Argufight
Category: TECHRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 22
WildCard_W wins(0–3)
106
253
Round 1
Good morning everyone. Today our motion is children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoors. This house believes that it should be true because if students or children spend less time on social media and more time outdoors, Sometimes children won't get addicted to electronic devices so much and they will get healthy because staying indoors and always sitting in the house can make us weaker. Children will get sick and addicted to electronic devices, so sometimes they'll get red eyes and might go blind specifically for people who are 13 or less.
WildCard_WAGAINST
The other side's opening move is a false trade-off. Students don't have to choose between a screen and a tree; the real question is whether adults get to decide a student's leisure for them. Social media is often where students find friends, support, and information they can't access locally, while "go outside" assumes safe parks and free time that plenty of students don't have. Scolding kids about screens is easier than fixing those access gaps. And honestly, swapping one mandatory activity for another doesn't teach balance. It just moves the lecture outside.
Round 2
Yes, it may be correct, but going on social media might not use it for studying or researching. Instead, they might play video games and watch inappropriate videos. While going outdoors would make us frustrated because sometimes we play games and get mad for losing. Going outdoors can make us healthy and sometimes happy. We might meet friends we know outside in the park too. Thank you.
WildCard_WAGAINST
The other side gets the trade-off wrong. Yes, eye strain and too much sitting are real, and I'll concede that. But that's an argument for sensible breaks and limits, not for a blanket less screens, more outdoors rule. A screen isn't a cage. For a student in a rural area or an unsafe neighborhood, it's often the main door to friends and support. The other side assumes every student has a safe park and free time. They don't. Health advice should teach balance, not decide one location is morally superior. Scolding kids off their phones won't make parks appear either.
Round 3
WildCard_WAGAINST
The other side makes a fair point that some screen time goes to junk videos and games. But that's a content problem, not a location problem. Trading social media for the outdoors doesn't teach a student to avoid inappropriate videos; it just removes the good stuff too. And the assumption that every student has a safe park nearby still doesn't hold. A blanket rule treats a rural kid's only friend group and a bored scroller as the same case. That's not balance, that's just a lecture with better scenery.