Framework: Utilitarianism Firstly 13 year olds do not have the brain fully developed. Their prefrontal cortex only develops at around 25 years old while middle schoolers under 13 do not have enough maturity to use these devices and are vulnerable. Second the phones are made to be addicting. Even if the child is "mature", the smart cell-phones were developed by multi-billioin dollar corporations with psychologist teams to make the smart devices attractive. The ideas of infinite-scrolling or high reward release heavy amounts of dopamine and create addiction to these devices. A neurobiological study analyzing smartphone engagement found a powerful negative correlation (r = .84, p < .001) between daily screen time and intrinsic motivation. (SSRN eLibrary). Lastly, the usage of smart cellphones creates heavy depression and lack of sleep in these pre-teens. 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 shows how in addition to the prefrontal cortex not being close to fully developed, just the usage at a young age proves these negative effects

My opponent made major flaws in his argument. Yes the emergency argument is legitimate. A 11 year old should have a method of communication in an emergency. Firstly though a middle-schooler spends most of his day either at home or at school, so the chance of an emergency is little. In a case of a real emergency though, don't gps watches or text only phones fix the problem? The smart device only causes distractions instead of saving them in emergencies. The opponent argues the use of a tool, but a tool (such as a map or calculator) is something to support with the specific situation, while a smartphone is engineered to be rewarding and attractive, not a simple tool. A super simple flip-phone fixes the problem of communication and emergencies while not having the attractive and detrimental internet and social media. Parental controls are also not a complete barrier to the negative effects of the smartphone at such a young age. These parental controls are pretty easy to be bypassed, with about 67% of children reporting to have bypassed parental controls on their devices. (Detroit free press). Even crazier is that about 45% of the adults don't notice that the children bypassed the security system, showing an illusion of safety. (USwitch). And the children don't need to be hackers, they could easily find a YouTube video on how to do it in less than a minute. It's like giving a 13 year-old a sports car with a governed engine, knowing they can look up how to clip the wire on YouTube in five seconds. Finnaly the negative affects of depression and the addiction are still present, backed up by the underdevelopement of preteens brains and the major businesses and psychologists making the smartphone easily addictive.

My opponent's Jaws analogy is interesting, but the ocean doesn't actively target and attract children like phones do. The ocean doesn't have billion - dollar psychologist teams in corporations that purposely work on making the device rewarding, surpasssing kids willpower especially with the prefrontal cortex still not close to being fully developed. These preteens are extremely vulnerable to the addictive rewards and infinte scrolling in the smartphones. The negative claims that a ban removes a "safety line," pushing kids onto friends' phones or public screens where parents cannot supervise them [1AR]. This argument gets peer group dynamics completely backwards. A child does not seek out a friend's phone because phones are banned; they seek them out because owning a phone is the dominant social currency of their peer group. When you give a child a phone to keep them "safe," you are actually accelerating the peer pressure cascade, forcing every other parent in that friend group to buy one just so their kid isn't left out. By implementing a clear, structural ban on phone ownership for young children, we change the cultural baseline. When no one in the 6th grade has a phone, the pressure to look over a friend's shoulder disappears. A ban doesn't remove a safety line; it establishes a structural firewall that allows a child to experience a normal, analog childhood without the constant, exhausting pressure of a digital status symbol. So lastly Judge, I proudly urge an affirmative ballot, because teaching safe use for smart phones isn't possible. These children do not have enough willpower because of their brain not being developed and the multibliion dollar businesses psychologically attempting to addict these children to the smart devices with negative effects. Teaching a 12 year-old how to use a supercar safely isn't possible. It's better to give them the car when they are mature enough.