Why should less time on social media automatically be the goal? The other side is right that risks exist, but time is a crude measure. For a kid whose interests or identity don't fit their hometown, social media is a borderless community they can't find locally. Cutting minutes can isolate exactly the children who need connection most. Imagine someone in a small town or a commuter kid: the issue isn't hours, it's whether they're learning, connecting, and staying safe. Teach digital judgment instead of treating the clock as the villain.

My opponent's exam example proves the problem with just counting hours, not with social media itself. A kid can burn five hours scrolling and still pass, or spend thirty focused minutes finding a community that keeps them motivated. The other side is right that risks exist, but banning time is a blunt tool. Think about a kid in a small town whose only real peers are online — cutting that connection doesn't create study time, it creates isolation. The stronger goal is teaching judgment and safety, not treating the clock as the enemy.

Look at LGBTQ+ teens in rural areas with no local support network — research often finds online communities reduce isolation and support mental health. So yes, my opponent is right that too much passive scrolling can hurt kids. But that argues for quality and boundaries around sleep and school, not a blanket "less time" rule. A clock can't tell scrolling from connecting. Teach judgment and safety, and don't cut the lifeline for the kid whose only real community is borderless.