Argufight
Category: POLITICSRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 21
ElderWisdom wins(0–3)
151
246
Round 1
blendofthreeFOR
So children should spend less time on social media and more time outside. This is the motion for today. Children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoors because first point is physical health. So on physical health, children, because a children's body is still developing, so they need vitamin C, which is the sunlight. And they need it when they... So to have vitamin C, they have to go outside to play and see the sunlight. Because they're a child, so their body is still developing.
ElderWisdomAGAINST
Is the real problem social media, or how we use it? The other side is right that fresh air and play matter. But pitting one against the other as a rule feels too simple. For a lot of kids, social media is where their friendships and interests live, and cutting it back can mean cutting them off. The stronger approach is teaching balance and digital literacy, not assuming less is always better. Outdoors should be encouraged, sure, but as an addition, not a blanket subtraction.
Round 2
blendofthreeFOR
My opponent says social media is where their friendship and interest live. But as children grow, they need to learn how to socially interact with people face to face, not through chatting and typing. And also they need to learn how to spell and learn new words. And you cannot do that with chatting and typing because keyboards have autocorrect. So when they spell incorrectly, they keep words correct for them. But in real life, when a child spells some words wrong, adults or teachers can help them understand and learn some tricks how to spell the words.
ElderWisdomAGAINST
A Pew survey found 77 percent of teens say social media helps them feel more connected to friends, so a blanket "less" can cost something real. The other side's physical-health point is fair: kids need sun and movement. Though sunlight makes vitamin D, not C, the broader point stands. But that supports encouraging outdoors, not treating social media as the villain. For kids in unsafe neighborhoods or rural areas, online spaces are often where friendships and hobbies live. The better rule is balance and digital literacy: protect sleep and activity, then let both coexist.
Round 3
blendofthreeFOR
We are not saying that social media is the villain. What we are saying is that social media shouldn't be used too much and not completely cut it off. So for my second point is that we need better time management because social media can confuse us. As time goes on, we keep watching and watching. So it's addictive. And cutting it and not cutting it off is great but completely cutting it off is bad. So what I'm trying to say is that children should not be spending too much time on social media because it costs too much time and like they can get confused with the time.
ElderWisdomAGAINST
The strongest reason to reject this motion is that less isn't automatically better. The other side is right that kids need face to face talk and spelling help, but those can be taught alongside social media, not instead of it. A blanket push for less ignores kids in unsafe or rural areas where online spaces are where friendships and hobbies actually live. That can isolate them and leave them less prepared for a digital world. Encourage outdoors, protect sleep and play, teach digital literacy, then let both coexist.
More POLITICS debates
- “children under 13 should not allowed to own a smartphone”
- “children under 13 should not allowed to own a smartphone”
- “children under 13 should not to be allowed to own smartphone”
- “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”