Instigator / Pro
0
1465
rating
30
debates
58.33%
won
Topic
#5504
Children Should be at least 13 Years Old Before Joining Social Media
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1271
rating
354
debates
39.83%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Social media can be a great tool to connect with others and build relationships, but unfortunately, the issues far outweigh the benefits, especially when it comes to children.
First of all, social media can be downright dangerous. One in five children have been approached by a sexual predator online. That's a pretty scary number. What's worst, is that 3/4 kids didn't tell a parent about it. Social media exposes children to dangerous people is an uncontrolled environment. It's not just predators, though. That would be bad enough. Social media also provides a window for drug dealers and scammers. Unfortunately, most kids aren't educated about these things.
As well as it being dangerous, it's not good for health. According to the Clinic of Cleveland and the American Phycological Association, children who have social media can have anxiety nearly double and are far more prone to feeling bad about body image. Furthermore, children who get social media before the age of 11 are more likely to partake in online harassment.
Social media created unrealistic body expectations, increases depression, overstimulation, and leaves children unprotected from very bad people. This can all be very confusing to kids, especially those under 13. We need to give them time to mature so they're ready to face the world responsibly. We can't trust such young children to make such big choices when it comes to their very health and safety.
The reality is that we're not equipped to protect them from all of the harmful things on the internet. For example, many children stumble upon unwanted pornography on the internet. This, obviously, is terrible and confusing, especially to children who understand nothing about it, which is to say most children under 13.
So, while social media may have benefits, it's simply just not worth it, especially when it comes to children.
Any site from YouTube to any which has simple options to post comments is a social media, so thats most of the sites on internet.
So you would probably be banning those under 13 from using the internet at all, or using it with severe limitations.
Also, almost all online games with chat option are technically "social media".
Since being on social media is necessary to develop skills on how to exist properly on social media, it follows that a delay in its use just diminishes those skills.
Further, since it is much better to educate children on how to properly be on social media than it is to just ban them, it follows that your case is not so good.
Round 2
"Any site from YouTube to any which has simple options to post comments is a social media, so that's most of the sites on internet.So you would probably be banning those under 13 from using the internet at all or using it with severe limitations.Also, almost all online games with chat option are technically "social media"."
Just because an app or webpage enables users to have light interaction, does not make it social media. There are far more criteria to being a social media site than just being able to communicate. That's why all of the sites you were talking about aren't marked at social media. Even if they were, there is an easy fix to that. Let's consider online games. We wouldn't have to block all online games. We could just restrict the chat features for children under 13. Making the sites still easily usable and playable without any risk.
"Since being on social media is necessary to develop skills on how to exist properly on social media, it follows that a delay in its use just diminishes those skills.Further, since it is much better to educate children on how to properly be on social media than it is to just ban them, it follows that your case is not so good."
I disagree with your first statement. These skills can easily be learned in the real world and may actually be harmful to just learn on social media. Social media is such a vast and uncontrolled environment. It's hard if not impossible to prepare young children for it. Try explaining child predators and sex trafficking to an eight-year-old. It is crucial to allow children to mature and develop more before we introduce them to social media and allow them to make such big decisions about their health and safety.
"websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking."
This very much makes almost all sites social media.
Also, all chat sites and all online games with chat option have exactly the same problems which you say social media has, thus would have to be banned as well.
However, playing outside also has those same problems.
It is nonsense to say that kids cant play outside because someone might attack them.
Very much same logic would apply, except playing outside is even worse since they can get hit by a car or get physically attacked.
So likewise, its nonsense to say kids cant be on social media because someone might attack them.
And no, you cannot learn the skills about being on social media without actually being on social media.
An 8 year old can very much understand that there are bad people, and can be instructed accordingly.
But to ban social media completely just means to delay one problem and also to replace it with two others.
Kids can either be on social media, or play outside, or play offline video games indoors.
The last would be horrible for social skills.
Overprotective parents are usually those who want to protect children by taking away choices.
Thus, by taking away choice to be on social media, parent decreases the amount of experience child has on social media.
By decreasing that experience, the ability to deal with social media once 13 is very much reduced.
