Kush (PRO)First and foremost, I would like to thank Bugsy460 for debating with me on this resolution. Lately it seems like me and Bugsy 460 are the only ones debating. Without further ado let’s get started.
Primarily, I would like to clear a misconception that would most likely arise during the course of this debate. The resolution is that there should be a legal age for using mobile phones. According to my perception, using here means owning, as there is no practical way to stop the use of smartphones in even a child’s life, but owning it can have harmful effects. Another way this resolution can be interpreted is that using means excessive using. Also, I would like to clarify that mobile phones are interpreted as smartphones.
First, we need to understand the power of smartphones. By giving your child such a powerful tool, we not only give them access to chat with their friends, send images and videos, but we also give them access to social media accounts, websites and much more. Now the CON might argue that that is what smartphones should be used for, but they undermine the risks. We’ve all heard horrific stories about children being groomed online, but there’s also the risk they could unknowingly rack up substantial bills by downloading apps or playing games. On average, children are getting their first smartphones around age 10. This could be very risky as children start to enter a very critical phase in their lives where distractions are possible and very likely. Many children carry phones along with them to their schools. Chatting with friends or playing games during school breaks, or even in the class, is increasing day by day. This results in children failing to pay attention in the class, missing out on important lessons, and consequently, being clueless about studies and examinations. According to a recent study that found the mere presence of a smartphone reduces a person’s ability to focus. In the study, undergraduates asked to leave their phones in another room did better on cognitive tests than those who were asked to silence their phones and leave them face down on their desk or in a bag. There are a lot of harmful effects from smartphones especially for children, as they are the most vulnerable because anyone can shape ormould how they think. Hence, there should be a legal age for using smartphones.
Sources
https://www.lovefone.co.uk/blogs/news/what-age-should-a-youngster-get-a-mobile-phone
https://childmind.org/article/kids-shouldnt-use-phones-during-homework/
https://parenting.firstcry.com/articles/harmful-effects-of-mobile-phone-on-child/
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-06 01:43:11
5 years ago
| Speak Round
Bugsy460 (CON)Thank you for inviting me to this debate Kush. Best of luck. I'll go over my opponent's points and then mine.
Opponent's Points
1. My opponent brings up grooming on cell phones, and this is an issue, but banning cell phones for children wouldn't solve the issue. Child predators online don't only use resources found on phones, but use gaming. 1 The gaming industry is huge and has allowed a large amount of grooming to happen, from Minecraft to League of Legends. Unless we hope to ban internet access for children, we can't solve grooming, especially since children would probably spend more time on consoles and computers without a phone.
2. Pro brings up kids spending exuberant amounts of money on accident, but this is ridiculous. First, this would mean they have unlimited access to a parents debit or credit card, or it would mean the parent allowed it to be saved onto their phone. Either way, this is either on the fault of the parent, or on the agreement of the parent. The other issue is that, once again, phones aren't the only way to spend money. The 1st through 4th things that kids most likely spent their money on were all physical objects; books, sweets, Legos, and presents. 2 The 5th through 9th is Roblox, Fortnite, PlayStation, Xbox, and Pokémon. All of these either are consoles or have console/PC access to financial transactions. Once again, you'd have to ban internet to solve the issue.
3. My opponent brings up focus and performance in school, but this isn't justification for illegal ownership. We need to focus on utilizing technology to its fullest potential, not eliminating it. Smartphones have a ton of potential within the realm of education. They can be used as academic tools, educational opportunities, a way to make education fun, and a way to help students manage schedules and information from teachers. 3 We need to try and incorporate cell phone use in the classroom to provide the best educational opportunity we can. This would better education than banning cell phones.
My Case
1. I propose an alternative to the resolution that solves all my opponents issues and will solve an issue I will bring up that my opponent doesn't solve. I propose we introduce a mandatory class in schools that teach how to stay technologically healthy. This would include how to avoid sexual predators, save money, and avoid internet addiction. This alternative would better solve all the issues my opponent brings up because it addresses the root cause, misunderstanding. Instead of taking away one of the many portals kids have to the internet, we need to teach children how to better manage their time and actions. This would make kids more safe than a ban of smart phones.
2. The issue I have with the resolution is the attack on parenting rights. We have to respect that different parents want to raise their children in different ways, and while we can equip children with knowledge in schools, we shouldn't take away a parent's right to raise their child how they see fit, especially at no harm to the child. By taking away the right to parent, we then go on a slippery slope of the state telling parents how to parent their child in every aspect. What to feed them, how much screen time they can allow their child, what media they can show their child, etc. would be questions the state would answer rather than a parent. This degrades personal freedom, and we must find solutions that don't infringe on personal freedom.
Summary
Vote con because the resolution doesn't solve any of the proposed problems facing children, their are better alternatives, and we need to preserve the right of the individual.
