Question by Leeara H: “It is not compulsory for children to have a mobile phone” ~ Debate.?
Hi, I’m doing a debate and the topic is.. “It is compulsory for children to have a mobile phone” (We are the negative team so our topic is “it is not compulsory for children to have a mobile phone) I’m trying to come up with some rebuttal’s to fight back with the opposing team. Any ideas would be great!!! Thanks.
Best answer:
Answer by justice boy
yes it is.because some children geting losted by there parents while going outside
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Possibility of brain cancer.
Look at the advantages (PROS) vs disadvantages (CONS) of a child having a cellphone
PRO
——-
1) keep in constant contact with anyone (especially their parents)
CONS
———-
1) Because the child has a cellphone, there’s a possibility that they could be mugged for it
It’s a ying-yang effect. Do the pros outweigh the cons?
Both pros and cons have scenarios where it can be good or bad – it’s a gamble scenario
Be very, very careful. It looks to me as if your teacher has sprung a nice trap for you: you are not requested to argue that it’s a bad idea for children to have a mobile phone, you are requested to argue that it is not compulsory. Some of the earlier answers seems to have missed the distinctions. For example, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot if you say that “it is not compulsory to have a mobile phone because it can cause brain cancer”.
In your place I’d build up my argument as follows: If it were to be compulsory for children to have mobile phones then there would have to be (at least) one aspect of mobile phone ownership that is so beneficial that it would be socially or parentally absurd not to provide the young ones with such gadgets. What, we must ask ourselves, are these eminent benefits?
We can start by listing the pros and cons for the children themselves (pros: better contact with their peers; easy access to help in difficult situations; risk of exclusion when other children already has them…) (cons: health risk; risk of theft; the replacement of face-to-face contact with electronic contact). Then, there are the parental benefits (e.g. easy information about what the children are up to) and costs (money outlays and constant nagging as fashion creeps into telephone ownership). Finally there are the societal benefits (e.g. preparing children to work in a multimedia environment with bluetoth and blackberry technology is a competive advantage these days) against costs such as the diversion of economic resources to the production of childrens’ phones that could have been used to make, say, hospital equipment or hearing aids instead.
In conclusion, there is a finely balanced set of pros and cons out there. We may agree with our esteemed counterparts in the discussion that the benefits outweigh the costs. However, with so many arguments on both sides we refute the claim that phone ownership could in any way be “compulsory”. If there is one factor that makes it so then we dare our learned opponents to present this factor here and now.
I feel children should have plain mobile phone without camera and video’s storage.