So someone who was on social media from age 8 would have 5 years more of experience than someone who got there at age 13.
So thats 5 years of difference in experience, thus one with less experience will take much more time after age 13 to learn to deal with problems which happen on social media.
And due to no such previous challenge, the one who was banned until age 13 will very much be made less skilled to deal with problems on social media.
Keep in mind that the one who was allowed on social media from age 8 will have 5 years of learning experience by age 13, while the one who was banned until 13 will have 0 learning experience at age 13. So it would be nonsense to say that at age 13, the one with 0 experience would have more skills than the one with 5 years of experience.
But its not just that. Social media is a source of education and skill development necessary for modern world. All modern world is on social media. Thus, by taking away choice until 13, the children are not protected, but are made much less skilled, have less choices, and thus their mental intelligence suffers.
So since children can either play outside or be on social media, the first also contains significant dangers.
So by eliminating the social media, you are not eliminating the danger, but you are taking away choice from children.
To be smart and to develop intellectually, person needs to be able to choose.
Overprotective parents take away choices from their children while thinking that they are protecting them, but all what they are doing is creating children who will make worse decisions later on.
If there is no choice, it means you cannot fail because you are only doing what you are told, and thus cannot make intellectual progress either.
So, being able to choose is necessary for progress. Failing is necessary for progress. Making mistakes is necessary for progress.
Overprotective parents take away choices so their child doesnt fail. Since it doesnt fail, it doesnt learn.
To develop skills and intelligence, a failure is almost always necessary, and not just one but many.
So even if children face problems on social media, those problems result in development of skill. Thus, take away social media, and you take away development of skill.
Social media gives more choices to a child, thus makes child smarter as a result, since more choices equals a smarter person.
But taking away social media does not protect children from anything, however it makes them less experienced in the way of life the entire modern world lives.
And since ban until 13 means they would be introduced so social media at 13, they would have to spend years of learning about social media at a time when they are supposed to already have social skills.
Thus, banning social media does nothing to protect children, but just harms their future skills in social media, and since social media is what the entire world functions on, developing more skills there is better than developing less skills there.
Thus, it would be nonsense to say that taking away choices is an action which protects someone, since taking away choices and experience makes person less skilled in the future, resulting in worse choices being made later, as well as person being less capable to deal with problems later, since dealing with problems early is a main condition to get better at dealing with them later.
Round 3
For my final argument, I will address each one of your points.
As for your introduction, I simply encourage you to review my last argument, but I will summarize it here. There is more than one criterion to be a social media app. To be social media, it actually has to be centered around the social media. Cambridge dictionary defines it as a tool used for social networking. I've attached the definition of social networking below. It specifies that social networking websites are specifically for the purpose of social networking.
You will also see that in the definition of social media, that in order to be such it must also have the ability to share more than just words. From the information posted above, it becomes clear that not nearly all websites, as you claim, are social media.
Next, you mention that the idea is absurd, since social media is no more dangerous than playing outside, and therefore banning it would be like banning playing outdoors, which we can agree would not be a good idea. First of all, I disagree that they are equal in the amounts of danger. The internet exposes you to quite literally billions of people. Safe to say that's more than you would encounter in your neighborhood. Also, children don's just find violent or explicit content while playing in their yards, but they do on social media, which is impossible to truly monitor. Additionally, children being outside has many more positive aspects than being on social media. It provides exercise, more meaningful interaction, as well as a variety of other benefits. It isn't fair to compare scrolling mindlessly on a phone and the great outdoors.
You said that other option would be playing offline video games alone. While that's not at all true, there are hundreds of other options, I will still address it. Has I have previously specified twice, just because it has a chat feature not does not make it social media. We wouldn't ban it.
You also argue that social media is a necessity for children to learn how to interact, and I believe that social media actually does the opposite. Social apps are filled with meaningless interactions with friends who aren't really friends. I don't think watching twenty second videos and writing comments that are only a few sentences long at most qualities as true socialization, and most definitely not meaningful interaction. According to the University of the People, (Social Media Effects on Communication (uopeople.edu)) children who use social media have lower engagements in actual conversations. Social media is counterproductive to the communication skills of children.
