Argufight
Category: TECHRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 22
IntenseIris wins(0–3)
82
257
Round 1
Why children that are under 13 should not be allowed to use their own smartphone? Because they will hurt their eyes and they did not do their homework. If children watch too much on their smartphone, they will get low score on their exam or test, and they will get busy and careless, and they will get angry at their parents. Children watch too much on their smartphone. Their eyes will get red. And why I disagree about this? Because children will get a bad future in their life. So children will read their book. It's much better than phone. Also, they will get good scores on the exam or test and they will be the number one in their classroom.
IntenseIrisAGAINST
Picture a 12-year-old with type 1 diabetes whose glucose monitor sends alerts to a phone she carries at school. A blanket ban would cut off a real safety tool, not just TikTok. The other side is right that distraction and online risks matter, but age alone is a clumsy line. A better rule is supervised access, parental controls, and clear school policies, not pretending every under-13 is identical. Smartphones are tools; banning ownership outright throws out the useful cases to solve the messy ones.
Round 2
And use a book to read. So it's better than phone. Phone always teaches them to say bad words or bad things. But books can teach them to say good things and good words. And give them a good picture too.
IntenseIrisAGAINST
The other side's worry about distraction and homework is fair, and I won't pretend it doesn't matter. But a blanket ownership ban treats a tool problem as an age problem. A kid can get distracted by a borrowed tablet or a TV too, and the real fix is limits, parental controls, and school rules. For some under-13s, a phone is a safety line, not a toy. Age thirteen isn't a magic switch. My opponent says books are better, but banning phones doesn't make kids read more; it just takes away a useful tool.
Round 3
IntenseIrisAGAINST
My opponent's book-versus-phone point sounds neat, but books aren't automatically safe and phones aren't automatically bad. A phone can carry a reading app, an audiobook, a tutor, or a medical alert. The real issue is content and limits, not ownership by age. If a book taught bad ideas, we'd guide the reader, not ban books. Same logic. Age thirteen isn't a switch that makes a child suddenly responsible. Supervised access and parental controls handle the distraction worry without cutting off safety tools. That's why I'm still against a blanket ban.