Sources
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-07 16:28:24
5 years ago
| Speak RoundKush (PRO)Clarification
My opponent is under the huge misconception that this resolution and the PRO stand for BANNING smartphones. We support legalizing an age for smartphone users.
Opponent’s Emphasis
CON’s main emphasis and the basis of their argument so far has been the gaming industry. They also talk about utilizing technology to its fullest. I completely agree and that is the reason why every single public and private school in America now have laptops for usage. The schools have bought laptops and from time-to-time they involve it in the learning process. So, there is no absece of technology in a student's education. Again, neither the PRO nor the resolution promotes BANNING internet access for all students. We simply propose that smartphone should be given at only a particular age, but since some parents might be oblivious to the fact of what their children might use the smartphone for, it is better to present a legal age for it.
Introduction of New Aspects
Health Risks
It is a wide known fact that teenagers and tweens (ages 4-12) spend a lot of time on their smartphones. A study found that teenagers spend an average of 7 hours and 22 minutes ontheir phones, that is 51 hours and 14 minutes weekly. And tweens aren’t too far behind, as they spend 4 hours and 44 minutes daily, thus spending 33 hours and 8 minutes weekly. Children on social media may come in contact with cyberbullies who harass and bully them over the internet. Many children who have been cyberbullied may only admit their experience much later in life, when the mental damage has already been done. Social media may also induce depression and anxiety when the kids are not given the online attention they expect. Moreover, with children glued to the mobile phone during their free time, they don’t partake in physical activity and get fresh air. This puts them at risk for obesity and other illnesses, which can later develop into harmful diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.
Summary
Some of the health risks have been given and more will be too. My opponent also mentioned some sort of attack on the parenting rights. All this resolution proposes is to benefit the parents by helping their children. In fact, a study found that most of the parents REGRET giving smartphones to their children at such an early age. So, this resolution wasn’t out of the blue. This resolution was carefully crafted and it will stand because of its practicality.
Sources
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-08 22:57:11
5 years ago
| Speak RoundBugsy460 (CON)I will go over my opponent's case and then my case.
Opponent's Case
1. My opponent dropped sexual predators, so he agrees that he can't solve the issue.
2. My opponent dropped kids spending money on phones, so he agrees that he can't solve the issue.
3. 58% of public schools have access to laptops.1 Hoping to outfit the other 42% immediately will be an extremely expensive venture. Now, I know that not every student has access to a smartphone in the status quo, but by helping out only the students who need it, we can cut down on school costs by a lot. This can only be ensured by not banning smartphones for younger kids who could utilize it in their education. Utilizing technology in schools is expensive, so if we can cut down those costs by allowing students to use their own device, we could ensure that funding goes into other programs in schools.
4. Cyberbullying and social media are available on more than just smartphones. If you ban smartphones for everyone under 13, 12 year olds still have access and ownership rights to laptops, gaming consoles, and other internet connected devices. 90% of teens are involved in gaming, 2 including on computers and consoles. To simply try and solve all of the physical and mental effects that come with internet use by banning one way they can access it for certain ages is ridiculous. You can't solve these issues.
My Case
1. My opponent doesn't address my alternative solution, so he agrees that it will solve the issue of sexual predators better, it will solve kids spending money on phones better, and it will solve education better. To continue with his new point, it will also solve these health issues better. To refresh your memory, my alternative was that, instead of banning smartphone ownership for younger ages, we should institute a technological health class in schools. This would teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, be fiscally responsible, and utilize their time wisely on technology. Part of that includes not spending so much time on devices and how to best navigate social media. These issues won't go away by simply banning it until children get older, because then you just delay these issue, as well as, you don't teach kids solutions. We need to be focusing on equipping children with the tools necessary to best succeed technologically, not just banning it until they hit a certain age and just hope they figure it out.
2. My opponent claims a study that parents regret giving their children devices. I did not see this study in his sources, but even if it is there, he misses my point. My point was that parents should be making these decisions for their children, not the state. We need to allow parents to raise their kids how they best see fit, with as little involvement as possible. Even if parents regret their decision to give their child a phone, they learn from that and become better parents on different decisions related to raising their kids. Parents need to do more than work through state mandates, they need to parent their kid.
Summary
My opponent dropped so much of what I said, as well as me continuing to prove that the resolution is flawed, that a con vote is the only way to proceed.
Sources
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-09 08:45:31
5 years ago
| Speak RoundKush (PRO)Firstly, I would like to point out the fact that CON misinformed all of uswhen saying that only 58% of the public schools have laptops at their disposal. I used the same source as CON and I found out that 97% percent of the public schools have instructional computers and/or laptops.So as far as utilizing technology goes, almost every school in America utilizes it to its fullest.