Social media is in no way necessary for children to develop social skills.
You also made a big point that children needed access to social media early, otherwise they would it would be harder for them to use when they reached the age of thirteen. I already discussed this in my last argument, but I will elaborate. You stated that someone who started social media at the age of eight, had five more years of experience than if they started at thirteen, while that is true, you failed to state the obvious. At the time when they start, they're also five years less responsible than they would have been, and at the time, they have zero years of experience. Starting the problem earlier, doesn't make it better. Especially when it is when kids are more vulnerable.
Research has also shown that the extra experience doesn't actually make better internet users. I'll repeat the fact that children who obtain social media as children are more likely to participate in harassment online in teenage years. Starting earlier doesn't even make it better later in life! This information is from Cleveland Clinic.
"Overprotective parents take away choices so their child doesnt fail. Since it doesnt fail, it doesnt learn."
That is true. Overprotective parents take away choices, but responsible parents wait to give choices to their children until they themselves are responsible enough to handle them. It's why we don't give ten-year-olds drivers licenses and allow them to have a job. While this may be less extreme than child labor and driving, the same logic applies. We need to wait until children have the skills needed to navigate new environments.
There is more than one criterion to be a social media app.
Same logic which you use for social media applies to any site or any game that has a chat option.
The internet exposes you to quite literally billions of people.
No, thats not even close to truth. No one on internet talks with billions of people. It wouldnt even be possible to do. Plus, its impossible to assault someone on the internet. You cant even punch the person on the other side.
Also, children don's just find violent or explicit content while playing in their yards,
Sure they do. They fight all the time and witness violence in real life, and even get beaten up and hit by a car.
is impossible to truly monitor.
Children who play outside are impossible to trully monitor. I dont see how would you even do it.
Additionally, children being outside has many more positive aspects than being on social media.It provides exercise, more meaningful interaction, as well as a variety of other benefits.
I dont think getting beaten up or hit by a car counts as exercise or meaningful interaction.
It isn't fair to compare scrolling mindlessly on a phone and the great outdoors.
I dont know what that means, but statistically, you are least likely to get hurt while on social media, since you are neither getting punched in face, neither being hit by car, and you cant even get molested. You cant even get bullied. Children bully each other all the time in real life. So, what danger is on social media that doesnt exist in real life? You can get approached by a rapist when being outside or when being on social media, but no one can rape you through screen. So social media have an advantage in safety, since you are literally as safe as you can get while still developing social skills. Since the distance between you and people you talk to is much greater, it follows that its harder for them to actually hurt you.
So with some education on what not to do on internet, it becomes much much safer than playing outdoors, but its still safer even without education.
there are hundreds of other options
Well, its too bad that you didnt present those 100 other options in this debate. I guess we will never know now.
Social apps are filled with meaningless interactions with friends who aren't really friends
What is a meaningless interaction? All words have meanings, so its basically impossible to have "meaningless interaction".
As for friends who arent really friends, I dont see how could you possibly know that, but I guess you think real friends are those who bully you.
At least children on social media have a choice to easily block anyone who bothers them, a choice not even available when playing outside. So naturally, forcing children to play outside means they are forced to be with those who bother and bully them.
I don't think watching twenty second videos and writing comments that are only a few sentences long at most qualities as true socialization, and most definitely not meaningful interaction.
People on social media write comments all over the place and chat a lot, but they also read a lot and learn many different opinions which increase their knowledge. Almost every video contains either a meaningful message, or improves mood and emotional intelligence. What also happens is that people are free to express themselves due to anonimity. In real life, people have to put on fake faces and fake smiles, so you could even say that life outside of social media is essentially a fake life.
According to the University of the People, (Social Media Effects on Communication (uopeople.edu)) children who use social media have lower engagements in actual conversations
This is circular reasoning, also an assumption that conversations on social media are not "actual conversations". Given how much people have to be fake in real life, I would even say actual conversations only happen on social media.
