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

Should children (12 and under) have social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc)?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2016 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 95141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I believe that children should not be on social media before they are allowed to sign up (typically 13 years old). They should either have their parent's account or not at all. The parent could let the child appear on it but the parents should moderate what goes on there and should post no videos.
They should not have social medias because they are not yet teenagers. When you turn 13, it is a big moment in life. You're a teenager! To most kids, this usually means being able to wear makeup, wear clothing of a certain size/brand if they were too small or the clothing was deemed too inappropriate by their parents (i e swears on it) and being the oldest in your school and heading to high school soon.
They could appear in a video or have a picture posted on social media, but the parents should be posting them on the parent's account. There are many channels on YouTube where they have children under the age of 13, maybe under 10, where the children appear regularly in vlogs. A few examples are:
Family Fun Pack:
The Georges:
Slyfox Family:
All videos are filmed and uploaded as vlogs by the parents of young children. The oldest one out of all the children in the channels linked as examples is Alyssa from Family Fun Pack, who just turned 10.


I believe that all people should have the right to own a social media account. I will try to give you a taste of why I think so.

Think about it, on what grounds would we restrict their autonomy? We can't just impede their rights without good reason.
You have offered no substantial arguments on why they shouldn't be on you. I can pretty much just lie back and wait, as the burden of proof is on your- since you want to restrict our freedom. All you have said so far is that people under 13 can just use their parent's facebook account, and that only teenagers should be able to have facbook and other stuff. It should be obvious that niether of these are actually reasons why we should restrict their freedom.

I hope you will reply to this with some logical arguments, instead of irrelavent text.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Here are a few reasons why children should not have social media accounts:
A lot of stuff on social media is related to drama, how good ___ used to be but now it sucks, swears, and very big and serious topics such as poverty, trans rights, sexuality, and a lot of stuff that children won't understand. They wouldn't understand because they might not have been alive, or were too young to remember, when the site was like how us older people describe it. Remember when YouTube had a yellow Subscribe button? Or Rating instead of Like/Dislike? Kids born in 2009 and onward don't! Heck, considering ages, kids born in 2005 and onward don't!
A lot of children in school (5-10) are immature, can't spell very well, and can't read very well, therefore they would need their parents to explain and/or read it to them anyways. The videos on YouTube were immature in 2007 anyways, with Annoying Orange, Smosh, and Nyan Cat, but now there are more mature subjects on there such as drama, copyright problems being called out, and TV personalities such as Ellen and Jimmy Kimmel have broken in and promoted their shows.
Rules exist for a reason. The sites were created with the 13+ age. Facebook was created for teens and college students to connect with friends. YouTube has channels that are jam-packed with bad stuff that kids shouldn't see (Leafy drama, PewDiePie was unverified and suspended from Twitter.) YouTube has channels on YouTube Kids for kids to use (songs, basic lessons, etc) but they shouldn't have access to the older channels that have swearing, nudity or mentions of it, playthroughs of stuff kids shouldn't see (FNAF, FNAF fangames, Can Your Pet, etc.) Did you know that YouTube was actually created as an online dating site? Source:
Everything as a child is restricted. You have to go to school. You have to eat vegetables. You have to get off your device after a set amount of time. You have to be in bed by a set time. You have to be asleep by a set time. Their activities online are-or should be-limited to child-friendly sites.
All Facebook is now is news. Not even interesting news at that. It's about some people's lives, kids, and food. Majority of its users-49% as of January 2016-are 20-39. Source: Why would a kid even want to go on there? In the past, it would make sense, since there would be more 18-28-year-olds back then. Unless they wanted to interact only with people who are, I don't know, at least 9-10 years older than them, they would have no point on there. Also notice on that graph that it showed only 8% of teens 13-19 use Facebook?


You say that children won't be able to understand things like serious topic, such as poverty, sexuality and human rights. But clearly explain to us why that would entail a ban on all under 13 year olds of the use of social media. sure, i can agree that they won't understand initially, but they have to learn it something, so why not now? You are essentially saying that 12 year old dont have the ability to understand these topics, but suddenly, when they turn thirteen, they can supposedly understand it. You drawing the line at thirteen years of age is extremely arbeitrary.

