View Debate

Social media poses significant risks to children under 12 due to their still-developing cognitive and emotional capacities. At this age, children are especially vulnerable to online dangers such as cyberbullying, inappropriate content, and exploitation. Moreover, excessive social media use can negatively impact their social skills and physical health, as it often reduces opportunities for face-to-face interactions and physical activities. Developmentally, children under 12 are not equipped to critically assess the information they encounter online, increasing the likelihood of exposure to harmful misinformation. Additionally, early exposure to social media may encourage unhealthy use patterns and addictive behaviors. By banning social media use for children under 12, we can create a safer environment that prioritizes their mental and physical well-being. Therefore, a restriction can help ensure that children focus on learning, play, and healthy social interaction appropriate for their developmental stage.

Social media help children have more friends, connect with each other easily. Instead of cyberbullying, bullying in real life is more danger. They can hit you in physical and mental, both. But cyberbullying can only hit you in mental. Of course, if your child have more friends, they can play with each other, help each other, even in class. With result in having a higher point. With more friend, they can protect each other, chatting with other, help other when they feel bad. Cyberbullying can be a problem, but we can solve it easily. The solution is give our child use social media, but only give they chatting with their friends or who they want, not a bad guy.

{ Winner: "Pro", Summary: "In this debate, PlayfulRainbow616 presents a more coherent and logically sound argument in favor of banning children under 12 from using social media. Their argument is based on the developmental vulnerabilities of young children, emphasizing the risks of cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and the potential for detrimental impacts on social and physical health. They effectively counter DelightfulCurrent15's points by highlighting the difficulty of ensuring safe online interactions and the long-term benefits of promoting real-world socialization. \n\nDelightfulCurrent15, on the other hand, argues that social media can facilitate friendships and support systems among school-aged children while downplaying the effects of cyberbullying. However, their argument lacks depth and specificity, somewhat overlooking the complexities involved in safeguarding children online. They suggest monitoring children's online interactions without fully addressing how this could be implemented effectively. \n\nOverall, PlayfulRainbow616 maintains a consistent focus on the developmental needs and safety of children, providing logical reasons for instituting a ban and engaging more effectively with potential risks, whereas DelightfulCurrent15 does not convincingly address the various concerns associated with children's social media use." }

no

In the original debate, the discussion centered around whether children under 12 should be banned from using social media. PlayfulRainbow616 argued in favor of this ban, presenting a structured and coherent argument highlighting the developmental vulnerabilities of children in this age group. They pointed out the risks associated with cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and potential negative impacts on physical and social health. These points were logically presented and supported by the notion that young children are not yet equipped to navigate the complexities of social media safely. On the other hand, DelightfulCurrent15 argued against the ban, emphasizing the potential for social media to facilitate friendships and support networks among children. They pointed out that bullying can occur in physical settings and suggested that cyberbullying can be more easily managed. However, their argument lacked specificity and did not thoroughly address the critical issues of safeguarding children's online interactions. Their rebuttal, a simple 'no,' failed to address the points raised by PlayfulRainbow616 and did not add value to their position. Overall, PlayfulRainbow616's argument was more robust and logically sound, effectively engaging with the topic's complexities. They addressed potential risks and provided a balanced view of social media's impact on children's development. DelightfulCurrent15's arguments, while valid in recognizing the potential positive aspects of social media, lacked depth and did not fully consider the practicalities of ensuring children’s safety online. Thus, PlayfulRainbow616's position is deemed stronger, making them the winner in this debate.