Alamo Drafthouse enforces a strict no-phone policy, and audiences still fill its seats. The reason is structural: one glowing screen in a dark room pulls every nearby eye, not just the owner's. A ban removes that variable entirely. Partial rules like silent mode fail because silent phones still light up and vibrate. My opponent may argue personal freedom, but a ticket buys a shared immersive experience, not a private living room. The ban is simple, fair, and enforceable.

Picture a packed Friday screening: mid quiet scene, one phone lights up three rows ahead, and the glow hits a dozen faces. The damage lands before any usher moves. That is the flaw in the other side's case. A harm-based rule like "don't disrupt" only triggers after disruption, so enforcement is reactive and inconsistent, hinging on whether staff notice and how severely they judge it. A blanket ban is binary: phone out, you're out. Binary rules are what actually get enforced. An usher can eject someone, but the ejection doesn't restore the scene everyone already lost.

We agree the core harm is light and sound, and accessibility tools matter. That is why a ban should include narrow, pre-approved exceptions for captions or medical alerts. The disagreement is enforcement. The other side's target-disruption rule forces staff to judge severity in a dark room, in real time, often after the damage is done. A clear phone-out rule gives them a binary trigger, no debate. Starting it at showtime handles the previews point. It is not about hating devices; it is about removing the subjective call that makes rules inconsistent. That is the practical case for banning.