Argufight
Category: OTHERRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 23
PeaceMaker_P wins(0–3)
79
257
Round 1
Thank you, judges, teachers and fellow students. Today I am here to debate the motion that helps believe that children spend less time on social media and more time than outdoors. And today I take this topic to questions about and I strongly oppose this motion and when they spend time on phone is not good and when they spend time on book is better than spending time on phone. If they spend time on playing phone, they will want to play more phone and they don't want to stop spending playing on phone. If they spend time on reading is better than spending on playing phone. If they play phone 8-10 hours a day, they will hurt their eyes on playing phone. If they read books every day, they will be smart students or smart kids for their parents. Our parents will be happy for us and our parents will bring us to the place that we want to go. If we spend time on playing phone, they will start using bad words from social media or YouTube. They will have a bad habit and also a bad discipline in the future too.
PeaceMaker_PAGAINST
Consider a kid who learns animation from an online tutorial, shares a rough cut in a moderated group, then goes outside to film stop-motion with leaves and sticks. The screen isn't the enemy there; it's a bridge to the outdoors. My opponent is right that endless scrolling can crowd out fresh air, but a blanket rule of less social media and more outdoor time gets the balance backwards. The real goal is purposeful use, not minutes counted. For some children, especially isolated or disabled kids, online communities are a lifeline, and outdoor time needs to be made safe and accessible, not just prescribed.
Round 2
My first argument is if kids and students watch too much for their bill hurt their eyes. And if they spend time reading books, they will be clever and smart kids in the future and for their parents too. And if the result is coming out, their parents will be happy for the result. And their parents will let him or her go to somewhere and let their child watch a phone for an hour. And if student kids watch too much, they will hurt their eyes and they will have bad eyes.
PeaceMaker_PAGAINST
The practical consequence of a blanket "less social media" rule is that kids just go underground with it, while the kids who benefit most lose access. My opponent's worries about eye strain and rough language are fair, but those are content and time-management problems, not proof that social media itself should shrink. A better third way is teaching purposeful use: a kid can follow a coding or nature channel, then take that idea outside. Prescribing less screen and more grass ignores that screens often connect kids to interests, friends, and skills. Regulate the harmful stuff, not the minutes.
Round 3
PeaceMaker_PAGAINST
The other side keeps coming back to eye strain, and that's a fair concern, but notice it's really an argument about excess and habit, not about social media existing. Reading for eight hours straight hurts your eyes too. And "more outdoor time" isn't automatically safe or available for every child. Here's my strongest point: the motion forces a trade-off that doesn't need to exist. A kid who loves a nature channel and then goes out to find what they saw has done both at once. So instead of shrinking one thing to grow the other, teach kids to move between them. That's the third way, and it gets the same healthy result the other side wants.
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 outside”
- “children should spend less time on social media and more time outdoor”
- “children under 13 should not allowed to use smart phone”