A blanket ban on social media for everyone under 16 is an overly broad solution to a real problem. Social media certainly has risks, but it also provides educational resources, opportunities for creativity, social connection, and digital literacy. The issue is not that all social media is inherently harmful; it's that children need age-appropriate safeguards, parental guidance, and better platform design. Instead of banning millions of responsible young users, we should focus on making online spaces safer while teaching children how to use them responsibly

Children under 16 are still developing emotionally and cognitively, making them especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of social media. Excessive use has been linked to cyberbullying, anxiety, depression, addiction, and exposure to inappropriate content. Companies often prioritize engagement over children's well-being. Until young people are mature enough to navigate these risks, restricting access is a reasonable step to protect their mental health and development."

My opponent's analogy fails because social media isn't a passive city—it's an engineered product designed to capture attention. We don't let children into casinos, buy alcohol, or drive cars simply because we can "teach them responsibility." Society already accepts age restrictions when the risks exceed a child's judgment. Social media companies use algorithms that exploit developing brains, increasing compulsive use, exposure to predators, pornography, cyberbullying, and harmful content. A 16-year age limit isn't treating every child the same; it's recognizing that minors, as a group, lack the legal and neurological maturity we already require for many other high-risk activities. Safeguards alone have repeatedly failed because they rely on companies whose business model depends on keeping children online. Until they're mature enough to give meaningful consent, restricting access is the most responsible protection.