be as dirty as public toilet seats, and that the heat phones generate makes a perfect breeding ground for bacteria. Disinfecting cell phones is always a good idea since these germs can even infect you.

Cell phones might even be hazardous to our sleep, with the latest evidence suggesting that individuals with smartphones in the bedroom sleep less each night. In addition, microwave radiation from cell phones is much riskier for kids than originally thought. One study noted a child’s brain tissue and bone marrow actually absorbs significantly more than those of an adult.

A new study from Sweden suggests decades of cell phone use can triple your chances for brain cancer. While even a tripled risk is low, this latest finding contradicts one from 2010 (in part funded by cell phone makers) that found no strong link between cell phones and brain tumors. These types of studies look at users who are constantly holding cell phones against their heads.

Again, thank you for accepting the debate, and I will look forward to it.
Thank you.


Apologies for not seeing the message about first argument being to accept.

I noted that your argument was mostly on the phone making you more susceptible to infection or disease. Because the majority of people aren't cleaning themselves every time they use their phone, I won't say this is dependent on the person. However, supposing that the phone having more germs then a toilet seat makes it dangerous then our tongue would be almost 3 times as dangerous as the phone. With kids not getting more sleep at night, this is solely based on discipline.

I would like to propose an idea. If the overall answer involves the phone either being dangerous or not dangerous, if more things made the phone safe then dangerous would that mean it is harmless? In the same aspect, Using more examples for danger then safety would make the phone harmful. When connecting physical and mental risks to the phone, one must take in the assumption that the person using the phone is ignorant of the risks. If a person is aware of the risk this would mean that the phone couldn't be harmful, they would simply be apathetic towards the potential danger it may bring.

With this in mind, my argument would be: If we can sit on a toilet seat (which you compared with the phone) almost every day and not get an infectious disease, this would nullify the claim you made for phones being a breading ground. In school any student passed the 9th grade is aware of biology. Particular cells will take in the everyday bacteria you are exposed to and replicate them to make your first line of defense impermeable to most common harmful pathogens. You made note on the phone causing brain cancer. In the end with research being done on this subject it would be a case to say this but an opinion, so this would not contribute to making a phone dangerous. If in fact the link between the cancer and the phone have been proven in a positive ratio, then I suppose this would make the phone dangerous but wouldn't this also make it illegal to sell? Depending on where you are from, laws would prohibit such an item that in fact, causes brain cancer, to be sold in any official market. Though no one reads it, a safety manual is given to any buyer of the product. In my opinion, this shifts the blame from the phones, to the consumers of it. A safe usage time span is given in every manual so even if it does cause less sleep, brain cancer, or harmful disease, it comes down to who actually cares.
Debate Round No. 2



-Rebuttal- You have said that not cleaning the phone isn't dependent on people, but actually it is. Cleaning your phone is a choice. It is them who caused all the problem and caught diseases for themselves. Also, you have said that kids not getting more sleep at night is solely based on discipline. This is also wrong because most of all kids, especially for teens, do not obey their education and what is taught.

-Refutation- My argument was not only about diseases, but don't you think toilets are unsanitary enough? If you're unlucky,
All those undefined germs can make your body more and more infected, and get a disease. My argument was only saying that you
have a high percentage of getting all kinds of diseases.

-Arguments- N
ow I will add my second argument.
We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.

Also, make three arguments please. (I made a mistake)
I will look forward to our debate.



Rebuttal- I would beg to disagree with the argument that most kids not being discipline is a cause for phones being unsafe. What you said as a contradiction to my statement was apart of my argument. Any child over adolescence is aware that things can get dirty and this can be harmful. I believe it is not the phone that is unsafe, but the child's apathy towards the safety guidelines of how to use the phone. Also, saying most children aren't obedient is subjective. In Japanese culture, it is a second nature to be obedient to your parents and they are one of the leading countries in technology.

Refutation- A scholarly article written by Undark Truth would go on to say this about radiation: "At issue here is the low-energy radiation emitted by cell phones and other personal electronics. These kinds of electromagnetic fields don"t directly damage bonds in DNA, and the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and other government agencies generally consider them safe at the levels associated with cell phones.". On more instances than one, we are found exposed to radiation and unharmed (like having a smoke detector, watches and clocks, yellow or green colored antique glass, fertilizer and etc) . I believe what may make this "unsafe" is the prolonged use of it affecting your future. In the same sense, if that's what makes a phone unsafe then theoretically, living would be unsafe as well. Living involves people to live so then that would make the people making the phone unsafe to begin with.

Argument- My argument will support the first claim but trail off into another. If we as people make a phone, we aim for it to be efficient while future updates will make it more protected and safe for further use. The safety manual is a highly disregarded tool for what may balance out the safe and unsafe sides to the phone. If you say that your claim of radiation makes the phone unsafe, and this is fact, you would have to assume that every single person who has access to a phone has read the safety manual. If not, then with more phones than people being produced, the people who do not make an attempt to follow the safety guidelines of the phone , are significantly adding to the potential danger they cause to themselves.
Debate Round No. 3


California department of public health has warned that cell phone radiations may be dangerous for people. They said that some laboratory experiments have suggested the possibility that long term, high use of cell phones can be linked to certain health problems, including brain cancer.[1]

But since cell phones are electrical products, we can't be 100% defended by unhealthy things. You also said that safety manuals already said to be careful, but most people never read the manual, and plus, people are never affected by it. They should use the product at least one time on important situations, so they can't be defended by unhealthy things.

Now lastly, I will post my argument. Cell phones can cause distracted driving-easily. Approximately 1 in 4 car crashes involve the use of cell phones. There are a number of distractions when you drive, but the cell phone is the top distraction of any. If you look at other drivers, you will likely see that many are distracted by a phone. They might be driving too slowly, they might be swerving, or even more dangerously, they might drive through stop signs or red lights. The statistics associated with distracted driving are frightening. In 2014, for instance, more than 3,100 people died in car accidents due to being distracted by cell phones, and more than 400,000 people have been involved in car accidents caused by a distracted driver.Additionally, the average time a person has their eyes off the wheel when using a cell phone is about 5 seconds. When going 55 MPH, you would travel the length of a football field.Finally, approximately 10 percent of drivers aged 15 to 19 involved in fatal car accidents were distracted when the accident occurred.[2]

Thank you.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.