The Instigator
LilahF
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Leaning
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should parents be able to look through a kid's browsing history or phon

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2021 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 127529
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

LilahF

Con

A parent should not go through a kids phone unless they are extremely suspicious of their kids behavior
Leaning

Pro

It's an interesting topic, And as I'd like to see where it goes, I accept.

(A)
My Assumptions,
There's only three rounds, So I'm forced to make some assumptions, As there is not much time, And you have not clarified some points.

(A One)
As you haven't stated that said phone contains online protection, To prevent it from going to certain websites and topic, I'm going to assume you mean a cell phone with unlimited online access.

(A Two)
As you haven't stated an age for "kid's"
I'm going to choose to go with the first definition I happened upon in Google,
Wikipedia,
"Legally, The term child may refer to anyone below the age of majority or some other age limit. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, Majority is attained earlier".

(B)
My arguments, I assert,

(B One)
Parents are guardians of their children, There to nurture their development,
In their physical health, Growth, As well as,
Their social and psychological development.

(B Two)
'Who a child interacts with is a concern of a parent.
Online contains chatrooms of many an ideology, Perverts, Criminals, Political Extremists.
Online contains webpages of information, Often propaganda, Of those mentioned above.
Online contains subjects, Depictions, And enactments of mature nature such as sexual, Gore, Murderous nature.

(C)
Conclusions of Mine,

(C One)
By the two arguments I made, Seems reasonable to conclude that,
Much content can be accessed on the internet that can prove traumatizing or malforming to the development of a child.
And as a parent's duty is that of guardian, Nurturer, Who oversees their child's interactions with others,
Parents have a duty to examine the phone of a child with unlimited internet access.
Debate Round No. 1
LilahF

Con

You have a good point. At the same time a kid may develop a bad/non trusting relationship with thier parents. If a parent looks trough a kids phone for no reason it will only cause the kid to become more secretive about using the internet. Also the reason many kids go to the internet for information is becuase the internet does not judge you for the questions you ask verus asking your parents. And unless you would go listening to every irl converstation your kid has you shouldn't be reading their text messages. I do agree that chat rooms can be harmfull and parents should monitor them closely.
Leaning

Pro

(D)
What I agree with

(D One)
Privacy, A word that relates to,
Personal Independence, Ego, Pride, Self Sufficiency, Respect, Safety, Trust.
Definitely, I agree that such are important to humans, Moreso the older they get to being responsible for their own person.
You said in the comments, By kid, You meant "12 to 15 year old"
Which I'll accept as the definition for 'this argument, Though it makes it more difficult for me.

(D Two)
Can't listen to 'everything your child does.
It's true I agree, That a persons kid at a certain point, Even years before they're 18, Are becoming their own person, Wanting privacy. Texting with their peers, A journal or notebook, 'ought not be pried into carelessly, And certainly not without letting your kid 'know before hand that you're going to do so and 'why.

(D Three)
Parts of the internet, 'can be harmful.

(E)
What I disagree with.
It's 'difficult for me to select 'ages as the 'correct thresholds, Especially since I'm not a doctor or sociologist.
But I'll attempt to go out on a limb.

(E One)
There are 'numerous subjects that under 18 year olds are 'banned from, On the internet.
They are also 'laughably easy to access, It's like expecting a child proof cap to work against a "12 to 15 year old"
Thus I make my argument that until someone is 18, Their internet search history 'must be examined by their parent.
For there 'is a will, And there 'is a way. All the moreso with easy temptation, And laughable blocks in place.

(E Two)
On phone use.
I'd argue that a parent ought for a couple years when their child first receives a phone able to text. Let their child 'know that your checking their messages, That the phone is 'not theirs yet, That it's not a toy.
I assert that such is 'necessary, So that parents have an opportunity to teach their child 'about etiquette and common sense.
The 'Law, Is able to obtain 'warrant to search an individuals phone.
Sometimes phones can be left somewhere unlocked.
Some behaviors such as smutty pictures or texts can be used against a person, By their peers.
Cyberbullying.
It's a common trope, Parents teaching their kid life skills, Be it how to ride a bike, How to cook, How to shoot a gun. In the modern world, Phones are more common than any of those I mentioned before, Are more used, Contain social aspects.
'But,
I 'also acknowledge privacy, The importance of self actualization.
I'd argue 'another couple of years where the phone 'is the Childs own, Is important.
For them to gain a sense of independence, Capability.

Thus I argue it'd be reasonable to give a kid access to texting, Age fourteen to sixteen,
And privacy in such sixteen to eighteen.
I don't see a 'need for a child to have access to the internet or texting 'before then, But if you disagree, I'm willing to hear your arguments in round three.