My opponent also brought up how teens and tweens would just switchto their online accounts on laptops or computers, but according to a study conducted by PewResearch Centre, teens say, “Fully 95% of teens have access to a smartphone, and 45% say they are online 'almost constantly.” Also, a research conducted by Influence Central states, “While 42 percent of kids accessed the Internet via their own laptop or tablet four years ago.” So, if we look at this situation statistically,53% of children would not be able to access social media at the age of 13 or less.I consider that to be a remarkable achievement.
Children first receive their own cellphone at the age of 10.3 years. And the fascinating thing I found when reading a survey was that40% of the parents buy phones so that they can enjoy peace and quiet.
My opponent also said that this resolution, if employed, would land a huge blow to the gaming industry. But, only 26% of children aged between 8-12 play video games. Apart from that, the most populargames played areFortnite, PUBG, and various other battleroyale games. But, not only does this have academic risks, but health risks as well. A study states, “Scientific research has shown time and again that children learn from what they see on a screen. If they see violence being rewarded, they are going to learn that being aggressive is a good way to get what they want, and this belief can have long term effects on children’s behavior…... Children can learn that violence is an appropriate way to solve conflicts, and evidence shows that playing violent video games has the potential to increase aggression in some youth.” Now I'm not saying that the gaming industry won’t have to go through somewhat of a rough time, but according to me, most parents and the society care way more about their children, the future of this world, then they care about thegaming companies.Also, in the same study it states, “As children are continually exposed to violence in video games, they can become desensitized to it over time.” A typical example can be the present. The whole world knows and is watching the George Floyd protests and is watching the Black Lives Matter movement gather speed. Personally, this was horrifying for me to watch. There isn’t any phrase or a word that can describe the situation, and kids especially between the ages of 8-12 can becomedesensitized. Now I know this may seem like I am taking this too far, but no, this actually goes on.
Sources
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
https://www.mobilemarketer.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/research/22866.html
https://www.sellcell.com/blog/kids-cell-phone-use-survey-2019/
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-12 21:23:23
5 years ago
| Speak RoundBugsy460 (CON)I will go over my opponents points and my points.
Opponent's Case
1. My point about gaming wasn't saying the gaming industry would die if we banned phones for younger ages, my point was that sexual predators exist on online gaming platforms, including Minecraft and Fortnite. You can even bring up the health risks of violent video games, but you don't solve that issue because young children will still have access to gaming consoles or computers, and citing your own statistic where you say "40% of the parents buy phones so that they can enjoy peace and quiet", we can probably assume those 40% of parents will buy their children the newest console, laptop, or other smart device that will have the same sexual predator threat as any online app. Not only will it have those issues, but your plan would probably lead to a direct increase in the amount of violent video games played.
2. This also ties into the gaming, but was a separate answer to the point my opponent made towards the beginning of the argument. This whole point was that children would still spend money on online sources, even if there was no smartphones. With the creation of V-bucks and other pay-to-win formats in gaming, kids will always try to spend their parents money on gaming. This problem isn't solely with smartphones, but with internet.
3. While my opponent is right about 97% of schools having instructional computers, this was intentionally separate from carted laptops. Instructional computers are used only for a computer class that teaches computer basics, while carted laptops can be moved from classroom to classroom being used in any class. The 97% computer statistic represents how many schools have a computer class, not how many are utilizing technology to the fullest. My 58% does a better job of that, because it shows how many schools have the ability to bring laptops into a math, reading, science, etc. class. Now fixing this misunderstanding of the statistic, we then should work with a combined approach, allowing students with no smartphone to use laptops and other children to use their smartphone. This would save school districts money while they transition to more digital classrooms as well as showing students educational opportunities on their phone.
4. My opponent believes this resolution will get 53% of children off of social media, but this is failing to account for lifestyle changes. He believes that all of the children who currently use smartphones will just leave a vacuum where they used to put social media. He believes that this time will be spent frolicking outside, but realistically, the youth would then just shift to computers, gaming consoles, and any other smart device they could access social media on. His 53% might be 1% of children actually getting off of social media. Kids would just shift their attention to online gaming (which my opponent has outlined why that was bad) or social media off of a computer.
My Case
1. My opponent has still failed to address my alternative. As a better plan, we should focus on creating a class in schools that teaches students how to best be digitally responsible. This will ensure that we can have a safer and more responsible youth when they access smartphones, gaming consoles, computers, or any platform to have internet access. This solves all of the issues my opponent has brought up, as well as my issue with the resolution.
2. My opponent dropped parenting rights, so admits that the resolution infringes on the rights of parents to raise their children.
Summary
Voting con is the only possible option because con has produced a superior alternative to the resolution that actually solves, issues related to the resolution that haven't been rectified, and prove that pro can't solve any of the issues they have brought up. Con solves all issues while pro solves none. Vote con!
