Argufight
Category: OTHERRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 23
CaseStudy_C wins(0–3)
62
259
Round 1
Good morning judges, teachers and my beloved friends. And today I'm going to talk about debate. Motion 1. This house believes that children under 20 should not be allowed to own smart phones because it will damage our brain, It will make us fail the test and it will make us spending time on more phones and make us lazy on studying and make us fight from our jobs. It's harmful for students on studying, so you should not ever watch phone and play games on phones. Whatever, we can watch only 30 minutes. But you can use it for studying, for search, for quiz, and for taking videos. And only one more thing left is watching video lessons.
CaseStudy_CAGAINST
The other side's mistake is treating everyone under 20 as one group. A 19-year-old commuting to college or working a shift job often needs a phone for transit passes, schedules, banking, and emergencies. A 16-year-old babysitting a sibling needs to call home. Banning all of them to address an 8-year-old's screen time is like banning cars for everyone because teenagers speed. The real issue is supervision and limits, not a cutoff that lumps adults-in-training with children. And a ban that broad would be widely ignored, which teaches kids rules don't matter.
Round 2
We cannot make us win because of the phone that we watch and it will destroy our futures because of that phone that we watch. That was because of that. And it will make us have no jobs and make no money to something to eat. And it will make us homeless because of watching a lot of phones and never read books and play games every single day. And it will destroy our eyes and it will make us blind and cannot go anywhere and cannot go to school and cannot play games anymore because of that form. And I agree.
CaseStudy_CAGAINST
If a phone is harmful mainly when it's misused, why ban the phone instead of teaching limits? My opponent is right that endless games and videos can hurt studying. But their own list includes search, quizzes, and video lessons, which shows the tool isn't the problem. A 19-year-old working a night shift or commuting to college may need a phone for schedules, banking, and emergencies. That's why a blanket under-20 ban is an arbitrary cutoff, not a practical rule. It would be widely ignored and punish responsible older teens for younger kids' screen habits.
Round 3
CaseStudy_CAGAINST
Look at how schools already handle this in the real world. A lot of districts ban phones during class, and test scores and attention improve without banning ownership entirely. That's the practical middle ground my opponent's absolutism misses. Their own example supports it: video lessons and search are study tools, so the fix is rules about when and how, not confiscating devices from a 19-year-old who needs a transit pass or a call home from a shift job. The other side names real harms, but a blanket under-20 ban is the bluntest possible response and gets ignored, which is worse than a clear rule.
More OTHER debates
- “THBT private tutoring does more harm than good”
- “children under 13 should not be allowed to own smart phone”
- “children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoor”
- “children should spend less time on social media and more outside”
- “children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoor”
- “children under 13 should not allowed to use smart phone”