But still, your argument is basically circular reasoning, since it says "increase in time for A decreases time for B", but A and B are basically same things. Just talk in real life gets replaced by talk on social media. Its not a decrease in talking, since your source doesnt account for talking which happens on social media.
At the time when they start, they're also five years less responsible than they would have been, and at the time, they have zero years of experience. Starting the problem earlier, doesn't make it better. Especially when it is when kids are more vulnerable.
The difference is that by age 13, one will have 0 experience and the other 5 years of experience. Since modern world is all about social media, the one with 5 years of experience at age 13 will do much better later in life, due to more knowledge. The one with 0 experience at age 13 will do worse later in life. Since experience is necessary to achieve success, one will always be 5 years in experience ahead of the other. You mention being vulnerable, but you again ignore that children are more vulnerable when playing outside.
Research has also shown that the extra experience doesn't actually make better internet users. I'll repeat the fact that children who obtain social media as children are more likely to participate in harassment online in teenage years.
Children who dont obtain social media are more likely to participate in actual harassment in real life, since my opponent basically conceded that children who spend more time on social media also spend less time in real life interactions.
"Online harassment" basically means posting a mean comment here and there, but harassment in real life amounts to much more, since anyone can choose to block a person who is bullying him online, where same option isnt present in case of real life bullying.
But this is again my opponent using circular logic, since teenage years of 13 and 14 are still children, but your link talks about those under 11, not teenage years.
So you are basically saying "children who have social media are more likely to harass people on social media", which is circular reasoning, since those who dont have social media cant even harass on social media because they dont have social media. So the study makes no sense to begin with, and its likely one of those circular studies where they intentionally cherry pick specific data to make a point.
These studies often also confuse correlation for causation.
Overprotective parents take away choices, but responsible parents wait to give choices to their children until they themselves are responsible enough to handle them.
This is obviously false except in case of very bad choices. There is basically no reason to deny children of any choices which are pretty much safe for them to choose, or where there is even no safe alternative, like in this case.
It's why we don't give ten-year-olds drivers licenses and allow them to have a job. While this may be less extreme than child labor and driving, the same logic applies.
Same logic cannot apply to cases which have nothing in common.
We need to wait until children have the skills needed to navigate new environments.
As explained previously, skill comes from experience, and denying experience denies skill.
We have pretty much seen that children who play outside can get hit by a car, or get molested, or bullied by children, or beaten, or witness violence in real life.
So there is no reason to prefer "playing outside" to "social media".
My opponent tried to present his case as if you remove social media, all dangers disappear, but has very much ignored that every danger on social media also exists if children play outside, but playing outside carries even more dangers such as being hit by car, being punched, being bitten by dog, drown...ect.
My opponent has also ignored the argument from intelligence, which is "giving children choices makes them smarter", thus giving children choice to be on social media essentially makes them smarter.
Also, since social media allows people to express themselves any way they want, it follows that it is much more desirable than fake interactions in real life.
I dont see whats there more to add. My opponent's case is that we should want to produce dumber, less skilled children, who are also in greater danger when playing outside.
My opponent presented studies which are circular (person who does A is more likely to do A and B), which neither meassure intelligence neither skill, and which seem to be just following the classical "blame social media for problems which existed before social media even existed" type of mentality.
The actual reason for problems in society will always be overprotective parents, and this is very much just an example of overprotection where choices are taken away from children for no actual reason other than blind fear.
We have clearly seen that children face much more dangers when playing outside.
Overprotective parents usually lack confidence, thus they make up for it by being overprotective to convince themselves that they are good parents.
However, child needs to face problems to learn how to deal with problems. Thus, overprotective parents who protect child from problems just decrease chilld's ability to deal with problems.
This is very much what caused mentally ill generations to rise. Today's people are incapable to deal with problems because they never had to deal with problems early on, because their parents made effort to remove all problems.
Also, almost all online games with chat option are technically "social media".
Any site from YouTube to any which has simple options to post comments is a social media, so thats most of the sites on internet.
So you would probably be banning those under 13 from using the internet at all, or using it with severe limitations.
the problem isn't really the children's age, it's the millions of pedos and criminals out there wanting to harm them as well as the incapacity of parents to warn and protect them