(E Three)
The internet 'is a source of nonjudgmental information, That a person is able to ask questions without shame or embarrassment.
But I argue it is 'not a replacement for parents, Guardians, Teachers, Therapists, Doctors, Lawyers.
And as it's 'current form is 'Unlimited, I do not agree with unlimited access, Given the adult nature of much upon it.
Debate Round No. 2
LilahF

Con

Let me just explain what I meant when I said the internet of non judgemntal information. Nothing replaces asking a parent or guardian is something I comepletly agree with. However the reason the internet is a place most kids go for information is it just staight up gives you answers. It doesn't ask "why would you ask that", Or "what an odd question, It just gives you straight up answers. Another thing is yes a parent's job is to keep a kid safe but at the same time a kid should be able to text their freinds without the fear of there parents reading their messages. Another thing is if you montitor your kids device it will limit their abilty to make smart choices on their own. If a kid can't make a smart choice unless they know they are being closley monitered then by the time they are an adult and theyand have no one to moniter them they will only make even dumber choices
Leaning

Pro

(F)
Replies.

(F One)
Nonjudgmental, Quick information, I understand the appeal.
But I balk at full un-scrutinized internet access.
I'm bothered less by kid's having access to public library books, Encyclopedias, People calling Information services on their phone.

(F Two)
Interaction between children.
It's common, Early on, For there to be some form of parental supervision, 'moreso of course at a 'young age, Than later in life.
Phones, I argue, Can give an 'illusion of anonymity, Of safety from consequence.
Contain many a learning situation, Whose lesson is best taught by parental guidance and explanation.
I 'do argue for the years 16 to 18 being unsupervised, Unless in case of an emergency.
Last part is an Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy, But I state it regardless. I sometimes think there's so many adults stupid with technology, And stupid interactions between themselves using said technology, Because no one taught them common sense when using it.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
@LilahF
Also may be, That computer website restriction software is advanced enough 'now, To not be as easy to remove as a childproof cap.
Posted by LilahF 1 month ago
LilahF
@Leaning I think that by the time a kid is 15 their parents should stop monitoring their devices
Posted by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
@LilahF
'Might be kids could/should get independence of phone and internet at a younger age,
Kids can join military at 17 years old.
Can be emancipated as young as 14 years old (California only I 'think), More often in states it's age 16. Also complicated as to 'how and 'what it entails.

Point is that I think a person 'could make an argument of what a person is mature enough for, Both based on their 'actual 'age, And their 'maturity.

May be that my argument and suggested age restrictions are 'too restrictive.
Not a topic I'd consider myself an 'authority of.
Posted by LilahF 1 month ago
LilahF
@Leaning you definitely won this debate
Posted by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
@LilahF
I can understand being bothered by that, Makes a kid resentful and insecure I 'think, From my own life experiences. When their privacy is not respected.
And I must admit, I'm not certain how one 'ought go about solving the internet problem.
But with there being parental advisories on a number of subjects, I'm unsure how else to address it other than
"parents who look through every single you tube video and website their kid has watched"

I'm unsure about the necessity of listening to phone calls though.
Posted by LilahF 1 month ago
LilahF
@Leaning you definitely won this debate. If all parents did when they monitored their kids device was checked for harmful sites then I would have nothing against it. However it is the extreme paretns who look through every single you tube video and website their kid has watched and listens to their phone calls is what bothers me
Posted by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
@LilahF
Well, I 'did try to go for an agreeable angle.
Aye, True enough that behaviors suppressed a kids, Can burst forth as adults.

My eldest brother was a valedictorian in High School, Great grades, Because my parents 'forced him to study, He goes to college, Doesn't study and get's Ds.
Some kids end up doing drugs when they get out become their own responsibility.
Don't pick up their rooms and live in squalor.

I'd agree a parent 'should try to approach their child in a way that doesn't embarrassed or upset them for searching on bad thing or sending one rude text message.
I'd say kids do better by being treated with respect, Both for their privacy, And a sense of control over their own life.
Posted by LilahF 1 month ago
LilahF
@Leaning I completely agree with most of the things you said. Nothing does replace books or encyclopedias. However one thing I disagree with is that if a kid is shamed or punished from doing stupid stuff online by the time they are an adult they will probably want to do all things there parents told them not to do since there is no one to stop them. In my real opinion I think that as long as you don't make you kid feel embarrassed or upset for searching on bad thing or sending one rude text message monitoring their device is okay.
Posted by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
@LilahF
Righto, I'll take that into account.
Posted by LilahF 1 month ago
LilahF
@Leaning when I mean kid I mean a 12 to 15 year old child
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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