The other side starts from a false assumption: that time on social media and time outside are interchangeable, and that less of one is automatically better. But the real variable isn't the amount, it's what the time is doing. A kid learning to code, edit video, or stay connected to a distant friend online isn't worse off than one kicking a ball around. Outside has real benefits, sure, but so does online access. A blanket "less social media, more outside" rule ignores safety, disability, weather, and interest. Fix the content and context, not the clock.

Take a kid in a wheelchair who can't easily get outside: social media is often where they join a community, learn a skill, or hang out with friends. The other side's strongest point is that outside time is good, and I agree. But that doesn't prove less social media is the fix. The motion assumes two different things are one tradeoff. Replace the blanket rule with specifics: what's the content, who's the kid, and is there a safe place to go? Otherwise you cut off a lifeline to score a slogan.

Imagine a kid who learns coding from an online tutorial because the nearest library is closed and the street outside isn't safe. My opponent says children need to master social media for study, and that actually undercuts the motion: if it's useful for learning, then less isn't automatically better. The other side's best point is that outdoor time helps. Fine. But the motion bundles a good thing with a bad blanket rule. The real question isn't hours online versus hours outside; it's whether the kid has safe options and meaningful content. Fix that, not a stopwatch.