Framework: Utilitarianism Okay, my first contention is that children should not be able to have smartphones under 13 because their brain is not fully developed. Their prefrontal cortex only develops at about age 25, which shows the children's immaturity to the smartphones. The preteens do not have enough willpower to control these attractive smart devices, and it exposes to vulnerabilities they possibly will struggle to deal with. Secondly, the multi-billion dollar corporations behind the engineering of the smartphone make it purposely addicting. There are teams of psychologists responsible for attracting factors such as infinite scrolling, or rewards just to make it more addictable. This especially affects most preteens and teens, since their prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed, and they are easily manipulated by these factors developed by companies and psychologists. Lastly, their are severe negative effects to this addiction/usage. According to research published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), giving a child a smartphone by age 12 corresponds to sharp spikes in negative physical and mental health outcomes: • 62% higher odds of insufficient sleep • 31% higher odds of suffering from depression • 40% higher odds of struggling with obesity. This further highlights how the usage of smart cellphones deteriorates children under 13's sleep, mental health and other factors.

Children under 13 firstly do not have the autonomy for choices when the device is ectremely addicting. The prefrontal cortex is not close to fully developed, which exposes them to their vulnerabilities. Teaching 'responsible use' assumes an even playing field, but it pits an undeveloped prefrontal cortex against multi-billion-dollar algorithms engineered by behavioral psychologists specifically to hijack attention. You cannot simply 'teach' a child to out-willpower continuous variable dopamine rewards. It’s like teaching a child to drink alcohol responsibly before their body can physically process it.

Gradual access works for tools that reward effort, like learning to ride a bike. But smartphones are engineered with variable reward schedules—the exact same mechanism used in gambling—to prevent self-regulation. You cannot 'gradually' build immunity to a device specifically designed to bypass human willpower, especially when the prefrontal cortex responsible for self-regulation isn't fully mature until age 25. Borrowing a friend's phone for 10 minutes at lunch does not cause the severe sleep deprivation, chronic anxiety, and algorithmic addiction that 24/7 personal ownership causes. The mental health harms cited in the AAP studies come from continuous, late-night, unmonitored use in a child's own bedroom. Pushing usage to occasional, shared moments dramatically reduces total harm. Additionally, social media and group texts aren't a healthy 'venue' for learning social rules—they are hyper-amplified environments of cyberbullying, social exclusion, and public shaming. Real social regulation is learned through face-to-face eye contact, reading body language, and physical play. Replacing real-world peer interaction with algorithmic feeds doesn't build social skills; it creates social anxiety. Lastly, guardrails only work if the driver can reach the brakes. When 67% of kids easily bypass parental controls and 82% use devices unsupervised in their rooms, the 'guardrails' are completely broken. Calling broken supervision 'guardrails' is just an excuse to hand children a device they are not biologically ready to manage. For those reasons and all of the negative effects stated before, I proudly urge an affirmative ballot.