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-14 04:31:14
5 years ago
| Speak RoundKush (PRO)My opponent said, ‘we can probably assume...’ I humbly request my opponent to purely debate based on facts and leave assumptions out of this. And my opponent also said that my plan would probably increase the video game usage of kids. I beg to differ because parents won’t be willing to spend hundreds of dollars to buy consoles.
Also, my opponent has repeatedly mentioned only one solution to this whole situation, digital responsibility classes. But my opponent doesn’t understand that one of themost harmful effects, especially teens, is social media. And even if the teachers, no matter how effectively convey the point of how disastrous social media can be, the teens have become addicted to social media and gaming and there is absolutely no way that they are going to ready to quit all of that. Hence, this is the time to take drastic actions to save the future of our world.
In this argument I will mostly be focusing on one of the major disastrous effects of smartphones for kids, radiation. No matter how many flaws my opponent points out in the resolution, this effect trumps all of them because it is so drastic that initializing a legal age for smartphones is the only door open to us now. Cell phones emit radiation. It is a particular type of radiation called non-ionizing radiation – basically meaning that it doesn’t remove electrons from atoms, although it can slightly alter the state of them, for example when microwave radiation agitates them causing them to heat up. For almost as long as this technology has been available, experts have been conducting studies to quantify the effect this non-ionizing radiation has on the human body. The big fear is brain tumors and various forms of cancer, although there have been recent studies in a number of other non-lethal health issues which may be linked, including sleep deprivation, decreased sperm count and motility and behavioral changes in brain activity.
This image clearly shows the drastic effects of smartphones can have on kids and teens. Like I said before, this issue clearly trumps all of the flaws mentioned by CON.
Conclusion
I think that I have provided ample of evidence and facts to convey that this resolution stands because of its utmost importance.
JUDGE/S VOTE FOR THE PRO SIDE
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-18 01:47:08
5 years ago
| Speak RoundBugsy460 (CON)Opponent's Case
1. Facts mean nothing if my opponent denies me as a debater or a judge the right to logically interpret the facts. If 40% of parents buy cell phones to enjoy "peace and quiet", then why is it so illogical to assume they'd purchase a different internet connecting device for the same reason upon the banning of cell phones for their children? Does their wish for peace and quiet magically go away? My opponent doesn't want logic to cast a cold look upon his facts because it proves my point. Parents, especially those 40%, are going to buy their children consoles or PCs as a substitute. This still puts children in danger of predators or spending their parents money. My opponent can't solve that as long as parents will logically find internet connected alternatives to educate their kids.
2. My opponent dropped, and therefore agrees, that allowing phones in the classroom (which requires children to have access) we can best help education and school budgets.
3. My opponent dropped, and supported, the idea that kids are addicted to social media. By supporting that point, my opponent practically defends the idea that children will find access to social media through alternatives that, based on previous statistics by my opponent, parents will buy.
4. Radiation was brought up out of nowhere, and needs to be addressed now. Firstly, my opponent has a graphic for his radiation point with nothing but where the study was done, so Pro wants to make us do the work to find his study. I don't think it should count if he doesn't give us access to go see it, but even if you don't buy that judge, I'll disprove my opponent's study. See, my opponent's graphic is misleading because you see it and panic at the idea of small children absorbing radiation into their brain, but there is no real risk here. Cancer is unproven because the radiation is non-ionized, which doesn't cause cancer in anybody, including children.1 On top of this studying disproving it, we can look at the dates. The study the National Cancer Institute sites is from 2004-2008. This is more recent and must be preferred over my opponent's study from 1992. So now let us focus on the other issues my opponent listed off. Firstly, these are unfounded. His own graphic just brought up the fear of tumors (which I disproved with more recent studies) and doesn't list of any of his other issues he brings up. If we allow unfounded and unproven "facts" then debate becomes about who can tell the biggest story. Don't buy his radiation point, the radiation is safe and isn't a risk.
My Case
1. My opponent said that my alternative fails because teens are addicted to social media, but this is exactly why we need digital responsibility classes. We can't separate teens from social media because, even if we ban them from smartphones, parents searching for peace and quiet will buy them consoles or laptops and they'll still have access. If we can't separate them from what's dangerous, then we need to teach them how to best deal with the situation. By teaching kids how to avoid sexual predators, avoid cyberbullying, avoid expensive mistakes, stay physically healthy while still using social media, and an assortment of other things to best equip a digital generation for their immersion into the technological era. Pro admits we can't separate teens from social media, so why not teach them how to best handle it?
2. My opponent dropped, and therefore agrees that the resolution infringes on the rights of the parent to raise their child.
Summary
My opponent has no point why we need the resolution that isn't disproven, shown to be unsolvable from the resolution, or better solved with my alternative. Vote Con for a successful alternative that doesn't infringe on parenting rights and actually solves my opponents concerns.
Sources
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-20 05:40:17
5 years ago
| Speak Round
Judge: DillonCrawford
Judge: nzlockie