Also, youtube isn't really a social media. It's more like internet tv, and hopefully, people under the age of 13 can watch all this stuff on tv anyways.

Next, you said that rules exist for a reason, which i can most certaitly agree with. However, rules exist to be Broken! Ha! Checkmate!

Nah, just kidding. I do agree that rules exist for a reason, but mabye is a rule is flawed it should not be a law. Your using a combination of an appeal to authoity and begging the question fallacy.

You now state that it doesn't make any sense for a kid to want to go on facebook, but that happens to be a judgement that they should make, not you. This is obviously another invalid arguments.

Please lay out your premises next round, but if you are infammiliar with this like of style i will lay it out for you, with this example...

premise one- all crocodiles are people
premise two- all people have human rights
premise three- a human right exists that is the right to live
Conclusion- all crocodiles have the right to live

With this argument, the first premise is wrong. Please state your premises next round.
Debate Round No. 2


-Kids on YouTube will just watch famous YouTubers (i e Markiplier, PewDiePie, NateWantsToBattle) and when they do, they'll be exposed to swearing, inappropriate gameplay (i e dating sims) thst they should probably not watch (i e Huniepop). If they watch videos with swearing, and they aren't allowed to swear at home (at my house, we're all teens and not allowed to swear. I mean, my older brother does anyways, but he's moving out soon hopefully. I can't imagine NOT having this rule in place for children 12 and under.) They don't understand that while there are people who do swear, you shouldn't. They'll also probably use it to watch TV shows they like, since they probably have them on YouTube.
-Back in the 1930s, they had radios. By the 1970s, TV existed in households. In the 1990s, Internet came along. When each of those things came into existence, people took advantage of that to use what it was for. Listening to music. Watch shows. Search up information. Now we're here. If a kid can't understand that Internet exists to search up information, as well as his favourite TV show, and answers to his homework, then he shouldn't be on the mainstream sites-social medias-everyone uses.
-No, rules in this case exist because not following them will get you suspended/banned off the site.


First off, you did not repond to my argumnets last round. You can't just keep a debate gong without reponding to my objections, otherwise how would you know who has better points? If you continue to ingore my counter arguments them I urge the voters to ignore you. Now, I will gladly repond to your arguments in hope that you will do the same.

You started off your last arguments with swearing. I dont swear, but I will happing watch tonnes of streamers an youtubers and TV, when I was twelve. It obviously has not impacted me in any significant way. What is wrong with swaering anyway? It's a good use of expression, and it can be really funny at the appropriate time. Of course, there are instances where i personally, think swearing in inappropriate, but thats just my opinion. Nothing more than that.

AAlso, you cant just state that "If a kid can't understand that Internet exists to search up information, as well as his favourite TV show, and answers to his homework, then he shouldn't be on the mainstream sites-social medias-everyone uses". You have to provide evidence to back your statement up! Why shouldn't he be on mainsteam social sites if he can't understand that the internet exists to search up information? Also, the internet was not built to search up information, but as a way to make money and transfer information faster
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: ADHDavid// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con stayed relevant, although used odd and inconsistent arguments. Pro didn't really have an argument, he simply rebutted Cons' statements without providing his own. Con had better grammar than Pro. Con provided an argument, Pro did not, he simply rebutted. Con used the best sources, in fact, Con was the only one to supply a source. Whilst I disagree with the premise of children being banned from creating a social media presence on the internet, it's clear that Con won this argument due to pros' lack of a consistent argument. Both sides were lacking, it was just that Con had a bit more explanations, links, and evidence to support his/her case than Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter merely asserts that one side had better S&G without explaining why. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to specifically establish that one side had reliable sources and not just that they had more. (4) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter acknowledges the existence of relevant rebuttals from Pro, yet fails to assess their strength versus the arguments made by Con. A lack of consistency is not a specific assessment of those rebuttals.
No votes have been placed for this debate.