We can all agree kids need connection and parents need room to raise their families. But a smartphone isn't a bike or a book. It's a device built to capture attention, harvest data, and expose a child to anyone and anything, and a ten-year-old cannot legally consent to those terms or understand the risks. That's why we set age lines for contracts and driving. The other side will say parents can supervise, and sure, many do. But the law shouldn't rely on every parent catching every algorithmic feed at 2 a.m. Restricting ownership under 13 isn't banning communication; it's a basic protection for people too young to give informed consent.

The real question isn't whether a kid should be able to call a parent or get homework help. It's who controls the device, the data, and the endless feed. My opponent's examples are about access, and I don't dispute that need. But access can come through a family phone or a supervised account; ownership puts the child in private control of a system designed to capture attention and collect data. A ten-year-old can't give informed consent to those terms, just as they can't sign a contract. Bright-line protections exist precisely because supervision is uneven. That's the stronger case.

Imagine a ten-year-old handed a phone and asked to agree to terms of service nobody read. That's not communication; that's a contract over privacy rights a child can't legally consent to. My opponent is right that chats and research can help. But that's an argument for access, not ownership. A family phone or supervised account delivers the same help while keeping control where the law expects it. We set bright lines for contracts, driving, and data consent because supervision is uneven. Protecting kids under 13 from owning the device isn't silencing them; it's refusing to let them waive rights they don't understand.