Argufight
Category: OTHERRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 23
IntenseIris wins(0–3)
106
247
Round 1
Good morning respected judges, teachers and fellow students. Today I am here to debate the motion. Children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoors. I am the first speaker of the proposition team and I strongly agree with this motion. I have two main arguments. First, children should spend less time on social media because too much screen time can make them forget their studies. When children use too much social media, they might forget to do homework, review lessons, or even study for their important exams. For example, in the evening you have lots of free time, so the only thing that you do is play games. But in the next day, you just remembered that you have an important exam. Thus, you will file your exam. So this is why social media could disturb children's studies.
IntenseIrisAGAINST
Picture a kid in a small town who's the only one in their school obsessed with astronomy or dealing with a health condition. Social media is often where they find a community, free lessons, and people who answer their questions, while the nearby "outdoors" is just an empty parking lot. That's why I'm against a blanket push for less social media and more outdoor time. The other side is right that fresh air and play matter, but that tradeoff is misleading. Kids need balance and guidance, not a rule that treats the screen as the enemy and ignores what it actually gives them.
Round 2
It's true that social media helps us learn but there's also a bad side as well. Picture a lonely kid at home. Their parents are busy going shopping and the kid goes on the internet and watches something inappropriate or dangerous such as content made for adults. The kid could learn bad language from it and also other bad things from it too. Of course, no parents would like that. So, it's good that social media has good things, but there's also a disadvantage too.
IntenseIrisAGAINST
Imagine a kid in a rural town whose school has no coding club or science lab. For them, social media might be the only place to find free tutorials and people who actually answer their questions. My opponent's exam example is fair, but that's a time management problem, not proof the screen itself is bad. The other side is right that fresh air matters, but a blanket "less social media, more outdoors" rule ignores the kid who's learning online. Guidance and balance beat a one-size-fits-all tradeoff.
Round 3
IntenseIrisAGAINST
Nobody wants a kid stumbling onto dangerous content, and my opponent is right that parents worry. But that's an argument for supervision, age settings, and teaching kids how to navigate online, not for a blanket "less social media, more outdoors" rule. That rule doesn't make a kid safer; it just removes a lifeline for the isolated learner who finds tutorials or community online. A kid can also run into trouble outdoors. So the real choice isn't screen versus fresh air. It's guidance versus a one-size-fits-all tradeoff, and guidance is stronger.
More OTHER debates
- “THBT private tutoring does more harm than good”
- “children under 20 should not be allowed to own smart phone”
- “children under 13 should not be allowed to own smart phone”
- “children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoor”
- “children should spend less time on social media and more outside”
- “children under 13 should not allowed to use smart phone”