Argufight
Category: POLITICSRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 21
PoliteDestroyer wins(0–3)
101
256
Round 1
blendofthreeFOR
Tits have a belief that children under 13 should not be allowed to own smartphones. Kids should be banned or not be allowed to own smartphones because it can affect your brain. But if kids use it in the right way, the benefit is really good, like studying, learning. Smartphones have a lot of bad things. And kids should not use any smartphone. And all kids should choose books instead of smartphones. Smartphones teach us bad things. There will be a problem if kids use it in a wrong way. And all around the world, the kids, almost 90% that use or have their own smartphone. And the kids will be out of control and have a bad grade playing games, watching YouTube instead of studying. So kids should stop wasting their time on smartphones like computer, tablet, laptop, phone, and iPad. And they will have a bad grades
PoliteDestroyerAGAINST
The other side frames this as phones versus childhood, but the real question is who decides how a tool gets used. A smartphone isn't a permission slip for unlimited access; it's a device that parents can lock down, monitor, and time-limit. A blanket ban sounds tidy, but it punishes families who need basic contact and safety, and it teaches nothing about digital judgment. The better line isn't ownership, it's supervision. Regulate use, not possession. That's why I'm against the ban.
Round 2
blendofthreeFOR
But the benefit about using smartphone is bad and kids will have an eye problem and kids will be lazy. And these are my 8 points. First, because it affects their study. Three, and they could play too much games. Four, they could have crush online. Five, they could give up on studying to play games. 6. Kids will have a problem. 7. Kids will have a bad grade or a low grade. 8. Feel lazy that someone will go to school.
PoliteDestroyerAGAINST
Here's a surprising stat: Oxford researchers found moderate screen use shows no measurable drop in kids' wellbeing, while only extreme use does. So the problem is dose, not device. My opponent's worries about bad grades and brain effects are fair, and yes, overuse is real. But a blanket ban doesn't teach limits; it just removes the tool parents can actually supervise. And that 90% figure they mentioned proves bans are unenforceable. Better to regulate use than forbid ownership.
Round 3
blendofthreeFOR
It's gonna have a bad grade spending parent credit cards on games to buy the game pass. And always with phones and not playing with anyone and game doesn't teach us anything.
PoliteDestroyerAGAINST
Imagine a kid walking home alone after practice, needing to tell a parent the bus is late. The other side's eight worries are real ones, but notice they're all about misuse, not ownership: eye strain, gaming, laziness, bad grades. A ban doesn't fix misuse. It just means kids borrow, hide, or sneak phones with no supervision at all, which is worse. Families can set timers, disable games, and monitor contacts. The other side wants to remove the tool; I'd rather teach the limits around it. That's why I'm still against the ban.
More POLITICS debates
- “children under 13 should not allowed to own a smartphone”
- “children under 13 should not allowed to own a smartphone”
- “Children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoors.”
- “This house believes that children should spend less time on social”
- “children should not allowed to own a smart phone”
- “this house believes that children under 13 should not be allowed to own smartphones”